May 24, 2012

"I Love Lucy" v. "I Love Marilyn"

We've been having some fun posting historical bits and pieces subversive of the increasingly popular interpretation of American history put forward by whiteness experts like Noel Ignatiev: that the Irish, Spaniards, Jews, Italians, and so forth weren't considered white until recently. 

For example, look how the CIA wouldn't allow James Jesus Angleton to join because his mother was Mexican. *

Note that actor Mel Ferrer's acting career was so hampered by discrimination that he had to console himself with being married to Audrey Hepburn.

Look how Jose Ferrer's acting career was so hamstrung by bias against Puerto Ricans that he had to console himself with his Oscar and Tony and with marrying George Clooney's aunt twice, Uta Hagen, and Phyllis Hill.

Look how Danny and Marlo Thomas couldn't get on TV because they're Arabs.

Look how Harvard wouldn't employ George Santayana because he was a Spaniard.

I began with Desi Arnaz's colossal success in "I Love Lucy."

A reader comments:
"And the success of Desi Arnaz doesn't really say much. Louis Armstrong was also popular in the past, but that didn't mean anti-black sentiments and anti-black laws didn't exist."

Yes, but Louis Armstrong didn't star in "I Love Marilyn," in which he played an Afro-American bandleader married to ditzy blonde Marilyn Monroe, who was Armstrong's wife in real life in 1951, in what would almost instantly become the most popular TV show of the 1950s.

Just to be clear: "I Love Marilyn" didn't happen.* And it wouldn't have happened in 1951, no way, no how. Marilyn married Joe DiMaggio and Arthur Miller. Rita Hayworth married the Aga Khan. But marrying, say, Louis Armstrong was a no-go in the 1950s.

The bottom line is that discrimination against blacks in American history was radically harsher than against anybody else, with the exception of American Indians (and the discrimination there was quite different, so it's hard to make an apples to apples comparison between blacks and Indians). 

Everybody else wants to claim the glamor of victimhood (heck, Henry Adams, grandson of one President and great-grandson of another, felt discriminated against for not being elected President). These days, everybody wants to associate the historical slights against their group with the glamor of black victimhood, but this rhetorical trick is extremely unfair to blacks.
-------------------------

* I realize that there are a huge number of people who simply don't know enough facts to tell when I'm joking or not, and thus would get confused and disturbed when I switch back and forth between factual and facetious without warning. Fortunately, most of them don't bother trying to read me.

To recount: James Jesus Angleton's mother was Mexican and he was the head of counter-intelligence at the CIA for decades. When Robert De Niro directed a fictionalized biopic of Angleton's life, with Matt Damon as the Angleton character, the whole half-Mexican part was dropped, presumably as being too confusing to modern prejudices, and Damon played the lead as the most boring WASP in the history of boring WASPs.

Mel Ferrer, a moderately successful movie star of Cuban and Irish descent, was married to the exquisite Audrey Hepburn from 1954-1968.

Puerto Rican-born Jose Ferrer (no close relation to Mel) was a prestigious actor, winning the Tony and Oscar for Cyrano de Bergerac after WWII. He married white women five times, including George Clooney's aunt, songstress Rosemary Clooney, twice.

Danny Thomas was a Lebanese-American. He was a huge hit on early TV and his daughter Marlo was the Zoey Deschanel of sit-coms in the late 1960s.

Spain-born George Santayana was a famous Harvard professor in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Wikipedia says his students at Harvard included "T. S. Eliot, Robert Frost, Gertrude Stein, Walter Lippmann, and W. E. B. Du Bois."

Marilyn Monroe was not married to Louis Armstrong.

153 comments:

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is that discrimination against blacks in American history was radically harsher than against anybody else, with the exception of American Indians (and the discrimination there was quite different, so it's hard to make an apples to apples comparison between blacks and Indians)

Discrimination by whom? Your wording seems to imply that there was one powerful group (that didn't comprise all whites and Hispanics) discriminating against all the rest. But each respective group (Irish, Italians, Latins, etc.) discriminates against other groups.

Anonymous said...

Great post, Steve. Some comments:

Ignatiev: This man has written one of the most pernicious academic frauds in recent history. Regarding the Irish, what we actually witnessed during the 19th century was the process by which the Irish became Americans. Ignatiev knows this.However, saying that it was about them becoming "White" allows Ignatiev to racialize the process of Americanization, undermining the culturally necessary act of assimilation.

Blacks: Every group wants to claim that they have been as victimized as Blacks.But the Black experience, as you rightly point out, is unique.

American Indians:Even they did not suffer under the same degree of racial opprobrium as did Blacks.Will Rogers, for example, boasted of his Cherokee ancestry, something that no Hollywood star would have done regarding even the most remote Black ancestry in the 20s and 30s.

Shouting Thomas said...

Louis Armstrong is a particularly bad example, because he was constantly attacked by black race hustlers for his stage manner. Armstrong was one of my childhood hereoes.

Armstrong was always cheerful and smiling on stage. In fact, his stage posture was markedly influenced by the mannerisms of the minstrel show. This is supposed to be a racial humiliation, but Armstrong is almost uniformly regarded as the most important seminal figures in American popular music.

Minstrelsy is supposed to be a horrible stone hanging around the neck of black entertainers, but I would argue that it played a substantial role in the success of jazz and blues performers.

Anonymous said...

Jose Ferrer & Rosemary Clooney were also the parents of one of my favorite actors, Miguel Ferrer.

Someone else who could be on your list is Irish-Mexican Anthony Quinn, whose first wife was Cecil B. DeMille's adopted daughter.

- A Solid Citizen

Anonymous said...

I happen to recall the day when Pancho Gonzales was lynched for winning the US Open in tennis in 1949. In posthumous recognition, after the Hispanic Civil Rights Movement and the groundbreaking _Caramel v. Board of Education_, Pancho Gonzales Stadium (where the US Open is now held) was named after him in 1997.

Anonymous said...

American Indians.
VPOTUS Charles Curtis
Charles Curtis (January 25, 1860 – February 8, 1936) was a United States Representative, a longtime United States Senator from Kansas later chosen as Senate Majority Leader by his Republican colleagues, and the 31st Vice President of the United States (1929–1933). He was the first person with significant acknowledged Native American ancestry and the first person with significant acknowledged non-European ancestry to reach either of the two highest offices in the United States government's executive branch. His maternal ancestry was three-quarters' Native American, of ethnic Kaw, Osage and Pottawatomie ancestry.[1] Curtis spent years of childhood living with his maternal grandparents on their Kaw reservation.
(...)
Curtis was nearly half American Indian in ancestry. His mother, Ellen Papin (also spelled Pappan), was one-fourth French, one-fourth Kaw, one-fourth Osage, and one-fourth Pottawatomie. His father, Orren Curtis, was an American of English, Scots and Welsh ancestry. His paternal grandparents were William Curtis and Permelia Hubbard. William's parents were Thomas Curtis and Eunice Peet from early Connecticut.[2] On his mother's side, Curtis was a descendant of Kaw Chief White Plume and Osage Chief Pawhuska.[3]
From his mother, Curtis first learned French and Kansa. As a boy living with his mother and her family on the Kaw reservation, he started racing horses.

(...)

Evil Waspy Hater Bigot! said...

Hey, the more tolerant you are the more you get stomped for not being tolerant enough----- like all of the home countries of all of these immigrants are so damn tolerant today or were so tolerant as compared to the USA in centuries past.

Sample inconvenient truth: Iberian South America imported many more African slaves than British North America but no large remnant populations exist because they were typically worked to death. This is analogous to the cruelty levels of the Latin Bullfight vs the Anglo Rodeo.

Who was the first to outlaw slavery? Not the Latins, not the Asians, Jews or Muslims but the intolerant bigoted WASPs!

Latin bullfight versus

FreeDem said...

Ok, so books about the experience of "becoming white" for Irish, Poles, Mexicans and Jews are a dime a dozen. Can you recommend anything that might provide a more accurate perspective?

Anonymous said...

"Ignatiev: This man has written one of the most pernicious academic frauds in recent history"
like stephen jay gould, boaz and other stealth ethno-activists...

Anonymous said...

Subtle arguments invite subtle rejoinders. I'm sure someone could counter that the Crown Prince of Azania, or some such, was feted as a gentleman in the fin de siecle salons of New York and Boston.

Better to make the obvious point that Congolese are not Vietnamese.

Gilbert P

Anonymous said...

How THE GOOD SHEPHERD managed to make James Jesus Angleton boring almost defies belief. some key biographical points:

Born 9 DEC 1917 in Boise, Idaho, to an American father and a Mexican mother. Father (James Hugh Angleton) met James Jesus' mother (Carmen Mercedes Moreno) while he was serving with Pershing in Mexico (The Punitive Expedition into Mexico, 1916-17).

Father runs NCR franchise in Italy, little Jimmy largely grows up in Milan.Sent off to Malvern college in England (C.S. Lewis's school;he calls it Wyvern in SURPRISED BY JOY).

Attends Yale, where he co-edits the prestigious poetry magazine FURIOSO;publishes work by William Carlos Williams, E.E. Cummings, Pound, etc.Has an extensive epistolary relationship with Pound, Cummings, Eliot.

Key man for the OSS in Italy during WW2;after the war, ensures the defeat of the communists in the 1948 elections.

Close personal friend to Kim Philby (you can guess how that turned out). Liaison between the CIA and Mossad/Shin Bet from 1951 on.

And this just takes up to the 1950s.

Carol said...

When I was a kid I thought Arnaz was hot, and the marriage of the two very so intriguing. How did they get away with it? But there were antecedents. How about Johnny Weissmuller and and Lupe Valez, eh? That was one hot couple! But it's different when it's the man, huh.

Anonymous said...

"Hey, the more tolerant you are the more you get stomped for not being tolerant enough"

Hear! Hear!

Anonymous said...

My great grand mother was disowned for running off with irishman in 1902.

James Kabala said...

Besides the mentioned examples of Rogers and Curtis, Indians were also allowed to play major league baseball without question (e.g., Hall of Fame pitcher Chief Bender). Some of these guys came from the Elizabeth Warren tribe of dubious partial Indian ancestry, but some did not - check out New York Giants catcher Chief Meyers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chief_Meyers,_New_York_Giants_catcher,_by_Paul_Thompson,_1910.jpg

James Kabala said...

Also, in 1902 John McGraw tried (unsuccessfully) to pass off black second baseman Charlie Grant as an Indian named "Charlie Tokohoma."

Anonymous said...

Blacks also have the trump card. They were brought to America against their will.

Can we take it that since evil WASP racist bigotry is so well publicized that anyone settling in the US today has, in effect, consented to that bigotry and discrimination and is prepared to live with it. i.e. "You know the deal, you accept it, if you come here you dont get to complain about it".

Anonymous said...

Carol:"When I was a kid I thought Arnaz was hot, and the marriage of the two very so intriguing. How did they get away with it?"

They "got away with it" because nobody cared. Just like nobody cared that a White Puerto Rican (Jose Ferrer)won the best actor Oscar for CYRANO DE BERGEREAC (1950).Compare this with the hoopla when a non-White actor like Sidney Poitier won for LILIES OF THE FIELD in 1963.

Beecher Asbury said...

Sample inconvenient truth: Iberian South America imported many more African slaves than British North America but no large remnant populations exist because they were typically worked to death. This is analogous to the cruelty levels of the Latin Bullfight vs the Anglo Rodeo.


Assuming you are including Brazil in that statement, they have a black population of 6% and a mulatto of 39%. According to race in the USA, that puts their former slave population at 45% of a country of almost 200 million. So if anything, they weren't worked to death, they just intermarried a lot more.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

More on baseball. Barnstorming black teams would often call themselves Cubans because those were considered officially white even when they were very dark.

