The idea of white guilt is stupid.

[The balkens]

GOD DAMN DOES IT FEEL GOOD TO BE WHITE.

Sounds like vitamin D deficiency.

Do i look like someone from New Jersey?

[Ambipom]

Sounds like vitamin D deficiency.

Do i look like someone from New Jersey?

Yes

[Vettrera]

The fact that theyre benefit from the slave-made chocolate bar gives them a moment of pause and a bit of guilt I assume.

I'm not white, and I'm kinda indifferent on the idea of white guilt. I don't think white people should feel bad that they were born white and therefore receive advantages in American society. I do think good people should try to stand up against racism when they see it, and hold people that enforce racism in the present day accountable, but that's not limited to white people.

The guilt isn't warranted, irrational even.

1) I never said it was warranted...
2) If you're going to respond to someone's post, try to make it a little more substantive than that
3) Don't treat debatable arguments as absolutes...if it was an absolute this thread wouldn't exist. You just sound incorrect and condescending, which isn't the best combination.

[Vettrera]

Getting paid good money to do nothing sounds like the stereotypical white-collar dream job.

"The generosity of the rich made Western societies successful!"

0/10, do not pass go, do not collect 200$.



Pick one.

Yes, please, tell me how the large group that society perceives as the baseline standard has common interests. Please, enthrall me with tales of slave-driving minorities and rich elitist liberal globalists keeping the white man down.

Everyone can have disadvantages in specific areas, and that can apply to everyone. You have a 2D view of the problem when you need a 3D one.

"The generosity of the rich made Western societies successful!"

0/10, do not pass go, do not collect 200$.

So no argument then, even though you freely concede that other societies could do the same thing and basically catch up to us. Okay.

You arguing that rich minorities are the one with the "tab" that have to uplift poor minorities implies that you have a 2D view of the situation yourself. You've made it a habit on these forums over the years as coming into these threads, stroking your ego, and pretending like somehow your arguments are more grounded in logic or reasoning than everyone else's when in actually it's usually just unjustified condescension. I'm not saying your points are without merits, but if you can't notice your own contradictions you don't have any reason to place yourself on such a high horse.

[Ostroeuropa]

Everyone can have disadvantages in specific areas, and that can apply to everyone. You have a 2D view of the problem when you need a 3D one.



So no argument then, even though you freely concede that other societies could do the same thing and basically catch up to us. Okay.

You arguing that rich minorities are the one with the "tab" that have to uplift poor minorities implies that you have a 2D view of the situation yourself. You've made it a habit on these forums over the years as coming into these threads, stroking your ego, and pretending like somehow your arguments are more grounded in logic or reasoning than everyone else's when in actually it's usually just unjustified condescension. I'm not saying your points are without merits, but if you can't notice your own contradictions you don't have any reason to place yourself on such a high horse.

Minorities who live in the west also benefit from historical generosity from the wealthy here. If there are wealthy whites in third world countries, i'd say it's also their nationalist responsibility. But we're talking in broad, global terms.

[The East Marches]

If companies from historically white countries do this, they get flak for it for trying to use minorities in an attempt to appear inclusive, but when it's done to whites in a country where they're not the minority it's still the white man's fault? Erm.

Okay.

Who said anything about 'fault'? I'm simply pointing out that white people still receive advantages (or if you prefer, significantly lesser disadvantages) internationally because of their whiteness.

Of course we do. Most of us have functioning civilized governments. Its only natural.

[Individual Concerns]

Sounds like vitamin D deficiency.

Do i look like someone from New Jersey?

You are ornery enough to be from Jersey, but no, you do not look anything like Chrissy Costanza.

[Vettrera]

You arguing that rich minorities are the one with the "tab" that have to uplift poor minorities implies that you have a 2D view of the situation yourself. You've made it a habit on these forums over the years as coming into these threads, stroking your ego, and pretending like somehow your arguments are more grounded in logic or reasoning than everyone else's when in actually it's usually just unjustified condescension. I'm not saying your points are without merits, but if you can't notice your own contradictions you don't have any reason to place yourself on such a high horse.

Minorities who live in the west also benefit from historical generosity from the wealthy here. If there are wealthy whites in third world countries, i'd say it's also their nationalist responsibility. But we're talking in broad, global terms.

Not sure how that changes the fact that you placed the obligation on "minorities" rather than on everyone.

[Ostroeuropa]

Minorities who live in the west also benefit from historical generosity from the wealthy here. If there are wealthy whites in third world countries, i'd say it's also their nationalist responsibility. But we're talking in broad, global terms.

