Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the common argument is always "why do people call pro white racist, when other ethnic groups can have pride"? First off, this isn't a bad argument to make. If one were to look at things at the surface it does raise a valid question. And I still maintain that YES being pro WHITE is always racist, and there is a perfect logically consistent reasons as to why. And I can say this without being anti-white people.
So first we need to actually make 1 thing clear, being pro European is RARELY frowned upon. There are Irish, Anglo, study groups and organizations. There are organizations dedicated to Italian, Irish, Polish, and Slavic heritage as well. No one seems to even pay attention to these things, and society as a whole doesn't really see them as harmful, because they're not. So this pretty much ends the whole "why can't you be pro white" argument right away. Because someone could obviously be proud of their heritage and their roots and be of European descent in America.
So why is pro white so racist then? Because white isn't actually any sort of ethnic group. The term WHITE is really about power structure. It is about an outdate hierarchy in the way society should see value in people with white being up top and black being at the bottom. The term White is a membership into this power structure.
Now why do I say this? Because the term "white" really only existed when Europeans got around blacks or lived in a society with blacks and other people. At one time many European ethnic groups were not actually white. At one time, you were either white or some other European group. This was seen during times of massive proverty amongst Hungarian, German, Irish, and Polish immigrants in the early 20th century. There was a concept of "white" back then, but these groups weren't in that power structure.
Eventually all Europeans were accepted into this power structure, and became "white" and not really broken down by their unique European nations. So most of the offsprings of these immigrants have been basically socialized to see themselves a "white first" and their European heritage has become secondary. They believe that "white" is an actual racial identity, which is not. White is a power structure. There has been attempts to retroactively make white a race by calling whites in American Caucasian. But this is obviously false, because they do not call Indians or Arabic people "white", even though they are "Caucasian". The reality Caucasian doesn't and has never meant "white", and has only been used that way in the American context.
So to review there is no such thing as white ethnic pride, because the idea of whiteness is a power structure. And there are no clear examples of any other non-European group condeming European heritage or pride. They however do condem the power structure of "whiteness" as it's an old antiquated idea from the 18th century.
I gave you rep because you make a convincing case that some whites take undue pride in the color of their skin.
However, if "white" is NOT a race -- as you wrote, white is not an actual racial identity -- then how can being pro-white be considered racist?
Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that being "pro-white" means that one is considers lighter skinned people to be superior to those with darker skin color. So perhaps a better term than "racist" might be "colorist"? (Of course, I am not being serious by using the term "colorist" as that could lead to saying that one was a hair stylist or in favor of dyeing one's hair. Just joking, of course.)
Did blacks refer to themselves as blacks before they encountered whites? Of as members of different tribes? Why would Europeans refer to themselves as whites when all the people they encountered were white?
"He's white."
"So? Everybody's white."
Now, they obviously knew of French, German, Italian, Polish, etc. because they encountered them or were told of them. These were differences they were aware of.
I don't buy all that power structure stuff either.
* Unfortunately, "pro-white" has been synonymous with white separatists and nationalists among other groups.
* Racism is actually ~not~ a terrible thing. It is the discrimination that comes out of it that is a real problem.. and the idea of inferior and superior races is an excuse. I personally don't care if you are racist.. just don't infringe on other people's rights including mine.
* There are many people of "white" skin who celebrate their culture; italians and irish in particular. No one really sees that as a racist act.
* Caucasian has different connotations in other parts of the world. In FSU areas, Caucasians are referring to people from Caucasus. Often these people are referred to as "black".... most because of their darker features of hair and eye color as they are still light skinned. Interesting enough, they are discriminated against.
* We as a society have this stupid one-drop rule that persists. Obama is half white raised by mostly white people. Yet he is the first black president. My children are half asian and people insist that they are not white but asian.
Humans are stupid enough to find any reason to feel superior.
I believe the concept of race, white, black, or green, is nothing but a power structure. You're correct in saying "white doesn't mean anything" because it doesn't. There is no 'white' culture. Germans and the Irish are both white but they aren't the same. Can they find common ground? Sure, but that doesn't mean much as an Iranian and a German could surely also find common ground. Oddly enough, both are basically white, so that's not even the best example.
But that also goes for black. Black people aren't all one culture. A black person living in Africa is different than a black person living in America, and both are different from a black person living in France.
Oversimplifying culture and identity into arbitrary races is meant to solidify power structures. Ultimately, values are far more important in determining cultural identity, followed by things like ethnicity and religion. I frankly consider skin tone to be a meaningless identifier.
