Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Were The Ancient Romans White? The Truth" video.

So your argument is "who doesn't share my opinions if a fascist"? You seem like the parody a right-wingers would make of a leftist. People like you are like a gift of god for them.
1
Err... Why? While the fairness of the skin, along with other physical traits, is easily recognizable, the "Caucasian" origin of those traits is a completely discredited theory. The term entred in use along with "negroid" and "mongoloid", that are now even considered offensive.
1
There had not been any anymosity, for long or short time, in Italy "based on separate ràcíal identities", and why the opinion of 18th-19th century Americans on the matter should be of some importance? "in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also" (Benjamin Franklin).
1
@GhostSal a) it was a small minority. b) even for them the difference was cultural and not racial. None of them really considered the descendants of southern immigrants in the north as being of a different race than them. And, for Benjamin Franklin, as already said, "in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also". A single doctor measuring skulls doesn't make a "racial identity" and Lombroso NEVER described southerners as a different race. BTW Lombroso's theories had been disputed even in his time and he had been discredited. The Italian Society of Anthropology and Ethnology refused his articles in its magazine since 1877 (after the theory of the "median occipital fossa" had been disproven by Andrea Verga), and expelled him in 1882. Like for long time there was tension, animosity and VERY OFTEN even physical altercations between citizens of Manchester and Liverpool. It had nothing to do between them considering themself of different races.
1
@GhostSal No it wasn't. Infacts there were descendants of southern immigrants even among those that were saying it. It was very clearly based on perceived cultural, not racial, differencies. Thanks for the appreciation. I think you dont' know what you are talking about and had always seen the world through biased lenses that only confirmed your personal prejudices. Are you more confortable with this way if discussing? "difference" and "racial difference" are different things.
1
@GhostSal Why should I "aknowledge" something patently not true? Sorry, what you said to have "experienced" on a comment section is not a demosntration of anything, otherwise we would have had "demonstrations" of goat piss to cure cancer or any other kind of bullshit. I don't care of you very personally wanting to use definitions or identify with anyone, but are YOU that wanted to talk about "RACIAL IDENTITIES". "We are not" has to be demonstrated, and you didn't demonstrate it. Your past discrimination, real or not, was culturally and not racially based. Southern Italians can't be discerned from northern Italians based on the "look". In the US a black man can't join the KKK, it doesn't count for how much time his family lived in N. America, because THAT discrimination IS racially motivated. In Italy, the son of a Neapolitan that migrated to Milan could be among those shouting that "south of Rome is all Africa", because that discrimination WAS NOT racially motivated. Your very personal preference is only your. If you look like a white man, and that's pratically assured if you are of Italian ancestry, you'll be called like that.
1
@gianlucarossi5672 Infact Franklin, like Lombroso, adapted what he saw to what he believed.
1
@philwilliams8328 It's an old habit. Benjamin Franklin IE considered only Anglo-Saxons "white", even against the evidence. "in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also".
1