Is the influx of White Nationalists bad?

Great Debates
21

If I was standing in front of you, you would identify me as a white male, as well. I mean, I have blonde hair and blue eyes. I’m the perfect Master Race model.

That doesn’t change the fact that I’m mostly Hispanic, and by definition, not “white.” This is what we call “ethnicity.”

So race, by your definition, clearly does not fit, at least in my case. Half of the problem with your “definition” is that it is so loosely defined that it doesn’t make any sense. “Skin color and physical attributes” is what you mean, correct? What bearing does that have? How do you define where one race stops and another begins?

Because I’ve got that dirty Mexican blood pumping through me, I’d be on the first truckload back across the border, right?

22

Man the people on this board can be real nit picks when they want (I mean, when they don’t like what you are saying). “Race” is a board term, but a term people use (whether people here want to admit it or not).

If I walk into a room looking for Bob, and he told me he looks “asian”, I have at least some idea what he looks like. Something that narrows down what he looks like from the broadest description of “human”. Does that mean he was born in asia? Or that both his parent are asian? Nope, just that he has feature that many people identify with as “asian”.

Because, in modern times, we can travel so freely, these racial terms have nothing to do nessessarly with where we were born, but ther still carry a description with it. Right or wrong. As time goes on, and blood mixes more, these traits will further blurr until they are meaningless. In the meantime, if you asked me how I looked, and I said “I’m black” I am pretty sure you aren’t picturing me with blonde hair and light skin.

23

faldureon, this was where I was leaning on the issue. That though trying to convince them may be useless, it helps solidify our own arguments. My only opposition was how long it would be useful. After a while you just get sick of it and I would prefer not to have three or four unchallenged racist threads going at once just because everyone has had enough with arguing with them.

As to the general hijack (which I do not mind) it seems the conflict is betweent the common and ambiuous use of words such as white and black and their exact meanings in the point of debate. It is perfectly fine for us to say things like, “You remember John, the white guy I introduced you to yesterday,” when it acts to differentiate them from in such a way as to be useful for conversation. This is how we use these words on a daily basis and their ambiguities are not a great detriment.

When you enter into a conversation as to whom gets put in the white homeland and who gets put in the black homeland you need to have a much more exacting definition. So, though black and white may be useful to you into general conversation you need a much better definition before it can be used in a racist master plan and definitely before it can be used to describe some sort of underlying genetics, which is what they want to do.

Also, I can almost gaurantee that none of them will join this thread. One of the primary suggestions they make to each other on their boards is to avoid threads such as this one so that they will not be outed as out and out racists and therefore banned.

In the beginning we got many who would do just this as they were amateurs who came from the board we challeneged, but most of those have been banned by now and we are getting those who do this a major activity. They talk about spending several hours every night just jumping from one board to another with the same propaganda. Oh well, hopefully there aren’t so many of them as I fear and after a brief spell they will have all flamed out.

24

Actually it does. If we all use a word in a certain way that is technically incorrect, over time that becomes the correct definition. There is no truth to words outside their usage, the only value they have is the ideas that humans attach to them. If we all attach a certain idea to a word, then that is the defintion. This is how language changes over time.

25

But you may be, and that’s the point that Zagadka makes. You’re ignoring real world experience as well. Do you really think that if you had blonde hair and light skin, but if was found out that one of your parent’s were black…you wouldn’t suddenly become “black”, even though two seconds ago you were considered “white”?

This is the problem when people think “race” has any real meaning…it’s a convenience, but one based in ignorance.

BTW define “Asian”, you do know that Pakistanis and Indians are called “Asians” too and look nothing like Jackie Chan.

26

The problem arises when people use the descriptive definition of “race” to mean a scientific grouping. This is what the debate is about. You frequently hear the argument that the races are genetically different, or are genetically inferior or superior. In this sense, “race” means absolutely diddly squat. In the sense of “that guy’s skin is olive, his face is flat, and his eyes are slanty,” then yes, he is “asian.” Saying “that guy’s skin is olive, his face is flat, and his eyes are slanty, and therefore he is genetically deviant from my superior genetic race” is absolute bullshit.

