Familiarity daily increasing between them and the whites [Dutch], the latter now proposed to stay with them, asking them only for so much land as the hide of a bullock would cover (or encompass,) which hide was brought forward and spread on the ground before them.

That they readily granted this request; whereupon the whites took a knife, and beginning at one place on this hide, cut it up into a rope not thicker than the finger of a little child, so that by the time this hide was cut up there was a great heap.

That this rope was drawn out to a great distance, and then brought round again, so that both ends might meet. That they carefully avoided its breaking, and that upon the whole it encompassed a large piece of ground. That they (the Indians) were surprised at the superior wit of the whites, but did not wish to contend with them about a little land, as they had enough.

That they and the whites lived for a long time contentedly together, although these asked from time to time more land of them; and proceeding higher up the Mahicanittuk (Hudson River), they believed they would soon want all their country, and which at this time was already the case.

Source: New-York Historical Society Collections, 2nd ser., (1841), vol. 1: 71–74.

Although the interviews were over 150 years after the encounter, this is the first mention I have found of Europeans being called “whites.” Natives were as likely to call them pale or name them after their hats or swords. Of source, in the ancient world there was no such thing as a white person or a black person. Even a type of person described as being white of skin, like Roman descriptions of Celts, was not designated a white person, but rather named for his race, his true ethnic, tribal, cultural race.

Why of a sudden, in early modern times, the zoological designation of people according to in accurate color coding?

Christians, almost immediately after the settlement of North America, begin being called white rather than Christian, when they are manifestly not white, any more than Africans are black. I have never met a white person or a black person.

I have met brown folks of many shades, Europeans ranging from pink to brown but mostly beige.

Most importantly, not a single one of the ancient authors from the civilizations that modern Whites’ refer to themselves as the inheritors of designated themselves as white: Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Herodotus, Polybius, Pytheas, Quintillian, Livy, Pausanius, Menander, Diodurus… None of these folks defined themselves as white.

What is more telling is that the vast majority of so-called whites of the 17th, and 18th centuries did not refer to themselves as white, but as Christian and did not refer to Native Americans as red, but as heathen or savage [the later denoting woodland dwellers] or Indios or Indians, which simply came from the Spanish for inhabitants of the Indies and had no color designation. Often, European immigrants referred to natives according to the tribe, not according to a broader definition, which was in keeping with native custom.

Furthermore, the term white, in modern jargon confuses identity. Among white nationalists—the most ardent adherents to the idea of white racial identity—I have interviewed, none can or will tell me who is white and who is not, but refuse most specifics, other than to deny that the extremely pale, red-headed Jews I know are white, when the Silverstiens, Goldstiens and Ziglines I have known are all lighter of skin than most white nationalists I have known.

It is a fact that not all Arуans or Caucasians have skin tones that would generally pass for white in the common consciousness.

Also, milky pale—almost white—Egyptian belly dancers are barred from belonging to white identity groups, although the leaders of these groups are almost universally beige and not white.

Ultimately, the question I am seeking an answer for here, is why did Christian begin to give way to white only after the French, Dutch and English settlement of North America?

Indeed, the earliest Christian would have been tan to brown, bringing their faith into a much more pale or "white" northern and western Europe out of the Middle East and Middle Sea.

Concurrent with this gradual shift from Christian to white identity was the shift from African and Negro to black, despite the fact that I have yet to discover a human of African descent whose skin is as dark as their hair, which is objectively black in almost all cases, just as their skin is manifestly not black but some shade of brown.

This is as ridiculous as calling Japanese yellow men when they tend to a whiteness more pale than Europeans.

Why then, do hundreds of millions of people who are obviously not white of skin cleave to this falsehood as an identity? Likewise, why do beige, golden, tan and brown people insist by the tens of millions that they are black when they are visibly not?

I currently know black identified people more white than myself and white identified people with a deeper tan than many blacks.

Why abandon true racial identities such as Irish and English, or cultural identities such as Christian, for something as variable as skin tone, which can vary in one person over a portion of the spectrum denied by his designation?

It is no accident that this polarizing terminology has come to such vivid life in America, Land of the Lie Eternal.

I have found the answer, but do wish to avoid death and censorship, so will exclude it from online publication and reveal it in the books Crackerboy and White Indians and Yellow Negroes, in which the zoological semantics of racial identity will be discussed, each in their own unique light.

1. noun, plural manitous (especially collectively) manitou. 1. (among the Algonquian Indians) a supernatural being that controls nature; a spirit, deity, or object that possesses supernatural power.

A Partial Exhumation of the American Dream