don't have time to read the whole thing, but this really incorrect thing jumped out at me: "if Frank Salter’s volume On Genetic Interests is correct. According to Salter, studies have found that no more than 20% of European genetic material is derived from Near Eastern infusions"
salter was writing 20 years ago. our understanding of the genetic origins of europeans have been radically revolutionized in the last generation (salter's assertion is "not even wrong").
if you are going to have someone write about "white identity" maybe have them be at least cursorily fluent in the latest archeogenetics. we don't need to speculate, we have facts. if you can't even get the biological basics correct, who cares about the rest? (or maybe not, it's all cultural identity? idk)
The Middle Eastern haplogroup J seems to have been absent from the Anatolian farmers but is very common in southern Europe today, wouldn't this indicate a Middle Eastern tribal conquest of southern Europe after the Anatolian one but before the Indo-European conquest?
Thank you, that's interesting. I knew the three groups, but not that the percentages had been nailed down in that way.
I think much of what the author says comports with what we broadly assume about the Yamnaya... at least in the first part of the essay. But then his latter conclusions don't fit with this, which is why -- as per my criticism above -- I think he's retconning "white" to fit too easily with democratic/liberal society. Any meaningful description of "whiteness" would have to include not just agrarian tendencies, but primitive and barbaric ("herdsmen") ones as well.
Incidentally, and in regard to the connection of this issue to Russia/Ukraine, I appreciated the piece you did a couple of years back on Russian and Ukrainian genetics. I can't say I've kept up since then, but I go back to that piece and have recommended it to others. Did you ever revisit it or find new/surprising data?
Russian cultural differences mainly stem from the fact that it is a frontier Empire. If you dig deeper, all the epic Russian myths are about the kings and their heroic warriors.
Mongols have left practically zero genetic trace in the Russian populace. Not much cultural imprint, too.
However being a frontier state, and being a subject of constant raids by Tatars (~1.5 million of Eastern Slavs were captured and enslaved) shaped the national character. As influences go, Poland, Eastern Roman Empire and Iran had more. Why Iran – look at the National Armory exposition.
Authoritarianism of the modern Russia is grossly exagerrated here. Authoritarism in historical Europe is conversely ignored.
I think I agree with the central thesis here, if not quite the way it's hashed out.
There is no good reason for white identitarians to be bothered by the so-called "clinal" objection. Human races are not mere agglomerations of genes, but functionally interrelated sets of dispositions, traits, biological features. Admittedly, these relationships are difficult to describe in full, but cultural analysis of the sort the author does is one indispensable aspect of any good description.
My quibble is in the way he does this in particular with respect to a would-be "Orthodox/Western" break. There's something stubbornly whiggish in the latter parts of this essay's analysis, taking its bearings too much from latter European history, and even, from a particular slant on the current Russia-Ukraine problem. The argument seems to be that Russia is "autocratic," a singular exemplar in the "Orthodox" category, standing against the underlying liberal-democratic impetus of the west, and by extension, "whiteness."
For one, this sits uneasily against “the aristocratic warlike culture of Indo-European speakers” cited favorably earlier in the article. Was Locke expressing fundamentally whiteness, or was Plato? Careful how you answer, because the Russian can with some good justification object that Locke is a mere flavor, and a passing one at that. Further, he can can adduce most of Catholic civilization, and indeed a lot of Protestant authoritarian culture as additional data in his favor.
It's all well and good to quibble over Jews, Albanians, and Georgians. But the more salient and portentous case here is the Greeks, who would certainly object to having Russians as the Orthodox avatar.
The underlying assumption of this poorly argued essay is Whiteness = Liberalism. It is a spit to the face of every person of European heritage. A racial identity cannot be reduced to a political preference for certain institutions, for if that was the case, African and Asian liberals could also be categorized as White.
A White identity is biological racial consciousness. Nothing else.
"There is no civilisational fault line that runs through Ukraine, as evidenced by the occurrence of war with Russia and the non-occurrence of any endemic split in Ukrainian society."
The war between Russia and Ukraine is a proxy war. The United States initiated it in an effort to maintain a unipolar hegemony.
Alexis de Tocqueville was quite short-sighted when he wrote, 'The American struggles against obstacles that nature opposes to him; the Russian is grappling with men. The one combats the wilderness and barbarism; the other, civilization clothed in all its arms. Consequently the conquests of the American are made with the farmer’s plow, those of the Russian with the soldier’s sword.' That sure is not the case for the last hundred years.
