White People

“According to the historian Henry Hoyle Howorth (1901), Assyriologist Theophilus Pinches (1908), renowned archaeologist Leonard Woolley (1929) and Assyriologist Ignace Gelb (1944) the Gutians were pale skinned and blonde haired. This identification of the Gutians as fair haired first came to light when Julius Oppert (1877) published a set of tablets he had discovered which described Gutian (and Subarian) slaves as namrum or namrûtum, meaning “light colored” or “fair-skinned”.[”

This morning I found mention of the Gutian people, a white race with light skin and blonde hair. They brought ruin to the Assyrian Empire by conducting raids from the mountains. You could call them Vikings, a name that means Raiders and Rovers. It can be suggested that the Gutians once lived in the Fertile Crescent, but were driven out, they slowly retreating to the mountains where American forces fight Afghan Rebels, and where Osama Bin Laden waged his successful war against the Soviet Union – and perhaps the United States – two nations where the Caucasian Race, thrive! As fate would have it, the Assyrians became Christians, thus have fled their homeland due to persecution, many finding sanctuary amongst the White Race – whoever they are.

The Semitic Race has had a profound impact upon the White Race due to the adoption of the Torah by Christians, who via a very convoluted hocus-pocus transfer a Semitic Deity over to non-Semitic Peoples for the reason the Jews did not RECOGNIZE their Messiah, or, behold Jesus as God Himself – not the Son of God. Christians point out the One God’s Threats delivered by His Prophets to the Jews, as proof God has had it up to here, and carries out His threat to be the One God to………….White People! Huh? Then, what God are the Jews worshipping – this very day? Are evangelicals sayng the Jews are bowing down before a empty throne?

Why didn’t the One God of the Jews appear in a cloud over Jerusalem – like Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus – and announce;

“You are no longer my Chosen People! You will find me in Rome if you choose to amend your evil ways! My little buddy, Paul, has guaranteed me White Folks will be far more obediant to me then you Jews – especially the Germans!”

Why send His Son as a final test, a LAST CHANCE to worship Him – in the Correct Way? What correct way? Why have Jesus speak in riddles that refer to Torah text, as if to test the Children of God, see if they have been reading their Torah – delivered to Moses by God! Why not have Jesus preach this simple message;

“From now on I will be delivering My Message in Latin. And, if you can’t understand Latin, all you need do is behold and worship me as if I was Zeus, Thor, and Apollo. Love only me, and keep your mouth shut – especially you Jews!”

Fifty percent of the white population of America is having an identity crisis because they see themselves as evangelicals who have been cheated out of their White Identity by parasites who are not like them, who are not with their main man ‘The White Jesus’. Sarah Palin is the spokesperson for the White Jesus, who one minute wants to seceed from the Union and fight a gorilla war in the mountians of Alaska, and the next – run for office as Patriots! Huh!

In my last posts I have shown the great influence the Sephardic Jews have had in the Americas, this influence coming from Europe via Spain and Portugal, and not Celtic Britain. Many authors on the subject of the Holy Blood Grail lineage, have been turning white folks into Royal Jews kin to King Jesus – in what amounts to a modern day Religious Transference like to the one Saint Paul executed in his anti-Semitic Witch Hunt.

Paul’s followers have described their No.1 enemy as being a long-haired agnostic Liberal Rebel with blonde hair and blue eyes, who is a parasite unto the Republican Conservatives because He-She conducts succesful raids against the Holy Taxpayer, slowly sucking the life out of the Holy White Suburbanite of Middle America. Dont’ look now, but the Gutians are back! Consider the Norman Viking invasion of France and England, these foreigners building castles on mounds from where they would conduct raids. Talk about parasites!

Jon Presco

“The Gutians practiced hit-and-run tactics, and would be long gone by the time regular troops could arrive to deal with the situation. Their raids crippled the economy of Sumer. Travel became unsafe, as did work in the fields, resulting in famine.
The Sumerian king list indicates that king Ur-Utu of Uruk was defeated by the barbarian Guti, perhaps around 2150 BC. The Guti swept down, defeated the demoralized Akkadian army, took Akkad, and destroyed it around 2115 BC. However, they did not supplant all of Akkad, as several independent city states remained alongside them, including Lagash, where a local dynasty still thrived and left numerous textual and archaeological remains.[1]

White people (also the Caucasian race) is a term usually referring to human beings characterized (at least in part) by the light pigmentation of their skin. Rather than being a straightforward description of skin color, the term white denotes a specific set of ethnic groups and functions as a color metaphor for race.

