• WhatDoYouMeanPodcast [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    I think he’s wrong because that was before the idea of a unified white people. This would have been pre “Irish need not apply” surely.

    So unless he really wants to split hairs about the type of white people and a drop of different whiteness can ruin you (late fascism which is nothing but a kind of aesthetic purity born out of incredible violence) then the alternative is an admission that the concept of “our people” is capable of widening to include people once thought unworthy

    • D61 [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 months ago

      Well, if we define “white” as a political class then it would absolutely include everybody that needed to be included.

      The poor need not apply.

      The unlanded need not apply.

      Those without a guild membership need not apply.

      And on and on.

    • Boynomoder [she/her, pup/pup's]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      Tbh my first thought trying to be charitable was maybe he was making an argument to illustrate how silly this kind of originalism is…but that doesn’t seem to be the case from the article

    • Evilsandwichman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      It goes beyond that; apparently not everyone white was apparently white enough. Benjamin Franklin (I think it was him) actually referred to Germans as swarthy; so if this guy wants to be honest here, there’s a lot of white people who’d no longer be part of the in-group (possibly even this guy himself), but I’ve a feeling that’s not the path he’d like to go down.