The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Flight from White
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Washington Post:

The Volokh Conspiracy Analysis
Sorry, but the Irish were always ‘white’ (and so were Italians, Jews and so on)

By David Bernstein March 22 at 12:54 PM

“Whiteness studies” is all the rage these days. My friends who teach U.S. history have told me that this perspective has “completely taken over” studies of American ethnic history. I can’t vouch for that, but I do know that I constantly see people assert, as a matter of “fact,” that Irish, Italian, Jewish and other “ethnic” white American were not considered to be “white” until sometime in the mid-to-late 20th century, vouching for the fact that this understanding of American history has spread widely.

The relevant scholarly literature seems to have started with Noel Ignatiev’s book “How the Irish Became White,” and taken off from there. But what the relevant authors mean by white is ahistorical.

I think they mean: could you get into the best country club in town?

Strikingly enough, the son-in-law of the founder/designer of National Golf Links of America in the Hamptons was Irish Catholic. Of course his dad had been elected mayor of NYC in 1880 as the Establishment candidate. This is not to say that being Irish Catholic was quite as ideal as being WASP or Scottish Presbyterian for getting into country clubs. Growing up wealthy and Irish Catholic was a good background for novelists of manners, such as F. Scott Fitzgerald and John O’Hara. Snobbish but insecure is a motivating combination for novelists.

Those may be interesting sociological and anthropological angles to pursue, but it has nothing to do with whether the relevant groups were considered to be white.

Here are some objective tests as to whether a group was historically considered “white” in the United States: Were members of the group allowed to go to “whites-only” schools in the South, or otherwise partake of the advantages that accrued to whites under Jim Crow? Were they ever segregated in schools by law, anywhere in the United States, such that “whites” went to one school, and the group in question was relegated to another? When laws banned interracial marriage in many states (not just in the South), if a white Anglo-Saxon wanted to marry a member of the group, would that have been against the law? Some labor unions restricted their membership to whites. Did such unions exclude members of the group in question? Were members of the group ever entirely excluded from being able to immigrate to the United States, or face special bans or restrictions in becoming citizens?

Being black was so much worse than being any flavor of white that this whole mythology ought to be considered racist.

… Indeed, some lighter-skinned African Americans of mixed heritage “passed” as white by claiming they were of Arab descent and that explained their relative swarthiness, showing that Arab Americans, another group whose “whiteness” has been questioned, were considered white.

The Ben Ali Stakes, an annual Kentucky horse race, has been run since 1917. It’s named after the socially prominent 19th Century horse racing enthusiast James Ben Ali Haggin, a lawyer who’d made a fortune out of the California gold rush. He was the grandson of the Ibrahim Ben Ali, a purported Ottoman Janissary officer who somehow or other wound up in Baltimore where he married a Baptist lady and practiced medicine. (I have no idea if Ibrahim’s colorful story is true.)

This is not to say that early Americans favored massive Ottoman immigration, but that being a rare Turk in America was considered exotic and kind of cool.

Similarly, Mozart’s librettist Lorenzo Da Ponte, a Jewish defrocked Catholic priest and pimp, was a huge hit with the locals when he finally washed up in New York City after a lifetime of misadventures had caused him to flee pretty much every other country he’d ever lived in one step ahead of the law or the debtor’s prison.

By contrast, persons of African, Asian, Mexican and Native American descent faced various degrees of exclusion from public schools and labor unions, bans on marriage and direct restrictions on immigration and citizenship.

In general, the more of a minority you were in a region, the more welcome you were. The closer you were to being a majority, the more discrimination against your kind. Being a Mexican in Schenectady was better than being a Mexican in the Rio Grande Valley. This rule of thumb even applies somewhat to blacks, but in general blacks were discriminated against everywhere.

… We know that light-skinned Cubans were considered white at least as of 1950 because (despite the trepidations of the studio) the public accepted Lucy and Ricky, in a way they would never have accepted a black-white or Chinese-white couple. American Indians were considered non-white, but if they assimilated and married whites their children were generally accepted as part of white society. Did you know that Will Rogers was 9/32 Cherokee?

In general, people these days are pretty bad about doing reality checks on the conventional wisdom.

When I’ve pointed this out to people, they often rejoin that people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries often referred to the “Irish race,” the “Italian race,” the “Jewish race.”

Americans seem to have completely forgotten that “race” started out meaning lineage. The English word “race” comes out of the horse race business. It probably traces back to an Arab word for descent or breed. The use of the word “race” for breed and for what Arab-derived Thoroughbreds are used for is not a coincidence.

We don’t bother to classify Thoroughbreds by color because we know their entire pedigree going back dozens of generations. In contrast, we classify people by color and other visible traits because we don’t know their family trees.

 
Hide 131 CommentsLeave a Comment
131 Comments to "The Flight from White"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. In my Dad’s time living in New York City in the late 40s and early 50s, Cubans and Latin Americans were politely referred to as being “copper-colored.” It’s a term he used often for those ethnicities, having grown up in the 1920s.

    No way they were considered to be white.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    In my Dad’s time living in New York City in the late 40s and early 50s, Cubans and Latin Americans were politely referred to as being “copper-colored.” It’s a term he used often for those ethnicities, having grown up in the 1920s.

    No way they were considered to be white.
     
    According to the Hays Code, Ricardo Montalban was White. If he hadn't been regarded as White, he never would have been allowed to have love scenes with White starlets. The same holds true for Jose Ferrer.


    And then there are the de Acosta sisters:Aida de Acosta Root Breckinridge, Mercedes de Acosta, Rita de Acosta Lydig. They were regarded as White.
    , @Stan Adams
    In 1988, a mini-scandal erupted during the Republican convention when George Bush referred to his half-Mexican grandkids as "the little brown ones":
    http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-17/news/mn-655_1_pride

    Nowadays, making that kind of offhand remark could destroy one's career.
    , @Colleen Pater
    Your dad must have been referring to puerto ricans, dominicans could be found in new york only by the 60s but are usually part negro. cubans and south americans are much rarer whiter than both if not pure white.Puerto ricans though are like roaches everywhere in new york and thats probably who your dad meant. west side story
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Lincoln’s speech on Dred Scott clearly implies that the Irish were unquestionably white in 1857:

    “Why, according to this, not only negroes but white people outside of Great Britain and America are not spoken of in that instrument . The English, Irish and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included to be sure, but the French, Germans and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the Judge’s ‘inferior races’. ”

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-the-dred-scott-decision/

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Chard
    Yes, exactly---what makes no sense to me about this whole "ethnics were once not white!!1!1" meme to me is that the term "white/the white race" was frequently used in speeches and writings pre-dating the Second World War. For example, in the 1790 immigration act that white nationalists love to cite, immigration was limited to "free white persons of good character", and presumably that allowed Irish immigrants to enter.

    However, while the specific point about Irish, Italians etc. not literally being considered white is wrong, I do think that progressives have a reasonable point underneath the nonsense. Racial/ethnic nationalists today have very different ideas about who the groups they want to protect are than people did in the 19th century, let alone the 17th or 12th century. For example, the difference between Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans was pretty important to Madison Grant, but I don't hear, say, Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Anglin talking too much about how Italians are a racial threat to Anglo-Saxons. But white nationalists like them today say that they're drawing the boundaries of their in-group on the basis of biology, and clearly the change in tribal identity from 1924 to 2017 is the result of changes in socialization rather than evolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization to white immigrants only.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

    So an easy test to see which groups were considered to be white is if they were allowed to become citizens. Of course, Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants were so allowed.

    Bernstein mentions pre-20th Century authors used terms like the “Irish race”, this is becuase before the 20th century the term race was synonymous with what we now call “ethnic group”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts

    “The word race itself is modern and was used in the sense of “nation, ethnic group” during the 16th to 19th century, and only acquired its modern meaning in the field of physical anthropology from the mid 19th century. “

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    So an easy test to see which groups were considered to be white is if they were allowed to become citizens. Of course, Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants were so allowed.


    An older entry in wikipedia for the 1790 Naturalization Act used to make this point. It specifically stated:

    Despite its racial restriction to "free whites," the Act was radical for the ease with which European immigrants could gain U.S. citizenship for themselves. Moreover, the U.S. extended full citizenship to Catholics 50 years before Great Britain and to Jewish immigrants before the French Revolution had done so. Nonetheless, racial barriers were put in place for certain immigrants, which were not removed until 1870 (for Africans) and until 1952 (for East and South Asians).
     
    Was the above passage deleted because it was wrong? Or because it contradicts the narrative of these whiteness studies?
    , @Corvinus
    "Bernstein mentions pre-20th Century authors used terms like the “Irish race”, this is becuase before the 20th century the term race was synonymous with what we now call “ethnic group”."

    Exactly. Ethnic groups, not breeds, as Sailor alluded to. Dogs breeds came about following decades and even centuries of selective breeding for specific traits. Humans on the other hand, have no such restrictions on reproduction, and as such distinct genetic subgroups are much less common, and much less distinct.

    Bernstein stated "When I’ve pointed this out to people, they often rejoin that people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries often referred to the “Irish race,” the “Italian race,” the “Jewish race.” That’s true, but they also referred to the “Anglo-Saxon race,” and the “Teutonic race,” the latter two generally considered to be superior. The racist pseudo-science of the day divided Europeans into various races by nationality or perceived nationality, and often created a hierarchy among those groups. But that was a racist hierarchy within the white group, not evidence that these groups weren’t considered to be white. This point is often obscured by the whiteness studies crowd, because racism within a white hierarchy conflicts with their understanding of American racism solely being about “whiteness.”

    So it would appear that nativists who called the Irish and the Italians as being other than white were in reality referring them to as being on the low end of the European white totem pole, as being white, but not a desired white, given the perception that both groups were viewed as being uncivilized, unskilled, and impoverished.

    "The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization to white immigrants only."

    Yet the Founding Fathers granted Congress the liberty to change that criteria to reflect future generations of Americans.
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    "Bernstein mentions pre-20th Century authors used terms like the “Irish race”, this is becuase before the 20th century the term race was synonymous with what we now call “ethnic group”

    That particular usage probably applied well into the 20th century. It calls to mind the scene from "The Untouchables" when Sean Connery's Malone refers to the Italian cop played by Andy Garcia as a "lying, thieving member of a no good race."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. It is common in “Whiteness studies” to claim that whiteness as a concept was created to discriminate against nonwhites.

    But really it is just an acknowledgement of assimilation. Various European ethnic groups gave up their native languages and melted into English speaking Anglo culture. White Americans mostly stopped discriminating between various European ancestries and became one group.

    That is to say, “whiteness” was the result of less discrimination, not more.

    White is thought of as a race, but in America whites are also an ethnic group. White Americans are as much a distinct ethnic group as French or Germans are in Europe.

    When we talk about the ethnic background of white people, we use terms like Italian-American. But Italian-Americans have little in common with European Italians. They don’t speak Italian, they don’t know much about Italian history, they don’t watch Italian movies, and so on.

    If you were to divide White Americans up into subgroups, it wouldn’t be by European ancestry. It would be into groups like White Southerners, urban hipsters, Mormons, suburbanites, and so on. The main divisions among American Whites are geographical and political, and only vaguely relate to European ancestory.

    Jews are probably the only exception to this, since the retain more of their identity. But even that is on a case by case basis: many Jews are very assimilated, other are proud of thinking of themselves as critical outsiders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    White is thought of as a race, but in America whites are also an ethnic group. White Americans are as much a distinct ethnic group as French or Germans are in Europe.
     
    Indeed. SJWs love to dilate on how, in contrast to, say, Irishness or Frenchness, "Whiteness" is an entirely arbitrary and artificial concept. The reality, of course, is quite different. Anglo-America has witnessed an enormous amount of intra-European mixing. Although there are Americans who are completely German, or English, or Italian, they are outnumbered by crossbreeds, Americans who are the end-product of two or more European ethnies (German+English, Irish+Italian, Polish+ Greek, etc). Indeed, I know some siblings who are 25% Italian, 25% Polish, 25% Ashkenazi, and 25% English.

    Whiteness in America is a biological reality.
    , @Anonymous

    White is thought of as a race, but in America whites are also an ethnic group. White Americans are as much a distinct ethnic group as French or Germans are in Europe.

    When we talk about the ethnic background of white people, we use terms like Italian-American. But Italian-Americans have little in common with European Italians. They don’t speak Italian, they don’t know much about Italian history, they don’t watch Italian movies, and so on.
     
    Italian-American doesn't refer to the Italian culture of Italy. It refers to an ethnic culture in the US that isn't completely identical to Italian.

    I wouldn't say white American is a distinct ethnicity like French or German. It may be in the future, but it isn't yet because the large scale mixing and dissolution of white ethnic groups in the US is relatively recent and ongoing, and because the culture of most white Americans today is largely based on the mass media popular and commercial culture that developed in the latter half of the 20th century which is generally not exclusive and accessible to everyone.
    , @AndrewR
    Language, history knowledge and film consumption [LMFAOOOOOO] are minor things. Values and customs matter far more.

    I don't know many "Italian-Americans", nor have I ever been to southern Italy, but my intuition is that your claim is highly false. Hopefully a more knowledgeable person can weigh in.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. 1. One reason the Left is all confused about this is because this is hard thinking, understanding nuances and such. The Left doesn’t want to think about these nuances, because their Crimestop kneejerk reaction makes it seem like they are getting into territory where they might have some BadThink. Which they probably would, especially if they started reading historical accounts about black violence and crime rates.

    2. Noel Ignatiev is a violent, murderous communist liar and conman who has called for the “destruction” of the white race. The fact that people have given his words any legitimacy is a sign of how depraved our times are.

    3. The Left can’t seem to make up it”s mind whether it wants certain whites to be on their side or wants them to be Othered.

    4. The book Common Ground is a Pulitzer-prize winning nonfiction book by J. Anthony Lukas that details the history of 1970s Boston when the ethnic cleansing known as school busing was put into effect. It is told from three persons point of view: the Liberal-WASP Harvard lawyer who tries to move into the city and live by his own creed; a black women in the black section of town whose life spins from poor into misery; and an Irish-American woman in heavily-Irish Charlestown (a section of Boston), who opposes the busing through legal means and sees her neighborhood broken down and the racial animus increase as busing is forced down their throats.

    One point that is noted offhand by Lukas, despite media depictions of the Irish in Charlestown as the most racist people since Bull Connor had a baby with Hitler, is that Charlestown had a Chinese laundrymat for decades before busing began, but not a single racial incident occurred, and, indeed the Chinese guy who ran the place was accepted by the community and was left alone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @william munny
    "3. The Left can’t seem to make up it”s mind whether it wants certain whites to be on their side or wants them to be Othered."

    I agree. Some of them continue to argue that the Irish and Italians are no different than Mexicans and Hondurans, and one day we will look back in horror at how we thought Mexicans and Hondurans were somehow less American than the Daughters of the American Revolution. On the other hand, some of them argue that the only reason that the Irish and Italians succeeded so quickly is because of their whiteness.

    Which is it?

    They are afraid to pick an argument and stick with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. As far as Will Rogers goes, in Oklahoma being part AmInd was no big deal. He got into movies via vaudeville (where it didn’t matter either), and by the time he was big no-one cared.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    As far as Will Rogers goes, in Oklahoma being part AmInd was no big deal. He got into movies via vaudeville (where it didn’t matter either), and by the time he was big no-one cared.
     
    Nor did they care about Charles Curtis (Hoover's VP) :

    Charles Curtis (January 25, 1860 – February 8, 1936) was an American attorney and politician, elected as the 31st Vice President of the United States (1929–33) with President Herbert Hoover.
    After serving as a United States Representative and being repeatedly re-elected as United States Senator from Kansas, Curtis was chosen as Senate Majority Leader by his Republican colleagues. Born in Kansas Territory to a mother of the Kaw Nation, Curtis was the first person with significant Native American ancestry and the first person with acknowledged non-European ancestry to reach either of the highest offices in the United States government's executive branch. He is notable also as an Executive Branch officer born in a territory rather than a state.
     

    Born on January 25, 1860 in Topeka, Kansas Territory, prior to its admission as a state in January 1861, Charles Curtis had considerable American Indian ancestry. His mother Ellen Papin (also spelled Pappan) was Kaw, Osage, Potawatomi, and French.[1][2] His father Orren Curtis was of English, Scots, and Welsh ancestry.[3] On his mother's side, Curtis was a descendant of chief White Plume of the Kaw Nation and chief Pawhuska of the Osage
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Curtis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. A very sound article. Some stray observations:

    This is not to say that being Irish Catholic was quite as ideal as being WASP or Scottish Presbyterian for getting into country clubs.

    In the USA, a distinction without a difference. Scots Presbyterians are folded into WASPdom. The same holds true for the Welch, Protestant Irish, descendants of Huguenots, descendants of the colonial Dutch, etc

    I think they mean: could you get into the best country club in town?

    Deep wounds, man. You’ll never understand the pain that comes from knowing that your great-grandfather was blackballed by (insert name of locally prestigious club here)

    … We know that light-skinned Cubans were considered white at least as of 1950 because (despite the trepidations of the studio) the public accepted Lucy and Ricky, in a way they would never have accepted a black-white or Chinese-white couple. American Indians were considered non-white, but if they assimilated and married whites their children were generally accepted as part of white society. Did you know that Will Rogers was 9/32 Cherokee?

    White Hispanics were regarded as White long before that. Cf the Hollywood careers of such White Hispanics as Cesar Romero, Lupe Velez, Dolores del Río, Ramón Novarro , etc. And then there are prominent Hispanic socialites like the de Acosta sisters:Aida de Acosta Root Breckinridge, Mercedes de Acosta, Rita de Acosta Lydig

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_de_Acosta_Lydig

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aida_de_Acosta

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes_de_Acosta

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Nice post. I read it hurriedly, but parts definitely ring true.

