It's Okay To Be White campaign

[Ostroeuropa]

That's not a strawman. That is very frequently how white people are portrayed. For every advocate of social justice talking about the intersectionality of being white, there are a hundred talking about the intersectionality of being a "person a color", and I wager that estimate is incredibly generous. The rhetoric of contemporary social justice almost never takes into account intersectionality when it comes to white people.

As I just said. Obviously people are going to talk about the intersectionality of people who are discriminated against, that's the whole point of intersectionality.

White people haven't been historically oppressed, it's not racist to not include white people in a list of people historically discriminated against.

Why does history matter compared to contemporary circumstances?
The argument works for exactly 1 second before it falls apart, and then white people have been historically oppressed by progressives refusal to include them intersectionally.

This assertion you make is a type of racism, and it's one that progressive ideology pushes for that has negative consequences, such as white males being the least favorably viewed group in the UK according to studies. (Below Jews and such.)

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/14/yo ... t-derided/

YouGov data from 48 separate surveys reveals that young white men are seen as the worst ethnic, gender or age group on five negative traits

[FelrikTheDeleted]

The reaction that I've seen thus far is hilarious.

---

No @Irona, white people aren't being oppressed. However, people can be prejudiced towards white people without there being any widespread oppression going on.

I'd also like to mention that no, the "It's Okay To Be White" message does not lead to the conclusion that some people think that whites are being oppressed.

[36 Camera Perspective]

As I just said. Obviously people are going to talk about the intersectionality of people who are discriminated against, that's the whole point of intersectionality.

The point of intersectionality is to analyze oppression in terms of all its dimensions: race, gender, sexuality, class, etc. If you read contemporary social justice research, you'll find endless discussion about the intersectionality of being black. In feminism, intersectionality has increasingly caught on. For example, ordinary feminism is now called "white feminism" when it fails to consider the experiences of black women (now, you can frequently see many white, female feminists being bashed for making innocent statements that are cast as "white feminism"). Try to find some research about the intersectionality of being white in the Rust Belt from the very same people.

White people haven't been historically oppressed, it's not racist to not include white people in a group of people who have faced historic discrimination.

It's "there you go again". Just like the rest of contemporary social justice, you are considering a single variable: being white. But nobody is just white. There's white gays, there's disabled whites, there's poor whites (me!), and there's the white working class in the Rust Belt that is disproportionately affected by Opioid crisis.

Nobody in the rhetoric of contemporary social justice cares about this. Intersectionality only matters if you're not white. If you're white, you're just privileged, regardless of any other dimension of your life.

[Irona]

That means white people are oppressed? People donating more to black homeless people than white ones (could you link the study?) doesn't mean they think it's "not okay to be white".

It's one issue among others I could go into. The point being, there are times and situations white peoples race disadvantages them compared to others because of narratives about race, this disadvantaging can be financial, social, etc, and this constitutes oppression.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... story.html

"Finally, although not statistically significant at conventional levels, white men are marginally more likely to support the tax in proximity to a poor black person, compared with a poor white person"

Yeah so I guess we can ignore that. The study doesn't get the result you claim.

[Tesernia]

That's not a strawman. That is very frequently how white people are portrayed. For every advocate of social justice talking about the intersectionality of being white, there are a hundred talking about the intersectionality of being a "person a color", and I wager that estimate is incredibly generous. The rhetoric of contemporary social justice almost never takes into account intersectionality when it comes to white people.

As I just said. Obviously people are going to talk about the intersectionality of people who are discriminated against, that's the whole point of intersectionality.

White people haven't been historically oppressed, it's not racist to not include white people in a group of people who have faced historic discrimination.

The Poles. The Lithuanians. The Latvians. The Estonians. The Irish. Basically anyone who ever lived in the Balkans at a time that the Ottomans and Austrians danced there. Italians. The Finns. Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, depending on who was ahead in Scandinavia at any point in time. Anyone unlucky enough to be on a ship seized by Barbary pirates. White Africans who lived in Africa for generations.

Whites aren't some monolithic entity that looms over the downtrodden of the world, ready to stomp them into the dust like the Dark Lord of Mordor, as much as you'd like us to be.

