![White success [886x1280 - 155KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/UcOAf2.jpg){kind=link}
White defined by founders? Like what founding fathers? Not to my knowledge. Unless you can prove your claim, by quoting at least one founding father on the matter. The constitution doesn't refer to blacks or whites to begin with, so if it was that a paramount parameter for them, it should have been featured in
>The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103, enacted March 26, 1790) was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free White person(s) ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians and Jews, although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in a number of states. The Act was modeled on the Plantation Act 1740 with respect to time, oath of allegiance, process of swearing before a judge, etc.[5][6]
...
WASP, as in white anglo saxon protestant, became a thing much later on But again, in WASP, if you need to add "white" to "anglo saxon" it means that "white" defines something more than just anglosax
I meant to say that the term "White" didn't exist prior to the founding of America.
Anglo-Saxon is specifically Germanic English, where as "White" = Northern European (rather than meaning Northern & Southern European)
https://i.imgur.com/LZ2KOjw.png (There is some overlap there of course.)
When the Founding Fathers talk of "Posterity," they are referring to their own genotype. They are all pretty clear as to what they define as being the "White" genotype by how they described them physically & 'spiritually'. I doubt they ever thought they had to write a standard definition listing all exclusions, because the identity is just something that was overtly self-evident. They also didn't have access to all the scientific testing we have now.
The term was designed to homogenise the various Northern European nations into one nation (under English religion/ culture/ language), on the basis of their overlapping similarities, their inheritance and their shared origins. If they all continued to exist as different national identities then their new house would collapse from the division. It is like when Alfred the Great united Celtic peoples & Anglo-Saxon peoples under one identity and one religion.
Between Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans, who defines what "White" is, as an identity or classification? Who is prototypically "White"? The purpose of it is to preserve the posterity & society of White folk, it is not to be inclusive towards everyone who is vaguely related or else they'd be forced to include other Caucasoids, like Middle-Easterners, Northern Africans & Indians, to remain consistent. At the moment, Jews define what "White" was/ is, because of their monopoly over the education system & the media and over Secret Societies. And they say it's just skin colour- which is laughable, imagine thinking an Albino African is "White." https://i.imgur.com/3I4Ojc7.png Here is Benjamin Franklin arguing that the Jews are not White but Asiatic & destructive to European interests. https://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/founding-fathers-think-race/ This also has some pointers to look into.
You are right about Naturalization. Italians were legally viewed as "White" for naturalization purposes, which is understandable, since they are genuinely European & have such an amazing historical heritage, but, in practice, they were not considered wholly White because they looked different & didn't readily fit in as well with other White people. This is why Italians got on so well with Jews in America, as they both felt like marginalized outsiders. Sicilians definitely weren't considered White, but at the time Northern Italians also disparaged them as being lesser. Sicilians are still Southern Europeans though. Irish/ Iberians were also legally White and included in the Naturalization legislation, yet they were considered as being racially "primitive," and were cruelly forced into slavery, although that was just WASP Freemasonic snobbery & rationalisation. It wasn't a scientific distinction. They are actually very closely related to English, and it shows when we see how well Irish have blended into American society. There are no Germanic peoples that are without a degree of Celtic admixture, and in any case the disparity between Celtic and Germanic is very slim.
While I mostly agree with what you stated, that particular quote "I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude the Jews forever, your children and your children’s children will curse you in their graves. " attributed to benjamin franklin comes from the so called "franklin prophecy" which is likely a forgery/never existed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Prophecy#Lack_of_authenticity
According to Pelley, Pinckney wrote that he had kept a journal of the Convention. This journal has never been found, and no evidence exists for Pelley's claim that it was printed privately. The Franklin Institute has rejected Pelley's claims that it owns a manuscript copy of the speech.[3]
The U.S. Congress report Anti-Semitism in Europe: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on European Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations (2004) states:
The Franklin "Prophecy" is a classic anti-Semitic canard that falsely claims that American statesman Benjamin Franklin made anti-Jewish statements during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It has found widening acceptance in Muslim and Arab media, where it has been used to criticize Israel and Jews...[4]
Franklin was a friend to the Jews of 18th-century America,[2] and contributed toward the building of Philadelphia's first permanent synagogue.[5] The Anti-Defamation League noted that the reference to the civilized world giving Palestine back to the Jews was an anachronism, since the modern Zionist movement did not arise until nearly a century after Franklin's death.[2]
Similar antisemitic quotations have been attributed to George Washington and have been disproven.[6] In 1790, in a marked sign of religious tolerance, Washington sent a letter to the Jewish community in Rhode Island, writing "May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."[7]
Well, I'm not sure whether I can trust such institutions or Wikipedia but I guess it makes sense, since he was a Freemason and they do seem universally supportive of Jewish people & their interests. I guess in that case, the Jews have always owned America.
It seemed like a believable piece of writing though and I do agree with it.
(post is archived)