#white nationalism mention

[aparrotandaqrow]

Eric Ward touches on a very useful idea as well, "conditional whiteness". That and the related concept of proximity to whiteness are I think quite useful for understanding how a particular segment of Ashkenazi Jews move through American race relations, as well as how we're actually not so different from the Irish and Italians (and why that still doesn't make us white).

Conditional whiteness is the idea that a racialized minority can be offered some of the physical and financial security of whiteness, in exchange for meeting certain conditions. Those conditions are usually the adoption of Christian holidays, practices, and rituals, no longer speaking non-white languages, participation in American consumerism and the commercialization of holiday traditions, and, crucially, participation in white supremacy and the white supremacist side of society being willing to tolerate your privilege.

You absolutely do see some Ashkenazi Jews who are very white-passing who would be indistinguishable from their Lutheran neighbors except that they also have a cheap electric menorah next to their Christmas tree, and maybe their kids have bnei mitzvot (the only time they'll go to synagogue). They benefit from white privilege in many aspects of life, especially if their surnames aren't identifiably Jewish. But the cost of that privilege and physical safety is the destruction of their culture, being willing to ally themselves with their white neighbors against the less-desirable minorities, and they still can lose that whiteness at a moment's notice.

There may and often does come a point when the assimilated conditionally white Jews stop being useful idiots for the white supremacists, and that conditional whiteness is stripped away, and suddenly even being a white-passing Jew isn't safe. Yes, some Ashkenazi Jews are able to hide in plain sight. But tell me, is needing to hide your identity by becoming invisible, to avoid ethnic persecution, is that something white people need to do? This is why Jews can only ever be conditionally white (and only a small subset of Jews) (and part of the condition is the erasure of those other Jews) (you can't say "some Jews are white" you must say "all Jews are white" if you want to meet the entry requirements) (part of the bargain is not just the enactment of white supremacy against other minorities but also against your own people).

And this is why we can also draw useful comparisons to Irish and Italian Americans. Their lot has certainly improved quite dramatically in the last century. But stereotypes do still exist (there are sports teams called The Fighting Irish) (white people associate Irishness and alcohol abuse, c.f. St Patrick's Day) (Italians often face microaggressions about organised crime). And the cost of the safety and whiteness they have garnered came at a cost—not only their own, non-American, non-white cultures, but participation in white supremacy. The main difference between Ashkenazi Jews and the Irish and Italians is that Ashkenazi Jews started from a lower rung on the ladder, and our move to proximity to whiteness and its conditional safety started later. It's true you don't see Jews in the KKK, but there are a shocking number of Jews in Trump's inner circle, and some of them sound pretty white nationalist. There may not be Jews in the KKK yet—but if we continued down the same path of conditional whiteness, there could be.

Now personally I don't think that will happen. I think Jews may be too far down the ladder to ever be granted that much conditional whiteness, and current events in the middle east are serving to keep us in the spotlight in a way that inhibits further conditional whiteness (notice how the Left paints us both as white colonizers and simultaneously explicitly ties our physical safety to abandoning our identity, heritage, and claim to indigeneity) (white supremacy has nothing to do with politics) (in this sense Jews who align themselves with JVP are not particularly different from Stephen Miller in the context of moves to proximity to whiteness). But the dynamic and relationship Ashkenazi Jews have with whiteness is actually very similar to the one Irish and Italian Americans have; they're just a very different stage in that process. Which is also why, as an Ashkenazi Jew with predominantly Irish ancestry on my mother's side, I wouldn't characterize Irish Americans as fully white, either. White people aren't subjected to appropriation of their ethnic heritage and culture, ethnic microaggressions, nor have a history of being ethnically cleansed by white people.

I'm sorry but if Sami people can be understood as other-than-white and lighter featured First Nations people can be understood as other-than-white and individuals of our sisters the Romani when similarly afflicted by melanin deficiency can be understood as other-than-white....

Your classification of Jews, who span the whole gamut of color but share the racialization and experience of being othered among any majority, including whiteness in the north/west, is only further evidence of your racism. Because in doing so you continue to perpetuate double standards for Jewish people, which is dangerous when merged with perspectives that view whiteness as a merit signifier. Not that our identity isn't a fair bit older than this pretty reductive view, but

Regardless, I'll remind that the minority indigenous groups I mentioned are in the context of a white majority, but white people do not have a monopoly on colonialism. Plenty of people don't want to be called Arab in MENA and plenty of people aren't sure that they'd classify themselves as Chinese or Russian in the sense that the West views national identity. But that kind of nuance probably isn't something I should bother with if we haven't made it past point 1.

