MovieChat Forums > Politics > Frequently Asked Questions About Race

Frequently Asked Questions About Race


https://keithwoods.pub/p/frequently-asked-questions-about

My college professor told me there was a time when Italians and Irish weren’t considered White. This shows how amorphous the term is. Maybe we will eventually include other groups that we don’t think of as White now.

It’s worth noting that many of the narratives people accept on this topic came from the highly ideological field of Whiteness studies. The book that really ignited the “Irish weren’t White” narrative, for example, was Noel Ignatiev’s How the Irish Became White. Harvard professor Ignatiev was editor of the journal Race Traitor, whose stated goal was to “abolish the white race.” The Whiteness studies narrative is that “Whiteness” is an oppressive, racist social construct, and up to the 20th Century European ethnic groups like the Italians and Irish weren’t admitted into the fiction of the White race. Only when they learned to hate Black people and adopt the colonial, supremacist ideology of Whiteness did American WASPs allow them entry to the club, and by extension into the ruling, White supremacist caste of the United States.

This doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. While it is true that ethnic identity was much stronger in America when these groups were first emigrating there, Irish and Italians had no problems being accepted to the US as fellow European stock. The first citizenship law of the United States, passed in 1790, limited naturalisation to “free white persons”, and immigration laws were similarly designed to keep the country White until they were repealed in the 1960s. Neither Irish nor Italians were considered as distinct for laws passed banning racial intermarriage, or for any other kind of official segregation. There was no question of barring Italians and Irish from White-only labour unions. While interracial marriage was highly taboo right up to the mid-20th Century in the United States, there wasn’t a similar taboo against WASPs or Germans marrying Irish or Italian-Americans. This isn’t to say there wasn’t distinction and often enmity between these different European ethnic groups within the US – there was – but there was never a sense that any of these groups were a racial other like Blacks or Asians.

reply

"White" is a mainstream accepted racial slur.

reply

There is no such thing as 'race' in the biological sciences.

reply

Did you read the article?
The social sciences are filled with ideologues who spew all sorts of pseudoscience, driven by an agenda that denies biological realities for ideological reasons.

reply

The biological sciences are not the social sciences. 'Race' is a social construct, not a biological attribute. Moreover there is little or no 'racial purity'.

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

reply

Ok, the first two words of that article are "Donald" and "Trump".

There is literally no reason to read it, the author is an obvious TDS sufferer.

reply

I am sorry you don't feel the need to read it. But you will see I have helpfully provided other links of late, all of which tell the same tale. Feel free to ignore those too.

reply

Give me a non-TDS source.

reply

Not sure what TDS is, sorry. And I doubt if any source found that I can use will be acceptable if it prove inimicable to your views, I have come across the fingers in the ears syndrome here before.

Just in case, here is Scientific American on the subject: another, er, hot bed of woke and hatred of whites no doubt

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

or the National Library of Medicine, full of libtards and ideologues who spew all sorts of pseudoscience, or

PBS... well just fill in your own reasons for insulting and rejecting this lot as well...

https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-07.htm

reply

So race is a social construct but you admit that racial purity exists?

What about breeds of dogs, are they social constructs too?

reply

So race is a social construct


Yes

you admit that racial purity exists


No I have not said that. Strictly speaking, there has not been 'racial purity' since sapiens mated with Neanderthals. If you had your genome tested it is certain that it would not be all of all one type.

What about breeds of dogs, are they social constructs too?


A breed is not a race. In fact dogs are descended from the wolf.

reply

So you're going to hide behind semantic sleight of hand to deny the profound differences among the subsets of humans?

We have accepted and long-used vernacular to describe how humans are grouped with respect to those differences. If you choose to deny that those groups are based in the concept of "race" then what parallel term would you suggest? Since, like dogs, you suggest we have a common ancestor, are you comfortable describing humans in terms of breeds? Further, do you then admit that it's impossible for one to be "racist" since, according to you, the term is meaningless?

reply

the profound differences among the subsets of humans?

