So what do y'all think of Rachel Dolezal?
In a few decades when we whites lose our majority in America, Latinos will probably be welcomed into the white family just so whites can still call America a white country.

I generally like Franklin but he was narrow minded when it came to humans. By white he meant WASP who speaks English. No Popes.
He might have thought Germans were mixed with Jewish.
Actually, most of the Germans Franklin was familiar with were from the Rhine country, specifically the Rhineland Palatinate, and the Kraichgau (which is today part of Baden-Wurttemberg), where the Germanic population had long ago blended with the descendants of Romanized provincials in the region, making them dark haired and deep ruddy complected. My dad was very much of this physical appearance, and I'm starting to lean that way as I get older. He gave Germans of Saxon stock a pass, though (as they were kin to the English), though I fail to understand why he thought Swedes weren't white.

The actual Romans were very fair skinned, blue eyed, blond hair. Most of the emperors were blue eyed with blond hair with a couple of exceptions.
The Ptolemys whom were of Greek descent were the same.
Even Ahenobarbus (Emperor Nero) had blond hair even though his ancestor was named Ahenobarbus due to the color of his beard. According to legend he is descended from a man who heard Castor and Pollux announced the victory of the Romans at Lake Regillus. They touched his beard as proof and it changed from black to a bronze color. Some of the Ahenobarbi did have red beards and hair but not Nero.
It's interesting to watch movies and television shows featuring reenactments of life with Roman emperors because I get a sense of what the producers, directors and writers actually know about them. Have they done their research? They portray them at times as swarthy. Emperor Augustus was not swarthy. People assume Italians, therefore Romans, are all dark haired, with dark brown eyes and olive complexions, like Al Pacino.
So when you say Romanized, it might not necessarily mean someone will look like a forerunner of Al Pacino, hehe. However, I can picture such a person as you described in my mind because I knew a guy who always had extremely ruddy cheeks and dark hair. I always wondered why his cheeks were always so flushed. Maybe his ancestors are from the same region?
The Romans were probably much more cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic than they are given credit for. Sure, the Roman leadership were described as blond - though in Romance languages today, blond today tends to include any hair color that wasn't black - and I see no reason why that rule wouldn't include the oldest Romance culture. It must be remembered, while blonds were among the Roman populace, they themselves tended to take note of northern populations, such as the Germans and Celts, for their fair hair, implying that fair hair was not so common a Roman trait and so noteworthy.
They would conquer people and bring slaves back to Rome from the region and they would be of various ethnicities. The fact they occupied so many places could be one reason they are thought of as multi ethnic, along with the Greeks who had an empire, also, only it went in a more easterly direction. Maybe the ruling class shared the blond/fair complected traits?
Kraichgauer
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,165
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
In a few decades when we whites lose our majority in America, Latinos will probably be welcomed into the white family just so whites can still call America a white country.

I generally like Franklin but he was narrow minded when it came to humans. By white he meant WASP who speaks English. No Popes.
He might have thought Germans were mixed with Jewish.
Actually, most of the Germans Franklin was familiar with were from the Rhine country, specifically the Rhineland Palatinate, and the Kraichgau (which is today part of Baden-Wurttemberg), where the Germanic population had long ago blended with the descendants of Romanized provincials in the region, making them dark haired and deep ruddy complected. My dad was very much of this physical appearance, and I'm starting to lean that way as I get older. He gave Germans of Saxon stock a pass, though (as they were kin to the English), though I fail to understand why he thought Swedes weren't white.

The actual Romans were very fair skinned, blue eyed, blond hair. Most of the emperors were blue eyed with blond hair with a couple of exceptions.
The Ptolemys whom were of Greek descent were the same.
Even Ahenobarbus (Emperor Nero) had blond hair even though his ancestor was named Ahenobarbus due to the color of his beard. According to legend he is descended from a man who heard Castor and Pollux announced the victory of the Romans at Lake Regillus. They touched his beard as proof and it changed from black to a bronze color. Some of the Ahenobarbi did have red beards and hair but not Nero.
