can a group of white people get together without being labelled racist?

I’ve been posting here for maybe 3 years. The mods do a super job.

It seems like people have been mostly addressing the innocuous clubs that are inclusive, and bring us great drinking hollidays in which all can participate in celebration and revelry.
but the OP mentioned the chinese benevolent “networking” which I take to mean helping one another out in business exclusive of other ethnicities.

That to me seems racist, but not necessarily wrong. It’s a kind of affirmative action. Call it community empowerment if you will.

Now, the justification for such societies comes from the notion that white people do in fact have a society that favors whites, provides whites with opportunities over people of other ethnic backgrounds etc. and we refer to it as “the government” (apologies for the sarcastic tone)

If a group of white people gets together and excludes other ethnicities/nationalities for the expressed purpose of advancement of white people, it is racist in the definitely bad sense.

Identifying the groups of white people as Ukranian, Czechoslovakian, or other national identity somehow seems to soften their whiteness, though.
By whiteness, I mean the privilege that comes with being the ethnic majority, speaking with “no” accent, having “no” ethnicity to identify oneself.

Many of these groups began as economic self-sufficiency and mutual aid organizations. (A few still are.) That they are now mostly “social” clubs is simply a reflection of the fact that they were able to move out of their enclaves and into the larger society, leaving behind the need for supportive groups. (This comes up in most of the threads whining that “It’s not fair to have a Black Miss America”–not that this thread is such: a search on beauty contests will turn up the information (ignored by the whiners) that a great many recent immigrant ethnic groups, not just blacks, also support ethnic-specific beauty pageants for the purpose of providing scholarships to women from within that community.) It is difficult to find the many “Miss Irish name-of-town” pageants that used to occur, simply because the Irish moved out into the community and no longer support “Irish” economic efforts, concentrating, now, on cultural events. Among the more recent immigrants, there are still active support groups and “aid” societies.

TOMNDEBB SAID: It is difficult to find the many “Miss Irish name-of-town” pageants that used to occur, simply because the Irish moved out into the community and no longer support “Irish” economic efforts, concentrating, now, on cultural events. Among the more recent immigrants, there are still active support groups and “aid” societies.

RESPONSE: Tom, you always have a good response. I’d be interested to learn about the legality of such racially discriminatory activities as only “aiding” one’s own race. Sounds like something our government would punish by fine or jail.

Let’s look back to the original question, though- The Colonel asked whether people could associate as Whites, not as Irish or Czech or Polish or any other subgroup.

I say this is impossible in contemporary America. Google recently omitted the National Association for the Advancement of White People from its listed sites- this is a “hate” site.

Is the demand for a “Miss White America” contest really “whining”? I think it is. White men and women need to concentrate on changing the popular culture to the point where we can live autonomously and remove ALL alien elements. Only then will there be peace. Then, there won’t be any need for a “Miss White America” because the term will be redundant.

There is a large support group for white people operating in Canada, and in many other countries.

It’s called society.

in my vancouver yellow pages there’s no british club, there is a bar for ex-servicemen so might start there… get ready for some war stories.

TheLoadedDog said: “There is a large support group for white people operating in Canada, and in many other countries.
It’s called society…”

no offence but seems you don’t live in vancouver.

tomndebb said: “… leaving behind the need for supportive groups…”

true… but just because they’re not needed doesn’t mean they’re no longer useful. I think I have the right to say I identify better with and feel more comfortable with a group of 100 british persons than I do with a group of 100 people from country X. so, hypothetically, if I feel more comfortable with said group then shouldn’t I be supporting the people and businesses I want to encourage… I don’t like mcdonalds because of the wage distribution throughout the company so I don’t eat there… instead I’ll eat at a locally owned restaurant because I feel more comfortable with the decision.

I know there’s a gaping hole in that logic or lack of… can’t point it out to myself because I’m running on a few hrs of sleep…

rickjay said: “…These groups aren’t identified by exclusion, they’re identified by inclusion. Chinese-Canadians and German-Canadians and what have you get together to help each other out because they have something in common, not because they’re keeping out the Poles and the Slovaks…”

exactly, but then again… if a german citizen showed up on the doorstep we start excluding…
's a slippery slope.

peace :slight_smile:

Here where there are multitudes of expats there are multitudes of expat associations for various nationalities. I haven’t heard that other nationalities are banned from such a group’s events however, quite the opposite. People here are very into sharing culture.

There is also a “British Business Group.” Obviously Brits come in all shapes and colours, however the expats here are predominantly white Ango ones. The group obviously has a business rather than a cultural agenda, and I know for a fact that businesspeople of other nationalities would be welcomed as the whole point is forging better business links.

There is also an “American Women’s Association”. Again, I am sure their non-American women friends aren’t totally banned, it’s just not aimed at them specifically.

I do think it is a double standard in other countries where an “Asian” group or “African” group could meet but a perceived “white/non-colour” group could not. However, this is presumably also about ethnic descent. Would there be any problem to a “European Americans” cultural group in America? I think not. Or an “Irish Americans” cultural group? I am sure many such groups exist.

Oh, honestly. :rolleyes: Is there no end to the dissemination of stupendously ignorant factoids by member of white supremacist groups? You just repeat whatever you hear your leaders say, but your leaders are wrong.

This website right here? http://www.naawp.com/

Which I found by putting “National Association for the Advancement of White People” into Google?

:rolleyes:

Google doesn’t have a “list” somewhere that excludes hate groups, because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to find groups like the KKK or storm front dot org by putting them into Google. Go ahead, try it, I dare you. Here’s a link to the search engine. www.google.com Now put “storm front” into the window. See what you get? A hate website.

