Who is white?
Many skeptics or classical liberals like to put a white nationalist or an Identarian on the spot by asking "who is white?" Examples are the now infamous Spencer vs. Sargon/Styx debate on Andy Warski's channel, and Sargon putting forward the question on 2018's "Milleniyule." It seems like a question you can just laugh off but, as it is a reoccurring question, I shall try to answer it once and for all.
Firstly, I should mention that I myself of an ethno-nationalist as well as a white nationalist as I support ethno-nationalism for Europe and white nationalism for the colonies (Canada, United States, Australia and New Zealand.) So if I wanted to reinstate, for example, the "white Australia policy" then obviously I would have to define "white."
Secondly, before I give my definitions I should outline that all modern Europeans are a mixture of Early European Farmers, Western Hunter-Gatherers and Ancient North Eurasians, just with different ratios of the 3 groups. Southern Europeans tend to have more admixture from the Early European farmers, who came from Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) in the Early Neolithic. Sardinians are the closest genetically to EEFs.
And to summarize 12,000 years of history [credit to Survive the Jive]:
Basal Eurasian + Western Hunter Gatherer = Natufian
Natufian/Basal Eurasian + more WHG = Early European Farmer
EEF + even more WHG = Neolithic Europe
Ancient North Eurasian -> Eastern Hunter Gatherer + Caucasus hunter-gatherers
= Proto-Indo Europeans
PIE + Neolithic Europe = modern Europeans.
Onto my definitions, I think there are 3 ways to define/categorize "white people."
1. Genetic distance from the core of the white race (English, Danish, Dutch etc.) I draw the line at Greeks being white and anyone further away as being non-white.
The 1st is the most scientific, so it's the definition I would use. There aren't huge leaps between European populations until you get to Sardinians (0.03) and Lapps (0.04) so I it makes sense to include every population up to Greeks as being white. I'd also like to point out that, contrary to popular belief, Greeks are not mixed with Turks. Marriage between Christian Greek men and Muslim Turkish women was forbidden by law. Modern Greeks are also descended from The Mycenaeans who were the first Greeks (1650-1200 BC) "with only a small proportion of DNA from later migrations to Greece."
Also, if you were to include Sardianians as white then, based on genetic distance, you'd have to include Indians and Southwest Asians too, plus Berbers if you were to include Lapps. Persians are white if you were to include the Greeks.
2. The indigenous peoples of Europe (obviously including ethnic Russians despite some residing in Asia and excluding the Caucasus region and Turkey.)
The 2nd is the simplest definition but would include genetic outliers such as Lapps, since they are indigenous to Europe. This definition would also exclude Jews, since they are not indigenous to Europe although Ashkenazi Jews are mixed with European women.
3. If you identify as white, look white and act white then you are white.
The 3rd definition is the most subjective so this may include some fringe cases such as the Armenians, the Turkish, the Persians and even some Berbers. However, several studies show that self-identified race is 99% accurate as their identity can be confirmed by looking at their genome.
And since there most of these people on the fringe (e.g Berbers) would not identify as white, and perhaps not even look white, then it is largely not even an issue. The same goes for the Greeks, the Sicilians, the southern Italians and so on - most Europeans identify by their ethnicity (Greek, Sicilian, Italian etc.) rather than simply "white." This definition would also exclude Jews since I would argue that Jews tend to have their own unique behavior - they don't "act white" - and have historically clashed with white people time and time again.
There is also the question of the amount of European ancestry you must have to be considered white. For example, American non-hispanic whites have an average of 98.5% European ancestry. [See table 1.] And white hispanics have an average of 73% European ancestry [see table S4.]
I would draw the line at 80% since American mulattoes will have roughly 70-75% European ancestry too, given they already have a significant amount (~20-25%) from slavery and they will also gain roughly half from their white parent. Mulattoes almost always identify as black, no matter how light-skinned they are so it makes set a fairly high standard (75%-80%.) However, I will also accept definition 3 - if someone identifies as white, looks white and acts white then they are white.
This may seem overly complicated but it's not. In most cases, there is little debate as to who is white (the English, the Dutch, the Danish, the Germans, the French and so on are obviously white.) And just because the categorization of who is white gets a little blurry, this doesn't mean that the white race and, for example, the Indians are not distinct categories. Just because there is turquoise doesn't mean blue and green doesn't exist (note: the continuum fallacy.)