The problem is crossing two definitions of the same word - a descriptive meaning, and a scientific meaning.

27

Well probably — BUT that’s not the prime mover as I’ve already stated above. The prime mover is what most people accept “race” to be. That common understanding gives the symbol its meaning. People use “race” based on physical appearance so that’s how “race” gets it’s meaning — from that context. If they used stomach size than that would be the meaning of “race.” To denign this means you don’t understand what other people as saying when they use ordinary language – whether it be “race,” “chair,” “computer,” or any other word that relies on a common understanding for its definition.

They all have a number of physical characteristics that are different, and to someone from the same ethnicity the differences are obvious at first glance. An American might get a Mongolian and a Vietnamese mixed up, but someone from China would not. They facial differences between them are more easily recognized when you are more familiar with the “race”.
[/quote]

Fine, until a word has meaning it has no meaning and doesn’t exist. If we lived in a world of blind people “race” might not exist in the ideas and actions and the word itself might not exist. If people don’t see differences of physical characteristics than they will not distingish them as different racially.

And different than when the word is used in everyday language. The fact that you had to qualify your post with “scientifically” means you see the differences and put the listener on notice that you will be using a modified / specialized meaning. I’d venture a guess that the vast vast majority of people don’t use that meaning and wouldn’t know what you’re talking about if you began using the altered definition. Once the “scientific” meaning takes hold than that becomes the ordinary meaning of “race” and the “idea” that people have when they use the word. To talk now as if that is what the word means makes no sense to me and, I think, to most others.

Well in the case of commonly accepted word meanings I have to disagree. How can it be otherwise? And what is “the true meaning and misuses” of words?? Neither you nor I nor anyone one individual on this Board decides what the common term “race” means. Usage determines that.

28

Well, OK, granted. If everyone calls a red apple an orange, then it is called an orange. Similarly, if everyone has a misconception of what the term “evolution” means, does that change what “evolution” is when applied scientifically?

The problem here is this logic:

In the above example, race has absolutely nothing to do with genetics, yet in laymen’s terms, it is applicable. This does not make it true.

29

Now you are being disingenuous while pretending that we are nitpicking. I have no problem using the socially constructed classifications to provide descriptions of people for rough identification. A guy described as black who turned out to be from Fiji would probably still be more easily spotted on the street than if he had been described as “Pacific Islander.”*

However, the use of “white” by the WNs has nothing to do with simple description. The WN’s would describe the guy as “white” until they discovered he was Jewish, then they would abruptly change their definition of “white.”
My Jordanian- and Lebanese-descended classmates were regarded as “white” until they gave their last names as Rashid or Mouawad or Hussein (not their real names, but close enough) at which time the “white” people decided that they were no longer “white.”

Why should I give credence to any beliefs that are rooted in error or that change based on extraneous data rooted in ignorant prejudices?

It is true that we can use generalized descriptors of appearance to identify someone. On the other hand, that is easier in the U.S. where all the large populations have immigrated or been brought from limited numbers of areas throughout the rest of the world.* If someone wants to secede from the U.S. (or set up some sort of silly “homeland”), they need to be able to correctly identify who they are going to include and exclude. If their definitions have no meaning, I see no point in making the effort to consider accommodating their irrational xenophobia.

  • Interestingly, as more people from Samoa and Micronesia (as opposed to Fijians) move to the U.S., people who do not associate with them often describe them as “Hispanic” looking, although people who live near “Hispanic” and Pacific Islander communities will point out that they do not look “the same.” The black/white/Asian descriptions only work in limited situations and are not accurate enough to permit segregation based on some xenophobic pseudo-science.
30

One of the confusing things about race is that there are two general hypotheses people can have about how variations came into being and those hypotheses can color (pun intended) their thoughts about race and racial characeristics.

Many people think that groups of people were genetically isolated, evolved different racial characteristics, and then met at the borders and blended a bit. As if there were pockets of humans on the various continents who then spread out to meet other humans. And this can lead people to think of the races as “naturally separate” entities.