[noperopesaredope]

Currently working on a video essay on Ever After High in which I talk about:

Classism (so much classism)

The poverty to prison pipeline

Religious abuse

Religious nationalism

The relationship between race and poverty (in the US)

American systemic racism

The history of racial oppression in the US

White privilege

Racial purity

And a general analysis in which I discuss how some of the themes in EAH relate to real world systemic oppression.

What the hell is wrong with me.

[llyfrenfys]

Sooner or later I've gotta make a better post regarding the appropriation of indigenous terminology by proponents of (certain kinds of) Welsh nationalism. But for now here's a very whistle-stop version of that post. I have a degree in Celtic Studies so these topics are very near and dear to my heart.

[Note: I wrote this post originally during a migraine. I'm revisiting the draft while I'm ill but hopefully can fix this up into something somewhat understandable. As always, this is only a very brief description of the history and I strongly reccomend reading about these topics in your own time to develop a deeper understanding of them. These are topics not even well known in Britain, but if you can spend a short time just to read this, you can help to combat misinformation about British (particularly Welsh) history - and that could aid in preventing the misappropriation of history in the long run. Diolch eto for reading!]

Very often, (certain) Welsh nationalists use terminology that positions the Welsh as if they are an 'indigenous' population who have been 'colonised'. They use language (which in this climate) heavily draws upon the language typically used for peoples who are the victims of British colonialism (of which Wales was an active participant). There's multiple issues with this and many of them lie in whether its appropriate to use this language (regardless of its accuracy or not) as a country which was actively involved in the colonisation of much of the world. What I mean in short is that additional language is needed which doesn't step on the toes of endangered cultures and groups directly affected by British colonialism.

Wales not only participated in British colonialism as a whole (alongside Scotland, Ireland* and England) but itself colonised parts of patagonia in Argentina.

I can't think of any similar terminology to 'indigenous' or 'colonised' which would also get the idea which is meant across. 'Native' in certain contexts is permissible, e.g. 'native speaker' in the context of a Welsh speaker. But in other contexts other than langauge, things get tricky when you argue 'nativeness' (this is a topic I will come back to - especially re. Celtic as a language descriptor vs Celtic as a so-called ethnicity). When (certain) Welsh nationalists talk about being 'indigenous' , being 'native' or 'colonised' what is meant by that?

(Map of the expansion of the Bronze Age Bell Beaker culture circa 2400 BC in Britain and Ireland) - from this map

What makes a Welsh person 'indigenous' to this island that doesn't immediately disqualify other peoples who also have a deep history here? Historically, the island of Britain has been lived on by many, many peoples.

In the Bronze Age you had the arrival of the Bell Beaker people. Then in the Iron-Age, you had tribes speaking (mostly) Brittonic. I say mostly, because we have direct evidence that in the Iron Age Gaulish speaking tribes also moved to parts of Britain but later became integrated with the rest of the population (which, I will add, were not a united peoples but a scattering of different groups who often went to war against each other). Then the Romans invaded Britain (and much of Western Europe) and over time integrated into the local population. So now Britain is Romano-British. Eventually the Western Roman Empire collapses and Britain enters into the sub-Roman Britain phase of its existence. Kingdoms begin to form, with the population speaking Brittonic and British-Latin. So you have different kingdoms in (what would become Wales) and in (what would become Northern England and Southern Scotland) you have more Brittonic-speaking kingdoms.

These kingdoms were also not a united peoples. They shared a language - but it's like claiming that Ancient Greeks were a united people simply because they all spoke Greek. Sparta, Athens, Cornith etc. were independent of each other and the same is true of the kingdoms of the Hen Ogledd (the Old North) and the kingdoms of Wales. They all had a common language but also went to war with each other sometimes. Eventually, the Brittonic language began to diverge into different languages. Namely, Old Welsh and Cumbric (the language spoken in what is today Cumbria, Lancashire, Northumberland and Southern Scotland). The two languages were still very closely related but had diverged by a certain point.

At the same time this is happening, Anglo-Saxons begin to arrive in what is now Kent. They form kingdoms and the Britons living there are either displaced or become absorbed into the Anglo-Saxon populace. Then the Norse rock up and conduct viking raids around the coast before finally settling in parts of the country and forming their own territories.

