Definition of White People

submitted by SoylentCapitalist from self.debatealtright

I was having a debate with my Berber friend, let's call him Muhammad. Muhammad claimed he was white, I was arguing against it. The definition I used was from Wikipedia.

The usage of "white people" or a "white race" for a large group of mainly or exclusively European populations

I argued it is exclusively Europeans. Muhammad asked me for a source where Wikipedia gets exclusively European from as well as who gets to decide this, as it also stated other definitions, and I could not find one. Muhammad then brought up how the US census considers him white, as well as stating this:

In the United States, the root term Caucasian has also often been used as a synonym for white or of European, Middle Eastern, or North African ancestry.

I'm not sure if the majority of American whites consider North Africans white. Do you have a credible source that would confirm the definition is exclusively European, as well as a good explanation for why that should be? On another note are people who are ~75% Germanic considered more white than say North Africans and Turks?

all 39 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

North Africans are a hybrid population with some admixture but with different origins to most Europeans. Could anyone actually just look at say a person like Zinedine Zidane and definitively say he wasn't of Gallic stock? In some ways our detractors are right about human taxonomy in that it is somewhat arbitrary and constructed -- note SOMEWHAT there -- but where they go wrong is saying then you should just throw it out all together when it comes to humans.

As for these little exercises in saying who is and isn't White in these hybrid/fringe populations that are somewhat genetically adjacent to Europeans it's an exercise in tedium. They're fringe cases and have nothing to do with White Nationlism or the Dissident Right in any important way. In fact the only people who regularly bring up these annoying fringe cases are leftist morons who think it's some major 'gotcha' point to note the irregularities on the American census and how this or that person was at a time considered White so therefore race isn't a biological category.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Berber is itself a term that has two meanings. One, the current population, two the old white population. If we assume the current mass immigration continues, then in 200 years "germans" wouldn't be whites, despite the fact that you might still find pockets of white germans that didn't intermingle with the immigrants.

    [–]NeoRail 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    Indo-Europeans have been living in North Africa for thousands of years, this type of thing is entirely dependent on ancestry.

    [–]DragonerneJesus is white 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    Berbers can be white. It used to be before the Arabs and Blacks invaded the country.

    [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    This is actually true but not a lot of people know this and it's too much of a pain to substantiate. It seems incredulous and doesn't usually help the point anyways. It's just easier to say non-Europeans aren't white

    Also the Vandals had a short-lived empire in North Africa

    [–]Goyper 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Old comment I know but I can't help but ask, how can Berbers/North Africans be White?

    [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    From what we can tell, North Africans used to be "whiter" (or more genetically european) than they are now. Some of this can be inferred from ancient art but also through genetic testing on mummies. Basically, North Africans became less white after Arab/Islamic empires took over the region after 900 AD or so (there were some SS African incursions into Egypt as well in later antiquity). I dont know much about Berbers specifically but I would assume a good bit of Arab DNA has been mixed into them over time

    [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

    We'd have a better definition of what is white if white people were allowed space politically and academically to organize around the topic.

    [–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Something such as the fixation index would be useful for forming a less arbitrary definition. For instance white could be defined as the distance within a range of certain ethnicities. Perhaps people could come to a consensus on how far outside this range is no longer considered white. If only I could find a study like this including ethnicities outside Europe.

    [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    What would be the point? We already have a system for figuring out what race people are that works well. You can just ask people, "what race are you?"

    I'm not sure what use it would have outside of racial fraud cases, and even then it might not be necessary. We dont need strict scientific definitions to figure out that Elizabeth Warren isnt cherokee.

    [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    People (intentionally) over think this. The definition of a white person is anyone who self identifes as white and can be believed. That sounds silly at first, because anyone could theoretically claim to be white, but we dont need a strict definition to faciliatate hunting down every edge case to convene a trial of whiteness. What matters is that they are not identifying with another racial identity.

    Any white looking person can be white so long as they know they are white. Think about your friend who is 25% black and 75% white. If he starts calling you white boy and see's himself as part of the black race, he isn't white, regardless of that 75%.