Not a view current biological sciences subscribes to. There are differences between different ethnic groups but they are minor, and certainly not enough to define 'races'.

If you choose to deny that those groups are based in the concept of "race" then what parallel term would you suggest?


While partly based on physical similarities within groups, 'race' does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning. Its use in genetics was formally renounced by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2023. Since you ask, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and/or loaded terms such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, clusters or communities, depending on context.

Since, like dogs, you suggest we have a common ancestor,

I don't suggest it, I know it. It is what genetics tells us (for instance) and that there must have been a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) is an overwhelming consensus of science. Incidentally it has been shown that there was a 'mitochondrial Adam' and Eve, although they did not live at the same time.

are you comfortable describing humans in terms of breeds

No, because this implies a 'breeder'. And more importantly, a species is not a 'breed'. I am surprised you do not know that.

Further, do you then admit that it's impossible for one to be "racist" since, according to you, the term is meaningless?

Racism [Websters]:a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

It is quite possible for anyone to be racist, but discrimination itself, based on a notion of 'race' is unscientific rather than meaningless (in this context) for it clearly has meaning to those who wish to use it as a basis for discrimination and prejudice. Social sciences btw still recognise notions of 'race' as a social and political phenomenon but, even there it mainly finds refuge in the most conservative and intractable circles. I hope that helps.

reply

No, because this implies a 'breeder'. And more importantly, a species is not a 'breed'. I am surprised you do not know that.

You've dodged the question. What term do you use to describe the very real biological and intellectual differences between the various subsets of humans? These differences in many quite obvious ways resemble the differences between breeds of dogs, which is why I suggested it as a substitute. But tell me, how do you group humans, based on what scientific principle, and what word do you use to categorize these groups?

reply

What term do you use to describe the very real biological and intellectual differences between the various subsets of humans?

Before you were asking me for alternatives to the obsolete term 'race', which I gave. This is something different. Once again: there are differences between different ethnic groups, but the amount of genetic variation between any two people is relatively small. Between any two humans biochemical individuality—is about . 1 percent. So the term is ... insignificant.

The lack of discontinuities in genetic distances between human populations, absence of discrete branches in the human species, and striking homogeneity of human beings globally, imply that there is no scientific basis for inferring races or subspecies in humans. For most traits, there is much more variation within populations than between them. That is, around 85% of human genetic variation is found within populations, while only 15% is found between populations I hope that helps. But it won't. It never does.

how do you group humans, based on what scientific principle, and what word do you use to categorize these groups?

Please see my previous answer and short list I gave. Do your superior genes give you short term memory loss as well as evident prejudice against other ethnic groups?

reply

There absolutely is. There are 3 generically distinct races.

African
Mongoliad(East Asian)
Caucasian

Now, you can create endless amounts of ethnicities with these origin races. But to make the claim that race is 'No such thing' is laughably incorrect.

reply

You are unfortunately wrong.

For instance, in a landmark paper based on the Human Genome Project, scientists showed that there are no “races” but a single human race—not in sociological terms, but according to biology. The project found that there is more genetic variation within a single population subgroup than between two different population subgroups. For example, there may be more genetic diversity within a population in Asia than between that same population and a different population in Europe.

https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/does-race-exist/

or

https://medium.com/swlh/there-is-no-such-thing-as-race-at-the-genetic-level-e0e1ba86a540

https://theconversation.com/white-supremacists-believe-in-genetic-purity-science-shows-no-such-thing-exists-146763

etc etc.

I am sorry that biological fact does not fit in with your prejudices. I am not denying that 'race' is taken to exist as a convenient social fact.

reply

No, I'm right.

I don't care about internet scripture. Especially the woke opinion pieces you linked. 😂🤣😂🤣😂

reply

Hey I have more from woke opinionists:

Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

PBS
https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-07.htm

The National Library of Medicine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7682789/

Fingers in ears... now!

