See, you're doing it again. "History's biggest bastards" -- you seem to be not just interested in removing racism, but actively putting down White people as a group. You've could have just as easily said "History's greatest inventors" or "History's greatest thinkers" or "History's greatest civilization builders" but instead you opted for the glass half-empty approach. I choose to take the glass half-full approach, because I believe that is a much healthier way to view oneself.
I wasn't actually talking about "white people", there. I've been fairly explicit that I think "white people" has limited use as a historical category, that people are only meaningfully white so far as they are invested in (and able to invest themselves in) "white supremacy". What you call "white history" is, therefore, the history of white supremacy and of white supremacists. These are the people I am denouncing as history's biggest bastards: slavers, colonisers and genocidaires, and I doubt you'll find many great thinkers, inventors or civilisation-builders in that crew.
And I'm the paranoid one?
Yes, I've never denied that my views are reactionary. A reaction is absolutely necessary at this point in time, so I don't see what's so negative about that. What if I told you white identity wasn't some malicious conspiracy, but rather just a way to feel good about oneself? A reaction to all of the white-shaming that goes on in the modern Western world? An innocent desire to be around people that are similar to you?
What would it take to convince you that there is no conspiracy?
There is no conspiracy. I didn't mean to imply there was. We're talking about more complicated, impersonal dynamics than a cabal of old men playing with the fate of the world.
The ruling class always seek to create vertical identities which support social, political and economic hierarchies. This is sometimes cynical, but often entirely sincere- they also desire a sense of place- and most often, as under capitalism, it's simply necessary to legitimate any sort of power. Race is one such identity. There are others; the British ruling class have historically thrived on a Protestant identity, defined primarily against Catholics, whether the natives of Ireland and Scotland or the foreign empires of France and Spain. In the Southern United states, the local ruling class has not only attempted to rally white workers against blacks, but against Northerners. Even in the Soviet Union, in which the ruling class was somewhat hamstrung by its ideological commitments to internationalism, a "Soviet" national identity was constructed in opposition to Western "fascism". The ruling class aspires to orderly and harmonious relationships with the working class, to the suppression of class conflict, and to that end it must imagine itself not as a ruling class but as the leading stratum in a coherent political, economic and cultural community- a "nation", has become the standard term- with naturally-unified interests.
Mate it's literally the same thing. Most people understand "White" to mean "European". Your distinction also makes no sense. One is also either "European" or "not European". That's fundamental to any sort of categorization.
That's precisely my objection: "Europe", a geographic area, does is not coherent with "racial" categories as they are usually laid out.
Greeks are European, but Turks, for the most part, are not. Yet these two populations share many historical ties and are not so profoundly dissimilar as they'd like to believe; most Turks are, after all, the descendants of Turkicised Greeks. They are, as populuations, genetically and physically near-indistinguishable. So are Turks white?
Armenians similarly resemble Greeks, and moreover are Christians with historical religious and cultural ties to Greece, even more clearly so than the Turks. But, Armenia is South of the Caucus, the traditional Southern boundary between Europe and Asia. Are Armenians white?
Kurdistan lies just slightly below Armenia, and shares strong historical and cultural links. (Part of the reason there are no Muslim Armenians is because Armenian converts to Islam mostly became assimilated into to the broader Kurdish culture.) They even speak an Indo-European language and take a dim view of Arabs, two things which I understand are quite important to people of your political sensibilities. Are Kurds white?
You say that "white" simply means "European", but Europe is a place, and people are people. There are no self-evident distinctions between peoples and cultures on either side of the imaginary dotted line between "Europe" and "not-Europe".
Well, nowadays, it seems to be useful as a scapegoat for SJWs. As a group to blame for the problems of the poor innocent "people of color". And it seems that the anti-White hostility is only getting worse the more "diversity" we are "culturally enriched" with. Just a few days ago the ACLU tweeted a photo with a blonde haired, white skinned baby, and were promptly accused of
white supremacy. And then ACLU apologized! It seems that white people themselves are becoming synonymous with white supremacy.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/23/aclu-apologizes-for-tweeting-photo-of-white-baby-with-u-s-flag/
Someone on the internet read too much into a tweet that was realistically no more than tone-deaf, and a large, bureaucratic organisation over-reacted. So what? That's a comment on the hypersensitive of corporate America more than anything else. (And the ALCU
is part of corporate America: the non-profit sector is precisely that, a not-for-profit sector of the capitalist economy, not a secret verdant island of socialism tucked between the blasted deserts of profit capital and the state.)
