3 ms·

"Whiteness" as a tacit non-ethnicity is very much an accepted understanding.

criley2 9y ago
I would argue that whiteness's non-ethnicity is a learned and enforced behavior in society. It's accepted/understood because it's an intentional outcome of an intentional policy. There USED to be a white culture, white ethnicity, white everything. (One only needs to experience American history to understand the centuries long history of white identity in America). But due to heritage of political white supremacy, we decided to destroy ALL white identity, ALL white culture, ALL white "ethnicity", as a "baby with the bath water" approach to ending white supremacy. I think this is why people have this disconnect between "ethnicity" and "whiteness". In this thread. OF COURSE there is a white ethnicity, but, we Americans destroyed white identity intentionally to destroy white supremacy.
- MisterBastahrd 9y ago
  Was there? My Cajun / German great grandparents had a lot more in common with local black families than white Germans from New York. Whiteness to them was just an artificial way to segregate people.
- nooron 9y ago
  There has never been a "white culture" in an enduring and stable way. Something resembling a multi-ethnic white monoculture developed during the 1950s, resulting from the social mixing of whites in WW2 service. But that's very new and not very robust -- certainly lacking deep roots. There have been a lot of very distinct cultures held by white people -- German, Irish, Finnish, etc -- but they were all quite different.
  - criley2 9y ago
    What's your opinion then on such white identity speeches like the Confederate Corner Stone speech, delivered by the Vice President of the Confederacy? http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/ http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerst... "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." It seems that even a century earlier than your 1950's monoculture, the white people of America were not just calling themselves white, but in fact, were creating political philosophy centered around their white identity. Not their polish, German, Irish, Finnish identity. Their WHITE identity.
    - nooron 9y ago
      What's my opinion on the speech? That it's true that people conceptualized of a "white race" prior to the 1950s, but it doesn't contradict my claim that an inclusive white identity lacks long historical precedent, historical pre-eminence or robustness. If it were robust and pre-eminent, the KKK wouldn't have targeted white Catholics or Jews. If it were robust and pre-eminent, Irish Americans wouldn't have been treated poorly in much of the US. If it were robust and pre-eminent, "race scientists" of the late 19th and early 20th century would not have divided whites into distinct sub-races with purportedly unique characteristics. Ethnic balkanization among whites in the US persisted throughout the first half of the 20th century – think of the distinct ethnic mobs and tensions that characterized NYC – and mass conscription during WW2 substantially changed this.
      - criley2 9y ago
        If it were robust and pre-eminent, white people wouldn't have seceded from the country to create a white country, a literal ethno-state. Oh wait! Is what it is, you clearly already have your conclusion. P.S. northern chinese make fun of southern chinese (cantonese), does that preclude their ethnicity and culture? I fail to see how targeting Irish means anything. Chinese target their own sub-ethnicities all day long. As does every other ethnic group.
        tptacek 9y ago
        He's being pretty clear, and your response is a little obtuse. He's not saying that nobody called themselves "white" before 1950. He's saying that the demographics of "whiteness" in the mid-1800s are different than the demographics of "whiteness" now, and so the term is arbitrary.
KekDemaga 9y ago
Why not say not specified or none as opposed to white? It seems needlessly confusing.
ethnic_throw 9y ago
I'd hazard a guess that most people don't differentiate between race and ethnicity. I'm not sure why you'd conflate the two, to be honest—understanding your race is fairly necessary to understand how you're viewed in the US, and how you might be expected to behave. Understanding your ethnicity is an entirely different thing—e.g. legally, nobody cared if a person was french, german, or english if the question was 'black or white'. But you might care.
mmjaa 9y ago
"White" = "Power" = "Must be Smashed".

I would argue that whiteness's non-ethnicity is a learned and enforced behavior in society. It's accepted/understood because it's an intentional outcome of an intentional policy. There USED to be a white culture, white ethnicity, white everything. (One only needs to experience American history to understand the centuries long history of white identity in America). But due to heritage of political white supremacy, we decided to destroy ALL white identity, ALL white culture, ALL white "ethnicity", as a "baby with the bath water" approach to ending white supremacy. I think this is why people have this disconnect between "ethnicity" and "whiteness". In this thread. OF COURSE there is a white ethnicity, but, we Americans destroyed white identity intentionally to destroy white supremacy.

MisterBastahrd 9y ago
Was there? My Cajun / German great grandparents had a lot more in common with local black families than white Germans from New York. Whiteness to them was just an artificial way to segregate people.
nooron 9y ago
There has never been a "white culture" in an enduring and stable way. Something resembling a multi-ethnic white monoculture developed during the 1950s, resulting from the social mixing of whites in WW2 service. But that's very new and not very robust -- certainly lacking deep roots. There have been a lot of very distinct cultures held by white people -- German, Irish, Finnish, etc -- but they were all quite different.
- criley2 9y ago
  What's your opinion then on such white identity speeches like the Confederate Corner Stone speech, delivered by the Vice President of the Confederacy? http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/ http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerst... "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." It seems that even a century earlier than your 1950's monoculture, the white people of America were not just calling themselves white, but in fact, were creating political philosophy centered around their white identity. Not their polish, German, Irish, Finnish identity. Their WHITE identity.
  - nooron 9y ago
    What's my opinion on the speech? That it's true that people conceptualized of a "white race" prior to the 1950s, but it doesn't contradict my claim that an inclusive white identity lacks long historical precedent, historical pre-eminence or robustness. If it were robust and pre-eminent, the KKK wouldn't have targeted white Catholics or Jews. If it were robust and pre-eminent, Irish Americans wouldn't have been treated poorly in much of the US. If it were robust and pre-eminent, "race scientists" of the late 19th and early 20th century would not have divided whites into distinct sub-races with purportedly unique characteristics. Ethnic balkanization among whites in the US persisted throughout the first half of the 20th century – think of the distinct ethnic mobs and tensions that characterized NYC – and mass conscription during WW2 substantially changed this.
    - criley2 9y ago
      If it were robust and pre-eminent, white people wouldn't have seceded from the country to create a white country, a literal ethno-state. Oh wait! Is what it is, you clearly already have your conclusion. P.S. northern chinese make fun of southern chinese (cantonese), does that preclude their ethnicity and culture? I fail to see how targeting Irish means anything. Chinese target their own sub-ethnicities all day long. As does every other ethnic group.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        He's being pretty clear, and your response is a little obtuse. He's not saying that nobody called themselves "white" before 1950. He's saying that the demographics of "whiteness" in the mid-1800s are different than the demographics of "whiteness" now, and so the term is arbitrary.

KekDemaga 9y ago

Why not say not specified or none as opposed to white? It seems needlessly confusing.

ethnic_throw 9y ago

I'd hazard a guess that most people don't differentiate between race and ethnicity. I'm not sure why you'd conflate the two, to be honest—understanding your race is fairly necessary to understand how you're viewed in the US, and how you might be expected to behave. Understanding your ethnicity is an entirely different thing—e.g. legally, nobody cared if a person was french, german, or english if the question was 'black or white'. But you might care.

mmjaa 9y ago

"White" = "Power" = "Must be Smashed".