"As I have argued in an earlier article, we Jews are fundamentally a European ethnic group. Accordingly, I would classify us as “white” in the present sense."
The Russia = Asia, Ukraine = Europe thesis is contradicted by the fact that Belarus was exposed to all of these Western institutions and unlike Ukraine wasn't even in the Mongol Empire but never managed to become a democracy even in the 1990s unlike Russia, and is in general still more authoritarian than Russia.
Furthermore, Russia started off as an authoritarian slave state ruled by Vikings in which all (including people) was the property of the Knyaz, while serfdom largely occurred after the Tatar Yoke and has been greatly expanded over the Romanov German monarchy.
Also, the Mongols have never ruled Russia to the same degree that Poland ruled had Ukraine, they have collected tribute, stole manpower and picked rulers. That's it.
The Mongolian thesis is further complicated by the fact that it was a secular and tolerant society with a decentralized structure while Russia was a hyper-centralized religious and intolerant state.
Also Europe embraced democracy in the 20th century, it would be pretty dumb to determine racial classification in accordance to a preferred form of government. Under this logic a far more authoritarian National-Socialist German state would not be considered White. which questions the entire assumptions and motivations of this post.
I live in Russia and, you know, some of my compatriots have a way of laughing at the ideas of a "common white identity of Europeans." Usually people say something like "ahaha, idiot, they don't consider us real white people" or "Hitler didn't consider us Aryans and wanted to genocide us all."
I usually tried to dispute this, assuming that the very concept of white is determined by genetics, and people who claim that "Russians are Asians" are representatives of peoples historically offended by Russians, like Poles, with whom Russians had conflicts for many centuries in a row and in the end Russia rather won.
But maybe my compatriots were right. The article is actually funny - Georgians with an IQ of about 90, who have genetic differences from Europeans and a social status in Russia like Latin American immigrants in the United States, presumably have a more "European" country, because the freedom house rating evaluates them more positively. I was thinking of writing about Ukraine, but that would be too much text.
It seems that Westerners really like to rationalize foreign policy conflicts with such articles. Interestingly, if a dictator like Francisco Franco had seized power in Spain again sometime in the late 1990s, achieving economic growth and arguing with the United States in international politics, "international policy experts" would also have written articles saying that Spaniards are historically characterized by authoritarianism because they were once captured by Muslims, and Catalan separatists are "real Europeans who have become familiar with the institutions of Western Europeans."
[44] There have been some token “separatist” activities in Ukraine’s eastern provinces, but these were orchestrated by Moscow rather than homegrown. Indeed, many locals proved impressively resistant to such astroturfing attempts.'
This is nonsense. And a rather poor attempt at 'explaining' one of the many regions where the empires of the Russians, Ottomans and Habsburgs are still culturally alive.
Then again, almost the entire western political- and media class seems to reside in some post-historical sphere (i can't write 'bubble', those are reserved for climate deniers (sic), populist voters and transphobes. God, i have so many identities...).
As Yanukovych fled during the Maidan revolt and the remaining parliamentarians did not follow the constitution but rather cooked up Victoria Nuland's 'recipes', the east and south did not see a democratic revolution, they saw a coup. And thus similar to the Maidan events protesters in Odessa occupied gov buildings in revolt against what they saw as a decisively west Ukrainian take over of UA politics. Those occupied buildings were attacked by hooligans, cops etc The result was that a few dozen anti gov protesters were burned alive.
In the west facts like these are now considered 'pro Putin propaganda'. So much for the rational, reasonable Home of the Truth (i believe that's how Von der Leyen titles her wet dreams. While Thierry Breton titles his 'i am the truth. So shut up or risk being censored'.
The ethnic UA divide has been shown geographically though every election post 91'. And not just the east, the south (i.e. the black sea ports) as well leaned in the same direction.
Once more, if the ethnic divide would not have existed / has been orchestrated, then why did recent (west) Ukrainian gov's find it necessary to produce legislation aimed at creating one Ukrainian culture with one language?
In reality west ukrainian i.e. Galician attempts to create a Galician-dominated state are at least 150 years old. Obviously, with heavy industry and commodity deposits mostly in the east and with the (grain) ports in the south, the west Ukrainian rurals dominating Kiev weren't simply going to say 'let's split this nation like the Czechs and Slovakians did, to prevent bloodshed'.