It's interesting to watch movies and television shows featuring reenactments of life with Roman emperors because I get a sense of what the producers, directors and writers actually know about them. Have they done their research? They portray them at times as swarthy. Emperor Augustus was not swarthy. People assume Italians, therefore Romans, are all dark haired, with dark brown eyes and olive complexions, like Al Pacino.
So when you say Romanized, it might not necessarily mean someone will look like a forerunner of Al Pacino, hehe. However, I can picture such a person as you described in my mind because I knew a guy who always had extremely ruddy cheeks and dark hair. I always wondered why his cheeks were always so flushed. Maybe his ancestors are from the same region?
The Romans were probably much more cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic than they are given credit for. Sure, the Roman leadership were described as blond - though in Romance languages today, blond today tends to include any hair color that wasn't black - and I see no reason why that rule wouldn't include the oldest Romance culture. It must be remembered, while blonds were among the Roman populace, they themselves tended to take note of northern populations, such as the Germans and Celts, for their fair hair, implying that fair hair was not so common a Roman trait and so noteworthy.
They would conquer people and bring slaves back to Rome from the region and they would be of various ethnicities. The fact they occupied so many places could be one reason they are thought of as multi ethnic, along with the Greeks who had an empire, also, only it went in a more easterly direction. Maybe the ruling class shared the blond/fair complected traits?
We know that one of the earliest groups to settle in the vicinity of Rome - and thus were most likely Roman ancestors - had come out of the Black Forest region of southwest Germany, which was the cradle of the Hallstatt-La Tenne Celtic material culture, most likely making them fair colored Alpine Celts. Though to be sure, there was evidence of other populations in the area, as well, at least some of whom probably had a more Mediterranean appearance.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Romans, Umbrians and Etruscans to name three. Then we had Spartans and Osci. Samnites both sided and challenged the Romans but eventually were just absorbed by the Roman state.
Now let's consider a major event in the history of the Roman state, the Punic Wars, fought between Romans and Carthaginians who were of Semitic Phoenician stock, whom came from the Middle East and might have looked Arabic. The mysterious Etruscans, precursors to Rome, migrated from Turkey. Italy was not a nation at the time, but apparently many little groups and they fought among themselves. Even before the Romans brought in slaves, which added to the diversity, it was a melting pot, sort of, that is, unless the groups kept to themselves and fought each other which occurred in Europe for centuries giving them various languages instead of one, unified spoken languages even though the Romans would have liked to given them all Latin. They did give them Romance languages, Romanian, Italian, French, Portugese, Spanish.
The Caucasians drove the Etruscans from Rome in 509 B.C. and became the majority.
lostonearth35
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,285
Location: Lost on Earth, waddya think?
I just happened to come across this on that sensationalist junk food news network known better as CNN, and I just don't get it. Why do Americans think this is such a big deal? Why is anything to do with someone's race such a big deal? OMG an individual wants to be a different race, the world is doomed. Give me a break.
While attending a historically black university, she sued it for discriminating against her as a white person. And lost.
As head of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP, she posed for a photo with a black man she later claimed to be her father.
The world is not doomed. She's just an amusingly crazy person.
My car is a Volkswagen GTI, but it identifies as an Audi S3 Quattro.
Kraichgauer
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,165
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Now let's consider a major event in the history of the Roman state, the Punic Wars, fought between Romans and Carthaginians who were of Semitic Phoenician stock, whom came from the Middle East and might have looked Arabic. The mysterious Etruscans, precursors to Rome, migrated from Turkey. Italy was not a nation at the time, but apparently many little groups and they fought among themselves. Even before the Romans brought in slaves, which added to the diversity, it was a melting pot, sort of, that is, unless the groups kept to themselves and fought each other which occurred in Europe for centuries giving them various languages instead of one, unified spoken languages even though the Romans would have liked to given them all Latin. They did give them Romance languages, Romanian, Italian, French, Portugese, Spanish.