Now try “KKK”. What comes up? Yep, another hate website.

Now, Tolerance.org does have a list of “hate websites”, and guess what! You’re on it.
http://www.tolerance.org/hate_internet/index.jsp

There you are, Halogen, right at the top of the list of “hate website” groups, along with the KKK. Don’t it make ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

I found his “Google bans hate group!” factoid, not surprisingly, at ihr.org.

http://www.ihr.org./news/021025google.html

Here’s the list of the banned sites.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/google/results1.html

Okay, now, to normal people, all this means is that Germany and France have different rules than the U.S. about hate groups. We already knew that. But to paranoid white supremacists, it gets immediately translated into the factoid “Google is blocking hate groups!” So Halogen’s statement, to be factual, should have been, “Google recently omitted the National Association for the Advancement of White People from its listed sites in Germany and France.”

Or, “Google is blocking hate groups in Germany and France!”

Gee. What a surprise.

:rolleyes:

And if anyone wonders how I know Halogen is a white supremacist, it’s because he posted a link to storm front in his post here.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2557916#post2557916

Well, since there are dozens of beauty pageants for lots of ethnic groups, I cannot think of any law that would be broken. There is a fairly clear distinction that can be made between including all the members of a small group or excluding all the members of a small group.

For that matter, I doubt that there would be any legal problem with starting up a “Miss White America” contest. It would probably suffer a lot of negative press, of course, but it would not be illegal. The reason that the original Miss America pageant was forced to change its rules was that it did not specify “white” in the name, but did (originally) specify race in the rules (at the state level–I do not recall whether there were any racial constraints in the national group. Of course, they chose Bess Meyerson as “white” in 1945 even though she has now been moved out of the “white” group in the minds of some WN adherents).

Of course, any “Miss White America” contest would immediately disintegrate with internal feuding as no one could figure out what “white” meant and we would have Teutons battling Slavs and Celts battling Sicilians while people of central European descent feuded with Armenians and Persians and actual Caucasians to figure out who was allowed in. (That, of course, is a bigger problem for “white” people than most others, because it seems that no one in the “white” community can agree on who is “white.”)

What are the other 30%? Mooses?

I’d guess “persons of color”, HS.

I’m having an awful time finding ethnic/race census data for Vancouver BC. Do the Canadians just not ask people what race they are?

Vancouver and B.C.: 1996 figures.

Let’s face reality: There’s a bit of a double-standard at work. A white-only group would not be viewed the same way as a black-only group or an Asian-only group.

And if there are any white people out there who are pissed off about this, try to take a little solace in the fact that your group continues to dominate the world, ok?

Ah, Statistics Canada. Thank you, Tom. :slight_smile: They don’t seem to have it expressed as percentages, it’s all just straight data. I was looking for one of those handy factoids of percentages.

[The Math-Challenged Person now nobly attempts to do Math, in the service of the Fight Against Ignorance.]

So, in 1996, there were:

1,813,935 persons.

Aboriginal 31,140
Chinese 279,035
South Asian 120,140
Arab and West Asian 18,155
Filipino 40,715
Southeast Asian 20,370
Japanese 21,880
Korean 17,085
Latin American 13,830
Black 16,400
Other 6,775

I make this out to be a total of 586,245 persons, which leaves 1,227,690.

If you lump all the possible “Asians” together–

Chinese 279,035
South Asian 120,140
Southeast Asian 20,370
Japanese 21,880
Korean 17,085

It adds up to 458,510, and 30% of 1,813,935 is 544,180.5. So the colonel’s “30% Asian” looks good. Close enough for government work.

But for the “Indo-Canadians”, 10% of 1,813,935 would be 181,393 people, which there aren’t. There are 31,140. Anybody wanna figure this out? “31,140 is what percentage of 1,813,935”?

I’m guessing that the colonel’s missing 30% is comprised of:

Arab and West Asian 18,155
Filipino 40,715
Latin American 13,830
Black 16,400

This adds up to 89,100. Since 30% of 1,813,935 would be 544,180 people, it looks like it’s about 455,080 people short. Anybody wanna figure out this percentage?

'Cause I sure can’t. :smiley:

So it looks like there are more whites, and fewer “Indo-Canadians” and dark-skinned people, than the colonel thinks.

Well, the colonel might have been refering to his neighborhood, of course, and not to Vancouver, per se.

Part of the number problem is due to the inclusion of aboriginal peoples in the “not a visible minority” category as well as having a separate category (and I am not going to wade through all the census documentation to sort it out).

My figures show:
68.8% “not visible minority” (including some unidentified number of aboriginals)
27.5% Asian (including the 6% South Asian–East Indian, Pakistani, Punjabi, Sri Lankan)
01.9% black + Arab & West Asian (African, Haitian, Jamaican, and Somali, Armenian, Egyptian, Iranian, Lebanese, Moroccan)
01.7% Aboriginal not reported with the "not a visible minority)
01% mixed and self-reporting in multiple groups

(Total does nt equal 100% due to rounding.)

On a more practical note, colonel, if you’re looking for British people specifically, you might want to try Episcopalian churches or the change ringers (bell ringers) I referred to earlier. I did a quick search on Google and they ring at Holy Rosary Cathedral. I haven’t seen them since I left Hawaii some years ago – they make the sacrifice of going out there each year to help the poor Hawaiian ringers, in February :wink: – but last time I saw them, I think they had a few British ringers. I also recommend change ringing as a hobby.

Oh, and RickJay, the words you quoted were written by the colonel, not me. I’m the person who printed a chunk of the Yellow Pages.

Good luck, colonel,
CJ
CJ