America First Caucus of the GOP and preserving ANGLO SAXON POLITICAL TRADITIONS?

ILoveYourVibes

The America First Caucus.

Hard-right House Republicans were discussing forming an America First Caucus, which one document described as championing “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” and warning that mass immigration was putting the “unique identity” of the US at risk.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/group-promoting-anglo-saxon-traditions-criticised-by-senior-republicans-40322816.html

Honestly I don't know some republicans are bothering to oppose it.

After Tom Cotton's performance its clear the GOP are not sympathetic to Ireland. And clearly the DUP and Trump are close. After all those posed pics with Trump 2020 signs sammy wilson and Ian paisley were posing with online. Maybe they have decided to model themselves AFTER the DUP lol.

Obviously when you read Anglo Saxon ....you should realize you are reading 'white' and 'white supremacy'.... only in capitols.

They are backing away from the idea now. Not sure why because behind the scenes ...this is what they are thinking.

The scariest thing was ....they were to oppose immigrants post 1965. What that means is unclear. But this was the year the US ended it's policy of preferential treatment of European immigrants.

THIS was really weird.

It calls for rebuilding the US with an “aesthetic value that befits the progeny of European architecture”

????


Lots of people on twitter were asking what ARE 'Anglo Saxon Political Traditions' from my perspective that means the GOP are thinking of invading Ireland. But I dunno.

They have supposedly dropped the plan. However we all know THIS IS the real plan. And they haven't dropped it. They just dropped it publicly. Also the term Anglo Saxon was a bad idea because so many Trump supporters LOVE to call themselves Irish. :rolleyes:

What do others think?

Obviously for people of colour in America and native Americans ...this is really just their ideas coming to the surface.

RulesOfNature

Anglo saxons were the barbarian rabble that mopped up the Roman Empire's remains. They took over - and demolished - the infrastructure and government established by Rome and are literally the archetypal dark age society. Anglo saxon history is periodically exclamated by genocide, whether its their Danish cousins, Romans, Celtic Britons, or just other Germans. Eventually they became civilized and became farmers, then got unceremoniously conquered by the Normans. Who are pretty much the same genetically as the Anglo-Saxons except they had better culture.

Not that I'm making any modern day interpretation. But I imagine the modern day obese, mart-cart driving, Dr. Pepper-Chugging monstrosities that are the target voters of this 'return to tradition' cry is far from the warrior society that took over from Rome.

ILoveYourVibes

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Anglo saxons were the barbarian rabble that mopped up the Roman Empire's remains. They took over - and demolished - the infrastructure and government established by Rome and are literally the archetypal dark age society. Anglo saxon history is periodically exclamated by genocide, whether its their Danish cousins, Romans, Celtic Britons, or just other Germans. Eventually they became civilized and became farmers, then got unceremoniously conquered by the Normans. Who are pretty much the same genetically as the Anglo-Saxons except they had better culture.

Not that I'm making any modern day interpretation. But I imagine the modern day obese, mart-cart driving, Dr. Pepper-Chugging monstrosities that are the target voters of this 'return to tradition' cry is far from the warrior society that took over from Rome.

I think its going to take us down a rather long long rabbit hole this new one.

francois

Eh?

Peregrinus

This is rooted in deep, deep historical ignorance. Plus parochialism. Plus, of course, a dash of bigotry.

The Angles and the Saxons were, as we all know, Germanic tribes that migrated to (among other places) England in the period after the Romans withdrew. They didn't migrate because the Romans withdrew; it was a coincidence of timing. There was a lot of migration going on across Europe at the time. The Angles came from what is now North Germany/South Denmark and the Saxons came from what is now called Lower Saxony, also in North Germany, but closer to the Netherlands. (Not to be confused with Upper Saxony, a quite different area of Germany around Dresden, which is another place to which Saxons migrated.)

Right. The Angles settled in the parts of England now known as East Anglia and the Midlands; the Saxons settled south of that in what is now Essex, Sussex, etc. (Those -sex suffixes are derived from "Saxon".) They were kind of first cousins to one another linguistically, socially, etc. Although they establishes separate (and fluctuating) kingdoms, there was a good deal of trade, intermarriage, intermigration, etc. They assimilated with one another at the same time as assimilating with the Romano-British society that was already there when they immigrated.

