Thread for Heritage Americans

[scary_robot_music]

It was very unusual for an average European to see a non-White person. You are talking about extreme circumstances and the reaction by the Europeans was brutal and lead to a lot of bloodshed as a result. Even then, of then, of the millions of Europeans who lived in Europe from the beginning of time until 1945, that encountered non-Whites in a group large enough to display their own preferences, were tiny, and of those who did, they did not approve of these preferences, such as the Moors being run out of Spain.

My point being that for thousands of years, Europeans never thought of themselves as "White" because it was never a real question posed to them. Technology dictated that most of their life was in the same village and their biggest threat was an invasion by other Whites from a neighboring kingdom and eventually nation. It hasn't been, until the last 30 to 40 years, that enough non-Whites have moved into Europe, to make them setup their own enclaves, to allow the native Europeans to realize both how different they are, and how long term this isn't going to work out. And now they are starting to identify as White. This is a new pattern in Europe, though it has existed in the western hemisphere much longer because there were already numbers of non-Whites forming their own enclaves and the difference was stark.

Europeans once thought of American Whites as just racist backwards uneducated hicks. Now that large sections of European cities have become non-go zones, just like in the USA, and crime is sky rocketing, and the invaders are bankrupting the socialist system by having 5 kids with no job, attitudes are changing quickly.

And that is my simple point. It is all human nature. If 100 Africans move to London, they will be seen as celebrities. People wanting to talk to them, wanting to help them, wanting to welcome them. And most likely these 100 Africans will fit in for the most part and there will be no issues. But when you bring in 100,000 Africans and they form their own enclaves and crime skyrockets and people's grandmothers get mugged and statues of their hero's are torn down to appease them, then you see a whole new outlook and attitude arise.

I think you're right that for most of antiquity and the middle ages it was very rare for the typical European to see a nonwhite person or have much idea of how such a person might look. Even my mother, who grew up in the Mountain West of the US in the 1950s and 1960s once told me that until she left for the East Coast when she was around 20 years old, she'd only seen nonwhite people once or twice in her life.

It makes me think of how liberals and leftists will sometimes lose it about traditional depictions of Jesus as white and European. Leaving aside the fact that I think it's very hard to say exactly what the typical skin tone was in a given region of the world millennia ago, of course Europeans would have depicted Jesus as looking like them because they mostly had at best a vague idea of what non-Europeans might have looked like, if they had any idea at all. Similar to how when Asian Christians depicted Christ in previous centuries he looked, not surprisingly, Asian.

 

[It_Is_My_Time]

I think you're right that for most of antiquity and the middle ages it was very rare for the typical European to see a nonwhite person or have much idea of how such a person might look. Even my mother, who grew up in the Mountain West of the US in the 1950s and 1960s once told me that until she left for the East Coast when she was around 20 years old, she'd only seen nonwhite people once or twice in her life.

It makes me think of how liberals and leftists will sometimes lose it about traditional depictions of Jesus as white and European. Leaving aside the fact that I think it's very hard to say exactly what the typical skin tone was in a given region of the world millennia ago, of course Europeans would have depicted Jesus as looking like them because they mostly had at best a vague idea of what non-Europeans might have looked like, if they had any idea at all. Similar to how when Asian Christians depicted Christ in previous centuries he looked, not surprisingly, Asian.

If you talk to a lot of liberal White boomers in the USA, especially those who stayed in small towns, their only real interaction with non-Whites is either a few random high IQ non-Whites in professional settings, like going to a doctor or an accountant, or via the TV. And this is in 2025 in the USA. It is a weird experience to talk to them, they are like the last of a dying age of people who have little to no connection outside of their little bubble. They are mostly not on the internet and see the same people and town most every day of their life. The bubble they live in is really remarkable, they know so little of the outside world, yet because of the TV, they think they know everything. It is a very interesting case study in how people would have thought hundreds of years ago, minus the TV brainwashing.

Whereas most young Whites in the west have a wide birth of experience in dealing with non-Whites and they are forming their own opinions. It really is an interesting time in history, to have these two very diametrically opposed ways of living sharing the same time frame and even neighborhoods.

Like my rural hometown, that was 99% White when I grew up there, a lot of people idolized Black athletes, rappers, etc. It was an unknown, it was seen as cool, it was pushed by the media, it was just normal. Now, when I go back, the town is less White, the internet, BLM riots, and crime is bringing reality, and a lot of the young White men are much more into a cowboy western look, don't care much about sports, listen to country or rock music and have no desire to leave the area, unless for another rural area. It makes me feel old.

 

[starlight]

To get back on topic:

I think you mean here, "What does it mean to be Heritage American?" And the answer is to be a White descended from Europe.

But this argument leaves out the slaves, who were here longer than most Whites who came later.