    In _Down these mean streets_ by Piri Thomas, he describes his anger at a pretty female friend of his who proclaimed her freedom thusly: “I can do what I want. I’m free, white, and 21.” Thomas was dark enough be non-white by New York standards, and his friend’s words were deeply wounding. If I recall, his friend was a very light skinned Cuban, and Thomas was a dark-skinned Hispanic of mixed Cuban and Puerto Rican ancestry.

    = – = – =

    I think it’s tough to generalize about in-groups and out-groups within the phenotypically white masses because of the tendency of waves of immigrants who entered the U.S. (or the cash economy) in different decades, or went into different economic sectors, and jostled over different occupational niches.

    The evidence tends to come from ethnographies and impressionistic memoirs. Who could or couldn’t marry each other, who got turned away from some employers while others were more welcome there.

    Which church congregations split over ethnic animosity. Which Jews were or were not a bit more acceptable–Germans? Hungarians? Russians? Litvaks?

    = – = – =

    Recently I’ve head that “Germans could work at Kodak, but Italians found it hard to get hired there, and thus they ended up at Rochester Products.” Or apparently in construction.

    = – = – =

    Getting back to the Irish, tt’s pretty obvious that there was intense animosity against them at times. The claim that they were not seen as “white” seems far less plausible.

    One of the best popular (and linkable) essays on the Irish is here. It’s triumphalist and whiggish–an entertaining read.

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-dagger-john-saved-new-york%E2%80%99s-irish-11934.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. @Spotted Toad
    Lincoln's speech on Dred Scott clearly implies that the Irish were unquestionably white in 1857:

    "Why, according to this, not only negroes but white people outside of Great Britain and America are not spoken of in that instrument . The English, Irish and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included to be sure, but the French, Germans and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the Judge’s 'inferior races'. "
    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-the-dred-scott-decision/

    Yes, exactly—what makes no sense to me about this whole “ethnics were once not white!!1!1″ meme to me is that the term “white/the white race” was frequently used in speeches and writings pre-dating the Second World War. For example, in the 1790 immigration act that white nationalists love to cite, immigration was limited to “free white persons of good character”, and presumably that allowed Irish immigrants to enter.

    However, while the specific point about Irish, Italians etc. not literally being considered white is wrong, I do think that progressives have a reasonable point underneath the nonsense. Racial/ethnic nationalists today have very different ideas about who the groups they want to protect are than people did in the 19th century, let alone the 17th or 12th century. For example, the difference between Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans was pretty important to Madison Grant, but I don’t hear, say, Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Anglin talking too much about how Italians are a racial threat to Anglo-Saxons. But white nationalists like them today say that they’re drawing the boundaries of their in-group on the basis of biology, and clearly the change in tribal identity from 1924 to 2017 is the result of changes in socialization rather than evolution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Since I got arthritis, I talk about going to the gym to avoid early death instead of going to reach performance goals. You can argue over whether or not I've become "socialized" to being less active, but real, irreversible changes took place in my body.
    , @Thrasymachus
    VDare still considers Italians and Irish a threat.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Perhaps MacDonald and the like know that they have zero chance if they exclude and alienate the tens of millions of proud white European-descended Americans who are NOT English, Scottish, Irish, or Welsh. Like me.
    , @ben tillman

    However, while the specific point about Irish, Italians etc. not literally being considered white is wrong, I do think that progressives have a reasonable point underneath the nonsense. Racial/ethnic nationalists today have very different ideas about who the groups they want to protect are than people did in the 19th century, let alone the 17th or 12th century. For example, the difference between Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans was pretty important to Madison Grant, but I don’t hear, say, Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Anglin talking too much about how Italians are a racial threat to Anglo-Saxons. But white nationalists like them today say that they’re drawing the boundaries of their in-group on the basis of biology, and clearly the change in tribal identity from 1924 to 2017 is the result of changes in socialization rather than evolution.
     
    You can read MacDonald's What Makes Western Culture Unique and come up with a good definition of "white" or "Western white", but the salient definition is set by our antagonists. Whites are those who are under attack a for being "white".

    While there are certainly differences among the constituent nationalities and sub-nationalities, they pale in importance (at least for the time being) compared to the external common threat. All those attacked as "whites" must fight together as "whites".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @PiltdownMan
    In my Dad's time living in New York City in the late 40s and early 50s, Cubans and Latin Americans were politely referred to as being "copper-colored." It's a term he used often for those ethnicities, having grown up in the 1920s.

    No way they were considered to be white.

    In my Dad’s time living in New York City in the late 40s and early 50s, Cubans and Latin Americans were politely referred to as being “copper-colored.” It’s a term he used often for those ethnicities, having grown up in the 1920s.

    No way they were considered to be white.

    According to the Hays Code, Ricardo Montalban was White. If he hadn’t been regarded as White, he never would have been allowed to have love scenes with White starlets. The same holds true for Jose Ferrer.

    And then there are the de Acosta sisters:Aida de Acosta Root Breckinridge, Mercedes de Acosta, Rita de Acosta Lydig. They were regarded as White.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Even Anthony Quinn was considered white, even though he had very obvious Amerindian features.
    , @anonymous

    According to the Hays Code, Ricardo Montalban was White.
     
    That's because he was white.

    Montalbán was born on November 25, 1920 in Mexico City and grew up in Torreón,[6] the son of Spanish immigrants Ricarda Merino Jiménez and Genaro Balbino Montalbán Busano,

    He was a European. Keep in mind some whites affect a look that can make them look less white. For example, George Hamilton is known for his year-round tans. Then there is Don Francisco of Sabado Gigante fame. Born Mario Luis Kreutzberger, his parents were Eastern European Jews fleeing the Nazis. Had he been born in NYC, he'd be just another Jackie Mason. But with the hair, tan and clothing, he comes across as being quite mestizo looking.

    , @AndrewR
    Being white is conducive to being perceived as white.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Drake
    The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization to white immigrants only.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

    So an easy test to see which groups were considered to be white is if they were allowed to become citizens. Of course, Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants were so allowed.

    Bernstein mentions pre-20th Century authors used terms like the "Irish race", this is becuase before the 20th century the term race was synonymous with what we now call "ethnic group"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts

    "The word race itself is modern and was used in the sense of "nation, ethnic group" during the 16th to 19th century, and only acquired its modern meaning in the field of physical anthropology from the mid 19th century. "
     

    So an easy test to see which groups were considered to be white is if they were allowed to become citizens. Of course, Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants were so allowed.

    An older entry in wikipedia for the 1790 Naturalization Act used to make this point. It specifically stated:

    Despite its racial restriction to “free whites,” the Act was radical for the ease with which European immigrants could gain U.S. citizenship for themselves. Moreover, the U.S. extended full citizenship to Catholics 50 years before Great Britain and to Jewish immigrants before the French Revolution had done so. Nonetheless, racial barriers were put in place for certain immigrants, which were not removed until 1870 (for Africans) and until 1952 (for East and South Asians).

    Was the above passage deleted because it was wrong? Or because it contradicts the narrative of these whiteness studies?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. I grew up in a mostly second/third generation immigrant neighborhood in Philadelphia. There were Italians, Irish, Germans, and more deeply rooted English kids there. They have discernable phenotypes. You didn’t really didn’t have to know that a kid who just moved into the neighborhood was Italian by knowing his last name was DiMarcantonio. The hair color, complexion, facial features, and the slight accent he picked up from his folks signalled that very clearly.

    Steve grew up in the more mature and eclectic San Fernando Valley so I’m not sure he had the same first-impression sense of the differences among Europeans. But he does notice, so I could be wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I grew up in a mostly second/third generation immigrant neighborhood in Philadelphia. There were Italians, Irish, Germans, and more deeply rooted English kids there. They have discernable phenotypes. You didn’t really didn’t have to know that a kid who just moved into the neighborhood was Italian by knowing his last name was DiMarcantonio. The hair color, complexion, facial features, and the slight accent he picked up from his folks signalled that very clearly.

    Steve grew up in the more mature and eclectic San Fernando Valley so I’m not sure he had the same first-impression sense of the differences among Europeans. But he does notice, so I could be wrong.
     
    General rule is that intra-White ethnic differences lose salience once you cross the Mississippi. The San Francisco Bay Area used to be a partial exception, as Italian and Irish enclaves persisted for a while post WW2.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. On the other hand, hardcore white nationalists will still claim that Ashkenazi Jews are nonwhite, so there is clearly a distinction to be made between the way in which the law defines whiteness (Jews, Arabs, and Turks are “white”) and the way the self-appointed advocates of white people do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    On the other hand, hardcore white nationalists will still claim that Ashkenazi Jews are nonwhite, so there is clearly a distinction to be made between the way in which the law defines whiteness (Jews, Arabs, and Turks are “white”) and the way the self-appointed advocates of white people do so.
     
    Dunno. I've had lots of online conversations with "hardcore white nationalists," and they've never made noises about me being half Ashkenazi....
    , @neutral

    so there is clearly a distinction to be made between the way in which the law defines whiteness (Jews, Arabs, and Turks are “white”) and the way the self-appointed advocates of white people do so.
     
    And how are the people that made those laws also not self-appointed advocates ? I think it was Sailer that wrote here that the MENA people were made white so that jews don't face discrimination. I don't consider MENA people as being white, frankly I find it ludicrous to define them as white, the fact that they now want to flee from the definition should be more than enough to see that they are not really white.
    , @RadicalCenter
    One need not be a "self-appointed advocate of white people" to consider Arabs and Turks to be NOT white genetically and culturally. This need not be a negative observation, just an obvious one supported by observation, experience, and now genetic testing.

    By the way, who exactly should "appoint" each of us as advocates for the people, rights, interests, and culture that we wish to protect, if not each person deciding for himself what social/political activism to pursue ("self-appointed")?
    , @SFG
    Honestly, Jews would be white if they didn't keep trumpeting liberal causes. They're barely darker than Italians. There are no white nationalist conspiracy theories about Turks because every other annoying SJW isn't Turkish.
    , @anon

    On the other hand, hardcore white nationalists will still claim that Ashkenazi Jews are nonwhite,
     
    Jews in the media and academia are constantly attacking Eurowhite people.

    Maybe that has something to do with it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Drake
    It is common in "Whiteness studies" to claim that whiteness as a concept was created to discriminate against nonwhites.

    But really it is just an acknowledgement of assimilation. Various European ethnic groups gave up their native languages and melted into English speaking Anglo culture. White Americans mostly stopped discriminating between various European ancestries and became one group.

    That is to say, "whiteness" was the result of less discrimination, not more.

    White is thought of as a race, but in America whites are also an ethnic group. White Americans are as much a distinct ethnic group as French or Germans are in Europe.

    When we talk about the ethnic background of white people, we use terms like Italian-American. But Italian-Americans have little in common with European Italians. They don't speak Italian, they don't know much about Italian history, they don't watch Italian movies, and so on.

    If you were to divide White Americans up into subgroups, it wouldn't be by European ancestry. It would be into groups like White Southerners, urban hipsters, Mormons, suburbanites, and so on. The main divisions among American Whites are geographical and political, and only vaguely relate to European ancestory.

    Jews are probably the only exception to this, since the retain more of their identity. But even that is on a case by case basis: many Jews are very assimilated, other are proud of thinking of themselves as critical outsiders.

    White is thought of as a race, but in America whites are also an ethnic group. White Americans are as much a distinct ethnic group as French or Germans are in Europe.

    Indeed. SJWs love to dilate on how, in contrast to, say, Irishness or Frenchness, “Whiteness” is an entirely arbitrary and artificial concept. The reality, of course, is quite different. Anglo-America has witnessed an enormous amount of intra-European mixing. Although there are Americans who are completely German, or English, or Italian, they are outnumbered by crossbreeds, Americans who are the end-product of two or more European ethnies (German+English, Irish+Italian, Polish+ Greek, etc). Indeed, I know some siblings who are 25% Italian, 25% Polish, 25% Ashkenazi, and 25% English.

    Whiteness in America is a biological reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @william munny
    That is common were I live, because so many different immigrant groups came and stayed, and their children and grandchildren could not be bothered to marry within the group. Kids commonly have four grandparents from four or more different parts of Europe. My own kids are German, Italian, Sicilian, English, Polish, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, and Irish. They range from a blue-eyed blond to an almost swarthy brunette.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Exactly. I don't know many white Americans who are all from one ethny, i.e. all English or all German or all Italian or all Polish.

    Genetically, I'm Italian, German, and Slavic, and I know MANY people with similar mixtures.

    Both America and Americans benefitted from the immigration & assimilation of large numbers of non-British whites and the subsequent massive inter-marriage between British-descended and other whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. TGGP says: • Website

    I don’t have a high opinion of the comments here (although I suppose that also applies to most sites), but on the other hand that’s how I found out about Defining America’s Racial Boundaries: Blacks, Mexicans, and European Immigrants, 1890–1945 by Cybelle Fox and Thomas A. Guglielmo, which effectively demolished this nonsense years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jJay
    From your link TGGP, by teageegeepea:


    My comment no longer appears at Reason, but I tried pointing out to Ron Bailey that even turn-of-the-century racialists who embraced the concepts of “Nordic”, “Alpine” and “Mediterranean” still considered European immigrants to be white.

     

    It's pretty hard to get a comment deleted from Reason. Ron Bailey doesn't accept the HBD premise and I have commented on his articles in disagreement. He argues back at me. He doesn't delete the my comments. Whatever, that just struck me as a bit fishy.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    I don’t have a high opinion of the comments here
     
    In the past, we used to have some high-quality thinkers visit this site and complain. These were people who claimed to have a low opinion of the commenting here, i.e., they shared your sentiment. They employed logic in service of reason, experience in service of empiricism and the scientific method in service of knowledge acquisition. They were hopelessly wrong, but at least they had the potential to be right.

    Now, we have retards like you popping a swollen head out of the fever swamps, wrong, and with no potential to be right.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. It’s the Coalition of the Fringes trying to recruit Italians, Irish and other white ‘ethnic’ gentiles away from the core and into the fringe.

    CultMarx and Neocon Jews already consider themselves non-white when it comes to this distinction. Their offer comprises a carrot and a stick to the white ‘ethnic’ gentiles.

    If they join the coalition of victimized identity groups, they get the carrot of being on the side of the takers when our Zimbabwean future arrives and the Truth and Reconciliation Regime exercises its power.

    If they stay assimilated to the core, then the stick will be to be grouped with the ‘oppressors’ from whom social justice must be extracted when the settling of accounts happens.

    If they do support the Coalition of the Fringes in its quest for power, then naturally they will be betrayed when the time comes.

    True black and brown peoples will not concede the equivalence of position with white ‘ethnic’ gentiles when “who” and “whom” is finally determined, and the radical leaders of the movement will have enough on their hands simply to ensure the security of their own position.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kyle McKenna
    • Replies: @Skeptic

    It’s the Coalition of the Fringes trying to recruit Italians, Irish and other white ‘ethnic’ gentiles away from the core and into the fringe.
     
    I agree. That's the motivation
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Sorry, but the Irish were always ‘white’ (and so were Italians, Jews and so on)

    This is not true for the jews, their origins are from the middle east, the early jews would not have been considered white. Then there are the jews from Ethiopia, nobody in America (then and now) would have considered them white.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Sorry, but the Irish were always ‘white’ (and so were Italians, Jews and so on)

    This is not true for the jews, their origins are from the middle east, the early jews would not have been considered white. Then there are the jews from Ethiopia, nobody in America (then and now) would have considered them white.
     
    He's talking about Jews in the context of the USA. Jews from Europe have always been regarded as White in the USA.

    And people from the Middle East have a long history of being counted as White in the USA and Europe. For example, Christians like William Peter Blatty and Danny Thomas (both Lebanese).
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    Jews from Ethopia are "Jews" in the same way that Richard Gere is Tibetan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @syonredux

    In my Dad’s time living in New York City in the late 40s and early 50s, Cubans and Latin Americans were politely referred to as being “copper-colored.” It’s a term he used often for those ethnicities, having grown up in the 1920s.

    No way they were considered to be white.
     
    According to the Hays Code, Ricardo Montalban was White. If he hadn't been regarded as White, he never would have been allowed to have love scenes with White starlets. The same holds true for Jose Ferrer.


    And then there are the de Acosta sisters:Aida de Acosta Root Breckinridge, Mercedes de Acosta, Rita de Acosta Lydig. They were regarded as White.

    Even Anthony Quinn was considered white, even though he had very obvious Amerindian features.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    I guess he was white while he was banging Cecille B. DeMille's daughter.
    , @Alden
    Both Quinn's paternal grandparents were Irish hence the Irish last name. Maternal grandmother was an Indian servant. Maternal grandfather was the more or less White Hispanic son of the house in which grandma worked

    So he was half Irish, 1/4 Indian and 1/4 a White Hispanic. His face was Indian but his height and build were very European.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. The main divisions among American Whites are geographical and political, and only vaguely relate to European ancestory.

    Maybe not so “vaguely”:

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/the-genetics-of-the-american-nations/

    Genetic differences between groups of people, once established, persist as long as the different groups do until diluted or erased by admixture (this is known as the Founder effect). As well, new differences can emerge within a single population as selective migration leads this initial population to fission into two or more daughter populations (see here and here – more on that to follow).

    In short, tiny genetic differences between two groups of people can lead to large differences in behavioral traits. This extents to all facets of human behavior – a point driven home by a recent paper correlating linguistic diversity across Europe with genetic diversity there (Longobardi et al, 2015).

    But why do the American nations follow the pattern that they do? It turns out that this pattern was hardly a coincidence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. GW says:

    Some greatly needed common sense.

    Watching people fail to understand that the term “race” both historically and currently can apply in a broad sense (i.e. Europeans) or more general sense (i.e. English) has left me disillusioned with the merits of universal education. We aren’t talking about high levels of nuance here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    In my Dad’s time living in New York City in the late 40s and early 50s, Cubans and Latin Americans were politely referred to as being “copper-colored.” It’s a term he used often for those ethnicities, having grown up in the 1920s.

    No way they were considered to be white.
     