All human beings belong to the same species.There are no biologically pure races. 'Race' cannot be biologically defined due to genetic variation among human individuals and populations; geographic ancestry is not the same thing as race. Geographic ancestry, which does indeed matter to genetics, can be conflated with race, which does not. Sure, different human populations living in distinct places may statistically have different genetic traits—such as sickle cell trait —but such variation is about local populations (people in a specific region), not race.. I hope that helps; but it won't, as it is much easier to ignore modern science and repeat the some old prejudices (I am not saying 'race' can't be a social construct btw)

reply

[deleted]

>https://theconversation.com/white-supremacists-believe-in-genetic-purity-science-shows-no-such-thing-exists-146763
Wait, you posted a link to a white supremacists opinion piece and you believe it 🤔

reply

That's funny, I am usually accused of choosing left wing sources....

reply

"There is no such thing as 'race' in the biological sciences."

This nonsense statement is akin to saying there is no such thing as the Pythagorean Theorem in the study of the English language and therefore claiming there is no Pythagorean Theorem.

Race is a social construction in regards to the social sciences, and what is referred to as race in that sense is described biologically as a conglomeration of genetics in other fields. What you said is utterly redundant.

reply

There is no such thing as 'race' in the biological sciences."

This nonsense statement


https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/race-genetics-science-africa

https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-07.htm

Feel free to claim all these are just woke propaganda or something; I am expecting a case of fingers in the ears syndrome here'

Race is a social construction in regards to the social sciences,


Yes.

what is referred to as race in that sense is described biologically as a conglomeration of genetics in other fields


Nope, see the links and do the research. Things have moved on since the bad old days of 'five races'. It was as far back as 1950, that the United Nations chose to drop the term "race" and instead speak of "ethnic groups" There is no such thing as 'racial purity' either, just so you know. Hitler is so 1940's.

reply

""There is no such thing as 'race' in the biological sciences."

This nonsense statement is akin to saying there is no such thing as the Pythagorean Theorem in the study of the English language and therefore claiming there is no Pythagorean Theorem."

There it is again, in it's entirety. You completely dodged the notion that you claiming race doesn't exist because of the interpretation of race provided by "the biological sciences" is nonsense.

Since you love your copy pasted material here it is:

race
1
noun (1)
ˈrās
pluralraces
any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry

I don't see "doesn't exist" as part of that definition. Or is the dictionary also wrong for not adhering to the perspective of "the biological sciences?"

reply

You completely dodged the notion that you claiming race doesn't exist because of the interpretation of race provided by "the biological sciences" is nonsense.


Remember when I agreed that race is a social construction? I did not say it 'does not exist at all', let alone because it is denied by science. So that is an unfortunate strawman.


is the dictionary also wrong for not adhering to the perspective of "the biological sciences?"


Finding it in the dictionary does not alter the fact. Science says ether does not exist either, and that is in the dictionary too.

I don't what the problem is. I tell you that in the biological sciences there is an overwhelming consensus against the old fashioned idea of 'race' which you might have seen from a careful reading of the links I gave together with the reasoning. Just because it suits one's prejudices and 'common sense' to deny modern science that does not change the fact. Neither does the fact that the social sciences still find the term useful. But since you have not disagreed with me, or my links, that the biological sciences do not recognise 'race' which was my point, please stop.

reply

"Remember when I agreed that race is a social construction? I did not say it 'does not exist at all', let alone because it is denied by science. So that is an unfortunate strawman."


So then you acknowledge race exists and all of your ranting here is factually limited to the context of saying "the biological sciences" doesn't acknowledge race. Is that the singular point your attempting to drive home here amongst your passive aggressive remarks?

You might as well be saying: Race doesn't exist in mathematics so all of you talking about race are really just misguided and outdated in your beliefs.

"Finding it in the dictionary does not alter the fact. Science says ether does not exist either, and that is in the dictionary too."

ether
noun
ˈē-thər
the rarefied element formerly believed to fill the upper regions of space

Formerly believed seems to be a key phrase there. There is no such text under the definition of race. Speaking of strawmen though...

