3 ms·

Sorry updated to reflect the source, here it it’s again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/22/sorry-but-the-irish-were-always-whi

by tjs8rj 4y ago

Sorry updated to reflect the source, here it it’s again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/22/sorry-but-the-irish-were-always-white-and-so-were-the-italians-jews-and-so-on/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Yes, it’s a myth. 100%. There’s only 2 ways of reading “Irish people weren’t considered white”. The first is that people didn’t consider them white in the consensus definition of the word: white skin/being of white stock/white-classed ethnicity - which Irish were considered to fit this (thus the claim is a myth). The other way of interpreting this statement is that white has any definition other than the commonly accepted one. In this case, not only has it led to so much misinformation (people genuinely think Irish people weren’t considered white people), but in this particular definition of “white” it is racist and assumes white supremacy by definition by just putting anyone discriminated against in any way as “definitely not white”, an entirely politically motivated definition, and so should be entirely disregarded. “Irish people weren’t considered white” is a myth, it’s completely wrong. If you are trying to say something like “Irish people received more discrimination than anglo-Saxons”, then just say that rather than appropriating the term white for political purposes.

andrei_says_ 4y ago
I am not the OP but believe they used the term “white” in historical context and did not “appropriate it for political purposes” in contemporary context.
acdha 4y ago
Again, it's not that simple and if we're concerned about "political purposes" consider that a right-wing commenter's opinion piece arguing against against his political opponents is perhaps not exactly the complete historical consensus. For example, note how he left out things like "No Irish need apply" signs or anti-Jewish quotas or social stigma because those undercut the point. Many of the groups we now consider white were not originally fully accepted as such. If you want to argue that we should have a different term than "whiteness" to describe that, fine, but there is plenty of scholarly usage of the term and it doesn't change the intended meaning that different groups had different levels of acceptance and, most relevantly, joining the anti-Black side tended to be an effective way to avoid one's own status being question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_th...
- therealdrag0 4y ago
  What does “no Irish need apply” etc have to do with whiteness such that leaving it out undercuts the point? You know people can be prejudice outside of skin color right?
  - acdha 4y ago
    Here's what I originally wrote: > For example, one of the things which helped Irish immigrants like my ancestors get accepted into the white club was their value as cheap labor to lower black negotiating power and a lot of them were recruited into rapidly expanded police forces for the same reasons. The point was that while the Irish (or Jews, or Italians, or …) were not considered enslavable prior to the Civil War or on the Black side of the Jim Crow laws afterwards, they also were not treated as full members of society with equal access to the courts, jobs, education, etc. and one of the ways that all of those groups were able to improve their status was by joining the white side of anti-Black discrimination by taking jobs, becoming cops, keeping neighborhoods segregated, etc. Again, the point wasn't that no other forms of discrimination have ever been practiced but that just because the Northern states fought the South didn't mean that they didn't have significant problems with anti-Black discrimination. In the context of this post, prison labor was used to fill some demand for cheap labor to replace slaves and the North was again more than willing to look the other way or profit from that labor even if it wasn't as common (or severe) in their states.
    - tjs8rj 4y ago
      You are talking a totally different point here! Being discriminated against in job opportunities and so on has NOTHING to do with being white. Tying them inextricably together is completely unnecessary and pollutes the conversation with borderline racism. Being white is as simple as being black, or any other race: it’s your lineage/how you are perceived/how you identify/etc all wrapped into one and can be complicated. It is not at all dependent on your rights, or level of discrimination. In all laws that grouped treatment on race (segregation, Jim Crow, quotas, etc) Irish people fell into the white category, every single time. Despite harsh miscegenation laws, Irish people could “intermarry” other white people without any issue - because it wasn’t intermarrying - they were all considered white. That they also received other discrimination is irrelevant to the question. Would you suggest Irish people aren’t white even today? All the same arguments that “demonstrate” racial discrimination: longer jail sentences, lower incomes and wealth, etc for black people show Irish people trailing behind white averages too. So even though nearly every American would consider Irish people to be white, because of the discrepancy in outcomes you’d say Irish people aren’t white?

by tjs8rj 4y ago

andrei_says_ 4y ago

I am not the OP but believe they used the term “white” in historical context and did not “appropriate it for political purposes” in contemporary context.

acdha 4y ago

Again, it's not that simple and if we're concerned about "political purposes" consider that a right-wing commenter's opinion piece arguing against against his political opponents is perhaps not exactly the complete historical consensus. For example, note how he left out things like "No Irish need apply" signs or anti-Jewish quotas or social stigma because those undercut the point. Many of the groups we now consider white were not originally fully accepted as such. If you want to argue that we should have a different term than "whiteness" to describe that, fine, but there is plenty of scholarly usage of the term and it doesn't change the intended meaning that different groups had different levels of acceptance and, most relevantly, joining the anti-Black side tended to be an effective way to avoid one's own status being question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_th...

therealdrag0 4y ago
What does “no Irish need apply” etc have to do with whiteness such that leaving it out undercuts the point? You know people can be prejudice outside of skin color right?
- acdha 4y ago
  Here's what I originally wrote: > For example, one of the things which helped Irish immigrants like my ancestors get accepted into the white club was their value as cheap labor to lower black negotiating power and a lot of them were recruited into rapidly expanded police forces for the same reasons. The point was that while the Irish (or Jews, or Italians, or …) were not considered enslavable prior to the Civil War or on the Black side of the Jim Crow laws afterwards, they also were not treated as full members of society with equal access to the courts, jobs, education, etc. and one of the ways that all of those groups were able to improve their status was by joining the white side of anti-Black discrimination by taking jobs, becoming cops, keeping neighborhoods segregated, etc. Again, the point wasn't that no other forms of discrimination have ever been practiced but that just because the Northern states fought the South didn't mean that they didn't have significant problems with anti-Black discrimination. In the context of this post, prison labor was used to fill some demand for cheap labor to replace slaves and the North was again more than willing to look the other way or profit from that labor even if it wasn't as common (or severe) in their states.
  - tjs8rj 4y ago
    You are talking a totally different point here! Being discriminated against in job opportunities and so on has NOTHING to do with being white. Tying them inextricably together is completely unnecessary and pollutes the conversation with borderline racism. Being white is as simple as being black, or any other race: it’s your lineage/how you are perceived/how you identify/etc all wrapped into one and can be complicated. It is not at all dependent on your rights, or level of discrimination. In all laws that grouped treatment on race (segregation, Jim Crow, quotas, etc) Irish people fell into the white category, every single time. Despite harsh miscegenation laws, Irish people could “intermarry” other white people without any issue - because it wasn’t intermarrying - they were all considered white. That they also received other discrimination is irrelevant to the question. Would you suggest Irish people aren’t white even today? All the same arguments that “demonstrate” racial discrimination: longer jail sentences, lower incomes and wealth, etc for black people show Irish people trailing behind white averages too. So even though nearly every American would consider Irish people to be white, because of the discrepancy in outcomes you’d say Irish people aren’t white?