Talk:White pride

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Several superannuated subsections were deleted by Maggie (passim, below) on 12th July, 2006. See the subsection titled, "The direction of this discussion page".

Contents 1 This article is not neutral 2 White pride is racist 3 Bias 4 NPOV 5 A good start, but... 6 Comment 7 Article Needs to Start Over 8 Jews and Gays? 9 Stormfront 10 Why White Nationalism is the same as White Supremacism 11 Rewrite 07/10/2006 12 The direction of this discussion page 13 Homosexuals and Jews 14 New "pro" information 15 Unfairness in linkage

[edit] This article is not neutral

There have already been a similar discussion on this page, but the distinction between the concepts of black and white pride on Wikipedia is NOT neutral. The same goes for White power and black power. This post will be half clarification of the problems and half debate of them. I do realize that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and I will act hererafter.

No matter what group is dominant or what group is the majority, there should not be a such cultural distinction as we see here. To counter the justification of Wikipedias distinction that White Pride and White Power are typically more often with racist motivation than other variants, it shall be mentioned that the very movements that started Black Pride and Black Power had racialist/racist motivations; such as black supremacy or racist hatred directed towards whites. This includes most of the bigger movements that I mention in this post, but are not limited to them.

Numerous surveys have showed that whites are not statistically more racist than blacks, only its the definition of racism that is wrong. It has been established that many people actually believe that the definition of racism is when a white person discriminates any other ethnicity - and there by there is no such thing as racism directed at whites. By this definitions, only whites can be racist, and naturally whites would be the most racist.

The recent problems with black supremacy (Kamau Kambon) in USA, have emphasized how alive the race problems are, and how actual the racial double standard actually is - in a totally opposite direction then previously believed so. Similar scandals where whites have called for lynching or extermination of blacks today (in these cases, getting media interest before discrimination have proven much more difficult) have made much more impact, and in this relation it is worth mentioning that there does not exist a white relligion with millions of members or supporters, with the official belief that all blacks are devils and should die (read: Nation of Islam), and relligiously integrated racism on such a scale have proven impossible with the white population.

Am I trying to say, that blacks that say Black Pride or Power are worse then people who say White Power/Pride? No. I am simply saying that the opposite is not worse then blacks doing so. Black Pride or Power is as racist as White Pride or Power. Whether it is even racist is also a matter of debate, but since only White Power is considered racist, there are more blacks using Black power, this indicating a high degree of Black racism.

Wikipedia is no discussion forum, and I am only saying these things so we can see what the problems are with this article - that this article is based on the non-neutral American racist double-standards. Why do they have to be a part of Wikipedia? Why is those standards neutral, when they in fact are considered racist in other countries?

Do something. This article suffers from influence of the affirmative action of the american society directed towards its black minority - accepting black racism, taking extremely seriously white racism, or even nominating non-racist white movements or terms racist, even though there are similar (they ARE similar) black movements or terms.

The term <any race/ethnicity> power/pride, simply states that one believes in owns ethnicitys power, or that one is proud of ones own ethnicity or culture. Some racists then use these terms or maybe just because of affirmative action, the definitions change. That is not right, and it is not justification of a double standard, and if people think it is, then thats subjective and not Wikipedias concern.

This subject deals with racial pride and "racial" power, rather then anything else. So some racists use these terms, and so the american society has political correctness from the whites and affirmative action, but should we therefore change the very definition of things and bow down for this racist double standard? I think not, at least that is not Wikipedian policy (abolish racism and stay neutral). 85.82.195.131 19:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the points advanced in this incoherent screed are dealt with fully below and in the article. There's not much to add. So you disagree. So you don't think that minorities are entitled to their anger. Fine. This article is not about "black power" or "white power". Those are different articles. Although there are racist organizations that advocate black pride (e.g., NOI), for the most part black pride is a credo advanced to combat systemic and cultural oppression of black people. This can't possibly apply to white people, because there is nowhere in the world - the western world, at least - where white people face systemic or cultural oppression. Furthermore, I've yet to be presented with compelling evidence that white pride is either 1) not reactionary (i.e., a conservative/racist/knee-jerk response to the notion of black people being organized or proud of their heritage) or 2) advocated by any organizations that are either not racist themselves or not directly tied to racist organizations. - Maggie --67.71.120.136 18:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White pride is racist

Racism says: "Racism is the belief that people of different races differ in value". Proclaiming white pride ("pride for being born white") in a time where caucasians are in a priviligied position seems racist (perhaps unintentionally so) to me. Sunnan 14:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

by this logic, white-non-pride is also racist

Any form of ethnic/national pride is racism. Furthermore, differerent races do differ in value, to say otherwise is naive. Avsn 00:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Different races do differ in value"? What the hell does that mean? That you believe that your race, presumably, is more valuable than, say, mine? --67.71.122.58 00:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A) sign your comments with a real name. B) 'differ' does not mean greater or lesser. 'Differ' is to say not all races are alike. It is only your assuming that I say more than I do. In other words, don't put words in my mouth. Avsn 02:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't play a semantic game, because based on the evidence peppered throughout this page, you'll lose it. You didn't just say that races differed. You said that races "differ in value". Difference in value suggests a hierarchy. Difference in value is like saying you're a dollar, I'm fifty cents, and Bob is two dollars. There's an obvious implicit hierarchy. And if you're applying it to race it makes you racist, and therefore unqualified to evaluate whether this article is NPOV or not.-Maggie --67.71.122.58 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Semantic I'll grant. That it invalidates the arguement, I'll not grant. "Value" does not automatically infer hierarchy. Consider this:

Process A and Process B both accomplish the same END. A and B go about reaching END with different methods. A and B have an equal number of advantages and disadvantages. However, A's method is useful to Industry X and B's method is useful to Industry Y. Thus A and B differ in value, without an implication of hierarchy. The same can be applied in the real world. Asians are known to be good in math and sciences to a degree greater that the other races around them. Blacks are better in some sports than other races. Get the point. I don't say that there are hard and fast rules to this difference, just that it exists. Avsn 17:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• I come bearing a few tips (you lucky boy you) for the next time you're eager to argue with someone. The first is, don't use words ("infer", in this case) that you don't understand. The second is, don't use words ("consider", in this case) that you can't spell. Thirdly, don't rely upon a long-discredited pseudoscience (racial eugenics, for example) to support your arguments, even if you intend them to be absurd. The supposed correlation of certain skills and 'race' is socially created (generally, African-Americans have a higher level of poverty than others, and thus have substantially less access to education in "math and sciences") and also quite spurious, based on the fact that there is more genetic variation _within_ 'races' than between them. I mean, come on. Your ideas were out of date in the days of Darwin.

• Yet another unsigned comment, but I will still respond. (unsigned it a peeve of mine, but that sort of thing is bound to happen in a place like Wikipedia.) My bad spelling aside, yes I mean imply not infer. I don't rely on 'pseudoscience' of any sort. I rely on the example of reality. If you don't believe in differences between races, I give you a better example. Why is it that some segements of humanity are prone to certain diseases while the rest of humanity is unaffected? (Sickle cell in Blacks or Tay-Sachs in Ashkenazi Jews.) You appear to object to the word race even existing. Typical of the Egalitarian. ***PESONAL OPINION HERE*** Equality is a fine Ideal, not a reality. Avsn 02:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Environment. Environment. Environment. Also, certain genes being retained because of certain groups leaning towards reproductive partners within their own immediate social community. It has nothing to do with 'races', which from a genetic perspective are non-existent. The term may be of use in cultural studies and cultural history, but to deploy them 'scientifically' is not merely bunkum, not merely inherently racist, but plain moronic. Ask a geneticist. A real one. --65.95.150.107 01:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• If you dislike this article, I suggest this: write a counter article. "White Pride: as viewed by society at large" perhaps. Let this article be "White Pride: Explained by those with White Pride". Avsn 00:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Don't be stupid. That's not how Wikipedia works. Articles - not the encyclopedia as a whole - have to be balanced. They have to be grounded in fact. An article about White Pride can certainly describe what the White Pride community looks like - which is to say, an awful lot like a KKK meeting - but it certainly doesn't need to take the perspective that white pride is a good thing, or that taking 'pride' in a position of socioeconomic dominance is in any way honorable or natural or scientifically ordained. You might wonder why I've resorted repeatedly to ad hominem attacks. It's because you're a racist, or, more accurately, that certain of your opinions are racist. Therefore you are in no position to write objectively about an issue such as this. -Maggie--65.95.150.107 01:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, no I am not a racist. I don't mind you attacking my argument, but refain from attacking me. My pride in my heritage is justified, and if you believe being white negates my right to pride in my heritage, I'll say you are wrong. I, individually am not "in a position of socioeconomic dominanace". If you believe this article is unbalanced, balance it out. I refuse to be PC. If a Black man can say "Black Pride!" and have it be a statement of ethnic pride, I can just as well be proud of my "whiteness". Futhermore, just because a black man cannot qualify his blackness (IE Zulu, Xhosha, Hottentot, whatever.) doesn't mean I have to qualify my whiteness by saying "English, French, etc." "White" covers it fine thank you. As for objectivity, this is a controversial article, there is no way to satify your obviously inflated requirements in that area, I won't try. Avsn 02:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• You did exactly that I thought you'd do, which is to say, responded to my personal attacks rather than my scientific and sociological arguments. The obvious reason is that you can't defend yourself on those bases. Although admittedly the personal attacks were more fun to type, I find it worrying that it appears to be you who have been left in charge of this abandoned outpost. The article cannot be saved. It needs to be cleared out and completely rewritten, and I don't have the time. But are you really naive enough to believe that "black pride" is something other than mere solidarity in the face of persistent oppression? Just like gay pride. And because white people have never been systematically oppressed, the very idea is a contradiction, if not necessarily an offensive one. - Maggie --65.95.150.107 02:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well apparently citing Sickle Cell and Tay-Sachs is unscientific. Guess I'm the Unscientist. As for "scientific and sociological arguments": I sure didn't see any, maybe giving an opinion is "scientific and sociological." I'll willing agree to disagree. When "Maggie" has a genuine arguement I'll gladly return to this subject. There are some people who just don't know how to argue properly.Avsn 02:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have to groan, but I'll repeat myself, slowly if need be. Sickle-cell anaemia and Tay-Sachs disease are not 'scientific' proof of racial predispositions - they are, on the contrary, reflections of the fact that members of a given social group (let's say, Ashkenazi Jews) tend to find their mates and produce children within that group, thereby proliferating certain alleles, because their partners are that much more likely to be carriers of the mate gene to their own. The child thus ends up with the disease. This doesn't actually prove the existence of 'races' - it merely reflects the social reality of certain groups being reproductively insular. In fact, it's patently absurd to say that they in any way are indicators of 'racial' predispositions - because by that logic, a union between an African-American and an Ashkenazi Jew would be that much more statistically likely to produce a child with both Tay-Sachs and Sickle-Cell, when in point of fact that would be almost impossible (indeed, genetically absurd), because those diseases require both parents being carriers of a given gene, and having both parents sharing a gene of this sort in turn requires a certain degree of socio-sexual insularity - which obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with race, but is rather a social phenomenon. Just because your examples are diseases doesn't mean they're scientific. I can suggest that a left-handed Scot is more likely to have a red beard than (say) a right-handed Chinese person, but it would be foolish to suggest that it has anything to do with the hand with which either man signs his name. -Maggie--65.95.150.107 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has become emotionally charged. Thank god it's being discussed here instead of the article. Th intro should make it clear that white pride in itself has nothing to do with the view of one race having value over another. That it is a cultural celebration that is completely unrelated to the white power/white supremacy and white separatist movements (At least two very unrelated movements). It should demonstrate that the term has become confused due to white power/supremecists "borrowing" on the theme of white pride to lend credibilty to their supremacist agenda and that it is misunderstood by other political ideologists as being synonymous with white supremacy.