As Putin concentrated his army on the borders early 2022 the Ukrainian army did not decrease its shelling of Donbass targets, it upped the ante. As the OSCE reports show. And those reports also show that 80% of the shelling in the region was done by gov forces. Just like the majority of the 14.000 dead since 2014 were ethnic easterners. And just like the current Russian army dead originate significantly from rebel areas.
I believe it is reasonable to assume that Zelensky would not have ordered the army to increase its shelling of Donbass. Zelensky was voted in on a moderate programme - crushing the pro west Poroshenko 80 / 20. He opposed the language- and cultural laws and wanted to relieve some of the ethnic tensions (once again debunking the 'it's only a few Moscow backed insurgents' line).
I'd say the military itself and in particular the rather independent battalions who had led the fight since 2014 had something to do with the increased shelling. As several pre war observers from western NGOs noted, and as several west Ukrainians literally stated: it was time to forge a single Ukrainian identity through war. And that is happening - for now:
'Prior to the war, pro-Russian forces were polling at 18–20 percent: significantly down from their 2010–2013 peak of 40 percent, but still enough to guarantee them substantial representation in parliament. The invasion changed everything, reducing the pro-Russian electorate to 3–5 percent by August 2023.'
Whether the EU can sustain it's 'UA as an enrichment of the EU democratic family' line is to be seen:
'Nataliia Pipa, a parliamentary deputy from the western city of Lviv, reported a teenage busker to the police for performing Russian-language songs by the late cult Soviet singer-songwriter Viktor Tsoi (erroneously believing he was violating a law on performing modern Russian music in public places); the writer Larysa Nitsoi reprimanded a wounded soldier in a military hospital for speaking Russian; and the Lviv journalist Ostap Drozdov has accused Ukrainian refugees in Europe who speak Russian of “bringing shame” on Ukraine'
Note how just like in western woke culture here too it's often women who most enthusiastically hunt outliers...
Reporting culture, thriving in the west under much less violent circumstances, obviously is amplified during a war. But you see the same societal divide as in the west: an UA elite - academic, cultural, media and business - accusing the ordinary. As the elites have carefully carved out measures to exempt their sons and husbands from serving at the front through academic credentials and/or being in a higher tax bracket (sic). And you can bet your ass that gov incumbents are hiring the hell out of their friends and family's vulnerables. Vulnerable to conscription that is.
But, regardless of location or nationality, that's what middle- and upper class people tend to do when it gets uncomfortable (military conscription) or even dangerous.
Finally, i'd say the most solid pre war 'we're all Ukrainian' spirit could be found amongst the elites: the later pro west president Poroshenko started as a local west UA beer Don, became UAs chocolate king and started his political career serving in a Pro Russian gov...
Effortlessly.
Btw: did i just write something about nice middle class boys rather not doing their military service?
This is where Thierry Breton 'served':
'Breton began his career in 1979 as a teacher of IT and Mathematics at the Lycée Français de New York[7] as part of his military service through cooperation'.
I took a DNA test awhile back, it came back 100 percent European. Not a single mention of White. When you adopt the White label you're essentially saying there's no difference between city dwellers and hillbillies. Or no difference between Italians and Irish. White is also a weaponized term now. I'm a Euro mix. So if anything I'm going with European. However, for as long as we have unwanted diversity these black/white labels will persist.
I am surprised that neither Aporia nor Simon Maass replied to Khan's denigrating comment. It is one thing to disagree, but not in a snide, insulting way.
don't have time to read the whole thing, but this really incorrect thing jumped out at me: "if Frank Salter’s volume On Genetic Interests is correct. According to Salter, studies have found that no more than 20% of European genetic material is derived from Near Eastern infusions"
salter was writing 20 years ago. our understanding of the genetic origins of europeans have been radically revolutionized in the last generation (salter's assertion is "not even wrong").
if you are going to have someone write about "white identity" maybe have them be at least cursorily fluent in the latest archeogenetics. we don't need to speculate, we have facts. if you can't even get the biological basics correct, who cares about the rest? (or maybe not, it's all cultural identity? idk)
Fair enough, but can you give us a back-of-the-envelope summary of what that number is thought to be today?