People of mixed race born here were much more likely to be considered black. But once you were from Latin America, it all just got too confusing, so we just called you white. People still might be much more suspicious of you than of other white people, but the designation mattered, and you were eligible to carve out some niche in the dominant culture. This was true for Indians when the blood percentage dropped below 50%

Anonymous said...

Can you recommend anything that might provide a more accurate perspective?

Yes.

ATBOTL said...

"like stephen jay gould, boaz and other stealth ethno-activists..."

Damned Scotch-Irish.

Tommy o' VA said...

Don't forget all those great Irish-American baseball players like Connie Mack and Mickey Cochrane who had to play in the "Paddy League" because they were not allowed in the "whites only" Major Leagues.

Anonymous said...

Was Angleton's name pronounced "Gee-zus" or "Hay-soose"?

Anonymous said...

Everybody else wants to claim the glamor of victimhood (heck, Henry Adams, grandson of one President and great-grandson of another, felt discriminated against for not being elected President). These days, everybody wants to associate the historical slights against their group with the glamor of black victimhood, but this rhetorical trick is extremely unfair to blacks.

Anonymous said...

"When I was a kid I thought Arnaz was hot, and the marriage of the two very so intriguing. How did they get away with it?"

So we have a first hand account from poster Carol that such marriages weren't exactly par for the course...

Anonymous said...

American Indians:Even they did not suffer under the same degree of racial opprobrium as did Blacks.

Which is why part-blacks who could get away with it passed themselves off as part-cherokee etc. to explain their darker complexions/exotic looks.

in 1902 John McGraw tried (unsuccessfully) to pass off black second baseman Charlie Grant as an Indian named "Charlie Tokohoma." (James Kabala)

This one couldn't get away with it.

Chris Anderson said...

This makes me nostagic for the 50's, and why wouldn't it, even though i didn't live in that era.

John Derbyshire pointed out that (paraphrasing) all questions of diversity boil down to black vs. non-black. It's the only question that people really care about. Hispanics. Asians. Big yawn. Your satirical examples illustrate that.

anony-mouse said...

With the exception of Santayana all your examples are post-WWII, and Santayana was European-Spanish.

The fact that an Irish Catholic could get elected President in 1960 has no bearing on whether an Irish Catholic could get elected President in 1928 (answer: he couldn't).

Every pre-WWII President was of either British or Dutch stock.

Now its not that in the 19th century certain obviously White ethnicities were considered Black. No Southern state included them in their Jim Crow laws. And that's why White crowds could prefer an Irish fighter to a Black fighter. But there's a big difference in considering an Irishman (or Italian or Jew or Hispanic) to be a boxer and accepting him as an equal White.

LAUSD syllabus said...

Casey al-Qassim had a great radio career until being undone by secret evidence laws. Then he was blacklisted by MGM boss Joe McCarthy

Anonymous said...

In the film the Angleton analogue was not so much boring as exotically uptight. Maybe just to contrast him with the outgoing back-slappy old boys' net but he was too dweeby for a cloak&dagger figure. Did the real Angleton's son try to marry an Angolan commie spy? That was too contrived by half

How The Mexicans Became Russian said...

Ignatiev's whole shtick is a Marxist artifact: "white" referring to some Kantian ideal of einem Klasse instead of, you know, people's looks. Problem for Marxist analysis is that the supply of oppressed is finite and they constantly need to exploit new strife markets (it's an imperialistic drive)

Whiskey said...

Don't forget Mexican bombshell Raquel Welch, and that Andrew Jackson adopted a Cherokee boy as his son.

As far as Minstrelsy goes, you'd have to look far and wide to beat the current rap artists, particularly Flavor Flav from Public Enemy (and countless reality shows). I've always felt embarrassed for them, it seems like a giant Minstrel show.

Armstrong made beautiful music. His artistry and technical power were beyond reproach. Millions of people around the Globe worshiped his musical genius. Yeah he was not the "hard angry Black man" but that in and of itself is just another Minstrel show for White thrills.

Dahlia said...

Off topic,

Theconservativetreehouse.com has its most explosive findings, yet, in George Zimmerman case.

We always heard about "tea" and not "watermelon juice" and this was intentional in order to obfuscate as many familiar with Southern urban culture would have known exactly what was going on:

Trayvon Martin was a user, and probably a seller, of a drug known as "lean". It is made with codeine cough syrup, another beverage (popular ones are sprite and watermelon juice) with a few jolly ranchers or skittles thrown in.

TCTH did exhaustive research investigating Martin's internet social sites, urban dictionary, the effects of this drug and culture (very violent and Mixed Martial Arts is part of it).

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/24/update-26-part-2-trayvon-martin-shooting-a-year-of-drug-use-culminates-in-predictable-violence/#more-40485

Anonymous said...

Yes, but Louis Armstrong didn't star in "I Love Marilyn," in which he played an Afro-American bandleader married to ditzy blonde Marilyn Monroe


Yes, but Desi Arnaz was as white as you or I. In fact that's the thing with all the white Hispanics - they're white.

The point in mentioning people like Arnaz should be to illustrate the stupidity of the general "Hispanic" label under which people like Arnaz, Ricardo Montalbán, Matthew Yglesias, and for all I know Mitt Romney get to pretend to be part of some discriminated against group.

Harry Baldwin said...

Who can forget what happened to that American icon John Wayne when it came out that all three of his wives were foreign-born Latinas: Josephine Saenz, the daughter of a Panamanian consul in Los Angeles (married in 1933); Esperanza Baur Diaz, a Mexican actress (married in 1946); and Pilar Wildy, daughter of a Peruvian politician (married in 1954).

It seems to me that there was more tolerance when we had less diversity.

tenneby said...

On May 9 this appeared in the Bullpen:Today in Baseball History section of Baseball-Reference.com:

1871 - The first Hispanic player in major league baseball is Esteban Enrique Bellan. The 21-year old Cuban infielder plays for the Troy Haymakers of the National Association.

As far as I know, he wasn't lynched either.

"Other" Construction Partners LLC said...

As yesterday's story about South Dakota local man Vern Traversie affirms, the supply of racist incidents can't keep up with the market demand. I can foresee the House Democrats fielding subsidies for the continued operation of vital racist institutions.

Anonymous said...

Ok, so books about the experience of "becoming white" for Irish, Poles, Mexicans and Jews are a dime a dozen. Can you recommend anything that might provide a more accurate perspective?



You'd probably have to read a separate book on each group. "The Irish-Americans: A History" by Jay Dolan is good history with little or no political posturing by the author. (That's a rare thing in books on American history in my experience)

It's available in e-book too.

Norville Rogers said...

Once everybody's a victim the cachet is gone. Why would the smart money jump on so long after the IPO? Proportion of black Americans isn't projected to top 13% in the next 40 years, eventually dropping slightly so the acrimony over official tests of blackness can't be far off. It's like a Schwarzschild radius, in that the gov't policy of racial classification implies its potentiality.

Anonymous said...

including Brazil in that statement, they have a black population of 6% and a mulatto of 39%. According to race in the USA, that puts their former slave population at 45% of a country of almost 200 million. So if anything, they weren't worked to death, they just intermarried a lot more

-----------

8:1 ratio total raw numbers of Brazil slaves to USA slaves imported from Africa

Obvious much greater lethality for a slave in Brazil not explained by supposed increased race mixing in Brazil

The mixed population is huge within the American black cohort it is understood the blacks as a group have about 15% white admixture and many blacks have much more of course

Myth: USA has pure bred African slave descendant population

Reality: massive numbers of slaves perished in Brazil and left no descendants

Anonymous said...

Appropriate to this discussion: putative "Portuguese" tribe of the Appalachians turns out to be of African and English/Scottish stock. Assumed, "Portuguese" identity 200 years ago because - duh - Portuguese were and are considered white. From the Daily Mail.

The study quotes from an 1874 court case in Tennessee in which a Melungeon woman's inheritance was challenged.
In that instance, if the defendant Martha Simmerman were found to have African blood, she would lose the inheritance.
Her attorney, Lewis Shepherd, argued successfully that the Simmerman's family was descended from ancient Phoenicians who eventually migrated to Portugal and then to North America.
Writing about his argument in a memoir published years later, Shepherd stated, 'Our Southern high-bred people will never tolerate on equal terms any person who is even remotely tainted with negro blood, but they do not make the same objection to other brown or dark-skinned people, like the Spanish, the Cubans, the Italians, etc.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149658/Ancient-Appalachian-people-boasted-Portuguese-ancestry-avoid-slavery-actually-descended-African-men-white-women.html#ixzz1vrLSnfPe

Bob Arctor said...

"But there's a big difference in considering an Irishman (or Italian or Jew or Hispanic) to be a boxer and accepting him as an equal White."

Oh, for God's sake, learn to read.

No one here doubts many old stock English, Dutch and German Protestants viewed the Irish, Mediterraneans, Slavs, Lebanese, Hispanics, et alia as their social lessers in some sense (in the same way that New York Jews such as yourself view white Christians in flyover country today), just that they weren't viewed as being part of another race, as the blacks were/are.

Matthew said...

In the eyes of the Left, Desi Arnaz & Co. don't count because they were respectable. WASP society was racist for not granting country club membership to illiterate, fruit-picking braceros. In the mind of the Left, once you're a respectable, educated minority you aren't really a minority. Unless you're a leftist pol, like Barack Obama or Xochitl Hinojosa.

Of course, Harvard wasn't exactly jumping through hoops to admit white, Anglo-Saxon, Appalachian hillbillies, either, but that's all irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

John Derbyshire pointed out that (paraphrasing) all questions of diversity boil down to black vs. non-black. It's the only question that people really care about. Hispanics. Asians. Big yawn.


How does he explain the pogroms against the chinese and the chinese exclusion act?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States


"In 1871, at least 18 Chinese-Americans were killed by the mob rampaging through Old Chinatown in Los Angeles"

"Mexicans were lynched at a rate of 27.4 per 100,000 of population between 1880 and 1930. This statistic was second only to that of the African American community, which endured an average of 37.1 per 100,000 of population during that period."


OTOH, the anglo fear of blacks does help the other, less intimidating, non-whites gain some measure of acceptance or tolerance. A fact that asians, mexicans etc know very well and exploit to the fullest.

Anonymous said...

Steve, the Liberals are making a statistical assertion about general attitudes about Whiteness. You're highlighting some counter-examples but I'm afraid that both of you's are talking about different things.

Libtards don't argue that

Anonymous said...

Appropriate to this discussion: putative "Portuguese" tribe of the Appalachians turns out to be of African and English/Scottish stock.

Fascinating, and timely.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7lpxcky

"Genetic evidence shows that the families historically called Melungeons are the offspring of sub-Saharan African men and white women of northern or central European origin."

"G. Reginald Daniel, a sociologist at the University of California-Santa Barbara who's spent more than 30 years examining multiracial people in the U.S. and wasn't part of this research, said the study is more evidence that race-mixing in the U.S. isn't a new phenomenon. 'All of us are multiracial,' he said. 'It is recapturing a more authentic U.S. history.'"

"'It's sometimes embarrassing to see the lengths your ancestors went to hide their African heritage, but look at the consequences' said Wayne Winkler, past president of the Melungeon Heritage Association.
'They suffered anyway because of the suspicion.'"

Anonymous said...

So the DNA evidence confirms the excellent research by Tim Hashaw:

http://www.eclectica.org/v5n3/hashaw.html

"The black patriarchs of the Melungeons were commonly free African-American men who married white women in Virginia and other southern colonies, often before 1700."