"I tell you that in the biological sciences there is an overwhelming consensus against the old fashioned idea of 'race'"

"Just because it suits one's prejudices and 'common sense' that does not change the fact."

"as it is much easier to ignore modern science and repeat the some old prejudices"

The fact that race doesn't exist according to "the biological sciences?" While acknowledging that race is a social construct relative to certain social sciences, your language heavily implies a negative perception of those who don't adopt your "biological sciences" perspective.

"I don't what the problem is."

Reading through this thread, it's quite apparent you are implying "the biological sciences" perspective is truth incarnate and anyone not adhering to that perspective is doing so based on "one's prejudices."

So once again, if your entire point in this thread is to make a claim that race doesn't exist in one academic field then congratulations.

reply


For the social science yes. Have I ever said otherwise?

all of your ranting here

A slight exaggeration, I would say,

is factually limited to the context of saying "the biological sciences" doesn't acknowledge race.

You make being limited to the facts bad thing.

Is that the singular point your attempting to drive home here?

It was always my point.

Formerly believed seems to be a key phrase there. There is no such text under the definition of race.

Yes, formerly believed by biological sciences.

your language heavily implies a negative perception of those who don't adopt your "biological sciences" perspective.

I am always prejudiced against those who reject science, if that is what you mean.

it's quite apparent you are implying "the biological sciences" perspective is truth incarnate and anyone not adhering to that perspective is doing so based on "one's prejudices."

Racism is a prejudice, would you not say?

if your entire point in this thread is to make a claim that race doesn't exist in one academic field then congratulations.


Thank you. I am pleased you have now grasped it.

reply

"if your entire point in this thread is to make a claim that race doesn't exist in one academic field then congratulations.

Thank you. I am pleased you have now grasped it."

Hmm, but then what about the inclusion of this:

"I am always prejudiced against those who reject science, if that is what you mean"

"Racism is a prejudice, would you not say?"

You're quite dodgy with saying it directly, but the sum of your implied statements here seems to be that anyone who doesn't buy into "the biological sciences" on the notion of race that you favor is prejudiced or racist.

Your long winded rant here on this thread wasn't about an objective statement, but you presenting your bias on this topic under the pretense of "science."

In other words:

I'm right because of biology links! You're all prejudiced and racist for implying that race exists. See this PBS article that you won't believe because you're an old fashioned racist!

So really, your purpose here wasn't to objectively "make a claim that race doesn't exist in one academic field," but instead you have a bias on this topic that you are pushing and attempting to rationalize and justify through "science." You're certainly not novel for attempting to justify your personal beliefs in such a fashion and doing so under the pretense that you are objectively right because of "science" is trite and worn rhetoric.

reply

sum of your implied statements here seems to be that anyone who doesn't buy into "the biological sciences" on the notion of race that you favor is prejudiced or racist.

This would only be the case if they use discredited scientific notions to justify prejudice or hate. It does not mean they are not entitled to their opinions.

Your long winded rant here

Again, a slight exaggeration. I feel you are working too hard to provoke me.

an objective statement, but you presenting your bias on this topic under the pretense of "science."

It is an objective statement to say that modern biological sciences, as a consensus, do not consider race exists.

In other words...:

In other words, you now resort to strawmen. Good call.

your purpose here wasn't to objectively "make a claim that race doesn't exist in one academic field,"

This is your opinion, and again you seem determined to provoke perhaps because your personal opinion are contradicted by biological science. Oddly enough you congratulated me, just before, that my entire point in this thread is indeed to make a claim that race doesn't exist in one academic field. And so it is.

the pretense that you are objectively right because of "science" is trite and worn rhetoric.


It is objectively correct to say that the biological sciences, as a general consensus, do not recognise 'race' , one's personal beliefs notwithstanding. Glad to be of help.

reply

"In other words...:

In other words, you now resort to strawmen."