They didn't use the term "Anglo-Saxon" of themselves. Rather, the term was first used by people on the (European) mainland to describe them when (a) the Angles and the Saxons in England were sufficiently assimilated to be no longer meaningfully distinguishable from one another, and (b) it was desired to distinguish them from the various Germanic peoples on the mainland. But after a while the term fell out of use; the inhabitants of England came to be called (by themselves and by others Angli (English). It probably helped that by this time there was no longer any Kingdom of the Angles, or tribe calling themselves Angles, in Germany, so there was no risk of confusion.

There matters rested until the Norman invasion of, and settlement of, England. The term Anglo-Saxon was then revived to describe the people and culture of England before Norman conquest, and the language that they spoke (i.e. before it was changed by the influence of Norman French). And that's still pretty much the meaning it has today.

Except . . .

In the nineteenth century it came to be used in sense that has (to our ears) unpleasant racial connotations. When scientific racism was all the go, and English people wished to assert a superiority to those admittedly white, but still definitely inferior, Italians, Frenchies, or those feckless Celts, etc, they would stress their sound Anglo-Saxon heritage. A claim to be Anglo-Saxon was a claim to be plain, common-sense, unadorned, industrious, effective, practical, unless those romantic, disorganised, emotional, impractical lesser breeds.

Prejudicial racial and national stereotyping in England transfers readily to the US, where it is magnified a hundred times. The white population of the original 13 colonies, that fought the revolutionary war, was of course largely English by descent (and in many cases by birth), and identifying as Anglo-Saxon served to distinguish them only only from Black slaves and from indigenous Americans, but (in time) from successive waves of migrants from Ireland, Italy, Poland, Russia etc. Germans and Scandinavians were the only significant groups of migrants who could make any plausible claim to racial affinity with the Anglo-Saxons and that worked well, because they were White and Protestant.

(Historically the identification is nonsense, of course, because the American colonies weren't settled during the Anglo-Saxon period. The colonists came centruries later from a thoroughly Normanised English/British society and culture.)

So, basically, Anglo-Saxon, in US terms, is unhistorical shorthand for the ethnic group that has been and still is privileged, politically and socially, over other groups. So call to defend "Anglo-Saxon" traditions, values, etc is a call to justify and defend established privilege, by asserting or implying an entirely bogus ethnic/cultural superiority.

mariaalice

A more dressed-up erudite way of being racist basically.

Wibbs

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Obviously when you read Anglo Saxon ....you should realize you are reading 'white' and 'white supremacy'.... only in capitols.

Well the place was founded on the back of English fundamental Protestants who were considered a bit too out there even by the standards of the time in Reformation Europe. A place where there were new and wacky religious splinter groups popping up on a near weekly basis. Many of the philosophies and fears of that origin group stuck around. That said they were later heavily influenced by people like Rousseau and Voltaire, not exactly "anglo saxons". Their later expansion into the west of the country informed the cultural character too.

As ever America is a land and culture of contrasts. So on the one hand they had the real horn for ancient Rome and the classical world, as Europeans have tended to and have tended to want some return to. Not very anglo saxon at all. Look at many of their famous public buildings. Roman and Greek only much bigger, American sized. At the same time they had a terror of the decadence and corruption they saw as part of that same classical world. Protestant Romans.

Temple to a fallen Caesar.

The scariest thing was ....they were to oppose immigrants post 1965. What that means is unclear. But this was the year the US ended it's policy of preferential treatment of European immigrants.

Not so "scary". Though the nation had been founded upon an immigrant myth of "huddled masses", most of their population growth had been internal. By the 1960's, if not earlier actually, they simply didn't need those huddled masses like they once did. Or at least they could think about being picky about who got in. Not so many huddled and no masses thanks very much was the thinking.

TomTomTim

There's a great irony in pusher of identity politics, having an issue with other groups pushing for their own interests. Groups defending their interests is either good or bad, all across the board or not at all. Hard left politics has forced everyone into camps, so you've no right to be surprised that stuff like this is manifesting itself. This is only the beginning too. Maybe the woke should of thought of this before they poked the bear?