"Melungeons are an ethnically diverse group originating in early 1600s Virginia, Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware. Their descendants' later spread into Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, and Texas. The earliest Melungeon ancestors were white northern Europeans, Bantu Africans and North American Indians."


Btw, Abraham Lincoln and Elvis Presley are occasionally mentioned as having melungeon or part-melungeon ancestry.

Steve Sailer said...

"Steve, the Liberals are making a statistical assertion about general attitudes about Whiteness."

I think that's backwards, but I'll leave a fuller discussion until later.

Anonymous said...

How does he explain the pogroms against the chinese and the chinese exclusion act?

I think the general feeling among West Coast whites at the time is that they were in danger of being swamped by cheap Chinese labor at a time when there was absolutely nothing resembling a welfare state.
RACE WAR ON THE PACIFIC COAST
(...)
Eventually, white miners resorted to direct action. One precipitating factor was a proposal that California state senator George B. Tingley introduced in 1852. This proposal would have allowed laborers who were desperate to leave China to sell their services to contractors at fixed wages for a period of up to ten years.7 In response, a miners’
convention condemned “the predisposition on the part of merchants,commercial men, etc. to flood the state with Asiatics [and] fasten a system of peonage on our social organization.”

(...)
Economist Henry George spoke for
these workers when he wrote that “coolieism” was as great a danger to free labor as slavery had once been. In a letter to the New York Tribune, George insisted that Chinese immigration was making “the rich richer and the poor poorer.” It was making “nabobs and princes of capitalists and crush[ing] our working classes into the dust.” It would “substitute (if it goes far enough) a population of serfs and their masters for that population of intelligent freemen who are our glory and strength.”32

(...)
In 1876 Congress established a Joint Special Committee that conducted eighteen days of hearings in San Francisco and Sacramento, heard 129 witnesses, and collected 1,200 pages of testimony and statistics. The final report of the investigating committee reiterated the case against the Chinese immigrants. The committee also warned of the possibility of an uprising of white workers if nothing was done to curb the immigration. “Is it not possible,” the report asked, “that free white labor, unable to compete with
these foreign serfs, and perceiving its condition becoming slowly but
inevitably more hopelessly abject, may unite in all the horrors of riot and insurrection, and extirpate with fire and sword those who rob them of their bread?”35

(...)
Prominent labor historians also sympathized with the working whites of California. John R. Commons endorsed the statement of a workers’ convention of 1870: that “the present system of the immigration of coolie labour in these United States is ruinous to the life principles of our Republic, destroying the system of free labour which is the basis of a republican form of government.”58 Philip Taft concluded that there was “no doubt” that the competition of Chinese workers in California “undercut native and other immigrant workers, and that their living standards and demands were lower than [those of] white workers.”59 According to Selig Perlman, “The anti-Chinese
agitation in California,culminating as it did in the Exclusion Law passed by Congress in 1882, was doubtless the most important single factor in the history of American labor, for without it the entire country might have been overrun by Mongolian labor and the labor movement might have become a conflict of races instead of one of classes.”60

(...)

Anonymous said...

Elvis had a black hair but he bleached it to be more acceptable... or was it the other way around?

Iberian said...

It´s a funny thing that the idea of a "White Race" come from the "daggos"... For thousands of years, Caucasians have been in contact with Mongolics in central Asia, Siberia, northern europe, etc... Since both are light, they speak in eyes, nose (shape or color). But don´t develop a common label. Also in Mediterraneo, persons from what we call, south-europe, north-africa and middle-east, travel, trade and mingle since paleolitic times. In all this time, nobody is described like "White Race". Romans, Greeks, Medieval Europeans, think many things about north-africans; but not that they are not"white". In fact, everybod looks pretty much the same... And everything start with the Arabs... the increasing contact with darker races in India and Africa, the large number of black slaves, created the need for a label. In Arabic/Berber, "Razza" means Clan or tribe, and skin colour is the striking difference bettwen Caucasoids and Negroids; So they call themsselves "White" and applied the concept to everybod with a certain kind of features... Turks, Persians, Venetians, Greeks, Pathans,etc... Slaves or free, became White. The Portuguese (irony)spread the concept in Europe; And in XVII century, Linneu, establish exactly the same idea (that any Portuguese peasant already know): That Europeans, North-Africans and Midle-Easterns, belong to the same group. In XXI, genetic confirms this.
In XIX century, a small group of Caucasians, that arrive late to Civilisation (but very light in complexion), the Anglo-Saxons, start to say that only they deserve to be called "White"... Personally I think that they should be called "Pink"...

Mike said...

The American Indian has been held up as a 'noble savage' victim with sympathy and accolades far beyond what they deserve for at least 150 yrs, maybe longer. Mark Twain wrote an anti-PC piece at one point calling "bulls**t on this notion.

Lets also not forget that George Washington Carver was so discriminated against that he had a professorship and won numerous awards and patents.

In regards to discrimination against blacks, how much of it post-slavery has been malicious bias, and how much actually sensible policy? We've been doing it the liberal way for at least half a century, and blacks still make whites cringe who have to live around them. They commit crimes of violence and stealth vastly more, they vandalize more, are more rude, etc. Why wouldn't it be sensible for an average white who owned a home not to want to rent a room out to a black person he didn't personally know? Why should there be any government interference with this?

American Indians were behaving as savages- whites would try to have peaceful agreements with them, help them, etc and the Indians would attack without provocation, do things like slaughter women and children, savagely torture men, etc. There has been so much garbage pumped into the minds of Americans on this issue- intentionally hiding facts, intentionally distorting the past, that even among many conservative 'race realists' they will cheer for the poor native American and feel remorse over white 'misbehavior' out of ignorance.

Both groups receive greater opportunity than do whites, and have been for generations. And both still perform worse. People mix up equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Lets say society gives Mr. B gets gourmet meals 3x a day and another man, Mr. W, gets the bare essentials 3x a day. If Mr. B routinely throws most of his meals in the trash, and Mr. W eats nearly all of his, after a few months, Mr. B will appear to be starving and neglected, whereas Mr. W will appear fine. It is wrong for Mr. B to then claim he suffers more than Mr. W and deserves more still from society than Mr. W.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Steve. Three snarky posts on this subject. If you had a chip on your shoulder about how your ethnic group has been marginalized I doubt you could do anything as impressive as create facebook or make a movie like The Titanic, but maybe you could write another book. Just produce something rather constantly critiquing.

Peggy Lipton said...

Are you sure Louis Armstrong never married Marilyn Monroe?

Anonymous said...

Steve, you are confusing apples with oranges.

I am not talking about INSTITUTIONALIZED racism, but rather racism of the Society.

Yes, blacks were even more discriminated in American Society than southern Europeans. The discrimination was so strong that in many states blacks were not allowed to marry whites, which is not the case for a Spanish immigrant marrying an Anglo. That is true.

But the fact that groups like Italians, Jews and Spaniards were never discriminated by the government, it does not change the fact that they were discriminated by the Anglo-American Society.

Harvard, for instance, had Jewish quotas and Jews were barred from WASP clubs and sovial events. Italian immigrants were denied entry into many political positions in American Society. Can you honestly see a man of Italian descent becoming American President in the first half of the 20th century? NO!

Not only that, but Anglo politicians openly tried to limit the immgration of southern Europeans to America on the grounds that southern Euros were indolent and untrostworthy and would lead to a decline of the Society.

And Iberians were always regarded as the bottom of the barrel as far as European immigrants are concerned. The only thing lower to white Anglo Society than a Pole or Italian is a Spaniard or Portuguese.

What I find amazing is that you have acknowledged the contemp of Anglo-Americans for other European groups in your review of the film "The Good Sheppard", in which you quote the WASP stating to the Italian guy that they own America and how they(Italians and other groups) are "just visiting". You acknowledged this as a sign that WASPS were the elite of America and felt better than other ethnic groups. You are a hypocrite, Steve.

You brought up Joe DiMaggio. He was an icon of manhood and a millionaire, so of course he was able to get white Anglo girlfriends. And yes, an equally rich and succesful black would not because the law wouldn't allow it. But you are missing the point that even though Italians were never segregated by law, the Society discriminated against them. I guess if you are an icon of manhood and rich, they make an exception for you. But even Joe DiMaggio would proably be rejected by New England WASPS as not good enough for their daughters.

You are thinking in terms of INSTITUTIONALIZED racism and in terms of either/or. Racism existed on a scale, with blacks being the most discriminated against to the point where the law forbad them from marrying whites, Iberians being discriminated less and not having laws against them but still being looked very down upon, and then Italians, Poles, etc. Just answer me a question, Steve: Would white Anglo parents in the 1950s be happy if their daughter brought home and Italian boyfriend? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Also, I think there is a discomapass between what you consider white and what Anglo Americans consider white. You mention Arabs as white, and that is laughable. Even today, most white Anglos don't consider Arabs to be white. You also consider Asian Indians whites, which is ridiculous. They are very boradly Caucasoids, but they are not white in the way whites of European descent use the word.

You have also expressed contempt yourself for Spaniards and their culture multiple times, which makes this even more laughable. You have refered to Iberians as lazy and in your article on Latin America being a Cul-de-sac of creativity your bring up the mother country and their lack of achievements to further reinforce your point. You look down on Iberians YOURSELF which makes this so funny that you deny the racism of Anglo-American Society.

Anonymous said...

I've actually heard that it is possible that the majority of white ancestry present in today's American Blacks comes from Pre-1800 pairings of black men (both free and enslaved) and white indentured servant women. Of course you don't hear a lot about this because it goes against the narrative of evil white slave masters doing a lot of raping.

Anonymous said...

"statistical assertion...about Whiteness."

Steve, in your fuller discussion of this topic, I hope you explore the inconsistency in the tendency of cultural-makers (politicians, media people) making statistical assertions about whites (e.g., saying things like "The majority of American whites who had the right kinds of last names didn't regard whites of Mediterranean ancestry fellow whites.")

Incidentally, when he was in high school, my brother-in-law half-joked that he was a "Mediterranean Americana," and wrote that designation in on forms asking for his race (his great-grandparents were from Italy). Some people dared him to put this on his college applications, perhaps this obnoxiousness would hurt his chances. I think they were annoyed when he got into Yale.

Dahinda said...

I thought that Marilyn was Louis Armstrong's inspiration for "What a wonderful world!"

Anonymous said...

Anony-mouse:"With the exception of Santayana all your examples are post-WWII, and Santayana was European-Spanish."

James Jesus Angleton was hardly post-WW2, as he went to Yale in the 30s and served in the OSS during WW2.Bear in mind that the OSS was famously posh (wags said that the initials actually stood for Oh So Social).If they didn't mind his Mexican ancestry, that tells you something.

Jose Ferrer's acting career began in the 30's

Luis Alvarez went to the U. of Chicago in the 30s; no one complained.

No one found William Carlos Williams' Puerto Rican ancestry worthy of much comment in the 20s and 30s.

Caesar Romero was an active star in the 30s.

Anthony Quinn was an active star in the 30s.

Jacob Krantz changed his name to Ricardo Cortez (guess he didn't get the memo that Spanish names were verboten).

"The fact that an Irish Catholic could get elected President in 1960 has no bearing on whether an Irish Catholic could get elected President in 1928 (answer: he couldn't)."

The operative word there is Catholic.People were worried about Catholicism, not about Irish blood.

"Every pre-WWII President was of either British or Dutch stock."

Hoover was of Swiss-German ancestry.