So now Britain has several groups living on the island (keeping in mind even before settlement from the Anglo-Saxons and the Norse that the British kingdoms were already composed of different groups themselves). Northern Scotland was also having a time re: Picts, Gaels and Britons - but we'll gloss over that for brevity. Also, Ireland was also raiding the Welsh coast at this time too.

Then the Normans rock up and in 1066 William the Conqueror, well, conquers. More history happens after this point but I will try and keep this as brief and as non-messy as I can.

So, to recap:

One of the earliest cultures in Britain was the Bell Beaker people in the Bronze Age. They had their lands settled by the Iron Age Britons ('Celts'). Then the Romans came and the 'Celts' became Romano-Britons. After the Western Roman Empire collapses the remaining population forms kingdoms with distinct political identities. These kingdoms eventually find themselves fighting the Anglo-Saxons and the Norse. Then the Normans turn up and so on and so forth.

So- which group is the original native group to Britain? (Trick question - this question cannot be satisfactorily answered in favour of one group without leaning into claims of historicity which the other groups can also claim).

Which brings me to modern Welsh identity and those who came before.

Something I see in Welsh nationalist groups is a claim to the legacy (or even claims of direct descendance from) the Iron Age Britons (commonly called Celts for shorthand, but as I said before I'm gonna get back to that point). And this narrative is what the "Welsh people are native to Britain" argument is based off of.

It may seem like #praxis to argue the Welsh people are the true inhabitants of Britain and the English are evil invaders. But you have to make *several* logical leaps to get to that point if you're genuinely arguing that point.

For starters, many more people than just the Britons (read: Romano Britons/early Brittonic kingdoms) have called Britain home since the Early Middle Ages. For example, there's the settlement of Scotland by the Gaels, the Irish settlement of certain parts of costal Wales. You have (much later) Roma and traveller groups, Jewish diaspora and many more diverse cultures and peoples existing in Britain at this time. The Romano-British population, which developed into the Early Middle Ages kingdoms of Wales and the Hen Ogledd, was also multicultural. Many black Romans started families with white Britons. By the sub-Roman period, Britain was ethnically and culturally diverse.

But those who argue in favour of a such thing as 'Celtic ethnicity' in order to support the idea Britons (and only Britons) were native to these islands typically imagine that history as white. White Brits, white Romans, white Gaels. When we know this isn't true. Did you know that the Northernmost Ancient Egyptian temple in the world is in Yorkshire because Roman Egyptians in the military brought their religion with them? Mary Beard did a fantastic documentary about a Roman Soldier from modern day Syria who was stationed at Hadrian's Wall who started a family with a British woman. Point is, that some people like to imagine a purely white Britain that they can pine for. And I'm afraid it simply isn't true. The version of history many white supremacists look to simply didn't exist.

I'll quickly bring up one last point before I draw this to a close. And it's about Celtic as a linguistic term vs Celtic as a so-called ethnicity. You see, any first year Celtic Student would tell you that there is no such thing as 'Celts'. Crazy, I know from people studying *Celtic* studies. But hear me out - there is good reasoning why (beyond language groups) Celtic is not a good term for describing an ethnic group. Much of it relates to what I've already mentioned, but we categorise Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Mann, Cornwall and Brittany as Celtic not because of the ethnicity of the people living there (which I've mentioned is pretty diverse) but because they are all places where Celtic languages are spoken. It wasn't until Edward Llwyd (d. 1709) that the term Celtic was coined to describe these languages. Up until that point, nobody was thinking of Irish and Welsh as related because the languages do not sound like they have a common origin. By extension, people didn't think of the Welsh and Irish as being the same peoples (or Celtic) either. Its only in the modern day there is a sense of Celtic identity. The Iron Age Britons were not going around calling themselves Celts. There was no common Celtic identity. But very often people argue Celticness based on a pseudohistory which insists on a false and misleading interpretation of history. Whether or not Celticness exists now is a different matter entirely. But it sure does not rest upon race or ethnicity as a qualifier. This is quite foundational stuff to first year and above Celtic Scholars, but is not generally well known outside of academia because the misinformation is quite strong. So if you read is far, diolch mawr and please share this with anyone you think might be interested in it. Any amount of knowledge of these things would greatly improve understanding of what it means to be Welsh and what it means to speak a Celtic language.

Lastly,

all of that begs us to ask the question:

What does it mean to claim nativeness in a Western European context?

More under the cut

What does it mean to claim nativeness in a Western European context? Especially in a Western Europe post-colonialism.