I feel the 14 words should only be included in a separate section that gives examples of the use/allegation of misuse of the term "white pride" by white supremacist persons and organisations. Consider the source of the 14 words; David Lane was a defendant on trial for an alleged white supremacist hate crime.

I also feel that any discussion on the supposed value or meaning of race, beyond the way of life, belief system of different subcultures (Saxon/Celtic/Nordic or whatever) should be moved to the white supremacy section.

The problem is that supremacists wholeheartedly believe that their use of the term "white pride" describes their beliefs exclusively and that many people lump white pride in with white supremacy. This is quite a hot potato.

I vote that we stay on the focus of white pride as a cultural movement; introduce, but keep separate the political meanings/non meanings and refer as necessary (and as fairly as we can) to the white supremacy section.

I'm also surprized that this hasn't been vandalized more.

Lets try to come up with an outline of where to place what ideas and let that lead us.

Example:

I. simple definition of white pride (no supremacist stuff yet)

     A. different cultures involved
          1. Celt for example

          2. Nordic/Viking...
     B. Mythology/Religons commonly held by the various people 

2. Controversy concerning use of white pride (the viewpoints)

    A.   Pro Supremacy white pride view
    B.   Non-supremacist white pride view
    C.   those who believe they are one in the same.

If we got a good outline going some of these problems could solve themselves.

I disagree entirely. The term "white pride" was coined by the very racist organizations you decry for having misappropriated the term. Your history is backwards. White Pride has always been reactionary, and it has always been pernicious. Non-racists who are nonetheless proponents of 'white pride' are simply ignorant of the history of the term. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 01:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yours would seem to resemble the "C" viewpont (C. those who believe they are one in the same). Are you saying that white people were not proud of their culture long before the term or this issue ever existed?

The idea of cultural pride has likely been present since the stone age. It's tribal.

Assuming that what you say is correct; that the term "white pride" was coined solely by racist organizations. That matters very little. The viewpoint's inclusion in this article is still valid because it describes a popular way in which the term "white pride" is used today.

Though I'd be interested to know how you know that the term was always used SOLELY by supremacist groups. Have you traveled in white pride or white supremacist circles?

I think it's important that all viewpoints are treated equally (and neutrally). Likewise, that the term may or may not have been misappropriated or whether or not non-supremacist/pro white pride proponents are ignorant of the term's history represent only one belief about the term's origin.

If we can't pinpoint exactly who used it, when or in what context, then we can do little more than describe the positions within the debate of it's origin.

Even if you're 100% correct; that it IS popularly used in a non-supremacist context is still very relevant.

But this article is largely not about people of white European heritage feeling proud of themselves because they're special too and la-dee-da. If it were that simple there would be nothing to discuss, and indeed that aspect of the issue is dealt with amply in the first sentence of the article.

What this article is really about is the standard, capitalized usage of the term White Pride, and that is not in dispute. At the moment I have neither the resources nor the patience to annotate the first published usage of the term, but I can say with certainty that it does not predate David Duke. And I am not convinced that it is popularly used outside of racist/white nationalist/white supremacist organizations. If you are, provide an example. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 03:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly it is popularly used or there would be no debate from anyone else on this page about it's use. I think you are confusing the more general term of White Pride with the slogan, "White Pride, World Wide", a slogan widely used in racist literature (displayed around a Celtic cross, and so somewhat offensive to pagans). There is even debate on whether that organization (it's called Stormfront) is a racist one - an entirely different can of worms with it's own dedicated wiki page. I'm not even gonna fight you on that one.

My point is that if people have another use for it, we are duty bound to tell about that as well whether or not we find it palatable. This is the reason that dictionaries frequently have more than one definition. Incidently, I checked and "White Pride World Wide" already has it's own page. David Duke (Or as some say, Malcolm X's doppleganger) has his own page as well. I'll concede that it makes sense to include his speil as well as David Lane's 14 words so long as we fairly represent opposing views. Otherwise, The Racism article covers it all so why have a separate page at all. There is a duty here to be balanced.

- Iasonis 

Hurray I have a name!

[edit] Bias

This article has been labelled as biased; however in the absence of discussion or evidence I will assume this is a frivolous tagging and will remove the tag. If anyone disagrees feel free to replace the tag along with an explanation AdelaideRandel 23:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The article as it stands is pure apology for white pride. It is based on a number of fallacious and readily refutable arguments, namely:

1. White pride is analogous to black pride as opposed to white pride is a reactionary response to black pride & similar movements. 2. White pride is simply a state of being proud of one's origins, rather than a call for supremacy. (The reference provided is Stormfront - a noted racist webpage! 3. The doctrine of the Fourteen Words is not necessarily racist, nor are they necessarily neo-nazi. (Despite the fact that David Lane coined them for the purposes of the KKK, Aryan Nations, and Order!)

Neutral? Please. Pure, unabashed racism. [Edited to sign my comment, thereby excusing me from the below 'simplist explaination'] --67.71.122.58 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would respond to the unsigned comment above in the simplist terms. Your arguements are not a refutation of NPOV, but your own opinion. This article may contain "apology", but it does explain the White Pride ideals. This explaination is what makes this article worthy of remaining here. Avsn 23:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A good start, but...

I think this is a good start to a new "non-apologetic" article. I would say the old article was more informative, but this start should settle some arguments. --Avsn 19:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Add to it if you wish, but I've marked it a stub for now. -Maggie --70.50.76.161 21:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but I won't bite that bait. I wash my hands of your nonesense. --Avsn 22:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered! -Maggie

Don't be. You're simply just not worth the time or effort, and I don't care to give you further chance to violate the WP:NPA policy.--Avsn 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

• The editor(s) of this page are portraying white pride in a negative light. Meanwhile Black pride and Asian pride, for example, are shown in a positive light. What is with the hypocrisy? It's like these editors have never heard early 90s rap and underground rap today. Talk about Black pride and hate. And i don't doubt there are Asian groups out there somewhere very racist towards whites too. So whoever, stop pulling the pc bullsh**

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeph1 (talk • contribs) .

• Truly, your love of non-white people shines through. No doubt you've encouraged your son to convert to Judaism and your daughter to marry a black man. Why ever would people think of "White Pride" in a negative light?? -Bindingtheory 23:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thing is, Zeph, your paranoiac, nativist rant notwithstanding, there's a difference between white culture systemically oppressing minorities, and minorities kind of resenting that. -Maggie --70.50.78.189 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You two above just don't get it. Why would i need to show my love for non-white people? What would that prove? Nothing. Except that i'd be some PC a-hole trying to make myself feel better. I have family members that are black, Jewish and even gay. They have their pride. Why can't i have mine? According to you two, i can't. Because i'm just the evil, intolerant white oppressor of the minorities. Talk about not having open minds. I like how you think you know me when you see some words written on a factual unreliable website like Wikipedia and try to approach me in a manner meant to discredit what i was saying. Specifically, to Maggie, what do you truly know about oppression throughout history. There was oppression long before slavery began in the west. All of which was done by non-whites. Even during slavery many non-whites were involved in slavery. Ever hear of the involvement of rival African tribes capturing and selling those from other tribes? Ever hear of the Islamic/Arab involvement in slavery that continues to this day?

Come back with a real position instead of one taught to you.

• Being a jew kind of taught me something about a legacy of oppression. Being a woman too. Who knew? I'd also point out that your attempted trivialization of black slavery is disgusting in the most astonishingly unselfconscious way. Exactly the sort of thing you'd expect to come from someone whose opening invocation is a Colbert-style "I have black friends".