TomTomTim

Wibbs wrote: »

Well the place was founded on the back of English fundamental Protestants who were considered a bit too out there even by the standards of the time in Reformation Europe. A place where there were new and wacky religious splinter groups popping up on a near weekly basis. Many of the philosophies and fears of that origin group stuck around. That said they were later heavily influenced by people like Rousseau and Voltaire, not exactly "anglo saxons". Their later expansion into the west of the country informed the cultural character too.

As ever America is a land and culture of contrasts. So on the one hand they had the real horn for ancient Rome and the classical world, as Europeans have tended to and have tended to want some return to. Not very anglo saxon at all. Look at many of their famous public buildings. Roman and Greek only much bigger, American sized. At the same time they had a terror of the decadence and corruption they saw as part of that same classical world. Protestant Romans.

Temple to a fallen Caesar.


Not so "scary". Though the nation had been founded upon an immigrant myth of "huddled masses", most of their population growth had been internal. By the 1960's, if not earlier actually, they simply didn't need those huddled masses like they once did. Or at least they could think about being picky about who got in. Not so many huddled and no masses thanks very much was the thinking.

Any Anglo American worth his or her salt knows fine well that the American forefathers were highly inspired by the Greeks & the Romans, it's not some hidden secret.

kowloon

TomTomTim wrote: »

Any Anglo American worth his or her salt knows fine well that the American forefathers were highly inspired by the Greeks & the Romans, it's not some hidden secret.

Not sure anyone was saying it was a secret, just that it displays a degree of contradiction.

The laws of the US are based on Anglo Saxon laws. As are the laws of Ireland. Maybe you’d prefer the term English or common law. Those laws are in contrast to the Napoleonic or civil code in most of the rest of Europe. The legal systems there are quite different.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law

There’s nothing much new in the US ever really. Even the bill of rights which has those amendments, particularly the first and second, so beloved of Americans are based on the English bill of rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Amended a bit. The English bill of rights even had the right to bear arms, but only for Protestants.

On July 5th 1776 if you were tried in a court you were subject to laws that were based on previous English laws or directly were in fact English laws, as in made in London. Same as here in 1921 and later. And under common law precedent all legal judgements in countries that were part of the British empire can act as precedent for judges in any common law jurisdiction.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Not so "scary". Though the nation had been founded upon an immigrant myth of "huddled masses", most of their population growth had been internal. By the 1960's, if not earlier actually, they simply didn't need those huddled masses like they once did. Or at least they could think about being picky about who got in. Not so many huddled and no masses thanks very much was the thinking.

It was a law in 1965 that opened up immigration, rather. It had been strongly curtailed in 1924.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

In the nineteenth century it came to be used in sense that has (to our ears) unpleasant racial connotations. When scientific racism was all the go, and English people wished to assert a superiority to those admittedly white, but still definitely inferior, Italians, Frenchies, or those feckless Celts, etc, they would stress their sound Anglo-Saxon heritage. A claim to be Anglo-Saxon was a claim to be plain, common-sense, unadorned, industrious, effective, practical, unless those romantic, disorganised, emotional, impractical lesser breeds.

This is true and a good repost to the ( largely American) idea that in the late 19C a theory or whiteness evolved that included all the whites in Europe and justified their empires. While that ideology did exist to some extent, by and large it was confined to the universities and to the US in particular where Nordicism, which replaced Anglo-saxonism originated as a repost to Southern European immigration. This definition of nordics included Celts. but excluded Southern Europeans who were considered mediterannean types. The other white group was Alpine. These were all whites but Nordics were above all else.

Did this influence Europe, all that much? Clearly Naziism later on, but not as much as you might think. - the Nazis didn't hate Southern Europeans but did hate the slavs. Thats just German nationalism.

In Europe in the late 19C the general use of race was applied to ethnic groups. The English race. The Irish race etc.

Cecil Rhodes was clearly an English ( or Anglo Saxon) racist. He almost never used white. And he believed that the US and the British Empire should align to dominate the world, a world dominated by Anglo Saxons, not whites in general. He regretted that the US broke away from the Empire and was subject to inferior Irish and German immigration. ( I am not sure why he thinks Irish people couldn't have emigrated to a British America).

