And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all great, stick together, etc. That wouldnt happen until the 60's and 70's, after eugenics was taboo.
And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all great, stick together, etc. That wouldnt happen until the 60's and 70's, after eugenics was taboo.
That’s hilarious but...
> The progressive movement was the movement of eugenics.
There, again, have been a number of separate “progressive” movements in US history, eugenics was a minority view within one of them. But, while you are wrong here, it's not nearly so flagrantly wrong as:
> And no, there was no group of white people saying white people are all great, stick together, etc. That wouldnt happen until the 60's and 70's, after eugenics was taboo.
I don't think it ever happened; even white racists don't tend to think white people are all great. But, no, white racists that saw the race they favored as the “white” race did not first show up in the 1960s-1970s, as evidence by the Cornerstone Speech in which Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens laid out his view of the central case for the Confederate cause in 1861: “...Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. ...”
>even white racists don't tend to think white people are all great.
You are so committed to this modern liberal partisan revisionist historiography that you are willing to admit the narrative doesn't make any sense, and yet equally willing to keep at it. That's commitment.
Irish, Italians, russians, and other "inferior" whites were always considered white. "White" has never and will never be the barrier to entry into this country or into the american hierarchy. Looks, charm, stature, sharpness of mind, focus on meaningful pursuits like work, not being too interested in "meaningless pursuits" like art and music. Not being promiscuous, no criminality, no epilepsy, no "feeble-mindedness" or imbecility. This is what race was about. Virginia aristocracy, the Boston Brahmins etc, were spurred on by the leading science and technology of the day, to believe these attributes were genetically inherited and "selected" by nature, which meant they could also be selected with Mendelism. We were not interested in a "white race." Since race was something you could control, we were interested in a "superior american germplasm" a genepool of the best of the best while the rest were sterilized, aborted, deported, or imprisoned in jails, asylums, or reservations. American eugenicists were interested in "building a race." A concept Hitler adopted and was quoted talking about fairly often.
Racism was not white vs black. Its nowhere near that simple
Racism was and is more complex than just white vs. black, but that wasn't your claim upthread that I have been arguing against.
What you claimed previously was that white was not considered a race before the 1920s. It absolutely was, and there are copious prominent invocations of white racial identity in US history prior to that time—as I've shown with the Cornerstone speech—and while racism is more complex than just white vs. black (and ideas of just who is white have evolved), white vs. black has been a key racial divide for the whole history of the country.