    According to the Hays Code, Ricardo Montalban was White. If he hadn't been regarded as White, he never would have been allowed to have love scenes with White starlets. The same holds true for Jose Ferrer.


    And then there are the de Acosta sisters:Aida de Acosta Root Breckinridge, Mercedes de Acosta, Rita de Acosta Lydig. They were regarded as White.

    According to the Hays Code, Ricardo Montalban was White.

    That’s because he was white.

    Montalbán was born on November 25, 1920 in Mexico City and grew up in Torreón,[6] the son of Spanish immigrants Ricarda Merino Jiménez and Genaro Balbino Montalbán Busano,

    He was a European. Keep in mind some whites affect a look that can make them look less white. For example, George Hamilton is known for his year-round tans. Then there is Don Francisco of Sabado Gigante fame. Born Mario Luis Kreutzberger, his parents were Eastern European Jews fleeing the Nazis. Had he been born in NYC, he’d be just another Jackie Mason. But with the hair, tan and clothing, he comes across as being quite mestizo looking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @neutral

    Sorry, but the Irish were always ‘white’ (and so were Italians, Jews and so on)
     
    This is not true for the jews, their origins are from the middle east, the early jews would not have been considered white. Then there are the jews from Ethiopia, nobody in America (then and now) would have considered them white.

    Sorry, but the Irish were always ‘white’ (and so were Italians, Jews and so on)

    This is not true for the jews, their origins are from the middle east, the early jews would not have been considered white. Then there are the jews from Ethiopia, nobody in America (then and now) would have considered them white.

    He’s talking about Jews in the context of the USA. Jews from Europe have always been regarded as White in the USA.

    And people from the Middle East have a long history of being counted as White in the USA and Europe. For example, Christians like William Peter Blatty and Danny Thomas (both Lebanese).

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    No way have Americans considered "most" Middle Easterners to be white. Not by a long shot. This is neither a good nor bad thing, just an observation.

    Americans have done so in a limited number of cases where the Middle Eastern person was relatively light-skinned and also Christian, rarely where the Middle Eastern person was extremely Semitic or Arab-looking and almost never where the person was Muslim.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Drake
    The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization to white immigrants only.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

    So an easy test to see which groups were considered to be white is if they were allowed to become citizens. Of course, Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants were so allowed.

    Bernstein mentions pre-20th Century authors used terms like the "Irish race", this is becuase before the 20th century the term race was synonymous with what we now call "ethnic group"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts

    "The word race itself is modern and was used in the sense of "nation, ethnic group" during the 16th to 19th century, and only acquired its modern meaning in the field of physical anthropology from the mid 19th century. "
     

    “Bernstein mentions pre-20th Century authors used terms like the “Irish race”, this is becuase before the 20th century the term race was synonymous with what we now call “ethnic group”.”

    Exactly. Ethnic groups, not breeds, as Sailor alluded to. Dogs breeds came about following decades and even centuries of selective breeding for specific traits. Humans on the other hand, have no such restrictions on reproduction, and as such distinct genetic subgroups are much less common, and much less distinct.

    Bernstein stated “When I’ve pointed this out to people, they often rejoin that people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries often referred to the “Irish race,” the “Italian race,” the “Jewish race.” That’s true, but they also referred to the “Anglo-Saxon race,” and the “Teutonic race,” the latter two generally considered to be superior. The racist pseudo-science of the day divided Europeans into various races by nationality or perceived nationality, and often created a hierarchy among those groups. But that was a racist hierarchy within the white group, not evidence that these groups weren’t considered to be white. This point is often obscured by the whiteness studies crowd, because racism within a white hierarchy conflicts with their understanding of American racism solely being about “whiteness.”

    So it would appear that nativists who called the Irish and the Italians as being other than white were in reality referring them to as being on the low end of the European white totem pole, as being white, but not a desired white, given the perception that both groups were viewed as being uncivilized, unskilled, and impoverished.

    “The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization to white immigrants only.”

    Yet the Founding Fathers granted Congress the liberty to change that criteria to reflect future generations of Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew

    Dogs breeds came about following decades and even centuries of selective breeding for specific traits. Humans on the other hand, have no such restrictions on reproduction, and as such distinct genetic subgroups are much less common, and much less distinct.
     
    You are correct that most dog breeds are little genetic islands some fifty generations old.

    What you disregard, though, is that until recently, Scandinavians and Australian Aborigines bred independently for some two thousand generations! Chinese and Bushmen, maybe four thousand generations.

    True, dogs were paired deliberately to promote certain characteristics. But what the hand of man did to dogs, pressure to adapt to different natural and social environments did to people.

    So if dog breeds "exist", human races exist all the more.

    , @Mr. Anon
    "Yet the Founding Fathers granted Congress the liberty to change that criteria to reflect future generations of Americans."

    Because they deemed it unthinkable that America would ever be inundated by Mexicans, or Musselmen, or anybody not white and chrisitan. They didn't explicity ban gay marriage either, or say that sex is biologically determined. That doesn't mean they ever thought that someday two dudes would want to get married, or that a dude would demand to be recognized as a chick. The founders were handicapped by sanity, which rendered them unsuited to set rules for a country that has - as this one has - lost its' mind. They didn't reckon on idiots like you.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Selvar
    On the other hand, hardcore white nationalists will still claim that Ashkenazi Jews are nonwhite, so there is clearly a distinction to be made between the way in which the law defines whiteness (Jews, Arabs, and Turks are "white") and the way the self-appointed advocates of white people do so.

    On the other hand, hardcore white nationalists will still claim that Ashkenazi Jews are nonwhite, so there is clearly a distinction to be made between the way in which the law defines whiteness (Jews, Arabs, and Turks are “white”) and the way the self-appointed advocates of white people do so.

    Dunno. I’ve had lots of online conversations with “hardcore white nationalists,” and they’ve never made noises about me being half Ashkenazi….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @jJay
    I grew up in a mostly second/third generation immigrant neighborhood in Philadelphia. There were Italians, Irish, Germans, and more deeply rooted English kids there. They have discernable phenotypes. You didn't really didn't have to know that a kid who just moved into the neighborhood was Italian by knowing his last name was DiMarcantonio. The hair color, complexion, facial features, and the slight accent he picked up from his folks signalled that very clearly.

    Steve grew up in the more mature and eclectic San Fernando Valley so I'm not sure he had the same first-impression sense of the differences among Europeans. But he does notice, so I could be wrong.

    I grew up in a mostly second/third generation immigrant neighborhood in Philadelphia. There were Italians, Irish, Germans, and more deeply rooted English kids there. They have discernable phenotypes. You didn’t really didn’t have to know that a kid who just moved into the neighborhood was Italian by knowing his last name was DiMarcantonio. The hair color, complexion, facial features, and the slight accent he picked up from his folks signalled that very clearly.

    Steve grew up in the more mature and eclectic San Fernando Valley so I’m not sure he had the same first-impression sense of the differences among Europeans. But he does notice, so I could be wrong.

    General rule is that intra-White ethnic differences lose salience once you cross the Mississippi. The San Francisco Bay Area used to be a partial exception, as Italian and Irish enclaves persisted for a while post WW2.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    General rule is that intra-White ethnic differences lose salience once you cross the Mississippi.
     
    The Mississippi? Try the Mason-Dixon line.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @TGGP
    I don't have a high opinion of the comments here (although I suppose that also applies to most sites), but on the other hand that's how I found out about Defining America’s Racial Boundaries: Blacks, Mexicans, and European Immigrants, 1890–1945 by Cybelle Fox and Thomas A. Guglielmo, which effectively demolished this nonsense years ago.

    From your link TGGP, by teageegeepea:

    My comment no longer appears at Reason, but I tried pointing out to Ron Bailey that even turn-of-the-century racialists who embraced the concepts of “Nordic”, “Alpine” and “Mediterranean” still considered European immigrants to be white.

    It’s pretty hard to get a comment deleted from Reason. Ron Bailey doesn’t accept the HBD premise and I have commented on his articles in disagreement. He argues back at me. He doesn’t delete the my comments. Whatever, that just struck me as a bit fishy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TGGP
    It's long enough ago that I don't remember the details, but it might have just been a technical issue.
    , @Milo Minderbinder
    It could just be the notoriously bad Reason.com commenting system. When Bailey first posted his review of "A Troublesome Inheritance" a whole bunch of comments disappeared in to the aether.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @The Only Catholic Unionist
    As far as Will Rogers goes, in Oklahoma being part AmInd was no big deal. He got into movies via vaudeville (where it didn't matter either), and by the time he was big no-one cared.

    As far as Will Rogers goes, in Oklahoma being part AmInd was no big deal. He got into movies via vaudeville (where it didn’t matter either), and by the time he was big no-one cared.

    Nor did they care about Charles Curtis (Hoover’s VP) :

    Charles Curtis (January 25, 1860 – February 8, 1936) was an American attorney and politician, elected as the 31st Vice President of the United States (1929–33) with President Herbert Hoover.
    After serving as a United States Representative and being repeatedly re-elected as United States Senator from Kansas, Curtis was chosen as Senate Majority Leader by his Republican colleagues. Born in Kansas Territory to a mother of the Kaw Nation, Curtis was the first person with significant Native American ancestry and the first person with acknowledged non-European ancestry to reach either of the highest offices in the United States government’s executive branch. He is notable also as an Executive Branch officer born in a territory rather than a state.

    Born on January 25, 1860 in Topeka, Kansas Territory, prior to its admission as a state in January 1861, Charles Curtis had considerable American Indian ancestry. His mother Ellen Papin (also spelled Pappan) was Kaw, Osage, Potawatomi, and French.[1][2] His father Orren Curtis was of English, Scots, and Welsh ancestry.[3] On his mother’s side, Curtis was a descendant of chief White Plume of the Kaw Nation and chief Pawhuska of the Osage

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Curtis

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. The Italian family in It’s a Wonderful Life, who got their mortgage from George Bailey, were definitely portrayed as not-quite-white, more life a Mexican peasant family complete with goat.

    The movie was directed and produced by Frank Capra, whose name means “goat,” so go figure. And he looks not-quite-white in his Wikipedia photo, like a swarthy Cuban creole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The Italian family in It’s a Wonderful Life, who got their mortgage from George Bailey, were definitely portrayed as not-quite-white, more life a Mexican peasant family complete with goat.

    The movie was directed and produced by Frank Capra, whose name means “goat,” so go figure. And he looks not-quite-white in his Wikipedia photo, like a swarthy Cuban creole.
     
    I think that you mean that they don't look Northern European. There are lots of swarthy White people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Drake
    It is common in "Whiteness studies" to claim that whiteness as a concept was created to discriminate against nonwhites.

    But really it is just an acknowledgement of assimilation. Various European ethnic groups gave up their native languages and melted into English speaking Anglo culture. White Americans mostly stopped discriminating between various European ancestries and became one group.

    That is to say, "whiteness" was the result of less discrimination, not more.

    White is thought of as a race, but in America whites are also an ethnic group. White Americans are as much a distinct ethnic group as French or Germans are in Europe.

    When we talk about the ethnic background of white people, we use terms like Italian-American. But Italian-Americans have little in common with European Italians. They don't speak Italian, they don't know much about Italian history, they don't watch Italian movies, and so on.

    If you were to divide White Americans up into subgroups, it wouldn't be by European ancestry. It would be into groups like White Southerners, urban hipsters, Mormons, suburbanites, and so on. The main divisions among American Whites are geographical and political, and only vaguely relate to European ancestory.

    Jews are probably the only exception to this, since the retain more of their identity. But even that is on a case by case basis: many Jews are very assimilated, other are proud of thinking of themselves as critical outsiders.

    White is thought of as a race, but in America whites are also an ethnic group. White Americans are as much a distinct ethnic group as French or Germans are in Europe.

    When we talk about the ethnic background of white people, we use terms like Italian-American. But Italian-Americans have little in common with European Italians. They don’t speak Italian, they don’t know much about Italian history, they don’t watch Italian movies, and so on.

    Italian-American doesn’t refer to the Italian culture of Italy. It refers to an ethnic culture in the US that isn’t completely identical to Italian.

    I wouldn’t say white American is a distinct ethnicity like French or German. It may be in the future, but it isn’t yet because the large scale mixing and dissolution of white ethnic groups in the US is relatively recent and ongoing, and because the culture of most white Americans today is largely based on the mass media popular and commercial culture that developed in the latter half of the 20th century which is generally not exclusive and accessible to everyone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Selvar
    On the other hand, hardcore white nationalists will still claim that Ashkenazi Jews are nonwhite, so there is clearly a distinction to be made between the way in which the law defines whiteness (Jews, Arabs, and Turks are "white") and the way the self-appointed advocates of white people do so.

    so there is clearly a distinction to be made between the way in which the law defines whiteness (Jews, Arabs, and Turks are “white”) and the way the self-appointed advocates of white people do so.

    And how are the people that made those laws also not self-appointed advocates ? I think it was Sailer that wrote here that the MENA people were made white so that jews don’t face discrimination. I don’t consider MENA people as being white, frankly I find it ludicrous to define them as white, the fact that they now want to flee from the definition should be more than enough to see that they are not really white.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I don’t consider MENA people as being white, frankly I find it ludicrous to define them as white,
     
    And yet everyone regarded Danny Thomas and his daughter Marlo as White.....
    , @syonredux

    the fact that they now want to flee from the definition should be more than enough to see that they are not really white.
     
    Everyone wants to flee from being White these days. I know lots of Irish SJW academics who would love for the Irish to be classified as something other than White.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. […] Steve Sailer links to a Washington Post piece which takes on the claim that the Irish were not always considered White.  Funny, I had a post ready to go in which I mention, once again, that silly canard. (My post was to have been about widely-believed myths.) […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. @Achilles
    It's the Coalition of the Fringes trying to recruit Italians, Irish and other white 'ethnic' gentiles away from the core and into the fringe.

    CultMarx and Neocon Jews already consider themselves non-white when it comes to this distinction. Their offer comprises a carrot and a stick to the white 'ethnic' gentiles.

    If they join the coalition of victimized identity groups, they get the carrot of being on the side of the takers when our Zimbabwean future arrives and the Truth and Reconciliation Regime exercises its power.

    If they stay assimilated to the core, then the stick will be to be grouped with the 'oppressors' from whom social justice must be extracted when the settling of accounts happens.

    If they do support the Coalition of the Fringes in its quest for power, then naturally they will be betrayed when the time comes.

    True black and brown peoples will not concede the equivalence of position with white 'ethnic' gentiles when "who" and "whom" is finally determined, and the radical leaders of the movement will have enough on their hands simply to ensure the security of their own position.

    It’s the Coalition of the Fringes trying to recruit Italians, Irish and other white ‘ethnic’ gentiles away from the core and into the fringe.

    I agree. That’s the motivation

    Read More
    • Agree: Coemgen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Excellent post. This is the kind of thing that brought me to iSteve. Wish there was more of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. “I can’t vouch for that, but I do know that I constantly see people assert, as a matter of “fact,” that Irish, Italian, Jewish and other “ethnic” white American were not considered to be “white” until sometime in the mid-to-late 20th century, vouching for the fact that this understanding of American history has spread widely.”

    Would it be impolite of me to say that this is absolute horseshit?
    He can’t “vouch” for this straw man, but he sets it out there…to be knocked over. If it has spread widely, that is news to me.

    Italians certainly did have some problems assimilating …my great-grandfather, arriving in NYC from Italy, did have to Anglecize his Italian name in order to do business in commercial real estate in Queens, but that was around the turn of the century, well before the First World War.
    Do reporters today know nothing?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. @Elli
    The Italian family in It's a Wonderful Life, who got their mortgage from George Bailey, were definitely portrayed as not-quite-white, more life a Mexican peasant family complete with goat.

    The movie was directed and produced by Frank Capra, whose name means "goat," so go figure. And he looks not-quite-white in his Wikipedia photo, like a swarthy Cuban creole.

    The Italian family in It’s a Wonderful Life, who got their mortgage from George Bailey, were definitely portrayed as not-quite-white, more life a Mexican peasant family complete with goat.

    The movie was directed and produced by Frank Capra, whose name means “goat,” so go figure. And he looks not-quite-white in his Wikipedia photo, like a swarthy Cuban creole.

    I think that you mean that they don’t look Northern European. There are lots of swarthy White people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @neutral

    so there is clearly a distinction to be made between the way in which the law defines whiteness (Jews, Arabs, and Turks are “white”) and the way the self-appointed advocates of white people do so.
     
    And how are the people that made those laws also not self-appointed advocates ? I think it was Sailer that wrote here that the MENA people were made white so that jews don't face discrimination. I don't consider MENA people as being white, frankly I find it ludicrous to define them as white, the fact that they now want to flee from the definition should be more than enough to see that they are not really white.

    I don’t consider MENA people as being white, frankly I find it ludicrous to define them as white,

    And yet everyone regarded Danny Thomas and his daughter Marlo as White…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Most white Americans don't consider Middle Easterners to be white, regardless of what Danny Thomas or Bashar al Assad look like.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @neutral

    so there is clearly a distinction to be made between the way in which the law defines whiteness (Jews, Arabs, and Turks are “white”) and the way the self-appointed advocates of white people do so.
     
    And how are the people that made those laws also not self-appointed advocates ? I think it was Sailer that wrote here that the MENA people were made white so that jews don't face discrimination. I don't consider MENA people as being white, frankly I find it ludicrous to define them as white, the fact that they now want to flee from the definition should be more than enough to see that they are not really white.

    the fact that they now want to flee from the definition should be more than enough to see that they are not really white.

    Everyone wants to flee from being White these days. I know lots of Irish SJW academics who would love for the Irish to be classified as something other than White…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Coemgen
    The Irish and British should be classified as Atlantic Islanders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @TGGP
    I don't have a high opinion of the comments here (although I suppose that also applies to most sites), but on the other hand that's how I found out about Defining America’s Racial Boundaries: Blacks, Mexicans, and European Immigrants, 1890–1945 by Cybelle Fox and Thomas A. Guglielmo, which effectively demolished this nonsense years ago.