It's not a matter of being closed-minded to point out that, in the Western world, non-whites (and non-males and non-straights) face (and have always faced) obstacles that white, straight men don't. And the only organizations that have ever excluded straight white men are the ones that were created because their founders were excluded from all others.

All that being said, the article as it stands is entirely balanced on this matter; it points out the difference of opinion, and notes accurately that the term "white pride" is almost entirely used by white supremacists. -Maggie --70.50.78.189 22:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, you didn't get what i was trying to say. It'd be a waste to try to explain myself to someone of your special stature. Only in your confused world would you think i was trying to trivialize slavery. This article is completely biased against whites as a whole in having respect for their culture and ancestry while other "pride" entries are shown as a great thing. Even though the major observers of Asian and Black pride are mostly racist too. But it's fine for them.

And somehow it's fine for you to be intolerant of straight, white males yet wrong for straight white males to have intolerance for anything. All because of their skin color. What's the definition of racism again?

Zeph, I would suggest you simply abandon any argument with this "Maggie". She has shown herself to be incapable of anything other than stupidity on a talk page. Eventually she will attack you specifically (and violate the WP:NPA policy again). Just give up. Avsn 18:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

From a previous post: "It's not a matter of being closed-minded to point out that, in the Western world, non-whites (and non-males and non-straights) face (and have always faced) obstacles that white, straight men don't. And the only organizations that have ever excluded straight white men are the ones that were created because their founders were excluded from all others."

Exactly what does this have to do with White Pride? Bringing up discrimination within the context of different organizations relates to this article how? You are throwing around some heavyweight assumptions that society's leaders have always acted exclusively on behalf of white, straight 'non-females'. There are millions of white, straight, 'non-females' who are living in poverty throughout the Western world. The allegation that all white males have colluded to keep minority groups in check is questionable at best. Ask any lower-class or even middle-class white male how well they feel represented in Washington D.C., Berlin or Dublin. The answers may supprise you.

You are failing to note the intrinsic greed that dominates many human beings as group, not just the power elite that run the show. Also, some of your vocabulary is awkward to say the least. Isn't a 'non-male' just a 'female' and a 'non-female' just a 'male'? Once again, this relates to the article how? This is not an entry on gender equality, the glass ceiling or sexism. Let's stick to defining the article, not talking about unrelated topics or inserting fuzzy science terms like 'non-male' or 'non-female'. Thank you.--Saintlink 12:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond to this comment only by noting the following: 1) that my usage of 'fuzzy science terms' like 'non-male' is full of transparent irony that you've obviously missed; 2) that it's pointless of you to lexture me on conflict theory ('the intrinsic greed that dominates many human beings') in this highly simplistic fashion when a more developed version of the same theory is the basis for my arguments; and 3) feeling that whiteness is something to be proud of is different from feeling that blackness (or gayness) is something to be proud of, because white people have never been oppressed (ie, made to internalize shame) on the basis of their whiteness. Yes, there are a lot of white American men living in poverty. But they can safely assume that it has nothing to do with the color of their skin; and if they feel a reactionary need to be proud of the color of their skin because the obvious eludes them, well, all too often they court racism. Just as the term white pride was apparently coined by white supremacists and neo-nazis. If not, find me a documented earlier usage of the term by someone who doesn't either deny the Holocaust, or think that black people are deleterious to the social fabric, or who doesn't think that America (or whatever) is a White Christian nation under God.

Incidently, a 'non-male' is not necessarily female. A 'non-male' could be intersexed, transgendered, or somethin' else. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 15:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* I'm white. I'm currently serving in the U.S. Army. I'm 26, not particularly rich (I'm in the military, after all), and I date an American woman who happens to be half-Vietnamese. I'm mostly Irish (who, upon their arrival in the United States, which treated quite badly on basis of their nationality) and I come from a family with a long line of men who've served in the military. I'm proud of my "white" heritage. The problem with your reasoning, Maggie, is that the way you've presented your objections to this article makes it seem as if ALL white men who proclaim to have pride in being white are *gasp* RACIST! I present myself as an example of your fallacy. Yes, "White Pride" has racist connotations. However, it is NOT exclusively racist. Just as black/asian/latino/whatever pride presents both sides of the racism coin. Any of these racial pride movements have inherent qualities of the "My-Race-Is-Better-Than-Yours" tug-of-war. The article, in my opinion, is balanced. "White Pride" is not an exclusively-racist term, whatever its roots be. BRGillespie 21:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So if you think the article (which I mostly wrote) is balanced, then what's wrong with my reasoning? And what does it matter what I say here? I never suggested that all people who claim to have pride in their white heritage are racist. I did, however, suggest - accurately - that the term "white pride" is used (or has been co-opted, or whatever) to conceal or normalize racist beliefs. If you're genuinely proud of your heritage, you ought to be angry at sons-of-bitches like Don Black and David Duke who, by association, made the act of having pride in your heritage (totally legitimate - there can be no denying that, say, the Irish have been oppressed throughout their history) a dirty word. - Maggie --65.95.150.214 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bah!... and I was just about to delete my commentary as irrelevant, since this talk page subsided months ago (my comment was a bit "knee-jerk"). A good point about being at supremacist members twisting the wording to support their platform. Still, I perceived (correctly or incorrectly) that since this term may have originated with a white supremacist/nationalist/whatever organization it made all persons who had "white pride" inherently racist (which I'm not). That was the genesis of my comment.BRGillespie 22:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Needs to Start Over

This article does not conform with the Wikipedia NPOV in my opinion. The way it is currently phrased one might think that "White Pride" is exclusive to the neo-Nazi or skinhead movements. While there may be links or even popular connotation with such a reference, to leave the article it the current state does not provide a more nuanced look the topic. As referenced by previous posters, the language of the current version of this article is highly inflammatory and narrow-minded in scope. How about a more generic description in terms of pride of one's culture at the beginning of the article. If links are to be established with other movements such as White Nationalism or neo-Nazism then let them be in follow-up paragraph. The previous edits of this page imply that "White Pride" is solely a "hate based" movement. For example, why is this statement permitted in light of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines?

"But whereas the latter two movements are viewed as celebrations of self-worth and solidarity on the part of groups generally perceived as oppressed minorities, White Pride is seen by critics as an attempt to reinforce the very hierarchies that gave rise to that oppression."

Viewed by whom? Stormfront.org? The ADL? The Black Panthers? The American Nazi Party? I refer once again to the WP policy page: Words_to_avoid

Such brash and overly simplistic statements without any sort of official endorsement or disclaimer from external sources makes me question the supposed "viewed by" status of such claims. Where are the polls? Census data? Published op-eds? Exactly how do we come to the conclusion that all of the subjects described above are irrefutably intertwined. There appears to be a lack of physical evidence. Once again, I propose a generic draft of pride of one's race/color/national origin or whatever we can agree upon to be the core root of "White Pride". Any other connections between "White Pride" and Nazism, Skinheads, White Nationalism and so on should follow a more universal description of "White Pride".

An example of how a compromise could be reached can be found on the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism#A_critical_view

The pro/con arguments are much clearer in terms of what a "White Nationalist" is and isn't. Such clarity is lacking in this "White Pride" document.

Also, how about a disambiguation for the White Pride Band? Shouldn't they be referenced at the top of the page as a disambiguation?

Finally, could we please attempt at keeping this conversation civil? It goes without saying that this is a "hot-button" topic for many, that doesn't mean we can't act like adults and try to resolve any differences of opinion. Shall we move forward?--Saintlink 07:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The evidence you adduce that a productive compromise can be reached on topics such as these is absurd. The "critical view" is dismissed immediately by the article as "wrongly characteriz[ing]" White Nationalism.

I understand that the "view by" graf ought to be cited; but if you delete it suddenly the article stands as pure apology for White Pride, as some kind of benign counterpart to Black Pride or Gay Pride, even though the term appears to have been coined by racists and white supremacists, no matter how it's used. The difference is between (my) unsupported facts and (AVSN's, or Zeph's) plain disinformation. -Maggie

• Incidentally, how could any reasonable person consider this article unbalanced when it includes the phrase "not inherently racist"?

[edit] Jews and Gays?

I don't see why Jews and Gays can't be proud of thier race, as this article suggests. I know that Jews that are actualy white are few and far between, but jeez. SilentRage 09:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality isn't a race. It is a philosophy and/or lifestyle. There is no such thing as an 'ethnic gay'. If I misunderstood the way you phrased the paragraph above could you please elaborate? Thank you.--Saintlink 14:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted. What the article suggests - correctly, might I add - is that proponents of white pride generally don't consider jews to be white, or include homosexuals in their clique. Keep in mind that white pride is above all a reactionary movement that emerged to protest things like black pride and gay pride. The implication, I guess, is that black people or gay people (or jews, or whatever have enough pride, or ought not be so proud...

There is such a thing as gay pride, although, as Saintlink noted, homosexuality isn't a race. Of course, Saintlink also stupidly refers to homosexuality as a 'philosophy', or a 'lifestyle' (like equestrian, I guess) rather than a sexual orientation, implying presumably that gay people can just change their minds about whom they find desirable. I'm not sure if it's fair for me to identify Saintlink as a proponent of White Pride, but if he is, his case should offer a case-in-point of why (or rather, in what capacity) White Priders exclude homosexuals from their reveleries.