The most commonly-used definition of “white person” is “a person with a visible degree of European ancestry”.[1] However, the definition of “white person” differs according to geographical and historical context. Various social constructions of whiteness have had implications in terms of national identity, consanguinity, public policy, religion, population statistics, racial segregation, affirmative action, eugenics, racial marginalization and racial quotas. The concept has been applied with varying degrees of formality and internal consistency in disciplines including sociology, politics, genetics, biology, medicine, biomedicine, language, culture and law.

[edit] Physical Appearance
According to the historian Henry Hoyle Howorth (1901), Assyriologist Theophilus Pinches (1908), renowned archaeologist Leonard Woolley (1929) and Assyriologist Ignace Gelb (1944) the Gutians were pale skinned and blonde haired.[10][11][12][13] This identification of the Gutians as fair haired first came to light when Julius Oppert (1877) published a set of tablets he had discovered which described Gutian (and Subarian) slaves as namrum or namrûtum, meaning “light colored” or “fair-skinned”.[14][15] This racial character of the Gutians as blondes or being light skinned was also taken up by Georges Vacher de Lapouge in 1899 and later by historian Sidney Smith in his Early history of Assyria (1928).[16][17] Ephraim Avigdor Speiser however criticised the translation of “namrum” as “light colored”. An article was published by Speiser in the Journal of the American Oriental Society attacking Gelb’s translation.[18] Gelb in response accused Speiser of circular reasoning.[19] In response Speiser claimed the scholarship regarding the translation of “namrum” or “namrûtum” is unresolved.[20]

The Gutians (also Guteans or Guti) were a tribe that overran southern Mesopotamia when the Akkadian empire collapsed in approximately 2154 BC.
Sumerian sources portray the Gutians as a barbarous, ravenous people from Gutium or Qutium (Sumerian: Gu-tu-umki[1] or Gu-ti-umki[2]) in the mountains, presumably the central Zagros in the Kurdish area of Iraq. The Sumerian king list represents them as ruling over Sumer for a short time after the fall of the Akkadian Empire, and paints a picture of chaos within the Gutian administration.[3]
Next to nothing is known about their origins, as no “Gutian” artifacts have surfaced from that time; little information is gleaned from the contemporary sources.[4] Nothing is known of their language either, apart from those Sumerian king names, and that it was distinct from other known languages of the region (such as Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian, Hittite and Elamite).

The Akkadian Empire was destroyed by economic decline, internal strife and barbarian Gutian people in 2154 BC. The rulers of Assyria during the period between 2154 BC and 2112 BC may have once again been fully independent as the Gutians are only known to have administered southern Mesopotamia, however there is no information from Assyria bar the king list for this period. Assyria became part of the Empire of the Sumerian 3rd dynasty of Ur founded in 2112 BC, and appears to have remained lagely under Sumerian domination until the mid 21st century BC.

