Is “expanding definition of whiteness” a real thing? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 12:18:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Is “expanding definition of whiteness” a real thing? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Is “expanding definition of whiteness” a real thing?  (Read 2891 times)
ملكة كرينجيتوك
khuzifenq
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,328
United States


P P
WWW
« on: April 06, 2023, 06:18:34 PM »

The Irish, Italians and Poles were never considered non-white.  Distinctions were made between Anglo-Saxons or Nordic races and others - but it was never stated these were the only whites or Europeans AFAIK.  The "ethnic whites" always ranked above Asians, for example and obviously had major advantages that Black Americans lacked.
Legally this was true in the sense that Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. could always become citizens, vote, hold public office, and couldn't be enslaved. Despite what your racist facebook uncle might tell you, "Irish slavery" wasn't a real thing, at least not in the New World, and the photos that he posts which supposedly "prove" this are just poor people, not slaves. However, "ethnic whites" weren't considered white socially for quite some time. When this happened varied for different groups, but by the post-WWII era there was little perceived difference between different white ethnic groups.  

Historically it was, back when immigration from parts of the world south of the Sahara and east of the Dasht e-Lut + Urals was legally restricted. Doesn't make much sense to frame the emerging majority "mainstream" culture/in-group as "white" now that those restrictions are no longer in place, and there has been more geographic and cultural diversity among newer immigrant waves.

I'm skeptical that intermarriage will lessen the social separateness of certain non-white groups such as Latinos and Asians (whether Subcontinental or otherwise) to the extent that Bismarck is suggesting. Nor do I see any reason to believe that they or the fraction of their descendants who are mixed race will be considered more "culturally mainstream" than the ADOS community is today.

That being said- lingering social separateness doesn't have the electoral implications certain people here might think it does.
Logged
ملكة كرينجيتوك
khuzifenq
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,328
United States


P P
WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2023, 12:14:36 PM »

In the modern day, it feels to me like "Whiteness" is expanding to include African-Americans.  The strongest dividing line again seems to be between established American ethnicities and recent immigrants, and African-Americans clearly belong to the former, in a way that Salvadorans or Pakistanis may not.

Lmao. Summer of the 2020 completely proves this false.

It's true if you think of "whiteness" as "the American cultural mainstream", and really has been long before BLM became a thing.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 12 queries.