Of course one might reasonably argue that there are no such things as races - a scientific fact that has to underpin any objective discussion of an issue like 'white pride'). As a jew I'm inclined to doubt whether there is any such thing as jewish pride. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - that third paragraph is mine. I've corrected the spacing, I hope, to make that obvious. Avsn, I suspect that I ought to apologize for (directly or indirectly) accusing you of racism. It now seems to me that you are, at the very worst, naive - and that your ideology is basically benign and probably not racist. Keep in mind that a naive person cannot be blamed for their errors, and your error is an error of interpretation, or an error of contextualization. There is nothing wrong with being proud of one's European origins. The trouble is, you seem to describe yourself as a proponent of White Pride because you are under a mistaken impression as to the common usage of the term. White Pride is a term that is almost always used by white supremacists. Note the Google results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22white+pride%22&meta= . White Pride is synonymous, in common usage, with White Power. That does not mean that it is necessarily racist to be proud of one's lineage, if that lineage is white. It just means that racists have co-opted the term. A similar (although opposite) case is that of the term antisemitism. An anti-Semite is not opposed to Semites; rather, the term "semite" was co-opted, in this context, to refer exclusively to jews. It's not the dictionary's fault, per se - it's one stupid person's fault, but sadly the stupid person's idea caught on, and we all have to abide convention, because if we didn't we wouldn't understand one another. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 03:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The part that I was talking about was that the article said that Jews and Gays can't be apart of white pride. That's all. It was just a question. While were off topic, your point doesn't make any sence, "Maggie". Just because some other people that are racist, use the term "white pride" doesn't mean that we can't be proud of our heritage. And to be proud of my heritage when I'm white, is "White Pride". There is no other term for it, and the "common usuage" for it, as you put it, is irrelivent. If we all abided by this convention, the white race would be doomed, as there is no other term possible for white pride, and by your definition, white pride is racist. As far as I'm conserened, your post is opressive, and I resent it. SilentRage 16:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

All I say to that, SilentRage, is that straightforward English doesn't appear to be your strong suit. You have (1) misinterpreted the topic sentence of the article (2) no grasp of the concept or primacy of conventional usage, and (3) a spelling impediment. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 22:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you have nothing more intelligent to say, so you insult my spelling ability. Good job, jackass! Nevermind the fact that I was frustrated with what you said, so I typed fast without checking for spelling/grammar errors. I bet that my spelling and grammar aren't perfect now, either. Who cares? And as far as I'm conserened, your "conventional usage" can go to hell. I already explained why I looked past that. Pay attention next time. I actually like people like you. You completely dismiss what the person before you said, and show your true colours as a debate "impediment", as you said. People like me fight to make things right, so people can celebrate their heritage and race without discrimination or fear that they will be labeled "racist" for doing so. While people like you troll websites and try to cause trouble and make it seam like white pride is a bad thing. Who is the real racist now, bitch?! I'm done here, you've already shown your true colours. I'm not wasting my time anymore with an internet troll like you. SilentRage 15:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stormfront

I would like to respond to 70.50.79.26's reversion of my previous edit. Stormfront is not an organization, nor is it "white supremacist". It is nothing more than a discussion forum, and the only ideal it can be said to advocate, insofar as much as a forum can be said to advocate an ideal, is "white pride" (as the banner insignia indicates). It is a very large forum with well over 85,000 members whom have a diversity of opinions, ranging from Identity Christians to National Socialists to people who are simply proud of their European heritage. Thus, it is biased and pejorative to try to pigeonhole it into a single arbitrary label. The entry on Stormfront is sufficient in describing the website; there's no need for unclear and arbitrary adjectives.

--Ryodox 00:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront is privately owned; it employs several people. That makes it an organization. It is owned and operated by the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. That makes it a white supremacist organization. Contributors to the Stormfront messageboard are not what most people mean when they say "the Stormfront website". They mean the Stormfront organization, a mouthpiece and pulpit for Don Black. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Stormfront White Nationalist Community, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message." — from Stormfront's user registration page

If you can provide a cited quotation from Don Black in which he outlines the ideology of the Stormfront "organization", and prove that that ideology constitutes the Merriam-Webster definition of white supremacism, then I will cease to challenge the validity of that label as it is used in this article.

However, if you hold that all of an owner's past actions or beliefs absolutely define the ideology of the organization as a whole, then by your definition Wikipedia is an objectivist, libertarian organization; a "mouthpiece and pulpit" for Jimmy Wales.

--Ryodox 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a registered charity. Stormfront is not. And unlike Jimbo Wales, Don Black does in fact describe his organization as having a unified ideology: he describes Stormfront contributors as "White activists" here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=204019 "White activism" can evidentally mean whatever you want it to mean as long as you don't want it to mean tolerance of diversity. The organization was founded to support the senate run of David Duke, another Klanner, another white supremacist. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why White Nationalism is the same as White Supremacism

... because "white nationalists" believe that the first world (all prosperous nations) are the eminent domain of white people and white people alone. Racial seperatism is the same as white supremacy when ethnic minorities are segregated out of America and Europe, into less developed countries. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You're grasping for straws here in an effort to synonymize the two ideologies to justify your use of the term "white supremacist" in describing White Nationalist organizations and people. I've already made the difference between the two clear; I was hoping you'd keep personal prejudices out of this. White supremacism entails racial heirarchy; i.e. White people ruling over people of other races. White Nationalism doesn't entail this. Your explanation also falls apart when it comes to highly industrialized nations like China and Japan.

--Ryodox 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

True, China is highly industrialized. But I said "developed", and it's absurd to suggest that a totalitarian regime is "highly developed". In any event, the trouble with 'white nationalists' is really threefold, and you haven't answered the accusation: firstly, white nationalism shunts off black people to the Africa that white imperialism has demolished; it also allows no place on Earth for Jews, Roma, or homosexuals; and it refuses to acknowledge that America was a Native American country first and foremost, for the vast majority of its history. As soon as a White Nationalist announces that he's ready to turn over the United States to the Chippewa, though, maybe I'll toot my horn in a different direction.

[edit] Rewrite 07/10/2006

The major issue people seemed to be having stemmed from whether or not white pride is by definition white supremacy. In the interest of fairness and balance, I've reworded it to include both viewpoints. I think I've been fair to the non-supremacists without erasing the fact that supremacists do use this term. It seems some are desparate to make white pride refer only to racist beliefs, while others would like to scrub any racial connotation from the definition entirely. Both are relevant and valid viewpoints. The truth is that white pride means both those things, so we have a duty to present both things. It's never going to be one way or the other in our lifetimes. It is a topic with conflicting views, so the best that can be done is to make an effort to voice those views. The size of this discussion is larger than the article. This is what happens on a hotly debated topic. Edit as you may, but I will fight to the death for this to remain balanced.

I agree. However, too often times many people try to make White Nationalism and white supremacism synonymous, when there are in fact distinguishable differences between the two. They may either not be aware of these differences, thinking the terms to be interchangeable, or simply have an agenda of their own and deliberately confuse them. There are really very few true advocates of white supremacy today, but White Nationalist organizations, websites, and personalities are frequently labelled "white supremacist" by their detractors (e.g. the Anti-Defamation League). This term is usually inaccurate, however, because most White Nationalists do not advocate racial heirarchy or supremacy; instead supporting the idea of racial separation (see David Duke's statement on the matter [1]).

Therefore I am asking that the "white supremacist" label not be used in articles where the subject is explicitly White Nationalist. Too often these inaccuracies are upheld because of a common ignorance of the differences and an ingrained mental association between anything "pro-White" and "white supremacism". I am committed to truth and neutrality, and I believe that if one cannot prove through quotations that a person or organization advocates racial heirarchy, then the term "supremacist" is inaccurate and should be omitted.

--Ryodox 17:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I was leaving white nationalism out of the picture because of the danger of further confusing the three. My personal understanding is that white pride does not necessarily equal white nationalism.

White nationalism does not necessarily equal white supremacy.

White supremacy, while it DOES EQUAL RACISM (the belief that races have certain characteristics, and the belief that the characteristics of their particular race make them more fit to lead), it does not necessarily equal HATRED, or support of VIOLENCE or GENOCIDE)

The difficulty is that for SOME people, including SOME confessed hate groups they mean the same thing. They have openly SAID that is what they believe "White Pride" to be; or they belong or have belonged to groups who have.

David Duke for example is perhaps the worst example to give for a white nationalist who does NOT support white supremacy due to his known past membership in the KKK.

That's like calling Malcolm X a civil rights champion after his spewing racial hate with the Nation of Islam during his early years.

Neither have the credibility. If you want to throw white nationalism into the stew or a representative of that view, I say great. Just pick one that doesn't support supremacy or hate groups clarify the difference between nationalism, supremacy, and supporters of neither. All have used the term "white pride" to describe their beliefs.

Even if you can accomplish this, it still does not change the fact that supremacists and hate groups openly use the term "White Pride" to represent their agenda. Supremacy is relevant to this article and should stay.

I think your edit was well-intentioned, but it wasn't too well written or organized (there was a great deal of repetitive, excessive, and somewhat overwrought material), so I had a go at it, restoring certain phrases that I think were better rendered in the original, whilst maintaining an apologist sentence in the opening paragraph. This edit also gave me the chance to revise some of my earlier writing, so that's all the better. Change if you like, but I'm watching this article like a hawk. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You won't believe this Maggie, but I like what you've done mostly. I've never heard of a shibboleth and I worry that others won't know what it means. Can you either keep it and internally link it, or pick a more common english word. I looked it up and the definition exactly fits how supremacist use it, so you're dead on, but not every one is a closet hebrew scholar like yourself.

...Generally not homosexuals or jews... OK, I don't know why you felt so strongly about that. In the case of the supremacist I thought that was obvious, they don't like anyone that isn't them. But since "generally" covers the exception to the rule as well It stays safe.

"But opponents of White Pride...whereas White Pride is"

This is only true for those who do believe White Pride = White Supremacy. I don't think it's pride that is being opposed here, unless for that person White Pride = White Supremacy.