Wibbs

TomTomTim wrote: »

Any Anglo American worth his or her salt knows fine well that the American forefathers were highly inspired by the Greeks & the Romans, it's not some hidden secret.

Where did I suggest it was? Most of Western Europe was(and remains in some ways). My point being the usual contradiction in the American psyche around such things(the English were similar). They were both inspired and fearful of that inspiration. They wanted that authority and power and more, continuity with the glorious past in a brand new world where history was for the making, and the telling. Like I said, they wanted to be Protestant "Romans", minus all the decadence as they saw it. And of course the fear of decline of their new "rome" which had befallen the old one. You can tell much of a society by its art and America is no different. In the early 19th century you can see those fears and aspirations in something like Coles "Course of Empire" series.



From innocent idyll(America under the Indians, with included teepees) with all that promise through growth and agrarian republic(where they saw, or hoped themselves at the time) and then peak of decadence and mob rule to calamitous fall, back to nature in the end(the barbarians at the gates and worse, corruption from within). That set of paintings could be wrought by a European hand and similar was, but the European mind would have regarded it quite differently to the American and both minds would have had no place for non White's in the mix, save as possible "barbarians".

Though the original Puritans would have taken a very dim view of all that classical kinda thing. Not the acquisition of wealth part mind. They saw that as a holy duty and a reflection on their status as good Christians. Being wealthy was a blessing by god, being poor was a sign of ungodliness. The notion that Puritans were sackcloth and ashes types is a more modern misrepresentation.

mariaalice

Deleted User wrote: »

It was a law in 1965 that opened up immigration, rather. It had been strongly curtailed in 1924.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act



This is true and a good repost to the ( largely American) idea that in the late 19C a theory or whiteness evolved that included all the whites in Europe and justified their empires. While that ideology did exist to some extent, by and large it was confined to the universities and to the US in particular where Nordicism, which replaced some kinds of Anglo-saxonism originated as a repost to Southern European immigration. This definition of nordics included Celts. but excluded Southern Europeans who were considered mediterannean types. The other group was Alpine. These were all whites but Nordics were above all else.

Did this influence Europe, all that much? Clearly Naziism later on, but not as much as you might think. - the Nazis didn't hate Southern Europeans but did hate the slavs. Thats just German nationalism.

In Europe in the late 19C the general use of race was applied to ethnic groups. The English race. The Irish race etc.

Cecil Rhodes was clearly an English ( or Anglo Saxon) racist. He almost never used white. And he believed that the US and the British Empire should align to dominate the world, a world dominated by Anglo Saxons, not whites in general. He regretted that the US broke away from the Empire and was subject to inferior Irish and German immigration. ( I am not sure why he thinks Irish people couldn't have emigrated to a British America).

Except for the fact that by the middle ages long before the foundation of the American state whiteness was more valued.

Circassian girls were described as fair and light-skinned and were frequently enslaved by Crimean Tatars then sold to Ottoman Empire to live and serve in a Harem.[62] They were the most expensive, reaching up to 500 pounds sterling, and the most popular with the Turks. Second in popularity were Syrian girls, which came largely from coastal regions in Anatolia.[62] Their price could reach up to 30 pounds sterling. Nubian girls were the cheapest and least popular, fetching up to 20 pounds sterling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

These kind of US driven arguments convince me that the US is gaslighting the world. I will post more after work.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

Except for the fact that by the middle ages long before the foundation of the American state whiteness was more valued.

Circassian girls were described as fair and light-skinned and were frequently enslaved by Crimean Tatars then sold to Ottoman Empire to live and serve in a Harem.[62] They were the most expensive, reaching up to 500 pounds sterling, and the most popular with the Turks. Second in popularity were Syrian girls, which came largely from coastal regions in Anatolia.[62] Their price could reach up to 30 pounds sterling. Nubian girls were the cheapest and least popular, fetching up to 20 pounds sterling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

Yeh, ok. Buts that's hardly something imposed by the West on the Ottomans, nor is it a racial theory per say. Plenty of countries have a preference for light skin, particularly in women, which predates European colonisation.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

( I am not sure why he thinks Irish people couldn't have emigrated to a British America).

