This is a serious question, not a meme.
Skin color: pale peach, so yes “white” The rest of him: from the asiatic, hardly European by racist standards, Georgia, had a thick Georgian Accent, had distinctly Georgian features. So, no?
deleted by creator
Whiteness now pretty much boils down to what people look like.
Stalin is a great example how inane the racist constructs are: he was observably white, if you show his picture to someone who would not know who he was the answer for the question “was he white?” would be 100% “yes”. In US terminology whites are even called “Caucasian”*. But during his life, and even today sometimes, Caucasians in Russia were called literally “black asses”, and Stalin surely heard that many times in his life, in the face. Which didn’t mean they think he was literally black, but the racist concepts differ in various countries.
*If you think a little on it, they say “caucasian”, but they really want to say “aryan” since the US concept of whiteness is close to nazi one and both came from the same places and the same people. Also both are nonsense if you think that is supposed to be some idealised version of “indoeuropean” which don’t include like 90% indoeuropeans. If anything, US version is stricter and more exclusive.
Was Julius Caesar white?
About the same as Italians are nowadays. Again, mostly depend on which construct was internalized by the people you ask.
I know that race is almost entirely a social construct, but does anyone else consider Slavic people to be people of color?
Its funny to call neoliberals racist because they hate a people of color nation resisting Ukranazi NATO imperialism.
I think when a Slavic person doesn’t get searched on the street in Western Europe when an African person would, they are ‘white’. When talking about how they are racialised under imperialism and capitalism to be exploited mostly for Western Europe’s benefit, ‘whiteness’ or POC isn’t a useful framing for analysing that. Using POC specifically in that way fails to actually talk about imperialism and labour relations of people who ARE seen as racially inferior by other ‘white’ people. But this is a limit of POC / Whiteness as taxonomies for understanding racism. I guess playing with it and mocking it is good but it’s clearly a tool for liberals ultimately. It’s useful sometimes but not all the time.
The modern concept of race is the result of capitalism, we have already seen how racism is employed against Slavic peoples who defy the capitalist world order. It’s definitely contextual, but I think the majority of the time they are not considered “white”
Regarding the color of his skin? Yes.
Regarding the concept of whiteness as created by fuck from TERF Island? Fuck no. He was georgian, that made him almost a slav by western european standards. There might even be some lusty turk among those swarty georgian blood! The horror! The barbarity! The orientality!
Dunno if the last word even exists, but it sounds like something a racist fucker from back then would cry about.
Not just back then, the contempt and to various degrees veiled racism of liberals is still significant—admittedly it’s better hidden. Consider why Turkey is refused entry to the EU, but Georgia and other countries are being welcomed. Consider all the claims that Russians are barbaric or violent people, often by liberals who claim to condemn racism. Many liberals won’t say it outright, but the believe those from “developing” (colonized and imperialized) counties are uncivilized and hence can’t progress or prosper. Liberal empire claims to be humaine, but will ravage the Middle East because they see Arabs as incapable of governing themselves. Actually, a similar logic of empire can be applied that which European powers used to justify their brutality. In other words, the racism we saw back then exists now, and it’s tied to imperialism.
Whiteness is in the eye of the beholder. It is given or taken at the benefit of the white oppressors.