10% WHG (so ice age europeans; which salter above gives as 80%)
50% anatolian farmers (neolithic)
40% steppe yamnaya (bronze age)
in northern europe closer to 50% steppe yamnaya and 40% anatolian farmers
in southern europe closer to 30% steppe yamnyaya and 60% anatolian farmers
The Middle Eastern haplogroup J seems to have been absent from the Anatolian farmers but is very common in southern Europe today, wouldn't this indicate a Middle Eastern tribal conquest of southern Europe after the Anatolian one but before the Indo-European conquest?
Thank you, that's interesting. I knew the three groups, but not that the percentages had been nailed down in that way.
I think much of what the author says comports with what we broadly assume about the Yamnaya... at least in the first part of the essay. But then his latter conclusions don't fit with this, which is why -- as per my criticism above -- I think he's retconning "white" to fit too easily with democratic/liberal society. Any meaningful description of "whiteness" would have to include not just agrarian tendencies, but primitive and barbaric ("herdsmen") ones as well.
Incidentally, and in regard to the connection of this issue to Russia/Ukraine, I appreciated the piece you did a couple of years back on Russian and Ukrainian genetics. I can't say I've kept up since then, but I go back to that piece and have recommended it to others. Did you ever revisit it or find new/surprising data?
i didn't find anything new.
Russian cultural differences mainly stem from the fact that it is a frontier Empire. If you dig deeper, all the epic Russian myths are about the kings and their heroic warriors.
Mongols have left practically zero genetic trace in the Russian populace. Not much cultural imprint, too.
However being a frontier state, and being a subject of constant raids by Tatars (~1.5 million of Eastern Slavs were captured and enslaved) shaped the national character. As influences go, Poland, Eastern Roman Empire and Iran had more. Why Iran – look at the National Armory exposition.
Authoritarianism of the modern Russia is grossly exagerrated here. Authoritarism in historical Europe is conversely ignored.
"Authoritarianism of the modern Russia is grossly exagerrated here. Authoritarism in historical Europe is conversely ignored."
Agreed.
I think I agree with the central thesis here, if not quite the way it's hashed out.
There is no good reason for white identitarians to be bothered by the so-called "clinal" objection. Human races are not mere agglomerations of genes, but functionally interrelated sets of dispositions, traits, biological features. Admittedly, these relationships are difficult to describe in full, but cultural analysis of the sort the author does is one indispensable aspect of any good description.
My quibble is in the way he does this in particular with respect to a would-be "Orthodox/Western" break. There's something stubbornly whiggish in the latter parts of this essay's analysis, taking its bearings too much from latter European history, and even, from a particular slant on the current Russia-Ukraine problem. The argument seems to be that Russia is "autocratic," a singular exemplar in the "Orthodox" category, standing against the underlying liberal-democratic impetus of the west, and by extension, "whiteness."
For one, this sits uneasily against “the aristocratic warlike culture of Indo-European speakers” cited favorably earlier in the article. Was Locke expressing fundamentally whiteness, or was Plato? Careful how you answer, because the Russian can with some good justification object that Locke is a mere flavor, and a passing one at that. Further, he can can adduce most of Catholic civilization, and indeed a lot of Protestant authoritarian culture as additional data in his favor.
It's all well and good to quibble over Jews, Albanians, and Georgians. But the more salient and portentous case here is the Greeks, who would certainly object to having Russians as the Orthodox avatar.
The underlying assumption of this poorly argued essay is Whiteness = Liberalism. It is a spit to the face of every person of European heritage. A racial identity cannot be reduced to a political preference for certain institutions, for if that was the case, African and Asian liberals could also be categorized as White.
A White identity is biological racial consciousness. Nothing else.
> A White identity is biological racial consciousness.
What does that even mean?
"There is no civilisational fault line that runs through Ukraine, as evidenced by the occurrence of war with Russia and the non-occurrence of any endemic split in Ukrainian society."
The war between Russia and Ukraine is a proxy war. The United States initiated it in an effort to maintain a unipolar hegemony.
Alexis de Tocqueville was quite short-sighted when he wrote, 'The American struggles against obstacles that nature opposes to him; the Russian is grappling with men. The one combats the wilderness and barbarism; the other, civilization clothed in all its arms. Consequently the conquests of the American are made with the farmer’s plow, those of the Russian with the soldier’s sword.' That sure is not the case for the last hundred years.
