• CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Again, recency is relative. And arguing recency on an ever changing subject is weird imho.
    You could also argue that it didn’t change that much, since most of the key characteristics didn’t change, only who fulfills these.

    For the record, I was trying to add to your comment

    That did not come across.

      • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        You didn’t get my point. When the legal definition changes from “people X is white” to “people Y is white”, that does not necessarily chance on what characteristics the definition is based. It just means that the perception of who fulfills these characteristics changed. And historically, not being white usually was depending on a people or culture being perceived as (for example) “brutish”, “uncivilised”, “less intelligent” etc. These characteristics have not changed much.

        • Jiral@lemmy.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          Can you point me to a non-US source showing that Italians (or rather people from the area of modern day Italy) were debating or thinking about concepts like “whiteness” in the 17th century? (Or really at any time). I am really curious where those debates among members of a country or realm were using that as a category in discussions or considerations.