So how does this work, any writing with racist overtones is to be considered white supremacy and/or white nationalism? Or do you consult tea leaves, on a case-by-case basis?
You can’t know the mind of another person, you can only judge their words and actions.
I would think that trying to sabotage immigration reform that would mostly benefit minorities, with way off base assumptions and flawed research, qualifies as one of those actions. Particularly when one finds first how odd the research is and then one turns the rock and finds even more reprehensible [del]vermin crawling out[/del] past research from the authors.
What does ‘free-trade’ have to do with the support for what is commonly known as the ‘Dream Act’ for undocumented grownup children who were brought here illegally by their parents and have no country of their own except the good old USA and just want to become Americans like the kids they went to school with.
If libertarians and conservatives support the “Dream Act” what has been the hold up for passage?
White supremacy and white nationalism are specific ideas, that are not interchangeable with racism. What makes you suspect that these are beliefs held by the authors of this paper?
Supporters of free trade tend to support fairly easy immigration, because the flow of labor is just like the flow of any other good or service.
Clearly, enough conservatives don’t support it, nor enough progressives or liberals. There are a significant number of pro-immigration Republicans, but they aren’t the dominant faction at the present. Libertarians, as I’m sure you know, are very pro-immigration. Furthermore…
It’s been held up because there aren’t 60 votes for it; it wasn’t supported by all the Democrats in that session or enough Republicans to make up the difference. The reason is right there: amnesty creates a moral hazard for illegal immigration, so amnesty supporters also want increased enforcement.
“Not interchangeable”? I’m not making that point BTW, but it does look silly to attempt to separate them a lot.
Will all due respect to the Southern Poverty Law Center, while that might be a crude working description of white nationalist groups, it’s a poor definition of white nationalism. Wikipedia and even RationalWiki have better overviews.
Like all forms of nationalism, white nationalism is about the concept of national identity. For white nationalists, this identity is their whiteness, however they define it. This means that all whites share a nation, and non-whites are not part of it. As has been pointed out, this isn’t the same as racial separatism; a white nationalist might accept non-white residents in his white nation in some sort of servile capacity. And a racial separatist needn’t be a racial supremacist, they could believe that all races should keep separate as part of a natural order, without also needing to believe that one race was superior to or should dominate the others.
These are all distinct from racism, which is the belief that races exist, and that members of a race share attributes which make them inferior or superior in significant ways to other races. A racist needn’t be a supremacist; they could believe that some races were better than others without advocating that the superior race dominate the others, or the Reggie White version where each race has attributes that make them different from others, without comment on their value relative to each other.
Based on the paper, I see no evidence that Richwine is anything other than simply racist (or a victim of his own bad science). He advocates for inherent differences due to race, but his notion of admitting high-IQ non-white immigrants to the U.S. as equal citizens rules out white supremacy or white nationalism without some other evidence, unless you’re comfortable with assuming things he didn’t write, such as that he didn’t really mean that part, to condemn him. Which is silly, since there’s plenty to condemn him for based on what he did write.
In RationalWiki the category the article is and where it tells you to look for more information is about racism.
Of course it is. Racism is the underling belief of racial nationalism, racial supremacy, and racial separatism. All race nationalists, supremacists, and separatists are racists, but not all racists are nationalists, supremacists, or separatists.
The article on Stalinism is probably under a category of Marxism or Communism. All Stalinists are Communists, but not all Communists are Stalinists.
And of course it was not my main point, I do think that this double down by the Heritage on not dismissing their “researchers” is only telling even more Hispanics who the Heritage is continuing to support, so more Hispanics will dismiss the conservatives.
However, the straw is coming forward, we were talking about **white **supremacists and **white **nationalists. Not just plain nationalists, supremacists, or separatists.
Yes, this paper reflects very, very badly on Heritage, though I doubt it’ll move the needle much with Hispanic voters. It’s nothing new, really.
Eh? Racial nationalism, racial supremacy, and racial separatism are all subsets of racism. White nationalism, white supremacy, and white separatism are subsets of racial nationalism, racial supremacy, and racial separatism.
Strictly speaking, racial supremacy and racial separatism are subsets of racial nationalism, since they both depend on racial national identity.
Sounds like I say potato, you say potahto. In any case, I defer to the context at RationalWiki and the opinion of the experts on looking for discrimination at the SPLC. And my experiences in the matter, racism is not a strange concept for many white supremacists and white nationalists.
You admit Republicans are blocking Dems version of Dream Act.
Rand Paul is the most libertarian Senator in the Senate.
Rand Paul is a Republican
Republicans have their lizard brain tied to Heritage Foundation Research.
The conservative Heritage Foundation came out as they always do providing some profound research so Republicans in Congress and flaming hate monger hosts on talk radio have something to cite to oppose whatever Democrats want to do.
