/Debate/ - Addressing counter-arguments for leftist and anti-white talking points.
I often hear people in debates about ethnonationalism claim that the Irish were not considered white when they first came to the U.S. The same has been said about Italians.
How legitimate is this claim? How do respond?
Thanks.
Other urls found in this thread:
no u
Feel free to pose any arguments you have a difficult time countering as well.
no u
Everyone is white, except for the genetically isolated low-iq savage populations discovered in the Americas, Australia, Africa.
Often when citing the intentions of the founding fathers in order to establish a case that the United States was in fact built for white European-derived peoples, the argument is that the Irish were not considered white... which invalidates the argument, because few would claim that the Irish today are non-white.
Nearly everyone of European descent were considered "white" in America. My Italian great, great grandparents were considered white in their immigration records.
The same can be said of my Irish ancestors. Don't believe me, look it up.
no u
the irish consisted of roman catholics, more than any form of protestantism. This grew as problems within certain homogenous religious areas in the upper east states where you had almost 100% protestant / puritan societies. Thankfully we've gotten past a barrier of religious sects to but brotherly pointless divisions behind us. Just watch the opening battle of Gangs of New York, it explains the division.
Right, but then where do these claims come from?
And if it were true, how could you still defend the notion that the U,S, was intended to be white. if '"white" is an expanding and dynamic term?
Gotcha, So it was a religious divide. Then why were they not considered "white", according to the indoctrinated 'fact' that the leftists always cite?
Keep in mind the claims of the Irish not being white was the highest point of "scientific racism" the world has ever seen, as to anyone who would be against the institutions that allow such research would be viewed as a lower individual.
The US was intended to be white period, as you can see only efforts for white men were brought up within the town hall meetings and for the draftings of the constitution. You can defend the notion because at first they wanted to keep it homogenous white, but as soon as many diverse layers of white folk arrived, they turned to focusing the structure of the societies to markets rather than religion, but also wanted a sense of pride that everyone could relate to.
Yeah, right; """white""" LOL.
The best criticism of white identity was from E. Michael Jones. He argued that while white is a biological description, it was never a identity in the US, but instead a legal term to describe who can do what in this country. White identity was created post WWII to destroy the ethnic European communities and move them all into suburbs to federalize the nation and atomize individuals. The federalization was done as a way to compete against the USSR as a global scale, and the atomization was done to produce a consumerist culture stripped from ethnic and religious identity. In short, white identity is a globalist term and any use of it will be a failure do to its poisonous nature.
Irish people are White, as are Italians. Sicilian Italians however were known to have mixed with Arab and Moorish peoples, hence why some Sicilians are extremely dark and look North African. These people are not fully White but still have some White genes.
Because if you've got a whole country (ireland) rebelling against the stranglehold that you're putting that country, of course the ones in power would be critical to demean such a small state. Religion was such a huge part of life, to go against the church would mean to go against the state/king/tradition, so they treated them like shit.
Jow Forums love fascism
>also Jow Forums italians are not white...
This. Stick to defending your cultural identity - which ironically includes the positives of the atomized, nuclear family of yesteryear. Your cultural identity of Christendom, of morals, of that weird food your grandma made, of building cities and founding nations - That is what you are defending. Learn your history and you will love your history, and that is much harder to defeat.
Very interesting. I have been considering the ineffectiveness of the term white, and you make a good point..
So what then? What instead of "white"? "European"? How do you advocate for your people if you cannot define who your people are?
I learned my countries history, I didn't love it.
Perfect. Thanks for the response!
Then how do you unite around a common identity if that identity is so multi-faceted and individualized? To fight on an individual basis against an collectivist ideology means an inevitable loss.
the white race as a whole will be in so much trouble in the future that it would even matter about where you're from, its going to come down to whether or not you can even live to tell a story about your kind in the next 10 years. Look at South Africa currently if you want some inspiration behind that. You get enough white people scared about the reality of whats going to happen that most of them will snap and wake up
It's difficult to say. The utter destruction of our ethnic identities has been complete. We should focus on stripping ourselves of the consumerist and globalist identity/culture. For example, I have purposely stopped using any slang when I speak. We have to purge ourselves, maybe there will be something worthwhile on the other side.
We're going to need some form of unified globalist identity when we head out into space though. I just want to do it without race mixing.
The fundamental issue is stop flooding countries or communities with people they don’t want. We only have these kind of debates because it distracts people from the fact that they mysteriously have no democratic control over who comes into their country. The vast majority of electorates are anti immigration across western countries
>I often hear people in debates about ethnonationalism claim that the Irish were not considered white when they first came to the U.S. The same has been said about Italians.
>How legitimate is this claim? How do respond?
You should tell them that you're offended and racists for calling these people (or yourself), "white".
We do't call Japanese, Chinese, Koreans etc..."yelllow". We call them Asians. Or East Asians to be precise. Irish, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Polish, Croatian, Hungarian people etc.. Are European. And these Europeans have their particularites and their differences...Different languages, history, cultures... But that's what we are. And the european continent is the homeland of our ancestors. We're inte natives of that continent.
Whenever you're using "white", you're speaking your enemy's language. You're using his lingo. a vague adjective..."white" Mongrels, Jews, Arabs, Asians, can also have "white" skin... It's a bad habit to use that word. That's how your ideological enemies are putting you in the same basket as other Europeans and then guilt tripping you into repentance.
"white privilege", "white patriarchy", "white supremacy"..Words have their importance, never underestimate the power of words.
You see, if (for instance) "white" identitarians (let's take the one from America) would organize themselves not asking for a "white student union" but a "Polish or Austrian, Ukranian, Student union", you wouldn't have any controversy, how would that work ? well, you'd be looking for "whites" who happen to have these origins... Maybe you'd have a very small student union, but it would be a start. Or you could try to call it a "european student union" or even try "native european student union" (to emphasis the origin). And you wouldn't be struggling like Matthew Heimbach for example..
youtube.com
That's what the people from ORANIA did. It's not for "whites". it's specifically made for Afrikaans"
Good thoughts.
Good thinking, never thought of it that way
go look at the reddit AMA by the former racist italian