    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    People who are 25% black and only 75% white basically aren't white anyways, since blacks are both genetically and phenotypically so different from us. The more genetically distant from white people someone's non-white admixture is, the more white ancestry he needs to have to compensate and still be white.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Ask Meghan Markle to not wear makeup

      [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      That doesnt matter because you arent giving everyone you meet a DNA test. When you see someone, you determine their whiteness with 2 simple questions (1) Do they look white? and (2) Do they identify as white?

      If your 25% black friend passed both tests, you would consider him white because you wouldn't know the difference until you met his half black parent or until he started stealing from you.

      [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      In a practical sense, for day-to-day scenarios, you're right, but the chance of a quadroon looking indistinguishable from actual white people is very low, since even most octoroons (90% white 10% black) look kinda off (unlike most Finns, who are 90% white 10% Mongoloid on average)

      [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Agreed, but change the percentages or non-white race being added and the method still applies for how we would determine whiteness in reality for any edge cases. If your 15% mexican friend or 12.5% chinese friend or 10% black friend identify as white and look white, the fucking case is closed, we can all move on. We dont need Dr. Shekelsteins opus on "who is really white anyways?" to make it any more complicated.

      Black people know who black people are. Mexicans know who mexicans are. Whites know who whites are. The only time race becomes difficult to sort out is when Dr. Goldberg chimes in with, "what is even white? No one can agree on every possible edge case, therefore whites dont exist"

      [–]asterias 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      In Middle East, especially Syria and Jordan, and North Africa you can find people who are white but that doesn't mean that all people living there are white.

      [–][deleted]  (12 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

        "White" just means "European" to most people

        [–][deleted]  (10 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

          Well they basically are (genetically) - just a particularly hostile and tribalistic brand of whites that screw other whites over. Like a relative you have to disown

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

          [deleted]

            [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            Bruh

            [–][deleted]  (4 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

              Ashkenazi

              These are the only ones we really ever care about. They are basically half-semitic and half-european genetically speaking

              [–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

              Why did Ashkenazi Jews develop higher IQ’s?

              [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              They intermarried with white gentiles (mostly women) and gained a higher IQ owing to positive and negative discrimination. For example their chosen professions (banking, trading) and persecution/pogroms. Or so the theory goes

              See Cochran and Harpending's The Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence for more

              [–]Blackbrownfreestuff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              Jews also identify as a different group, when they want to.

              [–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              Most people also consider jews to be of European descent so that doesn't really solve the problem.

              [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

              Muhammad asked me for a source

              There is no "official" taxonomy, and there has never been one. But "white" means "European", and everyone pretty much knows that, and is pretty clear throughout history. Government censes don't align with traditional racial categories either (wtf is "Caucasian")

              [–]insta 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

              Middle Eastern and Northern African are "Mediterranean" in colloquial terms.

              However, if your arguing about who is white or not I'm guessing it's not a very worthwhile conversation to continue.

              [–][deleted]  (18 children)

              [deleted]

                [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

                How on earth can you simultaneously believe southern Italians, Iberians and Romanians are white, but Baltic people and Finns aren't. You even admitted yourself that southern Italians and Iberians have a substantial degree of North-African admixture, and a lot of them look pretty swarthy. Meanwhile, Baltic people and Finns are some of the most blond-haired, blue eyed, and overall Nordic-looking people in the world, along with Germanic people. Also, the more Mongoloid people in the north of Scandinavia and Finland aren't Finns, but Samis, a related but separate ethnic group, and even they look more white than the average southern Italian or Iberian.

                [–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                Even most samis look more white than a lot of southern europeans

                [–][deleted]  (15 children)

                [deleted]

                  [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

                  I get your point about white people with MENA admixture being whiter than white people with Mongoloid admixture, because MENAs belong to the same subspecies as white people, whereas Mongoloids don't.

                  But I looked at your PCA map and it only futher proves my point, Swedes cluster more closely to Finns than to southern Italians, and Germans still cluster about as close to Finns as to southern Italy, despite the fact that Swedes and Germans are about as white as it gets.

