Pashtuns are Jatts

**Myanthropologies** · 10-14-2016, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by Ylla

you are southcentral asian with cultural/historical links with mena. there's a difference
dark blue is mena

That's what geography says, that is not what culture says, and that is not what other MENAs say. If Iranians are MENAs, then so are afghans. You cannot separate afghans from Iranians and then in turn group Iranians with the Lebanese whom they have nothing in common with. By the way you speak, I can tell you have never met any afghans personally, and that you probably know an insignificant amount of Iranians. Iran mena but Turkey not??? What.

**Ylla** · 10-14-2016, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Myanthropologies

That's what geography says, that is not what culture says, and that is not what other MENAs say. If Iranians are MENAs, then so are afghans. You cannot separate afghans from Iranians and then in turn group Iranians with the Lebanese whom they have nothing in common with. By the way you speak, I can tell you have never met any afghans personally, and that you probably know an insignificant amount of Iranians. Iran mena but Turkey not??? What.

my father has rich afghan and Persian colleagues (businessmen) who regularly invite us to weddings etc. I don't know the insides of your culture but you seem more conservative than Iranians.

**Myanthropologies** · 10-14-2016, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by Ylla

my father has rich afghan and Persian colleagues (businessmen) who regularly invite us to weddings etc. I don't know the insides of your culture but you seem more conservative than Iranians.

The politics are a bit different but Iranians are still 100x closer to Afghans than to Saudi Arabians, Palestinians, and Lebanese people wtf. Afghans and Iranians celebrate the same holidays, speak similar and the same languages, eat similar food, were both part of the persian empires together, look similar, and have a similar heritage. My sister is part of the Persian student association at her school which includes a lot of pashtuns as well. I'm pretty damn sure that if you asked the average Iranian what country they're ethnically closest to, they'd answer Afghanistan and Azerbajian. Afghanistan, Iran, and Azerbajian are all pretty similar, with the exception being that Azeris are kinda turkic but when you weigh in that Afghanistan have a some Turkic ethnic groups as well, I guess that makes them more similar. Iranians and Azeris would feel much more comfortable being grouped with Afghans than with levanities and Saudis. The middle east is largely a social construct anyways. Looking at your map shows how obvious of social construct it is because there are more political borders on your map than geometric or physical boundaries.

**~~Wanderer~~** · 10-14-2016, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by Myanthropologies

When America was first founded, only those of northwestern European descent were allowed. Slowly others were added to the definition of whiteness. South Italians were considered black during the Jim Crow era because they assumed that they were mixed with moors.

Stop right there. In the Jim Crow South, there were isolated incidents of Italians being lynched, and discrimination, yada yada. But I am not talking about that because that can happen to any immigrant community (and it did). You brought up the Jim Crows laws but I don't think it was ever de jure practice that any Europeans (whether Italian or Greek, etc.) were considered nonwhite. I don't think you can point to any statutes or case law stating this because I believe none exist. Jim Crow laws mandated segregation in public, of course, so one's ability to "pass" would seemingly have more relevance than ancestry in how the laws were applied in practice.

I did some searching and the only case law I found was a 1922 case, Rollins v. Alabama, that dealt with the a case of miscegenation between a black & a Sicilian. An appeal ensued from the convinction, which was overturned & remanded back to the lower court. However, if you examine the text of decision of the appellate court, you'll see no specific dicta, or a specific holding, that would have firmly called Sicilians nonwhite - the miscegenation conviction was overturned for procedural error and improperly-obtained evidence.

A key part of it here:

The mere fact that the testimony showed this woman came from Sicily can in no sense be taken as conclusive that she was therefore a white woman, or that she was not a negro or a descendant of a negro.

https://casetext.com/case/rollins-v-state-120

What this actually means, in context, is it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that merely being from Sicily is evidence of having no negro blood. It would have been in the negro defendant's interest to claim that the woman was black. So this principle is applicable to any geographic location, not just Sicily, because any foreign race can be found in any location. It follows that the assumption would naturally be an actual Sicilian would have no negro blood for the purpose of the anti-miscegenation statute. So, really, the dicta of the appellate court in Rollins v. Alabama would tend to argue for my point more than it would yours and would confirm that regarding Sicilians as white would have been the general practice.

As far as I can tell, Italians were always considered white and could be naturalized even under the very first naturalization statutes.

**sql** · 10-14-2016, 01:45 AM

"Europe" is a construct. Of course different eastern Mediterranean groups have more common with each other.

**Mortimer** · 10-14-2016, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by Myanthropologies

You look more SSA than I do and you're half Norwegian. That's not even me trolling and saying that.

Thats really true. Maybe he is part Jew.