The Caucasians drove the Etruscans from Rome in 509 B.C. and became the majority.
All very true. But my opinion is, even prior to the Romans entering into recorded history, they were hardly a single tribe or ethnicity, anymore than any other group is, has been, or ever will be. Their Proto-Celtic ancestors who had arrived in Italy from central Europe doubtlessly settled among an earlier population, who probably were dark complected as many south Europeans are today, and then made babies together.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Now let's consider a major event in the history of the Roman state, the Punic Wars, fought between Romans and Carthaginians who were of Semitic Phoenician stock, whom came from the Middle East and might have looked Arabic. The mysterious Etruscans, precursors to Rome, migrated from Turkey. Italy was not a nation at the time, but apparently many little groups and they fought among themselves. Even before the Romans brought in slaves, which added to the diversity, it was a melting pot, sort of, that is, unless the groups kept to themselves and fought each other which occurred in Europe for centuries giving them various languages instead of one, unified spoken languages even though the Romans would have liked to given them all Latin. They did give them Romance languages, Romanian, Italian, French, Portugese, Spanish.
The Caucasians drove the Etruscans from Rome in 509 B.C. and became the majority.
All very true. But my opinion is, even prior to the Romans entering into recorded history, they were hardly a single tribe or ethnicity, anymore than any other group is, has been, or ever will be. Their Proto-Celtic ancestors who had arrived in Italy from central Europe doubtlessly settled among an earlier population, who probably were dark complected as many south Europeans are today, and then made babies together.
Breeding with outsiders has been taboo in antiquity. Only recently has it become the other way around. Now, it's thought of as better to breed with outsiders to avoid inbreeding and promote genetic diversity.
Now let's consider a major event in the history of the Roman state, the Punic Wars, fought between Romans and Carthaginians who were of Semitic Phoenician stock, whom came from the Middle East and might have looked Arabic. The mysterious Etruscans, precursors to Rome, migrated from Turkey. Italy was not a nation at the time, but apparently many little groups and they fought among themselves. Even before the Romans brought in slaves, which added to the diversity, it was a melting pot, sort of, that is, unless the groups kept to themselves and fought each other which occurred in Europe for centuries giving them various languages instead of one, unified spoken languages even though the Romans would have liked to given them all Latin. They did give them Romance languages, Romanian, Italian, French, Portugese, Spanish.
The Caucasians drove the Etruscans from Rome in 509 B.C. and became the majority.
All very true. But my opinion is, even prior to the Romans entering into recorded history, they were hardly a single tribe or ethnicity, anymore than any other group is, has been, or ever will be. Their Proto-Celtic ancestors who had arrived in Italy from central Europe doubtlessly settled among an earlier population, who probably were dark complected as many south Europeans are today, and then made babies together.
Breeding with outsiders has been taboo in antiquity. Only recently has it become the other way around. Now, it's thought of as better to breed with outsiders to avoid inbreeding and promote genetic diversity.
That was my point earlier. The reactions of white Americans to her self-identifying as black has been quite vocal because I suspect she has broken the last great taboo in "Caucasian America" of removing her "white privilege" as a member of God's chosen race (as many white Americans believe themselves to be). This is primitive tribalism at it's best.
Kraichgauer
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,165
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Now let's consider a major event in the history of the Roman state, the Punic Wars, fought between Romans and Carthaginians who were of Semitic Phoenician stock, whom came from the Middle East and might have looked Arabic. The mysterious Etruscans, precursors to Rome, migrated from Turkey. Italy was not a nation at the time, but apparently many little groups and they fought among themselves. Even before the Romans brought in slaves, which added to the diversity, it was a melting pot, sort of, that is, unless the groups kept to themselves and fought each other which occurred in Europe for centuries giving them various languages instead of one, unified spoken languages even though the Romans would have liked to given them all Latin. They did give them Romance languages, Romanian, Italian, French, Portugese, Spanish.
The Caucasians drove the Etruscans from Rome in 509 B.C. and became the majority.