                  Also, almost all other PCA maps of Europe show Northwestern Europeans clustering far more closely to Finns than to southern Italians, and you just so happened to have cherry-picked one of the few maps that's more in your favor regarding Finns. Some other PCA maps of Europe: Example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4

                  .

                  What's your point? We're the Alt-Right, not normies who know nothing about race, skin color is meaningless, we're here for the white race, not for the light skinned people, surely you won't want light skinned Japanese people in the Ethnostate.

                  Nice strawman. Of course I know skin color doesn't define race, and that light skin doesn't make someone white, but that definitely doesn't mean skin color is meaningless. You just sound like leftist by claiming that you can't infer someone's race by looking at his phenotype.

                  There are light-skinned people that aren't white, like the Japanese, but that doesn't mean it works both ways and there are also brown-skinned people who are white; "white" people with natural brown skin are always mixed with something else or they couldn't have been brown, Greeks, Iberians and southern Italians are among the least white white people yet even they are very light-skinned (just not compared to Northwestern European).

                  .

                  You need to train your eye my friend, lots of them look unbeliavably asian, not nordic looking at all, it's easier to tell a Finn apart from the whites than is to tell a Jew apart.

                  If you look on Google Images, you can clearly see this claim is just laughable. Admittedly, a few of them have a someonewhat Asiatic look, but most of them have blue eyes, blond hair and Nordic facial features. Do you have a personal bias against Finns or something, given that you want them to be non-white so bad, despite most evidence contradicting this?

                  [–][deleted]  (13 children)

                  [deleted]

                    [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

                    I'm pretty sure you're looking at PCA maps in the wrong way. The Europeans cluster together as a continuous group, Finns do not cluster with the other Europeans, they do not cluster with Swedish despite with the exception of the East Asian DNA, they're being basically Scandinavian, they're their distinct group, they are so distinct

                    Like I have already stated in my previous comment, it isn't just any white people that cluster most closely with Finns (and Estonians) of all white people and more closely with Finns than with southern Italians, it's literally he WHITEST OF WHITE PEOPLE (being Germanics).

                    AncestryDNA states that they can point out the Finnish DNA with literally 100% of precision. Even in the PCA map I showed, with Swede-Finns included they are way apart from each other.

                    So if a white ethnic group can be genetically identified with 100% accuracy, this somehow proves the ethnic group is actually non-white? I know (as you later mention) that Finns have up to 10% Mongoloid admixture, but how would this argument work for a group that is 100% white in origin and retained the same phenotype but developed a similarly easily identifiable genome to due geographic isolation or endogamy?

                    .

                    PCA shows us what groups we can distinguish and what groups are close to each other and what groups overlap, the European race overlaps in a continuous clustering, the Finns are just separated. First PCA map you showed me is the same, I don't quite understand the second, as it seems be talking about ancient populations, the fourth is the same, Finns are their own thing, in all of them you can see that the Finn doesn't overlap with the Europeans, with some very small exceptions in small scale like some Northwest Russians or Baltics.

                    Are you now just straight out denying information that's right in front of you, or did you misinterpret it? The first PCA map clearly isn't the same as the one you included in your previous comment, it shows literally all Northwestern European groups being much closer to Finns than to southern Italians, and it also shows southern Italians as a much more explicitly distinct group from most white ethnic groups than Finns.

                    The second PCA map is just a PCA map like any other, the only difference is that they also added genetically tested ancient European humans to show where they plot on a modern PCA map of Europe, which doesn't make the PCA map invalid.

                    And yes, the fourth PCA map is the one that most closely resembles the PCA map you included in your previous comment because it also shows Finns as a somewhat distinct group, but this one shows not only the Swedes, but also the Russians and even the English as being closer to Finns than to southern Italians.

                    .

                    Dude, I go on there and all I see are asian people, these are the average finns: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9e/a3/f3/9ea3f3a8af75fd4e6780584d9b13dcf7.jpg JPG

                    Clearly of the mongoloid race.

