Let’s play Can James Make Sense of the Racist’s Argument!
Okay, so. Anti-racists encourage immigration to ethnically white nations, but remain silent (or even discourage) immigration to ethnically non-white nations. Higher proportions of non-white individuals in ethnically white nations lead to a higher proportion of births being racially non-white (which includes mixed races). Over time, an ethnically white nation with sufficiently open immigration policies would lead to the birth of no new white individuals. Any scenario in which no persons of a particular race remain alive counts as genocide. Thus, anti-racists advocate genocide for white persons but not for those of other races. Then finally: anti-racists hate white people.
Such an individual would be neither Asian nor black but of an entirely new race, which I call “blasian” — an entity with innate skill at basketball and mathematics. Clearly the master race. Might mix a bit of the Jewish race in there (that’s a thing, right? Have we decided that Jewish is definable as a race?) for extra skill in handling money and directing films [del]and using the blood of gentile children for their unholy magics[/del].
Hm. Aha, I have it — define each race as a range of average skin tones. Totally airtight.
I’m pretty sure this whole thread was started because some jerk was dumped by his girlfriend who went and found a nice black man who treated her nicely and was not an asshole.
Because of this, he is determined that it is NOT HIS FAULT that he got dumped, but rather an poorly thought out system of GENOCIDE that made his girlfriend leave him. Because that’s a lot easier to take on the ego, rather than the actual fact that he is an inferior specimen of a man, physically, mentally and emotionally.
That may well have been his motive, but Googling “White Genocide” will show that the term’s been out there for some time. Mostly on neo-Nazi sites like Stormfront. I didn’t click on the sites–life is too short to waste my time with that idiocy.
Of course, most of the guys who make up the KKK/Aryan Nation/neo-Nazi spectrum are generally looking to excuse their own feelings of failure…
If whiteness is defined by being the target of “white genocide”, and the goal of the anti-anti-racists is to end white genocide, then wouldn’t their success therefore result in the white race ceasing to exist, since there’d be nobody to oppress them?
I therefore propose that to oppose white genocide is to commit white genocide, and that only by actively seeking out the eradication of the white race can we ensure its survival.
Although I’m sure it’s true that some jerk’s ex-girlfriend, and probably even his sisters and mom, are passionately fucked by virile black men ALL THE TIME, I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss his odious racism as stemming from his insecurity about his own personal inferiority. Sure they’re a rapidly shrinking group of people, but they’re creepy as fuck. Imagine being so frightened of people who look different from you that you believe you’re being genocided when an Indian guy moves in next door. I can’t even imagine being so scared that I turn perfectly good nouns into verbs.
Since it seems that that bunch isn’t coming back, atleast for a while, I was wondering if my fellow Dopers might like to speculate on answers to the questions I posed repeatedly yesterday?
Am I “white”? I have Native American blood from my great great grandmothers(2).
Is a woman from Spain “White”?
Would our children be “White”?
I am pretty sure the answer is NO to all three. Why were they so hesitant to answer my questions or even define “White”? I mean this concept is central to their identity and ideology, what gives? Fear of the ban hammer?
I have been tempted to go over there and kick the ant pile by asking them directly but I took a shower already and don’t want to waste water.
The serious answer (not that I don’t enjoy the jokes) is that they themselves realize they don’t have a clear answer.
But if they admit it, they don’t have a cogent argument anymore. But they have faith there does exist a cogent argument even if no single part of the thesis can be supported. It’s a little like religion. All the nitpicks and inconsistencies in the world don’t matter.
But, unlike religion, race was, from the beginning, supposed to be something measurable and “scientific” and not taken merely on faith. And the more science rejects old, disproven notions of race, the more vague they have to be to maintain the facade. And the more they have to claim that setting down concrete guidelines is pedantry and irrelevant topic shifting.
In a vast majority of cases, it really does come down to “I know it when I see it”, but even they realize how bad that sounds.
Also, they don’t want to admit that the “one-drop” rule fails them after a few generations and that “white-ness” actually can be attained after enough time (or loss of records) despite protestations to the contrary as long as physical features match their preconceptions.
Assume for the sake of argument that persons exist who can sensibly be called purely of whatever particular race. One person purely of race A and one purely of race B together bear a child. Presumably this child is purely neither of race A nor B; he may be impurely race A or B, or otherwise purely of distinct race C.
If the child and all his descendants bear children only with persons purely of race A, the contribution of race B to each continued generation’s genetic material continues to dilute. Your question seems to be: at some point in the dilutive process does the following generation become purely of race A? Either such a point exists or it does not.
If the racist responds that such a point exists, we have a sorites-like paradox: why should some minute shift in one’s genetic material, insufficient to cause any phenotypal changes, be enough to switch race?
If no such point exists then there can be no pure races, because no one has a family tree to support such a thing. (Under this scenario on pretty sure that I’m a bleuropean, if you go back far enough.)
The only tack available to the racist (as far as I see it) is that of discarding the notion of pure races; you’re part indigenous American and part White, and as long as you’re not too egregiously American Indian (e.g. carrying a tomahawk or searching for your spirit animal while in a peyote haze) you can join their crowd. But arbitrariness can’t be escaped.
That’s the thing that confuses me. This idea of whiteness stems from the Nazi Aryan ideal which was pretty exclusionary and rather specific. Slavs were considered sub human but one of the links provided specifically mentioned white genocide or some such drivel in Poland. Poles are Slavs right? So to perpetuate the Aryan ideal they had to be more inclusive as to who was actually white? Raises more questions than answers, me thinks
I heard that the National Front in England, which previously was all about the Anglo-Saxon race, now is basically like “well, Celts are native people too so let’s rise together against the rest of those people.” Or maybe I have my far-right movements mixed up.
I expect that they didn’t want to be backed into having to admit that there are millions of Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Latinos, and other undesireables who would have to be considered “white” by any consistent metric
I think we need to set up some kind of standard so we can tell who the heck these racist folks are talking about - perhaps use an ICC profileto define a range of colors that would be acceptable.
Then sets of standardized cards could be printed up and people could compare themselves to the cards to see if they are “white” or not.
Without this, who will we know who to genocide or not? And how will we know if our genocide has been successful. We need STANDARDS, people!