All very true. But my opinion is, even prior to the Romans entering into recorded history, they were hardly a single tribe or ethnicity, anymore than any other group is, has been, or ever will be. Their Proto-Celtic ancestors who had arrived in Italy from central Europe doubtlessly settled among an earlier population, who probably were dark complected as many south Europeans are today, and then made babies together.
Breeding with outsiders has been taboo in antiquity. Only recently has it become the other way around. Now, it's thought of as better to breed with outsiders to avoid inbreeding and promote genetic diversity.
Most legends of racial purity are just that - legends. As I've said before, there were plenty of artifacts of other cultures who had intermixed with those Roman ancestors who had come from central Europe. The same applies to other ancient peoples - differing skull types among the Germanic and Celtic peoples imply that different groups had come together under the umbrella of Germanic or Celtic language, material culture, and religion, after which were invented myths of racial purity.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Now let's consider a major event in the history of the Roman state, the Punic Wars, fought between Romans and Carthaginians who were of Semitic Phoenician stock, whom came from the Middle East and might have looked Arabic. The mysterious Etruscans, precursors to Rome, migrated from Turkey. Italy was not a nation at the time, but apparently many little groups and they fought among themselves. Even before the Romans brought in slaves, which added to the diversity, it was a melting pot, sort of, that is, unless the groups kept to themselves and fought each other which occurred in Europe for centuries giving them various languages instead of one, unified spoken languages even though the Romans would have liked to given them all Latin. They did give them Romance languages, Romanian, Italian, French, Portugese, Spanish.
The Caucasians drove the Etruscans from Rome in 509 B.C. and became the majority.
All very true. But my opinion is, even prior to the Romans entering into recorded history, they were hardly a single tribe or ethnicity, anymore than any other group is, has been, or ever will be. Their Proto-Celtic ancestors who had arrived in Italy from central Europe doubtlessly settled among an earlier population, who probably were dark complected as many south Europeans are today, and then made babies together.
Breeding with outsiders has been taboo in antiquity. Only recently has it become the other way around. Now, it's thought of as better to breed with outsiders to avoid inbreeding and promote genetic diversity.
Most legends of racial purity are just that - legends. As I've said before, there were plenty of artifacts of other cultures who had intermixed with those Roman ancestors who had come from central Europe. The same applies to other ancient peoples - differing skull types among the Germanic and Celtic peoples imply that different groups had come together under the umbrella of Germanic or Celtic language, material culture, and religion, after which were invented myths of racial purity.
I think the modern perspective is based on social construct of race in terms of "white" versus "non-white" which is a legacy of European colonialism and slavery. The way people in Australia and the US call themselves "white" is a form of primitive tribalism. The reason African Americans continue to identify as "black" is a legacy of white imposition of the "one drop rule" which curiously also operated here in Australia.
"
Campin_Cat
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
LOLOLOL
_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)
Campin_Cat
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
Well, a second interview was conducted, on "The Today Show", and THIS one was quite different. She got-out the tears----and, what precipitated it was her saying she read about Caitlyn Jenner.
She also addressed her suing Howard University, because she felt she was discriminated against because she was white----she said she sued because they took away her scholarship and job----so, she danced-around THAT one.....
She said that SOME of what she did, could be called "creative non-fiction", and smiled.....
She said "I am not white----I don't identify as white".
She admitted to never having been to South Africa (she had said she HAD been there, in some other interview).
She admitted to NOT being born in a teepee----and added that she didn't know WHERE she was born. (How could anybody, generally speaking, NOT know where they were born, if they have a birth certificate? We KNOW she has a birth certificate cuz her parents SHOWED it!)
Like Matt Lauer said, she answers SOME things, and opens-up more questions, on OTHERS!