I suppose because to Rhodes, they weren't English. The more inclusive "British" is a newer notion. Even then the Irish weren't considered British, or certainly not British enough. British is pretty much shorthand for English and until relatively recently White. There has been a shift to include non Whites into "British", if they do well of course. I think it was the actor Peter O'Toole who noted that if he was up for an Oscar he was "British", if he was photographed drunk under a nightclub piano he was "Irish". The Irish are no slouches in claiming the famous or infamous as our own of course, or casually ignoring them if they're a scandal.

But generally the English psyche regards its neighbours with some remove. The Welsh they barely regard at all, the Scots are a confusing concern that they need to be watchful of, but it has long regarded the Irish as a confusing and frustrating alien race, immune to their "civilising" influence.

Bannasidhe

Wibbs wrote: »

Where did I suggest it was? Most of Western Europe was(and remains in some ways). My point being the usual contradiction in the American psyche around such things(the English were similar). They were both inspired and fearful of that inspiration. They wanted that authority and power and more, continuity with the glorious past in a brand new world where history was for the making, and the telling. Like I said, they wanted to be Protestant "Romans", minus all the decadence as they saw it. And of course the fear of decline of their new "rome" which had befallen the old one. You can tell much of a society by its art and America is no different. In the early 19th century you can see those fears and aspirations in something like Coles "Course of Empire" series.



From innocent idyll(America under the Indians, with included teepees) with all that promise through growth and agrarian republic(where they saw, or hoped themselves at the time) and then peak of decadence and mob rule to calamitous fall, back to nature in the end(the barbarians at the gates and worse, corruption from within). That set of paintings could be wrought by a European hand and similar was, but the European mind would have regarded it quite differently to the American and both minds would have had no place for non White's in the mix, save as possible "barbarians".

Though the original Puritans would have taken a very dim view of all that classical kinda thing. Not the acquisition of wealth part mind. They saw that as a holy duty and a reflection on their status as good Christians. Being wealthy was a blessing by god, being poor was a sign of ungodliness. The notion that Puritans were sackcloth and ashes types is a more modern misrepresentation.

While I agree with your points on the whole I feel I should point out that Thomas Cole's paintings are hugely inspired by the French artist Claude Lorrain who was not even slightly Anglo-Saxon. A fact which on further thought adds to your 'American Contradictions'. American WASP producing neo-classical paintings inspired by a French artist rather than Turner or Constable.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I suppose because to Rhodes, they weren't English. The more inclusive "British" is a newer notion. Even then the Irish weren't considered British, or certainly not British enough. British is pretty much shorthand for English and until relatively recently White. There has been a shift to include non Whites into "British", if they do well of course. I think it was the actor Peter O'Toole who noted that if he was up for an Oscar he was "British", if he was photographed drunk under a nightclub piano he was "Irish". The Irish are no slouches in claiming the famous or infamous as our own of course, or casually ignoring them if they're a scandal.

But generally the English psyche regards its neighbours with some remove. The Welsh they barely regard at all, the Scots are a confusing concern that they need to be watchful of, but it has long regarded the Irish as a confusing and frustrating alien race, immune to their "civilising" influence.

Historically, yes. I don't believe in beating up of all the modern English for their history no more than I believe in beating up the Germans.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeh, ok. Buts that's hardly something imposed by the West on the Ottomans, nor is it a racial theory per say. Plenty of countries have a preference for light skin, particularly in women, which predates European colonisation.

Yep and was present going way back in Europe too. The pale were seen as superior, not peasants toiling in the fields. The term "blue blooded" illustrates this. The skin of the aristocracy was so pale that their veins were visible and veins are blue. Like you note it was more aimed at women. A pale woman was cloistered, came from wealth and had a wealthy husband which meant she didn't have to lift a finger or work like the average woman. Veiling in the Islamic world, something they copied from surrounding cultures and the rich of those cultures which served a similar purpose of denoting status.

It sounds odd, but when Coco Chanel came back from a Mediterranean holiday sporting a tan and that caught on, because it was her, she actually caused one of the biggest and most fundamental shifts in European culture around skin colour and beauty.