If I leave the bit about the oppressed minorities vs sanitizing the face of the white supremacist, which is a relevant belief by many but not all and it's caustic enough to appease the toughest of those who believe WP=WS.

Would you settle for:

 But those for whom White Pride is White Supremacism argue that movements like Black Pride represent affirmations of   
 self-worth and solidarity on the part oppressed minorities - whereas White Pride represents an attempt to reinforce the 
 very hierarchies that gave rise to that oppression, and also to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacism.

I watch this like a hawk too. The two things I don't want to see:

 The removal/reduction of the acknowlegement that not all professed supporters of white pride hold supremacist or racist 
 views. That is, for them at least White Pride is not equal to White Supremacy.

 The removal/reduction of the acknowlegement that supremacists or racists DO use the term "White Pride" to describe their 
 beliefs. Therefore it cannot be completely removed.

So long as those things are clear, and maybe linking the term shibboleth, since it's hebrew and only people who can speak it would know what it means. I like what you've done and it reads better than my beating a dead horse.

Can you live with that?

Well, I'm glad that we can mostly agree on the form the article has currently taken. I should protest, though, that "shibboleth" is not some obscure biblical term known only to Hebrew speakers - it's in fairly common usage in English, being a loanword like "Sabbath". Anyway, I've linked the word "shibboleth" rather than remove it, because you can never have too many links, and because people who think White Pride is purely benign could stand to expand their vocabularies a bit.

I've slightly altered the second paragraph as per your suggestions, really for clarification. I don't think anyone actually thinks that White Pride necessarily equals White Supremacy, which you seem to be implying - rather, White Pride is a necessary precondition for white supremacism. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so White Pride is a precondition for White Nationalism, and White Nationalism is a precondition to White supremacism, but the three terms are not interchangeable. The only thing with which I have a problem is misusing terms.

I'd also like to answer the above mention about past activities which make one a White supremacist, and state that peoples' beliefs change. David Duke has repudiated his past association with the Ku Klux Klan and has demonstrated that he isn't in favour of supremacy of any sort, so he's a White Nationalist.

--Ryodox 00:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

For Maggie, I still have issue with the phrase, "but the opponents of white pride argue." should include the idea that these opponents are of the opinion that white pride (is equal to or may ultimately result in) white supremacy.

But before you get upset, you have brought up a VERY good point that you should include in the usage section. That some people (fear, disbelieve, distrust?) that White Pride WILL NOT RESULT in supremacy. This lends itself to the reasoning why some are CONCERNED with WP, as apposed to simply being insulted and rejecting it outright.

For Ryodox, It's tough getting some people to swallow the idea that White Pride isn't necessarily racism. I didn't specifically refer to white nationalists by name. If it is their belief that the term "White Pride" is not the same as White Supremacy, then we have dealt with it already as an example White Pride proponent who does not have supremacist ideals. However, you could include white nationalists as an example of a group who believes that.

With that said, there is a separate "White Nationalist" page that is going through the exact growing pains that we are here on whether nationalism is supremacism or not. As for David Duke. Yes he has in fact changed his tune, as Malcolm X dropped his racist agenda.

The concern I have is that if you use David Duke as an example of the voice of White Nationalism, people are going to take one look at his past and automatically assume there is no difference in the terms.

Likewise it would be hard to swallow the idea that Malcolm X gave up his evil ways and now whitey OK by him.

You can do it, Wikipedia allows anyone to edit the article. I don't think it would stay part of the article as long as you hoped. I think Maggie above for one would shred anything David Duke had to say on his past alone. I'd rather see you give white nationalism as an example of a non-supremacist white pride belief if that is what it is and leave it at that. If you want to give an example, perhaps pick a less controversial messenger. You are an editor too.

I have edited the article to include mention of "White Nationalist" along with "white supremacist", in an effort of compromise. I've also fixed up a number of minor things. I hope this will be considered.

--Ryodox 02:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with it Ryodor, it's CONSIDERED done, unless someone removes it. We can link it to the White Nationalist page, so if they must look it up, they can. Very Cool! leave it up to the white nationalist page to debate it's meaning, LOL. -Iasonis

Oh, Maggie! I'm curious, How did you REALLY want to use shibboleth in that sentance? "The 14 words are a bunch of shibboleth!"?

Suggesting that David Duke has changed his tune, disavowed hatred, etc., etc., is the foulest kind of bullshit. All he's repudiated is violence, because advocating violence made white supremacists look even stupider than they are. He remains one of the most hateful creatures on the planet. And comparing him to Malcolm X is stomach-churning. Furthermore, Ryodox's weblog identifies him as having an "interest" in "national socialism". Somehow I doubt he meant in a scholarly way. Youth today! If they're not having rainbow parties they're Neo-Nazis. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 03:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I said he changed his tune. I didn't say anyone liked how it sounded, or that it was believable. I don't believe him. Well it doesn't matter now, he didn't wind up doing the David Duke thing. On the Malcolm X thing, I don't see why that churns your stomach. In his early speeches, he clearly hated whites and his views were clearly racist. It's not OK for him to do that, simply because he's black. You aren't suggesting that racial hate speech is acceptable for blacks are you? Two wrongs don't make a right. You must admit I was right though, you'd have shredded David Duke, if he suggested that he represented a non-supremacist.

-Iasonis

I'm not defending Malcolm X, and the position of the Nation of Islam on Jews has always been loathsome. But in terms of Malcolm's relationship to white people, surely you must acknowledge that there's a difference between a black person - a direct victim of white racism - expressing hatred towards a white people, and a white person who has never been victimized by a black person expressing hatred towards that 'race'. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 04:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maggie, it helps to explain it. But it does not excuse it. I just think that all other races must be held to the exact same standard. Not to do so means the exact opposite of equality. We are supposed to be correcting inequality, we can't do that with double standards.

I'm usually one to believe that someone can turn over a new leaf and I give Malcolm more credit than Duke. It's just in Duke's case in particular. I'm not sure I buy it. He has always seemed to invent a way to make his views more palatable. But in doing so, he is more than willing to use the controversy of his racist past to profit. Why not just change your belief and sincerely go public and apologize. But he seems to thrive off the controversy like a freak show. Particularly going into politics.

Well I'm not disputing that Duke is slime, nor do I think his rhetoric now is any less offensive than it ever was. But the nature of hatred is that it's relative, and holding all 'races' to the same 'standard' without taking into account the tendency of one group to oppress and hegemonize the other isn't fairness or neutrality, it's defeatism, or merely (possibly insidious) oversimplification. - Maggie--70.50.79.26 14:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There's where I disagree - tendency. I disagree that one group has an inborn pre-programmed TENDANCY to oppress. Insert any malevolent action for the word "oppress." In short I don't believe that any race TENDS toward the opression of another. Opression, when it does take place is learned (encouraged, discouraged,accepted,rejected) on a situational basis) Every race (group,religion) has been oppressed at some time by someone. It is purely situational, social, and political who does the opression and who receives it.

One of the powers that the written word has given us, is the ability to record and study how these things come to pass. With that we can prevent them. It is only through political and social circumstance that things like slavery and the holocaust were done to the groups that they were done to, by those groups that did them.

They are not the typical example-they are the MOST RECENT examples. Examine one of your own sentances, for example:

"But the nature of hatred is that it's relative, and holding all 'races' to the same 'standard' without taking into account the tendency of one group to oppress and hegemonize..."

In it you suggest that we should hold different races to a different standard; that a particular race has a particular characteristic that is by nature evil.

That's RACISM. We're all guilty of it to some extent.

Though I don't imagine you running around with armband on suggesting what we gas white guys, this type of thought is the seed of racism. It is only situational, political, and social who is planting the seed and why.

The nazis felt oppressed by the jewish of their country. Hitler rose to power under an economic pretext. He preached that jews were opressing germans by taking jobs away from non-jewish germans. That is the nazi explaination of why they did what they did.

They felt JUSTIFIED because they felt OPPRESSED. Whether or not it was true depends purely on point of view of the speaker. The point is they FELT oppressed, and that's why they did what they did. As I said in Malcolm X's case, It EXPLAINS it, but it doesn't EXCUSE it.

Obviously by "tendency" I meant historical tendency, especially recent (i.e., post-Columbian) historical tendency. In no way does that suggest that white people oppress others as a matter of racial course - keep in mind that my arguments are premised on the scientific fact of races not existing in any objectively determinable or discernable form. I think that moots most of the rest of what you've said. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 23:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

While true my use of the term "race" was lazy. I used it in the general sense to mean "group." Race is only one example of a group, but race still applies since it is a group. By your rationale, the persecution of Christians by Jews demonstrates a "historical" tendancy toward opression. Though it isn't the most recent, this very same GROUP wound up being OPRESSED as well. This suggest that ALL GROUPS diplay a tendancy to OPPRESS (given the right political/social situation) and run the risk of being OPPRESSED themselves.

It's wholly possible to be an oppressed oppressor, all that's required is the right political or social situation. Whether we call the group a race, religion, ethnicity, clique, gang, crew, or peer group does not matter. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Claiming one group has a historical tendancy is (possibly insidious) oversimplification.

The phrase "historical tendency" doesn't denote the existence of a single instance of a behavior in a given subject's entire history (re: Jews and early Christians). On the contrary, the term "historical tendency" generally refers to a number of instances, sustained with some regularity, over a long period of time. And, in this sense, the historical tendency of white people since Columbus to oppress, well, everyone else, can hardly be doubted. Agreed?