    I don’t have a high opinion of the comments here

    In the past, we used to have some high-quality thinkers visit this site and complain. These were people who claimed to have a low opinion of the commenting here, i.e., they shared your sentiment. They employed logic in service of reason, experience in service of empiricism and the scientific method in service of knowledge acquisition. They were hopelessly wrong, but at least they had the potential to be right.

    Now, we have retards like you popping a swollen head out of the fever swamps, wrong, and with no potential to be right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. What a load of garbage. The best evidence that southern European were, indeed, considered to be lesser than WASPS was the 1924 Immigration Act. It specifically limited immigration from southern and eastern Europe on the grounds that these people were *ethnically* inferior to white Anglos. Not culturally inferior, but flat out racially inferior.

    Bringing up the marriage of Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball like Sailer has done so many times is asinine. No one to my knowledge is claiming that Italians and other southern Europeans were treated as badly as blacks. Sure, a swarthy man of southern European ancestry like Arnaz was allowed to marry a white Anglo woman, while a black man would be lynched if he tried that. That is true. But in no way, shape or form would Desi Arnaz be allowed to rise to a position of power and prestige in the American Society of the 1950′s. Hell, the big talk when John Kennedy received the nomination to run for president was that he was both Irish and Catholic. Here was a lilly white man with blondish hair who’s ancestors came from a nation right next to England crossing the sea, and yet it was a huge deal if an Irish Catholic could hold the highest position in the land.

    Go back to the 1960′s right after Fidel’s coup when the Cuban refugees arrived in Florida. Do you think the Anglos that lived in Florida accepted them as their own? Congressmen received thousands of angry letters from Anglos about how they didn’t want those inferior Latinos there.

    A southern European immigrant in America did not have the same degree of social acceptance and status as immigrants from northern Europe, let alone those from England.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Desi Arnaz did rise to a position of power and prestige in the 1950's, unless you think being a star on one of the biggest tv shows of all time is a crappy gig. I Love Lucy ran from '51 to '57.
    , @Mr. Anon

    Go back to the 1960′s right after Fidel’s coup when the Cuban refugees arrived in Florida. Do you think the Anglos that lived in Florida accepted them as their own?
     
    Why should they? Why should anyone desire to be displaced by foreigners?

    Congressmen received thousands of angry letters from Anglos about how they didn’t want those inferior Latinos there.
     
    If a lot of them were like you, isn't that completely understandable?

    A southern European immigrant in America did not have the same degree of social acceptance and status as immigrants from northern Europe, let alone those from England.
     
    Nobody said they were, pendejo. We merely pointed out that they were not - nor were deemed to be - black. Why should anybody welcome the infusion of a perpetually aggrieved and spiteful minority? Why should anyone want to have neighbors like you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @syonredux

    I don’t consider MENA people as being white, frankly I find it ludicrous to define them as white,
     
    And yet everyone regarded Danny Thomas and his daughter Marlo as White.....

    Most white Americans don’t consider Middle Easterners to be white, regardless of what Danny Thomas or Bashar al Assad look like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Most white Americans don’t consider Middle Easterners to be white, regardless of what Danny Thomas or Bashar al Assad look like.
     
    En masse, no, but White Americans have shown that they are quite willing to count Christian and atheist Middle Easterners as White, provided that they are thoroughly Americanized and few in number.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. “A southern European immigrant in America did not have the same degree of social acceptance and status as immigrants from northern Europe, let alone those from England.”

    Enrico Fermi? maybe Marconi?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    IKR? It must be because of all the discrimination they've faced that Italian-Americans have done so poorly in America. I think we're being trolled by Mr. Diaz...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Nick Diaz
    What a load of garbage. The best evidence that southern European were, indeed, considered to be lesser than WASPS was the 1924 Immigration Act. It specifically limited immigration from southern and eastern Europe on the grounds that these people were *ethnically* inferior to white Anglos. Not culturally inferior, but flat out racially inferior.

    Bringing up the marriage of Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball like Sailer has done so many times is asinine. No one to my knowledge is claiming that Italians and other southern Europeans were treated as badly as blacks. Sure, a swarthy man of southern European ancestry like Arnaz was allowed to marry a white Anglo woman, while a black man would be lynched if he tried that. That is true. But in no way, shape or form would Desi Arnaz be allowed to rise to a position of power and prestige in the American Society of the 1950's. Hell, the big talk when John Kennedy received the nomination to run for president was that he was both Irish and Catholic. Here was a lilly white man with blondish hair who's ancestors came from a nation right next to England crossing the sea, and yet it was a huge deal if an Irish Catholic could hold the highest position in the land.

    Go back to the 1960's right after Fidel's coup when the Cuban refugees arrived in Florida. Do you think the Anglos that lived in Florida accepted them as their own? Congressmen received thousands of angry letters from Anglos about how they didn't want those inferior Latinos there.

    A southern European immigrant in America did not have the same degree of social acceptance and status as immigrants from northern Europe, let alone those from England.

    Desi Arnaz did rise to a position of power and prestige in the 1950′s, unless you think being a star on one of the biggest tv shows of all time is a crappy gig. I Love Lucy ran from ’51 to ’57.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Desi Arnaz did rise to a position of power and prestige in the 1950′s, unless you think being a star on one of the biggest tv shows of all time is a crappy gig. I Love Lucy ran from ’51 to ’57.
     
    I wouldn't waste my time responding to Nicky. He's obsessed with slights that Iberians have received from perfidious Anglos.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. “A southern European immigrant in America did not have the same degree of social acceptance and status as immigrants from northern Europe, let alone those from England.”

    Nicolai Tesla?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. In 1896 John Synge was in France aimlessly studying to be something like a critic of French Literature when he ran into an Irishman on the quay named Yeats. Synge mentioned that his French professors, ever gripped by the ideal of the Noble Savage, raved to him from the first that the Irish in the west of Ireland were the last truly primitive people left anywhere in Europe. That didn’t exactly inspire Synge til Yeats dismissed any notion of “criticism” and told him: Go to the Aran Islands and tell a story that has never been told. The rest is so much history.

    Sometime last decade some professor wrote some exhaustive book that finally said what made sense out of the biggest mystery about the Irish in America: the worst of them, the ones who were the most Irish I suppose we would say, them and especially their children died very quickly. All I remember is that the book was published by Chapel Hill. Anyways, that’s why America doesn’t hate the Irish the same way anymore. The reality was always there staring at us, and Thomas Sowell sorta grappled with it delicately in Ethnic America as his prime example that culture can change for the better in the long run. My guess is that Angela’s Ashes paved that book’s way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. @Drake
    The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization to white immigrants only.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

    So an easy test to see which groups were considered to be white is if they were allowed to become citizens. Of course, Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants were so allowed.

    Bernstein mentions pre-20th Century authors used terms like the "Irish race", this is becuase before the 20th century the term race was synonymous with what we now call "ethnic group"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts

    "The word race itself is modern and was used in the sense of "nation, ethnic group" during the 16th to 19th century, and only acquired its modern meaning in the field of physical anthropology from the mid 19th century. "
     

    “Bernstein mentions pre-20th Century authors used terms like the “Irish race”, this is becuase before the 20th century the term race was synonymous with what we now call “ethnic group”

    That particular usage probably applied well into the 20th century. It calls to mind the scene from “The Untouchables” when Sean Connery’s Malone refers to the Italian cop played by Andy Garcia as a “lying, thieving member of a no good race.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Didn't Churchill talk about the British race?
    , @Old Palo Altan
    A once famous book was "The Story of the Irish Race" by Seumas MacManus, published in 1921.
    I used to see it in used book shops all the time when I was a boy: do people in the USA still know of it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @newrouter
    "A southern European immigrant in America did not have the same degree of social acceptance and status as immigrants from northern Europe, let alone those from England."


    Enrico Fermi? maybe Marconi?

    IKR? It must be because of all the discrimination they’ve faced that Italian-Americans have done so poorly in America. I think we’re being trolled by Mr. Diaz…

    Read More
    • Replies: @newrouter
    It is interesting to reflect on the people of that period (about 1870-1945). They were "full steam ahead" . These days it is what excuse" they/it can find"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. So this “whiteness studies” racist propaganda started with Noel Ignatiev huh? He must be one of those alt-right shitlords.

    Wait a minute… Wikipedia says Ignatiev believes “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity” and he wants to abolish the concept of whiteness. This doesn’t add up…

    The relevant scholarly literature seems to have started with Noel Ignatiev’s book “How the Irish Became White,” and taken off from there. But what the relevant authors mean by white is ahistorical.

    Oh I see! “Whiteness studies” is good and scholarly when done by a Jewish Marxist that hates white people, but its bad and scary and evil if any gentile whites ever take an interest in it for any reason other than self-hatred. Thanks for clearing that up, David!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. @Anonymous
    Most white Americans don't consider Middle Easterners to be white, regardless of what Danny Thomas or Bashar al Assad look like.

    Most white Americans don’t consider Middle Easterners to be white, regardless of what Danny Thomas or Bashar al Assad look like.

    En masse, no, but White Americans have shown that they are quite willing to count Christian and atheist Middle Easterners as White, provided that they are thoroughly Americanized and few in number…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Hmmm... I don't know. I think MENA Christians might be accepted in a spirit of ecumenism rather racial solidarity. In fact, if I envision a family gathering of mine like a Christmas celebration, I think a Korean Presbyterian would be less jarringly different than an Egyptian Copt.

    The real Rorschach test is Greeks--Christians who are geographically and linguistically Western, and yet...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/white-people-dont-use-white-emoji/481695/

    Why White People Don’t Use White Emoji

    Light-skin-tone symbols are used far less often in the U.S. than their darker counterparts. Does shame explain the disparity?

    “…But this effect may also signal a squeamishness on the part of white people. The folks I talked to before writing this story said it felt awkward to use an affirmatively white emoji; at a time when skin-tone modifiers are used to assert racial identity, proclaiming whiteness felt uncomfortably close to displaying “white pride,” with all the baggage of intolerance that carries. At the same time, they said, it feels like co-opting something that doesn’t exactly belong to white people—weren’t skin-tone modifiers designed so people of color would be represented online?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. @Anon
    IKR? It must be because of all the discrimination they've faced that Italian-Americans have done so poorly in America. I think we're being trolled by Mr. Diaz...

    It is interesting to reflect on the people of that period (about 1870-1945). They were “full steam ahead” . These days it is what excuse” they/it can find”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Anon
    Desi Arnaz did rise to a position of power and prestige in the 1950's, unless you think being a star on one of the biggest tv shows of all time is a crappy gig. I Love Lucy ran from '51 to '57.

    Desi Arnaz did rise to a position of power and prestige in the 1950′s, unless you think being a star on one of the biggest tv shows of all time is a crappy gig. I Love Lucy ran from ’51 to ’57.

    I wouldn’t waste my time responding to Nicky. He’s obsessed with slights that Iberians have received from perfidious Anglos.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. How come we never see Nick Diaz and Corvinus posting at the same time? Are they the same person?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles

    How come we never see Nick Diaz and Corvinus posting at the same time? Are they the same person?
     
    I reckon the only way to disprove that is for none of them to post for a period of time, like five years.
    , @BenKenobi
    Hey man, have some respect -- Diaz and Corvy have seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion, watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will now be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @BB753
    Even Anthony Quinn was considered white, even though he had very obvious Amerindian features.

    I guess he was white while he was banging Cecille B. DeMille’s daughter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @BB753
    Even Anthony Quinn was considered white, even though he had very obvious Amerindian features.

    Both Quinn’s paternal grandparents were Irish hence the Irish last name. Maternal grandmother was an Indian servant. Maternal grandfather was the more or less White Hispanic son of the house in which grandma worked

    So he was half Irish, 1/4 Indian and 1/4 a White Hispanic. His face was Indian but his height and build were very European.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    According to the Wikipedia, his father was half-Irish and half-mexican. Anthony Quinn's mother's maiden name was not even "Hispanic", Oaxaca, pointing to an Amerindian background.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Hapalong Cassidy
    "Bernstein mentions pre-20th Century authors used terms like the “Irish race”, this is becuase before the 20th century the term race was synonymous with what we now call “ethnic group”

    That particular usage probably applied well into the 20th century. It calls to mind the scene from "The Untouchables" when Sean Connery's Malone refers to the Italian cop played by Andy Garcia as a "lying, thieving member of a no good race."

    Didn’t Churchill talk about the British race?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. What is ludicrous about Ignatiev’s claim that the Irish were not considered White is the fact is that they are one of the most blue eyed and Whitest skin peoples of Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. “could you get into the best country club in town?”

    You mention O’Hara, one of my favorite novelists. I wasn’t much aware of race and ethnicity when I read most of his books, but as regards the club phenomenon, wow. It surprised me, how obsessed he was with the phenomenon. Which derives, my surprise that is, from the sudden absence in our culture of that thing we call Society.

    It still exists, the extended family, Our Crowd, the Old School Ties, and all that, at the highest level. It also exists, at its most basic level, in high school cliques and gang culture. There , are also neighborhoods, ethnic segregation, and so forth. But Society at large is all amorphous blobs consisting of temporary alignments of atomistic individual, unextended families, friends, people you happen to work with at the moment, and so on.

    To read about social hierarchy, especially as expressed through clubs, in 20th century literature is weird. Probably partly why a lot of it is written as the old way dying. O’Hara is full of booze, sex, and all sorts of dirty Realism. Nevertheless, people in the books are crazy about Society and this club or that.

    I’d have to re-read them to pick up all the Irish Catholic resentment that’s probably in there. But the point is: this was all intra-whitr distinction. When he talks about the Irish part of town, or the Italian, German, WASP, whatever, there’s no confusion as to blacks being something else altogether.

    These White Studies ignoramuses, obsessed as they are with race, have grown up being told not to think about race (except Whites Bad, Vibrancy Good). They are unable to make fine distinctions like an O’Hara, or probably anyone who came of age before the 60s. Other races, who are allowed to be racist, don’t have this problem, by the way. A Mexican could go up and down Central and South America telling you everything wrong with Columbians as distinct from Peruvians, or Hondurans compared to Bolivians. Plus all the many ethnicities therein. They may or may not think of them all as one kind, but they won’t confuse them for the European Other.

    Not being able to discriminate makes us stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    From an Atlantic article on John O'Hara:

    It's hard not to cringe when reading accounts of O'Hara's efforts to buoy his ego. He hounded friends and acquaintances to put him up for clubs and had the seals of those that accepted him embossed on a gold cigarette case, which he casually left on his coffee table to impress visitors. Blackballed by the ultra-exclusive Racquet Club, he ordered playing cards with the club's insignia through a friend and used them for bridge games at home. A Bentley was too understated; he bought himself a Rolls-Royce. At this remove such displays seem pathetic; at the time they must have appeared risible to many and contemptible to some.


    Indeed, he allowed his failure to attend Yale -- to him the ultimate club -- to rankle so conspicuously that Ernest Hemingway, on receipt of a windfall, famously remarked that the money should be used to "start a bloody fund to send John O'Hara to Yale." "A mean little story, but it shows what my friends think of me," O'Hara commented bitterly, and very much in character. Years later he complained to Yale's alumni magazine about the school's refusal to grant him an honorary degree. When Kingman Brewster, Yale's president, was asked why he never gave O'Hara that degree, he replied, "Because he asked for it."

     

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/03/john-oharas-protectorate/378079/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    A southern European immigrant in America did not have the same degree of social acceptance and status as immigrants from northern Europe, let alone those from England.

    Let’s go over the basics again. What became the USA were the former colonies of British North America. Though some of these colonies had begun as colonies of the Dutch or Swedes, they were long taken over and thoroughly incorporated by the British by the founding.

    Thus, it is not surprising that this new nation started out as an extension of British civilization complete with language, culture and English ideas on liberty and rights.

    Thus, it is not surprising that any newcomers who did not fit into this mold, whether it be due to language, cultural, religion, politics, etc, were deemed by the locals as outsiders and were not immediately accepted. Is this such a surprise? Has anyone ever switched high schools and expected to be accepted by the new student body? In what organization does a guy walk in off the street and immediately gain the confidence and acceptance of the established members?

    The longer it took for the newcomers to adapt, the longer it took for them to be accepted. Arriving in large groups, like many Italians did, was not good optics for the existing population. Is that so surprising? Go to some place as a lone immigrant and you probably will be treated hospitably. Go to the same place as part of a new community of five thousand such as yourself and you are now a threat.

    The longer newcomers continued to live together in large communities under their old culture also contributed to the delay in adapting to the ways of America, and of continuing to be not fully accepted by the mainstream.

    Immigrants who came in much smaller numbers, and who moved out and immersed themselves into the wider culture were accepted sooner than those who lingered in their ethnic enclaves. This mirrors my actual family history as my antecedents found themselves to be the only “outsiders” in a community of fully assimilated Americans. As a result my antecedents were treated, not as a potential threat to the current order, but as exotic and interesting. And since they could not impose their culture onto their new neighbors, their only choice was to fully assimilate and cut off feelings and ties to the “old country”.

    Of course adapting to the language and culture is only part of the equation. The newcomers must have some similarity to the host population to fully assimilate. Thus it is not surprising why other Europeans, after being thoroughly weaned of their old ways, could become part of the fabric of the existing population while peoples more divergent from the European phenotype struggled.

    The problem with immigration today is that it is coming in too large a number, and by peoples too dissimilar. The mistake people today make is assuming that just because a limited number of other Europeans were eventually assimilated a century ago means that unlimited amounts of dissimilar non-Europeans will be assimilated too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. @guest
    "could you get into the best country club in town?"

    You mention O'Hara, one of my favorite novelists. I wasn't much aware of race and ethnicity when I read most of his books, but as regards the club phenomenon, wow. It surprised me, how obsessed he was with the phenomenon. Which derives, my surprise that is, from the sudden absence in our culture of that thing we call Society.