Not even a reference to what you're referring to. More nonsense.

"I feel you are working too hard to provoke me."

A bit ironic if you to say that, given what you said above.

"It is objectively correct to say that the biological sciences, as a general consensus, do not recognise 'race' , one's personal beliefs notwithstanding. Glad to be of help."

That's nice, nonetheless your perspective in this thread that I've summarized as:

I'm right because of biology links! You're all prejudiced and racist for implying that race exists. See this PBS article that you won't believe because you're an old fashioned racist!

...isn't anything more than an expression of your opinion on race, regardless of the quantity of links from "the biological sciences" that you post here in an attempt to appear objective.

reply

you now resort to strawmen." Not even a reference to what you're referring to

The statements you attribute to me of
I'm right because of biology links! You're all prejudiced and racist for implying that race exists. See this PBS article that you won't believe because you're an old fashioned racist!
I literally never said and so are strawmen. See now? Or is it something else to keep you in argument?

"It is objectively correct to say that the biological sciences, as a general consensus, do not recognise 'race' , one's personal beliefs notwithstanding. Glad to be of help."
That's nice

... and true.

your perspective in this thread that I've summarized as:

...is entirely your projection.

isn't anything more than an expression of your opinion on race, regardless of the quantity of link

Again a deal of projection here. It so happens that my views coincide with that of current science. But that is because I have read the science.

an attempt to appear objective.

It is objectively correct to say that the biological sciences, as a general consensus, do not recognise 'race' , one's personal beliefs notwithstanding. Glad to be of help. Again.

reply

"I'm right because of biology links! You're all prejudiced and racist for implying that race exists. See this PBS article that you won't believe because you're an old fashioned racist!

Again a deal of projection here."

How so? Here's a list of statement's you've made in this thread as they relate to my summary:

1. I'm right because of biology links!

You:
-"You are unfortunately wrong.
https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/does-race-exist/
or
-https://medium.com/swlh/there-is-no-such-thing-as-race-at-the-genetic-level-e0e1ba86a540
-https://theconversation.com/white-supremacists-believe-in-genetic-purity-science-shows-no-such-thing-exists-146763";

2. You're all prejudiced and racist for implying that race exists

You:
-"I am always prejudiced against those who reject science

-Racism is a prejudice"

3. See this PBS article that you won't believe because you're an old fashioned racist!

You:
-"or the National Library of Medicine, full of libtards and ideologues who spew all sorts of pseudoscience

-well just fill in your own reasons for insulting and rejecting this lot as well

-Fingers in ears... now!

-Just because it suits one's prejudices and 'common sense' to deny modern science that does not change the fact"

"Glad to be of help. Again"

You're not being that helpful here. If anything, your dogmatic perception of race as per "the biological sciences" is completely tangential to the OP, who brought up race in a historical context rather than a scientific one.

reply

I'm right because of biology links!
You: "You are unfortunately wrong.

Still not my literal words, but fair enough.

You're all prejudiced and racist for implying that race exists
You: "I am always prejudiced against those who reject science. Racism is a prejudice"

First off, me being prejudiced is not the same as claiming others are. I also suspect that you have run ""I am always prejudiced against those who reject science." with "Racism is a prejudice" together, to create a convenient but false association - ie that those who reject science are always racist. Naughty.

Second, I did not say anyone is prejudiced and racist just for implying that race as such exists, or necessarily I would have to condemn those in social science who say it does. But I haven't and don't. Try again.

See this PBS article that you won't believe because you're an old fashioned racist!
You: "or the National Library of Medicine, full of libtards and ideologues who spew all sorts of pseudoscience ... well just fill in your own reasons for insulting and rejecting this lot as well

No mention of you being 'an old fashioned racist' here in any of the other quotes either, sorry to say.. I just said you have your own reasons. Which is true.. It could be that you think the NLM is woke, or it is just Leftie Propaganda. So this is just another case of you projecting.

our dogmatic perception of race as per "the biological sciences"

Another misreporting, since I have all along recognised that social sciences have an alternate view.

completely tangential to the OP, who brought up race in a historical context rather than a scientific one.