If an organisation like the ALCU is willing to go to bad for the Klan but is embarrassed by an overly-Aryan stock photo, the problem is not "anti-white hostility".
I mean we are reaching peak levels of anti-White hysteria. All over the country people are desecrating historical monuments to White people.
They are digging up the graves of Confederate soldiers. These are people's ancestors that fought and died at war! How much more disrespectful can you get?
Graves get dug up all the time. Nobody in Europe expects to lie in place for more than about a century; that's partly why so many of us are opting for cremation, it seems the more dignified route in the long-run. It's only unusual in the United States because you've traditionally had plenty of room.
Also, I'm not sure that's actually a real news site. The last paragraph reads,
On the left, ANTIFA gypsies admitted they’re mostly looking forward to the increase in Confederate bone powder, which is believed by many to be a mind-altering substance that intensifies ones positions on racism, morality, history, and reality.
“We’re going to snort these bones up and probably just kill each other,” said a leftist activist camping out at one Columbus cemetery. “*** it.”
Which, I mean, yeah.
So, what are positive uses of "white people"? A sense of tribal belonging. A sense of family. A sense of a shared European heritage. I care that there are other people that look like me. I don't want to be the only white guy around. I don't want to be blamed for stuff I had nothing to do with because of my race. I don't want my daughter being taught that she has "white privilege" in school while other kids are taught they are "oppressed" by her. I don't want her to grow up in a country where she is a hated minority, a country that her ancestors built.
Most Europeans do not feel any special kinship with each other. They're often downright vicious to each other. Look at how the venom which the British far-right, your compatriots on this side of the water, spew about Polish, Bulgarian and Romanian migrants. Look at the contempt which the German right have for Greeks, or that even Northern Italians have for Southern Italians. They privilege sameness and reject difference- and, fundamentally, so do you, you simply struggle to articulate this because you have evidently lack a strong sense of history or culture.
"Whiteness", as a pan-European identity, is not a strong organising element in the logic of European racial thought, not in the same way it is in North America.
In your own country it might not be this bad yet, but you are fast becoming a minority too. Maybe you tell yourself you don't care if Britain becomes an Islamic country, but I think deep down you know that it wouldn't be the same. So what are you going to do about that? Are you going to stand by and let it happen because you're afraid to be labelled "Xenophobic", or are you going to stand up and defend your culture and way of life? The clock is ticking fast,
you're already down to two-thirds of the babies.
I'm
already a minority: I told you, I'm Irish Catholic. People like you used to demand that we driven from the country; in 1923, the General Synod of the Church of Scotland issued a report entitled "The Menace of the Irish Race to our Scottish Nationality", depicting my ancestors- and this is three, four generations back, this is referring to people I have known personally- as a horde of foreign degenerates who would swamp Scotland with their depraved culture and their foreign religion.
I find this stuff personally repugnant because you're at a mere century's remove from talking about me.
My point is that they would not have used "European" instead of "Hispanic" because that would be considered "offensive". This is despite the fact that Hispanics come from a variety of backgrounds just like European Americans. There is a clear double standard at play, even as Hispanics become the majority in this country.
It would also be
meaningless. Nobody is proud of being "European-American" except far-right weirdos. Even most racists don't take any particular pride in being "European": you'll remember that the Ku Klux Klan historically campaigned against Catholics and Jews as well as against blacks and Hispanics. Hell, you yourself are quite happy to lump white Latin Americans in with the black, indigenous and mixed-race populations of Latin America as one giant mud-race, because it turns out that your deep wellspring of "pride" in this imagined European heritage doesn't stray South of the Pyrenees.
Prattling on about a "European-American" heritage does not cause discomfort because it's intrinsically offensive, because the only people who talk like that are white supremacists.
Ah. So you're only allowed to be racist against your own people?
More or less.`