"As I have argued in an earlier article, we Jews are fundamentally a European ethnic group. Accordingly, I would classify us as “white” in the present sense."
That is not the consensus among Jews.
Russia started the war, not the US. One could argue that the US did not give good signalling that it would oppose such a war, that is true.
The war was initiated by the United States in 2014 when it overthrew the ELECTED leader of Ukraine and replaced him with the current puppet.
Um, you do realize Poroshenko lost the 2019 Ukrainian presidential election to Zelenskyy?
Contra Tocquevile, a further point can be marshaled on behalf of the Russian: he has constructed -- gradually -- a genuine multiracial confederation.
Americans (and westerners more broadly) substitute for this a haughty ideology of diversity, giving the world dogma instead of comity.
The Russia = Asia, Ukraine = Europe thesis is contradicted by the fact that Belarus was exposed to all of these Western institutions and unlike Ukraine wasn't even in the Mongol Empire but never managed to become a democracy even in the 1990s unlike Russia, and is in general still more authoritarian than Russia.
Furthermore, Russia started off as an authoritarian slave state ruled by Vikings in which all (including people) was the property of the Knyaz, while serfdom largely occurred after the Tatar Yoke and has been greatly expanded over the Romanov German monarchy.
Also, the Mongols have never ruled Russia to the same degree that Poland ruled had Ukraine, they have collected tribute, stole manpower and picked rulers. That's it.
The Mongolian thesis is further complicated by the fact that it was a secular and tolerant society with a decentralized structure while Russia was a hyper-centralized religious and intolerant state.
Also Europe embraced democracy in the 20th century, it would be pretty dumb to determine racial classification in accordance to a preferred form of government. Under this logic a far more authoritarian National-Socialist German state would not be considered White. which questions the entire assumptions and motivations of this post.
I live in Russia and, you know, some of my compatriots have a way of laughing at the ideas of a "common white identity of Europeans." Usually people say something like "ahaha, idiot, they don't consider us real white people" or "Hitler didn't consider us Aryans and wanted to genocide us all."
I usually tried to dispute this, assuming that the very concept of white is determined by genetics, and people who claim that "Russians are Asians" are representatives of peoples historically offended by Russians, like Poles, with whom Russians had conflicts for many centuries in a row and in the end Russia rather won.
But maybe my compatriots were right. The article is actually funny - Georgians with an IQ of about 90, who have genetic differences from Europeans and a social status in Russia like Latin American immigrants in the United States, presumably have a more "European" country, because the freedom house rating evaluates them more positively. I was thinking of writing about Ukraine, but that would be too much text.
It seems that Westerners really like to rationalize foreign policy conflicts with such articles. Interestingly, if a dictator like Francisco Franco had seized power in Spain again sometime in the late 1990s, achieving economic growth and arguing with the United States in international politics, "international policy experts" would also have written articles saying that Spaniards are historically characterized by authoritarianism because they were once captured by Muslims, and Catalan separatists are "real Europeans who have become familiar with the institutions of Western Europeans."
absolutely outrageous article
[44] There have been some token “separatist” activities in Ukraine’s eastern provinces, but these were orchestrated by Moscow rather than homegrown. Indeed, many locals proved impressively resistant to such astroturfing attempts.'
This is nonsense. And a rather poor attempt at 'explaining' one of the many regions where the empires of the Russians, Ottomans and Habsburgs are still culturally alive.
Then again, almost the entire western political- and media class seems to reside in some post-historical sphere (i can't write 'bubble', those are reserved for climate deniers (sic), populist voters and transphobes. God, i have so many identities...).
As Yanukovych fled during the Maidan revolt and the remaining parliamentarians did not follow the constitution but rather cooked up Victoria Nuland's 'recipes', the east and south did not see a democratic revolution, they saw a coup. And thus similar to the Maidan events protesters in Odessa occupied gov buildings in revolt against what they saw as a decisively west Ukrainian take over of UA politics. Those occupied buildings were attacked by hooligans, cops etc The result was that a few dozen anti gov protesters were burned alive.
In the west facts like these are now considered 'pro Putin propaganda'. So much for the rational, reasonable Home of the Truth (i believe that's how Von der Leyen titles her wet dreams. While Thierry Breton titles his 'i am the truth. So shut up or risk being censored'.