I also think it's highly misleading to characterize the persecution of Nazarenes by the ancient Jewish establishment of Judea as a case of "Jews" oppressing "Christians". It's more of a case of Jews antagonizing other Jews, with most of the oppressing being taken care of by the Romans. -Maggie--70.50.79.26 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

@ 70.50.79.26: Oh no, you've found me out. I'm a neo-Nazi. Seriously, though, it's not as if I tried to conceal my National Socialist leanings; I have my weblog listed on my userpage. However, I am mindful of keeping my opinions out of articles I edit, and I think I've done a fairly good job. I try to counter anti-White-Nationalist bias in an effort for neutrality, as opposed to those who try to pass off anti-White-Nationalist bias as neutrality.

Secondly, again, I ask you and any others who subscribe to the idea that David Duke is a white supremacist to show me one actual quotation from him within the past 15 years in which he calls for racial supremacy. I have already linked to a page on his website above in which he states his views on racism and supremacy, demonstrating that he supports neither, so your assertion that he's a white supremacist is unfounded and completely a matter of opinion.

"But in terms of Malcolm's relationship to white people, surely you must acknowledge that there's a difference between a black person - a direct victim of white racism - expressing hatred towards a white people, and a white person who has never been victimized by a black person expressing hatred towards that 'race'." — Again with the double standard. You exhibit apologism for Black Nationalists who openly exhibit racial hatred yet show extreme bias against White Nationalists who only support racial separation. That's a bit, well, racist.

Now, before anyone starts levelling allegations that I'm a "racist" or "white supremacist" (both of which would be inaccurate), as I'm sure they will in an attempt to ostracize me from Wikipedia, I ask that you check the content of my edits instead of my beliefs. If you think I'm a "white supremacist", go ahead and say so, but be ready to prove it. However, as for the article edit, I say fair enough. I'm still watching this though and am ready to correct any semblance of bias being passed off as neutrality, as I said above.

--Ryodox 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a very typical device of practitioners of organized racism to claim that 'political correctness' victimizes them by mischaracterizing their views as fundamentally racist when in point of fact they're only racist in implication. They claim that racial segregation is different from racial subjugation because it entails a place for everyone and everyone in his place. They then accuse the accuser of some kind of oxymoronic white-reactionary 'racism' for suggesting that the ideology of white people having eminent domain over America and Europe, to the exclusion of all others, is somehow racist. The mind reels. Less so, admittedly, in the case of some punk kid who thinks Nazis are cool.

As for David Duke, he's not stupid, and he knows that when he expresses certain of his opinions it gets him in hotter water (legally and otherwise; remember, incitement is a crime) than other opinions. His hatred remains undimmed. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Two things guys: Number 1 What did you do to get the signature line after your post. I haven't figured out do that and I keep forgetting to identify myself. Number two our topic has moved from what the subject of what this article's content should be to various other race/identity political issue. I suggest maybe moving some parts of this discussion that don't directly relate to the article's content to another place. I am just as guilty as anyone. This discussion is getting very LONG. Not that these things don't deserve debate, I'll concede I've jumped off topic too. It's an interesting discussion but we should maybe move it to another forum? Any suggestions? -Iasonis

Maggie, let's stop the stereotyping here. Calling him a "punk kid" is insensitive, not to mention hate speech. If you think about it, you too have an "interest" in national socialism.

Therein is part of what "white pride" is about. That we can acknowledge what racism is and avoid it without having to fall in line like a good little oppressor. That we do not have to accept the LABEL of OPPRESSOR just because our skin is white.

But more importantly, that as whites, we are entitled to DEMAND that others be held to the EXACT SAME STANDARD that we are. Equality should not mean racism camoflaged as anti-racism.

White people have a responsibility to realize that being white affords certain benefits that being a member of a visible minority group does not. The same goes for being male and heterosexual. Life is easier for white male heterosexuals than it is for ethnic and sexual minorities. That's why White Pride is different from other, more legitimate forms of Pride. In the west, white men already have an ideological hegemony. Desiring anything more is offensive because it's redundant - indeed a logical impossibility.

It's ridiculous to suggest that calling someone a punk kid is 'hate speech'. I enjoy punk rock and was until relatively recently a kid. I reserve the right to condescend to and be contemptuous of Neo-Nazis, especially when they're teenage boys with a self-righteous streak. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 05:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: The signature button is the third from the right on the top of the editbox.

I have to disagree, being white doesn't necessarily afford any benefit. There are people of many races that are much better off. They have better jobs, better housing, better education, and better opportiunity than I was ever given. It is not unreasonable to expect the same treatment. I don't believe white men have an idealogical hegemony. It's just the opposite, minorities fare much better than whites. The majority of the poor are white.

White people have NO such responsibility just because they were born with white skin. Just like any other person, if they can afford to be charitable they are encouraged to do so. That's like imposing mandatory charity. If some have been oppressive, then those people should be punished. You don't inherit criminal guilt by being born with white skin.

I have never oppressed anyone. I have never owned a slave and would never consider it. I did not send people by the millions to their slaughter or belong to a group who supports that. I am not responsible for the crimes of anyone else. I am not guilty of these things, and I refuse to accept punishment for someone else's crime just because I was born with white skin. I do have white skin, though I do belong to two "oppressed" minority groups (Native American and Wiccan)

I am a very generous and caring person who would help anyone in need (Affirmative action should help only one group and that group is the poor and disadvantaged of ANY group, including whites).

I choose to be this way, but don't ever tell me my charity is required as my punishment for having white skin. Racism is Racism, no matter who is doing it and absolutely no reason justifies it. Thanks about the signature. --69.14.29.46 06:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Iasonis

I think your first paragraph is really foolish. To wit:

I don't believe white men have an idealogical hegemony. It's just the opposite, minorities fare much better than whites. The majority of the poor are white.

I don't know what to say to those first two sentences besides the fact that they're alarmingly naive and betray an egregious misunderstanding of the way power is defined and reinforced. As for the third sentence, you're American, right? In America the majority of people are white. Ditto most of Europe and other "white" countries, including parts of Latin America. The point is that a disproportionate percentage of ethnic minorities are poor. It's not that a numeric majority of poor people are ethnic minorities. That would indicate a social problem of unimaginable proportions, whereas the current crisis is merely of barely-imaginable proportions. - Maggie--70.50.79.26 15:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

@ 70.50.79.26: "I reserve the right to condescend to and be contemptuous of Neo-Nazis, especially when they're teenage boys with a self-righteous streak."

And likewise I reserve the right to condescend to and be contemptuous of unregistered users who self-identify as ethnic Jews (a clear indication of your bias) and who likewise try to sneakily legitimize their agenda. The difference is that I'm not resorting to name-calling. Get over yourself.

@ 69.14.29.46: I agree with you here. Ethnic and racial minorities especially have received preferential treatment. Affirmative action springs to mind, as well as the double-standard that these minorities, are allowed to have their own organizations, schools, and even television stations. In fairness, I wouldn't say they're far better off than White people, though. The inescapable truth is that those who actively support discrimination in this fashion, and who suggest that I'm somehow "guilty" of oppression because of my race, are themselves the racist ones.

Another thing, just because European and North American countries constitute most first-world nations doesn't mean those countries have any duty to allow tens of millions of third-world immigrants to enter, just as homeowners don't have any duty to allow every indigent person to come live in their abodes. That's another debate though, one I'm not going to enter on this already enormous page. Motion to create a new heading?

[edit] The direction of this discussion page

Most of this three-way chat of ours, between me, Iasonis, and Ryodox, is neither productive nor very pertinent to the content of this article. Besides one amusing instance of Ryodox accusing me of having a "sneak[y] Jew[ish] agenda" on the basis, I guess, of having better things to do than register for a Wikipedia account, there's no progress being made, and frankly until there is I'm not going to bother participating anymore. Ryodox seems to be most interested in defending White Nationalism; and Iasonis and I are content to hair-split on smaller issues. I'm pretty intransigent (because I'm right), Ryodox is some kid, and Iasonis seems to be happy with the article as it stands. So am I. That'll do, boys.

I've already erased a bunch of out-of-date subheadings, and with the agreement of the other participants I intend to erase some more in the days to come. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

@ 70.50.79.26 Agreed with the direction of the discussion, and of the deletion of obsolete sub-headings. Like I said, though, my goal is to correct instances of anti-White-Nationalist bias masquerading as NPOV. It doesn't matter how loudly or pompously you claim "I'm right" when trying to inject your agenda into an article, it doesn't make it true. I'm not going to nit-pick, though, so I'm content with the article as it is.

--Ryodox 19:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, not that our dialog is not interesting. But it's getting off topic of what should be included in this article. I'm content to leave it alone, so long as it includes all points of view of it's meaning. Since there is debate about it's meaning, I think explaining who holds what view and why is the best that can ever be done. It's one of those topics that will never be agreed upon even amongst whites who lay claim to it. With that, I will commend everyone for not simply hacking the thing to bits immediatly without some discussion first. At least we "took the fight outside" so to speak.

The only fair way to is to explain all of the differences in opinion, so I will be watching to see that remains.

