Hell to the fuck yes it’s over if you’re Mayo. 🦀🦀🦀
These headlines always annoy me. They just take the “Hispanic/Latino” percentage and just assume every one of them is a mestizo.
"Incognegro" Is there a word to describe something insulting, disgusting, and fucking hilarious at the same time
struggle session time: doesn't black reparations also rely on this one drop rule? for better reasons than racial hatred does, obviously, but skin color-based reparations reifies the drop of blood logic in a way that seems pretty bad, e.g. there will be edge cases where the state has to decide if you're black enough. class-based wealth redistribution seems less messy. but idk im white
Basic reparations should be done across class lines IMO. Additional reparations will be needed, but a majority of injustices could be solved simply along class lines. It's complicated because in the U.S., race and class are so similar it's easy to think they are the same thing, but they aren't.
Yeah if you did reparations based on wealth instead of income you'd end up with reparations on race lines without explicitly codifying race into the law. It would have to be stable and consistent , not some weird fucking lump payment/transfer of property. And you'd avoid litigating like, one-drop shit.
In a way there's nothing racist whites want more than to become the minority. They'll still cry about it of course, but they love the excuse.
Now an image in my head has popped up with a bunch of right wing militia types cosplaying as Rhodesians with tacky shorts and poorly-maintained FALs; they'd probably call themselves something cringey like the "Amerikaner Folksfront" or something.
I mean, it's definitely become a thing for American white nationalists to idealize Rhodesia.
It's always been a thing. "Anti-communist" volunteers and mercs from America fought for Rhodesia in the Bush war.
In this hypothetical scenario, they'd get to emulate the Rhodesians like admire so much. Given that the Rhodesians got fucking wrecked, that's fine by me.
When you about to celebrate but remember that Latin America is less white but no less chud-infested :deeper-sadness:
Idk calling any left-leaning politician “chavismo” is just as effective here
Yeah, you're right. It's not so much that white people are naturally-coded to be reactionaries obviously :fidel-cool: :lenin-pensive: but whiteness has always been used in former colonial nations in the West to materially separate the working class, from Canada to Chile. The difference is that LatAm and Anglo-America are on opposite ends of the imperial exchange, so the "browning" of the Imperial Core is unprecedented.
Still remains to be seen whether "Hispanics" will be integrated into whiteness, ICE bae etc.
They most assuredly will, we already saw the seeds in the last election with Trump's unexpected popularity with them.
And then there's the fact that it's already happened multiple times before (Irish, Italians, etc.), to prevent whites from becoming the minority, so why stop now?
I've long theorized that eventually white supremacists will just do an ethnic version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", where as long as you at least look white, you're in.
:doomjak:
Part of the reason things never change. Capitalism/whiteness always find a way to stay relevant
Most reactionary white folks I know would rather see white people (as they define it) die off than expand the definition of whiteness. I really don't think you can compare the integration of the Irish to the present conditions for (most) hispanic Americans.
I'll bet you that the anti-Irish/anti-Italian white folks said the same thing at the time, that they'd rather die than let them in.
It's easy to say that when they're still on top, same with the people you're talking about. But eventually, when it stops being theoretical and they're actually looking at the very real possibility of losing their status right in the face, priorites change.
When it comes down to the wire, they'll look the other way and let light-skinned "passing" hispanics into the clubhouse. They'll justify it to themselves however they like.
They might not like it, but they'll do it as they've done before, mark my words.
I actually think this would make an excellent struggle session, so I might just save my thoughts for that. But yeah, I think the guy who looks "white" but has a last name like Chavez will be let into the club. I just think for every one person like that there's 10 who still won't fit the definition.
Admittedly, some of this is just my "gut" feeling, as white person who's been surrounded by a this stuff his whole life. But I also think there's some precedent for the definition getting narrower, not broader. IIRC South African whites got even more narrow in how they defined "white" as they were faced with losing privilege.
I dunno man, there's a whole lotta hispanic people who look indistinguishable from your average white person unless you ask them their last name.
Louis C.K. is Mexican for fucks sake., and there's plenty where he came from.
I don't think they're largely the people coming to or growing up in the United States though, because whiter people have more privilege in their home countries.
Was it like the opposite of the rapture, where everyone got pulled to hell instead?
my racist dad said it was time to move to czechia when he saw a black guy sitting on a curb near his neighborhood :smoking-fish:
Racism bad, but Czechia is actually pretty nice. It has good beer, and slivovitza, and fun drinking festivals. Umm, realizing all I did when I visited was drink.
for knowing the language and having citizenship there i havent been a lot lmao
and yes that is what i did also,
I always picked the Czech team in Nintendo Ice Hockey when I was a little kid because I thought they had the coolest unis and flag.