Not sure how that changes the fact that you placed the obligation on "minorities" rather than on everyone.

I placed no obligation on them in that original post. I merely pointed out that the diversity of wealth between white nations and non-white nations is easily explicable for reasons beyond evil-whitey empires, and that it's entirely obvious this is the case from the fact that the method used by white nations can be used by other ones to achieve the same results.
It makes a farce of "they are poor because of imperialism." when talking about non-white (And non-east asian) nations.
Nah. They're poor because their rich don't give a fuck and never did. Ours used to, hence why we are rich.

Whether the rich are obliged to help out is another matter entirely, and falls along left-right economic arguments. All this does is debunk the anti-white notion that it's our fault they are poor and we are rich by comparison.

[Salus Maior]

because nobody is asking you to be guilty, they are asking you to be responsible for the present situation caused by your ancestors actions

I'm not responsible for the wrongs of dead people and neither are you.

[Individual Concerns]

because nobody is asking you to be guilty, they are asking you to be responsible for the present situation caused by your ancestors actions

I'm not responsible for the wrongs of dead people and neither are you.

Or live people for that matter.
The only wrongs you are responsible for are your own.

[Valystria]

Not sure how that changes the fact that you placed the obligation on "minorities" rather than on everyone.

I placed no obligation on them in that original post. I merely pointed out that the diversity of wealth between white nations and non-white nations is easily explicable for reasons beyond evil-whitey empires, and that it's entirely obvious this is the case from the fact that the method used by white nations can be used by other ones to achieve the same results.
It makes a farce of "they are poor because of imperialism."
Nah. They're poor because their rich don't give a fuck and never did. Ours used to, hence why we are rich.

Whether the rich are obliged to help out is another matter entirely, and falls along left-right economic arguments. All this does is debunk the anti-white notion that it's our fault they are poor and we are rich by comparison.

And just a reminder;

http://newobserveronline.com/hidden-facts-about-slavery-in-america/

The first official slave owner in colonial America was a black man, not white

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

When Anthony Johnson was released from servitude, he was legally recognized as a "free Negro." He developed a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres (100 ha), and the services of five indentured servants (four white and one black). In 1653, John Casor, a black indentured servant whose contract Johnson appeared to have bought in the early 1640s, approached Captain Goldsmith, claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally by Johnson. A neighbor, Robert Parker, intervened and persuaded Johnson to free Casor.


Handwritten court ruling.
March 8, 1655
Parker offered Casor work, and he signed a term of indenture to the planter. Johnson sued Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of Casor. The court initially found in favor of Parker, but Johnson appealed. In 1655, the court reversed its ruling.[10] Finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor, the court ordered that he be returned with the court dues paid by Robert Parker.[11]

This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the Thirteen Colonies holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life.[12][13][14][15][16]

Though Casor was the first person declared a slave in a civil case, there were both black and white indentured servants sentenced to lifetime servitude before him. Many historians describe indentured servant John Punch as the first documented slave in America, as he was sentenced to life in servitude as punishment for escaping in 1640.[17][18] The Punch case was significant because it established the disparity between his sentence as a negro and that of the two European indentured servants who escaped with him (one described as Dutch and one as a Scotchman). It is the first documented case in Virginia of an African sentenced to lifetime servitude. It is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants.

Indeed, the first slave owner in America was a black man. This incident can be considered as perhaps the earliest occurrence of the West embracing multiculturalism by allowing the newly settled black community to import from Africa the cultural tradition of slave ownership.

A proper and honest historical record ought to be taught across the Western educational system and academic institutions.

[Ostroeuropa]

I placed no obligation on them in that original post. I merely pointed out that the diversity of wealth between white nations and non-white nations is easily explicable for reasons beyond evil-whitey empires, and that it's entirely obvious this is the case from the fact that the method used by white nations can be used by other ones to achieve the same results.
It makes a farce of "they are poor because of imperialism."
Nah. They're poor because their rich don't give a fuck and never did. Ours used to, hence why we are rich.

Whether the rich are obliged to help out is another matter entirely, and falls along left-right economic arguments. All this does is debunk the anti-white notion that it's our fault they are poor and we are rich by comparison.

And just a reminder;

http://newobserveronline.com/hidden-facts-about-slavery-in-america/

The first official slave owner in colonial America was a black man, not white

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

When Anthony Johnson was released from servitude, he was legally recognized as a "free Negro." He developed a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres (100 ha), and the services of five indentured servants (four white and one black). In 1653, John Casor, a black indentured servant whose contract Johnson appeared to have bought in the early 1640s, approached Captain Goldsmith, claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally by Johnson. A neighbor, Robert Parker, intervened and persuaded Johnson to free Casor.


