3 ms·

I am very interested in a serious conversation about the initial topic. If you want to talk about that, I would be happy. But in the meantime I will play along

I am very interested in a serious conversation about the initial topic. If you want to talk about that, I would be happy. But in the meantime I will play along with this tangent, since I guess it could be fun, too. Embracing a new definition of the White race does not cause more white females to be brought into being (at least, not in any easily predictable way). It simply causes females that had already been brought into being to be reclassified from non-White to White. And their fathers would have to be White, too. At no point in time are there White females who do not have White fathers.

tomlockwood 3y ago
Interesting. When did the first white father exist? Could you provide historical and scientific evidence of that person's existence and proof of their whiteness?
- calderknight 3y ago
  I think some Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe mated with some Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and that's where the white skin came from. Maybe. But this was a very long time ago and there's no historical record or way of using DNA evidence to narrow anything down to a specific date or a specific person. Even if we did know the person whether we met the conditions for being white would depend on what kind of definition of the White race we were using. For example, whether we were using a definition that focused on the current point in time, or one that was interested in the White race as it exists and evolves throughout the past and future.
  - tomlockwood 3y ago
    Oh interesting, so you're saying the definition changes through time and those changes can change the amount of white people in the world. That also seems to suggest there's no objective definition of white, which also seems to suggest that any claim that all white people need to have a white father would be utter garbage.
    - calderknight 3y ago
      > so you're saying the definition changes through time No, I was saying you could have a static definition that accepted the obvious fact that the White race would evolve over thousands of generations. I will also say now that there are many definitions of the White race and that to whatever extent there is one "the definition" of the White race, it changes over time, too. And you have at the end made a logical error. Just because there are a range of possible definitions of the White race does not mean that all possible definitions of the White race are acceptable. Just because there are components of and aspects of the definition of the White race that my change, does not mean that there are not components and aspects which may not change. And, while there may be edge cases, in general, one needs to have White parents to be White. That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry.
      - tomlockwood 3y ago
        > the obvious fact that the White race would evolve over thousands of generations. Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible. Another way of saying there's edge cases for a rule is that the rule isn't a rule at all. > That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry. Not true! You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white. Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective. The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly. I'd consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s.
        calderknight 3y ago
        > Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, for example, the 100th generation of White people would be different from the 10,000th generation of white people. White females can't come into being without White fathers. They could during the formation of the White race. But they can't now. > You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white not a contradiction > Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective Biological race is just ancestry. > The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly What about ancestry. > d consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s. I'm not sure whether they would have. Doesn't matter either way. Racialist beliefs could have a totally illogical origin and yet be entirely correct. Beware the fallacy fallacy.

tomlockwood 3y ago

Interesting. When did the first white father exist? Could you provide historical and scientific evidence of that person's existence and proof of their whiteness?

calderknight 3y ago
I think some Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe mated with some Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and that's where the white skin came from. Maybe. But this was a very long time ago and there's no historical record or way of using DNA evidence to narrow anything down to a specific date or a specific person. Even if we did know the person whether we met the conditions for being white would depend on what kind of definition of the White race we were using. For example, whether we were using a definition that focused on the current point in time, or one that was interested in the White race as it exists and evolves throughout the past and future.
- tomlockwood 3y ago
  Oh interesting, so you're saying the definition changes through time and those changes can change the amount of white people in the world. That also seems to suggest there's no objective definition of white, which also seems to suggest that any claim that all white people need to have a white father would be utter garbage.
  - calderknight 3y ago
    > so you're saying the definition changes through time No, I was saying you could have a static definition that accepted the obvious fact that the White race would evolve over thousands of generations. I will also say now that there are many definitions of the White race and that to whatever extent there is one "the definition" of the White race, it changes over time, too. And you have at the end made a logical error. Just because there are a range of possible definitions of the White race does not mean that all possible definitions of the White race are acceptable. Just because there are components of and aspects of the definition of the White race that my change, does not mean that there are not components and aspects which may not change. And, while there may be edge cases, in general, one needs to have White parents to be White. That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry.
    - tomlockwood 3y ago
      > the obvious fact that the White race would evolve over thousands of generations. Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible. Another way of saying there's edge cases for a rule is that the rule isn't a rule at all. > That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry. Not true! You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white. Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective. The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly. I'd consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s.
      - calderknight 3y ago
        > Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, for example, the 100th generation of White people would be different from the 10,000th generation of white people. White females can't come into being without White fathers. They could during the formation of the White race. But they can't now. > You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white not a contradiction > Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective Biological race is just ancestry. > The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly What about ancestry. > d consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s. I'm not sure whether they would have. Doesn't matter either way. Racialist beliefs could have a totally illogical origin and yet be entirely correct. Beware the fallacy fallacy.