selchieproductions: Oh, this is cute. An Anon... - Cultural Appropriation Cracker.

selchieproductions:

Oh, this is cute. An Anon defending racism because whites have been subject to racism according to them. On Digatisdi’s Tumblr.
Don’t worry Eric, I’ll take this.
So, seeing as I am both Scottish, Swedish and South Saami, I guess I should respond to this;
The Saami are indigenous, members of the so-called fourth world and we were traditionally not considered to be white enough as the first race biological institute in the world loved to comment on when it was established in Stockholm in 1922. Our skulls have been collected and measured to prove that we aren’t white, there are photos of some of my family members in the race biological institute’s collections, where they’re classified as ‘Lappish types’. Some of the Saami were sterilised as they weren’t considered to be human enough - this went on way into the 1970’s - and the Saami were commonly described as non-white and affected by insanity, our skulls were presumably shorter than those owned by proper Europeans according to the studies of the 20’s. In short, we’ve been called primitive, mainly because we weren’t seen as white - we weren’t even seen as properly human, but rather as descendants of a less human, more primitive original European humanoid population. As an indigenous people we have been considered less worthy of a life than those colonising our lands, who most definitely did not think of us as white. The fact that we by modern day standards, much like the Jews, are considered to be white is something completely different.
The Scottish … Ah, first of all, this has nothing to do with racism, but is rather a form of nationalistic, or better, ethnic discrimination, second of all, as much as we don’t like saying it, it was the Scots who sold us to the English, it was the Lowland Scots who forbade the Gaelic language, the kilt, or tartan that you speak of was forbidden as an effect of the end of a civil war and had not so much to do with racism as with sectarianism and even better, tartan as it’s most likely referred to in this ask is a romantic lie, brought about as a Sir Walter Scottian way to present Scotland as a wild, romantic country to the English king. And so on and so forth. Yes, the Scots were oppressed by the English, but this is not an example of racism, as racism, simplified, is a form of supremacist, institutional race hatred placing one race above another, whereas Scots and Englishmen are both white. No-one’s disputing the fact that the English maltreated the Scots in the past (but so did the Scots), but this was not racism as much as it was a form of sectarianism, religious hatred, nationalistic hatred and ethnic discrimination. While e.g. the UN doesn’t tend to distinguish between ethnic and racial discrimination, there is a difference between the two, especially in common parlance.

Oh, this is cute. An Anon defending racism because whites have been subject to racism according to them. On Digatisdi’s Tumblr.

Don’t worry Eric, I’ll take this.

So, seeing as I am both Scottish, Swedish and South Saami, I guess I should respond to this;

The Saami are indigenous, members of the so-called fourth world and we were traditionally not considered to be white enough as the first race biological institute in the world loved to comment on when it was established in Stockholm in 1922.

Our skulls have been collected and measured to prove that we aren’t white, there are photos of some of my family members in the race biological institute’s collections, where they’re classified as ‘Lappish types’. Some of the Saami were sterilised as they weren’t considered to be human enough - this went on way into the 1970’s - and the Saami were commonly described as non-white and affected by insanity, our skulls were presumably shorter than those owned by proper Europeans according to the studies of the 20’s.

In short, we’ve been called primitive, mainly because we weren’t seen as white - we weren’t even seen as properly human, but rather as descendants of a less human, more primitive original European humanoid population. As an indigenous people we have been considered less worthy of a life than those colonising our lands, who most definitely did not think of us as white. The fact that we by modern day standards, much like the Jews, are considered to be white is something completely different.

The Scottish …

Ah, first of all, this has nothing to do with racism, but is rather a form of nationalistic, or better, ethnic discrimination, second of all, as much as we don’t like saying it, it was the Scots who sold us to the English, it was the Lowland Scots who forbade the Gaelic language, the kilt, or tartan that you speak of was forbidden as an effect of the end of a civil war and had not so much to do with racism as with sectarianism and even better, tartan as it’s most likely referred to in this ask is a romantic lie, brought about as a Sir Walter Scottian way to present Scotland as a wild, romantic country to the English king.

And so on and so forth.

Yes, the Scots were oppressed by the English, but this is not an example of racism, as racism, simplified, is a form of supremacist, institutional race hatred placing one race above another, whereas Scots and Englishmen are both white. No-one’s disputing the fact that the English maltreated the Scots in the past (but so did the Scots), but this was not racism as much as it was a form of sectarianism, religious hatred, nationalistic hatred and ethnic discrimination. While e.g. the UN doesn’t tend to distinguish between ethnic and racial discrimination, there is a difference between the two, especially in common parlance.