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

While I agree with your points on the whole I feel I should point out that Thomas Cole's paintings are hugely inspired by the French artist Claude Lorrain who was not even slightly Anglo-Saxon. A fact which on further thought adds to your 'American Contradictions'. American WASP producing neo-classical paintings inspired by a French artist rather than Turner or Constable.

True and Cole was English by birth. Oh I get the Lorrain influence alright, but he influenced many later landscape artists and his themes were quite different to Cole's. The American audience viewed Cole's themes in a different way than a contemporary European audience would(though a French audience would be closest, because of their recent revolutionary past). I suppose many of the American psyche contradictions come from it being a newly minted land to the settlers, one to be tamed, one where a new better history could be mined to solidify its own myth and one where influences vied with each other and more latterly some quite disparate influences that aren't all "European" and "WASP" in nature.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

These kind of US driven arguments convince me that the US is gaslighting the world.

Yup. Though currently dominant cultural empires always have to some degree.

RulesOfNature

Bad Boyo wrote: »

Yes white Americans, you should despise and reject the men who founded your nation.

*hand rubbing intensifies

I will embrace the tradition of my Swedish ancestors and destroy some Anglo-Saxon buildings. Then I'll raid some anglo saxon families, take their daughter home for my enjoyment, then set some anglo saxon towns on fire.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

The laws of the US are based on Anglo Saxon laws. As are the laws of Ireland. Maybe you’d prefer the term English or common law. Those laws are in contrast to the Napoleonic or civil code in most of the rest of Europe. The legal systems there are quite different . . . .

The strikethrough there is important. The common law as we know it (and as we have inherited it) is very much a product of Norman England, not of Anglo-Saxon England.

Peregrinus

Bad Boyo wrote: »

Yes white Americans, you should despise and reject the men who founded your nation.

So if we don't pretend that the founders were Anglo-Saxon, that's despising and rejecting them? We have to lie about them in order to honour them?

Right, got it.

Peregrinus

mariaalice wrote: »

Except for the fact that by the middle ages long before the foundation of the American state whiteness was more valued.

Circassian girls were described as fair and light-skinned and were frequently enslaved by Crimean Tatars then sold to Ottoman Empire to live and serve in a Harem.[62] They were the most expensive, reaching up to 500 pounds sterling, and the most popular with the Turks. Second in popularity were Syrian girls, which came largely from coastal regions in Anatolia.[62] Their price could reach up to 30 pounds sterling. Nubian girls were the cheapest and least popular, fetching up to 20 pounds sterling.

"Whiteness was more valued in slaves/pale skin was considered beautiful" is not at all the same thing as considering white people to be racially or genetically superior, though. The fact that the white women were more valued as slaves[/io] is a clue. Similarly, at a time when black people were formally enslaved in the US, blackness could be and was the subject of sexual fetishization.

These two things - standards of beauty/desirability and notions of superiority - are pretty much unconnected.

RulesOfNature

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep and was present going way back in Europe too. The pale were seen as superior, not peasants toiling in the fields. The term "blue blooded" illustrates this. The skin of the aristocracy was so pale that their veins were visible and veins are blue. Like you note it was more aimed at women. A pale woman was cloistered, came from wealth and had a wealthy husband which meant she didn't have to lift a finger or work like the average woman. Veiling in the Islamic world, something they copied from surrounding cultures and the rich of those cultures which served a similar purpose of denoting status.

It sounds odd, but when Coco Chanel came back from a Mediterranean holiday sporting a tan and that caught on, because it was her, she actually caused one of the biggest and most fundamental shifts in European culture around skin colour and beauty.

Paleness was sought after in women, and often in the context of sexual objectification. Meanwhile, swarthy men were (and are) considered superior to pale men who are perceived to sickly and weaker, even if its the opposite.

Deleted User

Paleess or being very white was related to wealth. Status. Hierarchy. Caste. or whatever symbol of wealth/power you want to refer to.

In just about every culture where whiteness was lauded, it was due to the comparison of those who worked in the fields vs those who didn't. By working under the sun, your skin would tan somewhat, combined with hard labor change the texture of your skin. This being more important when people are younger, before the texture of the skin becomes less adaptable.