On Deleting old headings; I say delete all headings that don't perstain to this latest rewrite, since the last rewrite doesn't exist any more. Also you can delete our tooth and nail fight. That's why I dated it so that others could judge how old it was. --User:Iasonis 23:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuals and Jews

To the anon, find me a source which states that "homosexuals and Jews" are included in the concept of "White Pride." That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If you cannot find a source to back that assertion, you cannot claim that they are "sometimes" included. That is considered a weasle word. Picayune 02:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 I watch this pretty well. The original read "though generally not homosexuals and Jews" It's unlikely that anyone can  
 demonstrate that Homosexuals and Jews are specifially included or excluded for that matter. I let it slide because of the 
 word "generally" For nazi types, its redundant, since they don't include anyone but themselves as being white. I've alway 
 used the term white to mean anyone with white skin.
 When I started here, there was barely a hint of representation for White Pride as a non-racist ideology at all. I voted to 
 remove it completely since neither absolute inclusion or absolute exclusion could be substantiated.
 As for weasel words, the whole damn thing is weasel words contributed by everyone involved. No one could prove that white 
 pride is ALWAYS racist and no one could prove that it is NEVER racist.
 Our compromise was to explain the views of all sides and leave it to the reader. I don't know who changed it but the 
 phrase once included "generally" which is another weasel word that is elastic enough to allow for the case where 
 supremacists don't include homosexuals and jews keeping anti-white pride crusaders appeased. 
 I don't know why it's so important since most of the article focuses on the neo-nazi connotation of the term. It's a 
 pickle - For neo-nazis exclusion is obvious. For non-racist white pride suporters, it's a damn lie.
 If you change it or remove it, someone will put it back. It will be a never ending edit war.
 This is as close to a compromise as we can ever hope to reach.
 If it leans anymore towards anti-white propaganda I will rewrite it again.
 If it denies that neo-nazi types use the term I will rewrite it again.
 That's my particular line in the sand so to speak.
 Judging by what the other White (this/that/the other thing) pages are discussing, they agree just as often as we do. They 
 are also resorting to weasel words.  

-Iasonis --69.14.29.46 04:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact that there are a handful of homosexual white supremacists/white nationalists/white priders (not many, but a few, and generally - there's that word again - there are no gay neo-Nazis - no out gay Neo-Nazis, that is); note that Triumph of the Will is often quite homoerotic. And there are also jews (admittedly racist jews) who oppose black pride and gay pride to the extent of aligning themselves (unwittingly) with the basically racist white pride. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 15:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The White Nationalist American Renaissance group has an inclusive position towards Jews, and the British National Party is known to have had a few homosexual members. Most White Nationalist and/or white supremacist groups don't include Jews in the definition of "White" (which, technically they are not; they're a non-European Caucasian ethnic group; same with Arabs). Typically homosexuals can be said to be White, but 70.50.79.26's statement is correct that most of the abovementioned groups are exclusive of homosexuals.

--Ryodox 17:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the joy of dealing with such a hot-button topic. The moment we make a definitive statement about who excludes or includes who, their will be some new political group named the gay-nazi-muslim-hare-krishnas that proves we're wrong. Please don't flame me, I have nothing against gay-nazi-muslim-hare-krishnas, it was a silly joke. But what may seem silly or overly politicially correct to some, it's the very livelyhood of others (some/others/generally). In my particular case my brand of Wicca is geared toward white celts, but doesn't disallow gays or jews. It doesn't take one opinion or the other.

I'm wondering if we couldn't get a few more people who have more background in encyclopedic writing to join. Possibly this means someone who has more formal research-writing experience than we do. I mean no offense to those who have contributed, myself inclusive. It's just that though they do use weasel words, they've been better at going into depth to explain them. Look at the talk section to the Michael Moore page. Though he's a love him or hate him topic, they managed to be quite fair and descriptive at the same time. There is also mediation and arbitration available. --69.14.29.46 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New "pro" information

@ 159.33.10.92: Regarding the reversion of my previous edit, I was using the term "minority" as the news articles used it, and I would appreciate further explanation as to why my addition was reverted. I believe this is pertinent information and that a short summary of why some people support White Pride is necessary.

--Ryodox 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't reverted. It was moved, and qualified. None of your test has been deleted. The place where you put it canted the POV of the introduction. In any event this information probably has more to do with a hypothetical article on the supposed phenomenon of "white minorities" than it does to this one. Just because a news organization uses a term a certain way doesn't mean they're using it the correct way.

• Back from vacation! Needless to say I agree with 159.33's contributions, and have embroidered them. - Maggie --64.229.64.253 23:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I was somehow under the impression that it was reverted. No problems, then.

--Ryodox 19:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading all through this talk page, I have have to say I've become a fan of Maggie. She kicked a lot of your white butts in terms of wit, knowledge, debating and rhetorical skills, and style. Some of you boys really need to pull your bootstraps if you expect the rest of us to feel proud of the white race. Bobanny 18:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, that's called "reaching a consensus". :)

--Ryodox 00:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, hon! I do what I can! - Maggie --64.229.184.47 15:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You've got a point Ryodox. Maggie's still my favourite, but you all deserve kudos for being constructive despite the weird and slightly disturbing racial politics. congrats. Mind you, all that talk about "reaching consensus" makes you sound like some kind of gushy PC liberal, Ryodox. Keep on this slippery slope and soon you'll be defending affirmative action and the redistribution of wealth. But then, who am I to judge?Bobanny 03:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe it is just me. But this whole article seems to try and push points that whites have nothing to be proud of. That whites have no identity, no right to civil rights or are even deserving of respect from anyone.

I'll take up your argument, but let it be known this has nothing (at all) to do with the article and everything to do with an ideology of ignorance towards oppression.

* That whites have nothing to be proud of: tosh. White people enjoy a cultural hegemony in the West. With the notable exception of jazz, there's very little in American culture that white people can't claim as their own, if only because hundreds of years of systemic oppression prevented anyone else from doing the same.

* That whites have no identity: Genetically speaking, true. A Greek has nothing more in common genetically with an Irishman than he does with a Ghanian. A Pole has nothing more in common genetically with an Italian than he does with a Bengali or Sinhalese or Algerian or New Zealand Aborigine or Swede or Jew or homosexual Bengali Sinhalese Aborigine Jewish Algerian Greek. No 'race' has any empirical 'identity'. As for a cultural identity, well, of course white people have a cultural identity - they're the ones holding the cultural hegemony.

* That whites have no right to civil rights: Ludicrous. White people are people and people have rights. Are you suggesting that (for example) the black civil rights movement was racist? What they wanted was rights they didn't have, that white people did. If you mean that white people deserve a civil rights movement, well, that would only make sense if the rights of white people were in some way limited on the basis of race.

* That whites are not deserving of respect from anyone: What a fatuous thing to say. - Maggie --70.48.207.60 14:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"That whites have nothing to be proud of: tosh. White people enjoy a cultural hegemony in the West. With the notable exception of jazz, there's very little in American culture that white people can't claim as their own, if only because hundreds of years of systemic oppression prevented anyone else from doing the same."

This is called "begging the question," Jewess. You Jews love your logical fallacies: appeals to emotion, strawmen, non sequitirs, you name it. If it serves to mislead the goy, you do it. Your posts here are nothing but thinly-veiled anti-White bigotry "supported" by lies and logical fallacies.

Regarding the fallacy that I have quoted here, what you have done is beg the question. How did Whites get the ability to "oppress" and "prevent" other races from discovering and inventing in the first place? Why were Whites ahead of, say, Blacks, BEFORE first contact between those two races? You have conveniently ignored this, and have implied that primitive races CHOSE to remain primitive out of some sort of moral superiority, while Whites CHOSE to make technological advances and oppress the primitive races out of some sort of moral inferiority (and you've made it quite clear that you think that Whites are morally inferior, Ms. "anti-racist"). How absurd.

You're essentially demonizing Whites for being the most successful race. It's analogous to the kid who gets the highest score in the class on a science test being bullied. You are the bigot here, Jewess. You hate Whites for being the most successful group in history, yet don't have the courage to admit it, instead disguising it with self-righteous Marxist drivel about Whites holding everyone else back, all the while ignoring what gave Whites hegemony to begin with.

So answer this: why were Europeans ahead IN THE FIRST PLACE, Jewess?

[Hint: Survival of the fittest. EAT IT.]

69.143.47.181 09:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! "Jewess". You're cute. You misspelled "non sequitor" by the way. ("That's a fag kike spelling! I mo spell it the way I wants to! The white way! White means right!") Begging the question, was I? OK. Here's some examples.

• In actual fact, the Arab world was leagues 'ahead' of Europe, culturally and scientifically (been to a hospital lately? Thank the A-rabs), up until about the time of the Crusades. This despite very little exposure to the "superior" European intellect. You know what happened during the Crusades, dontcha?
• Ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh?
• Ever tried to play Impressions_(instrumental)?

So. What in American culture prevented, say, Black Americans from 'inventing' anything significant (scientific and otherwise) for about four hundred years? How about excluding them from the universities? Enslaving them and killing the ones who tried to learn how to read? Same goes for women by the way. Notice that when minorities become enfranchised, we get genius after genius after genius? Vis: Muhammad Yunus; Langston Hughes.

You're not very bright, are you? Pity. Had you a bit more rhetorical fire, there might have been a place for you in Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. For all your palaver about how "races" such as, I dunno, mine, are "primitive", you sound pretty troglodytic yourself. - Maggie --67.71.123.242 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Who was ahead at a given epoch in history is beside the point under discussion here (though, if you're implying that Europeans are inferior to Semites, I'd point out that the Arab world borrowed knowledge from the Greco-Roman world, and some of the ancient Middle Eastern civilizations had Indo-European languages and were undoubtedly racially White). The point under discussion is your mean-spirited, irrational ridicule of White people for having made discoveries and inventions. It's like making fun of the kid who gets the best grades in a science class. What is your problem?

If Blacks had invented (and this is a far-fetched hypothetical, but I'll consider it for the sake of my argument) firearms and ocean-going vessels before Whites did, they would have colonized and enslaved people too. So your condemnation of Whites as morally inferior is not only idiotic, but it is also logically equivalent to demonizing them for being the most successful race (other races have made inventions and discoveries too, but the race with the highest overall impact on the modern world has clearly been Whites).