Handwritten court ruling.
March 8, 1655
Parker offered Casor work, and he signed a term of indenture to the planter. Johnson sued Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of Casor. The court initially found in favor of Parker, but Johnson appealed. In 1655, the court reversed its ruling.[10] Finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor, the court ordered that he be returned with the court dues paid by Robert Parker.[11]

This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the Thirteen Colonies holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life.[12][13][14][15][16]

Though Casor was the first person declared a slave in a civil case, there were both black and white indentured servants sentenced to lifetime servitude before him. Many historians describe indentured servant John Punch as the first documented slave in America, as he was sentenced to life in servitude as punishment for escaping in 1640.[17][18] The Punch case was significant because it established the disparity between his sentence as a negro and that of the two European indentured servants who escaped with him (one described as Dutch and one as a Scotchman). It is the first documented case in Virginia of an African sentenced to lifetime servitude. It is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants.

Indeed, the first slave owner in America was a black man. This incident can be considered as perhaps the earliest occurrence of the West embracing multiculturalism by allowing the newly settled black community to import from Africa the cultural tradition of slave ownership.

A proper and honest historical record ought to be taught across the Western educational system and academic institutions.

The wonders of diversity. It is pretty ridiculous how all this is framed as a western or white thing when, as you point out, it's an aspect of African culture, and the west was the power to eventually end legalized slavery globally.

[Infected Mushroom]

I placed no obligation on them in that original post. I merely pointed out that the diversity of wealth between white nations and non-white nations is easily explicable for reasons beyond evil-whitey empires, and that it's entirely obvious this is the case from the fact that the method used by white nations can be used by other ones to achieve the same results.
It makes a farce of "they are poor because of imperialism."
Nah. They're poor because their rich don't give a fuck and never did. Ours used to, hence why we are rich.

Whether the rich are obliged to help out is another matter entirely, and falls along left-right economic arguments. All this does is debunk the anti-white notion that it's our fault they are poor and we are rich by comparison.

And just a reminder;

http://newobserveronline.com/hidden-facts-about-slavery-in-america/

The first official slave owner in colonial America was a black man, not white

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

When Anthony Johnson was released from servitude, he was legally recognized as a "free Negro." He developed a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres (100 ha), and the services of five indentured servants (four white and one black). In 1653, John Casor, a black indentured servant whose contract Johnson appeared to have bought in the early 1640s, approached Captain Goldsmith, claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally by Johnson. A neighbor, Robert Parker, intervened and persuaded Johnson to free Casor.


Handwritten court ruling.
March 8, 1655
Parker offered Casor work, and he signed a term of indenture to the planter. Johnson sued Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of Casor. The court initially found in favor of Parker, but Johnson appealed. In 1655, the court reversed its ruling.[10] Finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor, the court ordered that he be returned with the court dues paid by Robert Parker.[11]

This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the Thirteen Colonies holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life.[12][13][14][15][16]

Though Casor was the first person declared a slave in a civil case, there were both black and white indentured servants sentenced to lifetime servitude before him. Many historians describe indentured servant John Punch as the first documented slave in America, as he was sentenced to life in servitude as punishment for escaping in 1640.[17][18] The Punch case was significant because it established the disparity between his sentence as a negro and that of the two European indentured servants who escaped with him (one described as Dutch and one as a Scotchman). It is the first documented case in Virginia of an African sentenced to lifetime servitude. It is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants.

Indeed, the first slave owner in America was a black man. This incident can be considered as perhaps the earliest occurrence of the West embracing multiculturalism by allowing the newly settled black community to import from Africa the cultural tradition of slave ownership.

A proper and honest historical record ought to be taught across the Western educational system and academic institutions.

Interesting, I learn something new every day.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

The wonders of diversity. It is pretty ridiculous how all this is framed as a western or white thing when, as you point out, it's an aspect of African culture, and the west was the power to eventually end legalized slavery globally.

Let's also not forget that slavery existed in the Americas endless centuries before the first Europeans arrived, with numerous native tribes (including the Aztecs and the Commanche, among others) having reputations for perpetrating large slave trades, among a wide array of other atrocities. The idea that the evil white man brought slavery to the New World is absurd; the natives had been practicing slavery long before the first colonists set foot on American soil. You'll never hear SJWs talking about this fact, though.

