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.
I agree that white guilt is a cultural problem since it scapegoats elements of Western culture that have nothing to do with oppression, but maybe citing an article from a magazine connected with Greece's neo-Nazi party, The Golden Dawn, is not the best way to make the argument unless you only want to preach to the neo-Nazi choir.
I decided to peruse a bit of the article. I normally would not have anything to do with TakiMag. However, I figured I would see a few things. These are the quotes that stuck out.
Quote:
"When I was a kid, being white was all about expansion and pride. We ruled the world, and the last emotional response to this fact that would possibly occur to us would be guilt or shame".
Quote:
"The new white identity will revolve around modern reality and not TV movies about the 1850s.”
If this is what being White really means to the writer involved, then to me, this isn't so much about White guilt at this point. It's about wanting to be able to rule, dominate, and have exclusive dominion. It's about wanting to be considered superior to anyone else.
I think about this. The article talks about White guilt. While there are certainly some Whites who buy into White guilt, this is what I've seen. I've met very few Whites who buy into the "white guilt" thing. And this includes Whites that I've met in college. I grew up in a suburb (more like rural area turned into a suburb) that was about 90% White. I went to college with alot of White students. I haven't seen that much White guilt in my lifetime. I've seen it mostly among hipsters, or middle-upper class White liberals.
In fact, this article talks about a "new breed of white people". I don't think there is a "new breed of white people". Based on my own experiences, it's never gone away. It's still there. The events have changed though.
Now, I've met White people who have empathy. Big difference between being empathetic and having "white guilt".
I agree that white guilt is a cultural problem since it scapegoats elements of Western culture that have nothing to do with oppression, but maybe citing an article from a magazine connected with Greece's neo-Nazi party, The Golden Dawn, is not the best way to make the argument unless you only want to preach to the neo-Nazi choir.
I've read TakiMag for myself. I have seen that there is a fondness for Golden Dawn, and other far-right groups. I've also noticed a few articles that are somewhat anti-Black. Being against white guilt is one thing. However, getting an article from a paleoconservative website, there is bound to be a strong bias.
Very good read and he is spot on. Some of us never had the white guilt, some like my parents did have a little but its gone now, some like a few of my relatives had a lot and its quickly disappearing now that they see what the future will hold. It's the same around the country.
Jim Goad is an alt-right icon who longs for the good old days when America was lily white and everyone else "knew their place" He is a hero to the "Proud Boys", and they claim that one of his books is their manifesto. No need to read the article, if you know anything about Jim Goad you should know exactly what it will say and I don't think any of it is worthy of discussion.
Jim Goad is an alt-right icon who longs for the good old days when America was lily white and everyone else "knew their place" He is a hero to the "Proud Boys", and they claim that one of his books is their manifesto. No need to read the article, if you know anything about Jim Goad you should know exactly what it will say and I don't think any of it is worthy of discussion.
Alt Right. lol. Everything you disagree with is immediately called Alt Right then Proud Boys, etc. How about common sense? This makes sense.
Quote:
The 1977 ABC miniseries Roots—despite its slew of historical inaccuracies and outright fabrications—injected lethal doses of guilt into white America’s collective unconscious when it first aired. But over 40 years later, its main narrative remains welded into the public consciousness: There has been a lot of suffering in America, all of it perpetrated by whites and all of it suffered by blacks.
American whites have heard this narrative their whole lives. This nuance-free reading of history, with one side purely evil and the other purely good, has escalated in severity over the years. Many, if not most, American whites have even internalized it. But it has not been their experience. At all.
Their entire lives they’ve been told who they are, and they know it’s not true. It may have been true 100 years ago—at least for the whites who weren’t dying on the battlefield or getting blasted to bits in coal-mine explosions—but it has never been true for a moment of their lives. They have never known the slightest taste of the “white privilege” they’ve been accused of enjoying. The only identity allowed to them is one of self-abnegation and shame. In fact, “allowed” is too gentle a term—this identity is being forced on them.
Too bad, so sad. You disagree so everyone else os Racist. Well, we are NOT.
