5 ms·

If not white, what are they?

ajuc 1y ago
"White" in USA means "Anglo-Saxon Protestants + some groups we accept as close enough". Makes no sense, but the whole idea of races is dumb from the start (same skin color is a very bad proxy for DNA similarity), so it's pointless to correct them.
- peterfirefly 1y ago
  > very bad proxy for DNA similarity It's actually a remarkably good one. If we continue to mix for several hundred years more then it won't be. For now, it is.
  - ajuc 1y ago
    Because of the founder effect, white people have way lower genetic diversity. It's like we've split the encyclopedia into three books: A-S, T, and U-Z.
    - otabdeveloper4 1y ago
      > white people have way lower genetic diversity This isn't true.
      - polotics 1y ago
        Indeed really not true. For example: I am quite mixed, declared my own race on an unclaimed spot of non-scientific identity-formation, and despite what some would say and discounting any possible future irradiation, my genitic diversity is absolutely zero ;-)
    - peterfirefly 1y ago
      Africa's higher human diversity is mainly in low-population groups like the Khoisan. The big groups are not nearly as diverse (although they do carry some Khoisan genes, for example).
- EnPissant 1y ago
  White has always meant European in the USA.
  - ajuc 1y ago
    It didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavic_sentiment#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavic_sentiment#United_S... At various points in time Italians, Jews, Slavs weren't considered "white" in US. See the above joke. It's seriously how many Americans think even now.
    - EnPissant 1y ago
      There was obviously negative sentiment towards various European groups, but they were always considered "white".
      - ajuc 1y ago
        Quote from the article: > Slavic peoples were considered to be people of an "inferior race" who were unable to assimilate into American society.[4] They were originally not considered to be "fully white" (and thus fully American), and Slavic peoples' "whiteness" continues to be a debate to this day, but most people consider them to be of Caucasian culture
        EnPissant 1y ago
        The citations for this are horrible if you follow them. edit: One of them is just some 24 minute movie. The other is false. The Immigration Act of 1924 did not establish any category of "inferior" races or countries.
    - pfannkuchen 1y ago
      Wasn’t being “white” legally required to vote in federal elections for most of US history? Were any of these groups ever prohibited from voting on the basis of not being “white”? I have never heard of that happening, have you? I think that would answer the question, since the government was actually in the business of determining “white”-ness at that time, and unless I’m mistaken, all of those groups were determined by the federal government to be “white”.
- griffzhowl 1y ago
  Calling anyone in the US "Anglo-Saxon" is already buying in to a mythology about ethnic origins. Even in England I doubt you'll find many people whose ancestry is derived mainly from the Angle and Saxon tribes as opposed to being a mix of pre-Celtic British, Celtic, Norman, other Germanic, etc. And Protestantism didn't exist until centuries after the Anglo-Saxons stopped being identifiable groups, if they ever were
ivan_gammel 1y ago
"white" is a racist label that does not take into account the complexity of world history. It may be reasonable to use it in contexts of historical racism, e.g. in America (where many Slavic people were almost absent) or Sub-Saharan Africa (zero Slavic presence during colonial times), but it just does not make much sense elsewhere, e.g. it's absolutely irrelevant when describing ethnic tensions between Slavs and Caucasians or Central Asians.

ajuc 1y ago

"White" in USA means "Anglo-Saxon Protestants + some groups we accept as close enough". Makes no sense, but the whole idea of races is dumb from the start (same skin color is a very bad proxy for DNA similarity), so it's pointless to correct them.

peterfirefly 1y ago
> very bad proxy for DNA similarity It's actually a remarkably good one. If we continue to mix for several hundred years more then it won't be. For now, it is.
- ajuc 1y ago
  Because of the founder effect, white people have way lower genetic diversity. It's like we've split the encyclopedia into three books: A-S, T, and U-Z.
  - otabdeveloper4 1y ago
    > white people have way lower genetic diversity This isn't true.
    - polotics 1y ago
      Indeed really not true. For example: I am quite mixed, declared my own race on an unclaimed spot of non-scientific identity-formation, and despite what some would say and discounting any possible future irradiation, my genitic diversity is absolutely zero ;-)
  - peterfirefly 1y ago
    Africa's higher human diversity is mainly in low-population groups like the Khoisan. The big groups are not nearly as diverse (although they do carry some Khoisan genes, for example).
EnPissant 1y ago
White has always meant European in the USA.
- ajuc 1y ago
  It didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavic_sentiment#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavic_sentiment#United_S... At various points in time Italians, Jews, Slavs weren't considered "white" in US. See the above joke. It's seriously how many Americans think even now.
  - EnPissant 1y ago
    There was obviously negative sentiment towards various European groups, but they were always considered "white".
    - ajuc 1y ago
      Quote from the article: > Slavic peoples were considered to be people of an "inferior race" who were unable to assimilate into American society.[4] They were originally not considered to be "fully white" (and thus fully American), and Slavic peoples' "whiteness" continues to be a debate to this day, but most people consider them to be of Caucasian culture
      - EnPissant 1y ago
        The citations for this are horrible if you follow them. edit: One of them is just some 24 minute movie. The other is false. The Immigration Act of 1924 did not establish any category of "inferior" races or countries.
  - pfannkuchen 1y ago
    Wasn’t being “white” legally required to vote in federal elections for most of US history? Were any of these groups ever prohibited from voting on the basis of not being “white”? I have never heard of that happening, have you? I think that would answer the question, since the government was actually in the business of determining “white”-ness at that time, and unless I’m mistaken, all of those groups were determined by the federal government to be “white”.
griffzhowl 1y ago
Calling anyone in the US "Anglo-Saxon" is already buying in to a mythology about ethnic origins. Even in England I doubt you'll find many people whose ancestry is derived mainly from the Angle and Saxon tribes as opposed to being a mix of pre-Celtic British, Celtic, Norman, other Germanic, etc. And Protestantism didn't exist until centuries after the Anglo-Saxons stopped being identifiable groups, if they ever were

ivan_gammel 1y ago

"white" is a racist label that does not take into account the complexity of world history. It may be reasonable to use it in contexts of historical racism, e.g. in America (where many Slavic people were almost absent) or Sub-Saharan Africa (zero Slavic presence during colonial times), but it just does not make much sense elsewhere, e.g. it's absolutely irrelevant when describing ethnic tensions between Slavs and Caucasians or Central Asians.