Italians were never considered non white in USA

[DarknessWin]

Italians are not White, they are Mediterraneans Bronze Power and Beauty

White people look like dead, the color of dead and sick people.
I dont get why everyone here want to be Milk White while in Reality everyone in the summertime
want to get a bronze tan.
Why??? Because Bronze tan make people look better and Hotter

[XenophobicPrussian]

^

Looks like a post off of an African American empowerment forum.

Glad we can agree Italians aren't white, though.

[JohnSmith]

^

Looks like a post off of an African American empowerment forum.

Glad we can agree Italians aren't white, though.

Color of skin is just one factor, Italians are most definitely white. Trust me when it comes to basketball I am white.

[glicine max]

Color of skin is just one factor, Italians are most definitely white. Trust me when it comes to basketball I am white.

why you like other members speak on behalf of italians?don't project your personal issues and try to assign an "identity" and a culture over us.

[alamoter]

Color of skin is just one factor, Italians are most definitely white. Trust me when it comes to basketball I am white.

Yes but the original old stock Anglo-Americans despised Italians, Greeks and Yugoslav immigrants and saw all three groups as stupid and lazy. I would add in eastern Europeans as well.

[Mortimer]

docu on white people. here they also say that italians were once not white in the past. they discuss what it means to be white. watch the whole show.

[Grace O'Malley]

You don't have to be seen as Black to be considered non-White. That's basically the premise of your argument. Under your reasoning the Japanese could be considered White because they don't fall under those interracial marriage laws or were segregated in schools. The infamous Robert McNamara went to school with Whites, Mexicans, and Asians. You''re applying something specific to Black people as a standard when it makes no sense to do so considering you could be non-White (Japanese, Chinese, Native American) and not be restricted in marriage or schooling.

You're not understanding that when the Irish first arrived (no labor unions existed when they arrived and so that point is irrelevant; it didn't exist until generations later when the Irish were well established) they weren't seen as White but after a period of time were so. No one is saying they were always seen as non-White.

Restriction on immigration occurred in 1926. The Irish had a large presence in the US already for 75 years and had already become well established. So that's irrelevant to their early experience.

It's revisionist nonsense that any European group were seen as non-white. You will find no sources that support that. Irish immigration took off around the 1840s to the US but there was Irish even in earlier times. This tells briefly about Irish immigration before and after the 1840s.

http://www.irish-genealogy-toolkit.c...n-history.html

Explain to me how a signatory of the Declaration of Independence was seen as non-white? He was a Catholic landowner in the 1700s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charle..._of_Carrollton

You must believe that people couldn't tell the difference between Europeans, Asians and Africans. People obviously believe that being white is a social construct and don't appear to understand that whites can be prejudiced against other whites just like what has always happened. It happened in Europe with many populations.

If you really believe the Irish weren't seen as white then race must be an optical illusion and any group of people should have no problems being eventually accepted as "white".

This is the whole premise of Noel Ignatiev's book "How the Irish Became White".

Views of race[edit]
Ignatiev views race distinctions and race itself as a social construct, not a scientific reality.[6][7]

Ignatiev's study of Irish immigrants in the 19th-century United States argues that an Irish triumph over nativism marks the incorporation of the Irish into the dominant group of American society. Ignatiev asserts that the Irish were not initially accepted as white by the dominant English-American population. He claims that only through their own violence against free blacks and support of slavery did the Irish gain acceptance as white. Ignatiev defines whiteness as the access to white privilege, which according to Ignatiev gains people perceived to have "white" skin admission to certain neighborhoods, schools, and jobs. In the 19th century whiteness was strongly associated with political power, especially suffrage. Ignatiev's book on Irish immigrants has been criticized, however, for "conflat[ing] race and economic position" and for ignoring data that contradicts his theses.[7]

Ignatiev states[specify] that attempts to give race a biological foundation have only led to absurdities, as in the common example that a white woman could give birth to a black child, but a black woman could never give birth to a white child. Ignatiev asserts that the only logical explanation for this notion is that people are members of different racial categories because society assigns people to these categories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev

This whole concept is just invented to make out other groups suffered the same as African Americans. Irish people were treated badly in their own country and being Catholic they suffered worse than other people like the Welsh and the Scots. The Scots and Welsh also had periods where they were treated badly by the English. I presume some people believe this is because they were seen as non-white. Obviously everyone that has suffered discrimination must have been seen as non-white.

What you said above about Japanese, Chinese and Native American not being restricted from schools and marriage bans is incorrect.

This is the same paragraph I quoted from the article I linked along with the very next paragraph.

