Is white nationalism necessarily racist?

[Pionart]

The term "pride" implies a sense of "better than the other", so that terms like white pride, black pride, gay pride etc. are by their very nature discriminatory notions. Right?

Yet surely one still feels affiliation with the groups one is a part of, and can view them not as superior per se but as merely the tribes that one feels most strongly about.

And of course, there is also the issue of truth; that one group can in fact be superior to another, and then it is not so much a pride but an acknolwedgement of what is.

--

Furthermore, there is nationalism in the sense of a respect for the continuation of a culture as independent; in that sense, so far as culture is important, nationalism is too. Right?

 

[Deprecator]

Well for contrast's sake, I don't think that white nationalism would be any less racist than feminism is sexist. I say this in part because the same arguments used to defend feminism can also be applied to the arguments defending white nationalism. For an example, proponents of feminism argue that feminism isn't sexist because the mere process of advocating for women's rights doesn't necessarily have to infringe upon the rights of men. Similarly, proponents of white nationalism argue that white natinoalism isn't racist because the mere process of seeking and maintaining a white identity doesn't necessarily have to infringe upon the rights of non-whites (and nor does it necessarily or intrinsically imply that one race is better than another).

The term "pride" implies a sense of "better than the other", so that terms like white pride, black pride, gay pride etc. are by their very nature discriminatory notions. Right?

Pride can imply a sense of "better than the other", but it can also imply a natural or intrinsic response to social shaming and derision. For an example, only so many people could tell me that I was racist idiot who was duped by a conman for supporting the POTUS, before I eventually felt the need to respond in kind by claiming that I was "proud" to be a Trump supporter. Such phenomenon could also help explain why gay pride parades are so much more prevalent than the straight pride parades; one group has historically experienced all sorts of social shaming or derision for their sexuality, while the the other group has not.

 

[Coriolis]

Well for contrast's sake, I don't think that white nationalism would be any less racist than feminism is sexist. I say this in part because the same arguments used to defend feminism can also be applied to the arguments defending white nationalism. For an example, proponents of feminism argue that feminism isn't sexist because the mere process of advocating for women's rights doesn't necessarily have to infringe upon the rights of men. Similarly, proponents of white nationalism argue that white natinoalism isn't racist because the mere process of seeking and maintaining a white identity doesn't necessarily have to infringe upon the rights of non-whites (and nor does it necessarily or intrinsically imply that one race is better than another).

This is a false equivalence. Securing rights is not the same as "seeking and maintaining an identity". If anything, the first focuses on commonality/equivalence, the second on differences/distinctions.

Pride can imply a sense of "better than the other", but it can also imply a natural or intrinsic response to social shaming and derision. For an example, only so many people could tell me that I was racist idiot who was duped by a conman for supporting the POTUS, before I eventually felt the need to respond in kind by claiming that I was "proud" to be a Trump supporter. Such phenomenon could also help explain why gay pride parades are so much more prevalent than the straight pride parades; one group has historically experienced all sorts of social shaming or derision for their sexuality, while the the other group has not.

So, to follow this logic: white pride activities make more sense because historically whites have experienced all sorts of shaming and derision for their race/ethnicity, while other racial and ethnic groups have not?

 

[Obfuscate]

all you need to do is talk to these people... yeah, it is nearly always aligned with hate... i grew up near butler's compound/church before it was burned down, and it was pretty clear what they were about...

 

[Deprecator]

This is a false equivalence. Securing rights is not the same as "seeking and maintaining an identity". If anything, the first focuses on commonality/equivalence, the second on differences/distinctions.

I'm not following. No analogy or comparison is ever the "same thing" as the thing it's being compared to. For an example, a date is not the same thing as a job interview, and yet at the same time similar approaches to either situation can still be applied when attempting to increase the chances of an ideal outcome. Also, regardless of how similar or different you feel white nationalism might be from feminism (as you say, securing rights is not the same thing as seeking and maintaining an identity), at the same time parallel arguments have still been used to defend both these movements from allegations of sexism or racism.

So, to follow this logic: white pride activities make more sense because historically whites have experienced all sorts of shaming and derision for their race/ethnicity, while other racial and ethnic groups have not?