I've read TakiMag for myself. I have seen that there is a fondness for Golden Dawn, and other far-right groups. I've also noticed a few articles that are somewhat anti-Black. Being against white guilt is one thing. However, getting an article from a paleoconservative website, there is bound to be a strong bias.
Homogeneous countries are better, but white people do not form a single community. If they did, they wouldn't have murdered each other by the tens of millions during the first half of the 20th century.
The only thing that unites whites is the existence of non-whites. The only thing that unites blacks is the existence of non-blacks.
The beating-down of white people is in hopes that white people will become so disgusted with whiteness that they'll no longer want to be white, and thus the country can finally amalgamate into some shade of brown. It is working to a degree, but the reaction is going into two extreme directions. Both of which seem to coincide with political affiliations. But these political affiliations are driven by factors unrelated to race, yet every man must take up the banner of his party.
I think going forward one of the perils facing America is how identity-politics is going to work as America becomes increasingly less-white. The Democratic Party has been consistently losing white voters, but making up the difference with Hispanic and Blacks voters. The Republican Party had been trying to appeal to minority voters, and I really thought Marco Rubio would be the nominee in 2016 just because he checked the right boxes. But instead, racially-polarizing Trump won, which merely strengthened identity-politics. And that means Republicans will increasingly depend on the white vote, just as the Democrats will increasingly depend on black and Hispanic votes. At some point the Democrats could become the party of non-whites, and the Republicans the party of whites.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 07-13-2020 at 05:38 AM..
Very good read and he is spot on. Some of us never had the white guilt, some like my parents did have a little but its gone now, some like a few of my relatives had a lot and its quickly disappearing now that they see what the future will hold. It's the same around the country.
Homogeneous countries are better, but white people do not form a single community. If they did, they wouldn't have murdered each other by the tens of millions during the first half of the 20th century.
The only thing that unites whites is the existence of non-whites. The only thing that unites blacks is the existence of non-blacks.
The beating-down of white people is in hopes that white people will become so disgusted with whiteness that they'll no longer want to be white, and thus the country can finally amalgamate into some shade of brown. It is working to a degree, but the reaction is going into two extreme directions. Both of which seem to coincide with political affiliations. But these political affiliations are driven by factors unrelated to race, yet every man must takes up the banner of his party.
I think going forward one of the perils facing America is how identity-politics is going to work as America becomes increasingly less-white. The Democratic Party has been consistently losing white voters, but making up the difference with Hispanic and Blacks voters. The Republican Party had been trying to appeal to minority voters, and I really thought Marco Rubio would be the nominee in 2016 just because he checked the right boxes. But instead, racially-polarizing Trump won, which merely strengthened identity-politics. And that means Republicans will increasingly depend on the white vote, just as the Democrats will increasingly depend on black and Hispanic votes. At some point the Democrats could become the party of non-whites, and the Republicans the party of whites.
In most of the South it's pretty much already that way. I could count on one hand the number of white democrats I know, or at least ones that admit it.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. I'm someone who at least tries to give people the benefit of the doubt. However, I do feel like some of the very persons who quote Dr. King today would have hated him back when he was living. I feel that some of those persons could have been voting for George Wallace in 1968.
As much as I'm not a fan of Nixon, I notice this. Nixon took advantage of racial resentment through dog whistle language. George Wallace was blunt. He admitted being a segregationist. That is why he won the Deep South and Nixon lost.
You couldn't be more wrong about Nixon. It took Nixon, a Republican who LOST the Southern states to lifelong Democrat Wallace, to desegregate the schools in the South.
Quote:
"In 1970, seven states -- Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina -- continued to enforce the dual school system. This was in clear defiance of the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, which declared dual school systems to be unconstitutional. It was also in defiance of a 1969 court decision ordering an end to further delay.
If it's possible to imagine, the subject of desegregation was becoming more inflamed by the day. In March 1970, President Richard M. Nixon decided to take action. He declared Brown to be ''right in both constitutional and human terms'' and expressed his intention to enforce the law. He also put in place a process to carry out the court's mandate.
...There's no doubt about it -- the Nixon administration accomplished more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the 16 previous years, or probably since"
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.
