2 ms·

"White" was invented (by "White" people) to mean "everyone who isn't systematically oppressed under under local law and cultural practice". That's the only unif

by kolpa 9y ago

"White" was invented (by "White" people) to mean "everyone who isn't systematically oppressed under under local law and cultural practice". That's the only unifying thread. Irish, German, Jewish, Greek, etc became "White" wherever and whenever "White" people stopped discriminating against them. Scandinavian? European? Anglo? Western European? Eastern European? Fine. "White"? No.

core-questions 9y ago
Doubling down on a narrative that is severely lacking in historical evidence. Please, do, show me where all the white people got together and decided on this definition? Let me know where I'm supposed to get updates on who is, and who isn't? I must have missed my subscription to this topic. I'm aware that various groups may not have been afforded every accomodation in the past by the dominant cultural groups in Europe and North America. This is an unfortunate legacy that is slowly being healed. I don't think individual white people alive today need to take on personal culpability for such (in a "sins of the father" sense), nor does it follow that White does not exist as a category merely because it has shifted in definition over time. About all you can really say is that the definition is subject to further change in the future. Fair enough, but this doesn't mean the group doesn't exist. > "White"? No. You're very close to practicing "cultural erasure" by implying that people who identify as white (and there are hundreds of millions of such) don't exist, or are somehow mistaken in their own views about what they identify as. If this same tactic is used on literally any other group (whether it's racial, religious, ethnic, national i.e. Tibet, sexual i.e. LGBT groups, etc) it's viewed as a tremendously offensive act. Why, then, is it okay to do against White people? Pray tell me why this group is the only one which you are not only permitted, but encouraged to deconstruct and deny the existence of?

by kolpa 9y ago

core-questions 9y ago

Doubling down on a narrative that is severely lacking in historical evidence. Please, do, show me where all the white people got together and decided on this definition? Let me know where I'm supposed to get updates on who is, and who isn't? I must have missed my subscription to this topic. I'm aware that various groups may not have been afforded every accomodation in the past by the dominant cultural groups in Europe and North America. This is an unfortunate legacy that is slowly being healed. I don't think individual white people alive today need to take on personal culpability for such (in a "sins of the father" sense), nor does it follow that White does not exist as a category merely because it has shifted in definition over time. About all you can really say is that the definition is subject to further change in the future. Fair enough, but this doesn't mean the group doesn't exist. > "White"? No. You're very close to practicing "cultural erasure" by implying that people who identify as white (and there are hundreds of millions of such) don't exist, or are somehow mistaken in their own views about what they identify as. If this same tactic is used on literally any other group (whether it's racial, religious, ethnic, national i.e. Tibet, sexual i.e. LGBT groups, etc) it's viewed as a tremendously offensive act. Why, then, is it okay to do against White people? Pray tell me why this group is the only one which you are not only permitted, but encouraged to deconstruct and deny the existence of?