The ethnic UA divide has been shown geographically though every election post 91'. And not just the east, the south (i.e. the black sea ports) as well leaned in the same direction.
Once more, if the ethnic divide would not have existed / has been orchestrated, then why did recent (west) Ukrainian gov's find it necessary to produce legislation aimed at creating one Ukrainian culture with one language?
In reality west ukrainian i.e. Galician attempts to create a Galician-dominated state are at least 150 years old. Obviously, with heavy industry and commodity deposits mostly in the east and with the (grain) ports in the south, the west Ukrainian rurals dominating Kiev weren't simply going to say 'let's split this nation like the Czechs and Slovakians did, to prevent bloodshed'.
https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Ukraine-Classical-Conflict-Resolution/dp/3110743248
As Putin concentrated his army on the borders early 2022 the Ukrainian army did not decrease its shelling of Donbass targets, it upped the ante. As the OSCE reports show. And those reports also show that 80% of the shelling in the region was done by gov forces. Just like the majority of the 14.000 dead since 2014 were ethnic easterners. And just like the current Russian army dead originate significantly from rebel areas.
I believe it is reasonable to assume that Zelensky would not have ordered the army to increase its shelling of Donbass. Zelensky was voted in on a moderate programme - crushing the pro west Poroshenko 80 / 20. He opposed the language- and cultural laws and wanted to relieve some of the ethnic tensions (once again debunking the 'it's only a few Moscow backed insurgents' line).
I'd say the military itself and in particular the rather independent battalions who had led the fight since 2014 had something to do with the increased shelling. As several pre war observers from western NGOs noted, and as several west Ukrainians literally stated: it was time to forge a single Ukrainian identity through war. And that is happening - for now:
'Prior to the war, pro-Russian forces were polling at 18–20 percent: significantly down from their 2010–2013 peak of 40 percent, but still enough to guarantee them substantial representation in parliament. The invasion changed everything, reducing the pro-Russian electorate to 3–5 percent by August 2023.'
https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2023/10/as-politics-returns-to-ukraine-the-fight-for-russian-speakers-votes-begins?lang=en
Whether the EU can sustain it's 'UA as an enrichment of the EU democratic family' line is to be seen:
'Nataliia Pipa, a parliamentary deputy from the western city of Lviv, reported a teenage busker to the police for performing Russian-language songs by the late cult Soviet singer-songwriter Viktor Tsoi (erroneously believing he was violating a law on performing modern Russian music in public places); the writer Larysa Nitsoi reprimanded a wounded soldier in a military hospital for speaking Russian; and the Lviv journalist Ostap Drozdov has accused Ukrainian refugees in Europe who speak Russian of “bringing shame” on Ukraine'
Note how just like in western woke culture here too it's often women who most enthusiastically hunt outliers...
Reporting culture, thriving in the west under much less violent circumstances, obviously is amplified during a war. But you see the same societal divide as in the west: an UA elite - academic, cultural, media and business - accusing the ordinary. As the elites have carefully carved out measures to exempt their sons and husbands from serving at the front through academic credentials and/or being in a higher tax bracket (sic). And you can bet your ass that gov incumbents are hiring the hell out of their friends and family's vulnerables. Vulnerable to conscription that is.
But, regardless of location or nationality, that's what middle- and upper class people tend to do when it gets uncomfortable (military conscription) or even dangerous.
Finally, i'd say the most solid pre war 'we're all Ukrainian' spirit could be found amongst the elites: the later pro west president Poroshenko started as a local west UA beer Don, became UAs chocolate king and started his political career serving in a Pro Russian gov...
Effortlessly.
Btw: did i just write something about nice middle class boys rather not doing their military service?
This is where Thierry Breton 'served':
'Breton began his career in 1979 as a teacher of IT and Mathematics at the Lycée Français de New York[7] as part of his military service through cooperation'.
I took a DNA test awhile back, it came back 100 percent European. Not a single mention of White. When you adopt the White label you're essentially saying there's no difference between city dwellers and hillbillies. Or no difference between Italians and Irish. White is also a weaponized term now. I'm a Euro mix. So if anything I'm going with European. However, for as long as we have unwanted diversity these black/white labels will persist.
Who did the American Indians, Muslims, and Chinese pick as “white”?
I am surprised that neither Aporia nor Simon Maass replied to Khan's denigrating comment. It is one thing to disagree, but not in a snide, insulting way.