[The balkens]

The wonders of diversity. It is pretty ridiculous how all this is framed as a western or white thing when, as you point out, it's an aspect of African culture, and the west was the power to eventually end legalized slavery globally.

Let's also not forget that slavery existed in the Americas endless centuries before the first Europeans arrived, with numerous native tribes (including the Aztecs and the Commanche, among others) having reputations for perpetrating large slave trades, among a wide array of other atrocities. The idea that the evil white man brought slavery to the New World is absurd; the natives had been practicing slavery long before the first colonists set foot on American soil. You'll never hear SJWs talking about this fact, though.

Because this harms their precious narrative that whites must pay for the crimes of the long dead.

[Evilland of Evil Business]

I wish I was hispanic tbh. Gonna get that toned Spanish body

[Fascist Russian Empire]

Because this harms their precious narrative that whites must pay for the crimes of the long dead.

Let's also not forget their narrative that the native Americans were all sweet, innocent, peaceful people who were wrongfully attacked by the evil white man who committed genocide against them...Despite the fact that many, many native tribes practiced cannibalism, engaged in human sacrifice, would commit genocide against other native tribes, supported slavery, and were otherwise responsible for many atrocities. Social justice warrior claims never live up to factual scrutiny; and if you point out the fact that their claims are wrong, you're a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic bigot.

[Valystria]

That's an incredible level of denialism when taking into consideration how much power and influence White Guilt policies have over institutions across the world.

Is this like contacting the spirit world, where it only works if you already believe it works?

As usual it's only snark and mockery from you instead of a willingness to engage in honest discussion when your claims have been demonstrated to be incorrect.

---

The fictitious concept of White Privilege fabricated by the Social Justice/White Guilt movement.

White people do not benefit from affirmative action and racial hiring quotas in white countries. White people do not have the luxuries of white college grants.

In non-white countries, white people do not receive the comfort of benefiting from affirmative action and racial hiring quotas, or being given white college grants.

There's a global disadvantage to whiteness, thanks to the policies brought about from the White Guilt movement's anti-white policies.

Are you familiar with the concept of basic math? Advantages given would have to exceed disadvantages in order to result in a net advantage for a group. Considering that white people still disproportionately (and this is important) benefit from society's bounty as a whole, I'd dispute the idea that advantages like affirmative action have made whites an underprivileged class. Furthermore, while in non-white majority countries white people don't get advantages to compensate for disadvantages, white people aren't an underprivileged class abroad either.

You're promoting a form of social communism tied to race. You don't see individuals. You only see race. That's what you're displaying.

The West could be letting people be rewarded on their own merits instead of tying privileges to race as your Social Justice movement has done.

The reality is that whites are the only group not benefiting from affirmative action. Racial hiring quotas are categorically a racist policy. I suspect you're well aware of that, but somehow it's different when the racism is directed towards whites.

---

You're being immensely racist against white people by asserting anyone else can take pride in who they are without being a racist, but that white people who take pride in themselves can only ever be racists.

Not at all. I'm asserting that brown/black/Asian pride movements have arisen because of a negative view of other races due to white being society's "standard" here in the West, even in the US. They can be reasonable movements searching for equality in a world that offers nothing to those who do not demand it, or they can be racists, as I mentioned. White pride, on the other hand, has no real basis to exist in a non-racist manner. "Black"/"brown"/"Asian" are perceived racial categorizations formed through oppression - "black"/"brown"/"Asian" people have little in common except that, at some point in the West, discrimination and the unwillingness of petty racists to discern differences between, say, Ethiopians and Fulani, or Japanese and Chinese, forced them to band together because, well, they were already being lumped together by societal racism. Common enemy makes common cause. I mean, think about it - Asian pride as a concept really falls apart in the absence of societal racism - since when do the Japanese, Mongolians, Koreans, Chinese, and Vietnamese get along? Do they pat each other on the back for their accomplishments? Shit, they're almost as bad as the French and English in the 19th century. It is only oppression that makes such pride movements at all viable in a way that does not engender racism.

"White" pride on the other hand... the concept of racial "whiteness" is actually relatively new. It too formed out of society's predilection towards racism - but not as the oppressed, but as oppressor. Not only that, but the concept of whiteness has changed in the same manner as ethnic groups under pressure by white-majority societies did - through pressure, but again, not as the oppressed. Whenever the ruling class felt threatened by minority groups, they conveniently expanded their definition of "white" to address the imbalance of power. The Irish, the Italians, some Jews... in today's multiracial, multiethnic world, that's not really an option anymore.