I was actually, if you check back, replying to Blcksurn's unscientific claim that there are "3 generically distinct races." and then your "This nonsense statement [that biologically speaking race does not exist], rather more than the OP specifically, ever since. Hope that helps.

reply

This conversation is becoming as tedious as an interaction with Skavau.

"completely tangential to the OP, who brought up race in a historical context rather than a scientific one."

"I was actually, if you check back, replying to Blcksurn"

"[–] filmflaneur (270) 2 days ago
There is no such thing as 'race' in the biological sciences."

You replied to the OP, essentially gaslighting him that race doesn't exist and thereby undermining the intention of his post, not B1cksurN. You strike me as a person who I suspect engages in such gaslighting frequently.

"No mention of you being 'an old fashioned racist' here in any of the other quotes either"

You in this thread: "ignore modern science and repeat the some old prejudices"

I'd post some definitions and thesaurus links, but it's clearly close enough already and like I said, this exchange is becoming tedious.

What you were attempting to do in this thread is obvious enough but, beyond your trust my science it makes me right argument, you added nothing to the discussion here. I hope that I helped you to understand that your pretenses are more apparent than the objectivity that you attempted to project.

Until next time.

reply

Won't let things go will you? If you were arguing against the science I could understand but seems to exercise most you is the way you think I tell it.

You replied to the OP,


Once only, since then it has been driven by others arguing against the truth; but whatever.

gaslighting him

Really? I would hardly call correcting, or even just telling someone a widely accepted fact is 'gaslighting'. Gaslighting after all is a type of psychological abuse or manipulation that causes someone to question their reality. I doubt if the OP suffered to that extent.

You strike me as a person who I suspect engages in such gaslighting frequently.

You are welcome to your opinions.

your trust my science it makes me right argument

It is not 'my science'. It is just the modern science which is widely accepted and which obviously you don't agree with - without bothering to actually explain why said scientists are wrong, incidentally!

"No mention of you being 'an old fashioned racist'
You in this thread: "ignore modern science and repeat the some old prejudices"


Still not said about you, though. which would be the point. At one point, the closest I could find in our exchanges is, in full " I tell you that in the biological sciences there is an overwhelming consensus against the old fashioned idea of 'race' which you might have seen from a careful reading of the links I gave together with the reasoning. Just because it suits one's prejudices and 'common sense' to deny modern science that does not change the fact. " Here "one' is clearly neutral. But, good try. Please try and not edit or rework quotes up next time. It doesn't look good when caught out.

this exchange is becoming tedious.

It certainly is. The sense is that, just because you don't like my reporting of what modern science says, instead you attribute 'implications' and insinuations and then attack me for that and try to provoke me.

you added nothing to the discussion here

Except to make it clear why 'race' is not a scientific concept you mean?

Until next time.

I look forward to it. Here's the thought to take away which may help you. Talking about 'race' does not make anyone a racist, just out of date scientifically speaking. Negatively discriminating on the basis of race ...does. I hope that helps.

reply

And don't forget something else: Irish immigrants were treated like shit almost as much as black people (and some of the earliest ones were technically slaves in America), and yet you don't see anyone with Irish ancestry demanding reparations or for Daddy Govt. to take care of them. The Irish did the adult thing in pulling up their own bootstraps, getting to work, and coming out on top.

reply

The Irish did the adult thing in pulling up their own bootstraps, getting to work, and coming out on top.


The Irish are not shy of reparations at home though: there are several issues related to reparations in Ireland, including the Troubles and the Irish famine:

The issue of reparations for the Troubles in Northern Ireland is a contentious topic that has been central to political and ideological struggles. The controversy centers on who should receive reparations, including former paramilitaries, state forces, civilians, and those who were seriously injured. A report on compensation for victims of the Troubles found that compensation was inadequate and unequal, with women receiving disproportionately lower awards than men.