It means, to me, to claim what isn't our right to claim. To argue and make our points with language that isn't ours and isn't designed to be ours. That this language of indigeneity may sound appealing, but is it improper to use this terminology when our country was directly responsible for the atrocities in which this very language became relevant?

What do we do in response to the misinterpretation of our culture instead of relying on language of indigeneity? These are the questions I want to leave you with and invite you to share your thoughts on. How do we build a Wales which advocates for itself without relying upon inaccurate language which betrays a reliance upon the ahistorical to make its point?

What kind of Wales do we want to live in?

[kittykatninja321]

On both a watsonian and doylist level Dick Grayson is white passing

[orcelito]

Guys I've been watching Buzzfeed Unsolved (as you do) and then I saw the thing on Pythian Castle in the recommendations. And I was like "Huh. That's got the same word as the sword I got yesterday."

WELL GUESS WHAT,

It's got the peace lily symbol and everything 😭😭😭😭😭

This is insane. Like I must've watched this episode before, but I have no real memory of it. Yet here I am, finding it again the direct day after I bought a sword from someone in their group hdkshfjd

Crazy coincidence

[coochiequeens]

Dear English doctors - Biological males can’t get pregnant and there is no such thing as a “girl penis”. Please spend less time on worrying about language that appeases narcissistic men and more time improving care for women and babies.

England’s National Health Service (NHS) has put forward a £100,000 contract to create a “gender-inclusive” maternity care training program based on research guided by a trans-identified male who has claimed that men can give birth and that “pre-operative trans women” have “girl penises.”

On December 16, the NHS quietly released an Invitation to Quote for the “Maternity Gender Inclusion Program,” with a listed closing date for pilot submissions set for January 11th, 2023.

The contracted program is set to be rolled out to midwives in maternity departments across 40 NHS Trusts in England, and would be based on the findings of the Improving Trans Experiences of Maternity Services (ITEMS) research project, which was co-authored by a trans-identified male and is alleged to have “significant” flaws in its methodology.

With Woman, a maternity care advocacy coalition, penned an open letter highlighting the “flawed” research within the ITEMS publications, and has called for a complete pause on the contract offering entirely.

Speaking with Reduxx, a spokeswoman from With Woman raised multiple concerns, especially with the entirety of the program’s focus appearing to be on “inclusive” language and not improvements in medical care for a traditionally complex cohort. 

With Woman noted that even the Invitation to Quote appears fixed, with the very short contracting and funding window raising suspicion. With Woman indicated their belief that there may be organizations already lined up to take the contract as the time frames are too brief for uninvolved organizations to adequately prepare a pilot.

The ITEMS report, which is being used as a justification for the need for the program, based its findings on the responses of just 121 people. The report determined that “birthing people” were improperly cared for because they were “misgendered,” and made unsubstantiated claims that 30% of “trans parents” secretly gave birth at home with no medical intervention.

The report was co-authored by Dr. Ruth Pearce, a trans-identified male Lecturer in Community Development at Glasgow University.

Pearce played a significant role in the direction of the ITEMS research. Pearce’s work focuses on “trans pregnancy” and “Queer, Trans and Feminist music scenes.” 

In an essay posted on to his website, Pearce asserts that he is more attractive and confident than biological women.

“Quite frankly, I bet a whole load of women would love to be as confident and good looking as I am. I’ve got a pretty face, great hair, fantastic legs, and I’ve recently grown some rather shapely breasts.” He is also known for having once fronted a “queer feminist rage” music group through which he sang a song about his scrotum.

In an August 2022 video titled “Reproductive Justice for Trans People With Ruth Pearce and Francis White,” Pearce explains the focus of his work on ITEMS, policy and language surrounding “trans birth” and the need to highlight transgender people having children to counter the claims that a “trans child” may not reproduce, and to create media that contradicts Abigail Shrier’s claims that child transition can lead to “irreversible damage” of fertility. 

Pearce called attention in particular to a phenomenon known as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, which was coined by Lisa Littman and referenced by Jungian analyst and author Lisa Marchiano in a 2017 academic article titled “Outbreak: On Transgender Teens and Psychic Epidemics.” 

In the article, Marchiano examines the role of social media in the sudden rise in teens claiming a gender identity, stating: “a young person’s coming out as transgender is often preceded by increased social media use and/or having one or more peers also come out as transgender.”