The Assyrian people,[23] most commonly known as Assyrians and other later names, such as: Chaldeans, Syrians, Syriacs (see names of Syriac Christians), are a distinct ethnic group whose origins lie in ancient Mesopotamia. They are Eastern Aramaic speaking Semites who trace their ancestry back to the Sumero-Akkadian civilisation that emerged in Mesopotamia circa 4000- 3500 BC, and in particular to the northern region of the Akkadian lands, which would become known as Assyria by the 24th Century BC. The Assyrian nation existed as an independent state, and often a powerful empire, from the 24th century BC until the end of the 7th century BC. Today that ancient territory is part of several nations; Assyria remained a Geo-political entity after its fall, and was ruled as an occupied province under the rule of various empires from the late 7th century BC until the mid 7th century AD when it was dissolved, and the Assyrian people have gradually become a minority in their homelands since that time. They are indigenous to, and have traditionally lived all over what is now Iraq, north east Syria, north west Iran, and Southeastern Turkey.[24] They are predominantly Christian.
Many have migrated to the Caucasus, North America, Australia and Europe during the past century or so. Diaspora and refugee communities are based in Europe (particularly Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, and France), North America, Australia, New Zealand, Lebanon, Armenia, Georgia,[25] southern Russia, Israel, Azerbaijan and Jordan.
Emigration was triggered by such events as the Assyrian Genocide by the Ottoman Empire during First World War. the Simele massacre in Iraq (1933), the Islamic revolution in Iran (1979), Arab Nationalist Baathist policies in Iraq and Syria, the Al-Anfal Campaign of Saddam Hussein [26], and to some degree Kurdish nationalist policies in northern Iraq.
The major sub-ethnic division is between an Eastern group (“Assyrian Church of the East” Assyrian “Chaldean Christians”, “Syriac Orthodox”, and “Ancient Church of the East”) indigenous to Iraq, northwest Iran, northeast Syria and southeast Turkey, and a Western one (“Syrian Jacobites”) found in south central Turkey and western and central Syria.
Most recently the Iraq War has displaced the regional Assyrian community, as its people have faced ethnic and religious persecution at the hands of both Sunni and Shia Islamic extremists and Arab and Kurdish nationalists. Of the one million or more Iraqis reported by the United Nations to have fled Iraq since the American occupation, nearly forty percent (40%) are Assyrian, although Assyrians comprised only 3% – 5% of the pre-war Iraqi population.[27][28][29]

History of the termThe notion of “white people” or a “white race” as a large group of populations contrasting with non-white or “colored” originates in the 17th century. Pragmatic description of populations as “white” in reference to their skin color predates this notion and is found in Greco-Roman ethnography and other ancient sources.

Antiquity and Middle Ages: Occasional physical description
1820 drawing of a Book of Gates fresco of the tomb of Seti I, depicting (from left) four groups of people: Berbers, Nubians, Levantine, Egyptian.[2]In the literature of the Ancient Near East and Classical Antiquity, descriptions of the physical aspect of various nations in terms of color is commonplace.

The Sumerians referred to themselves as ùĝ saĝ gíg-ga, meaning “the black-headed people”.[3]Vicki Leone contrasts this in her book Uppity Women of Ancient Times, noting that the Sumerians paintings and mosaics depict a people possessing dark blue eyes.[4][clarification needed] The Ancient Egyptian (New Kingdom) funerary text known as the Book of Gates distinguishes “four races of men”. These are the Egyptians, the Levantine peoples or “Asiatics”, the “Nubians” and the “fair-skinned Libyans”.[5]

Xenophon describes the Ethiopians as black, and the Persian troops as white compared to the sun-tanned skin of Greek troops.[6] Herodotus similarly used Melanchroes “dark-skinned” for the Egyptians and he compared them to the Aithiopsi “burned-faced” for the Ethiopians. Herodotus also describes the Scythian Budini as having deep blue eyes and bright red hair.[7]

These color adjectives are typically found in contrast to the “standard” set by the own group, not as a self-description. Classicist James Dee found that, “the Greeks do not describe themselves as “white people”—or as anything else because they had no regular word in their color vocabulary for themselves—and we can see that the concept of a distinct ‘white race’ was not present in the ancient world.”[8]

Assignment of positive and negative connotations of white and black date to the classical period in a number of Indo-European languages, but these differences were not applied to skin color per se. Religious conversion was described figuratively as a change in skin color.[8] Similarly, the Rigveda uses krsna tvac “black skin” as a metaphor for irreligiosity.[9]

The pseudo-Aristotelian Physiognomica (2nd century BC) in keeping with the Aristotelian doctrine of the golden mean postulates that the ideal skin tone was to be found somewhere between very dark and very light:

“Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women and Europeans, the complexion of courage is between the two.”[10]
Similar views were held by a number of Arabic writers during the time of the medieval Caliphate period. Some Arabs at the time viewed their “swarthy” skin as the ideal skin tone, in comparison to the darker Sub-Saharan Africans and the fairer “ruddy people” (which included Levantines, Persians, Turks, North Caucasians, South Caucasian and Europeans).[11]