It's important not to forget the systems that society operated under in the past. Hierarchy was incredibly important, and the perception that you could belong, provided one of the few ways for social mobility. For men, there were the areas of military or later, scientific avenues for the movement from lower classes into the upper, but for women, the choices were far less available. Marriage remained the most likely way to move away from lower classes, and having white skin, allowed an opportunity to merge more easily with the desired group. In many ways, it was easier for women to move into "better" social/wealth groups, simply because of their gender, whereas men would continue to be judged thereafter because they were expected to be active outside to garner success.

Deleted User wrote: »

This is true and a good repost to the ( largely American) idea that in the late 19C a theory or whiteness evolved that included all the whites in Europe and justified their empires. While that ideology did exist to some extent, by and large it was confined to the universities and to the US in particular where Nordicism, which replaced Anglo-saxonism originated as a repost to Southern European immigration. This definition of nordics included Celts. but excluded Southern Europeans who were considered mediterannean types. The other white group was Alpine. These were all whites but Nordics were above all else.

They didn't need to justify their empires. Justification of such success is a modern concept. Might is right. That was enough. If you succeeded and destroyed/subjugated your foes, then, your empire didn't need any justification. If you struggled against your neighbors and failed to expand your domain, then, justification was a concern... which is why there was so much pressure on new monarchs to go to war.

As for being White, it was associated with civilisation, and "being civilised". Since other cultural groups had very different perceptions relating to cultural values, behavior, and religion. Being white was simply an easy way to identify a difference when White people were expanding into other continents, and having to deal with heathen groups, who were seen as inferior due to their lack of success in resisting the force that was western civilisation, or rather west European civilisation.

Did this influence Europe, all that much? Clearly Naziism later on, but not as much as you might think. - the Nazis didn't hate Southern Europeans but did hate the slavs. Thats just German nationalism.

In Europe in the late 19C the general use of race was applied to ethnic groups. The English race. The Irish race etc.

Exactly, but it goes deeper than that since there would have been the Cornwall race, the <insert local county/district> race which was seen to be different due to traditional customs, history, and dialects. Race wasn't about the colour of your skin, it was about your shared culture. Later nationalism brought these together, and allowed race to be confined to "English", "Irish", etc, and that became the identifier regarding race... a group category bound under the system of nationalism, but still very tribal. Us vs them. The differences between groups. And then later, under global empires, and the expose to different skin or ethnic groups, race became a perspective based on skin colour... but it's still a relatively new movement.

Cecil Rhodes was clearly an English ( or Anglo Saxon) racist. He almost never used white. And he believed that the US and the British Empire should align to dominate the world, a world dominated by Anglo Saxons, not whites in general. He regretted that the US broke away from the Empire and was subject to inferior Irish and German immigration. ( I am not sure why he thinks Irish people couldn't have emigrated to a British America).

Rhodes was a traditionalist in the sense that he believed wholeheartedly in the importance of the aristocracy, and the royalty as representative of what was good in the Empire... and since the British Empire was the largest and most successful Empire within his sphere, it stood to reason that he would believe that English people were superior to others. It was more about culture and success than about actual race, but the differences in cultural groups would have been paramount to him. The Irish, Scottish, Welsh, etc were all subjugated by the English, which showed a flaw in their cultures... but even they would have been a step above the Black people who he saw as being weak, fragmented, barbaric, etc. Rhodes was a proponent of the spreading of English culture and the belief that subject peoples could be educated/indoctrinated enough to become civilised... he was a man of his times... Most of the ruling classes in Empires of that time would have believed in assimilating subject peoples and turning them into something better, and more productive... their educational systems saw to that, combined with the propaganda used by Empires to inspire nationalism, and unity.

archer22

The Saxons and Angles arrival in Britain was as mercenaries hired by the local warring Celtic tribes.
It's very similar to how the Norman's arrived in Ireland.
And in both cases after their arrival they realised their employers and their enemies were a load of toss pots and decided to take the lands for themselves :pac:

WrenBoy

Can I just say I'm really enjoying this thread.