    It still exists, the extended family, Our Crowd, the Old School Ties, and all that, at the highest level. It also exists, at its most basic level, in high school cliques and gang culture. There , are also neighborhoods, ethnic segregation, and so forth. But Society at large is all amorphous blobs consisting of temporary alignments of atomistic individual, unextended families, friends, people you happen to work with at the moment, and so on.

    To read about social hierarchy, especially as expressed through clubs, in 20th century literature is weird. Probably partly why a lot of it is written as the old way dying. O'Hara is full of booze, sex, and all sorts of dirty Realism. Nevertheless, people in the books are crazy about Society and this club or that.

    I'd have to re-read them to pick up all the Irish Catholic resentment that's probably in there. But the point is: this was all intra-whitr distinction. When he talks about the Irish part of town, or the Italian, German, WASP, whatever, there's no confusion as to blacks being something else altogether.

    These White Studies ignoramuses, obsessed as they are with race, have grown up being told not to think about race (except Whites Bad, Vibrancy Good). They are unable to make fine distinctions like an O'Hara, or probably anyone who came of age before the 60s. Other races, who are allowed to be racist, don't have this problem, by the way. A Mexican could go up and down Central and South America telling you everything wrong with Columbians as distinct from Peruvians, or Hondurans compared to Bolivians. Plus all the many ethnicities therein. They may or may not think of them all as one kind, but they won't confuse them for the European Other.

    Not being able to discriminate makes us stupid.

    From an Atlantic article on John O’Hara:

    It’s hard not to cringe when reading accounts of O’Hara’s efforts to buoy his ego. He hounded friends and acquaintances to put him up for clubs and had the seals of those that accepted him embossed on a gold cigarette case, which he casually left on his coffee table to impress visitors. Blackballed by the ultra-exclusive Racquet Club, he ordered playing cards with the club’s insignia through a friend and used them for bridge games at home. A Bentley was too understated; he bought himself a Rolls-Royce. At this remove such displays seem pathetic; at the time they must have appeared risible to many and contemptible to some.

    Indeed, he allowed his failure to attend Yale — to him the ultimate club — to rankle so conspicuously that Ernest Hemingway, on receipt of a windfall, famously remarked that the money should be used to “start a bloody fund to send John O’Hara to Yale.” “A mean little story, but it shows what my friends think of me,” O’Hara commented bitterly, and very much in character. Years later he complained to Yale’s alumni magazine about the school’s refusal to grant him an honorary degree. When Kingman Brewster, Yale’s president, was asked why he never gave O’Hara that degree, he replied, “Because he asked for it.”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/03/john-oharas-protectorate/378079/

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    I have thought about reading an O'Hara biography by the same author who wrote a book on Fitzgerald and another favorite novelist of mine, James Gould Cozzens. But artist biographies almost always leave me flat. Their lives really aren't that interesting; the real stuff is in the books, and I only need biographers to tell me about the ones I haven't read. Which is handy for some, I guess.

    Maybe I'll give it a go. He sounds like a genuine piece of work. Though I wouldn't take the Atlantic's word for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @John Chard
    Yes, exactly---what makes no sense to me about this whole "ethnics were once not white!!1!1" meme to me is that the term "white/the white race" was frequently used in speeches and writings pre-dating the Second World War. For example, in the 1790 immigration act that white nationalists love to cite, immigration was limited to "free white persons of good character", and presumably that allowed Irish immigrants to enter.

    However, while the specific point about Irish, Italians etc. not literally being considered white is wrong, I do think that progressives have a reasonable point underneath the nonsense. Racial/ethnic nationalists today have very different ideas about who the groups they want to protect are than people did in the 19th century, let alone the 17th or 12th century. For example, the difference between Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans was pretty important to Madison Grant, but I don't hear, say, Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Anglin talking too much about how Italians are a racial threat to Anglo-Saxons. But white nationalists like them today say that they're drawing the boundaries of their in-group on the basis of biology, and clearly the change in tribal identity from 1924 to 2017 is the result of changes in socialization rather than evolution.

    Since I got arthritis, I talk about going to the gym to avoid early death instead of going to reach performance goals. You can argue over whether or not I’ve become “socialized” to being less active, but real, irreversible changes took place in my body.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. I had learned, too, the very remarkable fact, that the stem of the Usher race, all time-honoured as it was, had put forth, at no period, any enduring branch; in other words, that the entire family lay in the direct line of descent, and had always, with very trifling and very temporary variation, so lain.

    –Ed Poe

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. @syonredux

    Most white Americans don’t consider Middle Easterners to be white, regardless of what Danny Thomas or Bashar al Assad look like.
     
    En masse, no, but White Americans have shown that they are quite willing to count Christian and atheist Middle Easterners as White, provided that they are thoroughly Americanized and few in number.....

    Hmmm… I don’t know. I think MENA Christians might be accepted in a spirit of ecumenism rather racial solidarity. In fact, if I envision a family gathering of mine like a Christmas celebration, I think a Korean Presbyterian would be less jarringly different than an Egyptian Copt.

    The real Rorschach test is Greeks–Christians who are geographically and linguistically Western, and yet…

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Hmmm… I don’t know. I think MENA Christians might be accepted in a spirit of ecumenism rather racial solidarity. In fact, if I envision a family gathering of mine like a Christmas celebration, I think a Korean Presbyterian would be less jarringly different than an Egyptian Copt.

     

    Well, both Danny Thomas and William Peter Blatty were Lebanese Catholics.....

    The real Rorschach test is Greeks–Christians who are geographically and linguistically Western, and yet…
     
    And yet what....The Greek American community seems to have assimilated pretty well....
    , @attilathehen
    Koreans are "jarringly" different. They always look out of place (like Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, etc.). Egyptian Copts (about 90% are black with a 10% white minority). Whenever I see pictures of the Copts, I usually see that racial difference.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. The relevant scholarly literature seems to have started with Noel Ignatiev’s book “How the Irish Became White,” and taken off from there. But what the relevant authors mean by white is ahistorical. They are referring to a stylized, sociological or anthropological understanding of “whiteness,” which means either “fully socially accepted as the equals of Americans of Anglo-Saxon and Germanic stock,” or, in the more politicized version, “an accepted part of the dominant ruling class in the United States.”

    So basically, Ignatiev and other SJWs have been engaging in a “No True White Man” fallacy (akin to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

    Americans seem to have completely forgotten that “race” started out meaning lineage.

    Who controls the present controls the past.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. Americans seem to have completely forgotten that “race” started out meaning lineage.

    You mean like when people criticize “La Raza” because they think it means “The Race” and not “The People”? As in reference to the people of Africa, Europe, and America coming together to form “La Raza Cosmica” or the “Cosmic Race”

    Gee Steve, can you think of any Americans that might have forgotten the original meaning of “race”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. @PiltdownMan
    In my Dad's time living in New York City in the late 40s and early 50s, Cubans and Latin Americans were politely referred to as being "copper-colored." It's a term he used often for those ethnicities, having grown up in the 1920s.

    No way they were considered to be white.

    In 1988, a mini-scandal erupted during the Republican convention when George Bush referred to his half-Mexican grandkids as “the little brown ones”:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-17/news/mn-655_1_pride

    Nowadays, making that kind of offhand remark could destroy one’s career.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @jJay
    From your link TGGP, by teageegeepea:


    My comment no longer appears at Reason, but I tried pointing out to Ron Bailey that even turn-of-the-century racialists who embraced the concepts of “Nordic”, “Alpine” and “Mediterranean” still considered European immigrants to be white.

     

    It's pretty hard to get a comment deleted from Reason. Ron Bailey doesn't accept the HBD premise and I have commented on his articles in disagreement. He argues back at me. He doesn't delete the my comments. Whatever, that just struck me as a bit fishy.

    It’s long enough ago that I don’t remember the details, but it might have just been a technical issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Chrisnonymous
    Hmmm... I don't know. I think MENA Christians might be accepted in a spirit of ecumenism rather racial solidarity. In fact, if I envision a family gathering of mine like a Christmas celebration, I think a Korean Presbyterian would be less jarringly different than an Egyptian Copt.

    The real Rorschach test is Greeks--Christians who are geographically and linguistically Western, and yet...

    Hmmm… I don’t know. I think MENA Christians might be accepted in a spirit of ecumenism rather racial solidarity. In fact, if I envision a family gathering of mine like a Christmas celebration, I think a Korean Presbyterian would be less jarringly different than an Egyptian Copt.

    Well, both Danny Thomas and William Peter Blatty were Lebanese Catholics…..

    The real Rorschach test is Greeks–Christians who are geographically and linguistically Western, and yet…

    And yet what….The Greek American community seems to have assimilated pretty well….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    I guess we have to agree to disagree. All the Greeks I have known strike me as very Other. As I said, they are more "Other" than Korean Protestants. I have a very strong intuition that if this question were put to other white Protestants in my hometown, they would agree.

    There may be a perverse "Uncanny Valley"-like effect in this...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. The English word “race” comes out of the horse race business. It probably traces back to an Arab word for descent or breed.

    “Race” comes from the Latin word for “root”. (But the Latin word for “race” was something else — stirps — for which I can think of no English cognate.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. @neutral

    Sorry, but the Irish were always ‘white’ (and so were Italians, Jews and so on)
     
    This is not true for the jews, their origins are from the middle east, the early jews would not have been considered white. Then there are the jews from Ethiopia, nobody in America (then and now) would have considered them white.

    Jews from Ethopia are “Jews” in the same way that Richard Gere is Tibetan.

    Read More
    • Agree: syonredux
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan

    Jews from Ethopia are “Jews” in the same way that Richard Gere is Tibetan.
     
    I wonder what analogy one would use for these people...

    http://www.bneimenashe.com/

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EzJG374Dy_E/maxresdefault.jpg

    https://youtu.be/kmp8s-Ir5hM?t=46s
    , @biz
    How is that? Ethiopian Jews have been an ethnoreligious community for more than 2000 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. My friends who teach U.S. history have told me that this perspective has “completely taken over” studies of American ethnic history.

    That’s pretty stunning (even if I was already aware that it was a big thing). I suppose I seem as unworldly to recent college grads, as they seem to me!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. @Corvinus
    "Bernstein mentions pre-20th Century authors used terms like the “Irish race”, this is becuase before the 20th century the term race was synonymous with what we now call “ethnic group”."

    Exactly. Ethnic groups, not breeds, as Sailor alluded to. Dogs breeds came about following decades and even centuries of selective breeding for specific traits. Humans on the other hand, have no such restrictions on reproduction, and as such distinct genetic subgroups are much less common, and much less distinct.

    Bernstein stated "When I’ve pointed this out to people, they often rejoin that people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries often referred to the “Irish race,” the “Italian race,” the “Jewish race.” That’s true, but they also referred to the “Anglo-Saxon race,” and the “Teutonic race,” the latter two generally considered to be superior. The racist pseudo-science of the day divided Europeans into various races by nationality or perceived nationality, and often created a hierarchy among those groups. But that was a racist hierarchy within the white group, not evidence that these groups weren’t considered to be white. This point is often obscured by the whiteness studies crowd, because racism within a white hierarchy conflicts with their understanding of American racism solely being about “whiteness.”

    So it would appear that nativists who called the Irish and the Italians as being other than white were in reality referring them to as being on the low end of the European white totem pole, as being white, but not a desired white, given the perception that both groups were viewed as being uncivilized, unskilled, and impoverished.

    "The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization to white immigrants only."

    Yet the Founding Fathers granted Congress the liberty to change that criteria to reflect future generations of Americans.

    Dogs breeds came about following decades and even centuries of selective breeding for specific traits. Humans on the other hand, have no such restrictions on reproduction, and as such distinct genetic subgroups are much less common, and much less distinct.

    You are correct that most dog breeds are little genetic islands some fifty generations old.

    What you disregard, though, is that until recently, Scandinavians and Australian Aborigines bred independently for some two thousand generations! Chinese and Bushmen, maybe four thousand generations.

    True, dogs were paired deliberately to promote certain characteristics. But what the hand of man did to dogs, pressure to adapt to different natural and social environments did to people.

    So if dog breeds “exist”, human races exist all the more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "What you disregard, though, is that until recently, Scandinavians and Australian Aborigines bred independently for some two thousand generations! Chinese and Bushmen, maybe four thousand generations."

    Because of their cultural heritage and/or geographic isolation.

    "But what the hand of man did to dogs, pressure to adapt to different natural and social environments did to people."

    And those adaptations resulted in cultural differences borne out their own free will to remain "pure" or because physical barriers like mountains or oceans made it extremely challenging to move to other parts of the globe.

    FYI--Race is both biological and cultural.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Peter Akuleyev
    Jews from Ethopia are "Jews" in the same way that Richard Gere is Tibetan.

    Jews from Ethopia are “Jews” in the same way that Richard Gere is Tibetan.

    I wonder what analogy one would use for these people…

    http://www.bneimenashe.com/

    Read More
    • Replies: @patrick
    Are these the Kaifeng Jews from China?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. The important thing is that the left gets to natter on about race in whatever the discursive fashion of the day dictates.

    So much easier and delivering of moral superiority than all that hard math and science behind population genetics here in Biology’s Century.

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @res

    So much easier and delivering of moral superiority than all that hard math and science behind population genetics here in Biology’s Century.
     
    Not to mention all of the unpalatable conclusions. "We" believe in science (except when it concludes something we don't like).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. In general, the more of a minority you were in a region, the more welcome you were.

    That is true in Latin America also. In a place like Colombia gringos are considered cool and exotic, but in a place like Costa Rica reports are that locals are becoming less welcoming of gringos as their concentration increases.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. @syonredux

    White is thought of as a race, but in America whites are also an ethnic group. White Americans are as much a distinct ethnic group as French or Germans are in Europe.
     
    Indeed. SJWs love to dilate on how, in contrast to, say, Irishness or Frenchness, "Whiteness" is an entirely arbitrary and artificial concept. The reality, of course, is quite different. Anglo-America has witnessed an enormous amount of intra-European mixing. Although there are Americans who are completely German, or English, or Italian, they are outnumbered by crossbreeds, Americans who are the end-product of two or more European ethnies (German+English, Irish+Italian, Polish+ Greek, etc). Indeed, I know some siblings who are 25% Italian, 25% Polish, 25% Ashkenazi, and 25% English.

    Whiteness in America is a biological reality.

    That is common were I live, because so many different immigrant groups came and stayed, and their children and grandchildren could not be bothered to marry within the group. Kids commonly have four grandparents from four or more different parts of Europe. My own kids are German, Italian, Sicilian, English, Polish, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, and Irish. They range from a blue-eyed blond to an almost swarthy brunette.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @whorefinder
    1. One reason the Left is all confused about this is because this is hard thinking, understanding nuances and such. The Left doesn't want to think about these nuances, because their Crimestop kneejerk reaction makes it seem like they are getting into territory where they might have some BadThink. Which they probably would, especially if they started reading historical accounts about black violence and crime rates.

    2. Noel Ignatiev is a violent, murderous communist liar and conman who has called for the "destruction" of the white race. The fact that people have given his words any legitimacy is a sign of how depraved our times are.

    3. The Left can't seem to make up it''s mind whether it wants certain whites to be on their side or wants them to be Othered.

    4. The book Common Ground is a Pulitzer-prize winning nonfiction book by J. Anthony Lukas that details the history of 1970s Boston when the ethnic cleansing known as school busing was put into effect. It is told from three persons point of view: the Liberal-WASP Harvard lawyer who tries to move into the city and live by his own creed; a black women in the black section of town whose life spins from poor into misery; and an Irish-American woman in heavily-Irish Charlestown (a section of Boston), who opposes the busing through legal means and sees her neighborhood broken down and the racial animus increase as busing is forced down their throats.

    One point that is noted offhand by Lukas, despite media depictions of the Irish in Charlestown as the most racist people since Bull Connor had a baby with Hitler, is that Charlestown had a Chinese laundrymat for decades before busing began, but not a single racial incident occurred, and, indeed the Chinese guy who ran the place was accepted by the community and was left alone.

    “3. The Left can’t seem to make up it”s mind whether it wants certain whites to be on their side or wants them to be Othered.”

    I agree. Some of them continue to argue that the Irish and Italians are no different than Mexicans and Hondurans, and one day we will look back in horror at how we thought Mexicans and Hondurans were somehow less American than the Daughters of the American Revolution. On the other hand, some of them argue that the only reason that the Irish and Italians succeeded so quickly is because of their whiteness.

    Which is it?

    They are afraid to pick an argument and stick with it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I am a descendant of one of James Ben Ali Haggin’s contemporaries who founded the Sacramento Jockey Club and owned the original Louisiana Race Track in Sacramento. It was believed by everyone at the time that James Ben Ali Haggin was the grandson of a Turkish army officer. This belief obviously did not hurt Mr. Haggin’s status in society nor did Mr. Haggin attempt to hide from his past. I mean, it’s baked right into his name, isn’t it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. @syonredux

    the fact that they now want to flee from the definition should be more than enough to see that they are not really white.
     
    Everyone wants to flee from being White these days. I know lots of Irish SJW academics who would love for the Irish to be classified as something other than White.....

    The Irish and British should be classified as Atlantic Islanders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @International Jew

    Dogs breeds came about following decades and even centuries of selective breeding for specific traits. Humans on the other hand, have no such restrictions on reproduction, and as such distinct genetic subgroups are much less common, and much less distinct.
     
    You are correct that most dog breeds are little genetic islands some fifty generations old.

    What you disregard, though, is that until recently, Scandinavians and Australian Aborigines bred independently for some two thousand generations! Chinese and Bushmen, maybe four thousand generations.

    True, dogs were paired deliberately to promote certain characteristics. But what the hand of man did to dogs, pressure to adapt to different natural and social environments did to people.

    So if dog breeds "exist", human races exist all the more.

    “What you disregard, though, is that until recently, Scandinavians and Australian Aborigines bred independently for some two thousand generations! Chinese and Bushmen, maybe four thousand generations.”

