WASPs as a standard for Whiteness

[Jovialis]

The naturalization act of 1790 stated that citizenship in the United States would be applicable to "free White person(s) ... of good character"

More recently in history, the question of “whiteness” has been the subject of much debate.

Even more recently in history, we now can analyze ancestry with the use of ancient DNA.

Now, if we consider what the founding fathers considered to be White person(s), we could at least expect them to have the opinion that WASPs are indeed White. Since the people who created the legislation were all WASPs, and ultimately wanted people like them immigrating to the USA.

For the sake of this thought exercise, lets say White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are indeed the ultimate standard for “Whiteness”.

Therefore, looking at the components of what makes a southeastern Englishman, a southeastern Englishman, we can determine that they were predominately modeled as LBK (Anatolian Neolithic Farmer). About 40% of their Yamnaya component is CHG/IN. Ergo, most of their autosomal DNA would be what modern DNA papers describe as “Near Eastern”.

So what exactly would social scientists have to say for this? Do those components count for “Whiteness”?; does that make those components in modern “Near Easterners” White?; Are modern Near Easterners a kind of whiteness?; Does that mean that “whiteness” does not exist, and if it does not exist, does that mean that “White privilege” and “white Supremacy” do not really exist?

Frankly, I am of the opinion that WASPs are indeed “White person(s)”; which is a no-brainer for most people. Furthermore, if they are a standard of "Whiteness", then what they are composed of in their DNA are part of that standard, which is only logical.

 

[Davidtab]

The genetic key of the whiteness is the Anatolian Farmer component. The economical and social revolution of this people is the real deal in the humanity history, and they carried lighter features , so... the answer is very easy, Jovialis.

 

[italouruguayan]

And to make matters even more complicated, perhaps several of those WASPs were descendants of an ancient mix of English settlers and Native Americans. If DNA studies had existed at that time...would they have been considered White?
Or would they have said that those who look White... are White?...

 

[Jovialis]

^^if it is something small like Elizabeth Warren, people will think it is a joke to claim to be native American.

Even the Nazis believed it was permissible to be a 1/8th non-Aryan. Nevertheless, you can find lunatics who believe they are more extreme than the real-life Nazis.

 

[torzio]

WASP means

White Anglo Saxon Protestant

it was a term to enhance their rule/dominance over Catholics of any colour or race

 

[Angela]

And to make matters even more complicated, perhaps several of those WASPs were descendants of an ancient mix of English settlers and Native Americans. If DNA studies had existed at that time...would they have been considered White?
Or would they have said that those who look White... are White?...

It's often been said that America used to operate under the "one-drop" rule, meaning that if it could be proved someone was even, say, 1/64 or 1/128 percent "African" then they could be enslaved, were not eligible for citizenship etc., no matter how "white" they "looked".

Thomas Jefferson, father of numerous mixed race children drew the line at 1/64. No one knows the "percentage" for his children, but it's likely the mother, Sally Hennings, was at the most 1/8 white, so they wouldn't have qualified. However, he allowed a number of them to "escape" and "pass" into white society. At his death the ones who remained were freed, some "passing" and some remaining in "black" society. Whether the choice was based on phenotype or the "ability" to pass or on a sense of community I have no idea.

The founders of the country, the so called "Anglo-Saxon" British, had their own standards, based mainly on phenotype. People who looked like them were "white". People who had a higher percentage of dark haired, dark eyed, perhaps olive skinned people, like the Palatine Germans, were not. William Penn, who was settling Pennsylvania, recorded his concern that perhaps they weren't "white" or, maybe, "white enough".

Traces of that feeling remained. I was once an account executive at an ad agency which worked on the Coca-Cola account. The client was located in Atlanta, Georgia, and many of the top executives at that time were Southerners of one type or another. I often caught my "contact", who was probably in his late fifties, while I was in my middle twenties, staring at my face. I put up with it for a long time, but one day I had had enough, and just bluntly asked him why he was always staring at me. He answered that he had never seen someone so "white" with such black hair and eyes. I guess it just didn't compute. Really white skin went with blonde or red hair and light eyes. Period.

In today's America, "white" people, and Asian Americans, for that matter, just basically go by phenotype: if you don't look like you have SSA ancestry either in features or skin color, you're "white".

Ironically and pathetically, it is African-Americans who today use the "one drop" rule. You can be only 1/4 or 1/8 black and they consider the person African American or at least a POV, Person of Color no matter what they look like, and often the person him or herself agrees. Sometimes the person does it to get preferential entrance into university or profession or job, like Elizabeth Warren with her tiny Amerindian percentage, sometimes I think it's because our culture has made being a "victim" or descendant of victims "cool".

It's all stupid imo.

The biggest irony, of course, is that the blonde, blue-eyed, fair skinned phenotype which was used by the Anglo-Saxons to define "whiteness", didn't come from the Indo-Europeans idealized by late 19th century Northern European "racialist" anthropologists, but perhaps from European farmers whose majority ancestry by far was from the Near East, perhaps 80%. Meanwhile, Lebanese Americans like the ancestor of Elizabeth Halaby, later Queen Noor of Jordan, had to go to court to be declared "white" for purposes of citizenship.

 

[Jovialis]

It's often been said that America used to operate under the "one-drop" rule, meaning that if it could be proved someone was even, say, 1/64 or 1/128 percent "African" then they could be enslaved, were not eligible for citizenship etc., no matter how "white" they "looked".

Thomas Jefferson, father of numerous mixed race children drew the line at 1/64. No one knows the "percentage" for his children, but it's likely the mother, Sally Hennings, was at the most 1/8 white, so they wouldn't have qualified. However, he allowed a number of them to "escape" and "pass" into white society. At his death the ones who remained were freed, some "passing" and some remaining in "black" society. Whether the choice was based on phenotype or the "ability" to pass or on a sense of community I have no idea.

The founders of the country, the so called "Anglo-Saxon" British, had their own standards, based mainly on phenotype. People who looked like them were "white". People who had a higher percentage of dark haired, dark eyed, perhaps olive skinned people, like the Palatine Germans, were not. William Penn, who was settling Pennsylvania, recorded his concern that perhaps they weren't "white" or, maybe, "white enough".

Traces of that feeling remained. I was once an account executive at an ad agency which worked on the Coca-Cola account. The client was located in Atlanta, Georgia, and many of the top executives at that time were Southerners of one type or another. I often caught my "contact", who was probably in his late fifties, while I was in my middle twenties, staring at my face. I put up with it for a long time, but one day I had had enough, and just bluntly asked him why he was always staring at me. He answered that he had never seen someone so "white" with such black hair and eyes. I guess it just didn't compute. Really white skin went with blonde or red hair and light eyes. Period.

In today's America, "white" people, and Asian Americans, for that matter, just basically go by phenotype: if you don't look like you have SSA ancestry either in features or skin color, you're "white".

Ironically and pathetically, it is African-Americans who today use the "one drop" rule. You can be only 1/4 or 1/8 black and they consider the person African American or at least a POV, Person of Color no matter what they look like, and often the person him or herself agrees. Sometimes the person does it to get preferential entrance into university or profession or job, like Elizabeth Warren with her tiny Amerindian percentage, sometimes I think it's because our culture has made being a "victim" or descendant of victims "cool".

It's all stupid imo.

The biggest irony, of course, is that the blonde, blue-eyed, fair skinned phenotype which was used by the Anglo-Saxons to define "whiteness", didn't come from the Indo-Europeans idealized by late 19th century Northern European "racialist" anthropologists, but perhaps from European farmers whose majority ancestry by far was from the Near East, perhaps 80%. Meanwhile, Lebanese Americans like the ancestor of Elizabeth Halaby, later Queen Noor of Jordan, had to go to court to be declared "white" for purposes of citizenship.

Here is a portrait of what George Washington would look like if he was alive today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/us/george-washington-modern-portrait.html

 

[Angela]

He has a bit of the look of Charles Dance, the actor, to me, although I think Charles Dance is better looking.

Thomas Jefferson had more of a "Celtic fringe" look to him, imo, a look very common in parts of the South. Well, according to Albion's Seed, much of the south was settled by people from the southwest of England, and later a lot of Ulster Scots.

President Andrew Jackson had a similar look, imo.

I always thought John Adams had a bit of the look of the Hanoverian King George.

New England was settled by the more heavily "Anglo-Saxon" eastern part of England.

President James Monroe

 

[torzio]

Charles Dance
https://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/featuredarticles/2017/who-do-you-think-you-are/charles-dance-541/
one of the more interesting to view from the series

Charles's great grandfather, Charles François Futvoye ..................the Futvoye are a Belgium family

 

[Ailchu]

So what exactly would social scientists have to say for this? Do those components count for “Whiteness”?; does that make those components in modern “Near Easterners” White?; Are modern Near Easterners a kind of whiteness?; Does that mean that “whiteness” does not exist, and if it does not exist, does that mean that “White privilege” and “white Supremacy” do not really exist?

can you give an example which populations you consider "white" and why? when does "whiteness" stop?

 

[Riverman]

I can agree with most of your comment, but one thing stick out with which I can't agree:

The biggest irony, of course, is that the blonde, blue-eyed, fair skinned phenotype which was used by the Anglo-Saxons to define "whiteness", didn't come from the Indo-Europeans ...

Fact is, light pigmented phenotypes were present in various West Eurasian populations in the era of the Neolithic to Copper Age. What changed over time in specific groups is the frequency, and this rise of frequency happened within Indoeuropean ethnicities largely. Basically the steppe people's conquest created a setting in which lighter phenotypes spread quicker and wider than ever before, both because of the panmixture, the new selective regimes in general and a specific way of life with secondary domesticated animals products in the Northern latitudes.
Its probably wrong to say either the Neolithic/Copper Age Western/Northern/Central/Southern Europeans or the Eastern European steppe people introduced light complexion single handedly, rather, they contributed both but the changes caused by the steppe expansion were decisive. I'm not sure whether the agro-pastoralist lifestyle of the GAC would have caused the same effect over time anyway.

 

[Jovialis]

can you give an example which populations you consider "white" and why? when does "whiteness" stop?

The title and context of the first post of the thread should inform the first question. If English DNA is a standard, than people made from similar components would logically be made from the same soup. If the English have a majority of autosomal ultimately sourced as "near eastern" DNA it means that counts towards it too. Farmers were the ones who brought light skin pigmentation too.

I even see Davidski complaining about terminology used on papers. I disagree with him on some key things, but he's right to say that papers are confusing people. Such as Europeans owing their height to "Asian Nomads" (i.e. Steppe people). He places the blame on people like Johannes Krause.

How about WHG being "black" according to journalists. Inferring SSA ancestry is one in the same. That is subterfuge. If I saw someone saying this here, I would assume they were t-rolling. In fact that's probably what they're doing for click-bate.

 

[Jovialis]

Idk when whiteness stops, that's a bit murkier. But I think Europeans are white.

 

[Jovialis]

The title and context of the first post of the thread should inform the first question. If English DNA is a standard, than people made from similar components would logically be made from the same soup. If the English have a majority of autosomal ultimately sourced as "near eastern" DNA it means that counts towards it too. Farmers were the ones who brought light skin pigmentation too.
I even see Davidski complaining about terminology used on papers. I disagree with him on some key things, but he's right to say that papers are confusing people. Such as Europeans owing their height to "Asian Nomads" (i.e. Steppe people). He places the blame on people like Johannes Krause.
How about WHG being "black" according to journalists. Inferring SSA ancestry is one in the same. If I saw someone saying this here, I would assume they were t-rolling. In fact that's probably what they're doing for click-bate.

Also, someone pointed out Krause and Max Plank Institute has made declarations of support for anti-racism and BLM. This does not inspire confidence IMHO...
They should stick to science, not get caught up in modern social issues. It makes me think they are not being forthcoming with accurate and impartial information because they want to make sure they support a political narrative. Or rather are not framing it in a clear way, but in a confounded way.

 

[Jovialis]

He has a bit of the look of Charles Dance, the actor, to me, although I think Charles Dance is better looking.

Thomas Jefferson had more of a "Celtic fringe" look to him, imo, a look very common in parts of the South. Well, according to Albion's Seed, much of the south was settled by people from the southwest of England, and later a lot of Ulster Scots.

President Andrew Jackson had a similar look, imo.

I always thought John Adams had a bit of the look of the Hanoverian King George.

New England was settled by the more heavily "Anglo-Saxon" eastern part of England.

President James Monroe

Despite John Q. Adams being an abolitionist and putting forth anti-slavery initiatives, his campaign was responsible for accusations of Andrew Jackson's (a slave-holder) father being a mulatto; in an effort to disqualify him from the presidency. Frankly, I don't see how he could be mistaken to have 25% SSA in him. This was one of the first instances of mudslinging in U.S. politics.

 

[Ailchu]

If English DNA is a standard, than people made from similar components would logically be made from the same soup.

if i compare Estonians with Sardinians they don't look that similar even if they have the same components.

Idk when whiteness stops, that's a bit murkier. But I think Europeans are white.

why would that be so clear that europeans are white when it's not clear who isn't? for the first case you would need a clear criteria and that should also clarify the latter or not?

 

[Jovialis]

if i compare Estonians with Sardinians they don't look that similar even if they have the same components.

why would that be so clear that europeans are white when it's not clear who isn't? for the first case you would need a clear criteria and that should also clarify the latter or not?

Why not, if the CHG in Yamnaya is mostly similar to Dzudzuana, plus ANE. While LBK is considered similar to Dzudzuna, because it is mostly Anatolian_N? The components themselves have overlap.

 

[Jovialis]

The last graphic with aegean_en, (similar to Minoan), Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer, and European_HG shows more apparent similarities.

 

[Jovialis]

Not to mention to impossibility of modeling populations outside of this exclusive set of components. That also helps to distinguish them.

 

[Ailchu]

Not to mention to impossibility of modeling populations outside of this exclusive set of components. That also helps to distinguish them.

so any population who has ancestry outside of this set is not white?

Why not, if the CHG in Yamnaya is mostly similar to Dzudzuana, plus ANE. While LBK is considered similar to Dzudzuna, because it is mostly Anatolian_N? The components themselves have overlap.

if you compare those components to each other they were as distant to each other as modern europeans and east asians. even WHG and EHG were relatively far away from each other. considering this, does it make sense to create exclusive groups based on the presence or absence of certain ancestry components?