But the truth is, humans branched out from Africa, and changed as they migrated from one place to the other, with gene flow rarely, if ever, completely cut off from all the other populations. This is why it is so hard to delineate races, and it’s an important point in understanding why the term has little scientific meaning. If the first hypotheses I described was correct, then race would have a lot more scientific meaning. It’s not that there are just a few mixed race people along the racial borders, but there is a continuum of physical characteristics that has no definable border. So you simply can’t say: “The people on this side of the river are Race #1 and the people on this side of the river are Race #2”.

31

No, I did not know that - your making an assumption this isn’t entirely warranted. That’s why we’re having this discussion. I’d still would like to know what an Asian looks like.

Sorry, I disagree. Word meanings are time and place dependent, and have a history behind them. The terms “black” and “race” has meant different things to different people at different times and places. It just so happens that most people in the United States today equate “black” and “race” with not only 1)physical appearance, but 2) that the person with the physical descriptor “black” is of African origin (not to mention the value-laden connotations associated with the terms vis-a-vis slavery and discrimination).

A Melenesian may certaintly look black, and one is perfectly free you use it as a descriptor to refer to race (in the sense that physical description equates with race). But then one encounters the possibility of miscommunication with the general public in the US because a Melansian - who could be described as "black’ - is not of African origin.

Fair enough - but what about if someone has brown skin, brown, kinky hair, and brown eyes? Would the officer use those descriptors, or something else? Would people be able to make a distinction between a light-skined person of African decent versus an ethnic Arab or Greek? That is, would people be able to infer the race of the perpetrator?

32

“disingenuous?” Take a look at my initial post and those afterwards – the one(s) to which you and many others responded. I don’t think I shifted far from that initial position in the rejoinders. How have I been ‘disingenuous?’ By responding and re-stating the point I originally made?

The “reality of race,” as you phrased it, is there and real simply because we pay attention to it. I’ve seen threads here that act as if “race” doesn’t exist. If it’s more comfortable to use the terms “Black” or “White” rather than “race” – fine here. But whatever symbol is used, it exists because it’s in our language and is very active there, the ‘idea’ is present, people take actions based on the idea everyday and all day long, it’s treated as real, and therefore exists. It exists like other ideas that surround word meanings exist – it exists like “love” exists and is subject to the same deconstruction I see on the Board from time to time. Not proven scientifically but still there. So — I’m responding to the “race” doesn’t exist crowd – something you seemed to be advocating in your post. Now if you want to call “race” rough classifications based on social constructs that’s fine.

Than granted, the WNs would be changing the common definition of “race” to suit their already designed purposes. Giving the word “race” a meaning that is outside the common understand. And as I said in my initial post – I saw both sides do that. And as stated in a later post -

33

I would call these people “asian” and I think the consensus would agree– If they don’t than I’m wrong.

http://impac-systems.com/news/PhotoGallery/IMPAC%20Photos/Asian%20couple.jpg

In this group I would call one person “White” and the others “Black” and I think the consensus would agree – If not than I’m wrong.

http://www.ndsu.edu/multicultural/images/gallery/New%20Folder/blackhistory%20month%20african%20american%20heros%20004.jpg

Maybe we’re talking about different stuff here but I don’t have to know the history of a word to know the meaning. So, no, I don’t see words as being history dependent. They are dependent on how people use the word at that place and that time. When people change the use of the word than the word changes then, at that place and time no matter what meanings it had prior to that. In fact, those people who are aware of the histories of the words that they use - and allow those histories to affect the meaning they give to the word – may ‘be out of touch’ with the way the word is used in common communication and mmight use those words differently. This same for any specialized use of an ordinary word.

Where the physical appearance becomes “ambiguous” (not my term but I’ll use it) for whatever reason than probably not. When it’s not “ambiguous” than probably so. But in the final — if “race” doesn’t exist for you than “race” doesn’t exist for you. That doesn’t appear to be the case for most everyone else I’ve met -

34

Race exists in the same way that height exists. If you see someone who is 6’ 5", most of us would say that person is tall. And if you saw someone who is 5’, most of us would say that person is short. Now, does that mean we can sort people into categories of short and tall in any meaningful way? Is the 5’ 10" man tall and the 5’ 8" man short? Certainly people in the center of the various continents tend to look different from other people in the centers of continents, but as you walk from Beijing to Berlin (for example), you will never reach a place where the people behind you look Asian and the people in front of you look European.