“White people” and modern racial hierarchiesThe term “white race” or “white people” entered the major European languages in the later 17th century, originating with the racialization of slavery at the time, in the context of the Atlantic slave trade and enslavement of native peoples in the Spanish Empire. While first a social category, it has repeatedly been ascribed to strains of blood, ancestry, and physical traits, and was eventually made into a subject of scientific research, which culminated in scientific racism, before being widely repudiated by the scientific community. According to historian Irene Silverblatt, “Race thinking … made social categories into racial truths.”[12] Bruce David Baum, citing the work of Ruth Frankenberg, states, “the history of modern racist domination has been bound up with the history of how European peoples defined themselves (and sometimes some other peoples) as members of a superior ‘white race.'”[13]

According to Gregory Jay, a professor of English at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee,

Before the age of exploration, group differences were largely based on language, religion, and geography. … the European had always reacted a bit hysterically to the differences of skin color and facial structure between themselves and the populations encountered in Africa, Asia, and the Americas (see, for example, Shakespeare’s dramatization of racial conflict in Othello and The Tempest). Beginning in the 1500s, Europeans began to develop what became known as “scientific racism,” the attempt to construct a biological rather than cultural definition of race … Whiteness, then, emerged as what we now call a “pan-ethnic” category, as a way of merging a variety of European ethnic populations into a single “race” …

—Gregory Jay, “Who Invented White People?”[14]

White people as a social categoryA three-part racial schema in color terms was used in seventeenth century Latin America under Spanish rule.[15] Irene Silverblatt traces “race thinking” in South America to the social categories of colonialism and state formation: “White, black, and brown are abridged, abstracted versions of colonizer, slave, and colonized.[16] “The term white came into wide use in the British colonies in America from the 1680s.[8][17]

White people in the science of race18th century beginningsIn 1758, Carolus Linnaeus proposed what he considered to be natural taxonomic categories of the human species. He distinguished between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens europaeus, and he later added four geographical subdivisions of humans: white Europeans, red Americans, yellow Asians and black Africans. Although Linnaeus intended them as objective classifications, he used both taxonomical and cultural data in his subdivision descriptions.[18]

In 1775, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach described the white race as “the white color holds the first place, such as it is that most Europeans. The redness of cheeks in this variety is almost peculiar to it: at all events it is but seldom seen in the rest… Color white, Cheeks rosy”.[19] He categorized humans into five races, which largely corresponded with Linnaeus’ classifications, except for the addition of Oceanians (whom he called Malay).[18] He characterized the racial classification scheme of Metzger as making “two principal varieties as extremes:(1) the white man native of Europe, of the northern parts of Asia, America and Africa..”[20], and the racial classification scheme of John Hunter as having, “seven varieties:… (6) brownish as the southern Europeans, Turks, Abyssinians, Samoiedes and Lapps; (7) white, as the remaining Europeans, the Mingrelians and Kabardinski”[20]. Blumenbach is known for arguing that physical characteristics like skin color, cranial profile, etc., were correlated with group character and aptitude. Craniometry and phrenology would attempt to make physical appearance correspond with racial categories. The fairness and relatively high brows of Caucasians were held to be apt physical expressions of a loftier mentality and a more generous spirit. The epicanthic folds around the eyes of Mongolians and their slightly sallow outer epidermal layer bespoke their supposedly crafty, literal-minded nature.

Later in life, Blumenbach encountered in Switzerland “eine zum Verlieben schöne Négresse” (“a Negress so beautiful to fall in love with”). Further anatomical study led him to the conclusion that ‘individual Africans differ as much, or even more, from other individual Africans as Europeans differ from Europeans’. Furthermore he concluded that Africans were not inferior to the rest of mankind ‘concerning healthy faculties of understanding, excellent natural talents and mental capacities’.[21] These later ideas were far less influential than his earlier assertions with regard to the perceived relative qualities of the different races, which opened the way to secular and scientific racism.[22]

In a 1775 work, Von den verschiedenen Rassen der Menschen (“Of [About] The Different Races of Humans”), German philosopher Immanuel Kant used the term weiß (white) to refer to “the white one [race] of northern Europe” (p. 267).[20]