"Now its not that in the 19th century certain obviously White ethnicities were considered Black. No Southern state included them in their Jim Crow laws. And that's why White crowds could prefer an Irish fighter to a Black fighter. But there's a big difference in considering an Irishman (or Italian or Jew or Hispanic) to be a boxer and accepting him as an equal White."

John L. Sullivan wasn't grudgingly accepted; he was celebrated.Please try to find some examples of people at the time referring to Sullivan as non-White.

Anonymous said...

anonymous:"So we have a first hand account from poster Carol that such marriages weren't exactly par for the course..."

Which means absolutely nothing.

Anonymous said...

"Steve, the Liberals are making a statistical assertion about general attitudes about Whiteness. You're highlighting some counter-examples but I'm afraid that both of you's are talking about different things.

Libtards don't argue that"

Actually, I have yet to see a good statistical study on how Americans perceived, say, the Irish as non-White in the 19th century;all of their arguments boil down to equating "foreignness" with being non-White, and Whiteness with "Americaness."

Mr. Anon said...

"Bob Arctor said...

No one here doubts many old stock English, Dutch and German Protestants viewed the Irish, Mediterraneans, Slavs, Lebanese, Hispanics, et alia as their social lessers in some sense (in the same way that New York Jews such as yourself view white Christians in flyover country today), just that they weren't viewed as being part of another race, as the blacks were/are."

Quite so. Hillbillies have long been looked down upon - not only by the liberal coastal elites of today, but by the old-line east-coast elites of yore. But no one now disputes that hillbillies are white, and no one ever has.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:""Mexicans were lynched at a rate of 27.4 per 100,000 of population between 1880 and 1930. This statistic was second only to that of the African American community, which endured an average of 37.1 per 100,000 of population during that period.""

Sadly, no racial breakdown of the "Mexicans" is provided;did they look like Mayan extras from APOCALYPTO?Or were they White Mexicans like Montalban?I tend to think the former.

Anonymous said...

OT. Paul Fussell died. I'm a little surprised it went unnoticed here. Californian, Social Commentator, WWII vet, Homo/Bi sexual with a family - typical HBD subject.

Anonymous said...

In the earlier thread it was pointed out that the likes of Martin Sheen had to change their names. True, but once done he was considered 100% white. The divide is a cultural/class one as much as ethnic.

Trayvon could have started calling himself Toby but he would still be black, be seen as black.

Londoner said...

Does Juan, sorry, John McCain count as hispanic based on his birthplace? How long before Californians of all ethnicities and tongues are regarded as "hispanic" because the state has become majority-Mexican and effectively a continuation of Mexico? Is Steve hispanic??

Anonymous said...

You really need to go easier on people, Steve:

"I realize that there are a huge number of people who simply don't know enough facts to tell when I'm joking or not, and thus would get confused and disturbed when I switch back and forth between factual and facetious without warning. Fortunately, most of them don't bother trying to read me."

Ouch!

You also need to realise that there are huge numbers of people who not only don't know these facts, but can't be expected to know them. I'm a 23 y/o Irish woman living in Dublin. Why on earth would you expect me to understand these references?

Understanding old American sitcoms is hardly a good indicator of intelligence or overall knowledge. (I happen to have be of below average intelligence, but that's not the point here.)

From what I can see here, you tried to make a point using obscure reference points. That's fine, but it backfired here. And that was your fault, not that of the people reading you.

You might expect them to do some work and Google these sitcoms and characters. We can debate the merits of meeting the writer halfwy, but it's a lot easier to get your wider point across if your audience has some idea of who you're talking about.

People with below average IQs and/or below average stores of facts comprise half the population, so even if you are right and people aren't smart enough to understand you, you still have to appeal to them at some point.

Atoz said...

But there's a big difference in considering an Irishman (or Italian or Jew or Hispanic) to be a boxer and accepting him as an equal White.

Yeah, just look at how badly Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard was treated by the Confederacy when he was forced to become the first general of their new army.

Or how about when the poor guy had to come up with a design for the Confederate battle flag?

Anonymous said...

Every pre-WWII President was of either British or Dutch stock.

Except Hoover (he of the Indian VP). Swiss German.

Anonymous said...

My grandfather was a union film crewman-best boy, gaffer, things like that-in Hollywood in the fifties. He was also, even by my low standards, extremely racist. He once got pretty excited during a dinner table conversation when my sister said something admiring about Marilyn Monroe. Monroe was the one really big movie star of the era Grandpa didn't talk about and made his contempt known for. He'd had quite a few boilermakers (shot of whiskey and a beer) by then and he sounded off. He had walked in on MM and Louis Armstrong-his trumpet was on his mouth, you can imagine what was on hers. He told Sister this and what he thought of it in pretty crude terms.

After that he avoided any film she was on. He disliked Kim Novak for similar reasons.

Anonymous said...

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/05/stephen-jay-goulds-jewish-motivation/#more-14182

Kevin Michael Grace said...

For a better alternative to De Niro's movie, check out the five-hour, 2007 cable series The Company, with the fine Michael Keaton as the strange and fascinating James Jesus Angleton. It's revisionist history but in a good way. You can get it on Amazon for $7.32.

Anonymous said...

http://youtu.be/EqGaHsc6DFg

Anglos are totally evil but Latinos are so wonderful

Anonymous said...

"Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions."

poolside said...

In "The Wrecking Crew," a recent book about LA's famed studio musicians, guitarist Don Peake tells the story of Ray Charles' band being stopped by Alabama state troopers while driving to a concert in 1964.

The troopers had heard that Charles' band included a white guy -- which was Peake -- and they wanted to arrest him for playing in an otherwise all-black band.

When the troopers entered the bus, Charles instructed his manager to tell Peake to act "Spanish." Peake mumbled some jibberish when the troopers inspected him, and Charles' manager told them Peake was a "Spanish guitarist."

The troopers bought the story and allowed Charles and his band to go on.

Anonymous said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303610504577418511907146478.html

artificial addition.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299795/where-did-land-go-michael-auslin#

Duvall doesn't like the current smell.

Anonymous said...

http://online.wsj.com/video/05520468-3643-463E-BF74-96AD2796A82E.html?wsj_article_tboleft

Chinee geeks upset. hahaha. Love not colorblind.

Q said...

No one here doubts many old stock English, Dutch and German Protestants viewed the Irish, Mediterraneans, Slavs, Lebanese, Hispanics, et alia as their social lessers in some sense (in the same way that New York Jews such as yourself view white Christians in flyover country today), just that they weren't viewed as being part of another race, as the blacks were/are.




While your larger point is correct, the fact is that the great majority of Hispanics, unlike Desi Arnaz, are not white in any sense. They are literally of a different race.

The solution to this is to stop using the useless term "Hispanic" - which covers people of many different races - as if it itself is a racial or ethnic category.

James Kabala said...

"Our Southern high-bred people will never tolerate on equal terms any person who is even remotely tainted with negro blood, but they do not make the same objection to other brown or dark-skinned people, like the Spanish, the Cubans, the Italians, etc."

That's a fascinating quotation - on the one hand, he is (as Derbyshire would note) saying that the important distinction is black vs. non-black, but on the other hand, he seems to regard Southern Europeans as not quite white.

pat said...

It goes the other way too. Quite recently John Stewart before his Daily Show success used the "white man" as a foil in his stand up routine. He used to contrast his own Jewishness with the ethnicity of those evil and/or dopey "white" men. I suppose that gave him traction with black audiences.

He was as anxious to avoid being labeled white as Elizabeth ("I'm and Indian Too") Warren.

I once played Jose Ferrer in an opera - sort of. Ferrer was most famous for his star turn as Toulouse-Lautrec. He walked around on his knees. I did that for the part of the Third Psychiatrist in the opera The Good Soldier Schweik. Not a big part and not a very famous show but I made an impression (I'm 6'4" standing on my feet).

Everyone referred to my performance as "pulling a Jose Ferrer".

Albertosaurus

ben tillman said...

American Indians:Even they did not suffer under the same degree of racial opprobrium as did Blacks.

That's hardly surprising. Cavalli-Sforza himself wrote, "The most important difference in the human gene pool is clearly that between Africans and non-Africans...."

Anonymous said...

But there's a big difference in considering an Irishman (or Italian or Jew or Hispanic) to be a boxer and accepting him as an equal White.

Sounds like privileging of wacky radical egalitarian ideology. The ethnic Irish American boxer had the same legal rights as the Scots-Irish-American boxer.

Anonymous said...

"How the irish became white" is really a monograph about how irish americans in the philadelpha area became associated with the democrats (rather than the anti-slave republicans) in the pre civil war era. This appalled Irish secessionists.

That guy just picked an catchy title to sell some books.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"Harvard, for instance, had Jewish quotas and Jews were barred from WASP clubs and sovial events. Italian immigrants were denied entry into many political positions in American Society. Can you honestly see a man of Italian descent becoming American President in the first half of the 20th century? NO!"

Yeah, and Italians and Jews had their own social clubs/organizations that largely confined membership to their compatriots. As for an Italian becoming president in the first half of the 20th century, his almost certain Catholicism would have been a huge barrier to overcome, so no, probably not. Plus, the Italians were still in the process of being Americanized.


"Would white Anglo parents in the 1950s be happy if their daughter brought home and Italian boyfriend? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice."

Depends on the parents;are they Catholic? That would be the single biggest issue, not ethnicity.


"Not only that, but Anglo politicians openly tried to limit the immgration of southern Europeans to America on the grounds that southern Euros were indolent and untrostworthy and would lead to a decline of the Society."

Actually, they were also deeply concerned about preserving the American nature of American society;southern Europeans, in general, had a bigger cultural barrier to overcome in becoming American than did Protestant Europeans from Northern Europe.

"Also, I think there is a discomapass between what you consider white and what Anglo Americans consider white. You mention Arabs as white, and that is laughable. Even today, most white Anglos don't consider Arabs to be white."


Mmm. Bit hard to square that with the careers of such Arab-Americans as Danny Thomas, Marlo Thomas, William Peter Blatty, Ralph Nader, John Sununu, F. Murray Abraham, etc. Guess that the Anglos haven't received that memo about them not being White.


"You have also expressed contempt yourself for Spaniards and their culture multiple times, which makes this even more laughable. You have refered to Iberians as lazy and in your article on Latin America being a Cul-de-sac of creativity your bring up the mother country and their lack of achievements to further reinforce your point. You look down on Iberians YOURSELF which makes this so funny that you deny the racism of Anglo-American Society."

The negative features of Hispanic culture, whether in the Old World or in the New, are objective facts (cf Murray's HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT);perhaps you fail to understand that simply being White does not make a culture admirable.I look down on White people from Southern California;it doesn't mean that I don't think that they are White. They are just not as good as White people from Northern California.

disappointed fan said...

These days, everybody wants to associate the historical slights against their group with the glamor of black victimhood, but this rhetorical trick is extremely unfair to blacks.

Et tu, Steve? Are you campaigning to be the chairman of the Republican Party?

Anonymous said...

Here's a guy who really didn't get the memo on Hispanics not being White: Leander Perez

From Wikipedia:
Leander Henry Perez, Sr. (July 16, 1891 – March 19, 1969), was the Democratic political boss of Plaquemines and St. Bernard parishes in southeastern Louisiana during the middle third of the 20th century. Officially, he served as a district judge, later as district attorney, and as president of the Plaquemines Parish Commission Council. He was known for his staunch support of segregation.