_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)
Yes, the white border patrol is angry at her for removing her white privilege but I really don't think it's because of primitive tribalism or considering white to be God's chosen race. Look at which white people are angriest at her. It isn't Stormfronters or other members of the white racial purity crowd in the U.S. (although they may be angry for just the reason you say but not in mainstream internet/TV media). It's white left wing Social Justice Warriors. (And I say this as a white left wing American who spent about a decade back in the day as a Social Justice Warrior before the term was coined.) This isn't "keep America white" anger. This is identity politics chickens coming home to roost.
She took all the tropes of identity politics and used them to further her career and it worked. The actual crime she has been accused of is screwing up identity politics for everyone. But nobody called her out on identity politics when it was working- for instance when she told a Hispanic student in one of the classes she taught the the student wasn't Hispanic enough to speak in class about Hispanic experience. That is so hypocritically ironic. But it should never have been ok for her to say that to the student in her class regardless of what race she "actually" is. According to the SJW meme, it was fine for her to say that and she is getting a lot of left wing anger because she challeneges the very notion of identity politics just by embracing it so hard.
Kraichgauer
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,165
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
She also addressed her suing Howard University, because she felt she was discriminated against because she was white----she said she sued because they took away her scholarship and job----so, she danced-around THAT one.....
She said that SOME of what she did, could be called "creative non-fiction", and smiled.....
She said "I am not white----I don't identify as white".
She admitted to never having been to South Africa (she had said she HAD been there, in some other interview).
She admitted to NOT being born in a teepee----and added that she didn't know WHERE she was born. (How could anybody, generally speaking, NOT know where they were born, if they have a birth certificate? We KNOW she has a birth certificate cuz her parents SHOWED it!)
Like Matt Lauer said, she answers SOME things, and opens-up more questions, on OTHERS!
I gather she is claiming that - allegedly - her birth certificate had been written out and filed over a month after she was born (in the woods, no less!), there is no legitimate way to know for sure if her white father is actually her father, and thus implying that she might in fact really be half black, after all. I swear, I had felt a great degree of sympathy for this woman because of the work she had done for racial equality, despite the hole she had dug herself into, but now, she just sounds pathetic and desperate for trying to hold onto the life she had fabricated.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,165
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Now let's consider a major event in the history of the Roman state, the Punic Wars, fought between Romans and Carthaginians who were of Semitic Phoenician stock, whom came from the Middle East and might have looked Arabic. The mysterious Etruscans, precursors to Rome, migrated from Turkey. Italy was not a nation at the time, but apparently many little groups and they fought among themselves. Even before the Romans brought in slaves, which added to the diversity, it was a melting pot, sort of, that is, unless the groups kept to themselves and fought each other which occurred in Europe for centuries giving them various languages instead of one, unified spoken languages even though the Romans would have liked to given them all Latin. They did give them Romance languages, Romanian, Italian, French, Portugese, Spanish.
The Caucasians drove the Etruscans from Rome in 509 B.C. and became the majority.
All very true. But my opinion is, even prior to the Romans entering into recorded history, they were hardly a single tribe or ethnicity, anymore than any other group is, has been, or ever will be. Their Proto-Celtic ancestors who had arrived in Italy from central Europe doubtlessly settled among an earlier population, who probably were dark complected as many south Europeans are today, and then made babies together.
Breeding with outsiders has been taboo in antiquity. Only recently has it become the other way around. Now, it's thought of as better to breed with outsiders to avoid inbreeding and promote genetic diversity.
Most legends of racial purity are just that - legends. As I've said before, there were plenty of artifacts of other cultures who had intermixed with those Roman ancestors who had come from central Europe. The same applies to other ancient peoples - differing skull types among the Germanic and Celtic peoples imply that different groups had come together under the umbrella of Germanic or Celtic language, material culture, and religion, after which were invented myths of racial purity.
I think the modern perspective is based on social construct of race in terms of "white" versus "non-white" which is a legacy of European colonialism and slavery. The way people in Australia and the US call themselves "white" is a form of primitive tribalism. The reason African Americans continue to identify as "black" is a legacy of white imposition of the "one drop rule" which curiously also operated here in Australia.
"
I agree, 100%.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
androbot01
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada