The app for independent voices
I’d forgotten how asinine some of the arguments against my article on European immigrants always being White were until I got linked this.
The arguments contained in here are really indicting for their author. They are:
There were exceptional individuals who were clearly not White, like the Bunkers twins, but who were able to naturalize due to their exceptional circumstances (which were noted and discussed widely at the time!), thus, ignore the broader reality where non-Whites were usually not allowed the privileges of Whites because they were recognized as non-Whites and treated accordingly.
Intermarriage between some of the new European groups and Old Stock Whites was rare (in some places), which makes it like intermarriage between Whites and members of other races was in places where miscegenation laws were absent but intermarriage was still otherwise rare (ignore the differences spanning orders of magnitude).
European immigrants often suffered abuses, so they had a different racial status from Old Stock (this is obvious nonsense; it also fails when quantitatively evaluated. See, e.g., archive.is/MAfdo).
Don’t think about the numbers on the populations of European immigrants in the West, just think ‘83 lynchings? That’s not a lot!’
The really incredible thing about this article is that all of the arguments here are either facially invalid, already addressed in the article he’s replying to, or were covered in its comments section (e.g.: cremieux.xyz/p/european…) and he went and wrote them here anyway. It’s hard to think of these arguments as anything but dishonest.
