To say that the “white” race did not exist until relatively recently – or still has yet to be born – is counterintuitive. As in the above diagram, where some claim that the white arrows have an existential quality one degree short of the black, it’s a question of consciousness.
Descendants of Europeans in English speaking countries such as Canada, America, and Australia, have considered themselves “white” since the establishment of nationhood. This according to our founding documents, the missives of our founders, and well into the resulting social divisions of the present.
We take it for granted that a Russian or Argentinian, or the continent of Europe — with a majority of the population related to “whites” in Anglo-counties– have virtually no history of identifying “white” equal to our own.
Russia’s conquests of the East certainly had racial undertones, and Argentines are keenly aware of the difference in skin colour between the inhabitants of Sao Palo and Buenos Aires, but the majorities in either country have zero experience of using “race” for purposes of identity.
For an American onlooker, the “whiteness” of a Russian and “white” American are obvious. For a Russian, they are not. A significant part of the Russian populace will tend to identify regionally and culturally, rather than “racially”. For an Argentine, the dregs of Brazilian society are black, while Brazilian footballers are metises, but neither translates into Argentines refering to themselves as “whites” in their dealings with the world.
Sharing a lineage obvious to some, may not be obvious to others who share in it; implying that a fact can be a fact can be a fact, but its relevance can vary dramatically. An empirical fact – that of DNA, eye color, skin tone, and physiognomy, is highly valued in the USA – where it is the official way of categorizing citizens since the nation’s birth! The same facts have no validity in Russia and Argentina, which would consider their institutionalization irrelevant, and would be considered outright dangerous and preposterous, in continental Europe.
Racial identity is part-and-parcel of an American’s concept of the self – but for a Russian and Argentianian, it is still secondary to that of ethnicity, language, culture, and location. The ethnic ancestry of the still majority populations of Europe, Russia, Argentina, and the USA is a common one, but awareness of this commonality varies in its intensity, importance, and relevance. People may be “white” in all these places, but in only a few, will the majority of these people identify as “white.”
England officially classifies its inhabitants into Whites, Asians, and Blacks – the rest of Europe, bluntly refuses to do so.
France and Germany ban the collection of “racial, religious, or ethnic” statistics at any level of government. What goes for the continents two biggest countries, in one way or another goes for the rest of the place.
Like their counterparts in just about anywhere in the world except the USA, “Immigrants” and “Muslims” – are the only terms European publics can comprehend. The idea of being a member of a “race” of being “white” or “Asian,” is both uncomfortable, and discouraged.
Europe stands out in the “white” world for both the degree to which “race” is a highly undesirable “consciousness” and yet appears similar to that of Russia and Argentina. It is not part of the English speaking world, in which miscegenation remained a criminal offense until recently, and racial separation was part of government policy.
Since the consciousness of being “white” does not overlap with the genealogical fact of being so, the statement that the “white race” has yet to be born (if ever), needs no further elaboration. Globaly – “white” people attach varying degrees of importance to their whiteness, and their political preferences reflect regional, cultural, and linguistic priorities, over racial ones.
Hitler could annihilate countless millions of “whites” on the grounds of “racial” inferiority to the “true” and “only” Aryans of the Nordics. The USSR and now Russia have been opposing the US for a century, without the slightest sentiment of shared heritage to abate their intransigence; any ally will do, as long as it hurts the Yanks.
Genetic facts aside, no biological sentiment of killion one’s own, has ever predominated in what non-whites perceive as the White World. In fact, aside from non-whites, the majorities in the genetically “white” world, has never even considered such a term as the “White world” – a term in use in the 19th century – as anything beyond a reference to the 19th century cultural and military supremacy of Europe. Bringing us to the question, of the non-white world.