In 1948, Perez headed the Thurmond presidential campaign in Louisiana; and after the failure of the Dixiecrat movement, he unsuccessfully tried to keep the party alive, even as Thurmond returned temporarily to the Democratic Party.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Perez gained attention as a nationally prominent opponent of desegregation, taking a leadership role in the opposition to desegregation, along with nationally recognized figures such as Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and Ross Barnett of Mississippi. He was a member of the White Citizens Council and an organizer of the white supremacist Citizens Council of Greater New Orleans. Thereafter, Perez wrote and researched much of the legislation sponsored by Louisiana's Joint Legislative Committee on Segregation.
In defending segregation, Perez said: "Do you know what the Negro is? Animal right out of the jungle. Passion. Welfare. Easy life. That's the Negro."

Guess that those good old boys, not to mention Perez himself, didn't know that Perez wasn't White....

ben tillman said...

Luis Alvarez went to the U. of Chicago in the 30s; no one complained.

Looking at my Harvard Freshman Red Book from 1927, I see several very White Hispanics with names like Montes and Gonzalez. There's a Chinaman named Tse-Wai Yuen.

And there are two very dark Black men named Kenneth Brousorph Crooks (from Jamaica; he was center forward on the freshman soccer team) and Robert Turner Ford (from Baltimore).

No big deal -- don't know about Harvard, but Brown graduated its first Black alumnum in 1869.

ben tillman said...

How long before Californians of all ethnicities and tongues are regarded as "hispanic" because the state has become majority-Mexican and effectively a continuation of Mexico? Is Steve hispanic??

The time is now.

I don't need to rely on the fact that my wife is from South Texas, or the fact that she had an ancestor named Gonzalez five or six generations ago, or the fact that some of her English ancestors lived in Texas while it was still part of Mexico.

My son is Hispanic simply because he was born in Texas.

Peter said...

Also, I think there is a discomapass between what you consider white and what Anglo Americans consider white. You mention Arabs as white, and that is laughable. Even today, most white Anglos don't consider Arabs to be white.


Mmm. Bit hard to square that with the careers of such Arab-Americans as Danny Thomas, Marlo Thomas, William Peter Blatty, Ralph Nader, John Sununu, F. Murray Abraham, etc. Guess that the Anglos haven't received that memo about them not being White.

All of those people you mention are/were Christian rather than Muslim. There's a general acknowledgement that Muslims are not white even if Christians from the same location and of similar appearance are white. Even Albanians, Bosnians and Kosovars, despite being of fully European ancestry, are at best sort-of-white. In fact they are treated much the same way as Hispanics of completely white appearance.

In addition, the Arab-Americans mentioned above all trace their ancestry to Lebanon or Syria. Those countries have the lightest people in the Arab world, except possibly for some of the Maghreb Berbers. If the United States were to get a big influx of brown-skinned Copts from Egypt, which come to think of it is not an entirely improbable occurrence, we'd be unlikely to treat them the same as their fellow Christian Arabs from Lebanon.

Q said...

In the earlier thread it was pointed out that the likes of Martin Sheen had to change their names. True, but once done he was considered 100% white. The divide is a cultural/class one as much as ethnic.



Sheen is white and would be white even if his name was Obiang Nguema. Sheen was 100% white before and after he changed his name.

It's extremely common for actors to give themselves new names. The practice has little to nothing to do with race, ethnicity, culture or class.

Q said...

There's a general acknowledgement that Muslims are not white even if Christians from the same location and of similar appearance are white.


Who exactly is doing this general acknowledging? "Muslim" denotes a religion, it says nothing about the race or skin color of the person in question.

Q said...

the fact that groups like Italians, Jews and Spaniards were never discriminated by the government, it does not change the fact that they were discriminated by the Anglo-American Society.


The fact that certain groups of white people were socially discriminated against by "the Anglo-American Society" does not mean that the white people in question were not white.

The fact that the Clinton's failed to send me an invitation to Chelsea's wedding does not permit you to conclude that they do not regard me as being white.

The hallmark of the left is their incredibly sloppy use of language. "Words mean whatever it is expedient for them to mean at any time."

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 2:50 PM

"The negative features of Hispanic culture, whether in the Old World or in the New, are objective facts (cf Murray's HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT);perhaps you fail to understand that simply being White does not make a culture admirable.I look down on White people from Southern California;it doesn't mean that I don't think that they are White. They are just not as good as White people from Northern California."

"Human Accomplishment" is a complete joke, written by a white Anglo man who is strongly biased in favor of England, with a secondary focus on Germany. He only brings up the achievements of Italy in the realms of the arts because they are so astonishing that if he left them out everyone would call his book garbage.

The only reason why Spaniards are considered by Anglos nowadays to be white is because of the big economic success in the U.S of Spanish-descended immigrants like Cubans and the huge economic expansion of Spain after WWII.

I read a statistic from Stanford University that 45% of white Cubans earn more than 100 K a year, compared to only 18% for white Anglos. It must be really painful you white racists to see all your theories on the racial superiority of Anglos and other northern European groups shattered. So your solution for this problem was to "upgrade" Spaniards to whites so as to not shatter the racial theories. You guys are of the Arthur Kemp school of revisionist history.

Maybe I am biased in favor of Spaniards and feel the need to defend them because I love Spanish literature so much, and unlike Steve Sailer and you I actually think the Spanish are a great people who have done many great things. You need to be a moron to think that the Spanish are without accomplishments. You have to be a moron to think that, for example, Dickens was better than Cervantes. But I cannot put blame because people tend to be biased in favor of their own cultures.

But you don't need to concern yourself with those inferior Iberians: due to the very high rate of intermarriage with Anglos, they will disappear soon. The rate of intermarriage between Cubans and Anglos in southern Florida, for instance, is quite high.

Anonymous said...

@Q

"The fact that certain groups of white people were socially discriminated against by "the Anglo-American Society" does not mean that the white people in question were not white.

The fact that the Clinton's failed to send me an invitation to Chelsea's wedding does not permit you to conclude that they do not regard me as being white.

The hallmark of the left is their incredibly sloppy use of language. "Words mean whatever it is expedient for them to mean at any time."

First of all, stop calling me leftist. I am not a leftist. Second, your analogy with the Clintons is terrible.

Also, Italians Iberians and other southern European immigrants were not CONSIDERED white by Anglo-American society. Whether they are white is irrelevant. They were not considered white by the terms that Anglo-American Society used the term.

The discrimination against southern Euros had everything to do with not regarding them as being white. What other possible reasons could there be? Religion? Bavarian immigrants were Catholic and they were always regarded as white. Culture? Swede had very little accomplishments too when Swedish immigrants came to Minessota, and yet they were always accepted by Anglo-American Society.

Since the discrimination cannot be explained by religious or cultural prejudice, then the only explanation is that it was caused by Anglos thinking that southern Euros were an inferior racial stock.

Steve Sailer said...

It's like how Dominican playboy Porfirio Rubirosa wasn't allowed to marry American heiresses Duke and Hutton in the 1940s and 1950s.

Atoz said...

In the earlier thread it was pointed out that the likes of Martin Sheen had to change their names. True, but once done he was considered 100% white. The divide is a cultural/class one as much as ethnic.

I guess sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet. I was making fun of his BS excuse for changing his name. People would pause (horror of horrors!) when he told them his name over the phone but there was no pause when they met him in person. He could have stayed true to his roots by going with Gerry Estevez or Tony Phelan but he went with Martin Sheen because it sounded cooler.

Anonymous said...

No, Steve you need to go harder on people. As shown by this comment section, the number of idiots who read and comment here is surprisingly high.

No one's gonna let go of there little victim card -or have the guts- to make fun of the faux victims. So we get Irishman crying about a great grand Dad seeing a no Irish need apply sign in Boston 150 years ago and they feel no shame.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:""Human Accomplishment" is a complete joke, written by a white Anglo man who is strongly biased in favor of England, with a secondary focus on Germany. He only brings up the achievements of Italy in the realms of the arts because they are so astonishing that if he left them out everyone would call his book garbage."

Actually, he also points out the tremendous importance of France as well (the Western big four are:England, Germany, France, and Italy).Far from being a complete joke, any unbiased observer would have to agree with Murray's assessment that those are the four leading producers of science and art in the Western world for the last five centuries.

"The only reason why Spaniards are considered by Anglos nowadays to be white is because of the big economic success in the U.S of Spanish-descended immigrants like Cubans and the huge economic expansion of Spain after WWII."

Well, sadly, the evidence goes against you on that one, as figures like Cervantes, Santayana, Calderon, Velasquez, etc were all considered White, and they all lived a long time before the end of WW2.

"I read a statistic from Stanford University that 45% of white Cubans earn more than 100 K a year, compared to only 18% for white Anglos."

Yes, the White Cubans have done really well in America.


"It must be really painful you white racists to see all your theories on the racial superiority of Anglos and other northern European groups shattered."

Don't recall ever asserting anything about the "racial superiority" of Anglos (a cultural, not a racial category), let alone "other northern European groups."I merely noted the fact that the Hispanic world's cultural output, compared to, say, France, has been quite lackluster.For that matter, the American South has also been quite lackluster in comparison to the North (cf Murray's cultural map of the USA).

"So your solution for this problem was to "upgrade" Spaniards to whites so as to not shatter the racial theories." You guys are of the Arthur Kemp school of revisionist history."

No one is "upgrading" anyone;the Spanish have always been White.

"You guys are of the Arthur Kemp school of revisionist history."

You've actually read a nutcase like Kemp?Well, his absurd theories are good for a laugh, I suppose.


Maybe I am biased in favor of Spaniards and feel the need to defend them because I love Spanish literature so much, and unlike Steve Sailer and you I actually think the Spanish are a great people who have done many great things. You need to be a moron to think that the Spanish are without accomplishments."

Don't recall anyone arguing that the Spaniards are without accomplishments; merely that their achievements have not equalled those of the British, French, Italians, Germans.As for literature in Spanish, I'm quite fond of Borges.

"You have to be a moron to think that, for example, Dickens was better than Cervantes. But I cannot put blame because people tend to be biased in favor of their own cultures."

Don't recall saying that Dickens was greater than Cervantes;actually, I think that Cervantes is a greater writer than Dickens. Indeed, Cervantes is up there with Dante and Shakespeare, one of the immortals of Western Civilization.

"But you don't need to concern yourself with those inferior Iberians: due to the very high rate of intermarriage with Anglos, they will disappear soon. The rate of intermarriage between Cubans and Anglos in southern Florida, for instance, is quite high."

Further proof that White Cubans are, well, White.

Anonymous said...

Appropriate to this discussion: putative "Portuguese" tribe of the Appalachians turns out to be of African and English/Scottish stock. Assumed, "Portuguese" identity 200 years ago because - duh - Portuguese were and are considered white. From the Daily Mail.



It would be interesting to know sociological information about the Melungeon. What are their crime rates, high-school graduation rates, etc?

If genes are everything then they should be just like other blacks - most of whom in America are of mixed race ancestry.

If non-genetic factors are important then the Melungeon might diverge from the Afro-American norm.

Anonymous said...

"Also, Italians Iberians and other southern European immigrants were not CONSIDERED white by Anglo-American society. Whether they are white is irrelevant. They were not considered white by the terms that Anglo-American Society used the term."

Actually, they were. Check American immigration laws;Italians, Spaniards, etc were not classified as non-White.

"The discrimination against southern Euros had everything to do with not regarding them as being white. What other possible reasons could there be? Religion? Bavarian immigrants were Catholic and they were always regarded as white."

A little reading on the history of German Catholics in the USA should disabuse you of the notion that Protestant Americans accepted them with open arms in the 19th century. The Protestant american establishment carried out a kulturkampf against Catholicism, forcing it to Americanize.



"Culture? Swede had very little accomplishments too when Swedish immigrants came to Minessota, and yet they were always accepted by Anglo-American Society."

