[Majestic121]

> "People in Europe are white" is really something you just hear from people without any European historical culture, and/or people wanting to sell a racist ideology

There's of course a lot of cross-communication with other continents, from the muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula to the Ottoman wars in eastern Europe, and the colonizing empires.

But the European history is very strongly predominantly white, and pretending otherwise is something you only hear from politically oriented people, unless you try to push ridiculous ideas like 'Italians are not white' as I've seen here and there

[defrost]

> European history is of course very strongly predominantly white

"White" ?

In the context of the thinking in Europe at the time of Verne .. what is "white"?

eg: The Races of Europe: A Sociological Study (1899) - Ripley

    Ripley classified Europeans into three distinct races: Teutonic [..] Mediterranean [..] Alpine [..]

    Ripley's tripartite system of race put him at odds both with others on the topic of human difference, including those who insisted that there was only one European race, and those who insisted that there were at least ten European races (such as Joseph Deniker, whom Ripley saw as his chief rival). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Races_of_Europe_(Ripley_bo...

> unless you try to push ridiculous ideas like 'Italians are not white'

Most people of the time accepted as "obvious" that Italians were not Germanic in race ...

[Majestic121]

You're talking about the general history of Europe, and the vision in our current culture, why are you trying to push an obsolete taxonomy "of the time" ?

[defrost]

> You're talking about the general history of Europe

I'm referencing ideas current in the time of Jules Verne ..

> and the vision in our current culture

I made no reference to current notions ..

> why are you trying to push an obsolete taxonomy "of the time" ?

I'm doing no such thing. FWiW I think the ideas cited from 1899 were wrong then and still wrong today.

Perhaps you might try reading more carefully?

[Majestic121]

> "People in Europe are white" is really something you just hear from people without any European historical culture, and/or people wanting to sell a racist ideology

That's clearly talking about current notions, and not "current in the times of Jules Vernes"

Your request for me to "read more carefully" is very much unwelcome : stand by your own writing instead of trying to shift the meaning

[defrost]

> That's clearly talking about current notions, and ...

written by somebody other than myself.

> Your request for me to "read more carefully" is

again restated. Please read more carefully, pay attention to who said what, and don't falsely take the wrong people to task over what other people said.

We all make mistakes, perhaps you can now recognise and acknowledge yours.

Okay?

[lo_zamoyski]

"White" is a fictional category, and it is an empty one at that. "White" and "Black" were invented in the Colony of Virginia to keep African and Irish/Scottish slaves apart and from uniting against their masters. To accomplish this end, "white" slaves were given the privilege of being whipped with their shirts on. This was enough to create a feeling of privilege among the "white" slaves and a feeling of resentment among the "black" slaves. Sound familiar?

Eventually, "Black American" actually became a real cultural identity, and in some sense an indigenous ethnic group that formed in the US among the descendants of African slaves (who, usually, also have some European ancestry). Nothing analogous occurred for "White American". There is no "White American" as an ethnic or cultural identity. It's a completely negative notion defined in terms of what it is not. This is why the whole "white boy" phenomenon we're seeing today is preposterously silly. It's not an identity. There is no "white culture". "Black" on its own is not an authentic identity either, unless it is short for "Black American. Black American culture has little to do with Africa, even if some elements of their culture have remote African inspiration or roots.

The "white boy" phenomenon is just a sad result of the loss of ethnic and religious identity. The US is a country especially prone to this issue. The first wave of European immigrants formed ethnic enclaves. With each passing generation, the likelihood of intermarriage, especially with members of the same religion, increased. Over time, ethnic identity is watered down to such a degree that the only remaining identity is religious identity. So, in the US, religious identity played a double role as both ethnic and religious identity. Now, as religious identity has eroded under the incessant pressures of liberal hyperindividualism, people are grasping at something that can given them a sense of identity. This is one reason for the rise of various ideologies, sexual and racial ideologies. So, in this case, the "white boy" is basically a kid with some kind of European ancestry who has no ethnic or religious identity who has latched onto this "white" label in an attempt to make up for having neither.

So, what Europeans had in common was a broadly Christian identity, not "whiteness", whatever that even means. Yes, the peoples of Europe tend to have less skin pigment, they tend to have different shaped noses, different phenotypes, but this is not a cultural or ethnic identity. Having blue eyes or brown eyes is not a cultural identity. These are the kinds of features that people latch onto when they don't have or have a weak ethnic identity.