Where would **you ** draw the line between the Asian race (ie, in China) and Caucasian race (ie, Europe)? It can’t be done, even though no one would mistake a native of Beijing for a native of Berlin.

35

Look, Tigers, I can understand your objections. Certainly in our everyday lives we can use words like “black” or “white” or “asian” and people will understand what we mean perfectly. No one is going to argue against saying things like Michael Jordan is black or Martha Stewart is white or Michelle Kwan is asian.

But when we start talking with white nationalists we run into problems with the everday meanings of the word “white” or “black”. In the United States, black is really used as a cultural descriptor rather than a genetic descriptor. If you could get an accurate family tree of most black Americans you’d find that almost without exception they have some ancestors of European or Native American stock. For many black people the majority of their ancestors are NOT African. However, the presence of one African ancestor anywhere in their family tree renders them black under American racial rules.

And of course, this has to do with slavery, and how the child of a white slavemaster and a black slave was classified as black. And we still have the same sorts of ideas today. So you see people like Ed Bradley or Lena Horne or Lisa Bonet who call themselves black, and no one disputes that they are black…even though it is plain that the vast majority of their ancestors were not brought over from Africa as slaves.

So…if we talk about genetic differences between blacks and whites can’t you see that our everyday definition of “black” as someone who has some ancestors from africa and was raised in a “black” household doesn’t work? If we are going to establish a white homeland and exclude everyone who isn’t white, isn’t it clear that we are going to have to have a pretty solid definition of who counts as white?

Does having one black ancestor anywhere on your family tree automatically make you non-white? Are Greeks, Italians, Russians, Portoguese, Croats and Spaniards white? Are Arabs, Turks, Armenians, Georgians, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Egyptians, Iranians and Afghans white? Are Berbers, Tuaregs, Pakistanis, Gujaratis, Bengalis, Nepalese and Kurds white? Are Uighurs, Tamils, Burmese, Mongols, Somalis and Siberians white? How about Native Americans? Does it make a difference if they are half of Spanish ancestry and half Native American? What percentage of Spanish ancestry does a Mexican have to possess before he can be treated as a white man?

Yes, if you take someone from Sweden and place them next to someone from Kirghizistan you’d probably be able to tell them apart. But what about someone from Italy and someone from Kirghizistan? Don’t you think the Italian could potentially look more like the Kirghiz than they would to the Swede? So what makes the Italian and the Swede both white and the Kirghiz asian? If you put a Kirghiz and an Italian and a Japanese together, who would the Kirghiz “look more like”? And why would it matter?

Of course it only matters if you have a scientific theory of race and wish to show that members of different races have different characteristics and should therefore be treated differently. If you wish to establish a homeland for whites only you have to be able to exclude non-whites, right? So how do you do that? A paper bag test? There are going to be people who would pass in the winter but fail in the summer. Features? Exactly how flat can your nose be and you have your civil rights respected?

Lets take a look at your “chairs” analogy. If you want to pile rocks and stumps around your campfire and call the rocks “chairs”, that’s no skin off my ass. And if Martha Stewart complained that your chairs weren’t REAL chairs, you’d shrug your shoulders and wonder why she cared.

But what if Martha really really really cared about chairs. And she and her friends decided that anyone who didn’t have arms, backs and lace doilies on their chairs was going to get smacked. And lots of people agreed with her. Can you see then that the definition of “chair” suddenly becomes important, it becomes a charged political issue? Someone confronted by an angry mob of chairists suddenly cares very much whether their broken down ottoman or barstool fits the definition of “chair”.

Even though we all can see that the definition of chair can be pretty amorphous, and that we know chairs when we see them, what if some people see things differently than you? If there are no consequences when you have a different definition of “chair” than Martha Stewart, there is no reason for you to spend much time generating a scientific definition of chair even if Martha herself does. But when Martha starts spouting off chairist doctrine about your stumps and logs what are you going to do?

36

No. I say that your initial point was disingenuous.