Again, I'm not following. The underlying point here was that pride isn't necessarily synonymous with feeling "better than another", and I daresay that the mere act of providing a singular and non-exclusive example that illustrates this as a concept is a very far cry away from arguing that "white pride activities make more sense".

 

[The Cat]

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

You can tell whether it's cultural pride or racial pride by asking yourself this question.
"Could I open a restaurant and serve the food that goes with it?"

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

The role of power is fundamental to the discussion on racism.

There is a way that any hate based on category can be an example of racism or any "ism", but the introduction of social power does change the dynamic of those impulses, so there is a way it deserves a distinction of definitions. All hate is not equal when applied. In the same way it is a different power dynamic if a student is angry and says to the class that the teacher is worthless or if the teacher announces to the class that the student is worthless. Because the teacher has power, their comment means something different - it means they might grade unfairly for example.

When a category of people have been denied rights simply because of belonging to that category, then it means something different if they create a group and push to regain the rights taken from them as a categorical group. It is different if a category of people are given privileges because of belonging to that category and form a group to maintain those privileges. One is correcting an imbalance of power, while the other is perpetuating and exaggerating an imbalance of social power.

 

[EcK]

The role of power is fundamental to the discussion on racism.

There is a way that any hate based on category can be an example of racism or any "ism", but the introduction of social power does change the dynamic of those impulses, so there is a way it deserves a distinction of definitions. All hate is not equal when applied. In the same way it is a different power dynamic if a student is angry and says to the class that the teacher is worthless or if the teacher announces to the class that the student is worthless. Because the teacher has power, their comment means something different - it means they might grade unfairly for example.

When a category of people have been denied rights simply because of belonging to that category, then it means something different if they create a group and push to regain the rights taken from them as a categorical group. It is different if a category of people are given privileges because of belonging to that category and form a group to maintain those privileges. One is correcting an imbalance of power, while the other is perpetuating and exaggerating an imbalance of social power.

your point being?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

your point being?

If the social category of "white" has not been categorically suppressed and is not fighting to regain equality in the world, then my point is this "What is the point of white nationalism?"

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

If the social category of "white" has not been categorically suppressed and is not fighting to regain equality in the world, then my point is this "What is the point of white nationalism?"

Personally I don't see a point in ethnonationalism, even when a group has been historically oppressed. Fighting and lobbying for equal treatment under the law is one thing, but I think historically oppressed groups fighting for ethnically pure states is a slippery slope. Yesterday's oppressed can easily become tomorrow's oppressors when following that line of thinking. This has been the case multiple times in history. Many conflicts between cultures and civilizations saw various tribes and groups going from oppressed to oppressor and in some cases back to oppressed.

We're seeing currently the South African government moving to disenfranchise white farmers in South Africa, and doing little to protect them from acts of violence. Apartheid was a terrible crime in that country, but that shouldn't justify what's currently happening. What happened to the Jewish peoples for millennia was bad, but that shouldn't justify what the government of Israel has done to Palestinians. Nor should any crimes against Palestinians justify violence against Israelis. Etc.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Personally I don't see a point in ethnonationalism, even when a group has been historically oppressed. Fighting and lobbying for equal treatment under the law is one thing, but I think historically oppressed groups fighting for ethnically pure states is a slippery slope. Yesterday's oppressed can easily become tomorrow's oppressors when following that line of thinking. This has been the case multiple times in history. Many conflicts between cultures and civilizations saw various tribes and groups going from oppressed to oppressor and in some cases back to oppressed.

We're seeing currently the South African government moving to disenfranchise white farmers in South Africa, and doing little to protect them from acts of violence. Apartheid was a terrible crime in that country, but that shouldn't justify what's currently happening. What happened to the Jewish peoples for millennia was bad, but that shouldn't justify what the government of Israel has done to Palestinians. Nor should any crimes against Palestinians justify violence against Israelis. Etc.

I mostly think it's important in defining what's happening and I agree that the process of: arbitrary categories of people being oppressed, then forming a group identity to fight back against that oppression, can easily turn into the oppressive group. The best education for oppressing is to be oppressed. It is a dangerous, slippery slope I know, but I t is a tough question to know how to correct the original wrong. To approach it in theory - what if people with skinny ankles were treated like crap because of sharing that arbitrary trait? They respond by forming a categorical pride identity and then what? It can serve a pragmatic function to undo the absurdity of the initial prejudice, but it often goes further by establishing a categorical identity that shares nothing except the same place on the social power continuum and not cultural identity (although there can be overlap). Also there are then reactionary groups like the fat ankle people who want to be recognized as well and the loss of dominance is usually felt as an unfair loss of power. The skinny ankle people are a reaction to oppression and the fat ankle people are a reaction to maintain their absurd and arbitrary power. I use a new and silly category to make a point.