                    I can see when you're coming from, they have a slightly Asiatic look, but to say that they belong to the Mongoloid race is quite a stretch. They still clearly look far more Nordic than Mongoloid, which isn't surprising since (like you said yourself) Finns have only up to 10% Mongoloid admixture, so the other 90%+ must be almost all Nordic. They definitely wouldn't look out of place in any all-white school, except maybe for ultra-spergs who are so purity-obssesed that they think every white person is secretly a non-white mongrel because they have sligtly squinty eyes or thicker lips.

                    .

                    Why would I have any bias against Finns? You're just striking me as something else for wanting to include a people with up to 10% East Asian DNA on average as white ( Finns show very little if any Mediterranean and African genes but on the other hand almost 10% of Finnish genes seem to be shared with Siberian populations, and genetically completely distinct from Europeans, as white.

                    I remember that you've already done the "Finns aren't white" meme before on this sub, and it just came off to me as if you're just doing it do be edgy or contrarian, but I might be wrong. The idea that Finns aren't white, and the idea that even the smallest amount of non-white admixture means someone is not white at all, actually strike me as something else, and are ideas I haven't seen much outside of a few /pol/ bait threads by leftist/non-white trolls.

                    You have to take into account that someone who's 90% white and 10% Mongoloid is still far whiter than someone who's 90% white and 10% Negroid, because Mongoloids are both genetically and phenotypically much closer to white people than that Negroids are. I, and I'm sure most people (even on this sub), would consider a 90% white 10% Mongoloid person basically white, while a 90% white 10% black person is more of an edge case.

                    I think our disagremeent lies mainly in the fact that I'm less concerned about purity, and have a broader definition of white, which includes almost all of Europe (including most Iberians, southern Italians, Romanians and Greeks), plus some small pockets in North Africa, Turkey, the Near East and Central Asia.

                    That being said, I also acknowledge that the Nordic subrace is the most superior but also the one most threatened by extinction within the white race, and I totally support eugenics programs specifically directed at making the Nordic subrace more prevalent again among white people as a whole.

                    [–][deleted]  (11 children)

                    [deleted]

                      [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

                      You do not understand how PCA maps works man, as I already pointed out before.

                      If you think so, then show me what I'm actually getting wrong and how I should interpret PCA maps instead. I'm pretty sure I look at PCA maps just the same as anyone else would look at them, but feel free to enlighten me.

                      As I understand it, there are two possible causes of high genetic proximity between different populations: Common ancestry of the populations and intermixing between the populations (most often, as in the case of white people, it's a combination of both), and two possible causes for a decrease in genetic proximity between different population: Endogamy/geographical isolation of one of the populations and miscegenation by one of the populations with another more distant population (as is the case with Finns).

                      .

                      They are both very different, but there's another problem: Mongoloid DNA is even more dominant than Negroid DNA, you can see people who are 1/4 East Asian that look 100% Asian, while some people from South America will hardly look Subsaaran African despite being almost 50% black, regardless I would consider 10% Negroid and 10% Asian as non white.

                      I'd be very surprised if that was the case, because I looked up both pictures of Finns as well as pictures of octoroons (90% white 10% black people), and most of the Finns looked just like other white people, whereas there was clearly something off about the appearance of most people with 90% white 10% black ancestry. Keep in mind that the common ancestors of Caucasians and Mongoloids diverged from sub-Saharan Africans (who also have about 20% Homo Erectus admixture, unlike any other race btw) much earlier than that Caucasians and Mongoloids diverged.

                      .

                      My entire thing is that despite I wanting a broadly white identity and a military, economic, and scientific union of the white world, I want to preserve each and every European nation as it is, I want the Latin Subrace existing in the form of their many ethnic groups like the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, etc, I want the Germanics existing in the form of their many ethnic groups like the English, Swedish, German, Danish, etc, you got the point, I don't want a full Ethnostate union with a single white identity where mixing of Spanish, Russian, and German happens everywhere.

                      I basically agree with you in this regard, but as a Dutchman I need to add that all Germanic countries should definitely form a (decentralized) federation/empire. I happily support other European peoples with a shared ethnolinguistic history (such as the Latin, Slavic, Baltic and Celtic nations) doing the same thing, the colonies (the U.S and South Africa in particular) should be balkanized along racial lines, and all white countries in the world should be economic, political and military allies.