(I am, perhaps, mistaken. It is possible that you simply do not understand the disagreeement that most of us have with the White Nationalists.)

The “common” use of the word race, (which has, as I already pointed out, four separate and distinct meanings, all of which continue to have currency, depending on the discussion) is the issue when talking with WNs. They constantly change the meaning to suit their current argument, so nailing down a meaning is necessary.

Sometimes “white” means appearance–but then they exclude Jews who are indistinguishable from the rest of the people of Europe and the MENA region who can pass among each other without remark.
Sometimes “white” means European culture–but then they want to claim that the civilizations that led to European culture arising in Mesopotamia and Egypt are “white” (although they will not let the people who now live in those regions be “white”).
Sometimes they mean a particular group within the European communities–but they have to ignore the reality of the invasions and migrations that mixed all those people together over the last 2,500 hundred years (to say nothing of the common origins of all the various groups not that long before then).

So when a WN drops in to talk about the “purity” of the “white” race or the need to “save” the white race, it would be helpful to be able to identify whether they are going to “save” only Caucasians, only Europeans, only Northerm Europeans, or some other undefined group of people.

When you drop in with the comment that we are nitpicking the definition, you are ignoring the fact theat their entire movement is based on a vague and ever-changing set of definitions that have no basis in historical or biological reality.
That is why we “nitpick” the definitions and that is why a claim that we “know” who a black or white person is appears disingenuous.
As I noted, there is a relatively good chance of distinguishing between “black” and “white” in the U.S. because the black peoples were imported from a fairly restricted section of the African continent. However, it is much more difficult to agree on who is “white” and, as there is increased immigration from both East and West Asia, as well as the Pacific, it will be increasingly difficult to casually identify a lot of people correctly. (As with the Samoans being confused with Mexicans or Guatemalans.) You made the same point, yourself, when you noted that “An American might get a Mongolian and a Vietnamese mixed up, but someone from China would not.” The only clear distinction that is easily made in the U.S. is among very broad categories of people who are quite different. And, until the WNs can demonstrate that they can distinguish a person from Lebanon from a person from Spain, I see no reason to back off on my attacks upon the silliness of their position. When you wander in with a complaint that we should use “common” meanings, I want to know what common meaning separates Europeans from Lebanese or European Jews from other Europeans. Since those are the positions being argued, your complaint appears disingenuous.

37

Lemur, that’s about the best post I’ve seen yet on the subject!

Another analogy: We can all tell the difference between short and tall people. There may be a grey area in the 5’+ range but no one would have a problem deciding who was tall if they saw a picture of, say, Conan O’brien and Bill Maher standing next to each other. But no one is fool enough to make moral judgements based on hieght. In fact outside of a few special circumstances (choosing a basketball team, getting something off the top shelf) no one really notices hieght at all in assessing people. Certainly there are no “Tallists” who hold that short people should be exiled or who call for a seperate tall persons homeland. When Randy Newman put out his famous song “Short people” he was showing the absurdity of racism by using racist “logic” in a context where no one would ever apply it.

And that’s the problem with racists. They judge humans based on superficial characteristics over which they have no control and which have nothing to do with their behavior. When pressed white supremacists seem to have a few standard responses. 1.) They’ll just mutter “well look at 'em all…smoking crack and comitting crimes and sh*t.” 2. They’ll blather on about “culture” whatever that means. As if 50 cent and Colin Powell have the same "culture."3.) They’ll use some crackpot pseudo-darwinism as Science Girl does. But none of these strategies really mask the fact that they are judging people based on appearences not on actions.

38

Height, that is…

39

Wow! You’re good at that. I’m not as good at it. Maybe you could help me figure this one out since it’s so simple: http://www.pbs.org/race/002_SortingPeople/002_00-home.htm

40

I’m an Arab from Syria, and I don’t consider myself white.

A lot of Arabs have Negro admixture, because many African slaves were brought into the Middle East, however, one rarely see’s a pure black these days, which indicates that they mixed with the Arabs.

I consider a person white if they descended out of Europe and did not mix with another race.

I consider the people of the Middle East to be Semites or mixed Caucasian and Negro.