**Mortimer** · 10-14-2016, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Myanthropologies

I am sorry to those I have offended on this site, I really am. I am sorry if I have offended Greeks and South Italians. A lot of members of both of those ethnicities on here are really great people, and I am especially sorry to Queen B who is generally a very nice person. However, when I said that Greeks are ethnically closer to the Lebanese Christians than to Irish people and Finns, I wasn't trying to troll. It was just my observation through learning world history, culture, etc. I also have never equated Greeks as being a Middle Eastern group, I just said you share some similarities to those on the other side of the med.

I also admit that I did try to troll Greeks a tad, but not to the extent people think. It all started a few months ago when I put up my atypical Greek friend in a classification thread with no trolling intent at all, but the Greeks seemed very mad at her appearance and assumed I was trolling when I wasn't. I was genuinely curious. I got demonized by Raine, and catgeorge and other Greeks were supporting her when she was insulting afghans. I was very shocked because Raine was really nice to me before that. I also forgave them because Greeks do get tolled and I could are why they might have taken it as that but I genuinely wasn't. I also got angry whenever I saw Greeks and South Italians making fun of muslims and Middle eastern Christian refugees, and then trying to make themselves look like victims for having them as refugees. I thought to myself "why are Greeks are and South Italians feel all people making fun of MENAs? Especially when some of them are really exotic?" I saw them equating themselves with other Europeans even in far off regions, but saw them getting legitimately offended for being compared to even Turks. This shocked me because Greeks I meet in real life are the complete opposite of that.

Anyways, I realized that you cannot solve trolling by trolling someone back, and I am very sorry to anyone I offended.

you dont need to apologise you said nothing offensive.

**Myanthropologies** · 10-14-2016, 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Stop right there. In the Jim Crow South, there were isolated incidents of Italians being lynched, and discrimination, yada yada. But I am not talking about that because that can happen to any immigrant community (and it did). You brought up the Jim Crows laws but I don't think it was ever de jure practice that any Europeans (whether Italian or Greek, etc.) were considered nonwhite. I don't think you can point to any statutes or case law stating this because I believe none exist. Jim Crow laws mandated segregation in public, of course, so one's ability to "pass" would seemingly have more relevance than ancestry in how the laws were applied in practice.

I did some searching and the only case law I found was a 1922 case, Rollins v. Alabama, that dealt with the a case of miscegenation between a black & a Sicilian. An appeal ensued from the convinction, which was overturned & remanded back to the lower court. However, if you examine the text of decision of the appellate court, you'll see no specific dicta, or a specific holding, that would have firmly called Sicilians nonwhite - the miscegenation conviction was overturned for procedural error and improperly-obtained evidence.

A key part of it here:

https://casetext.com/case/rollins-v-state-120

What this actually means, in context, is it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that merely being from Sicily is evidence of having no negro blood. It would have been in the negro defendant's interest to claim that the woman was black. So this principle is applicable to any geographic location, not just Sicily, because any foreign race can be found in any location. It follows that the assumption would naturally be an actual Sicilian would have no negro blood for the purpose of the anti-miscegenation statute. So, really, the dicta of the appellate court in Rollins v. Alabama would tend to argue for my point more than it would yours and would confirm that regarding Sicilians as white would have been the general practice.

As far as I can tell, Italians were always considered white and could be naturalized even under the very first naturalization statutes.

Okay, thanks for the clear up bro. I just heard that somewhere. Yeah, if a sicilian and black person went to court because of micegination, then it's obvious they weren't seen as black.
They were considered off white at least. They were probably seen as similar to how menas are viewed now despite being legally considered white. Mexicans were also considered white during the racist time periods and were not allowed to intermarry with blacks either. But they were allowed to marry whites. My point is that MENAS had every single white privilege during those racist times as every nw European did. Cas was trying to be snobby and factually incorrect. Lebanese people, Afghans, etc were able to be naturalized since the first census. Of course they had periods of iffy times like other ethnic groups did though. The only people who had to go to court to get whiteness were saudis who won their case, and indians, who did not win their case.

My point is that afghans, Lebanese, etc were okay for naturalization during those times as much as Greeks were. MENAs weren't viewed as that racially different from Euros until radical Islam went on the rise. However, there were some times where some ethnicities were considered non whites that are considered white now, and there is documented proof of it. I found this from an Ashkenazi jew's family member on tumblr:

Notice "Race: Hebrew."

**lameduck** · 10-14-2016, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by Myanthropologies

That's what geography says, that is not what culture says, and that is not what other MENAs say. If Iranians are MENAs, then so are afghans. You cannot separate afghans from Iranians and then in turn group Iranians with the Lebanese whom they have nothing in common with. By the way you speak, I can tell you have never met any afghans personally, and that you probably know an insignificant amount of Iranians. Iran mena but Turkey not??? What.

I have heard that most Americans think Indians and Arabs/iranians etc are all same? Is it true?