People here think that the bourgeoisie will try to bring hispanic people into the fold of whiteness, and while that's possible I have doubts as to the effectviness of that. That division between white and not white does exist in the latin american community so it could be a sell to the former group, but I don't believe the people now considered whites would buy it since the main conception of hispanic people to them is a mestizo who speaks little english. And the current divisions of racism are too ingrained in people that this expansion could work IMO; the concept of whiteness of course has its visual aspect so there's really only so far you could take it. Jews and Italians were at least of European descent and have pale skin so incorporating them took little problem, but then again Filipinos were at one point classified by the government as white while at the same time Finns weren't so what do I know. Personally I think it's more likely that the idea of whiteness will be revamped into a cultural thing, i.e. "values" based in a way that could incorporate the emergent black middle class and "assimilated" hispanics, basically "one of the good ones" gone big time.
The CIA is already doing the "yay diversity" thing. They're gonna transition somewhat from just flat out white supremacy to American supremacy where the labor aristocracy or whatever looks down on the underclasses with contempt instead of it being a mostly white thing. Or maybe they won't.
I’ve heard a few podcasts (Rev Left, and also Millennials are Killing Capitalism) interviewing Dylan Rodriguez, and he mentioned this idea of multicultural white supremacy. I don’t remember too many of the details at the moment, but they were both super good listens
Yeah, white reactionaries will be more than happy to bring minorities into the fold so long as they don't challenge white supremacy. Happy to take their votes but don't want them buying houses in their neighborhoods.
Proud boys were a very popular example of that happening recently
I respectfully disagree, sort of. I mean, I think capital will try and add more to the definition. But white folks have waaaaay too much invested in the current definition, I really don't think they're going to accept it. Even though various Euro minorities have faced oppression in the US, by and large the definition of "white" has been pretty stable for a couple hundred years at least. Sure, there's some fluidity at the margins but I think things are gonna get real ugly as white supremacy wanes. I really don't think white folks are gonna expand the definition, as much as capital might try.
by and large the definition of “white” has been pretty stable for a couple hundred years at least
fifty-sixty years I could see being arguable but there was way too much change in the mid 20th century
by and large the definition of “white” has been pretty stable for a couple hundred years at least
That's not really true. Italians weren't exactly considered white at the top of the 20th century, Irish not long before that, and not too much longer before that anyone anywhere near the Mediterranean wasn't considered white.
This is a common "mostly truth" that gets passed around a lot but is missing pieces. Italians were considered white as they were qualified for (lower tiered) entry as US citizens before the 1870 Naturalization act and weren't actually targeted in things like anti-miscegenation laws like Indians and Japanese were (with famous cases), but with key points of nuance:
-
There was a hierarchy of numerous white "races". You had "Nordics" at the top while Southern Italians, Irishmen, Slavs, and Jews at the bottom, but occupying their own creative "niche". This isn't to say there weren't "ambiguous" cases like Hungarians, Caucasians, Finns, and Turks but now they are all, save Turks, pretty much accepted aside from the racist fringe.
-
"White" and "Native" occupied the same cultural space. So when nativists were yammering about True Americans and "good white people" getting screwed over by the immigrants, they meant WASPs and everyone else (especially ethnicities associated with Catholics and, at the turn of the century, anarchists/socialists like with Sacco and Vanzetti).
-
There were certainly "popular" theories that caught on during times of race science and eugenics, like the Italians and Irish sharing ancestry with Africans or Russians sharing ancestry with Asians (Sound familiar?) and whatnot, but the extent of which this caught on with the general populace and for how long is debatable.
This contradicts the myth of Pan-European harmony that most modern day white nationalists and fascists like to paint of American history with, but it doesn't dismiss entirely that there was some consistent (if arbitrary) basis for what was considered "white". European immigrants have the advantage of being able to blend in easier than African or Asian Americans, which seems to be the ticket. European Jews occupy an "interesting" place in that while they can blend in just as well, the historic antisemitism combined with a perceived "non-European" origin makes them especially hated by white supremacists who view them as deceitful infiltrators.
In general, I think mainstream white supremacy has largely been replaced with an "American" identity with white supremacist undertones and inert castes, and that will only continue with demographics going the way they are as America's settler-colonial nature isn't going away. For less-mainstream white supremacists (fascists), there's already a schism happening between explicit white supremacists and implicitly racist "Western" supremacists, like with the Proud Boys.
-
I don't know if there are enough people of to do that with though. The italians were at least european. I think they have just about taken that gimmick as far as it would go.
"Hispanics" ARE white. Some of them. Some of them are mestizos. Some of them are black. Some of them are among the various indegenous peoples who live in SA. It's not a race.
if white people are so great then why are they all disappearing?
wow, looks like the white 'genocide' fascists have been talking about actually has more legs than the Uyghur 'genocide' crypto fascists have been talking about!
