You mean South-American-Americans?
Well some of them might be.
I gather though that there are at least some Mexican families just as proud of being able to trace their ancestry back to some murdering Spaniard as any North American is of being able to trace their ancestry to some colonising English or Dutchman.
1 Like
It wasn’t just Americans (or even just English speaking peoples) employing “white” as a descriptor, though:
https://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Global-Colour-Line-International/dp/0521707528
4 Likes
Mm. I’ve argued with (well more at) local asshats who’ve adopted the term. You’ll find no argument about that. My point is that it is a toxic American import. No doubt, the local asshats would still be asshats absent this, but this makes them more efficient asshats.
3 Likes
You think so? I do agree that the US played a key role in developing the notion of whiteness, but I’m not convinced that we did that alone. When this terminology evolved (the book I linked to shows) it had an international status, and it wasn’t just being forced on non-Americans. Other Anglo settler colonies had their own specific language and ideas about whiteness as an identity. Plus in the 19th century, American wasn’t quite the preeminent power they were during the Cold War. That honor certainly belonged to the British and to the French as well.
I know that American has done a lot of damage, but in many ways, the US entered into world affairs in the 19th century which was being built by Europeans for Europeans. Even if contributing new ideas that could function as significant scaffolding for the building of empire, europeans had a fuck load of agency in doing so.
BTW, I don’t know what you’ve argued with others, but I’m not saying YOU have adopted and employed this term. I’m talking about a particular point in history, when this idea of whiteness gains global currency.
7 Likes
Canada representing with a big resounding “no” - y’all did not do that alone.
7 Likes
Sorry, I was not as clear as I ought to have been: It’s an American import, but it isn’t an American product. The asshats mentioned learned it almost certainly by way of American cultural imports. But by all means, the term has a deeper history that’s completely bound up with colonialism and imperialism.
I note with interest that medieval Europeans or, say, Romans of antiquity managed to not be particularly racist (though all enjoyed prejudices of their own, naturally) while the moment kicking over other people’s countries and taking their things (and children) became fashionable, suddenly the idea of being white was invented as all-important.
I mean, I’m just as much a part of the “blame America first” crowd, of course, being one of the suspected classes known as “academic”, but as a historian, I think it’s important to put this all into historical perspective (suspect move no. 1 by dr. Mindysan!).
I guess I’m unsure what the distinction you’re making here is? Can you clarify? As well as maybe talk about what specific time you’re talking about? Now? The 20th century more generally?
Yes, because they had other justifications for conquest, of course. Nor were people of color unknown to them (Medieval Europeans), as some like to claim. And Rome was deeply multicultural and known for moving people quite dramatically around the empire.
3 Likes
The division into classes as it exists now was invented at some point (for very bad reasons). America helped but Britain’s probably the biggest culprit. That’s why I said that it wasn’t an American product.
However, Americans are, in my impression, chief among the people propagating the idea of there being, say, white people worldwide. Or, rather, that there are White people. I’m sure that the people from Belarus I keep mentioning[1] noted that they had light skin and ‘white’ is as good a name for it as any. But the idea of this being an important division had to be brought in.
America didn’t create the division (alone) but it is—or so it seems to me—the chief exporter of it. The asshats I encountered enamored with their ‘whiteness’ spoke about it in distinctly American terms.
Now I realize why a person with honest intentions would have to use such terminology in America. Just because something’s the creation of horrible people for horrible ends doesn’t mean it doesn’t have the power to dictate a whole lot of things, and you can’t fight things without naming them. Entirely fair.
My point from the very first post is that a slight increase of specificty regarding ‘whiteness’ might help the asshats near me be less efficient in their poisonous asshattery.
[1] I must be giving the whole country hiccoughs. 
I’m not Belarusian, incidentally, I just picked them at random.
3 Likes
Aren’t you assuming though that people are just accepting what they hear/see/get from America reflexively and without contextual forethought on their own? The history of the terminology and how it’s been used in the past, globally, by seeking to make justifications and claims on territories not theirs still are informing their racial identity. I’m not a historian of British empire, but I’m going to suspect that British people making a claim to whiteness are far more influenced by the history of British empire and the end of empire than by anything coming out of the US.
As for Belarus or Russia, Richard Spencer has strong ties to the that region of Europe and there is very much a white identity movement going on there since the end of the Cold War. How they construct their ideas about whiteness are not just cribbed directly from the US, but has very specific local characteristics.
I think that’s already happened and was always part of constructing white identity. While some key characteristics are certainly seen as universal, specific whiteness was and is contextual and local. It’s about defining who belongs and who doesn’t. This is why Russian Jews are excluded from whiteness in places like Russia, because they aren’t Orthodox.
doing away with whiteness and all it’s baggage is the only way to do away with this poisoned pill. How to do that is much tougher, but it’s what needs to happen, I think. Not thinking one’s ingroup (however it’s defined) is superior would also help.
3 Likes
The people without a local history of the word? Yes. I realize the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’ but in my experience this is entirely contextless and learned.
Regarding the rest, don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that chauvinism, prejudice, and fascism doesn’t exist in various places. I’m saying they get based on other things, frequently on much more local and recondite things.
For instance ‘that region of Europe’ would, in, hah, that region of Europe get you a lot of nasty looks. Belarusians, Ukranians, and Russians are, by and large, quite particular about who’s who. (Much in the way it would not profit you to mistake a Hausa for an Igbo, for all that they both look ‘black’ to you)
It’s not about whiteness, though. Note, please, that the quite conservative base of the current government has no qualms whatsoever about putting a person of color into a the position of the minister of defense. Are they open minded? Not more so than any right-wing organization, but they care about different things. Not better things. Different.
To give these people an extra rallying point over whiteness is not helpful. It’ll just make me them more effective right-wing organizations which is not something I, personally, want.
4 Likes
What about Brazilians?
Speaking of the colour line…
3 Likes
There’s some Australian spice in that stew, too.
4 Likes
They have a complicated racial caste system, involving people of European, African, Mid Eastern, and indigenous backgrounds, with various mixtures of those 4 groups of peoples…?
2 Likes
some definitions of Hispanic are limited to Spanish speaking peoples. Brazilians don’t speak Spanish.
1 Like
Okay. I didn’t realize that’s what you were referring to? I hadn’t been posting about Hispanic vs. Latino, but about more on whiteness as a racial construct… So… Not sure why you were asking me, unless you were just generally asking me, because you thought I might know more?
I think it’s an interface issue. Meant to reply generically, or to @gatto
1 Like
Ah! Sorry about that then!
1 Like
It is a toxic colonial import, from Europe. Hence my remarks about doing away with it an important step in decolonizing the Americas. When people hear “American” and think “European” - that is an internalization of the problem.
1 Like
