OK, but 'white' means roughly 'of European descent.' — The Great Whatever

It correlated with being of European descent, particularly from countries like England, Spain, France, Germany, etc. But what being white meant was being the group in power who gets to dominate the inferior people from other areas of the world.

Yes, it does. Ethnic identity is only our thoughts and words. If people, for example, thought of black people as white people, then within our categories they would be "white." — TheWillowOfDarkness

They would be "white?" Well, they would be black ex hypothesi, as you just said. We could use the word "white" to mean what we now mean by "black," sure. But that wouldn't make black people white. This is a use-mention confusion.

To say someone belongs within a category because of their skin (e.g. a white person has the identity of "white" and a black person has the identity of "black") is entirely a social construction — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not at all – there are different groups of people, and one of the outward signs of this is a different superficial experience, e.g. in skin tone.

No, it meant being European. Being European meant you got to dominate, yes. But you're committing a fallacy. Notice that no one not from Europe becomes white in virtue of being a colonizer – and there have even been many colonizers over the years that were not white, if you can believe it.

They would be "white?" Well, they would be black ex hypothesi, as you just said. We could use the word "white" to mean what we now mean by "black," sure. But that wouldn't make black people white. This is a use-mention confusion. — The Great Whatever

White people aren't white, and black people aren't black, if you want to get technical about it. So obviously we can use colors to denote something other than the actual skin pigment.

Except I wasn't talking about colors, obviously, but categories of people metonymically named on the basis of those colors, so this is irrelevant.

I understand that there have been many non-European colonizers. What I'm saying is that whiteness as invented to justify domination of non-European groups. It's okay to own slaves because being black means being inferior and in need of a master. It was the dark skinned African's place in the world to serve the white man. That sort of thing. It didn't start out that way, but it turned into that. Problem is that it stayed on after slavery was ended, and was used as a justification for discriminating against blacks and other minorities. To pretend that whiteness, blackness, etc is separate from all that is to ignore history.

Missing the point. I didn't say to would make black people white (i.e. change the colour of their skin). Nor did I say that "white" meant "black." I mean, literally, that black people might be considered part of the same identity category as white people, a category of "white."-- an instance where skin colour doesn't matter to belonging to the category of "white" or where it is thought someone of black skin ought to belong to the same category as someone of "white skin."

Not at all – there are different groups of people, and one of the outward signs of this is a different superficial experience, e.g. in skin tone. — The Great Whatever

Not in terms of our understanding of others. Who belongs to a group depends on whether we categorise them as a part of it. We all have different bodies, yes, but that's not enough to define belonging to a different social identity. Differences might, for example, not be thought about by us, so we just think of everyone as "human" (as opposed to "male" or "female" or "black" or "white"). We need to group people before they register in this sense. It's our action, not a pre-existing fact defined by the differences between us.

I would add further, that if it weren't for the slave trade, there wouldn't be black people, there would be Africans of different groups. And there wouldn't be white people, there would be people of various European descent.

So being white is being of European descent. But being white was invented to justify colonization and slavery. It therefore follows that being of European descent was invented to justify colonization and slavery.

Granted this seems to be what some people actually believe – but I'm just pointing out it's incoherent.

Not in terms of our understanding of others. Who belongs to a group depends on whether we categorise them as a part of it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not at all. Who belongs to a group depends on the qualities of the person and the qualities composing the group. We can change labels for groups, and categorize more or less broadly, and change which words we use to refer to which groups, or decide to focus on some groups to the exclusion of others as more salient or important for categorization, but that affects nothing about whether someone belongs to a particular group or not.

If it weren't for the slave trade, there would still be black people, obviously. Why would you say something so clearly false?

No... just the identity of "white" or "European heritage" (social identity category).

European descent (i.e. having ancestors who lived in Europe) is about the history of bodies and remains true.

If it weren't for the slave trade, there would still be black people, obviously. Why would you say something so clearly false? — The Great Whatever

There would be related groups of people from sub-Sarahan Africa, southern Asia, and Australia who had darker skin than everyone else. But they wouldn't be considered "black" in the sense of belonging to a racial category that is somehow inferior to groups of related lighter skinned people descended from elsewhere on the planet, particularly in Europe.

OK, but having European heritage is just having ancestors that lived in Europe. So what you're saying makes no sense.

OK, but people from sub-saharan Africa are black. So what you say makes no sense. They wouldn't be considered inferior or enslaved, but that wouldn't make them not black, which is absurd. White people didn't invent black people by enslaving them, as your position seems to suggest.

Just people who wrote about when 'black', 'yellow', etc. were created. Now that Trump has won on poor whites who have been neglected for decades, but also marginalized through the 'PC' culture, it might be worth going back to when and why PC culture actually originated and perhaps reconsider whether this was all justified.

Yeah... that's the falsehood we are trying to get past here. Identity is not a constraint (e.g. tick these boxes and you count as X) but an expression (e.g. you are X if you express X). Who belongs to a group can change, it may expand or reduce, depending on who is understood to have that identity. All it takes is the right expression.

In the case of ethnic identity? Clearly not. No amount of expression will make it so that your ancestors originated from somewhere other than from where they actually did.

OK, but people from sub-saharan Africa are black. — The Great Whatever

So by that you mean they are more closely related to one another and have darker skin? Do you think we would recognize an all-encompassing category based on skin pigment?

I mean that "black" and "of sub-Saharan African descent" are roughly synonymous, at least as I understand the words in my idiolect.

No amount of expression will make it so that your ancestors originated from somewhere other than from where they actually did. — The Great Whatever

So in our accurate description of ethnic groups, do we consider Eskimos to be yellow or red?

It doesn't matter. Maybe neither. Using the vagueness of categories or exceptions of categories is not grounds for the dismissal of a category – again this is a fallacy. If the vague terms don't work, you can track their ethnic origin as precisely as the data will allow.

But the point here is it doesn't. In the situation I was pointing out, "European heritage" or "white" is a social identity category. The one of the various European societies who came to dominate the globe in the last few centuries. It doesn't mean "my ancestors were European." It means: "I am of the ethic group which colonised the world between the 16th and 21st century."

In the case of ethnic identity? Clearly not. No amount of expression will make it so that your ancestors originated from somewhere other than from where they actually did. — The Great Whatever

That's not ethic identity. It a description of where your ancestors lived. It's not subject to any sort of doubt here. The point is not that expression makes your ancestors come from somewhere else, it is that it defines how people are understood to belong, the social groups of a particular time and how they relate to others.

The question is what the motivation is for lumping such large populations into a groups based on skin color. I've noticed that people of European descent can vary quite a bit in their skin pigment, and even look quite dark with enough sun, just as African descendants can be quite light.

If all we cared about was noting that people descend from certain geographic locations, why not just use European, African, Indian, North American, etc?

It doesn't mean "my ancestors were European." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes it does. It may also be that being of European descent puts you in a historically privileged class. That does not mean that this is the meaning of the word, or that white people were 'invented' in the last several hundred years.

For instance, if you say someone in America is white, you mean they're of European descent. You may connote that they are racist or horrible slavers or whatever, but that's not what the word means, and it can be used connotation-neutrally as well.

That's not ethic identity. It a description of where your ancestors lived. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's what ethnic identity is.

Are you asking me why people use words to group things into certain categories?

Are you asking me why people use words to group things into certain categories? — The Great Whatever

I already know the reason, and it's not to identify the geography of one's ancestors.

And what is the reason?

To express racial superiority or inferiority, and the resulting advantages/disadvantages that go with that.

In what way can one express racial superiority/inferiority, if there is no race to be inferior or superior to?

I said it was social construct, didn't I?