Like a typical Jewess, you have ignored my question, and focused on American (e.g., recent) history. I asked you why Blacks were behind Whites prior to first contact between Blacks and Whites. I'll ask you again: WHY WERE BLACKS BEHIND WHITES BEFORE FIRST CONTACT BETWEEN BLACKS AND WHITES? Are you too stupid to understand what I am asking? I don't want to talk about how Whites "oppressed" Blacks AFTER first contact because that is a mere consequence of the fact that Whites were more advanced than Blacks TO BEGIN WITH.

You have tried to attack me with ad hominems. I have an advanced degree in a technical field. Would you care to have a discussion about electromagnetics, or is that too "Eurocentric" for you?

P.S. As for Borat, that is another example of Jewish hypocrisy. Cohen gets to make fun of another culture, but if ANYONE makes fun of Jews, he gets death threats. How typically Jewish. Do you support the apartheid ethno-state of Israel, by the way, "anti-racist" Jewess?

69.143.47.181 18:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See, the problem you have (the main one, at any rate, besides scientific and historical illiteracy) is that you evidentally suffer from some sort of cognitive myopia that prevents you from seeing a situation in terms of anything but binary oppositions. So any defence of B strikes you immediately as an affront A, even when the premise of the defence of B is the inherent equality-of-value of A and B. You seem to be offended by the suggestion that someone with a different ethnic heritage than yours (as you define it) could possibly possess the same inherent faculties as you. I never declared white people "morally inferior"; I merely stated historical facts and their implications. Besides, why would you be hung up on something like "morality" when your position seems to be that black people had slavery coming? You can't have it both ways. Either (for example) slavery was wrong, and white striaght males did unjustly systematically oppress ethnic and sexual minorities - or it wasn't wrong, and white people did it because they could, and so morality doesn't mean anything, and so your argument about my supposed prejudice against white people on any basis let alone morality is hopelessly asinine. As a result, I don't feel the need to dignify your jeremiad against African civilization by pointing out that shotguns and an economy based on exploitation and conquest don't actually strike me as significant advances.

As for the Arab world plundering its genius from the Greeks, the relationship was rather more symbiotic (ie, Averroes read Plato; but Homer read Gilgamesh). You're in way over your head, boy-o.

The funniest thing to me about American white supremacists (which you are) was that, despite the fact that they're at such pains to underscore their ties to exalted Mother Europe, actual, pur sang Europeans (even Euro Nazis - especially Euro Nazis) generally consider Americans to be neanderthals. Hurts, don't it? -Maggie --67.71.123.242 18:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"See, the problem you have (the main one, at any rate, besides scientific and historical illiteracy)"

Again, would you care to have a discussion about electromagnetics?

"is that you evidentally suffer from some sort of cognitive myopia that prevents you from seeing a situation in terms of anything but binary oppositions."

YOU are the one who has myopia (either real or feigned). You have gone on, and on, and on, in this discussion about how evil Whites are for their world hegemony, but have utterly ignored the obvious: if another race had invented firearms and ocean-going vessels first, they would have colonized the world and enslaved people. Therefore, your conclusion that White people are evil is wrong, since the thing that sets Whites apart is their record of discoveries and inventions, whereas human nature (in terms of greed, etc.) is universal.

Or are you actually maintaining that Whites are inherently immoral, and that non-Whites are inherently moral (female circumcisions and ritual sacrifices notwithstanding)?

"So any defence of B strikes you immediately as an affront A, even when the premise of the defence of B is the inherent equality-of-value of A and B. You seem to be offended by the suggestion that someone with a different ethnic heritage than yours (as you define it) could possibly possess the same inherent faculties as you."

There are geniuses of all races, but average levels of intellect differ between races. Earlier in this discussion, you chastised someone for picking out individual exceptions of rich Blacks, pointing out that, on average, Blacks are poorer than Whites. Well, now you can have a taste of your own medicine:

Yes, there are geniuses of all races, but in terms of average intellect, the races differ greatly.

"I never declared white people "morally inferior"; I merely stated historical facts and their implications."

You've repeatedly condemned Whites, and made non-Whites out to be saints.

Do you admit that, if in possession of the means, another race would have colonized the world first?

"Besides, why would you be hung up on something like "morality" when your position seems to be that black people had slavery coming? You can't have it both ways. Either (for example) slavery was wrong, and white striaght males did unjustly systematically oppress ethnic and sexual minorities - or it wasn't wrong, and white people did it because they could, and so morality doesn't mean anything, and so your argument about my supposed prejudice against white people on any basis let alone morality is hopelessly asinine."

I believe in the principle of survival of the fittest. It applies to other species, so why shouldn't it apply to us?

The issue of morality is important insofar as Jews like you use it as a red herring to make Whites feel guilty about themselves. I am here to show that for the rubbish that it is, by pointing out that any other race, had they been in possession of firearms and ocean-going vessels first, would have colonized the world and enslaved people.

By the way, what is your opinion of the extremely pervasive Sephardic Jewish involvement in the Black slave trade?

"As a result, I don't feel the need to dignify your jeremiad against African civilization by pointing out that shotguns and an economy based on exploitation and conquest don't actually strike me as significant advances."

I love it when Egalitarians trash talk White technological advances, via the INTERNET.

": As for the Arab world plundering its genius from the Greeks, the relationship was rather more symbiotic (ie, Averroes read Plato; but Homer read Gilgamesh). You're in way over your head, boy-o."

Many Middle Eastern civilizations were racially White when they were founded, Jewess. Prove that the interchange of ideas between Greece and the Middle East actually involved racial Semites, and then I will concede this very minor point (since, once again, I admit that other races have made contributions, but that, overall, Whites have done much more than anyone else).

": The funniest thing to me about American white supremacists (which you are) was that, despite the fact that they're at such pains to underscore their ties to exalted Mother Europe, actual, pur sang Europeans (even Euro Nazis - especially Euro Nazis) generally consider Americans to be neanderthals. Hurts, don't it?"

I believe that Whites are superior, in a net sense, to other races. The definition of supremacy that I use is "the desire to rule over others". One, the notion of superiority, is *descriptive*, while the other, the notion that one race SHOULD rule over other races, is *prescriptive*. A more accurate term for what I am would be "White superiorist".

Yes, I was born and raised in the U.S. I also have suspected that Whites in the U.S. are not as intelligent as Whites in Europe, on average (many White Americans love Bush Jr., enjoy insipid television programming, etc.), because the Europeans who came to North America were a very religious NON-random sample of the European population.

But no, it does not hurt, because I clearly am not part of the White American mainstream. In elementary, middle, and high school, I was the "nerd" for studying hard, getting good grades, and having esoteric interests. I do not enjoy football and other spectator sports, nor do I watch television. I am about as far outside of the White American mainstream as one could imagine. My European White Nationalist friends recognize me as being a very atypical White American.

69.143.47.181 19:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See, this is what I mean by myopia. Never have I said that white people are in any way inherently morally inferior, or inferior in any other way, to anyone else. You would very much like me to have said that, or thought that, because it would entitle you to accuse me of hypocrisy - the last rhetorical refuge of the white supremacist, who's constantly looking to buttress his own narcissistic victim narrative. If I had said that anybody (or rather, any "race") was inferior to anyone else, then I would certainly be as guilty of essentialism as you are. The fact that white people (and jews - and some Africans) enslaved and exploited black people doesn't make white people inherently bad or immoral - but it is a fact, a fact that makes the celebration of "white pride" distasteful, because having "pride" in one's white heritage is to take pride in an economy and history that has been built on the exploitation of others. That's just history. It's true that any other group, in the same situation - primarily it was an economic situation - would probably have behaved the same way. The Egyptians - whom you ludicrously seem to claim were white on the basis of their technological savoir-faire - kept slaves, for example. But the point is that white people - white males, generally - happened to be (and continue to be) the primary perpetrators of this particular enormity. And it's something that mustn't be forgotten. It doesn't make white people inferior, but it does throw a significant flaw to the glittering facade of "civilized", "western" culture.

For someone who brought up the straw man fallacy first thing, you don't seem to understand it. The only basis upon which you can criticize my exquisite argument is something I haven't said and couldn't reasonably say. But you say I said it anyway!

Look, pal. So you've got a head full of harebrained sub-Rushton Social Darwinism. Fine. That's your right. You have the right to be wrong, and the right to come off as a fool when you're amongst intelligent people, like myself. That doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with you, or genetically or inherently inferior. It just means you've been exposed to pernicious influences. And they appealed to you, because, I dunno, you had trouble finding work when you got out of college, or the kids picked on you in high school, or you angrily left the church when you were a boy and now need to cling onto some other metanarrative. It's got nothing to do with what country your great-great-great-great grandparents were from. Remember, go back enough generations and we're all amoebas. If other "races" aren't "fit" to "survive", how come their birth rates are so much higher than ours? How come their cultures are so much older?

Incidentally, as you'll no doubt realize, there's a great deal more genetic variation within "races" than there is between them. But if you think the ancient Sumerians (or for that matter Attic Greeks) were white, you've got a couple cans short of a six-pack.

-Maggie --64.229.64.232 23:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfairness in linkage

I believe that the linkage in this article places undue emphasis on racism, neo-Nazis, and white supremacy groups, as there are a total of 9 links to various other articles in the see also category which are directly related to the topics above, while in the 'Black Pride' article only links to White, Asian, and Gay pride, with no references to the black militant groups such as the Black panthers or any of their afflitiates.

There is considerable evidence (provided in the article) that the White Pride and White Nationalist "movements" often (if not always) conceal, or serve to legitimate (using the language of civil rights) white supremacism, neo-nazism, and other nastiness and stupidity. Hence the links, which are all relevant because they are almost all mentioned in the article. - Maggie --67.71.120.250 14:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)