What's my opinion on the speech? That it's true that people conceptualized of a "white race" prior to the 1950s, but it doesn't contradict my claim that an inclusive white identity lacks long historical precedent, historical pre-eminence or robustness. If it were robust and pre-eminent, the KKK wouldn't have targeted white Catholics or Jews. If it were robust and pre-eminent, Irish Americans wouldn't have been treated poorly in much of the US. If it were robust and pre-eminent, "race scientists" of the late 19th and early 20th century would not have divided whites into distinct sub-races with purportedly unique characteristics. Ethnic balkanization among whites in the US persisted throughout the first half of the 20th century – think of the distinct ethnic mobs and tensions that characterized NYC – and mass conscription during WW2 substantially changed this.
If it were robust and pre-eminent, white people wouldn't have seceded from the country to create a white country, a literal ethno-state.
Oh wait!
Is what it is, you clearly already have your conclusion.
P.S. northern chinese make fun of southern chinese (cantonese), does that preclude their ethnicity and culture? I fail to see how targeting Irish means anything. Chinese target their own sub-ethnicities all day long. As does every other ethnic group.
He's being pretty clear, and your response is a little obtuse.
He's not saying that nobody called themselves "white" before 1950.
He's saying that the demographics of "whiteness" in the mid-1800s are different than the demographics of "whiteness" now, and so the term is arbitrary.