19th and 20th century: the “Caucasian race”
Huxley’s map of racial categories from On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind (1870). [23] Huxley’s Xanthochroi or “light whites” are shown in red. They gradually blend into the category of Melanochroi or “dark whites” (shown in pink) in Southern Europe and North Africa, and into the Mongoloids B category ( light brown) in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Blending of all three types mentioned is indicated for the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant, Persia and Northern India.Main article: Caucasian race
See also: Historical definitions of race
The study into race and ethnicity in the 18th and 19th centuries developed into what would later be termed scientific racism. During the period of the mid-19th to mid-20th century,[24] race scientists, including most physical anthropologists classified the world’s populations into three, four, or five races, which, depending on the authority consulted, were further divided into various sub-races. During this period the Caucasian race, named after people of the North Caucasus (Caucasus Mountains) but extending to all Europeans, figured as one of these races, and was incorporated as a formal category of both scientific research and, in countries including the United States, social classification.

Meyers Blitz-Lexikon (Leipzig, 1932) divides “Europäid” into various types. Heinrich Kiepert is shown.There was never any scholarly consensus on the delineation between the Caucasian race, including the populations of Europe, and the Mongoloid one, including the populations of East Asia. Thus, Carleton S. Coon (1939) included the populations native to all of Central and Northern Asia under the Caucasian label, while Thomas Henry Huxley (1870) classified the same populations as Mongoloid, and Lothrop Stoddard (1920) excluded the populations of the Middle East and North Africa as well as those of Central Asia, classifying them as “brown”, and counted as “white” only the European peoples.

Some authorities, following Huxley (1870), distinguished the Xanthochroi or “light whites” of Northern Europe with the Melanochroi or “dark whites” of the Mediterranean.

21st centuryAlastair Bonnett has stated that, a strong “current of scientific research supports the theory that Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian), a group that included peoples from Asia and North Africa”.[1][25] Bonnett, does, however, note that this is not a commonplace definition: in Europe and North America the inclusion of non-Europeans is a “technicality little favoured outside certain immigration bureaucracies and traditional anthropology.”[1]

Raj Bhopal and Liam Donaldson opine that white people are a heterogeneous group, and the term white should therefore be abandoned as a classification for the purposes of epidemiology and health research, and identifications based on geographic origin and migration history be used instead.[26]

White skinMain article: Human skin color

Map of indigenous skin color distribution in the world based on Von Luschan’s chromatic scale.White people are archetypically distinguished by light skin. Europeans have lighter skin (as measured by population average skin reflectance read by spectrophotometer at A685) than any other group that was measured. Southern Europeans (measures taken from Spaniards) show a skin pigmentation in parts of the body not exposed to the sun similar to that of Northern Europeans and, in some cases, even lighter.[27] While all mean values of skin reflectance of non-European populations are lower than Europeans for the groups represented in this study, there is significant overlap between populations.[28] This observation has been noted by the Supreme Court of the United States, which stated in a 1923 lawsuit over whiteness that the “swarthy brunette[s] … are darker than some of the lighter hued persons of the brown or yellow races”.[29] The epidermis of light skinned people is not white nor free of pigment. The underlying layers of collagen and adipose tissue are white in people of all races. In lightly pigmented people, the epidermis is an almost transparent layer of film. Consequently the epidermis allows the underlying white tissues to become visible.[30] Blood vessels interlaced between the adipose tissue produce the pale pink color associated with light skin. Pigments known as carotenes found in the fat produce a more yellow effect. In darker skinned people the epidermis is filled with melanosomes that obscure the underlying layers.[31][32][33]

Origins of light skinSee also: Human skin color
The main hypotheses which attempt to account for white skin suggest it is an adaptation to inadequate ultraviolet radiation. As humans moved out of the tropics, a conspicuous latitude gradient of skin tones follows the out of Africa dispersion, it is argued natural selection for sufficient ultraviolet penetration to enable vitamin D production gave rise to the evolution of skin pigmentation by the mechanism of evolution by natural selection. Deleterious health effects of insufficient vitamin D are also pointed to as confirmation that skin lightening was in response to strong selection pressure for maximizing vitamin D.[34][35][36] A variation of the vitamin D argument is that humans lived in Europe for several thousand years without their skin lightening and that it only became white after they adopted agriculture.[34][37] It is suggested that in Europe the latitude permitted enough synthesis of vitamin D combined with hunting for health, only when agriculture was adopted was there a need for lighter skin to maximize the synthesis of vitamin D, therefore it is suggested the elimination of game meat, fish, and some plants from the diet resulted in skin turning white several thousand years after modern human settlement in Europe.[38][39]

