Thoughts on the concept of "white person"

Post Reply New Topic

I'm looking at the conspiracy theories of a "white genocide" and one of the major planks is racial intermarriage being genocide, which is interesting and not at all how the word is defined. Even though the white person is having and raising their own kids by having entered a voluntary relationship (so no genocide is actually occurring), by the kids being born in an intermixed relationship it's still "genocide" according to white supremacists. I'm thinking back also to laws prohibiting racial intermarriage and hypodescent in the law, where having a certain amount of (or any) ancestry from a person of color is thought to the "corrupt" a white person beyond recognition: they cannot therefore truly be white, so the thinking goes. According to their definition, if every white person entered into an interracial marriage, then there would be no more white progeny, as none of their children can be considered "white".

I hope you guys are noticing a theme here. Basically, to be "white" is to lack significant ancestry from anywhere but Europe, where "significant" can be described as any known non-European ancestry (the one-drop blood rule) or a certain fraction of non-European ancestry (blood quantum). If the person appears to be white but cannot be so defined by their ancestry, then they are merely "passing" and are not truly white (e.g. Walter Francis White President of the NAACP who had blonde hair blue eyes pale skin but was categorized as black based on his ancestry, and Family Guy where Peter Griffin discovers he's descended from a black slave for a more humorous example). Whereas, for every other racial category having ancestry there means you are a member of that category, too.

This is a pretty messed up concept, if you ask me, this demand for "purity". It is also inherently white supremacist due to the belief that having non-European ancestry is a sign of "corruption" that places you lower on the totem pole.

I recall when a DNA test was performed on a white supremacist who was trying to establish an all-white-only town in (I think) North Dakota. It came back showing he had some Sub-Saharan African ancestry. I would imagine he's not the only one of those idiots who'd get a rude awakening from such a DNA test.

It's used for political purposes.

For example, Asians in Silicon Valley are being labeled "white" , because they are so successful.

"How Asians became White"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... a5fd2821e3

So, if you are successful, then you might be white, even if you are physically not white.

I have some experience with white supremacists, and I can absolutely say they honestly believe this.
Of course, the prime example of this in our time was the Nazi philosophy, where they scrutinised your entire genealogy and categorised you as "two thirds" or "one eighth" whatever, and condemned you based on your percentage of undesirable genes.
There is also the half-caste idea - it's not just racial "purity" as viewed by white people, and they are not the only ethnic group who exclude others as "not (insert group here) enough."
Example being people who identify as part of an indigenous culture due to their ancestry, and get censured by others because they "look too white," as part of their ancestry may have included white peoples or other ethnicities, and thus, they carry the physical characteristics of European / other ancestry too. They are deemed "not black enough" to represent or identify with their culture of origin, because of the pale colour of their skin, or their European features such as pale eyes and hair, sharp facial features, or other notably ethnically deviant features such as Asian tilted eyes or straight hair, etc. I know this is perpetrated by some indigenous cultures toward those of mixed ancestry, which is even more messed up as many indigenous cultures were the victims of invasion and rape, therefore they had little choice in how "white" they turned out. Psychologically this may relate to a perspective of these half-castes have been diluted in some way by the negatively viewed invading peoples, and thus aren't "real" members of the original group.
So I disagree that other ethnic groups are innocent of this kind of attitude toward people of mixed descent.
One could argue semantics about this sort of thing (and white supremacists do) but when you question the basis - what does it matter? Maybe that's naive of me but I really don't see what difference it makes. If someone is white, black, Asian, indigenous, or a mixed bag of all sorts of things - great! If you want to identify with your Asian culture because your great grandmother was Japanese, but you have blonde hair, I don't see what the problem is.
As a side note I once knew a woman who was half black, half Chinese, and she was absolutely gorgeous. Mixing racial groups can lead to spectacular and different results. There is also the theory that mixing the groups is necessary to prevent the problems associated with inbreeding, in extreme cases. There are theories that divergent genetic material leads to favourable mutations that allow better adaption.
Why is racial "purity" important at all? Why is it "better" to be one thing, rather than many things? Why is homogeny viewed more positively than diversity? One could drag all sorts of ideas about the difficult transition in human culture from a mono perspective to a pluralist perspective, the psychological tendency of social animals to form group mentalities and that necessitates creating an "us and them" distinction, or the complex histories of racism based on invasion, slavery, genocide, war and tradition.
But honestly I agree it's messed up, and have never agreed with the concept of racial purity, white or otherwise, and the excluding, degrading, marginalising etc of people of mixed descent. But then again, this attitude is so ingrained in general society, you are probably perpetuating these beliefs subconsciously (as I assume I am too) and one really has to work at catching this assumption when it arises, and challenging it consciously.

There are truly no human races, only clines, which involve frequencies of different alleles changing fairly smoothly by geographical distance. Start in northern Europe, as you head east into eastern Europe you start seeing the appearance of traits associated with East Asians, but they are still subtle. Head further east into Central/Inner Asia, and you will now see a mixture with northern European and East Asian traits about half and half. Then when you arrive in East Asia, the northern European traits become minimal (but not gone) and the East Asian traits predominate. This fairly gradual change over time is the genetic drift defined by the clines concept. Now, there are some discontinuities around natural barriers, but overall the clines concept holds.

There is only 1 human species (Homo sapiens) and only 1 human subspecies (H. sapiens sapiens) still alive today--the other subspecies H. sapiens idaltu went extinct like 160,000 years ago or so. The other human species like H. habilis, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, and H. floresiensis are now extinct.

C2V,

The purity concept is part and parcel of the caste systems of the world, which include white supremacy.

I have no patience for stupid people, and dislike them equally.

White supremacy is actually really stupid. If it was actually true, they would be the best of everything, and none of them would have any african decent. Sorry, but no.

It is false pride.