                      [–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                      Your understanding of PCA maps is not wrong. The only thing I want to add is that you can't measure distance that easily from a PCA map, because the axis might have different weights, and because 2 axis only describe a share of the total variance, not 100% of the variance.

                      Fins weren't considered white 200 years ago, but have probably undergone a "whitening" process since then, in the same manner that north africa and middle east and russia/central asia have been brownified.

                      [–][deleted]  (8 children)

                      [deleted]

                        [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

                        I understand that the (10% max.) Mongoloid admixture in Finns makes you sceptical of them being part of the white race, but since when is continuous overlap a requirement for being part of the same race?

                        By that logic, wouldn't MENAs (and perhaps even MENA/Negroid mulattoes and quadroons) be white, given that there's a continuous overlap between them and white people due to all the mixed intermediate populations (in the south of North-Africa and the south of the Arab peninsula) that show overlap with both populations that are more purely white and populations with more Negroid admixture? Genetic proximity is clearly a much more legitimate measure of determining whether an ethnic group is white or not, than continuous overlap.

                        .

                        I think it's fair to say that the Nordic subrace forms the whitest group of white people, since they have both the least MENA as well as the least Mongoloid admixture, and have also been subjected to the evolutionary selection pressures that formed the white race (and by extension, the Caucasian race/subspecies) to the highest degree of any group of white people.

                        Since the Nordic subrace is the whitest subrace within the white race, this means that in order to determine which white ethnic groups are part of the white race and which aren't, you'd have to draw a circle on a PCA map of Europe with the most Nordic ethnic groups at the center of it.

                        According to you yourself, white can mean anything you want it to be as long as it's consistent, so if you want to create a definition of white that excludes Finns, you could do that but you'd at least have to also exclude all ethnic groups that are equally or more genetically distant (than Finns) from the whitest white groups, and likewise if your definition of white includes groups like most Italians, most Iberians and most Greeks (like mine does), it'd also have to include Finns. Here's a visualization of what I mean, which hopefully makes it easier to understand: https://files.catbox.moe/h724bb.png (edit: bottom of the PCA map is more Negroid admixture, right of the PCA map is more Mongoloid admixture)

                        [–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                        I've met some people of North African and Iranian descent who look white. Most don't. Also, I doubt that many ME/NA people see themselves as white in the same way that Scandinavians are white - this survey implies that at least 65.5% of ME/NA people do not consider themselves white.

                        As for a definition, I would say that a person is white if and only if the most recent natural selection in his family tree occurred in Europe and nowhere else. Obviously this is too abstract for practical purposes, which is why people resort to looking at skin color and other physical features. So a practical definition would be you're white if you look white (so that other white people will consider you one of them) and you think of yourself as white (so that you have no divided loyalties).

                        [–]Fonched 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                        Great thread. I have some ideas along these lines that I'd like to solve.

                        My first question along these premises is that of there being a White culture and the legitimacy of celebrating it, versus other races and ethnicities. https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1612505687400.webm https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1503339323827.jpg These resources state that when professed, white pride is solely about being proud of the white skin color, raising concern about those lumping various European cultures under the label of “white”. Meanwhile, it is deemed sensible for blacks to celebrate black pride because of the ADOS’ uncertain countries/tribes of origin and their experiences throughout United States history.

                        I also have some questions regarding the "White means European" definition.

                        Some have pointed out confounding variables such as the Ottoman Empire. Its presence within Europe (Greece, Romania, Serbia) ties the continent by association to the empire's extents in Middle East and North Africa. This means that someone with Libyan or Syrian ancestry from back in the Ottoman days ties them into Europe and therefore the classification of being White by simple "White = European" logic. A contemporary example would be Russia including Siberia for its Asiatic population. Being partially within the European continent means that people percieved as non-White will be factored in to the definition; vice versa for Kazakhstan being within Europe's borders.

                        Who has answers to these questions?