Skin color is a quantitative trait that varies continuously on a gradient from dark to light, as it is a polygenic trait, under the influence of several genes. KITLG[40] and ASIP[41] have been found responsible for skin colour variation between sub-Saharan Africans and non-African populations. SLC45A2,[42] TYR[43] and SLC24A5[44] have been positively shown to account for a substantial fraction of the difference in melanin units between Europeans and Africans, while DCT,[45] MC1R[46] and ATRN[42] have been statistically indicated as possible sources for skin tone differences in East Asian populations.

A 2006 study concluded that light pigmentation in European and Asian populations evolved independently of each other via different genetic mechanisms, meaning that light skin probably arose some time after the initial migration out of Africa after the separation of the M and N mtDNA haplogroups.[47] The mutation resulting in the light skin version of the SLC24A5 gene has been estimated to have originated in Europe between 6,000 and 12,000 years ago, indicating that at least one of the genes responsible for pale skin colour in Europeans arose relatively recently.[48]

Mutations in the MC1R gene have been shown to cause variations in human hair colour and skin tones such as red hair and pale skin that doesn’t tan. Studies have shown no evidence of positive selection for these alleles in modern day humans, and they do not appear to be associated with the evolution of fair skin in current European populations.[42][49]

Census and social definitions in different regionsRegions with significant populations
Official census statistics identifying “white people”.
United States 223,553,265 [50]
Russia 125,000,000 [51]
Brazil 92,000,000 [52]
England 44,679,361 [53]
Cuba 7,271,926 [54]
Scotland 4,960,334 [55]
South Africa 4,472,100 [56]
Puerto Rico 3,064,862 [57]
Wales 2,841,505 [58]

Further information: Whiteness studies
Definitions of white have changed over the years, including the official definitions used in many countries, such as the United States and Brazil.[59] Some defied official regulations through the phenomenon of “passing”, many of them becoming white people, either temporarily or permanently. Through the mid-to-late 20th century, numerous countries had formal legal standards or procedures defining racial categories (see cleanliness of blood, apartheid in South Africa, hypodescent). However, as critiques of racism and scientific arguments against the existence of race arose, a trend towards self-identification of racial status arose. Below are some census definitions of white, which may differ from the social definition of white within the same country. The social definition has also been added where possible.

ArgentinaMain articles: Ethnography of Argentina and Argentines of European descent
Argentina, along with other areas of new settlement like Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the United States, is considered a country of immigrants where the vast majority originated from Europe.[60] Although no official censuses based on ethnic classification have been carried out in Argentina, some international sources state that White Argentines and other whites (Europeans and Middle-Easterners) in Argentina make up somewhere between 89.7%[61] (around 36.7 million people) and 85.8%[62] (34.4 million) of the total population. White people can be found in all areas of the country, but especially in the central-eastern region (Pampas), the central-western region (Cuyo), the southern region (Patagonia) and the north-eastern region (Litoral).

White Argentines are mainly descendants of immigrants who came from Europe and the Middle East in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[63][64] After the regimented Spanish colonists, waves of European settlers came to Argentina from the late nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries. Major contributors included Italy (initially from Piedmont, Veneto and Lombardy, later from Campania, Calabria, and Sicily),[65] and Spain (most are Galicians and Basques, but there are Asturians, Cantabrians, Catalans, and Andalusians). Smaller but significant numbers of immigrants include Germans, primarily Volga Germans from Russia, but also Germans from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria; French which mainly came from the Occitania region of France; Portuguese, which already conformed an important community since colonial times; Slavic groups, most of which were Croats, Bosniaks, Poles, but also Ukrainians, Belarussians, Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Montenegrins; Brits, mainly from England and Wales; Irish who left from the Potato famine or British rule; Scandinavians from Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway; from the Ottoman Empire came mainly Armenians and Arabs (from what are now of Lebanon and Syria). Smaller waves of settlers from Australia and South Africa, and the United States can be traced in Argentine immigration records.

The majority of Argentina’s Jewish community derives from immigrants of north and eastern European origin (Ashkenazi Jews), and about 15–20% from Sephardic groups from Syria. Argentina is home to the fifth largest Ashkenazi Jewish community in the world. (See also History of the Jews in Argentina).