What does it mean to be White:

To be wholly of European lineage/ancestry

What does it mean to be Heritage American:

The term Heritage American generally refers to people descended from the early British settlers and colonies. But I personally believe that Europeans who immigrated and settled/homesteaded after that up to the Industrial Revolution could probably fall into that category.

 

[MusicForThePiano]

What does it mean to be White:


What does it mean to be Heritage American:

You've said it very succinctly and plainly. Thank you.

It's remarkable how much cherry-picking is done with this definition by the confused. Whites are European, and I definitely know a lot more Greeks and Italians in their home countries than the ones that fled to America and became ideologically deracinated. They are European, and White is European. Not European is not White, therefore not White means not European.

Simply them being "tanner" doesn't negate their European blood and skeletal structure and neurological patterns and spirit of soul, and if they don't have Moorish or Arab blood, which an overwhelmingly majority of them do not, then they will forever be European, and thus are White. I see Dutch, Germans, and Swedes who are tanner than many Greek and Italians who often have the dark hair pale skin combination. Sun exposure resulting in someone getting a tan or maintaining a life-long tan from living in a sunny climate is a weak-sauce argument for "tHaTs NoT wHiTe".

Some don't like the title 'White" because they put their culture first, but genetically we have the data now that clusters us all in the same racial family so we can quite literally q-tip someone's mouth and find out within 48-72 hours if they're one of us or not.

The Americans who don't view themselves as "White" but come from Europe are fooling themselves. The jew policies don't give concessions to Greeks and Italians. There may be various Hellenic societies in America but they're not given all the benefits and one-ups that every non-White gaggle is given.

The red carpet of gibs is rolled out for all non-Europeans in the USA. There are mixed-race Hispanics, Hapas, and jews who are pale as a ghost but are legally protected by the overall anti-White system that favors non-European genetics for advancement in society.

I'm not a heritage American by the definition of colonial ancestry, but legally I could be accepted as one because of my genes. That was the whole point of the Naturalization Act of 1790:

"That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States."

They didn't just have to be White, they had to act like it too and apply through all the legal channels to be given citizenship, passing various rigors of merit.

The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 followed this up:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

"...excluding from entry any alien who by virtue of race or nationality was ineligible for citizenship. Existing nationality laws dating from 1790 and 1870 excluded people of Asian lineage from naturalizing."

The historical American preference for quotas from northwest Europe instead of the whole of Europe was more of a latent Anglo-Saxon Nordicism which was completely common at the time in England, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Denmark, etc. The propensity to avoid the majority Catholic countries in the Med, Portugal, Spain, France, and Italy was also seen as something of a rivalry at the time (late 1700s - early 1900s) given how these countries still had their holdings and colonies and people from those countries would go to their overseas property where they could have a good life. Catholics didn't really need to go to America because of Protestant bickering. The ones that did often found themselves alienated like the San Patricio Battalion. If confessional differences were not an issue, America likely would have become it's own empire much earlier.

The McCarran-Walter and Hart-Cellar Acts be damned, they destroyed the USA on purpose.

 

[KomnenAl]

It's remarkable how much cherry-picking is done with this definition by the confused. Whites are European, and I definitely know a lot more Greeks and Italians in their home countries than the ones that fled to America and became ideologically deracinated. They are European, and White is European. Not European is not White, therefore not White means not European.

Simply them being "tanner" doesn't negate their European blood and skeletal structure and neurological patterns and spirit of soul, and if they don't have Moorish or Arab blood, which an overwhelmingly majority of them do not, then they will forever be European, and thus are White. I see Dutch, Germans, and Swedes who are tanner than many Greek and Italians who often have the dark hair pale skin combination. Sun exposure resulting in someone getting a tan or maintaining a life-long tan from living in a sunny climate is a weak-sauce argument for "tHaTs NoT wHiTe".

Exactly.
I haven't gone to the beach in years and especially during winters my body is whiter than a Norwegian baby. Unfortunately, in summertime I have to wear short-sleaved shirts and therefore my arms and face get tanner while the rest of my body remains white. According to some stupid definitions in this thread, during summer my arms and face do not belong to the White race, while my body does, and during winter my arms magically decide to end their rebelion.

 

[Samseau]

Does being White mean failing at basic logic? You're all applying circular logic.

"To be White means to be European, and to be European means to be White." Great logic guys!!

This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of why European did not exist as a term for the majority of White's history, the logic is so appallingly bad you do yourselves a disservice to the race by not exampling the high standards of logic set forth by Whites like Aristotle.

By the way, Aristotle never called himself a European, he was a White Greek, and everyone else was a barbarian.

 

[Australia Sucks]

By the way, Aristotle never called himself a European, he was a White Greek, and everyone else was a barbarian.

He probably just referred to himself as Greek without any reference to white. Skin colour was probably rarely mentioned in those days unless they were given a written description of somebody's appearance.

