4 ms·

By all legal stipulations, there’s no indication that Irish people were not always considered white. There is not a single instance where Irish people were deni

by tjs8rj 4y ago

By all legal stipulations, there’s no indication that Irish people were not always considered white. There is not a single instance where Irish people were denied from “white” accommodations. They were always considered to be of “white racial stock”. They received discrimination in other ways, including for Irish ancestry, but not for being white. Do you understand how those are different? The article DID mention “Irish need not apply” signs, but that’s on the basis of ethnicity, not race. Different groups had different levels of acceptance even today. The vast majority of Americans consider Jews to be white, but there are still people who dislike Jews. Jews receiving discrimination doesn’t make them any less white. Even your linked article has 0 examples of Irish people not being considered white. You seem to be under the impression that being white by definition can’t receive racial discrimination, and if they do then they can’t be considered white by definition. That’s a ridiculous definition, it’s confusing, and black/Asian/etc has no kind of definition so this definition is clearly just politically motivated - it overloads a commonly understood term to smuggle in the idea that white supremacy is just true by definition and whites people never experience racism by definition. Both of which defy observed reality, making this an entirely nonsense definition. The only valid definition of white is the commonly accepted one: of the white racial group as decided by a combination of factors including your lineage, how you are perceived, and so on. This is the same definition for any race, and under this definition: Irish people have always been considered white.

rovolo 4y ago
Your points about the American definitions of "white" are certainly valid. The US racial system was primarily built around creating "black" and "indian" (and later "asian"), and it's certainly arguable that Italians, Irish, and Jews were always "white" in the US under some definitions of race. However, your definition of race is incomplete. > defining “whiteness” as anything other than the skin color is racist and inaccurate You are assuming that race is an objective measure, but there isn't a scientific definition of race which matches common understandings of race. Instead of accepting that people may act on a personal understanding of race, you are asserting that their definition of race doesn't match your definition, and so there's no racial component at play. Ethnicity has a habit of becoming racialized. For example: > Different groups had different levels of acceptance even today. The vast majority of Americans consider Jews to be white, but there are still people who dislike Jews. Jews receiving discrimination doesn’t make them any less white. Does it matter that you think that Jews are white if the Nazis did not believe that? They created racial categories for the purpose of discrimination. Jews and Slavs were subject to "racialization" by the Nazis. We can say that Jews in Europe faced racial oppression under the Nazis because the Nazis oppressed them by labeling them a race. In fact, the Nazi classification of the Jewish Race meets your updated definition: > The only valid definition of white is the commonly accepted one: of the white racial group as decided by a combination of factors including your lineage, how you are perceived, and so on. The problem with your insistence that the Irish and Jews are white is that there isn't an authoritative white lineage or white appearance. People disagree[1] over who's considered white. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States#Racial_prerequisite_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_th...

by tjs8rj 4y ago

rovolo 4y ago

Your points about the American definitions of "white" are certainly valid. The US racial system was primarily built around creating "black" and "indian" (and later "asian"), and it's certainly arguable that Italians, Irish, and Jews were always "white" in the US under some definitions of race. However, your definition of race is incomplete. > defining “whiteness” as anything other than the skin color is racist and inaccurate You are assuming that race is an objective measure, but there isn't a scientific definition of race which matches common understandings of race. Instead of accepting that people may act on a personal understanding of race, you are asserting that their definition of race doesn't match your definition, and so there's no racial component at play. Ethnicity has a habit of becoming racialized. For example: > Different groups had different levels of acceptance even today. The vast majority of Americans consider Jews to be white, but there are still people who dislike Jews. Jews receiving discrimination doesn’t make them any less white. Does it matter that you think that Jews are white if the Nazis did not believe that? They created racial categories for the purpose of discrimination. Jews and Slavs were subject to "racialization" by the Nazis. We can say that Jews in Europe faced racial oppression under the Nazis because the Nazis oppressed them by labeling them a race. In fact, the Nazi classification of the Jewish Race meets your updated definition: > The only valid definition of white is the commonly accepted one: of the white racial group as decided by a combination of factors including your lineage, how you are perceived, and so on. The problem with your insistence that the Irish and Jews are white is that there isn't an authoritative white lineage or white appearance. People disagree[1] over who's considered white. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States#Racial_prerequisite_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_th...