You're both right. The distinct features of white Europeans and black Africans have been recognized for millennia. The changing fortunes of Europeans over that time period rules out the possibility that the distinction only serves to identify European superiority.

The definitions of "white" and "black" Marchesk is using appear to be specifically related to New World slavery or S. African apartheid. And yea.. All sorts of dark skinned people would qualify as black. S. Africans identified the Chinese as black and the Japanese as white. Go figure.

On the other hand, as we climb into the 21st Century and note that the Ottoman Empire favored European slaves, we may say: "Those slaves were white". Anyone who has difficulty understanding what that means has a rigid outlook which probably causes perpetual confusion.

How could it have been a social construct? If there was nothing to latch onto, it wouldn't have worked, because you literally wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between white and black people, after these things were supposedly 'invented.'

Of course the reason this is so stupid is that you could tell the difference, because well...

I understand Marchesk's position but am being deliberately obtuse because sometimes that's what it takes to show that a position's dumb. I mean, I went to university, I understand that this is what people are told.

How could it have been a social construct? If there was nothing to latch onto, it wouldn't have worked, because you literally wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between white and black people, after these things were supposedly 'invented.' — The Great Whatever

It was a social construct that having light skin meant one was from a superior racial category that rightfully gets to dominate as a result. Or are you just going to overlook that part of history?

So people thought that those of European ancestry were superior to those who weren't. OK, how does that mean that being of European ancestry was invented several hundred years ago? Obviously, it wasn't; something already existing was taken as a signifier of a certain status. Notice the difference and the incoherence of the competing claim.

mean, I went to university, I understand that this is what people are told. — The Great Whatever

You don't have to go to university to understand that racism, even if it's the subtle kind, is still an issue. But don't believe me, go ask any American minority what it means to be a minority compared to being white.

Well, considering I am an American minority...maybe I should ask myself?

OK, how does that mean that being of European ancestry was invented several hundred years ago? — The Great Whatever

No, but the idea of being white as a racially superior category was.

Which is not the same thing as saying that whiteness is a social construct or was invented to justify colonialism and slavery.

Sure, but there are plenty of minorities who do say it remains a real problem. And white people.

Which is not the same thing as saying that whiteness is a social construct or was invented to justify colonialism and slavery. — The Great Whatever

The idea of whiteness is, not the pinkish skin pigment, or relative relatedness on the European continent.

White people are utterly delusional about race, and all minorities know this and exploit them for it, so their opinions don't matter on the subject. As for other minorities, I can't speak for them, but having listened to them all my life I think they're delusional too.

The idea of whiteness is, not the pinkish skin pigment, or relative relatedness on the European continent. — Marchesk

Yes it is. There's literally nothing else to being white.

White people are utterly delusional about race, and all minorities know this and exploit them for it, so their opinions don't matter on the subject. As for other minorities, I can't speak for them, but having listened to them all my life I think they're delusional too. — The Great Whatever

I'd be interested to know what you think isn't delusional, since it seems you think everyone is delusional about the issue.

I think ethnicities exist, and are traceable to where your ancestors came from. I think they're not a social construction, that white people are an ethnic group, and that no ethnicity, white or otherwise, is definable in terms of moral reprehensibility. I think that race issues are mostly a pot of incoherent moral hysteria that have nothing to do with the issues people actually face and serve as a crutch to place a comic book ethical facade over daily life because the real world is too difficult to handle.

Let's try a thought experiment. Say history went different, and an Ethiopian empire dominated Europe and much of the globe for several centuries. It imposed it's own class structure based on how dark your skin was. The pale people, what we call white in our world, occupied the lowest rung because lacking in melanin, and being a conquered and enslaved people, they clearly were inferior mentally, morally and deserved their social status.

In such a world, how would we view dark and light skin?

In such a world, there would be light and dark skin, and black and white people, as much as there are in this world.

See how that works?

But the idea of being dark would be the reverse of what black has been considered for the past several centuries in the west. That's the point I'm making. That's what's socially constructed, not the actual skin color or where one's ancestors came from.

