I understand where you’re coming from; however, that wasn’t the point I was making.

The entire point of this piece was to poke holes in the theory that white people are “dying out” due to forced multiculturalism and to point out that colonizing countries full of black and brown people isn’t the best way to keep your ‘nation’ pure. It was not written to reference the history of tribal and cultural mixing that’s ever happened over the course of the world’s existence.

Colonization is not the same thing as local tribes going to war with each other, one losing, and then losing tribe being absorbed into the winning tribe. A misunderstanding of history wasn’t demonstrated here.

Even “whiteness” as a definition, is constantly changing. I used 1492 as a benchmark because that is when the subjugation and genocide of the Indigenous populations of the Americas began and laid the groundwork for the trans-Atlantic slave trade. People are affected by those events to this day, making the particular date a good jumping-off point. Not to say those who were affected by earlier colonization are not currently struggling. The Amazigh people (who you referred to as Berbers) got the name “Berbers” from Romans. They called them “Barbaros,” which translates to barbarians. But even they were under French control from 1834 to the 1960s. It is impossible to escape the imperialism and cross-continental colonization that took place from 1492 to the present day.

I never said that colonization by another imperialistic power would have never occurred had the Europeans never done it. But the Europeans did, that’s the point. I have no interest in entertaining “what-if” scenarios when talking about white supremacy. Colonization is colonization; it does not matter who is perpetrating it. Regardless of its origin, I’d be criticizing whatever colonizing power had colonized other continents- no matter timeline we were in.

Thank you for reading :)