Here are some objective tests as to whether a group was historically considered “white” in the United States: Were members of the group allowed to go to “whites-only” schools in the South, or otherwise partake of the advantages that accrued to whites under Jim Crow? Were they ever segregated in schools by law, anywhere in the United States, such that “whites” went to one school, and the group in question was relegated to another? When laws banned interracial marriage in many states (not just in the South), if a white Anglo-Saxon wanted to marry a member of the group, would that have been against the law? Some labor unions restricted their membership to whites. Did such unions exclude members of the group in question? Were members of the group ever entirely excluded from being able to immigrate to the United States, or face special bans or restrictions in becoming citizens?

If you use such objective tests, you find that Irish, Jews, Italians and other white ethnics were indeed considered white by law and by custom (as in the case of labor unions). Indeed, some lighter-skinned African Americans of mixed heritage “passed” as white by claiming they were of Arab descent and that explained their relative swarthiness, showing that Arab Americans, another group whose “whiteness” has been questioned, were considered white. By contrast, persons of African, Asian, Mexican and Native American descent faced various degrees of exclusion from public schools and labor unions, bans on marriage and direct restrictions on immigration and citizenship.

Here's the article once again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.62ea57bfd6cd

[Mortimer]

It's revisionist nonsense that any European group were seen as non-white. You will find no sources that support that. Irish immigration took off around the 1840s to the US but there was Irish even in earlier times. This tells briefly about Irish immigration before and after the 1840s.

http://www.irish-genealogy-toolkit.c...n-history.html

Explain to me how a signatory of the Declaration of Independence was seen as non-white? He was a Catholic landowner in the 1700s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charle..._of_Carrollton

You must believe that people couldn't tell the difference between Europeans, Asians and Africans. People obviously believe that being white is a social construct and don't appear to understand that whites can be prejudiced against other whites just like what has always happened. It happened in Europe with many populations.

If you really believe the Irish weren't seen as white then race must be an optical illusion and any group of people should have no problems being eventually accepted as "white".

This is the whole premise of Noel Ignatiev's book "How the Irish Became White".

Views of race[edit]
Ignatiev views race distinctions and race itself as a social construct, not a scientific reality.[6][7]

Ignatiev's study of Irish immigrants in the 19th-century United States argues that an Irish triumph over nativism marks the incorporation of the Irish into the dominant group of American society. Ignatiev asserts that the Irish were not initially accepted as white by the dominant English-American population. He claims that only through their own violence against free blacks and support of slavery did the Irish gain acceptance as white. Ignatiev defines whiteness as the access to white privilege, which according to Ignatiev gains people perceived to have "white" skin admission to certain neighborhoods, schools, and jobs. In the 19th century whiteness was strongly associated with political power, especially suffrage. Ignatiev's book on Irish immigrants has been criticized, however, for "conflat[ing] race and economic position" and for ignoring data that contradicts his theses.[7]

Ignatiev states[specify] that attempts to give race a biological foundation have only led to absurdities, as in the common example that a white woman could give birth to a black child, but a black woman could never give birth to a white child. Ignatiev asserts that the only logical explanation for this notion is that people are members of different racial categories because society assigns people to these categories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev

This whole concept is just invented to make out other groups suffered the same as African Americans. Irish people were treated badly in their own country and being Catholic they suffered worse than other people like the Welsh and the Scots. The Scots and Welsh also had periods where they were treated badly by the English. I presume some people believe this is because they were seen as non-white. Obviously everyone that has suffered discrimination must have been seen as non-white.

What you said above about Japanese, Chinese and Native American not being restricted from schools and marriage bans is incorrect.

This is the same paragraph I quoted from the article I linked along with the very next paragraph.



Here's the article once again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.62ea57bfd6cd

I wonder why Arabs were always seen as white. Do you consider arabs to be white? I mean arabs are diverse and there are lighter individuals and groups but many arabs are also quiete dark and look quiete different then europeans, arabs as a whole to include in white along with northafrica and everything till pakistan (where asian starts in the census) is a bit weird. What do you think?

[DarknessWin]

^

Looks like a post off of an African American empowerment forum.

Glad we can agree Italians aren't white, though.

Italians are Meds , not White and not Black
Here look this photo.
The left girl is White, the right Girl is bronze Med


The milk white skin is poor Genes , its a mutation and damaged DNA.
No Melatonin to this type of skin come with a lot of Diseases like skin Cancer, poor eyesight etc

Stop making White skin to look superior because you have no history at all.
European power came from the Med Civilizations when White skin people were Barbarians equal to Niggers.
Without Meds (Romans-Greeks-Spanish) Europe is not exist

[Porn Master]

brown people in the winter look like a poop in the snow