Examining what it means to be "White"

There’s so much that could be discussed about when dealing with the idea of “White” or “Whiteness”. From what I’ve observed, the idea of being “White” is strongest in Protestant Europe (Britain, the Netherlands, etc.), and the people of Catholic Europe adhere to their ethnic identity. I see “White” in the United States as a culture; an Anglo-Saxon-based one. Of course, just like anywhere else, the culture varies by class and region. However, being English-based, this culture is not the traditional one you would imagine, like Polish, Spanish, Italian or French, for example; but, rather, it’s more individual-based, meaning that members of this group do not see themselves as a collective. It’s a culture nevertheless.

White has different meanings. To me White is: 1. Person who is genetically of European descent, in Europe, and whose descendants today are in North, Central & South America, the Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa; 2. In the United States, a person of racially white origin who identifies as, and is perceived by others as, “White,” meaning is culturally part of the dominant Anglo (English)-based American culture—as opposed to African-American culture—to which non-English European immigrants had to assimilate in order to not be ethnic. So I could say the following sentence and still be correct: Penélope Cruz, Audrey Tautou, Brad Pitt, Alexis Bledel, Gisele Bundchen, Fidel Castro are all white people; but of these, only Brad Pitt is White—Penelope is Spanish, Audrey is French, Brad Pitt is a White American, Alex Bledel is Latina, Gisele is Brazilian, and Fidel Castro is Cuban.

According to Wikipedia, in Britain, whites are categorized under “White British” (for those who are of English, Scottish, Welsh descent, and even those from Northern Ireland who identify as ‘British’), “White Irish” (for the ethnic Irish population living in Britain) and then “White Other,” (for anyone else of racially white ancestry). It’s important to examine Britain’s current racial classification system, simply because it was the English who colonized and created neo-European societies in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where the concept of whiteness was imported to. In Australia for example, being white means you’re “literally white,” therefore making George Clooney, an Irish-American, non-white because he has a dark complexion; even though here in the United States he is considered white.

Consider this: in the blue states, where there’s more racial diversity, someone could say to me “You look like you could be European” But no one would ever say to me “You look like you could be white”. Why? Because the majority of racially white people in the United States is not of Southern European ancestry—who tend to have darker features than Northern and Central European people—but, of Northwestern European ancestry. This isn’t to say that I’m not of mixed racial origin; it’s just that phenotypically I look more European than not.

As Americans, we have internalized what it means to be “white,” but most of us can’t define it, except by saying “it’s a person who has a light complexion.” However, it’s much more complicated than that. “White” and “Latino” aren’t mutually exclusive in terms of race; but in terms of culture, they are. That is why in the census forms neither Hispanic nor Latino is included as race.  When immigrants like the Irish, the Italians, the Jews and the Germans, for example, arrived to the United States, they were not considered White by “old stock” Americans of English descent; though Germans were more easily accepted as White than others. These people were deemed too ‘ethnic’. In fact, “old stock” Americans even considered the Irish to be of a different race. However, these people eventually came to be accepted as White. How did that happen? They had to lose their “ethnic-ness” through assimilation to the dominant Anglo-based culture in order to become White. This is why in newspapers Whites are referred to as “Anglos”, just as newspapers refer to "Latinos" as Hispanics or Latinos; Anglo does not refer to racial English ancestry, but, rather, culture, just as neither Hispanic nor Latino denotes racial Spanish or Portuguese (or French or Italian) ancestry, but culture—‘cause you can find a Latino of English ancestry or a White person of Spanish ancestry. Finding a name like ‘Bernardo O’Higgins’ (Spanish first name, Irish last name) should not strike one as weird, unless you consider a name like “Bruce Willis” (English first name, German last name) just as weird. We consider a name like “George López” as a Latino name, but we consider a name like “Steven Spielberg” as a White name—even though both last names are of European origin. Interesting to think about.

What about Middle Easterners and North Africans? The fact of the matter is, they are originally Mediterranean peoples, just like southern Europeans. However, due to civilizational differences—that is, they aren’t Western—they aren’t perceived as white. In addition, there have been Viking invasions to these areas, thus making light-eyes and light-hair a more common occurrence; in North Africa, mixture with sub-Saharan Africans, who are black, has occurred.

The British and the Irish have Mediterranean ancestry, as well. In fact, it has been stated that “genetic fingerprint of the populations tested” in Britain, Ireland and Spain are “almost identical”, because of Iberian migration into what are now Britain and Ireland; it makes sense: take a look at Welsh actress Catherine Zeta-Jones. A lot of British people have Mediterranean facial structures, a thin face with sharp facial features, but oftentimes with very fair skin, light eyes, and light hair, like Hugh Laurie, who plays “Dr. House” in “House.” Why include this? Because I maintain that to be white, one has to fit certain civilizational requirements, even though genetically a Mediterranean European is similar to a Mediterranean Persian, the latter probably being more likely to consider herself “brown” as opposed to “white.”

Lets look at the case of Armenians in the United States in the latter part of the 20th century and now.  For some background: Armenia was the first country to adopt Christianity as its official religion; their form of Christianity is Armenian Orthodox, as opposed to Western European Roman Catholicism and the various Protestant Churches. Armenian-Americans at my high school were perceived as different from the Whites at my high school, due to differences in phenotype and culture; but they were racially white nevertheless. Aside from the obvious, why and how was this distinction able to be made? Like I said before, we’ve internalized what it means to be “White” and how to tell someone is “White”. Just like in Latin America, an outsider’s, and self, perception matters here. If an Armenian-American dressed in Abercrombie and Hollister, had an “American” name, spoke without an accent, we would perceive him or her as White. However, if this person spoke with an accent, had an Armenian name, and dressed a certain way, we would perceive this person as “ethnic,” as non-white. Seeing as how many Armenians—at least in Los Angeles proper—are 1st generation Americans or recently-arrived immigrants, including them in applications and census forms as white hides the problems this community faces in terms of access to higher education, among other things, as they have not achieved whiteness yet. In fact, given its history and difference from Western European countries, I’m not sure it’ll happen.

In conclusion, “Whiteness” or being “White” is totally a socially constructed idea. One’s whiteness is mostly, if not completely, contingent upon an outsider’s perception. In this country, you have to fit certain criteria in order to be considered White, which is synonymous to White American, which means Anglo-American. It's something that's changing.