EXAMINING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE "WHITE"
ProgressiveU.org, CA
Dec 25 2006
There’s so much that could be discussed about when dealing with the
idea of "White" or "Whiteness". From what I’ve observed, the idea
of being "White" is strongest in Protestant Europe (Britain, the
Netherlands, etc.), and the people of Catholic Europe adhere to their
ethnic identity. I see "White" in the United States as a culture;
an Anglo-Saxon-based one. Of course, just like anywhere else, the
culture varies by class and region. However, being English-based,
this culture is not the traditional one you would imagine, like
Polish, Spanish, Italian or French, for example; but, rather, it’s
more individual-based, meaning that members of this group do not see
themselves as a collective. It’s a culture nevertheless.
White has different meanings. To me White is: 1. Person who is
genetically of European descent, in Europe, North, Central & South
America, the Caribbean, and South Africa; 2. In the United States,
a person of racially white origin who identifies as, and is perceived
by others as, "White," meaning is culturally part of the dominant
Anglo (English)-based American culture-as opposed to African-American
culture-to which non-English European immigrants had to assimilate in
order to not be ethnic. So I could say the following sentence and still
be correct: Penelope Cruz, Audrey Tautou, Brad Pitt, Alexis Bledel,
Gisele Bundchen, Fidel Castro are all white people; but of these,
only Brad Pitt is White-Penelope is Spanish, Audrey is French, Brad
Pitt is a White American, Alex Bledel is Latina, Gisele is Brazilian,
and Fidel Castro is Cuban.
According to Wikipedia, in Britain, whites are categorized under "White
British" (for those who are of English, Scottish, Welsh descent, and
even those from Northern Ireland who identify as ‘British’), "White
Irish" (for the ethnic Irish population living in Britain) and then
"White Other," (for anyone else of racially white ancestry). It’s
important to examine Britain’s current racial classification
system, simply because it was the English who colonized and created
neo-European societies in the United States, Canada, Australia and
New Zealand, where the concept of whiteness was imported to. In
Australia for example, being white means you’re "literally white,"
therefore making George Clooney, an Irish-American, non-white because
he has a dark complexion; even though here in the United States he
is considered white.
Consider this: in the blue states, where there’s more racial
diversity, someone could say to me "You look like you could be
European" But no one would ever say to me "You look like you could
be white". Why? Because the majority of racially white people in
the United States is not of Southern European ancestry-who tend to
have darker features than Northern and Central European people-but,
of Northwestern European ancestry. This isn’t to say that I’m not
of mixed racial origin; it’s just that phenotypically I look more
European than not.
As Americans, we have internalized what it means to be "white," but
most of us can’t define it, except by saying "it’s a person who has
a light complexion." However, it’s much more complicated than that.
"White" and "Latino" aren’t mutually exclusive in terms of race;
but in terms of culture, they are. That is why in the census forms
neither Hispanic nor Latino is included as race. When immigrants
like the Irish, the Italians, the Jews and the Germans, for example,
arrived to the United States, they were not considered White by "old
stock" Americans of English descent; though Germans were more easily
accepted as White than others. These people were deemed too ‘ethnic’.
In fact, "old stock" Americans even considered the Irish to be of a
different race. However, these people eventually came to be accepted
as White. How did that happen? They had to lose their "ethnic-ness"
through assimilation to the dominant Anglo-based culture in order
to become White. This is why in newspapers Whites are referred to
as "Anglos", just as newspapers refer to "Latinos" as Hispanics or
Latinos; Anglo does not refer to racial English ancestry, but, rather,
culture, just as neither Hispanic nor Latino denotes racial Spanish
or Portuguese (or French or Italian) ancestry, but culture-’cause you
can find a Latino of English ancestry or a White person of Spanish
ancestry. Finding a name like ‘Bernardo O’Higgins’ (Spanish first name,
Irish last name) should not strike one as weird, unless you consider
a name like "Bruce Willis" (English first name, German last name) just
as weird. We consider a name like "George Lopez" as a Latino name, but
we consider a name like "Steven Spielberg" as a White name-even though
both last names are of European origin. Interesting to think about.
What about Middle Easterners and North Africans? The fact of the matter
is, they are originally Mediterranean peoples, just like southern
Europeans. However, due to civilizational differences-that is, they
aren’t Western-they aren’t perceived as white. In addition, there
have been Viking invasions to these areas, thus making light-eyes
and light-hair a more common occurrence; in North Africa, mixture
with sub-Saharan Africans, who are black, has occurred.
The British and the Irish have Mediterranean ancestry, as well. In
fact, it has been stated that "genetic fingerprint of the populations
tested" in Britain, Ireland and Spain are "almost identical",
because of Iberian migration into what are now Britain and Ireland;
it makes sense: take a look at Welsh actress Catherine Zeta-Jones. A
lot of British people have Mediterranean facial structures, a thin
face with sharp facial features, but oftentimes with very fair skin,
light eyes, and light hair, like Hugh Laurie, who plays "Dr. House"
in "House." Why include this? Because I maintain that to be white,
one has to fit certain civilizational requirements, even though
genetically a Mediterranean European is similar to a Mediterranean
Persian, the latter probably being more likely to consider herself
"brown" as opposed to "white."
Lets look at the case of Armenians in the United States in the latter
part of the 20th century and now. For some background: Armenia was
the first country to adopt Christianity as its official religion;
their form of Christianity is Armenian Orthodox, as opposed to
Western European Roman Catholicism and the various Protestant
Churches. Armenian-Americans at my high school were perceived as
different from the Whites at my high school, due to differences in
phenotype and culture; but they were racially white nevertheless.
Aside from the obvious, why and how was this distinction able to
be made? Like I said before, we’ve internalized what it means to
be "White" and how to tell someone is "White". Just like in Latin
America, an outsider’s, and self, perception matters here. If an
Armenian-American dressed in Abercrombie and Hollister, had an
"American" name, spoke without an accent, we would perceive him or
her as White. However, if this person spoke with an accent, had an
Armenian name, and dressed a certain way, we would perceive this person
as "ethnic," as non-white. Seeing as how many Armenians-at least in
Los Angeles proper-are 1st generation Americans or recently-arrived
immigrants, including them in applications and census forms as white
hides the problems this community faces in terms of access to higher
education, among other things, as they have not achieved whiteness
yet. In fact, given its history and difference from Western European
countries, I’m not sure it’ll happen.
In conclusion, "Whiteness" or being "White" is totally a socially
constructed idea. One’s whiteness is mostly, if not completely,
contingent upon an outsider’s perception. In this country, you
have to fit certain criteria in order to be considered White, which
is synonymous to White American, which means Anglo-American. It’s
something that’s changing.