Pearce mocked the concept of children learning of transgender identities on social media, but later contradicted himself by discussing the issue in the presentation segment titled “We Are the Virus: Reproduction via Social Contagion.” 

In the segment, Pearce asserted the need to help transgender-identifying people to not only sexually reproduce, but also to “socially reproduce” by means of altering medical language and policy to introduce the idea of transition to children and adults as a form of “reproductive justice,” thereby creating more transgender people.

In the video, Pearce acknowledged that social contagion is the method by which transgenderism proliferates, stating: “Alexis Davin noted that the very process that Lisa Marchiano and Abigail Shrier described as a social contagion is the means by which trans people engage in a form of social reproduction. We become visible to one another and introduce one another to a language that makes sense of our lives and our needs.”

Later in the seminar he continued, “I’ve been thinking a lot about social contagion because it’s the language of the anti-trans movement. But… the exact thing they’re describing is the exact means by which we reproduce ourselves.”

During the seminar, Pearce described the work he did with Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals (BSUH) NHS Trust, arguing for the need for “Gender Inclusive Language” to create “Language as Possibility” and posters that act as apparent recruitment advertising for the political transgender movement. Pearce elaborated by saying, “in Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals, that’s a really interesting example of queer spaces of care being created through an institution rather than through more radical networks.”

Pearce’s involvement with the ITEMS research, as well as its use to justify an NHS maternity program, comes less than one year after NHS negligence was found to have been responsible for the needless deaths of over 200 babies and 9 mothers at at Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust. According to internal investigations, “repeated failures in the quality of care and governance” was to blame for the deaths, which spanned over 2 decades, with an additional 1,486 families and 1,592 incidents being recorded as a result of inadequate maternity care oversight.

Reduxx has previously revealed how errors and confusion arose due to the use of inaccurate medical language which led to midwifery students at Napier University in Edinburgh being taught how to care for males giving birth through penises and prostates. 

According to a course workbook, students were advised: “It is important to note that while most times the birthing person will have female genitalia, you may be caring for a pregnant or birthing person who is transitioning from male to female and may still have external male genitalia.”

[churro-on-a-unicycle]

hey so are we ever going to talk about how much ares murdered like half of the designs from the original series or what. Like what is this

[rubberduckyrye]

I fell down a rabbit hole about Italian heritage and I think I've hurt myself in confusion--

[ei-mugi]

one time i was talking to my american online friends about stuff and i was like "haha yeah people always say i look ambiguously european but cant place what i am specifically" and they were like "i dont think europeans have a look though." what do you mean. you dont believe different ethnic features exist...?

[andromedasummer]

the problem i have with lord of the rings is that as long as it continues to be a cash cow for peter jackson he stays relevant and continues to be the massive cunt he is. fucking twisting the arm of the government alongside warner bros to remove union protection for film workers. bolstering his mates cv by convincing people to vote for him as our mayor only for him to do fuck all to help out and bounce to take a cushy job in our hard-right govt. bitch and moan and use his money to prevent projects in lyall bay because he doesnt want more houses to ruin his property value when we're in a fucking housing crisis. hate that bitch and his mediocre films.

[mithliya]

https://www.tumblr.com/competentwoman/714142792908193792

thoughts?

leave it to TRAs to spew the most ice cold, ignorant takes without actually reading into what they criticise (beyond the header, of course)...

So for this cisgender woman with naturally high testosterone (and/or an intersex condition, I do not know her specific condition and it's honestly none of my business)

it takes one quick search to find out that yes, christine mboma is intersex. it also takes a quick search to find out that not every intersex athlete is impacted by these rules. the ones impacted are intersex women with XY chromosomes and testosterone levels above 3 nmol/L, and a list of specific intersex conditions.

has to be be forced to take the same testosterone suppressing medications that these same competitive regulatory committee said wasn't good enough to suppress trans women's testosterone to allow them to compete in women's sports.

its ironic the same people who pretend to care for intersex people are the same ones making false equivalences rooted in intersexism. yes, a literal male who decided to transition is not the same as an intersex woman with XY chromosomes. intersex conditions affecting those that are genetically male but assigned female affects the way their body reacts to testosterone. someone who had a normal male puberty vs an intersex woman whose body does not process testosterone normally and thus did not have a normal male puberty are obviously completely different things. these intersex women have female bodies and genitalia, their bodies developed this way because their body did not undergo the puberty that non-intersex males like trans women have.

