I understand it's a grouping. Though imo it's often used in context which many wouldn't agree with.
Take a few people from Italy, Ireland, Norway, Armenia, Spain, and Scotland. In the US they are all called white. Yet if all are in the same room, they would argue they are different. Not just ethnicity but genetically.
I understand that there are edge cases and times where the descriptor isn’t totally accurate, but I can tell you that the current ideologues who don’t like White people are not having difficulty determining who is White.
I understand that there are edge cases and times where the descriptor isn’t totally accurate,
I refer to those as edge cases. I'd say those are the norm.
That is, aside from the US which a good portion are a mix of many different ethnic groups.
but I can tell you that the current ideologues who don’t like White people are not having difficulty determining who is White.
Agree 100%. As a matter of fact, they will even alter the criteria based on what narrative is desired. Hispanics can be grouped in as white in one dataset, yet separated in another.
Even on an individual level in high profile news stories. Take a mixed-race individual (hispanic/white or black/white). What group they use as an identifier while reporting will change based on the narrative they want to push/support.
Those are the reasons I used quotes with the term white. It's becoming subjective at this point. Especially in US politics and news.
3
u/FortunateHominid May 30 '25 edited May 30 '25
I understand it's a grouping. Though imo it's often used in context which many wouldn't agree with.
Take a few people from Italy, Ireland, Norway, Armenia, Spain, and Scotland. In the US they are all called white. Yet if all are in the same room, they would argue they are different. Not just ethnicity but genetically.
Edit: words