Again, you need to read up on the tensions that existed between Anglo-Americans and Swedes in the 19th century. For that matter, Swedes were stock figures of fun in American culture well into the 20th century (the "dumb Swede," mockery of the "Yumpin Yimminy" accent, etc).


Yes, shocking as this may sound to you, White people actually dislike other White people.

Anonymous said...

It must be really painful you white racists to see all your theories on the racial superiority of Anglos and other northern European groups shattered. So your solution for this problem was to "upgrade" Spaniards to whites so as to not shatter the racial theories.




Spaniards are and always have been white.

Spaniards are a very different thing from "Latin Americans", though you seem to use the two terms interchangeably. Some Latin Americans are Spaniards, but the vast majority are not.


Maybe I am biased in favor of Spaniards ..


That's no excuse for being ignorant of racial categories. "Whites", aka "Caucasians", has always included Spanish people. It does not include "Hispanics", a recently made up term which encompasses all the people of the world who speak the Spanish language (and some who do not) regardless of their race.

Saying that Marco Rubio is "Hispanic" is exactly like saying that Al Sharpton is "Anglo". After all, Al does speak English as his naive tongue.

Q said...

First of all, stop calling me leftist. I am not a leftist.


Then stop talking like a leftist.


Also, Italians Iberians and other southern European immigrants were not CONSIDERED white by Anglo-American society.

Yes, they were considered white. Did the upper-crust WASP's who ran the country (or "Anglo-American society" to you) consider Italians etc to be their social equals? No, they did not. But the upper-crust WASPS' who ran the country did not consider poor southern white Baptists to be their social equals either.

Using your lefty logic, the majority of white Protestants in America "were not considered white", because the small minority of people who made up "Anglo-American society" regarded these people as their social inferiors.

Where you are going astray is in your credulous acceptance of the left-wing proposition that "race is a social construct". You think that because the Lowell's and Peabodies and other wealthy New England families looked down on the Irish, it means that the Irish were not "white". And it does not mean that at all. It merely means that the wealthy WASP aristocracy looked down on everybody else in the country.

You cannot say that because the people in Group A look down their noses at the people in Group X, it means that the people in group A regard the people in Group X as non-white.

I regard you as my intellectual inferior. It does not follow that I regard you as non-white.

Anonymous said...

@Steve Sailer

"It's like how Dominican playboy Porfirio Rubirosa wasn't allowed to marry American heiresses Duke and Hutton in the 1940s and 1950s."

That is the reflection of a single individual, and not of an entire Society. I would expect you to know the difference, but apparently that is expecting too much.

The gist of your argument seems to be that, because there was never any laws prohibiting marriage between southern European descendents and white Anglos, unlike with blacks, then there was no discrimination of the Society at large against white Latins. That argument is frankly idiotic. Guess what? There has never been any laws prohibiting mestizos from marrying white Anglos either, and yet mestizos have always been discriminated against. Yes, prejudice against blacks was greater, but southern Euros ranked lower in the totem pole than Anglos.

I have already given you several examples, such as Jews being barren by quotas at Harvard and not allowed into WASP country clubs. And that discrimination was not economical, because even the richest Jews couldn't get admittance.

What about the words "dagos" and "wop"? Are those terms of endearment created by Aglos for Italians because they loved them so much? What about all the U.S Congressman in the first half of the 20th century who tried to pass bills limiting the immigration of southern Europeans on the grounds that they were indolent and untrustrowrthy and would lead to the decline of the U.S if they were allowed into the country in large humbers?

What about your OWN recognition of WASP dominance and contempt for Italians in your review of the film "The Good Sheppard", when the WASP arrogantly tells the Italian man that they(WASPS) are better than them and that Italians are not as American as WASPS? You said it YOURSELF, dude. Live up to it.

What about your OWN statement of contempt for Iberians? You, my friend, reflect very well the attitude of Anglo-American Society towards southern Euros and especially Spaniards.

Don't flatter yourself, Steve, because you are an intellectual midget, and trying to prove your point with references to sitcoms or single examples of individuals does not disprove the OBVIOUS fact that traditional American Society, Anglo-Saxon with northern European roots, has traditionally shown contempt for southern Europeans. You have done it YOURSELF.

But of course, the only reason why you want to categorize Spaniards, Arabs and Asian Indians as white is not because you really consider them whites, but because you want as many ethnic grouups as possible to get out of the gravy train of Affirmative Action. My criticism of you is that you should be straightforward instead of lying about your true beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Martin Sheen changed his name in tribute to Bishop Fulton Sheen. It was not on a whim. He acted in several "Insight" television shows - which were short Catholic morality plays - I can't imagine they paid well.

Rohan Swee said...

But the fact that groups like Italians, Jews and Spaniards were never discriminated by the government, it does not change the fact that they were discriminated by the Anglo-American Society.

Harvard, for instance, had Jewish quotas and Jews were barred from WASP clubs and sovial events...

Another intrepid investigator discovers that WASPs were once just like Italians, Jews, Spaniards, etc. - i.e., clannish, looked after their own, had a sense of group identity. (And as far as I'm concerned, a private, WASP-founded Harvard could have quota'd the hell out of whomever it pleased, or not let them in at all.)

What I find amazing is that you have acknowledged the contemp of Anglo-Americans for other European groups in your review of the film "The Good Sheppard"

Uh, actually he was describing the (non-WASP) film maker's vision of WASPs...

You acknowledged this as a sign that WASPS were the elite of America...

They were the elite of America. The elite WASPs were, that is. Since their ancestors sort of, ya know, founded the country, and Anglo-Protestants formed the majority culture until quite recently.

...and felt better than other ethnic groups.

Maybe they just took better care of themselves, ha ha ha...OK, I assume you meant "felt they were better...". Well, everybody else seems to have thought so, too, since apparently you were all so butthurt about being snubbed by WASPs.

What's that you say? But but but sniffle sniffle the WASP clubs were where the power was? Gee, what possible reason could there have been for that infinitely mysterious, inexplicable state of affairs? Whatever the reason, I'm sure we can all acknowledge the dreadful injustice of Thurston Howell having forced your Italian, Jewish, or Spanish ancestors to abide in his shitty discriminatory Anglo-Saxon dominated territory.

But even Joe DiMaggio would proably be rejected by New England WASPS as not good enough for their daughters.

Yeah, so what? That's pretty much the human norm - you want your children to marry people like you, to carry on the family traditions. My grandparents didn't want their progeny to marry non-Catholics or non-Europeans. Boo-hoo. I'll bet yours had some pretty definite ideas about whom they didn't want you to marry, too.

Anonymous said...

Paul Fussell.... Homo/Bi sexual with a family

Huh? What's your source on this?

Interesting fact. Fussell was a platoon lieutenant -- the position with the highest mortality rate in the infantry.

Rohan Swee said...

First of all, stop calling me leftist. I am not a leftist.

Honest mistake, considering your remarkable proclivity for circular reasoning and inability to understand the distinction between argument and assertion.

Also, Italians Iberians and other southern European immigrants were not CONSIDERED white by Anglo-American society. Whether they are white is irrelevant. They were not considered white by the terms that Anglo-American Society used the term.

Interesting assertion, lefty.

The discrimination against southern Euros had everything to do with not regarding them as being white. What other possible reasons could there be?

Uh, you missed as step here. Remember? It's the part where you're supposed to present evidence that the WASPs thought Columbus wasn't a white man.

Since the discrimination cannot be explained by religious or cultural prejudice, then the only explanation is that it was caused by Anglos thinking that southern Euros were an inferior racial stock.

1)Assertion
2)Assertion
3)Underpants
4)QED

I think you're missing a few Irishmen and Polacks here, too.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

The only reason why Spaniards are considered by Anglos nowadays to be white is because of the big economic success in the U.S of Spanish-descended immigrants like Cubans and the huge economic expansion of Spain after WWII."

Yeah, Spain was a byword for economic success in the 1960s. That's why chic New Yorkers were watching new-wave spanish films, and people started driving spanish cars.

C'mon. Spain was an economic backwater - it was Ireland with Tapas.

It's too bad you have a chip on your shoulder about your spanish heritage (which culture by the way - your baseless assertions to the contrary - was always considered white). It's too bad for you, that is - but, honestly, the rest of us don't give a s**t about your apparently grandioso inferiority complex.

Anonymous said...

It's like how Dominican playboy Porfirio Rubirosa wasn't allowed to marry American heiresses Duke and Hutton in the 1940s and 1950s.

Actually Porfirio Rubirosa was mixed-race. Rumors of his negro blood ended his career in America as a glamorous playboy marrying billionaire heiresses and dating Hollywood stars. He moved on to France:

http://theselvedgeyard.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/porfirio-rubirosa-last-of-the-famous-international-playboys/

http://theselvedgeyard.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/l_912c12ee61bc3b71d8602dc3616593bb.jpg

http://theselvedgeyard.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/1315670676_971bf0d9ed_o1.jpg


Besides his reputation as the greatest playboy and lover of the time, Rubirosa was also famous for being hung like a horse. Maybe his part-african ancestry explains that?

He was also a diplomat and spy in Berlin and Paris during the heady years just before WWII.

On top of all that he was also a world class polo player and race car driver.

All of which explains why Ian Fleming based his fictional character James Bond on the Dominican playboy, diplomat, spy Porfirio Rubirosa.


Btw, the heiress Doris Duke to whom Rubirosa was married for a while also had an open love affair with the legendary hawaiian swimmer and surfer Duke Kahanamoku, who was a full-blooded hawaiian. In other words he was not white at all.

Anonymous said...

"Paul Fussell.... Homo/Bi sexual with a family

Huh? What's your source on this?"

Betty Fussell - My Kitchen Wars

Anonymous said...

I forgot to check Wikipedia. Sheen states that he did indeed choose his name somewhat frivolously. You have to admit it was an odd choice. The wikipedia article paints a picture of him being immersed in his religion. Perhaps he made the late in life revelation because he has grown embarrassed by his youthful, zealous, conventional Catholic piety, the kind preached by Bishop Sheen. He is now just a socialist who wears a cross.

Anonymous said...

It wasn't just southern euros like italians, greeks, spaniards, portuguese who were considered racially inferior by the WASPs, so were the eastern europeans, both jews and non-jews, who were also immigrating in large numbers when the floodgates were finally opened to them in the beginning of the 20th century.

The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed to restrict further immigration of these "inferior" europeans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States#Anti-European_immigrant_racism

"The 20th century saw racism against immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe (notably Italian-Americans and Polish Americans), partly from anti-Catholic sentiment (as against Irish-Americans), and partly from Nordicism, which considered Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans inferior.

Nordicism lead to the reduction in Southern European and Eastern European immigrants in the National Origins Formula of the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924, whose goal was to maintain the status quo distribution of ethnicity"

ben tillman said...

...southern Euros ranked lower in the totem pole than Anglos.

I have already given you several examples, such as Jews being barren by quotas at Harvard and not allowed into WASP country clubs.


Jews aren't "Southern Euros".

And how do the practices of Harvard and country clubs constitute "discrimination of the Society at large against white Latins"?

And, thanks to my prior comment, we now know you're deliberately lying about Harvard. In 1927, Harvard had absolutely no racial barriers. And you think Jews somehow were entitled to more than 20% of the spots in that class at a university that was created by a competing group?

And why am I feeding the troll?

Anonymous said...

Rubirosa was also famous for being hung like a horse.