 

[Samseau]

He probably just referred to himself as Greek without any reference to white. Skin colour was probably rarely mentioned in those days unless they were given a written description of somebody's appearance.

Not all Greeks cared about race, but Athenians I believe had knowledge of it due to their seafaring ways. They were well traveled and I believe Herodotus' books and travels he encounters non-White races, so it is likely Aristotle knew of these different races. But that didn't matter much to Aristotle, non-Greeks (White or Black) were simply barbarians, not to be trusted, and wholly inferior to his own tribe.

Alexander the Great exemplified Aristotle's teachings, and subjugating barbarians was seen as the natural thing for superior Greeks to do.

The reason I mention all of this is to point out that Aristotle was obviously White, but not even remotely "European," which is a modern geographical term with low historical value.

 

[scary_robot_music]

Not all Greeks cared about race, but Athenians I believe had knowledge of it due to their seafaring ways. They were well traveled and I believe Herodotus' books and travels he encounters non-White races, so it is likely Aristotle knew of these different races. But that didn't matter much to Aristotle, non-Greeks (White or Black) were simply barbarians, not to be trusted, and wholly inferior to his own tribe.

Alexander the Great exemplified Aristotle's teachings, and subjugating barbarians was seen as the natural thing for superior Greeks to do.

The reason I mention all of this is to point out that Aristotle was obviously White, but not even remotely "European," which is a modern geographical term with low historical value.

I don't really know enough about this topic to know for sure, but it is interesting. I have always wondered why Iranians wouldn't be considered white if Italians and Greeks are white. Iranians are also an Indo-European people who tend to be on the swarthy side and speak an Indo European language. Maybe there are very white looking or even blond Iranians, like there are Italians and Greeks. I'm not sure, I haven't known many people from Iran in real life. It can't be that they're mostly Muslim. Religion has nothing to do with race, and besides, I don't think anyone would argue that Bosnians and Albanians aren't white.

I imagine that an ancient Greek like Aristotle might have felt he had more in common with a Persian than with whoever was living in northern Europe at the time (not sure if the Germanic tribes had appeared yet in his time).

 

[Samseau]

I don't really know enough about this topic to know for sure, but it is interesting. I have always wondered why Iranians wouldn't be considered white if Italians and Greeks are white. Iranians are also an Indo-European people who tend to be on the swarthy side and speak an Indo European language. Maybe there are very white looking or even blond Iranians, like there are Italians and Greeks. I'm not sure, I haven't known many people from Iran in real life. It can't be that they're mostly Muslim. Religion has nothing to do with race, and besides, I don't think anyone would argue that Bosnians and Albanians aren't white.

I imagine that an ancient Greek like Aristotle might have felt he had more in common with a Persian than with whoever was living in northern Europe at the time (not sure if the Germanic tribes had appeared yet in his time).

Ancient Iranians were presumably far Whiter than they are now, as the Islamic invasion and rape of that nation miscegenated much of it.

 

[The Penitent Man]

The term Heritage American generally refers to people descended from the early British settlers and colonies. But I personally believe that Europeans who immigrated and settled/homesteaded after that up to the Industrial Revolution could probably fall into that category.

My ancestors came here as pioneers prior to the establishment of the United States and fought in the American Revolution. I did a family tree project for elementary school, a big old foam board that I keep in the basement to pass down to my son. I still remember doing the research with my dad. I remember talking to my grandparents about my ancestry. Every kid deserves that and should be proud of it.

 

[Australia Sucks]

I don't really know enough about this topic to know for sure, but it is interesting. I have always wondered why Iranians wouldn't be considered white if Italians and Greeks are white. Iranians are also an Indo-European people who tend to be on the swarthy side and speak an Indo European language. Maybe there are very white looking or even blond Iranians, like there are Italians and Greeks. I'm not sure, I haven't known many people from Iran in real life. It can't be that they're mostly Muslim. Religion has nothing to do with race, and besides, I don't think anyone would argue that Bosnians and Albanians aren't white.

I imagine that an ancient Greek like Aristotle might have felt he had more in common with a Persian than with whoever was living in northern Europe at the time (not sure if the Germanic tribes had appeared yet in his time).

Iranians have a range of skin tones and eye colours. You can even find the occasional Iranian with green or blue eyes and red hair or very light brown hair. But natural blonde hair is exceedingly rare in Iran at well under 1% although no accurate statistics exist regarding that. But in regards to skin colours you can find all kinds of skin tones all the way from black (a small number of afro descended Iranians) to tanned to pale white European looking people.

 

[NSOE]

A heritage American is like a heritage Aussie- English language, law, culture, and customs, and genes which goes without saying.

 

[starlight]

A heritage American is like a heritage Aussie- English language, law, culture, and customs, and genes which goes without saying.

