Are you sure you mean sallow? It usually means something along the lines of jaundiced.
Good point. The standard theory of the origin of the term “redneck” is that it refers to the sunburns that white agricultural laborers would get in the Deep South (of the USA) after working in the fields all day under the summer sun. In other words, it was a class-related term that happened to use an apt color metaphor.
I am. It means something slightly different and usually non-pejorative in Hiberno-English. Check definition 2: sallow - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Those darned Milesians.
Since the EU enforced the metric system they’re referred to as 1.8 kilometrians.
I thought we’d established here that swarthy Irish are because the Spanish Armada was forced to take the long way home. 
I don’t know why it is that people look the way they do but several lads I grew up with, who had mainly Irish parentage from what they knew were of a complexion that to this day Spanish people approach them asking for directions in Spanish.
Colin Farrell could easily be Antonio Bandaras’ cousin.
Interesting. Carry on.
Almost certainly not. (Folk history, notwithstanding.)
And it’s silly to assume that everyone in Ireland has red hair and freckles and that everyone in Spain has dark hair/eyes and olive skin. Both places are going to have a lot of overlap since the same basic peoples moved across those areas over time-- just in different distributions.
I wrote and developed the Thomas Nast site. http://thomasnastcartoons.comand I appreciate the typo spot. It is fixed!
It is. My typo! Thanks for spotting it!
Talk about a felicitous error. I’m so disappointed that was a typo.
Incorrect.
Let me give you an example to explain this. British upper class. Quite dominant in the 19th century. Considered themselves superior to all others. Can this be considered a white supremacist belief… ?
Not entirely . Yes , when they had to enslave Africans and exterminate the Native americans , they " constructed " a white christian identity because it suited their purpose. However , their belief in their own supremacy cannot be oversimplified as just white supremacy. They happened to be white people but that’s not what they were aiming for. For them , anybody who was not a member of British upper class was " trash " , end of story.
" Wogs begin at Calais ".
Even the lowly serfs and peasants ( majority of British population ) were trash to them. Tools for economic and political exploitation. Trash to be dressed up in red uniforms and shipped off to dangerous , alien lands to make them inhabitable and ripe for picking so that they can get rich. Trash to be kidnapped from the streets of England and shipped off to the new world to a life of indentured servitude ( This only changed after Bacon’s rebellion of 1676 in Virginia BTW ).
I would even make the argument that " Racism " as a social construct sprang from the teat of a much more powerful and relevant socio-political phenomenon , Classism . But that is a discussion suitable for another thread of its own.
BTW , english is not my native language so excuse any errors. 
I’m sorry I didn’t see your post earlier. Perhaps I need to clarify what I said. Though I’ve not personally encountered such situations (at least where the person was been serious and didn’t seem like they were just been pretentious) I have nevertheless seen other indications of this sort of confusion before. I’m aware that the word “Hispanic” is often misused/confused as a racial term as opposed to the strictly cultural term that it actually is. And I offered an explanation for this in my previous post but didn’t do it properly, thereby making it seem like I was giving two distinct reasons instead of one merely being a result of the other.
The point was simply that it has always seemed to me that the reason for this is because of a vague conceptual continuum that has been created as a result of the indigenous element in Latin America, which is obviously a far more significant and defining element than it is in North America. Because the word is often used with respect to people with a range of mixtures of both Native and European ancestry (from 0% European to much higher percentages – past 50%) many people, it seems to me, end up simply labeling almost anyone that is “Hispanic” as “non-white” even though the person may not actually have any conspicuous native features and may actually be fully European by ancestry. It doesn’t matter if they are not consciously aware that that is why they are doing it. I may be wrong about this, and I know that some other posters have expressed disagreement with this view. But that is how I tend to see it.
Imagine if the whole of America had been completely empty of people prior to European colonization and that the Spanish (and the Portuguese) and other migrants from Europe had simply waltzed into South America and settled down there while other Europeans settled down in North America. Do you think people today in the US would be referring to their Latin American neighbors as “not white”? I don’t think so. That’s why I think it is the indigenous element that is the cause of this behavior.