If she has naturally high testosterone, similar to that that trans women experience in their lives pre-transition then wouldn't she have the same advantages that a trans woman supposedly inherently has and can not be corrected with said testosterone suppression?

no, because trans women did not simply have 'naturally high testosterone', they had testosterone within the male range, experienced male puberty, have male biology, and their bodies process testosterone the way any average male body would. intersex women can have high testosterone that still isnt within the male range, have female biology, and their body does not process testosterone the way any average male bodies would. for this reason, a male that transitioned after puberty and an intersex woman who simply has higher testosterone and XY chromosomes are not the same category. the intersexism in this post is off the charts

Like, no one should have to undergo forced medical treatment to be able to compete or to make it "fair" for their competition. Other athletes have all kinds of natural advantages, like Michael Phelps having an abnormal wingspan and larger lungs and heart. In fact, every high level athlete has some kind of physical advantage, that's how they're such high level athletes. You think the people they beat out for their spots just, what, didn't work as hard? Didn't grab those bootstraps tight enough? Fuck no.

this is such a false equivalence. yes, atheltes are already all outliers. in fact the regulations created already consider outliers bc the testosterone levels expected are way higher than that of the average woman. we can sit here debating all day over how actually athleticism in itself is unfair but at the end of the day, theres a reason the women's sports category was created and it was to include women who naturally are disadvantaged in terms of speed & strength when compared to men. arguing that there's no kind of unfairness and no one should have to undergo any kind of criteria to be able to compete is beyond ridiculous, as well as ignorant.

that said, i dont know if the regulations for intersex athletes have undergone thorough enough research and investigation and i think that world athletics needs to look deeper into that and see if making blanket categorical exclusions of intersex athletes isn't the wisest due to heterogeneity within those intersex conditions.

this person is clearly ignorant and doesn't know what they're talking about, at all, and they admitted to this from the beginning. and yet people blindly agreed w it lmao

[hightaled]

my schedule and my classes are so fucking awful and i am filled with more contempt and vitriol than ever this year

[navramanan]

white people just dont get meeee and i cant explain myself all the time

[llyfrenfys]

how is welsh not an ethnicity? /gen bc at this point i genuinely don't think i know what an ethnicity is! on forms it tends to be skin colour, but when i google it there's always an emphasis on culture.

This one is a bit of a sticky topic since it is a situation where the same words can mean slightly different things to different people and conflation between similar words is common.

I'm going to use a crochet metaphor for this since it is a non-problematic version of the same problem. So, in crochet, there are various different kinds of stitches, the most common being single and double crochet. However, in the US and the UK, there are terminology differences which can get confusing since they refer to similar (yet distinct) stitches. What is called 'Single Crochet' in the US is called 'Double Crochet' in the UK. And what the US calls 'Double Crochet' is called 'Treble Crochet' in the UK. This kind of thing happens all the time in various situations - be it a hobby, a topic or a concept, linguistic differences can arise in two or more groups which leads to all groups involved using the same terminology, but it meaning wildly different things to different people.

This is the situation when it comes to defining race and ethnicity. Like crochet, in the English-speaking world, the US uses the terms race and ethnicity differently to how the UK does it. Ditto for other Anglophone nations like Australia, New Zealand etc. But for simplicity I will just focus on the US and UK for now. [Note: there will be many caveats and nuanced things which will require a pinch of salt in my answer here, so do keep in mind I'm simplifying a lot here to avoid this post from getting too long]. This is also where I introduce a third term to the mix: Nationality. Nationality is our 'Treble Crochet' in this metaphor.

Ethnicity:

As you point out, on forms ethnicity sometimes is used to refer to skin colour, but in other circumstances there's more of an emphasis on culture. This is where the different people using the same terms for different things starts to cause problems. Using the forms example as a jumping off point, when you fill in a form and get to the section titled ethnicity, the options can often be quite confusing since some of them appear to refer to race, while others do not. In 2021 England and Wales had a census and the government made a list of ethnicities here from the results:

"The main changes to the 2021 Census of England and Wales, compared with the previous Census, were: -the ‘Roma’ group was added under the ‘White’ ethnic group -a write-in response was added for the ‘Black African’ ethnic group"