    Because of their cultural heritage and/or geographic isolation.

    “But what the hand of man did to dogs, pressure to adapt to different natural and social environments did to people.”

    And those adaptations resulted in cultural differences borne out their own free will to remain “pure” or because physical barriers like mountains or oceans made it extremely challenging to move to other parts of the globe.

    FYI–Race is both biological and cultural.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. All these groups were listed as white in the Census as far back as I can find them. That seems as definitive as anything based on what they were considered by the government. Just because the Boston Brahmins didn’t consider the Irish and Italians their equals doesn’t mean they weren’t considered white.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. @PiltdownMan
    In my Dad's time living in New York City in the late 40s and early 50s, Cubans and Latin Americans were politely referred to as being "copper-colored." It's a term he used often for those ethnicities, having grown up in the 1920s.

    No way they were considered to be white.

    Your dad must have been referring to puerto ricans, dominicans could be found in new york only by the 60s but are usually part negro. cubans and south americans are much rarer whiter than both if not pure white.Puerto ricans though are like roaches everywhere in new york and thats probably who your dad meant. west side story

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Alden
    Both Quinn's paternal grandparents were Irish hence the Irish last name. Maternal grandmother was an Indian servant. Maternal grandfather was the more or less White Hispanic son of the house in which grandma worked

    So he was half Irish, 1/4 Indian and 1/4 a White Hispanic. His face was Indian but his height and build were very European.

    According to the Wikipedia, his father was half-Irish and half-mexican. Anthony Quinn’s mother’s maiden name was not even “Hispanic”, Oaxaca, pointing to an Amerindian background.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Corvinus
    "Bernstein mentions pre-20th Century authors used terms like the “Irish race”, this is becuase before the 20th century the term race was synonymous with what we now call “ethnic group”."

    Exactly. Ethnic groups, not breeds, as Sailor alluded to. Dogs breeds came about following decades and even centuries of selective breeding for specific traits. Humans on the other hand, have no such restrictions on reproduction, and as such distinct genetic subgroups are much less common, and much less distinct.

    Bernstein stated "When I’ve pointed this out to people, they often rejoin that people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries often referred to the “Irish race,” the “Italian race,” the “Jewish race.” That’s true, but they also referred to the “Anglo-Saxon race,” and the “Teutonic race,” the latter two generally considered to be superior. The racist pseudo-science of the day divided Europeans into various races by nationality or perceived nationality, and often created a hierarchy among those groups. But that was a racist hierarchy within the white group, not evidence that these groups weren’t considered to be white. This point is often obscured by the whiteness studies crowd, because racism within a white hierarchy conflicts with their understanding of American racism solely being about “whiteness.”

    So it would appear that nativists who called the Irish and the Italians as being other than white were in reality referring them to as being on the low end of the European white totem pole, as being white, but not a desired white, given the perception that both groups were viewed as being uncivilized, unskilled, and impoverished.

    "The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization to white immigrants only."

    Yet the Founding Fathers granted Congress the liberty to change that criteria to reflect future generations of Americans.

    “Yet the Founding Fathers granted Congress the liberty to change that criteria to reflect future generations of Americans.”

    Because they deemed it unthinkable that America would ever be inundated by Mexicans, or Musselmen, or anybody not white and chrisitan. They didn’t explicity ban gay marriage either, or say that sex is biologically determined. That doesn’t mean they ever thought that someday two dudes would want to get married, or that a dude would demand to be recognized as a chick. The founders were handicapped by sanity, which rendered them unsuited to set rules for a country that has – as this one has – lost its’ mind. They didn’t reckon on idiots like you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Because they deemed it unthinkable that America would ever be inundated by Mexicans, or Musselmen, or anybody not white and chrisitan.

    The Founding Fathers were a product of the times. Of course it was "unthinkable", they had a different frame of reference.

    "The founders were handicapped by sanity, which rendered them unsuited to set rules for a country that has – as this one has – lost its’ mind."

    Americans haven't lost their mind, or are less than sane than the Founding Fathers. You still can't gloss over the fact that immigration criteria would be established by Congress, and that citizenship is based on political and cultural standards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @jJay
    From your link TGGP, by teageegeepea:


    My comment no longer appears at Reason, but I tried pointing out to Ron Bailey that even turn-of-the-century racialists who embraced the concepts of “Nordic”, “Alpine” and “Mediterranean” still considered European immigrants to be white.

     

    It's pretty hard to get a comment deleted from Reason. Ron Bailey doesn't accept the HBD premise and I have commented on his articles in disagreement. He argues back at me. He doesn't delete the my comments. Whatever, that just struck me as a bit fishy.

    It could just be the notoriously bad Reason.com commenting system. When Bailey first posted his review of “A Troublesome Inheritance” a whole bunch of comments disappeared in to the aether.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @John Chard
    Yes, exactly---what makes no sense to me about this whole "ethnics were once not white!!1!1" meme to me is that the term "white/the white race" was frequently used in speeches and writings pre-dating the Second World War. For example, in the 1790 immigration act that white nationalists love to cite, immigration was limited to "free white persons of good character", and presumably that allowed Irish immigrants to enter.

    However, while the specific point about Irish, Italians etc. not literally being considered white is wrong, I do think that progressives have a reasonable point underneath the nonsense. Racial/ethnic nationalists today have very different ideas about who the groups they want to protect are than people did in the 19th century, let alone the 17th or 12th century. For example, the difference between Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans was pretty important to Madison Grant, but I don't hear, say, Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Anglin talking too much about how Italians are a racial threat to Anglo-Saxons. But white nationalists like them today say that they're drawing the boundaries of their in-group on the basis of biology, and clearly the change in tribal identity from 1924 to 2017 is the result of changes in socialization rather than evolution.

    VDare still considers Italians and Irish a threat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fitzGetty
    ...!...
    If that is so they are certainly fiddling while
    Rome burns ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Nick Diaz
    What a load of garbage. The best evidence that southern European were, indeed, considered to be lesser than WASPS was the 1924 Immigration Act. It specifically limited immigration from southern and eastern Europe on the grounds that these people were *ethnically* inferior to white Anglos. Not culturally inferior, but flat out racially inferior.

    Bringing up the marriage of Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball like Sailer has done so many times is asinine. No one to my knowledge is claiming that Italians and other southern Europeans were treated as badly as blacks. Sure, a swarthy man of southern European ancestry like Arnaz was allowed to marry a white Anglo woman, while a black man would be lynched if he tried that. That is true. But in no way, shape or form would Desi Arnaz be allowed to rise to a position of power and prestige in the American Society of the 1950's. Hell, the big talk when John Kennedy received the nomination to run for president was that he was both Irish and Catholic. Here was a lilly white man with blondish hair who's ancestors came from a nation right next to England crossing the sea, and yet it was a huge deal if an Irish Catholic could hold the highest position in the land.

    Go back to the 1960's right after Fidel's coup when the Cuban refugees arrived in Florida. Do you think the Anglos that lived in Florida accepted them as their own? Congressmen received thousands of angry letters from Anglos about how they didn't want those inferior Latinos there.

    A southern European immigrant in America did not have the same degree of social acceptance and status as immigrants from northern Europe, let alone those from England.

    Go back to the 1960′s right after Fidel’s coup when the Cuban refugees arrived in Florida. Do you think the Anglos that lived in Florida accepted them as their own?

    Why should they? Why should anyone desire to be displaced by foreigners?

    Congressmen received thousands of angry letters from Anglos about how they didn’t want those inferior Latinos there.

    If a lot of them were like you, isn’t that completely understandable?

    A southern European immigrant in America did not have the same degree of social acceptance and status as immigrants from northern Europe, let alone those from England.

    Nobody said they were, pendejo. We merely pointed out that they were not – nor were deemed to be – black. Why should anybody welcome the infusion of a perpetually aggrieved and spiteful minority? Why should anyone want to have neighbors like you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @syonredux

    In my Dad’s time living in New York City in the late 40s and early 50s, Cubans and Latin Americans were politely referred to as being “copper-colored.” It’s a term he used often for those ethnicities, having grown up in the 1920s.

    No way they were considered to be white.
     
    According to the Hays Code, Ricardo Montalban was White. If he hadn't been regarded as White, he never would have been allowed to have love scenes with White starlets. The same holds true for Jose Ferrer.


    And then there are the de Acosta sisters:Aida de Acosta Root Breckinridge, Mercedes de Acosta, Rita de Acosta Lydig. They were regarded as White.

    Being white is conducive to being perceived as white.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Drake
    It is common in "Whiteness studies" to claim that whiteness as a concept was created to discriminate against nonwhites.

    But really it is just an acknowledgement of assimilation. Various European ethnic groups gave up their native languages and melted into English speaking Anglo culture. White Americans mostly stopped discriminating between various European ancestries and became one group.

    That is to say, "whiteness" was the result of less discrimination, not more.

    White is thought of as a race, but in America whites are also an ethnic group. White Americans are as much a distinct ethnic group as French or Germans are in Europe.

    When we talk about the ethnic background of white people, we use terms like Italian-American. But Italian-Americans have little in common with European Italians. They don't speak Italian, they don't know much about Italian history, they don't watch Italian movies, and so on.

    If you were to divide White Americans up into subgroups, it wouldn't be by European ancestry. It would be into groups like White Southerners, urban hipsters, Mormons, suburbanites, and so on. The main divisions among American Whites are geographical and political, and only vaguely relate to European ancestory.

    Jews are probably the only exception to this, since the retain more of their identity. But even that is on a case by case basis: many Jews are very assimilated, other are proud of thinking of themselves as critical outsiders.

    Language, history knowledge and film consumption [LMFAOOOOOO] are minor things. Values and customs matter far more.

    I don’t know many “Italian-Americans”, nor have I ever been to southern Italy, but my intuition is that your claim is highly false. Hopefully a more knowledgeable person can weigh in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    I've lived in the Northeast, where there are many Italian-Americans.

    Generally they're quite proud of their heritage and are fond of their Nana's pasta and pretend to like opera, but tend to act more and more like mainstream Americans as you go down the generations and get out of the big cities. There is a loudmouth 'Jersey Shore' culture but middle-class Italian-Americans look down on them. Most of them don't speak Italian anymore. A lot of superficial aspects of Italian culture like pasta and pizza are common in the Northeast so it's not a huge stretch.

    They intermarry heavily with Irish-Americans (same religion) and Jewish Americans (look the same, similarly expressive and familial, live in many of the same areas). Many are pretty conservative these days, and a lot of them liked Trump.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Olorin
    The important thing is that the left gets to natter on about race in whatever the discursive fashion of the day dictates.

    So much easier and delivering of moral superiority than all that hard math and science behind population genetics here in Biology's Century.

    So much easier and delivering of moral superiority than all that hard math and science behind population genetics here in Biology’s Century.

    Not to mention all of the unpalatable conclusions. “We” believe in science (except when it concludes something we don’t like).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Americans seem to have completely forgotten that “race” started out meaning lineage. The English word “race” comes out of the horse race business. It probably traces back to an Arab word for descent or breed. The use of the word “race” for breed and for what Arab-derived Thoroughbreds are used for is not a coincidence.

    Actually, it is *kind of* a coincidence. Racing as running at high speed and race as a lineage have different etymological origins. The former is Norse and the latter French. However, the two different meanings converging to some extent in racehorse and thereby reinforcing each other is very common in language, so that process is no coincidence.

    The original French word also resulted in Spanish raza and Italian razza, neither of which mean race as a contest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    IT people may say that the US cultural and other software is in a race condition.

    "A race condition or race hazard is the behavior of an electronic, software, or other system where the output is dependent on the sequence or timing of other uncontrollable events. It becomes a bug when events do not happen in the order the programmer intended. The term originates with the idea of two signals racing each other to influence the output first."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_condition
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Jim Don Bob
    How come we never see Nick Diaz and Corvinus posting at the same time? Are they the same person?

    How come we never see Nick Diaz and Corvinus posting at the same time? Are they the same person?

    I reckon the only way to disprove that is for none of them to post for a period of time, like five years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Back in the 1980′s, Mexicans from largely Mestizo backgrounds were considered fascinating and exotic in the Southern suburb I grew up in. There were not many of them, but they came from wealthy families with good standing in local business circles. Mexican women with average looks/personalities were heavily pursued and popular. Students from families who immigrated from Spain didn’t fare as well. With their thick accents and weird clothes, they were regarded as ho-hum Euros.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. I spent my high school years in a small town in rural Alabama. Segregation was as strong as ever there, even though it was near the end of the Jim Crow age. There was two of everything, one labeled “whites”, and the other “colored”.

    An Italian Catholic family moved to town. They were expected to use the “white” stuff. Same for the one and only Jewish guy.

    The bulk of the population had an Irish background. They used the white stuff. Those who had Cherokee ancestors bragged about it. They used the white stuff. I knew a guy who was an actual Cherokee chief. He used the white stuff. There were no Japanese or Chinese people about, but if there had been, they would have been expected to use the “white” stuff.

    “Colored” stuff was for the exclusive use of African-Americans only, and they would pitch a fit if they caught you using their stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neon2
    Precisely.
    And so it should have stayed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Chrisnonymous
    Hmmm... I don't know. I think MENA Christians might be accepted in a spirit of ecumenism rather racial solidarity. In fact, if I envision a family gathering of mine like a Christmas celebration, I think a Korean Presbyterian would be less jarringly different than an Egyptian Copt.

    The real Rorschach test is Greeks--Christians who are geographically and linguistically Western, and yet...

    Koreans are “jarringly” different. They always look out of place (like Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, etc.). Egyptian Copts (about 90% are black with a 10% white minority). Whenever I see pictures of the Copts, I usually see that racial difference.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Coemgen
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    The only Egyptian Copts I have met were not black, fluent in English, and very pro-Western. Yet, very "foreign". On the other hand, I have known a lot of Korean Presbyterians, and they seem very familiar.

    I also took classes with Larry Westphal in university. I have the impression that Korea has been "western" since the '50s...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Early 20th century Mexican immigrants were “white” according to the census. My grandparents attended Mexican-only schools until they were competent at English, then they went to the regular school. My grandfather worked in the fields as a kid. He retired an engineer who worked for NASA. My swarthy-ish aunts still mark ‘white’ on the census. I imagine that side of the family would be a 70-30 or 80-20 Spanish/Amerind split, quite different from late 20th century Mexican immigrants.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. @Peter Akuleyev
    Jews from Ethopia are "Jews" in the same way that Richard Gere is Tibetan.

    How is that? Ethiopian Jews have been an ethnoreligious community for more than 2000 years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Bill P

    Americans seem to have completely forgotten that “race” started out meaning lineage. The English word “race” comes out of the horse race business. It probably traces back to an Arab word for descent or breed. The use of the word “race” for breed and for what Arab-derived Thoroughbreds are used for is not a coincidence.
     
    Actually, it is *kind of* a coincidence. Racing as running at high speed and race as a lineage have different etymological origins. The former is Norse and the latter French. However, the two different meanings converging to some extent in racehorse and thereby reinforcing each other is very common in language, so that process is no coincidence.

    The original French word also resulted in Spanish raza and Italian razza, neither of which mean race as a contest.

    IT people may say that the US cultural and other software is in a race condition.

    “A race condition or race hazard is the behavior of an electronic, software, or other system where the output is dependent on the sequence or timing of other uncontrollable events. It becomes a bug when events do not happen in the order the programmer intended. The term originates with the idea of two signals racing each other to influence the output first.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_condition

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Steve Sailor,
    I struggled throughout reading this post to understand what your point or thesis, in particular, is. It’s reasonably clear to me what Bernstein’s thesis is, whether I agree with it or not, but it I’m not completely clear what you are trying to achieve.

    The best I can do is apply some coherency to it all based on your closing sentences which attempt to put a definition around the use of the term “race” – so you seem in the preceding to be showing how all these other theories of what race means lead to dead ends, and then you try to return the reader to what you take to be a more useful definition.

    Going with the idea that I have you right there (and I may be corrected): I just think that this is not the most important issue.

    To compare: I happen to disagree with the 20/20 hindsighters who fault Bernie Sanders with trying to use the word “socialism” in American politics and who credit his failure to secure the nomination to this particular strategic decision. I do agree that it is a matter of dumbing down the American electorate that we are unable to discriminate between the socialism of Venezuela, the USSR and Maoist China, versus the socialism of Sweden, Denmark, Finland or the juggernaut of the European economy: Germany.

    [MORE]

    Even if this cost Sanders – Sanders is right to push it, because we dare not stay dumb so long. As long as Americans are persuaded to atomize themselves in the name of preserving their private capital, they do so at the expense of their community / cultures’ social capital – because social capital can only be preserved when communities stay intact and agree to protect their social capital together.

    The extralegal “diversity” program at your Fortune-500 corporate employer that goes far above and beyond the requirements of EO/AA, that is possible because for the false promise that as an automaton you may someday be a billionaire, you traded away your community social capital which may have acted as a bulwark against the tax of diversity on your social capital.

    By that same calculus: even if you are right on your definition of race – it doesn’t matter.

    The problem is: when you, you Steve Sailor with your blowhorn, when you make it about race, you immediately shut off the possibility of making common cause with people who should otherwise be counted on to recognize that there is really a problem. There are people who understand your over-correction argument, and there are people whose eyes will pop out (behind hands covering them so no one sees) at the nonsense that the NAACP is claiming to make common cause with Asians, against whites, because of the claim that whites are being favored – but those people simply will not make cause, because even when they had social capital, it was social capital about ethnic community, culture, religion – but it was, to them, never about race, and they are acutely sensitive to the very over-correction issue you raise, except that they take seriously that failure to over-correct risks empowering the haters and there is no world where they will sign on to that, and they can read the haters hating up and down the comments on your posts.

    It makes sense to notice when others make it about race, i.e.: Damon Hewitt – notice that and keep noticing it. But don’t answer with race, answer with culture.