You posted this in the US Border Crisis thread:

Romans were not as white as let's say mainland Europeans. I don't think those in that picture carry the recessive genes characteristic to Europeans.

Just to clarify, the Romans absolutely were White, considered themselves white skinned, and even called themselves "White." They extensively described themselves as "candidus" and "albus" which collectively means: "white, dazzling, fair/pale, and brilliant white." And we can see it very clearly in their artwork how they saw and represented themselves in relation to other races (or "skin colors" I guess) of the time.

A fresco from Pompeii:

Edit: Also, I just wanted to add that part of what makes defining "White" people so challenging for some is that we have the most diverse phenotypes of all the populations while still being within the same genetic group/family.

 

[starlight]

You've said it very succinctly and plainly. Thank you.

It's remarkable how much cherry-picking is done with this definition by the confused. Whites are European, and I definitely know a lot more Greeks and Italians in their home countries than the ones that fled to America and became ideologically deracinated. They are European, and White is European. Not European is not White, therefore not White means not European.

Simply them being "tanner" doesn't negate their European blood and skeletal structure and neurological patterns and spirit of soul, and if they don't have Moorish or Arab blood, which an overwhelmingly majority of them do not, then they will forever be European, and thus are White. I see Dutch, Germans, and Swedes who are tanner than many Greek and Italians who often have the dark hair pale skin combination. Sun exposure resulting in someone getting a tan or maintaining a life-long tan from living in a sunny climate is a weak-sauce argument for "tHaTs NoT wHiTe".

Some don't like the title 'White" because they put their culture first, but genetically we have the data now that clusters us all in the same racial family so we can quite literally q-tip someone's mouth and find out within 48-72 hours if they're one of us or not.

The Americans who don't view themselves as "White" but come from Europe are fooling themselves. The jew policies don't give concessions to Greeks and Italians. There may be various Hellenic societies in America but they're not given all the benefits and one-ups that every non-White gaggle is given.

The red carpet of gibs is rolled out for all non-Europeans in the USA. There are mixed-race Hispanics, Hapas, and jews who are pale as a ghost but are legally protected by the overall anti-White system that favors non-European genetics for advancement in society.

I'm not a heritage American by the definition of colonial ancestry, but legally I could be accepted as one because of my genes. That was the whole point of the Naturalization Act of 1790:

"That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States."

They didn't just have to be White, they had to act like it too and apply through all the legal channels to be given citizenship, passing various rigors of merit.

The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 followed this up:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

"...excluding from entry any alien who by virtue of race or nationality was ineligible for citizenship. Existing nationality laws dating from 1790 and 1870 excluded people of Asian lineage from naturalizing."

The historical American preference for quotas from northwest Europe instead of the whole of Europe was more of a latent Anglo-Saxon Nordicism which was completely common at the time in England, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Denmark, etc. The propensity to avoid the majority Catholic countries in the Med, Portugal, Spain, France, and Italy was also seen as something of a rivalry at the time (late 1700s - early 1900s) given how these countries still had their holdings and colonies and people from those countries would go to their overseas property where they could have a good life. Catholics didn't really need to go to America because of Protestant bickering. The ones that did often found themselves alienated like the San Patricio Battalion. If confessional differences were not an issue, America likely would have become it's own empire much earlier.

The McCarran-Walter and Hart-Cellar Acts be damned, they destroyed the USA on purpose.

In a different thread, I don't remember which one off the top of my head, but you wrote about hybrid vigor and that Black women had narrow birth canals but that wasn't right: Asian women with White husbands have the highest rate of c-sections rates nearing %40, Black women with White husbands have the highest rates of miscarriages, White women have the lowest rates of first birth c-sections at 5%.

 

[NSOE]

You posted this in the US Border Crisis thread:

Just to clarify, the Romans absolutely were White, considered themselves white skinned, and even called themselves "White." They extensively described themselves as "candidus" and "albus" which collectively means: "white, dazzling, fair/pale, and brilliant white." And we can see it very clearly in their artwork how they saw and represented themselves in relation to other races (or "skin colors" I guess) of the time.

One Polish author encountered blond haired women in Tibet, in the 1920s, and people with Italianate family names- adapted to their language, albeit somewhat transformed. He traced their roots to Marco Polo's entourage. Appearances aside, they too were "savage" just like their full blooded compatriots. Then again, heritage Italians saw their land overrun with northern European barbarians centuries before Polo's time. I read somewhere aristocrat Roman women liked to wear blond wigs made from the hair of their slave girls.

Edit: Also, I just wanted to add that part of what makes defining "White" people so challenging for some is that we have the most diverse phenotypes of all the populations while still being within the same genetic group/family.

I went to a doctor for an injury, and was tempted to put either trans- or cis-Alpine for gender for fun, but I don't like to draw attention to myself.