No, it wouldn't be. The idea of being dark would be the same. People would just think different things about dark people.

I think that race issues are mostly a pot of incoherent moral hysteria that have nothing to do with the issues people actually face and serve as a crutch to place a comic book ethical facade over daily life because the real world is too difficult to handle. — The Great Whatever

So you then the racial issues around slavery and Jim Crow laws in the past ceased being a problem shortly after the Civil Rights movement, or perhaps a decade ago or something?

People would just think different things about dark people. — The Great Whatever

It's the different things people would think about dark people that is the entire issue of racism.

I think they never began or ended. It's because of vanity that white people focus on their own exploits -- being the best at being evil gives them some sort of weird masochistic hard-on, I swear.

I think they never began or ended. It's because of vanity that white people focus on their own exploits -- being the best at being evil gives them some sort of weird masochistic hard-on, I swear. — The Great Whatever

That doesn't change the fact that black people were considered property, then were denied various rights and targeted by hate groups for a long time.

So were white people. Or did you not know that or something?

Clearly not.

People would, as you say think differently about dark people. They would not have the ethnic identity of "black" they do now. A different set of social relations and would apply to them. You've literally pointed out that the idea of being "dark" (i.e. the social significance of a dark person to society and other people)would-be different.

So white people were enslaved and discriminated against in the West based on their whiteness?

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was all that counted.

Are you white btw?

Absolutely. It's tied up in our culture and desire for superiority. The principles of knowledge, technology and domination which drove the Enlightenment and colonisation, in a sense, drive our concern for identity politics. We will be the ones who overcome, through our "civilised" culture and society, to make people's lives better. It's, in a sense, a desire of empire building.

I mean it is a bit of an accident of being the world power, in that it they who are usually concerned with the maintenance and development of power in society, but it's still the same sort of focus on building a nation greater than any other. We aren't, you know, content to sit back and live out century old traditions. The world is ours to know and improve (or so we think).

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was all that counted. — The Great Whatever

It's irrelevant to this particular discussion on whether "whiteness" is a relatively recent invention.

I thought I already showed you why that was nonsense? Or where was the train of thought?

I agree except I think that we are in a post-enlightenment epistemology, since a true enlightenment spirit emphasizes the common intellectual faculty of all people, whereas this has given way to identity-based intellectual faculties split across race, gender, etc., without a common sphere of reason (or rather, reason as a universal notion is seen as 'too white' and 'too male').

It's really not a pretty world, in any sense. We can only hope for something new soon, where no one is ashamed of who they are and everyone is strong and spiritually productive and wonderful.

We are "post-enlightment" in the sense we worked out the Enlightenment was telling us a great big lie with regards to "common intellectual faculty"; it effectively meant "rich white male." A spirit blind to how power is express on and by individuals ("colourblindness," the free everyman of classical liberalism), where there is only the stagnate facts of the world to investigate (e.g. someone has white ancestors), rather than a conflux of interacting people who each define the lives of the other (e.g. a white identity which defines how a person belongs to a social context.

In the last two or so centuries, the enlightenment spirit ate itself. Reason and concern for knowledge turned to describing out society power relationships, where upon we found the "common sphere of reason" was not common at all-- the poor are missing (Marxism), people of other ethnic identities are missing (Racism), women are missing (sexism), queer people were missing (LGBTIQA+ discrimination), etc., etc.

In a sense it is not a pretty world, no longer is there the illusion of common freedom, but then when there was, the ugliness was just hidden.

I have to say, I think it is this illusion you covet. The "post-enlightment" doesn't demand anyone be ashamed who who they are per se, at least not unless they are doing something wrong (which is, you know, par for ethics). It demands we be honest about the impact of our actions on other people or how, that we recognise when we have destroyed others or taking away their power, rather than passing it off as "nature" or just giving savages what the deserve. I think it's this conflict, the awareness of ugliness and/or wrong done, which irks you. You'd rather just hide it away so people could get on with their lives rather than spending their days worrying about power relationships.