First hand report from a famous american writer:

http://popcultureinstitute.blogspot.com/2008/07/history-of-sex-porfirio-rubirosa.html

"Within his lifetime, pepper grinders the world over were nicknamed 'rubirosas' in his honour by his jet-set buddies.....Truman Capote described it thusly: 'an 11-inch cafe au lait sinker as thick as a man's wrist'......Length and girth - a deadly combination...

As to its victims, they included Dolores Del Rio, Marilyn Monroe, Ava Gardner, Rita Hayworth, Soraya Esfandiary, Veronica Lake, Kim Novak, Eva Peron, Doris Duke, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Barbara Hutton, and Danielle Darrieux among many hundreds of others; while in most cases these relationships ended badly, while they were going they went exceptionally well, since he was reportedly an expert swordsman as well, which well-endowed men often aren't."

Rohan Swee said...

@Ressentiment: Nordicism lead to the reduction in Southern European and Eastern European immigrants in the National Origins Formula of the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924, whose goal was to maintain the status quo distribution of ethnicity"

In the last several years I've heard a steady stream of complaints from Spaniards about too many damned obnoxious English moving in, and French getting huffy about their ongoing stealth reconquest of Aquitaine. I think we can conclude from this that the Spanish and French do not consider the English white.

Rohan Swee said...

ben tillman: And how do the practices of Harvard and country clubs constitute "discrimination of the Society at large against white Latins"?

To a rational person, they don't. (Harvard wouldn't have wanted my ancestors, either, but I can't imagine them giving a crap. Hell, Harvard still doesn't want my kind!) But To Sr. An├│nima Resentimiento, two Anglo dudes having a private conversation on a street corner are signalling that they think they're better than him.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:What about the words "dagos" and "wop"? Are those terms of endearment created by Aglos for Italians because they loved them so much?"

You might want to consider the fact that the English language has derogatory words for everyone who is not English:

Germans:Krauts, squareheads,Jerries, etc

French:Frogs

Irish:Micks, paddies, etc

The English feel superior to other White populations, but that doesn't mean that they do not think that they are White.

Anonymous said...

"OBVIOUS fact that traditional American Society, Anglo-Saxon with northern European roots, has traditionally shown contempt for southern Europeans. You have done it YOURSELF."

Traditional Anglo society views everything non-Anglo as inferior.Perhaps you are unaware of the negative feelings that Anglos have for, say, Germans?Again, you are conflating notions of ethnic/cultural superiority with the idea that Anglos did not regard Southern Europeans as White.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous

"Yeah, Spain was a byword for economic success in the 1960s. That's why chic New Yorkers were watching new-wave spanish films, and people started driving spanish cars.

C'mon. Spain was an economic backwater - it was Ireland with Tapas.

It's too bad you have a chip on your shoulder about your spanish heritage (which culture by the way - your baseless assertions to the contrary - was always considered white). It's too bad for you, that is - but, honestly, the rest of us don't give a s**t about your apparently grandioso inferiority complex."

Fool, I don't have even a single droplet of Spanish blood. Not one. Stop making accusations that make you look stupid.

And the fact is that Spaniards suddenly became "white" after WWII when the country developed. No one regarded Spaniards as white back in the 1930s when Spain was broke and riveted by civil war and had the GDP per capita of a Third World country. Now that is is a rich country, they are suddenly white.

As for the U.S.A, the economic success of Spanish-descended immigrants is the ONLY reason why they are regarded as white. It must be really painful that Cuban-Americans are wealthier than Anglos, huh? I am really sorry to hurt your feelings.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:"First of all, stop calling me leftist."

But you so clearly are a leftist.After all, you display the sine qua non of modern leftism:Your feelings have been hurt.And everything that you do is based on assuaging your hurt feelings.

Anonymous said...

@Q

Q said...

"Then stop talking like a leftist.
Yes, they were considered white. Did the upper-crust WASP's who ran the country (or "Anglo-American society" to you) consider Italians etc to be their social equals? No, they did not. But the upper-crust WASPS' who ran the country did not consider poor southern white Baptists to be their social equals either.

Using your lefty logic, the majority of white Protestants in America "were not considered white", because the small minority of people who made up "Anglo-American society" regarded these people as their social inferiors.

Where you are going astray is in your credulous acceptance of the left-wing proposition that "race is a social construct". You think that because the Lowell's and Peabodies and other wealthy New England families looked down on the Irish, it means that the Irish were not "white". And it does not mean that at all. It merely means that the wealthy WASP aristocracy looked down on everybody else in the country.

You cannot say that because the people in Group A look down their noses at the people in Group X, it means that the people in group A regard the people in Group X as non-white.

I regard you as my intellectual inferior. It does not follow that I regard you as non-white."

Are yyou sure you are intellectually superior to me? A lot of the things you say are pretty obvious, and I have had no problem demolishing everything you write quite easily. I am 100% sure that I am smarter than you. A lot smarter.

All your arguments boil down to race vs class. This has nothing to do with class, idiot.

The southern Baptists may have been rejected on grounds or religion, and the poor whites from New England may have been rejected on the grounds of economic status, but if they had money and were, say, Episcopalians, they could be accepted by elite WASPS. Conversely, the Italians could convert to Episcopalian religion and even if they did that and became rich, they would never be regarded as white. Why? Because they were regarded as reacially inferior, and not northern European stock. They could be regarded as white, buut that's redundant, as they were still regarded as a lesser type of white. Stop trying to debate me or you'll get owned over and over again as I am smarter than you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Leftist:"It wasn't just southern euros like italians, greeks, spaniards, portuguese who were considered racially inferior by the WASPs, so were the eastern europeans, both jews and non-jews, who were also immigrating in large numbers when the floodgates were finally opened to them in the beginning of the 20th century.

The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed to restrict further immigration of these "inferior" europeans:"


Avast, shipmates, the Great White Whale of modern Leftist ethnic grievance has been sighted, the 1920s restriction on immigration!

Yeah, it was just awful that they wanted to conserve the cultural homogeneity of American society.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Leftist:"What about your OWN recognition of WASP dominance and contempt for Italians in your review of the film "The Good Sheppard", when the WASP arrogantly tells the Italian man that they(WASPS) are better than them and that Italians are not as American as WASPS? You said it YOURSELF, dude. Live up to it."

What about the fact that the film decided to not have its version of James Jesus Angleton be half-Mexican?Guess that Hollywood leftists couldn't cope with the fact that a half-Mexican White guy went to Yale in the 30s, ran the OSS Italian desk during WW2, was the longtime head of counterintelligence for the CIA, etc.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Leftist:"That is the reflection of a single individual, and not of an entire Society. I would expect you to know the difference, but apparently that is expecting too much."

And, of course, society is made-up of individuals....unless you are a leftist, then it's all about the masses.

Anonymous said...

anonymous:"Actually Porfirio Rubirosa was mixed-race. Rumors of his negro blood ended his career in America as a glamorous playboy marrying billionaire heiresses and dating Hollywood stars."

Please note, "Rumors of his negro blood." Nobody cared about his Spanish ancestry.Further proof that Spaniards are White.

Anonymous said...

"some Kantian ideal of einem Klasse"

That would be einer Klasse, but loanwords don't inflect.

Anonymous said...

"And you think Jews somehow were entitled to more than 20% of the spots in that class at a university that was created by a competing group?"

Harvard has morphed several times in its 376-year history. It was founded with the intention of supplying literate Puritan ministers to the New England colonists, then it became a provincially elite college for the Boston Brahmins and social peers in the Northeast. Its administrators and alumni developed higher aspirations for the school beginning in the late 19th century, and that set it on the path to seeking international prominence. Meritocratic admissions, of course with hiccoughs during the administration of A. Lawrence Lowell (1909-1933), was a byproduct of that. That's my take as an alum, FWIW.

Anonymous said...

The biggest and clearest example of disparate impact, racism, nepotism and discrimination in the modern western world is the Jewish MSM in America. The only thing in the media which is bigger than the Jewish nepotism is the Jewish hypocrisy over it.

Peter said...

Truman Capote described it thusly: 'an 11-inch cafe au lait sinker as thick as a man's wrist'......Length and girth - a deadly combination...

Perhaps Truman and Porfirio just happened to be in the gym locker room at the same time, but I don't know, this description sounds a bit more detailed than such a casual encounter would warrant.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, it was just awful that they wanted to conserve the cultural homogeneity of American society

Nordicism is not about conserving "cultural" homogeneity, is it?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous leftist:"the southern Baptists may have been rejected on grounds or religion, and the poor whites from New England may have been rejected on the grounds of economic status, but if they had money and were, say, Episcopalians, they could be accepted by elite WASPS. Conversely, the Italians could convert to Episcopalian religion and even if they did that and became rich, they would never be regarded as white. Why? Because they were regarded as reacially inferior, and not northern European stock. They could be regarded as white, buut that's redundant, as they were still regarded as a lesser type of white. Stop trying to debate me or you'll get owned over and over again as I am smarter than you."


Yeah, the Taliaferro family have really suffered from Anglo prejudice over the years.I mean, they were only ranked as one of the First Families of Virginia.

Heck, one can only imagine how Ernst Fenollosa (1853-1908) somehow managed to attend Harvard and intermix with the elite of Cambridge/Boston society.

I do enjoy watching leftists like yourself digging holes...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Leftist:"Nordicism is not about conserving "cultural" homogeneity, is it?"

Actually, it was; they were deeply concerned about preserving the cultural integrity of the country, and they were intelligent enough to realize that large numbers of immigrants would jeopardize that project.Obviously, immigrants from societies that were less similar to the USA (Russia, Italy, etc) would be harder to assimilate than immigrants from societies that were more akin (England, Scotland, etc).

Anonymous said...

Please note, "Rumors of his negro blood." Nobody cared about his Spanish ancestry.Further proof that Spaniards are White.

Note that Rubirosa was described as "nut brown" in the sun-exposed part of his body and "cafe au lait" where the sun don't shine. Yet while there were always suspicions about his black heritage he was still renowned as a Latin Lover.

Note also that the tri-racial melungeons of the South passed themselves off as Portuguese.

I think it is quite amusing that James Bond, the greatest modern-age fictional hero of the motherland of the nordicist american WASPs, is based on a real-life swarthy mixed-race playboy, diplomat, sportsman, assassin from the Carribean....

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Leftist:"And the fact is that Spaniards suddenly became "white" after WWII when the country developed. No one regarded Spaniards as white back in the 1930s when Spain was broke and riveted by civil war and had the GDP per capita of a Third World country. Now that is is a rich country, they are suddenly white."

You know, just saying something over and over again does not make it true.Looks like another leftist has swallowed Ignatiev's cool-aid.

Anonymous Leftist:"As for the U.S.A, the economic success of Spanish-descended immigrants is the ONLY reason why they are regarded as white. It must be really painful that Cuban-Americans are wealthier than Anglos, huh? I am really sorry to hurt your feelings."

Yeah, things like skin color and phenotype and European ancestry don't matter;it's all about how much money you make....Remind me again about how you are not a Leftist.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Leftist:"Note that Rubirosa was described as "nut brown" in the sun-exposed part of his body and "cafe au lait" where the sun don't shine. Yet while there were always suspicions about his black heritage he was still renowned as a Latin Lover.

Note also that the tri-racial melungeons of the South passed themselves off as Portuguese.

I think it is quite amusing that James Bond, the greatest modern-age fictional hero of the motherland of the nordicist american WASPs, is based on a real-life swarthy mixed-race playboy, diplomat, sportsman, assassin from the Carribean...."


And this does what to your theory about Spaniards not being regarded as White?If it does anything, it actually undermines it, as nobody cared that Porfiro Rubirosa was of Spanish descent.They only cared about Black ancestry.Same thing goes for the melungeons;the fact that they tried to pretend that they were Portuguese proves that the Portuguese were regarded as White.