This, as you can probably see, already has Some Issues. For example, Roma are a distinct ethnic group, but have here been put under the category of white (which is a more racial classification), when many Roma would not identify this way. Some would identify this way- but the problem lies within the creation of rigid boxes with no room for overlap. Ethnicity as a concept overlaps with nationality a fair bit, since there is no agreed upon definition for either term. Things get complicated when some people approach ethnicity with solely race in mind, while others approach ethnicity with solely nationality in mind. Ethnicity can be informed by race and nationality- however - that can get sticky fast depending on context. Just focusing on Wales, however, I would argue Welshness is only informed by nationality and culture, not race. To argue there is a racial component to being Welsh would mean arguing that Welsh people have significant racial identifiers which distinguish them from the neighbouring Scottish and English- as well as the rest of Europe in general. And this, inevitably is how fascism happens. It also raises red flags to go down this road simply because by default, these arguments disqualify nonwhite people from being Welsh at all and we all know what happens when certain white traits are idolised over others...

On the other hand, considering ethnicity from a purely nationality and culture-based approach is much more suitable for Wales as it encapsulates what comes to mind when one thinks of Wales and Welshness. Welsh national dishes and traditional dress are not tied to race in any way. Race simply has not been significant to the formation of Welshness amongst its neighbours (England- more distantly Scotland and Ireland). Whereas race *is* significant to the conception of ethnicity of other nations in the world, such as Aboriginal Australians, whose modern conception of ethnicity is tied to their race in contrast with the arrival of white Australians. In other words, Aboriginal Australians are a racialised people while Welsh people are not. Ergo, it is a highly individual thing as to whether certain nations find race important to their ethnic identity or not.

Official forms may list "White, Welsh" as an option for ethnicity, however, this does not imply that white Welsh people are a separate race to "White, English", "White, Scottish" or "White, Northern Irish" or vice versa, it is more of an appeasement by the government in the census to allow people from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be able to identify as Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish where they ordinarily would have to begrudgingly select "British". That being said, the government should add "Black, Welsh" etc. options as well, but their absence here is governmental laziness than anything else (they have a box on the census to 'write-in' any ethnicity option not available on the list) so that avoids them from having to formally add in these as options. The bottom line is- it is not possible to be 'racially ethnically Welsh' but it is possible to be 'culturally ethnically Welsh'. Despite this, the latter designation is shied away from simply because 'ethnically Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish' in any context is a dogwhistle used by white supremacists. Most people tend to identify as Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish without any racial component to that identity for this reason.

Nationality:

Nationality is a little easier to define (but cannot be pinned down 100% for a few reasons) but the simplest definition of nationality relates to the country you were born in or are a citizen of. Nationality is not fixed and can change. However, the problems with defining nationality this way is that there are many nations which are not recognised as such internationally. Take Wales for an example- Wales is a country or a nation but it is part of the United Kingdom, which is a State. Here too is where a US/UK divide springs up, since in the US state can refer to the individual States which make up the US. While elsewhere State generally refers to a country or nation with international recognition on the world stage. The US is a State, so is the UK in this metric.

[Important to note that the US is not the only country to have states within it- the system of states within a country is called Federalism and many countries have this system. E.g. Australia has many states, but none of those states are separate countries. Neither are US states (i.e. Oregon is not a separate entity to the US on an international level- it does not send diplomats to the rest of the US or other countries, for example. Ergo it is a constituent part of the US, not separate to it. Ditto the other 48 states on Mainland America. Hawaii is *different*). Part of the confusion stems from the tendency for Americans to view their states as if they were separate countries within a regional organisation, however, this is a misunderstanding of Federalism. Many Americans point to the EU and assume the EU is a country with lots of little European 'states' (small 's') within it. This is false- the EU is essentially just a club the European countries are part of. It's like saying NATO is a country- if you understand how that wouldn't make sense, that's also how calling the EU a country doesn't make sense. Members of the EU like Germany also have Federalism- e.g. Germany has 16 states.]

Back to the point- Wales is a nation which exists within the UK alongside England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is possible to get a passport as a citizen of the United Kingdom, but impossible to get a Welsh, English, Scottish or Northern Irish passport. The same way you can get a US passport but not a Maine passport etc. The stickiness lies within the fact that Wales is indisputably a nation, but legally it is not possible to be a citizen of Wales. All people who live or are born in Wales are citizens of the United Kingdom by default. Therefore, defining nationality strictly on where you're born or where you move to live is exclusionary of many nations that aren't Nations (capital 'N'). See also: the Native American Nations that exist within the US who also don't have international recognition as separate nations which can issue (legally recognised) passports. The goal of Welsh nationalism is to establish Wales as an independent country to the United Kingdom, similar to the Scottish independence movement for Scotland. Hence why someone's Nationality can be Welsh without Wales legally being a separate country.

