I don't think he's being misinterpreted. I understand what he claims just fine. And just like he doesn't believe many neo-nazi claims that just don't mesh with the rest of their ideology, I don't buy his claims when they don't mesh with everything else he says.
Then presumably we disagree? Good for us?
Well, I could nitpick and point at some death which happened due to revenge against "whites", but I understand the overall point.
I still think that the process is at least as important as the premises it builds on (I'm pretty sure one becomes a fanatic first because of how he processes information and only second because of what kind of information he gets), and I at least am much more ruffled by broken reasoning than bad starting point.
You could very probably find examples of white people being killed out of racial resentment.
But "white shame" describes a relationship to a "white" identity held by the subject themselves, not of how a non-white subject relates to percievedly-"white" people. I haven't encountered any examples of this attitude expressing itself violently. Certainly not as acts of terrorism.
Do you understand that you can't have "Black" without "White"? This is a fundamental tenet of reality. There are obviously various ethnicities of European Americans, and there are also various ethnicities of African Americans. Black people on the West Coast and Black people on the East Cost see themselves as distinct, but they also understand themsleves as belonging to the over-arching "African American" group. Hell, nowadays we even go farther and group anybody that isn't White into the vastly overarching "People of Color" group. And now you want to deny that "non People of Color" do not exist as a group? That makes no sense whatsoever. By grouping people together you necessarily create another group of those excluded.
"Non people of colour"- now there's an awkward phrase to parse- certainly exist as a group. But I don't think they exist as the sort of group you imagine. There's no specifically "white" shared history of culture, not even on America, and certainly not on a global scale. The only common bond is white supremacy, and I take no particular pride in the fact that some of history's biggest bastards happened to share my deficiency in melanin.
And it's like, why do you even care? Ok, you think "White identity" is stupid, so what? What do you have against people that wish to identity themsleves in that way? What effect does it have on you? There are also black people that don't wish to have a "Black identity", but that doesn't mean they go around ruining the fun for the black people that do.
Whiteness, as a positive identity, is fundamentally reactionary. It is defined by investment in and enthusiasm for white supremacy, and white supremacy serves only to keep the working class divided and powerless. It's a cross-class identity, one which spuriously suggests that workers have more in common with white bosses than with black and brown workers- and there's no greater proof of that than Trump-boosters like yourself presenting a property mogul, the very image of a bourgeois parasite, as the saviour of the white working class.
To preempt your response, does this mean that "Black" and other non-white identities can be reactionary? Absolutely they can be, and very often are. A progressive identity does not prevent effectively reactionary practice; Rosa Luxemburg was murdered in the name of a democratic socialist republic, after all. But they have the potential to be genuinely progressive, to provide a basis on which people can challenge capitalism and imperialism. "Whiteness" is not, has never been, and could never be.
Has it not occurred to you that you can keep your Irish Catholic identity, while still also recognizing that you belong to the overarching group of "Europeans"? Nobody is asking you to subsume yourself to anything.
You aren't asking me to identify myself as "European", though, you're asking me to identify myself as "white". "Europe" is a region, one arbitrary set of lines drawn on the map, it doesn't carry any exclusive loyalties. "White" does. A person is white or they are not-white, at least according to people like you. You're in or you're out. It's a monolith, and I know better than to trust monoliths.
Yeah if you really break things down everything becomes arbitrary, but so what? By the same logic we can also say that different breeds of dogs are not really different "races". Hell, if you really want to get into it all forms of biological classification are ultimately arbitrary. That doesn't change the fact that we have a natural tendency to group things in these ways.
Dog breeds is probably the worst example you could have come up with, because they are entirely the opposite of how you are asking us to imagine human races. Dogs are, in the first place, man-made: wild dogs are wolves, and must be deliberately bred by humans to take on the diversity of appearances we see in the modern domestic dog. There are no pugs, bulldogs or mastiffs in nature. Second, the breeds are themselves works of fiction, drawn up by private organisations, and defined by certain physical standards rather than by strict hereditary. That's why these standards are so aggressively policed.
But you hit onto something when you say that people have a natural tendency to categorise the world around them. That is true. But that tendency is to create categories in accordance with the utility and significance of the thing being categorised for humans. Humans distinguished dogs and wolves, because that mattered, and they distinguished hunting dogs from herding dogs, because that mattered, but did not clearly distinguish Eurasian wolves from a Mongolian wolf because what difference did it make? Whales for centuries considered fish, because the characteristics of whales that were significant to human observers identified them with fish rather than with mammals. To highlight things such as their lack of gills or their skeletal structure is academic, comes from a different outlook, in which whales carry a different set of significances.
So my question is, what is the utility and significance of "white people"?
Do you really think that would have used a design like that if the idea of "Hispanic pride" wasn't present and acceptable in our culture?
Yes, I think that stamps are designed by committees of well-meaning manager-types, and do not reflect the nuances of Latin American identities.
Uhh...what? Hispanic has a very clear definition. People from China are clearly not Hispanic, for example.
I don't think you really understood the point I was making.
Ah. And to be clear, you would not use the term "racist" to describe yourself? Or are Northern Europeans the only ethnicity we are allowed to express disdain for?
Where in Europe do you think Scotland is, can I check?