By the 1910s, after immigration rates peaked, over 30 percent of the country’s population was from outside Argentina, and over half of Buenos Aires’ population was foreign-born.[66][67] However, the 1914 National Census revealed that around 80% of the national population were either European immigrants, their children or grandchildren.[68] Among the remaining 20 percent (those descended from the population residing locally before this immigrant wave took shape in the 1870s), around a third were white.[69] European immigration continued to account for over half the nation’s population growth during the 1920s, and was again significant (albeit in a smaller wave) following World War II.[68] It is estimated that Argentina received a total amount of 6.6 million European and Middle-Eastern immigrants during the period 1857-1940.[70]

White Argentines, therefore, likely peaked as a percentage of the national population at over 90% on or shortly after the 1947 census. Since the 1960s, increasing immigration from bordering countries to the north (especially from Bolivia and Paraguay, which have Amerindian and Mestizo majorities) has lessened that majority somewhat.[68]

Criticism of the national census state that data has historically been collected using the category of national origin rather than race in Argentina, leading to undercounting Afro-Argentines and mestizos.[71] Africa Viva (Living Africa) is a black rights group in Buenos Aires with the support of the Organization of American States, financial aid from the World Bank and Argentina’s census bureau is working to add an “Afro-descendants” category to the 2010 census. The 1887 national census was the final year where blacks were included as a separate category before it was eliminated by the government.[72]

AustraliaFurther information: European Australian and White Australian
From 1788, when the first British colony in Australia was founded, until the early 19th century, most immigrants to Australia were English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish convicts. These were augmented by small numbers of free settlers from the British Isles and other European countries. However, until the mid-19th century, there were few restrictions on immigration, although members of ethnic minorities tended to be assimilated into the Anglo-Celtic populations.

People of many nationalities, including many non-white people, emigrated to Australia during the goldrushes of the 1850s. However, the vast majority was still white and the goldrushes inspired the first racist activism and policy, directed mainly at Chinese people.

From the late 19th century, the Colonial/State and later federal governments of Australia restricted all permanent immigration to the country by non-Europeans. These policies became known as the “White Australia policy”, which was consolidated and enabled by the Immigration Restriction Act 1901,[73] but was never universally applied. Immigration inspectors were empowered to ask immigrants to take dictation from any European language as a test for admittance, a test used in practice to exclude people from Asia, Africa, and some European and South American countries, depending on the political climate.

Although they were not the prime targets of the policy, it was not until after World War II that large numbers of southern European and eastern European immigrants were admitted for the first time.[74] Following this, the White Australia Policy was relaxed in stages: non-European nationals who could demonstrate European descent were admitted (e.g. descendants of European colonizers and settlers from Latin America or Africa), as were autochthonous inhabitants of various nations from the Middle East, most significantly from Lebanon. In 1973, all immigration restrictions based on race and/or geographic origin were officially terminated.

BrazilMain article: White Brazilian
Recent censuses in Brazil are conducted on the basis of self-identification. In the 2000 census, 53.7% of Brazilians (approximately 93 million people in 2000) were White and 39.1% Pardo or multiracial Brazilians; but in 2008 a new National Survey of Household was conducted, and the percentage of Brazilians who self-identified as “Brancos” diminished to 48.4% (92 million people), while the Pardos increased up to 43.8%.[75]

This significant percentage change is considered to be caused by people who used to identify themselves as White and now reappreciated their African and/or Amerindian and/or East Asian ancestry, and so they changed their self-identification to “Pardo” and “Asian” (also, the differences of income, life standards and birth/death rate between self-described fair-skinned and grayish-brown-skinned Brazilians — the literal meanings of branco and pardo, the predominant origin in both of these groups according to genetic research is race mixed with mostly European ancestry, from about 75% in the least European-descendant pardos to about 90% in the most European-descendant brancos according to the Brazilian region in which the study was done — can interfere in their growth rate, thus Brazilians of “racial minorities”, mainly the Pardo, the only one which surpass 10%, would being surpassing White Brazilians not only by a change of identity but also by birth rate).

About Royal Rosamond Press

I am an artist, a writer, and a theologian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.