A descendant of Sir Charles Trevelyan, who played a role in the Irish famine, has said that she would consider compensation for the famine. Popular tradition holds that Trevelyan was responsible for failing to prevent the export of corn during the famine. Trevelyan famously said that the famine was "the sharp but effectual remedy by which the cure is likely to be effected"


reply

Both Black slaves and Irish indentured servants were treated like crap by the rich which is why they united to rebel or escape together.

So the rich created a scheme to divide them by giving white indentured servants many privileges while removing many from Black slaves. Irish now had privileges because they were not black!

The Irish didn't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Rich WASPs allowed the Irish to become white with its many privileges in order to maintain the social order.

The Irish never faced systemic obstacles like the Jim Crow laws, violent terrorism like lynchings, racism, voter suppression, unequal opportunity, unequal housing, education and job salaries and promotions.

Your equating the Black experience to the Irish is laughable.

Irish = white skin privilege

reply

I think we should vehemently argue some more about which SLAVES had it worse so we know which slaves were more OG and then we can declare the clear winner.

The Irish want to call themselves slaves when they had such slavish privalge?? Sucker and loser slaves I call them. Lots of people were "hiring" slaves back then, its not like the Irish didnt have their choice of Masters to choose. Lazy losers.

reply

Your professor is an idiot. I'm Gréek. My grandparents came to the U.S. almost a hundred years ago. And they considered themselves white. Ancient Greeks and Romans were white when you Anglos were swinging from trées.

reply

Greeks in the U.S. were not considered white. Dukakis ran into bigotry when he ran for president. Bush described him as "swarthy" meaning not really white.

There's a pecking order of whiteness. Greeks are near the bottom just above Arabs and Hispanics, but way below Irish and Swedes. WASPs are on top.

reply

Racist blather. I don't give a rat's ass what Anglos think. Greeks and Italians have always considered themselves white.

reply

I consider you White because I consider everyone who is native to Europe to be White.
Just because you and I disagree with the "professor" doesn't make him an idiot.

reply

From what I've seen on social media, it's non-whites who think south europeans are not white.

reply

What race would they be then?

Here's the Roman Emperor Caligula. This man is white.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ovqVc3cQBHWFZgQ78w5GjX.jpg

reply

You don't have to convince me, Onan. It's pretty obvious who the Greeks and Romans were. It's all the spastics on social media saying shit like that.

I think third worlders just want to claim a powerful civilization from the past as their own.

reply

Well they claim the Egyptians were black when we know they were a Semitic people related to Jews and Arabs. They make up all sorts of shit.

reply

It's an inferiority complex combined with poor IQ. Somewhere like Africa doesn't have a written history, so they claim Egypt as their own to compensate. Arab Muslims and Indians think they are Greeks and Romans for similar reasons. Weird people.

reply

The Nubians were black and that's good enough. And Ethiopia is an ancient and venerable land of black Africans. There's no need to invent anything about Egypt.

Arab Muslims and Indians think they are Greeks and Romans for similar reasons.


You'll need to explain that one lol.

reply

I've had plenty discussions on twitter/X with people who claim south europeans aren't white, and by extension Greeks and Romans, too. Invariably all with flags of the middle east, India/Pakistan or black people.

The most recent one was during the olympics when they had that tweet of all these black athletes celebrating and one white athlete, as if to say they dominate whites in the olympics. Someone responded 'the Greeks invented the olympics' cue responses claiming Greeks are Persians/quasi Euro/Indians, you name it. All from the same kind of people.

Twitter is full of the biggest spastics I've ever seen. If this is a preview of what it's like to live in a multiracial society then I'm not having it. Fuck living among retards forever.

reply

Sheer ignorance to conflate Greeks with Persians. Remember also in the movie "300" the Persians were portrayed as black. Utter nonsense.