So the common argument is always "why do people call pro white racist, when other ethnic groups can have pride"? First off, this isn't a bad argument to make. If one were to look at things at the surface it does raise a valid question. And I still maintain that YES being pro WHITE is always racist, and there is a perfect logically consistent reasons as to why. And I can say this without being anti-white people.
So first we need to actually make 1 thing clear, being pro European is RARELY frowned upon. There are Irish, Anglo, study groups and organizations. There are organizations dedicated to Italian, Irish, Polish, and Slavic heritage as well. No one seems to even pay attention to these things, and society as a whole doesn't really see them as harmful, because they're not. So this pretty much ends the whole "why can't you be pro white" argument right away. Because someone could obviously be proud of their heritage and their roots and be of European descent in America.
So why is pro white so racist then? Because white isn't actually any sort of ethnic group. The term WHITE is really about power structure. It is about an outdate hierarchy in the way society should see value in people with white being up top and black being at the bottom. The term White is a membership into this power structure.
Now why do I say this? Because the term "white" really only existed when Europeans got around blacks or lived in a society with blacks and other people. At one time many European ethnic groups were not actually white. At one time, you were either white or some other European group. This was seen during times of massive proverty amongst Hungarian, German, Irish, and Polish immigrants in the early 20th century. There was a concept of "white" back then, but these groups weren't in that power structure.
Eventually all Europeans were accepted into this power structure, and became "white" and not really broken down by their unique European nations. So most of the offsprings of these immigrants have been basically socialized to see themselves a "white first" and their European heritage has become secondary. They believe that "white" is an actual racial identity, which is not. White is a power structure. There has been attempts to retroactively make white a race by calling whites in American Caucasian. But this is obviously false, because they do not call Indians or Arabic people "white", even though they are "Caucasian". The reality Caucasian doesn't and has never meant "white", and has only been used that way in the American context.
So to review there is no such thing as white ethnic pride, because the idea of whiteness is a power structure. And there are no clear examples of any other non-European group condeming European heritage or pride. They however do condem the power structure of "whiteness" as it's an old antiquated idea from the 18th century.
mmmmm. Perhaps thiswould be a valid theory if Whites were the only skin tone that view themselves as being superior based singularly on that skin tone. But that's not the case. Hence the terms "Black Power" "Brown Power" et al. Whites are also not the dominant skin tone over the whole Earth either. Far from it. Asians , Hispanics and Black Africans are very color/ethnic centric within their areas of dominance. Thus the "power structure" you speak of is not limited to the White skin tone.
The aforementioned areas are also dominated mainly by certain ethnic groups, whether tribal, national origin or what not, with color lines not being the sole factor in determination of who is "superior". That's determined by who has the most guns and forces to hold them. The White Power" brand of thinking has its roots in a power structure. To that I will concede. However "pride" does not equate to power or to superiority based on color. Since the "White Power types seem to base their thinking via humping Hitlers moldered leg, without even realizing the hypocrisy of that, being as Hitler touted the "Aryan race" as being superior to all others. Hitler himself had no Aryan features, other than skin tone, and neither do most of these "White power" Bozos.
"White Pride" is more a response to this notion that it's somehow shameful to be of White color. That being White automatically equals being a racist, supremacist who's heritage is rooted in subjugation and enslavement of Blacks, in particular but all other non Whites as well. Declaring "pride" is not a declaration of superiority in being of white color, so much as declaring that White people just don't owe anyone any apologies for being born that way. That's not a racist view. Rebellious? Perhaps. Unapologetic certainly. But not racist per se. In some cases it is, but not all. I'm White and I'm proud of my heritage, which happens to be mostly White, but my skin tone doesn't mean a thing in that regard. My pride is rooted in what my family and I have accomplished and in having led good lives. Being contributing members of society. I don't put myself in a segregated group of being White, but I'm not ashamed of being White either. That's the thing. Many White people are tired of being told they have some reason to be ashamed. So they just make a declaration that they're not. That's hardly being racist.
Though your argument is well worded and was worth the read, I can't agree with it. At least not line item.
mmmmm. Perhaps thiswould be a valid theory if Whites were the only skin tone that view themselves as being superior based singularly on that skin tone. But that's not the case. Hence the terms "Black Power" "Brown Power" et al. Whites are also not the dominant skin tone over the whole Earth either. Far from it. Asians , Hispanics and Black Africans are very color/ethnic centric within their areas of dominance. Thus the "power structure" you speak of is not limited to the White skin tone.
