I think it likely that there are some of Irish ancestry that would disagree with that statement.
Hell the 1st of my family that were brought here in servitude might dispute this
I think it likely that there are some of Irish ancestry that would disagree with that statement.
QFT!Imagine how much better the world would be if people dedicated the brain power required to dwell on this type of ****ing nonsense to finding a cure to diseases that plague us, or other issues more weighty than what label they can slap on themselves to feel some kind of misguided pride in something that they had absolutely no hand in.
Imagine how much better the world would be if people dedicated the brain power required to dwell on this type of ****ing nonsense to finding a cure to diseases that plague us, or other issues more weighty than what label they can slap on themselves to feel some kind of misguided pride in something that they had absolutely no hand in.
Short version, modern notion of color = race isn't the construct used by our ancestors. "Moral" and cultural components were also "racial" traits.
Longer version:
Whites weren't oppressed as Whites. Our modern construct of race and who's "White" isn't how people 200 years ago saw and understood race. Again referring back to the 1850's book I linked to earlier, the author discusses earlier texts and "Caucasian"
"Bretons", the "species" most British, compared to the "Celts":
In the book "1493" the author talks about tapestries that are essentially flow charts for determining race in the European colonies of South America. As Europeans, Indians, Asians, and Africans interbred, the idea of race began to become more fluid. Prior to the Columbian Exchange, people almost entirely stayed where they were from. Africans were in Africa. Europeans were in Europe. Etc. The Columbian Exchange changes that, the first really large scale populations outside of their native land. So, when a man who's the son of a Spanish father and Indian mother procreates with a African woman, what race is the resultant child? Consult the flow chart. Going from memory, there were some 18 possible results, and it could change based on which parent was which sex. So, yes, not just about skin color or what we understand as genetics.
Imagine how much better the world would be if people dedicated the brain power required to dwell on this type of ****ing nonsense to finding a cure to diseases that plague us, or other issues more weighty than what label they can slap on themselves to feel some kind of misguided pride in something that they had absolutely no hand in.
I think it likely that there are some of Irish ancestry that would disagree with that statement.
Short version, modern notion of color = race isn't the construct used by our ancestors. "Moral" and cultural components were also "racial" traits.
Longer version:
Whites weren't oppressed as Whites. Our modern construct of race and who's "White" isn't how people 200 years ago saw and understood race. Again referring back to the 1850's book I linked to earlier, the author discusses earlier texts and "Caucasian"
"Bretons", the "species" most British, compared to the "Celts":
In the book "1493" the author talks about tapestries that are essentially flow charts for determining race in the European colonies of South America. As Europeans, Indians, Asians, and Africans interbred, the idea of race began to become more fluid. Prior to the Columbian Exchange, people almost entirely stayed where they were from. Africans were in Africa. Europeans were in Europe. Etc. The Columbian Exchange changes that, the first really large scale populations outside of their native land. So, when a man who's the son of a Spanish father and Indian mother procreates with a African woman, what race is the resultant child? Consult the flow chart. Going from memory, there were some 18 possible results, and it could change based on which parent was which sex. So, yes, not just about skin color or what we understand as genetics.
Why would they? At the time Irish weren't considered white.... very much the same way that Nazis viewed slavs; and arguably how Jews are today (and yes, I know it's a religion). True story.
Oh dang missed this.
[video=youtube;JXdM8fkup4Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXdM8fkup4Q[/video]Next time I'm accused of "white privelege", and being the oppressor, should I just play the McCard?
Yup, he done skooled me!
Next time I'm accused of "white privelege", and being the oppressor, should I just play the McCard?
This thread has truly been eye opening. Turns out, I'm black IrishLike BBI said, race is a social construct, primarily American. I had an African-Studies teacher, who was American, and light-skinned... obviously "black" to Americans. She was married to an African man, and when she first met her husbands family, they considered her white, as in truly caucasian.
In my defense, my schooling was primarily in engineering and later computer technology, so I really didn't have any history/anthropology/social sciences classes. Interesting stuff for sure.Like BBI said, race is a social construct, primarily American. I had an African-Studies teacher, who was American, and light-skinned... obviously "black" to Americans. She was married to an African man, and when she first met her husbands family, they considered her white, as in truly caucasian.
Nope, you've been added to the club. Do you know much about Irish history in America? One of the main reasons the Irish attained "whiteness," was because because when they held a status similarly to blacks, they intermarried, and saw themselves fighting the same struggle. The powers that be, couldn't let that happen.
Get over it Doggy, I'm in the club now, and your not.Wait, you have a crew and a club??
Wait, you have a crew and a club??
What is this, some kinda crew pyramid scheme??Get over it Doggy, I'm in the club now, and your not.
I should probably get myself a crew or a posse or something now.