    Race is a quick identifier, but it matures and rots quickly and breaks down almost as soon as it gets anywhere, i.e.: “Aristotle invented the computer” … oh, you mean that Greek, not even Greco-Roman, but Greek guy, who lived 1400 years before there was an Englishman, about 2000 miles away? Doesn’t fit the narrative of your readership well, but we notice that’s a cognitive dissonance they are comfortable with. Doesn’t sound like good people to share foxholes with. Yanks have been making that call since East Anglia.

    No one has a taste for it – but we are sensitive to false promises of capitalism, to atomization of our communities, to alienation from our cultures and to the shocking cynicism that Hewitt is representative of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Coemgen
    TL;DR
    , @SFG
    I agree with you to some degree, though I think you're on the wrong website. I do think neoliberal capitalism is bad for people of all colors, but the racial divide is too strong to allow right-wing Trumpian populists to make common cause with class-oriented Berniebros. The populists want the white America of the 1950s back, and the Berniebros won't team up with anyone who's racist, however that's defined.

    Do I think this is all a bit of divide et impera by globalist elites? Yeah, when rednecks and dindus are shooting each other they won't hit the bankers. But there's too much in blood for them to make common cause at this point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @John Chard
    Yes, exactly---what makes no sense to me about this whole "ethnics were once not white!!1!1" meme to me is that the term "white/the white race" was frequently used in speeches and writings pre-dating the Second World War. For example, in the 1790 immigration act that white nationalists love to cite, immigration was limited to "free white persons of good character", and presumably that allowed Irish immigrants to enter.

    However, while the specific point about Irish, Italians etc. not literally being considered white is wrong, I do think that progressives have a reasonable point underneath the nonsense. Racial/ethnic nationalists today have very different ideas about who the groups they want to protect are than people did in the 19th century, let alone the 17th or 12th century. For example, the difference between Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans was pretty important to Madison Grant, but I don't hear, say, Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Anglin talking too much about how Italians are a racial threat to Anglo-Saxons. But white nationalists like them today say that they're drawing the boundaries of their in-group on the basis of biology, and clearly the change in tribal identity from 1924 to 2017 is the result of changes in socialization rather than evolution.

    Perhaps MacDonald and the like know that they have zero chance if they exclude and alienate the tens of millions of proud white European-descended Americans who are NOT English, Scottish, Irish, or Welsh. Like me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Selvar
    On the other hand, hardcore white nationalists will still claim that Ashkenazi Jews are nonwhite, so there is clearly a distinction to be made between the way in which the law defines whiteness (Jews, Arabs, and Turks are "white") and the way the self-appointed advocates of white people do so.

    One need not be a “self-appointed advocate of white people” to consider Arabs and Turks to be NOT white genetically and culturally. This need not be a negative observation, just an obvious one supported by observation, experience, and now genetic testing.

    By the way, who exactly should “appoint” each of us as advocates for the people, rights, interests, and culture that we wish to protect, if not each person deciding for himself what social/political activism to pursue (“self-appointed”)?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @syonredux

    White is thought of as a race, but in America whites are also an ethnic group. White Americans are as much a distinct ethnic group as French or Germans are in Europe.
     
    Indeed. SJWs love to dilate on how, in contrast to, say, Irishness or Frenchness, "Whiteness" is an entirely arbitrary and artificial concept. The reality, of course, is quite different. Anglo-America has witnessed an enormous amount of intra-European mixing. Although there are Americans who are completely German, or English, or Italian, they are outnumbered by crossbreeds, Americans who are the end-product of two or more European ethnies (German+English, Irish+Italian, Polish+ Greek, etc). Indeed, I know some siblings who are 25% Italian, 25% Polish, 25% Ashkenazi, and 25% English.

    Whiteness in America is a biological reality.

    Exactly. I don’t know many white Americans who are all from one ethny, i.e. all English or all German or all Italian or all Polish.

    Genetically, I’m Italian, German, and Slavic, and I know MANY people with similar mixtures.

    Both America and Americans benefitted from the immigration & assimilation of large numbers of non-British whites and the subsequent massive inter-marriage between British-descended and other whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @syonredux

    Sorry, but the Irish were always ‘white’ (and so were Italians, Jews and so on)

    This is not true for the jews, their origins are from the middle east, the early jews would not have been considered white. Then there are the jews from Ethiopia, nobody in America (then and now) would have considered them white.
     
    He's talking about Jews in the context of the USA. Jews from Europe have always been regarded as White in the USA.

    And people from the Middle East have a long history of being counted as White in the USA and Europe. For example, Christians like William Peter Blatty and Danny Thomas (both Lebanese).

    No way have Americans considered “most” Middle Easterners to be white. Not by a long shot. This is neither a good nor bad thing, just an observation.

    Americans have done so in a limited number of cases where the Middle Eastern person was relatively light-skinned and also Christian, rarely where the Middle Eastern person was extremely Semitic or Arab-looking and almost never where the person was Muslim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @syonredux

    I grew up in a mostly second/third generation immigrant neighborhood in Philadelphia. There were Italians, Irish, Germans, and more deeply rooted English kids there. They have discernable phenotypes. You didn’t really didn’t have to know that a kid who just moved into the neighborhood was Italian by knowing his last name was DiMarcantonio. The hair color, complexion, facial features, and the slight accent he picked up from his folks signalled that very clearly.

    Steve grew up in the more mature and eclectic San Fernando Valley so I’m not sure he had the same first-impression sense of the differences among Europeans. But he does notice, so I could be wrong.
     
    General rule is that intra-White ethnic differences lose salience once you cross the Mississippi. The San Francisco Bay Area used to be a partial exception, as Italian and Irish enclaves persisted for a while post WW2.

    General rule is that intra-White ethnic differences lose salience once you cross the Mississippi.

    The Mississippi? Try the Mason-Dixon line.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    General rule is that intra-White ethnic differences lose salience once you cross the Mississippi.

    The Mississippi? Try the Mason-Dixon line.
     
    Good point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @John Chard
    Yes, exactly---what makes no sense to me about this whole "ethnics were once not white!!1!1" meme to me is that the term "white/the white race" was frequently used in speeches and writings pre-dating the Second World War. For example, in the 1790 immigration act that white nationalists love to cite, immigration was limited to "free white persons of good character", and presumably that allowed Irish immigrants to enter.

    However, while the specific point about Irish, Italians etc. not literally being considered white is wrong, I do think that progressives have a reasonable point underneath the nonsense. Racial/ethnic nationalists today have very different ideas about who the groups they want to protect are than people did in the 19th century, let alone the 17th or 12th century. For example, the difference between Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans was pretty important to Madison Grant, but I don't hear, say, Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Anglin talking too much about how Italians are a racial threat to Anglo-Saxons. But white nationalists like them today say that they're drawing the boundaries of their in-group on the basis of biology, and clearly the change in tribal identity from 1924 to 2017 is the result of changes in socialization rather than evolution.

    However, while the specific point about Irish, Italians etc. not literally being considered white is wrong, I do think that progressives have a reasonable point underneath the nonsense. Racial/ethnic nationalists today have very different ideas about who the groups they want to protect are than people did in the 19th century, let alone the 17th or 12th century. For example, the difference between Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans was pretty important to Madison Grant, but I don’t hear, say, Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Anglin talking too much about how Italians are a racial threat to Anglo-Saxons. But white nationalists like them today say that they’re drawing the boundaries of their in-group on the basis of biology, and clearly the change in tribal identity from 1924 to 2017 is the result of changes in socialization rather than evolution.

    You can read MacDonald’s What Makes Western Culture Unique and come up with a good definition of “white” or “Western white”, but the salient definition is set by our antagonists. Whites are those who are under attack a for being “white”.

    While there are certainly differences among the constituent nationalities and sub-nationalities, they pale in importance (at least for the time being) compared to the external common threat. All those attacked as “whites” must fight together as “whites”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Mr. Anon
    "Yet the Founding Fathers granted Congress the liberty to change that criteria to reflect future generations of Americans."

    Because they deemed it unthinkable that America would ever be inundated by Mexicans, or Musselmen, or anybody not white and chrisitan. They didn't explicity ban gay marriage either, or say that sex is biologically determined. That doesn't mean they ever thought that someday two dudes would want to get married, or that a dude would demand to be recognized as a chick. The founders were handicapped by sanity, which rendered them unsuited to set rules for a country that has - as this one has - lost its' mind. They didn't reckon on idiots like you.

    Because they deemed it unthinkable that America would ever be inundated by Mexicans, or Musselmen, or anybody not white and chrisitan.

    The Founding Fathers were a product of the times. Of course it was “unthinkable”, they had a different frame of reference.

    “The founders were handicapped by sanity, which rendered them unsuited to set rules for a country that has – as this one has – lost its’ mind.”

    Americans haven’t lost their mind, or are less than sane than the Founding Fathers. You still can’t gloss over the fact that immigration criteria would be established by Congress, and that citizenship is based on political and cultural standards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    Steve Sailor,
    I struggled throughout reading this post to understand what your point or thesis, in particular, is. It's reasonably clear to me what Bernstein's thesis is, whether I agree with it or not, but it I'm not completely clear what you are trying to achieve.

    The best I can do is apply some coherency to it all based on your closing sentences which attempt to put a definition around the use of the term "race" - so you seem in the preceding to be showing how all these other theories of what race means lead to dead ends, and then you try to return the reader to what you take to be a more useful definition.

    Going with the idea that I have you right there (and I may be corrected): I just think that this is not the most important issue.

    To compare: I happen to disagree with the 20/20 hindsighters who fault Bernie Sanders with trying to use the word "socialism" in American politics and who credit his failure to secure the nomination to this particular strategic decision. I do agree that it is a matter of dumbing down the American electorate that we are unable to discriminate between the socialism of Venezuela, the USSR and Maoist China, versus the socialism of Sweden, Denmark, Finland or the juggernaut of the European economy: Germany.

    Even if this cost Sanders - Sanders is right to push it, because we dare not stay dumb so long. As long as Americans are persuaded to atomize themselves in the name of preserving their private capital, they do so at the expense of their community / cultures' social capital - because social capital can only be preserved when communities stay intact and agree to protect their social capital together.

    The extralegal "diversity" program at your Fortune-500 corporate employer that goes far above and beyond the requirements of EO/AA, that is possible because for the false promise that as an automaton you may someday be a billionaire, you traded away your community social capital which may have acted as a bulwark against the tax of diversity on your social capital.

    By that same calculus: even if you are right on your definition of race - it doesn't matter.

    The problem is: when you, you Steve Sailor with your blowhorn, when you make it about race, you immediately shut off the possibility of making common cause with people who should otherwise be counted on to recognize that there is really a problem. There are people who understand your over-correction argument, and there are people whose eyes will pop out (behind hands covering them so no one sees) at the nonsense that the NAACP is claiming to make common cause with Asians, against whites, because of the claim that whites are being favored - but those people simply will not make cause, because even when they had social capital, it was social capital about ethnic community, culture, religion - but it was, to them, never about race, and they are acutely sensitive to the very over-correction issue you raise, except that they take seriously that failure to over-correct risks empowering the haters and there is no world where they will sign on to that, and they can read the haters hating up and down the comments on your posts.

    It makes sense to notice when others make it about race, i.e.: Damon Hewitt - notice that and keep noticing it. But don't answer with race, answer with culture.

    Race is a quick identifier, but it matures and rots quickly and breaks down almost as soon as it gets anywhere, i.e.: "Aristotle invented the computer" ... oh, you mean that Greek, not even Greco-Roman, but Greek guy, who lived 1400 years before there was an Englishman, about 2000 miles away? Doesn't fit the narrative of your readership well, but we notice that's a cognitive dissonance they are comfortable with. Doesn't sound like good people to share foxholes with. Yanks have been making that call since East Anglia.

    No one has a taste for it - but we are sensitive to false promises of capitalism, to atomization of our communities, to alienation from our cultures and to the shocking cynicism that Hewitt is representative of.

    TL;DR

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Hapalong Cassidy
    "Bernstein mentions pre-20th Century authors used terms like the “Irish race”, this is becuase before the 20th century the term race was synonymous with what we now call “ethnic group”

    That particular usage probably applied well into the 20th century. It calls to mind the scene from "The Untouchables" when Sean Connery's Malone refers to the Italian cop played by Andy Garcia as a "lying, thieving member of a no good race."

    A once famous book was “The Story of the Irish Race” by Seumas MacManus, published in 1921.
    I used to see it in used book shops all the time when I was a boy: do people in the USA still know of it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @rienzi
    I spent my high school years in a small town in rural Alabama. Segregation was as strong as ever there, even though it was near the end of the Jim Crow age. There was two of everything, one labeled "whites", and the other "colored".

    An Italian Catholic family moved to town. They were expected to use the "white" stuff. Same for the one and only Jewish guy.

    The bulk of the population had an Irish background. They used the white stuff. Those who had Cherokee ancestors bragged about it. They used the white stuff. I knew a guy who was an actual Cherokee chief. He used the white stuff. There were no Japanese or Chinese people about, but if there had been, they would have been expected to use the "white" stuff.

    "Colored" stuff was for the exclusive use of African-Americans only, and they would pitch a fit if they caught you using their stuff.

    Precisely.
    And so it should have stayed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Jim Don Bob
    How come we never see Nick Diaz and Corvinus posting at the same time? Are they the same person?

    Hey man, have some respect — Diaz and Corvy have seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion, watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will now be lost in time, like tears in rain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. 1.
    The Irish are Celts.
    All Celts are white.
    2.
    The term “Black Irish” refers to those who carry genetic material from
    survivors of the shipwrecked Spanish Armada, in the time of Elizabeth l, who mated with local women and whose hair, skin, eye colour differentiated them slightly from the general population.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. @Thrasymachus
    VDare still considers Italians and Irish a threat.

    …!…
    If that is so they are certainly fiddling while
    Rome burns …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @AndrewR
    Language, history knowledge and film consumption [LMFAOOOOOO] are minor things. Values and customs matter far more.

    I don't know many "Italian-Americans", nor have I ever been to southern Italy, but my intuition is that your claim is highly false. Hopefully a more knowledgeable person can weigh in.

    I’ve lived in the Northeast, where there are many Italian-Americans.

    Generally they’re quite proud of their heritage and are fond of their Nana’s pasta and pretend to like opera, but tend to act more and more like mainstream Americans as you go down the generations and get out of the big cities. There is a loudmouth ‘Jersey Shore’ culture but middle-class Italian-Americans look down on them. Most of them don’t speak Italian anymore. A lot of superficial aspects of Italian culture like pasta and pizza are common in the Northeast so it’s not a huge stretch.

    They intermarry heavily with Irish-Americans (same religion) and Jewish Americans (look the same, similarly expressive and familial, live in many of the same areas). Many are pretty conservative these days, and a lot of them liked Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Selvar
    On the other hand, hardcore white nationalists will still claim that Ashkenazi Jews are nonwhite, so there is clearly a distinction to be made between the way in which the law defines whiteness (Jews, Arabs, and Turks are "white") and the way the self-appointed advocates of white people do so.

    Honestly, Jews would be white if they didn’t keep trumpeting liberal causes. They’re barely darker than Italians. There are no white nationalist conspiracy theories about Turks because every other annoying SJW isn’t Turkish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    Steve Sailor,
    I struggled throughout reading this post to understand what your point or thesis, in particular, is. It's reasonably clear to me what Bernstein's thesis is, whether I agree with it or not, but it I'm not completely clear what you are trying to achieve.

    The best I can do is apply some coherency to it all based on your closing sentences which attempt to put a definition around the use of the term "race" - so you seem in the preceding to be showing how all these other theories of what race means lead to dead ends, and then you try to return the reader to what you take to be a more useful definition.

    Going with the idea that I have you right there (and I may be corrected): I just think that this is not the most important issue.

    To compare: I happen to disagree with the 20/20 hindsighters who fault Bernie Sanders with trying to use the word "socialism" in American politics and who credit his failure to secure the nomination to this particular strategic decision. I do agree that it is a matter of dumbing down the American electorate that we are unable to discriminate between the socialism of Venezuela, the USSR and Maoist China, versus the socialism of Sweden, Denmark, Finland or the juggernaut of the European economy: Germany.

    Even if this cost Sanders - Sanders is right to push it, because we dare not stay dumb so long. As long as Americans are persuaded to atomize themselves in the name of preserving their private capital, they do so at the expense of their community / cultures' social capital - because social capital can only be preserved when communities stay intact and agree to protect their social capital together.

    The extralegal "diversity" program at your Fortune-500 corporate employer that goes far above and beyond the requirements of EO/AA, that is possible because for the false promise that as an automaton you may someday be a billionaire, you traded away your community social capital which may have acted as a bulwark against the tax of diversity on your social capital.

    By that same calculus: even if you are right on your definition of race - it doesn't matter.

    The problem is: when you, you Steve Sailor with your blowhorn, when you make it about race, you immediately shut off the possibility of making common cause with people who should otherwise be counted on to recognize that there is really a problem. There are people who understand your over-correction argument, and there are people whose eyes will pop out (behind hands covering them so no one sees) at the nonsense that the NAACP is claiming to make common cause with Asians, against whites, because of the claim that whites are being favored - but those people simply will not make cause, because even when they had social capital, it was social capital about ethnic community, culture, religion - but it was, to them, never about race, and they are acutely sensitive to the very over-correction issue you raise, except that they take seriously that failure to over-correct risks empowering the haters and there is no world where they will sign on to that, and they can read the haters hating up and down the comments on your posts.

    It makes sense to notice when others make it about race, i.e.: Damon Hewitt - notice that and keep noticing it. But don't answer with race, answer with culture.

    Race is a quick identifier, but it matures and rots quickly and breaks down almost as soon as it gets anywhere, i.e.: "Aristotle invented the computer" ... oh, you mean that Greek, not even Greco-Roman, but Greek guy, who lived 1400 years before there was an Englishman, about 2000 miles away? Doesn't fit the narrative of your readership well, but we notice that's a cognitive dissonance they are comfortable with. Doesn't sound like good people to share foxholes with. Yanks have been making that call since East Anglia.

