The racial mixing thread touches upon a realisation I have had within the past several months.  Before I say it, I would like to set the record straight regarding my beliefs.  First, there is no such thing as a race separate from one's ethnicity -- that is to say, there is no way that Spaniards and Finns, Swedes and Greeks, French and North Africans, English and Armenians, are all part of the same race.  On the contrary, there is the race of Swedes, the race of Greeks, the race of the Irish, the race of the Han Chinese, the race of the Japanese, the race of the Algonquian Indian tribes, and so on and so forth.  Second, I believe that racial mixing in itself is morally indifferent but can certainly be bad insofar as it harms the stability of a community in its attachment to its own particular customs, memories, and traditions.  On the other hand, insofar as it advances the spread of the Faith and the Christianisation of culture, or the good of a kingdom by its union with another, and so forth, it can be a positive good.  The converse, the union of a Protestant or Mohammedan man to a Catholic woman, which leads to either her living of a double life or her apostasy, is obviously a great evil (I am speaking of the social sphere, here, since obviously a baptised Catholic woman cannot canonically be validly married outside of the jurisdiction of the Church; she can, however, be taken into the society of heretics or infidels and live among them as if she were validly married).

That being said, it seems that Traditional Catholics are frequently bogged down into developing elaborate complaints and solutions for fake problems.  The Faith of the New Covenant, made between Christ and His Mystical Body, is not a "white" religion, a European religion, a middle-class religion, or a religion that relies upon the existence of large urban centers.  In the Middle Ages, there were no nation-states, either, and the world was not crudely separated between "civilisation" (Christianity) and "barbarianism" (everybody else).  In fact, the very word "civilisation" is not older than the Enlightenment, and it would be difficult before the Renaissace (ironically so-called) to find any Christians besides the Greeks using the word "barbarian" in its classical and contemporary sense, if at all.

I will go even further.  The idea that Christianity is a "white" religion, the concept of "whiteness" itself, the strong and incoherent attachment to modern European nation-states and post-Renaissance identity, association with the middle-class and its habitual beliefs, the defense of the general economic status quo for the past several centuries, and the use of the terminology of the Renaissance and Enlightenment ("barbarian" and "civilisation," respectively), do a great disservice to the Faith and its propagation to all of mankind.  They do a subjective disservice to the Catholic by bogging him down with all kinds of worldly baggage that destroys the vitality of his imagination and therefore harms his ability to react well and manfully in diverse situations, and they do an objective service to the Faith during this time of crisis by making its defence and explanation incoherent and much easier to dismiss or resist.

Quote

First, there is no such thing as a race separate from one's ethnicity

A stupid comment.  What is ethnicity?  Your attack on the concept of race can be equally applied to ethnicity.

Prove it.

Why should I even bother reading on what you've written?

You tell me.  I would not mind if you didn't comment on it, given that you clearly have strong enough feelings on anything to do with "race" that you are already angry with me despite admitting to not reading what I wrote.

Race is far more definitive than ethnicity, and surely exists independently of ethnicity.

You must have a different definition of ethnicity than me.  To me, somebody is ethnically Armenian and therefore racially Armenian, ethnically Russian and therefore of the race of Russians, and so forth.  It seems to me that I am using the traditional, mediaeval usage.  What are you using ?

Ask the noble houses of Europe about that.!

I don't see where you were going with that.

There's no use debating someone who simply refers to everything he doesn't like as "WASP" and then makes indefensible statements and just keeps repeating them with his wasp mantra.

Quote from: PereJoseph

I don't see where you were going with that.

What is their ethnicity?

Oh, I see.  I guess it depends on what ethnic makeup they have and then which language and culture they associate with the most, which would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.  For instance, I don't consider Anglophone Italians to be ethnically English or of the same race as the English; I consider them to be Anglophone Italians.

And yet they surely constitute members of a race of relatively closely related people.

Sure, but so what.

I agree with you on race vs. ethnicity, but I reject your modern accusation that Sicilians are mongrels.

I don't think that what I said was an accusation, nor do I think it is particularly "modern," nor do I think that it makes them mongrels any more than the offspring of a French Crusader who married a Lebanese princess would be, since she is just as Arab as the Mohammedan Arabs are.

Could you give us a brief list of what races you are and which races you dislike? That would be helpful.

Why would it be helpful ?

So far I know you dislike Sicilians.

I don't dislike Sicilians.  I was being sarcastic.

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote from: Augustinian

I agree with you on race vs. ethnicity, but I reject your modern accusation that Sicilians are mongrels.

I don't think that what I said was an accusation, nor do I think it is particularly "modern," nor do I think that it makes them mongrels any more than the offspring of a French Crusader who married a Lebanese princess would be, since she is just as Arab as the Mohammedan Arabs are.

A mongrel is a mixed race person. A French and a Lebanese person do not breed the same race.

I agree that they don't, but I don't see why the term "mongrel," which as far as I know is derogatory, needs to be used.  One might as well call them "half-breeds" or something like that, in which case there is a serious problem for the peoples of Europe, who are a combination of many different things.

Are you French?

Yes, but I am also other things, though I don't culturally identify with them.  Would you consider somebody who is half German and half Irish to be a "mongrel" ?  What about the offspring of Italic Romans who married Celtic Gauls and, later, Germanic Western Franks (that is what we French are) ?  That would mean all Frenchmen are half-breeds/mongrels/mutts, etc.

Quote from: PereJoseph

Yes, but I am also other things, though I don't culturally identify with them.  Would you consider somebody who is half German and half Irish to be a "mongrel" ?  What about the offspring of Italic Romans who married Celtic Gauls and, later, Germanic Western Franks (that is what we French are) ?  That would mean all Frenchmen are half-breeds/mongrels/mutts, etc.

To a degree yes, but not to the same degree as someone of a hamitic or distant Semitic race.

Now, here is something I have pondered on:

Adam and Eve's children had to marry their siblings, in the absence of any cousins.

However, Sem, Cham, and Japheth's children obviously had cousins.

So, presumably Sem's children married Cham's and/or Japheth's, and so on.

So, Sem's descendants are also descendents of Cham and/or Japheth.

Doesn't that make them mongrels??

Or did they marry siblings, even though they had cousins?