Congratulations!You've refuted yourself! You've proven that people regarded the Spanish and Portuguese as White.

Anonymous said...

Obviously, immigrants from societies that were less similar to the USA (Russia, Italy, etc) would be harder to assimilate than immigrants from societies that were more akin (England, Scotland, etc).

That doesn't quite explain why immigration from Scandinavia, Holland, Germany and other nordic countries was heavily favored. The doors weren't even opened to southern and eastern europeans until immigration from the nordic nations started drying up.

It is futile to argue that racism against southern and eastern europeans was never an issue when even American Presidents openly expressed nordicist sentiments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race#In_the_USA


".... admixture was "race suicide" and unless eugenic policies were enacted, the Nordic race would be supplanted by inferior races. Future president Calvin Coolidge agreed, stating "Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides."[55]

The Immigration Act of 1924 was signed into law by President Coolidge. This was designed to reduce the number of Eastern and Southern European immigrants, exclude Asian immigrants altogether, and favor immigration from Northern and Western European countries such as Britain, Ireland and Germany."

Anonymous said...

Hey, Anonymous Leftist, since your feelings have been all bent out of shape by the fact that the English have regarded themselves as better than everyone else, why don't you soothe your fractured psyche by reading Giuseppe Sergi? I'm sure that his theories on the superiority of Mediterranean peoples would be just the ticket to make you feel better about yourself.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Leftist:"That doesn't quite explain why immigration from Scandinavia, Holland, Germany and other nordic countries was heavily favored. The doors weren't even opened to southern and eastern europeans until immigration from the nordic nations started drying up."

One might also note that the "Nordic" countries that you name, barring Germany, were all majority Protestant and closer in culture to the USA than countries from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Anonymous;"It is futile to argue that racism against southern and eastern europeans was never an issue when even American Presidents openly expressed nordicist sentiments:"

So, now you've gone from arguing for the all-pervasive racially based hatred of Southern Europeans to saying that it was merely "an issue." Good, we are making progress.Pretty soon now, you will be all grown up and ready to face reality.

Anonymous said...

They only cared about Black ancestry.Same thing goes for the melungeons;the fact that they tried to pretend that they were Portuguese proves that the Portuguese were regarded as White. Congratulations!You've refuted yourself! You've proven that people regarded the Spanish and Portuguese as White.

You are looking at it too simplistically, as if it was just a black and white issue.

Darfur Miller said...

In the discussion of racial attitudes regarding the Spanish, I find the commentary of noted racialist, Classicist, and linguist Revilo P. Oliver most interesting.

In a book published by American Opinion (the publishing arm of the John Birch Society, which threw Oliver out for racism and anti-Jewishism in the late sixties) called An Introduction To The Contemporary History Of Latin America ,Oliver said of Latin scholarship (by which he meant Iberian Spanish), "The Latins, the best of whom are fully equal to the best of our own" (by "our" he meant the English speaking academic world). He went on to praise the Spanish conquistadors when surveying the landscape of Mexico-a country in which he spent considerable time and had a number of Mexican academics as friends and whom he respected highly-White, Spanish Mexicans I would assume, for such were the vast majority of academics in Mexico then and now-b saying, "My God, these were MEN!".

Hey, if Revilo Oliver says you're White, you're White. QED!

Anonymous said...

anonymous Leftist:"You are looking at it too simplistically, as if it was just a black and white issue."

Was that an attempt at humor?If so, nicely done, as it was indeed a "black and white issue."

People cared about whether Rubirosa* had Black ancestry;his White Spanish blood was meaningless.The melungeons merely further ram home the point that the Potuguese were White.

Nicely done, sir!You have put the nails in your own coffin, hoist your own petard, condemned yourself with your own mouth, etc.

*The Rubirosa as the inspiration for James Bond bit is just the icing on the cake;what better proof of the Whiteness of Spaniards is there than the fact that an old Etonian like Ian Fleming used him as the model for Bond?

Darfur Miller said...

Porfirio Rubirosa was a sexual freak by all accounts in that he was sterile and had a member that was always in a semi-turgid state. Dominicans of my acquaintence say this is not rare, although not exactly common, amongst Dominican men and may be a sort of mutation or genetic quirk. Apparently these characteristics sort of go together in the way that people whose organs are a mirror image of the normal arrangement also have another oddity which isn't obviously related.

Rubirosa's colossal size is likewise considered only moderately worthy of comment in the Dominican male population. Dominican men are almost universally what would be considered "very well endowed" elsewhere, and I have seen this myself as several have demonstrated. They did so without any implication of homosexual intent or inclination on their part or mine. They seem to regard it as merely a curiosity and don't think it makes them special, as White men with extreme endowment generally do.

Rubirosa was a professional playboy, but he also had a violent past and never seemed the least guilty or repentant of it. I suspect he was something of a sociopath at least by Western standards. It's interesting how High Society can interact with people who have sometimes brutal histories without any apparent revulsion or disdain, as in the "Radical Chic" and "Mobster Chic" documented by Wolfe and others.

Frank Sinatra's best friend was a man improbably named Jilly Rizzo, who was a notorious mob thug and enforcer in his younger days Surprisingly, or not surprisingly, when recently the man whose drunk driving resulted in Rizzo's death twenty-plus years ago came up for parole, the whole SInatra clan turned up to plead he not be paroled.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 6:36 AM

"Traditional Anglo society views everything non-Anglo as inferior.Perhaps you are unaware of the negative feelings that Anglos have for, say, Germans?Again, you are conflating notions of ethnic/cultural superiority with the idea that Anglos did not regard Southern Europeans as White."

Again, you are making this an issue of culture and not ethnicity. Not true. Germans might have been regarded as culturally inferior, but they were never denied entry into the U.S on the grounds that they were biologically inferior. The concern was whether they could adapt to Anglo culture. Conversely, they wanted to restrict the entrace of southern Europeans on the ground that they were BIOLOGICALLY inferior to Anglos. In fact, several eugenicists societies argued that the immigration of large number of southern Europeans would lead to a permanent decline of the U.S as southern Europeans were inferior in intelligence and hardiness for work which was believed to be a biological characteristic.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Leftist:"Again, you are making this an issue of culture and not ethnicity. Not true. Germans might have been regarded as culturally inferior, but they were never denied entry into the U.S on the grounds that they were biologically inferior. The concern was whether they could adapt to Anglo culture."

you might want to poke around a bit, chum.plenty of English people have made noises about the biological superiority of the English vis-a-vis the run-of-the-mill German (allowances were always made for certain outstanding individuals).Oscar Wilde used to go on about how the German could always be detected by his peculiar body odor.Rudyard Kipling used to talk about the disgusting blondness of Germans, how it made then look like overgrown babies (see his story "Mary Postgate").Didn't mean that the Germans weren't White.


Anonymous Leftist:"Conversely, they wanted to restrict the entrace of southern Europeans on the ground that they were BIOLOGICALLY inferior to Anglos. In fact, several eugenicists societies argued that the immigration of large number of southern Europeans would lead to a permanent decline of the U.S as southern Europeans were inferior in intelligence and hardiness for work which was believed to be a biological characteristic."

Many of these same groups wanted to engage in the mass sterilization of Anglos as well, all those groups that were not doing very well ("White trash," "hill billies," etc).Doesn't mean that they did not view them as White.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Leftist:"Again, you are making this an issue of culture and not ethnicity. Not true. Germans might have been regarded as culturally inferior, but they were never denied entry into the U.S on the grounds that they were biologically inferior. The concern was whether they could adapt to Anglo culture. Conversely, they wanted to restrict the entrace of southern Europeans on the ground that they were BIOLOGICALLY inferior to Anglos. In fact, several eugenicists societies argued that the immigration of large number of southern Europeans would lead to a permanent decline of the U.S as southern Europeans were inferior in intelligence and hardiness for work which was believed to be a biological characteristic."


You're making excellent progress, old man.See how you've gone from talking about race to talking about ethnicity.Pretty soon now, you will have seen the light and recognized the fact that the Spanish and Portuguese are White.

Anonymous said...

People cared about whether Rubirosa* had Black ancestry;his White Spanish blood was meaningless.The melungeons merely further ram home the point that the Potuguese were White.

You appear to be logically challenged. If the mixed-race melungeons were white why did they face prejudice and contempt because of their color? Why did they feel the need to claim Portuguese or Turkish or Amerindian ancestry to avoid being treated like part-blacks?

Southern Europeans being considered racially inferior does not imply that they were seen as part-africans. No one is claiming that. That is an absurd strawman you have made up.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous Moron 6:32 PM

(allowances were always made for certain outstanding individuals).Oscar Wilde used to go on about how the German could always be detected by his peculiar body odor.Rudyard Kipling used to talk about the disgusting blondness of Germans, how it made then look like overgrown babies (see his story "Mary Postgate").Didn't mean that the Germans weren't White.

Many of these same groups wanted to engage in the mass sterilization of Anglos as well, all those groups that were not doing very well ("White trash," "hill billies," etc).Doesn't mean that they did not view them as White"

I should have rephrased what I meant. Let's put it this way: Anglos regarded Spniards and other southern Europeans as an inferior kind of white for.

Whether they regarded them as white or not is irrelevant. They regarded them as a biologically inferior race to northern Europeans.

It was not cultural. It was biological. And I am talking about AMERICAN prejudice against southern Europeans and not the English. Americans never tried to deny entrance into the U.S of Germans for BIOLOGICAL reasons. Their arguments were always cultural. When it comes to Italians and Spaniards, the argument was always that they were INNATELY less capable in intelligence and character and would drag the country down if allowed to enter in large numbers.

I should have use the expression "inferior type of white" instead of simply the word "white". That is not what I meant. They may have regarded them as white, but not the same kind of white that are Anglos are, but an inferior kind. You are playing with semantics.

It is a FACT that the U.S tried to limit southern European immigration on the grounds that southern Europeans were BIOLOGICALLY inferior. They never used that excuse for northern Europeans. Deal with it.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 6:35 PM

"You're making excellent progress, old man.See how you've gone from talking about race to talking about ethnicity.Pretty soon now, you will have seen the light and recognized the fact that the Spanish and Portuguese are White."

Old man? I am not an old man, and wtf has this got to do with anything?

My point is that Anglos never regarded Iberians as being whites of the same biological value as northern European immigrants.

Anonymous said...


All of which explains why Ian Fleming based his fictional character James Bond on the Dominican playboy, diplomat, spy Porfirio Rubirosa.


False.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Fool, I don't have even a single droplet of Spanish blood. Not one. Stop making accusations that make you look stupid."

I don't consider calling someone "spanish" an accusation. Perhaps you do. In any case, the only one here who comes across as foolish and stupid, is you.

"And the fact is that Spaniards suddenly became "white" after WWII when the country developed. No one regarded Spaniards as white back in the 1930s when Spain was broke and riveted by civil war and had the GDP per capita of a Third World country. Now that is is a rich country, they are suddenly white."

And you obviously are stupid, or at the very least, quite ignorant. Even in the depths of the Spanish Civil War, Spain was far above any third-world country in terms of economic development. By the way, the term "third world" didn't exist prior to World War II.

You probably didn't realize that.

Because you are stupid.

Anonymous said...

"White" came to mean that there was no MANDATORY (legally required) discrimination against a group or individual (with the exception of gender discrimination against women, which was both legal and customary). If Hans the German wanted to marry Wanda the Pole, their families and churches might be outraged but the government at all levels was neutral. If Hans wanted to marry that cute mulatto or quadroon from New Orleans, then many states stepped in to tell him that he couldn't do that.