The aforementioned areas are also dominated mainly by certain ethnic groups, whether tribal, national origin or what not, with color lines not being the sole factor in determination of who is "superior". That's determined by who has the most guns and forces to hold them. The White Power" brand of thinking has its roots in a power structure. To that I will concede. However "pride" does not equate to power or to superiority based on color. Since the "White Power types seem to base their thinking via humping Hitlers moldered leg, without even realizing the hypocrisy of that, being as Hitler touted the "Aryan race" as being superior to all others. Hitler himself had no Aryan features, other than skin tone, and neither do most of these "White power" Bozos.
"White Pride" is more a response to this notion that it's somehow shameful to be of White color. That being White automatically equals being a racist, supremacist who's heritage is rooted in subjugation and enslavement of Blacks, in particular but all other non Whites as well. Declaring "pride" is not a declaration of superiority in being of white color, so much as declaring that White people just don't owe anyone any apologies for being born that way. That's not a racist view. Rebellious? Perhaps. Unapologetic certainly. But not racist per se. In some cases it is, but not all. I'm White and I'm proud of my heritage, which happens to be mostly White, but my skin tone doesn't mean a thing in that regard. My pride is rooted in what my family and I have accomplished and in having led good lives. Being contributing members of society. I don't put myself in a segregated group of being White, but I'm not ashamed of being White either. That's the thing. Many White people are tired of being told they have some reason to be ashamed. So they just make a declaration that they're not. That's hardly being racist.
Though your argument is well worded and was worth the read, I can't agree with it. At least not line item.
White isn't a heritage what you call white heritage(culture) is part of all ethnic groups in the USA in addition they(specific ethnicities) each have an additional layer of culture in on top to of what you claim as "your heritage". Their culture is just more rich than yours.
World is a duality and everything is a duality.
The only reason there is "white" issue is because there is "black" issue. They are two sides of the same coin and can not exist independently. remove one and the other one will vanish automatically.
I posted this long ago and will repeat myself. back in time slavery was there. technically, always. But, there was no black issue.
Then, around 18th or so century, "black" issue was conceived, spread and embedded. It had to be grounded in something, so "white" issue rose along it.
Both are artificial and consistently enforced for one and only reason - divide et impera. Blacks and whites united are threat. Blacks and whites fighting each other are no threat.
The only reason this is a thing is because of politics.
Hispanics are increasingly identifying as white on the census and SERIOUSLY. Hispanic is not even a race and you can't tell by looking at someone if they're of Hispanic ethnicity or say....Greek.
Ridiculous. Which is why Democrats need to keep importing a new underclass to be dependent on and vote.
The deal with African Americans is different and they have justification to be ticked off for lack of a better term. Not so with Hispanics except their gig is "America was stolen from us".
I don't really think of "white" as my heritage. My ancestry is French on my mom's side and English/Scottish on my dad's side, but I don't really care about either. Can't trace any relatives back to the "old world" except for some very, very distant cousins.
I know my grandparents on my mom's side, being more recent immigrants - had more "ethnic pride," still spoke the language, etc.. Their
"pride" was often directed at other white ethnic immigrant groups in a kind of competition, ie: my grandmother never liked Italians for whatever reason. She disliked Italians worse than she disliked blacks, who she was kind of neutral about.
It all started to fade away as the generations lost the language.
Being generic white in the USA makes you kind of the default American. I don't get asked whether I'm American or not. I just am and NO ONE, no matter what country I go to or where inside the U.S., has ever questioned that. Therefore I don't really feel the need to stress my ancestors' contributions because they are already baked into the story.
Other groups - latino, asian, etc... were not part of the story even though they were here. Blacks, until the last 40 years, were part of the story but as passive participants or victims. Because of that, they had to stress their story to be recognized that they had some active contributions. It seems to me that more modern examples of white superiority are reactions to that.. the feeling that as other races are no longer ignored, that somehow this takes away something from white people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps thiswould be a valid theory if Whites were the only skin tone that view themselves as being superior based singularly on that skin tone. But that's not the case. Hence the terms "Black Power" "Brown Power" et al. Whites are also not the dominant skin tone over the whole Earth either. Far from it. Asians , Hispanics and Black Africans are very color/ethnic centric within their areas of dominance. Thus the "power structure" you speak of is not limited to the White skin tone.