You want to be proud? Be proud of your ancestors. Be proud of the Irish, the French, the Russians, hell, Europeans as a whole. Be proud of Washington, Napoleon, Bismarck. But being proud of being white is just reactionary nonsense that formed for the sole purpose of countering movements for racial equality.

If the tables ever turn and suddenly whites are discriminated against by society at large, feel free to start a white pride movement. "White is beautiful" and all that jazz. Until then? Keep away from such drivel.

Oppression against white people not existing? You have been given examples of it. Racial hiring quotas and your extremely racist belief about how white people can't take pride in themselves without being racist. While you're at it, go on and explain South Africa and Zimbabwe, and how those aren't clear examples of oppression specifically against white people, enabled by your White Guilt ideology. History being rewritten to exclude how slavery in the U.S. was started by a black man importing the African cultural tradition of slavery.

Your notion of history is an ideologically rewritten one.

As I've said the first time, you're asserting everyone but whites can take pride in who they are without being racist, and that whites can only ever be racist about it. Again, it's astonishing that when your anti-white racism is revealed, you double down on it.

[Valystria]

Because this harms their precious narrative that whites must pay for the crimes of the long dead.

Let's also not forget their narrative that the native Americans were all sweet, innocent, peaceful people who were wrongfully attacked by the evil white man who committed genocide against them...Despite the fact that many, many native tribes practiced cannibalism, engaged in human sacrifice, would commit genocide against other native tribes, supported slavery, and were otherwise responsible for many atrocities. Social justice warrior claims never live up to factual scrutiny; and if you point out the fact that their claims are wrong, you're a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic bigot.

Including and especially when the person disagreeing with the leftist/Social Justice Advocate happens to be black, brown, gay, trans, or a Muslim.

In that case it's internalized racism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, misogyny, etc.

Happens to me all the time, and I assume it's happened to you too.

[Vlamistaatti]

Ha ha, "white guilt".

They have not tried implementing that nonsense in the college I attend, then again its not USA or Sweden, so rather expected.

[Greater Orensta]

I'm proud to be me, that's all that should matter, be proud to be yourself, unless you're a dick to people for no reason, that's the exception

[PaNTuXIa]

Yeah, no shit. Racism is just so flawed on so many levels.

[HMS Vanguard]

Are you familiar with the concept of basic math? Advantages given would have to exceed disadvantages in order to result in a net advantage for a group. Considering that white people still disproportionately (and this is important) benefit from society's bounty as a whole, I'd dispute the idea that advantages like affirmative action have made whites an underprivileged class. Furthermore, while in non-white majority countries white people don't get advantages to compensate for disadvantages, white people aren't an underprivileged class abroad either.

Whites entirely lose from the effect of government/power structures/"society". They do better because they are better people, because they are racially superior. Same reason the Chinese and Jews do better in countries where they are discriminated against. The Malaysian government hates Chinese but they still have most of the money; the US government hates whites but they still have most of the money.

[Lunalia]

i mean.... you're right, it is, but you're not really understanding why. the idea behind actively fighting racism is that historical events have effects that help some people while disadvantaging others; if you're one of the people who have benefitted off the backs of others who still suffer from the effects of those same historical events then working to alleviate that suffering is just kind of what it means to be a good person. if you own a liquor store and you live near a native american reservation that's struggled with a drinking problem ever since the federal government outlawed water there in the early 1900s, you should maybe acknowledge that as a problem and work out a solution. guilt's just annoying, not productive or what anyone wants. it's just something racists accuse non-white people of wanting so that they can mischaracterise their demands and keep being unrepentant racists.

I agree with this sentiment.

I would like to think that maybe this thread is supposed to be about the cases where schools are trying to teach children that racism is bad by having white children go to "let's feel guilty about what we've done" time, and having all non white children go to minority pride time, and then the children are put back together and the white children get to watch all the others eating cupcakes and other goodies. I personally don't feel that trying to explain to children that they are bad because their ancestors were bad and therefore they don't get cupcakes is the best way to go about this.... I'm pretty sure that when I was that age most of the connotations would have gone over my head, and I would just be furious that I couldn't even work harder to get a cupcake because cupcakes were being given out based on skin color and not any kind of academic achievement. Is making white children hate non white children because the non white children got cupcakes really a good thing?

Then again, when I was in middle school, there were a bunch of girls who would bully me endlessly, and then when I reported them to the administrators they would say I was making up lies because they were black and I was white and I was being racist. They kicked me down the stairs several times. I tend to view educating younger children about racism as just giving manipulative bullies ammunition, because it gave them ammunition.