The Heritage Foundation just got nailed at least keeping a big toe dipped in racially tinged politics.
My point is there need not be ‘pure white supremacist sentiment’ involved in the past two days of ‘immigration’ news to make this whole affair a huge problem/disaster for the mostly older and whiter Republican Party of which your Senator with the most libertarian tendencies is a member.
This disaster for the Republicans hoping to make some progress attracting Latino voters is great for whom I believe are on the right side of this issue.
I am sure that very few Latinos watching the politics in play on immigration reform would care to hear what is the exact definition or degree of racist that this Redwine character might be.
Why would they concern themselves with that when the guy has defined ‘natives’ having higher IQs than them and their grandchildren so why let them in.
Rachel Maddow has a great commentary on the whole shebang:
Are we witnessing a major self-destruction of conservatism’s outreach to non-white Americans with this Heritage Foundation blunder that will not be forgotten even if substantial immigration reform passes with some Republican support?
I am sure Rubio hoped for better press as a Republican than what the Heritage Foundation has provided.
No, racism is a defining concept for all white supremacists and nationalists. You can’t believe that one race is superior to another or that race defines national identity unless you believe that races exist (biologically) and that members of a race share attributes that make them inferior or superior to other races.
I just don’t see what your point is there, suffice to say, unless you can point to other sources that explain that better, I would have to conclude that it is just your opinion, just not well supported.
Along with some Democrats, yes. Moral hazard, remember? They wanted more enforcement if there was to be an amnesty.
And is not a libertarian, nor does he call himself one.
I don’t know why I ever expect reasoned discourse from you, when you write things like “lizard brain”.
This reflects very poorly on the Heritage Foundation, and indirectly so the Republican Party, because they are informally affiliated. They didn’t do the research, after all; Rand Paul and Mitch McConnel aren’t telling Richwine what to put in his final draft.
Note that the *actual * libertarians at the Cato Institute immediately tore this study to shreds.
In case you actually want to know, Rand Paul stated his opposition to this bill as follows:
This tracks with information from upthread that Republicans strongly approve of immigration reform, they just differ with Democrats over what form it should take. Nobody seems overly happy with the status quo.
It was doomed anyway; as has already been pointed out, Latinos prefer a larger, more active government that conflicts with the Republican base; they are also the most accepting of homosexuality of any of racial group. It was never a good fit, frankly.
That’s no excuse for you attacking the man with inaccurate, pejorative terms. He’s earned the label of “racist” (or “idiot”), but not “supremacist” or “nationalist”.
I’m sure it’ll be forgotten; it’s a report from a think tank. People that talk politics on message boards won’t forget, but the everyday voter will. They are more pragmatic and less involved in the gamesmanship.
I’m sure. We will soon witness a battle for the future of the Republican Party, I expect, and these sorts of conflicts are the opening salvos.
The point is that racial supremacy, separatism, and nationalism are more reprehensible, and far less common, than mere racism. Racism is objectionable, but quite common. Anyone who thinks Latinos are hot-blooded or whites are greedy or Asians are great at math is guilty of racism. It’s not harmless, but it’s a deeply-ingrained part of our culture, and we function as a nation in spite of it.
Racial nationalism, supremacy, and separatism are much, much less common, and far more vile. If their views came to dominate, the results would be somewhere between slave-state, total racial segregation, and genocide. Calling every white racist a white supremacist is not only inaccurate, it grossly waters down what it means to be a white supremacist, such that people are left thinking that white supremacists are just racists, like their old beloved Uncle Bob who tells off-color jokes; rather than radical hatemongers calling for the subjugation of non-white races under white rule or their wholesale extermination. There is a very good reason SPLC tracks white nationalist groups, and not just racists in general.
So, one more stab at this, using Wikipedia:
And a visual:
Richwine goes in the outer box; just a racist. The White Aryan Resistance goes in the center box, which means they are also racists and white nationalists.
Too much complexity only to get that I agree a lot with what you say, just remember that Wikipedia is not considered to be that reliable. Nor it does seem to be a huge demand nor other respected cites that need to separate racists from “the far more vile”. for the examples of “plain racism” you mentioned, the word “prejudiced” exists.
The thing is, nearly all racists are white supremacists, if not white nationalists. All the term literally means is that you think white people are supreme, i.e. better than everyone else. As most racists are white, that makes them white supremacists.
You can define white supremacy as a subset of white nationalism, but there is no reason to expect someone else not to be using the plain meaning of the words, especially after they’ve made it clear repeatedly what definition they were using.
Plus, you knew what he meant, so all this is is semantic quibbling. It’s better to argue ideas, not words.
No, the term literally means that you think white people should be supreme, i.e. politically dominant over non-whites.
I only expect people to use the actual meaning of the words. That’s not a high standard.