Today these claims would be hidden in dog whistle politics.
“White” has always been an undefined and very broad term and classification into white or non white is a very American. What’s considered white today by modern standards in the neo-nazi world is still blond hair, blue eyes, paler skin of the Nordics but some individuals make exceptions. It just depends on what the individuals fear.
While some groups will accept Greeks, Southern Italians and Eastern Europeans some groups will reference *dysgenic *reproduction or *dysgenic *immigration. Numbers are an issue so they are flexible but really those who are in these groups often think the fact they can’t call this out is also a way they are being “oppressed”.
Anti-Greek riots actually happened in several parts of the country before WW2. That said the war changed things a lot in the US.
The very fact that “WASP” stands for “white Anglo-Saxon Protestant” naturally means that there exist whites who are not Anglo-Saxon Protestant, or else why the “ASP” qualifier?
I am a 6th generation “white” australian born in 1965 to parents born to a disappearing high upper class, in those days a question of careful breeding as much of wealth. I can assure you that any person from any part of Europe not England or Scotland was very much “other”. The Irish were sort of ok if a bit exotic. Anyone considered properly white and Catholic was also to be reviled, almost unclean.
It only changed when we started letting in people from Asia. The “yellow peril” changed everything for the wogs.
We are so much better for it but still, people do assume I am a safe place to share their bigoted feelings* and the old divisions still exist for many my age and over
*if they can get over me being a big old butch dyke that is.
Uh, I think you’ve got it backwards. The qualifiers “white” and “Anglo-Saxon” are modifying “Protestant”, to distinguish that particular subset of Protestants from the Protestants who are not white and/or Anglo-Saxon.
It’s easy to find such claims, though: just google “Greeks are not white” or similar.
Uh, I think you’ve got it backwards. The qualifiers “white” and “Anglo-Saxon” are modifying “Protestant”, to distinguish that particular subset of Protestants from the Protestants who are not white and/or Anglo-Saxon.
[QUOTE]
Andrew Hacker intended the W to be “wealthy”, but really it was a cute acronym for “Anglo Saxon” but AS doesn’t work well for that so the W and P were added.
Irish Catholics have been white in the political mainstream of the USA longer than there has been a USA, and their signatures are on the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution.
I remember South Africa back in the 80s where everybody was ranked by skin color. The slightest genetic color variation was immediately noticed due to people being focused on apartheid.
I’m not asking for general enlightenment, but can we at least get past the melanin obsession?
Not without understanding why so many people, such as the growing ranks of “white nationalists”, are still so fixated on “melanin” and other phenotypical “race” markers. Hence this discussion, among others.
Lol, you don’t think Federal funding is ever formally based in race or gender …
Do you have any any idea how many special funding programs and other regulations there are specifically for “minority owned” or female owned businesses?
Not to mention the requirement to make x amount of purchases from such businesses.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
To answer the OPs original question with a broad brush, yes basically in America if someone says white people, they are referring to light skinned europeans. If anyone else is included it’s generally because they can’t tell the difference by looking at them.
I’m bumping this thread because I did a little more research and googling. I found some interesting stuff.
Princess jasmine is constantly hailed as the first “non white” Disney Princess, though According to the American government and as she was created by an American company, is actually “white”.
I just saw a video where There was a North African man who was very “black/brown” looking but because of his ancestry he was forced to be classified as “white” under American standards.
And I just talked with this Ashkenazi Jewish girl in my college. She is browner than than some “black” ppl in my class but everyone laughed when she called herself “brown” and said that she’s a “white girl”. Idk.
Apparently some European looking people of mixed Mulatto ancestry use to call themselves “Arab” to explain their dark skin tone and pass as “white”.
But I guess it’s probably already been stated that race is a made up arbitrary concept. What I find interesting though is that outside of the Western World many people I’ve talked to identify by their ethnicity and nationality and don’t see “race”. I don’t understand why the US doesn’t do this but I guess since America set up “race” to specifically oppress and keep certain groups out.
I disagree. I thought they were significantly darker. Especially darker than Ariel, who was extremely pasty. Then again, she lived under the sea, so there’s some logic to that.
You said, “According to the American government.”
I’m still curious which branch of the American federal government today has a database that classifies people (and also, apparently, cartoon characters!!!??) as “white” versus “non-white”. Interesting that black/brown-coloured Africans, Jews, and Arabs are also mostly “white” despite the “melanin obsession”, but it’s not like there was ever any consistency to that sort of racist stuff.
And do the NSF, NIH, etc have access to this whiteness database to use to evaluate proposals for funding? Do new applicants have to submit mugshots or DNA along with scientific articles and research proposals?
There was only one Catholic signature on the Declaration of Independence: that of wealthy landowner Charles Carroll of Carrolltown whose mother was of English stock and whose Irish-born but active-in-England grandfather had immigrated from London to Maryland in 1688.
That grandfather, Charles Carroll the Settler, is best known because his efforts to hold office in the Protestant-dominated colony (of Maryland) resulted in the disfranchisement of the colony’s Catholics … this certainly challenges the notion of “political mainstream of the USA longer than there has been a USA.” BTW, it was during his 1688 voyage that the Settler changed his family motto from in fide et in bello forte (strong in faith and war) to Ubicumque cum libertate (anywhere so long as there be freedom).
For the U.S. Constitution there were two Catholic signatures: Daniel Carroll, another grandson of The Settler, and Thomas Fitzsimons. While FitzSimons was born in Ireland, I’m not sure either of the Carroll cousins ever set foot in Ireland, though each spent time in both England and France.
@ bowlweevils — Were you perhaps thinking of Irish Presbyterians?