    No one has a taste for it - but we are sensitive to false promises of capitalism, to atomization of our communities, to alienation from our cultures and to the shocking cynicism that Hewitt is representative of.

    I agree with you to some degree, though I think you’re on the wrong website. I do think neoliberal capitalism is bad for people of all colors, but the racial divide is too strong to allow right-wing Trumpian populists to make common cause with class-oriented Berniebros. The populists want the white America of the 1950s back, and the Berniebros won’t team up with anyone who’s racist, however that’s defined.

    Do I think this is all a bit of divide et impera by globalist elites? Yeah, when rednecks and dindus are shooting each other they won’t hit the bankers. But there’s too much in blood for them to make common cause at this point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Conflating community, not to mention culture, with the state (i.e. socialism) is how we got in this mess. Granted, the cure (libertarianism cum atomization) may be now worse than the disease, but it does not follow that embracing the disease would be an improvement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Selvar
    On the other hand, hardcore white nationalists will still claim that Ashkenazi Jews are nonwhite, so there is clearly a distinction to be made between the way in which the law defines whiteness (Jews, Arabs, and Turks are "white") and the way the self-appointed advocates of white people do so.

    On the other hand, hardcore white nationalists will still claim that Ashkenazi Jews are nonwhite,

    Jews in the media and academia are constantly attacking Eurowhite people.

    Maybe that has something to do with it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @ben tillman

    General rule is that intra-White ethnic differences lose salience once you cross the Mississippi.
     
    The Mississippi? Try the Mason-Dixon line.

    General rule is that intra-White ethnic differences lose salience once you cross the Mississippi.

    The Mississippi? Try the Mason-Dixon line.

    Good point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @PiltdownMan

    Jews from Ethopia are “Jews” in the same way that Richard Gere is Tibetan.
     
    I wonder what analogy one would use for these people...

    http://www.bneimenashe.com/

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EzJG374Dy_E/maxresdefault.jpg

    https://youtu.be/kmp8s-Ir5hM?t=46s

    Are these the Kaifeng Jews from China?

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    No, they are from Eastern India, check out the links.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @syonredux
    From an Atlantic article on John O'Hara:

    It's hard not to cringe when reading accounts of O'Hara's efforts to buoy his ego. He hounded friends and acquaintances to put him up for clubs and had the seals of those that accepted him embossed on a gold cigarette case, which he casually left on his coffee table to impress visitors. Blackballed by the ultra-exclusive Racquet Club, he ordered playing cards with the club's insignia through a friend and used them for bridge games at home. A Bentley was too understated; he bought himself a Rolls-Royce. At this remove such displays seem pathetic; at the time they must have appeared risible to many and contemptible to some.


    Indeed, he allowed his failure to attend Yale -- to him the ultimate club -- to rankle so conspicuously that Ernest Hemingway, on receipt of a windfall, famously remarked that the money should be used to "start a bloody fund to send John O'Hara to Yale." "A mean little story, but it shows what my friends think of me," O'Hara commented bitterly, and very much in character. Years later he complained to Yale's alumni magazine about the school's refusal to grant him an honorary degree. When Kingman Brewster, Yale's president, was asked why he never gave O'Hara that degree, he replied, "Because he asked for it."

     

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/03/john-oharas-protectorate/378079/

    I have thought about reading an O’Hara biography by the same author who wrote a book on Fitzgerald and another favorite novelist of mine, James Gould Cozzens. But artist biographies almost always leave me flat. Their lives really aren’t that interesting; the real stuff is in the books, and I only need biographers to tell me about the ones I haven’t read. Which is handy for some, I guess.

    Maybe I’ll give it a go. He sounds like a genuine piece of work. Though I wouldn’t take the Atlantic’s word for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    My life largely consists of sitting in front of a computer. It would make a very boring biography.
    , @syonredux

    I have thought about reading an O’Hara biography by the same author who wrote a book on Fitzgerald and another favorite novelist of mine, James Gould Cozzens.
     
    Matthew J. Bruccoli. Yeah, I picked it up after I read Joseph Epstein's excellent article on Cozzens:

    Cozzens Repossessed


    If Cozzens resembles any major American figure, it is Justice Holmes. Like Holmes, Cozzens did not wish to blink unpleasant facts about human nature. Like Holmes, Cozzens admired the strength of the puritanical tradition while remaining himself agnostic. Like Holmes again, Cozzens felt that all lies, even lies for the putative good of humanity, were still lies. In the middle of By Love Possessed, a black man comes to Arthur Winner, Jr., to tell him he has a bad heart condition and would like Winner to write his will for him. When Winner asks how he is feeling at present, he says he is rather like the man in the cartoon who has fallen from the skyscraper and who, when passing a window from which people look out at him in shock, announces, “All right so far.” There is a joke Justice Holmes would have adored. He would also have had no difficulty understanding another character in By Love Possessed who says that “Freedom is the knowledge of necessity.”
     
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/cozzens-repossessed/


    I'm a big Cozzens fan, with The Just and the Unjust and Guard of Honor standing as my personal favorites,
    , @syonredux

    Maybe I’ll give it a go. He sounds like a genuine piece of work. Though I wouldn’t take the Atlantic’s word for it.
     
    The article was by Benjamin and Christina Schwarz. Benjamin's critical judgement is pretty good. He's not to be confused with the SJW hacks who have infested the magazine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @guest
    I have thought about reading an O'Hara biography by the same author who wrote a book on Fitzgerald and another favorite novelist of mine, James Gould Cozzens. But artist biographies almost always leave me flat. Their lives really aren't that interesting; the real stuff is in the books, and I only need biographers to tell me about the ones I haven't read. Which is handy for some, I guess.

    Maybe I'll give it a go. He sounds like a genuine piece of work. Though I wouldn't take the Atlantic's word for it.

    My life largely consists of sitting in front of a computer. It would make a very boring biography.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    It takes a bit of imagination, but it can be done. Xavier de Maistre wrote an intriguing book called" Voyages autour de ma chambre" (Travels around my Room"), a travel book set in his room.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xavier_de_Maistre
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @syonredux

    Hmmm… I don’t know. I think MENA Christians might be accepted in a spirit of ecumenism rather racial solidarity. In fact, if I envision a family gathering of mine like a Christmas celebration, I think a Korean Presbyterian would be less jarringly different than an Egyptian Copt.

     

    Well, both Danny Thomas and William Peter Blatty were Lebanese Catholics.....

    The real Rorschach test is Greeks–Christians who are geographically and linguistically Western, and yet…
     
    And yet what....The Greek American community seems to have assimilated pretty well....

    I guess we have to agree to disagree. All the Greeks I have known strike me as very Other. As I said, they are more “Other” than Korean Protestants. I have a very strong intuition that if this question were put to other white Protestants in my hometown, they would agree.

    There may be a perverse “Uncanny Valley”-like effect in this…

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I guess we have to agree to disagree. All the Greeks I have known strike me as very Other. As I said, they are more “Other” than Korean Protestants. I have a very strong intuition that if this question were put to other white Protestants in my hometown, they would agree.

    There may be a perverse “Uncanny Valley”-like effect in this…
     
    I knew a fair number of Greek-Americans in High School and university. They didn't seem "Other" to me.
    , @BB753
    What about Roman Catholic Koreans, do they seem exotic to your Protestant friends?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_South_Korea
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @attilathehen
    Koreans are "jarringly" different. They always look out of place (like Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, etc.). Egyptian Copts (about 90% are black with a 10% white minority). Whenever I see pictures of the Copts, I usually see that racial difference.

    The only Egyptian Copts I have met were not black, fluent in English, and very pro-Western. Yet, very “foreign”. On the other hand, I have known a lot of Korean Presbyterians, and they seem very familiar.

    I also took classes with Larry Westphal in university. I have the impression that Korea has been “western” since the ’50s…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Steve Sailer
    My life largely consists of sitting in front of a computer. It would make a very boring biography.

    It takes a bit of imagination, but it can be done. Xavier de Maistre wrote an intriguing book called” Voyages autour de ma chambre” (Travels around my Room”), a travel book set in his room.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xavier_de_Maistre

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @guest
    I have thought about reading an O'Hara biography by the same author who wrote a book on Fitzgerald and another favorite novelist of mine, James Gould Cozzens. But artist biographies almost always leave me flat. Their lives really aren't that interesting; the real stuff is in the books, and I only need biographers to tell me about the ones I haven't read. Which is handy for some, I guess.

    Maybe I'll give it a go. He sounds like a genuine piece of work. Though I wouldn't take the Atlantic's word for it.

    I have thought about reading an O’Hara biography by the same author who wrote a book on Fitzgerald and another favorite novelist of mine, James Gould Cozzens.

    Matthew J. Bruccoli. Yeah, I picked it up after I read Joseph Epstein’s excellent article on Cozzens:

    Cozzens Repossessed

    If Cozzens resembles any major American figure, it is Justice Holmes. Like Holmes, Cozzens did not wish to blink unpleasant facts about human nature. Like Holmes, Cozzens admired the strength of the puritanical tradition while remaining himself agnostic. Like Holmes again, Cozzens felt that all lies, even lies for the putative good of humanity, were still lies. In the middle of By Love Possessed, a black man comes to Arthur Winner, Jr., to tell him he has a bad heart condition and would like Winner to write his will for him. When Winner asks how he is feeling at present, he says he is rather like the man in the cartoon who has fallen from the skyscraper and who, when passing a window from which people look out at him in shock, announces, “All right so far.” There is a joke Justice Holmes would have adored. He would also have had no difficulty understanding another character in By Love Possessed who says that “Freedom is the knowledge of necessity.”

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/cozzens-repossessed/

    I’m a big Cozzens fan, with The Just and the Unjust and Guard of Honor standing as my personal favorites,

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    The Just and the Unjust is probably my favorite. Interestingly enough, I hadn't ever heard of Cozzens, despite his Pulitzer and a Hollywood adaptation, until I stumbled upon the cover image for Castaway, which caught my fancy. (Or at least I thought I hadn't; later I vaguely recalled reading a National Review article on Guard of Honor that didn't really stick with me.) Castaway turned out to be a very un-Cozzens book, but it was a good introduction, I suppose, since I read it in one sitting.

    I discovered O'Hara independently in similar fashion. (Though I had heard of the Elizabeth Taylor Butterfield 8 adaptation.) Makes me wonder how many other great novelists lie buried. I recently looked Cozzens up on Wikipedia and saw they link him with O'Hara and yet another I like, John P. Marquand, in the opening section. So I guess Wikipedia is good for something, after all.

    , @guest
    I didn't get the Holmes connection, because to me Holmes is just an especially smart progressive, whereas Cozzens was un-progressive. I don't think of Holmes as a "tells it like it is" kinda guy, though naturally he's guilty of Noticing, most infamously in his Buck v Bell comments. Which he mostly gets away with, because of his progressivism.

    Cozzens doesn't get away with it, and I had assumed one of the reasons he's been buried is all the Noticing he did in his novels, especially of blacks and Jews. But about "generations of imbeciles," one of the good (not to mention i-Stevey) things about his books is that most of them take place in small towns, where characters have enough knowledge of eachother to see genetics in action. People are inescapably examples of family types, even when they're degenerates.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @guest
    I have thought about reading an O'Hara biography by the same author who wrote a book on Fitzgerald and another favorite novelist of mine, James Gould Cozzens. But artist biographies almost always leave me flat. Their lives really aren't that interesting; the real stuff is in the books, and I only need biographers to tell me about the ones I haven't read. Which is handy for some, I guess.

    Maybe I'll give it a go. He sounds like a genuine piece of work. Though I wouldn't take the Atlantic's word for it.

    Maybe I’ll give it a go. He sounds like a genuine piece of work. Though I wouldn’t take the Atlantic’s word for it.

    The article was by Benjamin and Christina Schwarz. Benjamin’s critical judgement is pretty good. He’s not to be confused with the SJW hacks who have infested the magazine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Chrisnonymous
    I guess we have to agree to disagree. All the Greeks I have known strike me as very Other. As I said, they are more "Other" than Korean Protestants. I have a very strong intuition that if this question were put to other white Protestants in my hometown, they would agree.

    There may be a perverse "Uncanny Valley"-like effect in this...

    I guess we have to agree to disagree. All the Greeks I have known strike me as very Other. As I said, they are more “Other” than Korean Protestants. I have a very strong intuition that if this question were put to other white Protestants in my hometown, they would agree.

    There may be a perverse “Uncanny Valley”-like effect in this…

    I knew a fair number of Greek-Americans in High School and university. They didn’t seem “Other” to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @syonredux

    I have thought about reading an O’Hara biography by the same author who wrote a book on Fitzgerald and another favorite novelist of mine, James Gould Cozzens.
     
    Matthew J. Bruccoli. Yeah, I picked it up after I read Joseph Epstein's excellent article on Cozzens:

    Cozzens Repossessed


    If Cozzens resembles any major American figure, it is Justice Holmes. Like Holmes, Cozzens did not wish to blink unpleasant facts about human nature. Like Holmes, Cozzens admired the strength of the puritanical tradition while remaining himself agnostic. Like Holmes again, Cozzens felt that all lies, even lies for the putative good of humanity, were still lies. In the middle of By Love Possessed, a black man comes to Arthur Winner, Jr., to tell him he has a bad heart condition and would like Winner to write his will for him. When Winner asks how he is feeling at present, he says he is rather like the man in the cartoon who has fallen from the skyscraper and who, when passing a window from which people look out at him in shock, announces, “All right so far.” There is a joke Justice Holmes would have adored. He would also have had no difficulty understanding another character in By Love Possessed who says that “Freedom is the knowledge of necessity.”
     
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/cozzens-repossessed/


    I'm a big Cozzens fan, with The Just and the Unjust and Guard of Honor standing as my personal favorites,

    The Just and the Unjust is probably my favorite. Interestingly enough, I hadn’t ever heard of Cozzens, despite his Pulitzer and a Hollywood adaptation, until I stumbled upon the cover image for Castaway, which caught my fancy. (Or at least I thought I hadn’t; later I vaguely recalled reading a National Review article on Guard of Honor that didn’t really stick with me.) Castaway turned out to be a very un-Cozzens book, but it was a good introduction, I suppose, since I read it in one sitting.

    I discovered O’Hara independently in similar fashion. (Though I had heard of the Elizabeth Taylor Butterfield 8 adaptation.) Makes me wonder how many other great novelists lie buried. I recently looked Cozzens up on Wikipedia and saw they link him with O’Hara and yet another I like, John P. Marquand, in the opening section. So I guess Wikipedia is good for something, after all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @syonredux

    I have thought about reading an O’Hara biography by the same author who wrote a book on Fitzgerald and another favorite novelist of mine, James Gould Cozzens.
     
    Matthew J. Bruccoli. Yeah, I picked it up after I read Joseph Epstein's excellent article on Cozzens:

    Cozzens Repossessed


    If Cozzens resembles any major American figure, it is Justice Holmes. Like Holmes, Cozzens did not wish to blink unpleasant facts about human nature. Like Holmes, Cozzens admired the strength of the puritanical tradition while remaining himself agnostic. Like Holmes again, Cozzens felt that all lies, even lies for the putative good of humanity, were still lies. In the middle of By Love Possessed, a black man comes to Arthur Winner, Jr., to tell him he has a bad heart condition and would like Winner to write his will for him. When Winner asks how he is feeling at present, he says he is rather like the man in the cartoon who has fallen from the skyscraper and who, when passing a window from which people look out at him in shock, announces, “All right so far.” There is a joke Justice Holmes would have adored. He would also have had no difficulty understanding another character in By Love Possessed who says that “Freedom is the knowledge of necessity.”
     
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/cozzens-repossessed/


    I'm a big Cozzens fan, with The Just and the Unjust and Guard of Honor standing as my personal favorites,

    I didn’t get the Holmes connection, because to me Holmes is just an especially smart progressive, whereas Cozzens was un-progressive. I don’t think of Holmes as a “tells it like it is” kinda guy, though naturally he’s guilty of Noticing, most infamously in his Buck v Bell comments. Which he mostly gets away with, because of his progressivism.

    Cozzens doesn’t get away with it, and I had assumed one of the reasons he’s been buried is all the Noticing he did in his novels, especially of blacks and Jews. But about “generations of imbeciles,” one of the good (not to mention i-Stevey) things about his books is that most of them take place in small towns, where characters have enough knowledge of eachother to see genetics in action. People are inescapably examples of family types, even when they’re degenerates.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Chrisnonymous
    I guess we have to agree to disagree. All the Greeks I have known strike me as very Other. As I said, they are more "Other" than Korean Protestants. I have a very strong intuition that if this question were put to other white Protestants in my hometown, they would agree.

    There may be a perverse "Uncanny Valley"-like effect in this...

    What about Roman Catholic Koreans, do they seem exotic to your Protestant friends?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_South_Korea

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @patrick
    Are these the Kaifeng Jews from China?

    No, they are from Eastern India, check out the links.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @SFG
    I agree with you to some degree, though I think you're on the wrong website. I do think neoliberal capitalism is bad for people of all colors, but the racial divide is too strong to allow right-wing Trumpian populists to make common cause with class-oriented Berniebros. The populists want the white America of the 1950s back, and the Berniebros won't team up with anyone who's racist, however that's defined.

    Do I think this is all a bit of divide et impera by globalist elites? Yeah, when rednecks and dindus are shooting each other they won't hit the bankers. But there's too much in blood for them to make common cause at this point.

    Conflating community, not to mention culture, with the state (i.e. socialism) is how we got in this mess. Granted, the cure (libertarianism cum atomization) may be now worse than the disease, but it does not follow that embracing the disease would be an improvement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Worth pointing out here, is that the Janissaries recruited mainly from the Turkish-occupied Balkans. So this sort of “Turk” was probably a South Slav or an Albanian by ancestry. John Belushi didn’t look “white”, as WASPs go, but he also didn’t look like a Central Asian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored