>>724639
>That's not what an anachronism is
Yes, you are projecting your current view of White back onto the past of America, when they did not have the same definition of White. Anglo-Saxons clearly did not think that Irish were of the same stock as other Whites. This should be common knowledge by now.
Irish were literally called "tiggers turned inside out" and blacks were called "smoked Irish" as well. It was well-known that Irish even referred to themselves as a "race" set apart from other white ethnicities in both Britain and America. Look at books like "Comparative Physiognomy: or, Resemblances Between Men and Animals" to see an example of the different attitude towards Irish, who are identified physiognomically with dogs whereas Anglo-Saxons were identified with Lions. The argument that Irish were only treated differently because they were poor also fails as only 10% of Irish immigrants were laborers, whereas as much as 25% were artisans, according to immigration records.
To be fair, many non-English European racial scientists of the time did see Irish as White, however, they did not see other ethnicities you've said in this thread are White (going off the boundaries of Europe) as being so, such as Finns, Hungarians, and Estonians.
You simply assume that Whites are considered the same thing we are now, which is a ridiculous assumption to make, and you didn't provide any evidence of it. My point in saying all of this is that the boundaries you've defined as White now are not what they have always been. Your definition of White as being all Europeans is false.
>All of Europe are the white nations. Provide for me your alternative reading of Acts 17:26
Let us look at the original Greek text, or more specifically, the important part:
<And hath made of one blood all nations (ἔθνος) of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
The Greek word ἔθνος does not describe a "race" as you would define it. It is where the word "ethnicity" comes from, and it was used in the first century to refer to a specific tribe, for example, someone like the Dacii, Getae, etc. The word ethnos did not mean race because the concept of a pan-ethnic race was simply not held at this time period. The Church Fathers also do not have a concept of race, but the same concept of ethnoi, or tribes.
I have no objection to a state which wants to remain majority their own ethnicity, I am not some kind of anti-European shill, but the concept of a pan-racial state is not the same thing. I believe the nation should be founded on a single ethnicity. This is the same attitude that right-wing European political parties have as well, I have many friends from many European countries and I have asked them all if there is a strong pan-White consciousness among right wingers, but they have all told me there is none, for Polish nationalists wish nothing to do with the Germans, or whatever. It is an American mindset that came about only after the Civil War which finally turned America into a country which would be a "White nation", whatever that means, where people from any "White" country would be considered equal worth. Even after this point, Irish, Italians, Hungarians, Finns, etc. were still called "White ethnics" and held to a lesser standard than Anglo-Saxons. My point in saying all of this isn't to discredit true nationalism, but to say that nationalism should be along ethnic, not racial, lines, as was the view for most of history. Race and ethnicity are not the same thing, though they are closely related.