Categories that don't have shared culture, food, art, holidays, clothing, and basic ways of living and commonalities based on just living a life are arbitrary and tend to be absurd ways humanity created arbitrary power structures and dismissal.

 

[The Cat]

Some people are born oppressed though theyve never known true oppression.
Some people will never be oppressed though the world itself bends itself upon breaking them.
Many are proud who should be humble.
And few are those who are humble when they have cause to be proud.

There is a difference between pride and self respect. Too many have forgotten that, if they ever knew it in the first place.

At this point I'd rather there be a swelling of national poise than pride. Poise these days is in dire short supply.

 

[Coriolis]

Some people are born oppressed though theyve never known true oppression.
Some people will never be oppressed though the world itself bends itself upon breaking them.
Many are proud who should be humble.
And few are those who are humble when they have cause to be proud.

I find both pride and humility to be off the mark. Better seek the middle ground, which is a realistic understanding of your strengths and weaknesses, your accomplishments and your failures. Then you will know when to assert yourself, when to defer to others, and why. Always why.

 

[Lark]

I find both pride and humility to be off the mark. Better seek the middle ground, which is a realistic understanding of your strengths and weaknesses, your accomplishments and your failures. Then you will know when to assert yourself, when to defer to others, and why. Always why.

I think those things can be and frequently are ridiculous, both on the individual and collective scale, most peoples choices are half chance, as the sunscreen song says.

On the other hand, while I dislike all sorts of groupthink, particularly those that pose as being something other than groupthink while exhibiting all the traits, if any collective identity is needed I'd not restrict it to a single race or ethnicity. That's ridiculous too. Monocultures and monoethnic enclaves are rightly associated with disgustingly backward, inbred, dysfunction.

Humanism is preferable but I've seen it distorted and twisted too, racists will claim they are humanists and just define those they dislike as subhuman or less than human.

I'm still not sure there's anything to be gained by talking about it as it does have that strange amplifying effect of permitting fascists and fascism air time, even if you're "anti" you're still talking about it, the old tactic employed by some left groups promoting their habits and perspectives counts just as much for the opposite extremes too.

 

[Lord Lavender]

What I think is lacking in todays world is personal pride in oneself. Like its easy to be proud of being white, black, bisexual,French e.t.c and (nothing wrong with that) as they are all more fixed but the question we need to ask ourselves is are we proud of ourselves as persons not as groups. I think the world would be a better place if we focused more on personal pride than group or collective pride.

 

[Lark]

What I think is lacking in todays world is personal pride in oneself. Like its easy to be proud of being white, black, bisexual,French e.t.c and (nothing wrong with that) as they are all more fixed but the question we need to ask ourselves is are we proud of ourselves as persons not as groups. I think the world would be a better place if we focused more on personal pride than group or collective pride.

I'm not sure that choosing between neo-liberalism and racism is really a choice at all to be honest.

 

[Lord Lavender]

I'm not sure that choosing between neo-liberalism and racism is really a choice at all to be honest.

Out of curiosity how are neo-liberalism and racism linked?

 

[ceecee]

What I think is lacking in todays world is personal pride in oneself. Like its easy to be proud of being white, black, bisexual,French e.t.c and (nothing wrong with that) as they are all more fixed but the question we need to ask ourselves is are we proud of ourselves as persons not as groups. I think the world would be a better place if we focused more on personal pride than group or collective pride.

Extreme individualism - no thought for the larger group - is not something I see as a positive. It's also not lacking, socially we have been all about the individual since the end of WWII. It might do the US a bit of good to look more inward and consider the lives of the people in this country as a whole. But the people in this country would need to work towards the good of the country - that will be an almost impossible sell.

 

[Lark]

Out of curiosity how are neo-liberalism and racism linked?

neo-liberal individualism = personal pride

racism = groupthink pride