But it's worked the other way for centuries. I'm Greek-American. When I was in high school I had a teacher who taught that the ancient Greeks had blond hair and blue eyes. That's racist as well.

reply

I never saw 300 but movies always rewrite history so they can appeal to broader audiences. They think everyone is retarded and won't notice.

Would you say Troy was an accurate depiction of ancient greeks?

reply

"Troy" told Homer's "Iliad" well but Brad Pitt doesn't look Greek.🤣

reply

Greeks, Jews, Italians, Poles, Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, etc. were not considered white.

All you have to do is observe treatment. Italians used to be lynched. Irish faced job discrimination. The KKK used to match against Irish Catholics. Immigration laws written against Southern and Eastern Europeans to prevent them from coming to the U.S..

Today, Arabs and Hispanics are still not considered white.

Don't think of white as a race. It's more accurate to think of it as a social club in which those who belong receive certain privileges. WASPs decide over time which ethnic group is allowed in.

Informative book:

"Working Toward Whiteness: How America's Immigrants Became White: the Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs" by David R Roediger

reply

Other than the Jews, all of those people are White. And some people even consider Jews to be White too, at least the European Jews.

reply

Explain why this Arab is white.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qyKL08Z0idw

reply

Arab is not White. When I said all those people are White I was referring to this:
"Greeks, Jews, Italians, Poles, Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, etc."

reply

.

reply

If God wanted to keep different races and languages unequally yoked or mixed together, he would not have destroyed Babylon.

reply

Exactly. The irony is that while progressives talk a lot about diversity, blending all cultures together will actually erase what makes each one unique. Cultures are precious and should remain distinct so we can truly appreciate their differences.

reply

[deleted]

It appears there has been a bit of confusion — presumably, you intended to respond to TVfan's post, as the quote in question belongs to them.

But while we’re on the subject: I am an atheist and reject the notion of God in the theistic sense. However, I remain somewhat open to the idea, and I regard myself as a cultural Catholic.

reply

Yes thank you my mistake.. have deleted and reposted accordingly.

reply

If God wanted to keep different races and languages unequally yoked

If any god exists I have yet to see it proved, outside of personal credulity and the claims of its scripture. And 'race' is scientifically obsolete.

reply

The whole of creation is proof.

reply

All we see are natural causes, and the world looks exactly as if those causes work as we think they do.

reply

All we see are natural causes, and things look exactly as if those causes work as we think they do.

reply

Have you ever seen a painting?

Did you ask yourself if that painting spontaneously came into existence out of nothing?

A human created that painting just as someone created humans.

reply

Did you ask yourself if that painting spontaneously came into existence out of nothing?

Can you really not tell the difference between artificial things and the natural? The painting is a man-made object, while the natural world is not. Furthermore the argument is circular: it assumes the existence of a designer to prove the existence of a designer. Complexity can come from natural processes: Complexity does not necessarily require a designer, as it can also come from natural processes. And so on.

A human created that painting just as someone created humans.

Yeah and its turtles, all the way down, right?

reply

The painting analogy also applies to nature.

reply

As I said the universe is the likely result of wholly natural processes and looks just as if would do if those largely understood processes had proceeded as we might expect them to have done. Are you suggesting that each separate natural thing we see is created separately all at once? If not, then we see the current end of a series of genetic descents and or long term inanimate processes. That's the difference between the artificial and the natural.

In addition, even if we were to accept the necessity of a First Cause there is no reason why it cannot be wholly natural, something permanent in nature. At least, pace Occam, this way we do not have to introduce a whole level of reality to explain things...

reply

Irish and Italians aren’t white.

reply

Yes they are. They are both European so they are White.

reply

Only Albinos are white. They are the master race.

reply

White is not just about color it's about ethnicity. By your definition, some Albino savage from Africa would be considered White.

reply

wow this is gonna be really troubling once you come to power and enact your apartied regime!

where the greeks & itals gonna go ??

reply

I regard Greeks and Italians as White. All native Europeans are included in this classification. Europe belongs to Europeans.
And There will be no trouble; I will rule with an iron fist.

reply