Having said that, I believe that this behavior is largely restricted to white Hispanics who have the sorts of features that appear to be vaguely suggestive in some way or another of some kind of non-European ancestry (the obliquely implicit one, of course, being indigenous American). Simply put, those having significantly dark features. For example, a small but significant percentage of the population of Spain have very light features and, of course, many of them have migrated to Latin America. Additionally, people from other parts of Europe have also migrated there over the centuries. Consequently, there are many Latin Americans who are, for example, blue-eyed blondes. I would like to see an example of someone saying with a straight face, with regards to one of such people, that he/she is not a white person. That would be really interesting. I’m not saying there are no examples of that - and it wouldn’t really surprise me much given how people sometimes behave, particularly if the person was speaking with a Latino accent. All I’m saying is that the more conventionally “white looking” the Latin American person is, the less likely it is for such to be said (in a serious way) about him/her. And yet, the anecdote you gave highlights the nature of this sort of conceptual vagueness and fuzziness many people seem to suffer from with regards to this issue. If that person (who made that nonsensical comment regarding Charlie Sheen) was asked if Antonio Bandera, for example, is white, I bet that s/he would say “sure, of course” despite having made that comment you ascribed to him/her.
Salma Hayek, who you asked about, is probably a good example of the point I was making earlier. Personally, I’ve never actually thought of her as ‘white’, at least in a conventional sense. In fact, the very first time I ever saw her, during the early 90’s, I thought she was probably from South Asia (somewhere like India) before I knew that she was Hispanic. I’m even rather surprised that Little Nemo included her in his list of couples who are wrongly termed ‘interracial’ by the media. Given her looks, it doesn’t surprise me at all that a media article would say that with respect to her relationship, especially with her Hispanic identity.
By the way, this argument is also relevant in some ways to the topic of this thread – regarding the Irish in previous centuries. There is an implicit claim being made that these kinds of categorizations – which seem to be surprising and paradoxical – are made in the absence of any kind of distinguishing physical characteristics. The argument is that it isn’t really the case and that these categorizations are actually predicated upon certain physical features even though they may not be consistent and the categorizations themselves may often be applied in haphazard and inconsistent ways. In previous centuries, the dominant white ethnic group generally had no trouble distinguishing the physical features of other European ethnic groups they looked down upon and even often mocked them on the basis of their ‘inferior’ ethnic features. But as the decades progressed, and those other groups became culturally integrated into the broader “white” community, such differences ceased to be relevant and, thus, gradually vanished from people’s perspectives. That sort of thing, I suspect, could potentially happen with any group of people in terms of any set of physical features no matter how important they may currently be in people’s perspectives. Whether or not it happens is a different issue.
Caricaturing someone in brownface is the literal embodiment of being facetious.
Just a thought skin tone could have been a way of identifying people they did not want, they were known as trouble makers, probably agriculture workers and navigators (navies) who were building canals, as they worked outside their skin tone would be darker.
It must be remembered that in the 19th centaury ordinary working people were oppressed and down trodden by their so called betters virtually treated as slaves and were impoverished. More a question of class that racism.
Sorry just my own thoughts no books to quote
I don’t think that was ever the case (and I’ve not heard anyone claim that to be honest). A correct, more nuanced, statement is that while it was a given that white Europeans were superior to non-whites (and that racism still survives in modern society) there was also a whole hierarchy of relative superiority within different European ethnicities with, “Anglo Saxon” Protestants* at the top, that has largely disappeared. The fact they have disappeared is, IMO, a sign of the “arc of human progress”, and hopefully racism as a whole will follow.
-
- By the late 19th century overt religious discrimination was no longer considered “PC” in most educated western society, whereas racism was still considered fine. So prejudices that were clearly religious in nature (against Jew and Catholics) were dressed up as ethnic differences.
Hayek’s case is, of course, complicated by her being half-Lebanese, which again brings in whether people consider Middle Eastern to be “White” (I know the US Census does, but critical race theory doesn’t, and I think actual social constructions are variable…)