Firstly, I should mention that I myself of an ethno-nationalist as well as a white nationalist as I support ethno-nationalism for Europe and white nationalism for the colonies (Canada, United States, Australia and New Zealand.) So if I wanted to reinstate, for example, the "white Australia policy" then obviously I would have to define "white."
Secondly, before I give my definitions I should outline that all modern Europeans are a mixture of Early European Farmers, Western Hunter-Gatherers and Ancient North Eurasians, just with different ratios of the 3 groups. Southern Europeans tend to have more admixture from the Early European farmers, who came from Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) in the Early Neolithic. Sardinians are the closest genetically to EEFs.
And to summarize 12,000 years of history [credit to Survive the Jive]:
Basal Eurasian + Western Hunter Gatherer = Natufian
Natufian/Basal Eurasian + more WHG = Early European Farmer
EEF + even more WHG = Neolithic Europe
Ancient North Eurasian -> Eastern Hunter Gatherer + Caucasus hunter-gatherers
= Proto-Indo Europeans
PIE + Neolithic Europe = modern Europeans.
Onto my definitions, I think there are 3 ways to define/categorize "white people."
1. Genetic distance from the core of the white race (English, Danish, Dutch etc.) I draw the line at Greeks being white and anyone further away as being non-white.
The 1st is the most scientific, so it's the definition I would use. There aren't huge leaps between European populations until you get to Sardinians (0.03) and Lapps (0.04) so I it makes sense to include every population up to Greeks as being white. I'd also like to point out that, contrary to popular belief, Greeks are not mixed with Turks. Marriage between Christian Greek men and Muslim Turkish women was forbidden by law. Modern Greeks are also descended from The Mycenaeans who were the first Greeks (1650-1200 BC) "with only a small proportion of DNA from later migrations to Greece."
Also, if you were to include Sardianians as white then, based on genetic distance, you'd have to include Indians and Southwest Asians too, plus Berbers if you were to include Lapps. Persians are white if you were to include the Greeks.
2. The indigenous peoples of Europe (obviously including ethnic Russians despite some residing in Asia and excluding the Caucasus region and Turkey.)
The 2nd is the simplest definition but would include genetic outliers such as Lapps, since they are indigenous to Europe. This definition would also exclude Jews, since they are not indigenous to Europe although Ashkenazi Jews are mixed with European women.
3. If you identify as white, look white and act white then you are white.
The 3rd definition is the most subjective so this may include some fringe cases such as the Armenians, the Turkish, the Persians and even some Berbers. However, several studies show that self-identified race is 99% accurate as their identity can be confirmed by looking at their genome.
And since there most of these people on the fringe (e.g Berbers) would not identify as white, and perhaps not even look white, then it is largely not even an issue. The same goes for the Greeks, the Sicilians, the southern Italians and so on - most Europeans identify by their ethnicity (Greek, Sicilian, Italian etc.) rather than simply "white." This definition would also exclude Jews since I would argue that Jews tend to have their own unique behavior - they don't "act white" - and have historically clashed with white people time and time again.
There is also the question of the amount of European ancestry you must have to be considered white. For example, American non-hispanic whites have an average of 98.5% European ancestry. [See table 1.] And white hispanics have an average of 73% European ancestry [see table S4.]
I would draw the line at 80% since American mulattoes will have roughly 70-75% European ancestry too, given they already have a significant amount (~20-25%) from slavery and they will also gain roughly half from their white parent. Mulattoes almost always identify as black, no matter how light-skinned they are so it makes set a fairly high standard (75%-80%.) However, I will also accept definition 3 - if someone identifies as white, looks white and acts white then they are white.
This may seem overly complicated but it's not. In most cases, there is little debate as to who is white (the English, the Dutch, the Danish, the Germans, the French and so on are obviously white.) And just because the categorization of who is white gets a little blurry, this doesn't mean that the white race and, for example, the Indians are not distinct categories. Just because there is turquoise doesn't mean blue and green doesn't exist (note: the continuum fallacy.)
Very interesting. As an American, I have 100% European DNA.
ReplyDelete