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

    I was maybe not clear about it, by non-US source I was talking about historical studies and works not done by US Americans. So, no need to tell me that the US did not exist in the 17th century. Studying “whiteness” is a very US American thing, and the easiest way to prevent such bias is to look at work from elsewhere. But let’s take that Michigan/North Carolinian anthropologisat for a second. What you describe there is purely external, concerning colonies, not the homeland.

    From what you describe it does not appear, that even in Italy, people were classifying people as white and non-white amont the domestic, non-immigrant population. Not in the 17th century. Now, in the 19th century of course you have the rise of modern racism but even in those works you quote it sounds like they were not separating local non-immigrant population of Italian speaking regions into populated by white and non-white.

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

        And none of them are differentiating the local non-immigrant population into white and black groups, are they?

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

          Yes, they do as far as I read about them. Btw, I am not your damn personal search engine, nor your AI summariser. If you are interested in this, research it.