Race:

I have touched on why race isn't relevant to Welshness already a little bit, but I will add a little more here too.

There is a tendency from many people in the US (specifying US as there seems to be a real culture for it there) to identify with a country they have an ancestor from. There isn't anything wrong with celebrating your own heritage. However, this is where the US and rest of the world tend to define things differently. It is not uncommon to find any European lamenting (some) Americans who identify as the country that European is from based purely on having one ancestor from that country hundreds of years ago. This is down to the US conception of race and the racial climate specific to the US (and only the US). E.g, you may get many people in the US who are proud Irish-Americans and go around claiming Irishness because of having 'Irish blood'* from their great-great-great-great grandmother on their father's side (*another dogwhistle which many who do this are not aware of). This, and it cannot be stressed enough, does NOT go down well in Europe. 'X country's blood' harks back to the conception of ethnicity which includes racial aspects- which as I've explained, is a white supremacist dogwhistle. It also very clearly has parallels with 'blood quantum'.

The other complication is that 'Irish-American' to a European would generally be understood to mean someone with dual nationality in Ireland and the US. This terminology is overwhelmingly US based and as such, US concepts of race butt heads with how it is defined in other parts of the world. E.g. in the US it has been common to refer to black Americans as African-American (regardless of how inaccurate that can be) to the point where the term black and African-American are synonymous. This leads to the black British actor Idris Elba being called African-American, when that makes no sense outside of a US context. Furthermore, UK and US terminology differs in other ways. The US uses the acronym POC to refer to People of Colour, while in the UK BAME is sometimes used for Black, Asian, Minority Ethnicities [caveat both have their own issues which we will not get into here].

Bringing this back to Welshness, there is no racial component to being Welsh, ergo race is not a factor in someone's Welshness.

Summary:

Ethnicity is something that may be informed by both race, culture and nationality, just race, just culture or just nationality. Whichever of those a given people has is informed by the historical evolution of the people and its relationship with other peoples. Certain combinations of the above are more suitable for certain peoples than others.

Nationality is something which is usually formally bestowed upon an individual based on either where they were born or if they move and naturalise as a citizen of somewhere different to where they were born. It can also be something which is informally adopted by a person living in or identifying with a nation not currently recognised as independent by the international community, but is nonetheless extant and may even be campaigning for Statehood. Lack of international recognition is not a barrier to national identity.

Race is something which is also bestowed at birth and consists of a set of traits or features associated with different racial groups, such as skin colour.

I hope that this has been useful and informative. Since you're on anon I don't know where you are from exactly, but I hope this at least leaves you feeling less confused. As with all things, there are many asterisks and pinches of salt, so do not take this for gospel. Rather think for yourself and do some research around some of the topics I've mentioned here to get more informed on the topic.

[labcoatsaresexy]

for reasons unknown to me, I was reading an right-wing essay that is attacking the CLT, or Classical Learning Test (a sorta-alt-righty christian nationalist rejiggering of the SAT, recently mandated for Florida teenagers) for being too woke and insufficiently white.

The whole essay is a trip, which I'm not gonna get into, but part of the author's point is that the classics (by which he means variously all sorts of European writing from roughly 1000BC-1600 CE) are incompatible with the values of the modern left. Which, sure, okay, that's an interesting argument. Don't know if it's true, but it's interesting.

But as an example, the author writhes:

"The poem from whose shadow the classical tradition can never escape is The Iliad... [In contrast to modern ideas about equality] it is a hymn to the excellence—the virtue—of a hero whose power surpassed that of a whole generation of heroes. Achilles and Odysseus alike—the two epic heroes, found no way to live as heroes worthy of worship while avoiding death."

Now, I'm no classicist, but I'm pretty darn sure that the take away from "sing the rage of Peleus’ son Achilles/ murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses/ hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls/ great fighters’ souls, but made their bodies carrion..." is not oh wow Achilles was such an upstanding dude deserving of worship!

[villalunae]

"the us is not a christian nation" says who. george washington?? thomas jefferson??? bilbo baggins?? u mean the bitches who u say we shouldnt care abt just cuz they wrote the constitution back in ye old swagless white boy days and their opinions dont matter to us anymore. u mean those bitches. and ur gonna believe their little dumb bitch asses when they say "the us is not a christian nation" Boy Do You Know What Bias Looks Like Cause Im Boutta Woop You With It