If you're gonna think that turnabout is fair play, at least make sure beforehand there's something for you to turn about.

[Werkerbloed]

I really don't see any point in this. Most of these "attacks on white people" are usually incorporated when in direction to racists, not to just some random white person. If white people were oppressed in this world, then they would not comprise of the lower class suburbs, be in the war-torn countries of the world, and be denied specific privileges, and yet none of that has even happened once in a wide scale. Sure, there may be some people out there who legitimately have a racial prejudice towards white people, but it's never been blown up quite like with other racial prejudices (eg: apartheid, colonialism, basically the last 300 years).

[Irona]

As I just said. Obviously people are going to talk about the intersectionality of people who are discriminated against, that's the whole point of intersectionality.

The point of intersectionality is to analyze oppression in terms of all its dimensions: race, gender, sexuality, class, etc. If you read contemporary social justice research, you'll find endless discussion about the intersectionality of being black. In feminism, intersectionality has increasingly caught on. For example, ordinary feminism is now called "white feminism" when it fails to consider the experiences of black women (now, you can frequently see many white, female feminists being bashed for making innocent statements that are cast as "white feminism"). Try to find some research about the intersectionality of being white in the Rust Belt from the very same people.

White people haven't been historically oppressed, it's not racist to not include white people in a group of people who have faced historic discrimination.

It's "there you go again". Just like the rest of contemporary social justice, you are considering a single variable: being white. But nobody is just white. There's white gays, there's disabled whites, there's poor whites (me!), and there's the white working class in the Rust Belt that is disproportionately affected by Opioid crisis.

Nobody in the rhetoric of contemporary social justice cares about this. Intersectionality only matters if you're not white. If you're white, you're just privileged, regardless of any other dimension of your life.

The statement didn't say "It's okay to be a white gay" or "It's okay to be a poor white" or "It's okay to be a white women". It said "It's okay to be white". Furthermore none of those people are being discriminated against because of the 'white' part. It's because of the 'gay' or 'poor' or 'women' part.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's one issue among others I could go into. The point being, there are times and situations white peoples race disadvantages them compared to others because of narratives about race, this disadvantaging can be financial, social, etc, and this constitutes oppression.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... story.html

"Finally, although not statistically significant at conventional levels, white men are marginally more likely to support the tax in proximity to a poor black person, compared with a poor white person"

Yeah so I guess we can ignore that. The study doesn't get the result you claim.

Not the part i'm talking about.

Compared with those passing an affluent-seeming white man, those who passed a nattily dressed black man were less likely to stop and sign a petition; passing by an impoverished-looking black man made the study’s subjects slightly more likely to stop and sign.

Beyond offering evidence of some racial avoidance, suggested Young, white men appeared to be judging poor white men more harshly than they do poor black men.

“There’s a higher expectation that this person should be working, that he doesn’t face the obstacles a black man does,” Young said.

They might support it at statistically negligable levels, but when you include stopping as well as supporting, its notable

[The Blaatschapen]

https://satwcomic.com/white-on-white-hate-crime

[Washington Resistance Army]

I really don't see any point in this. Most of what you may call "attacks on white people" are usually incorporated when in direction to racists, not to just some random white person. If white people were oppressed in this world, then they would not comprise of the lower class suburbs, be in the war-torn countries of the world, and be denied specific privileges, and yet none of that has even happened once in this year in a wide scale. Sure, there may be some people out there who legitimately have a racial prejudice towards white people, but it's never been blown up like with other racial prejudices (eg: apartheid, colonialism, basically the last 300 years).

That last bit is most certainly not true. You have to look no further than the ethnic cleansing of white Africans in South Africa to see that's blatantly false.

[Irona]

As I just said. Obviously people are going to talk about the intersectionality of people who are discriminated against, that's the whole point of intersectionality.

White people haven't been historically oppressed, it's not racist to not include white people in a group of people who have faced historic discrimination.

The Poles. The Lithuanians. The Latvians. The Estonians. The Irish. Basically anyone who ever lived in the Balkans at a time that the Ottomans and Austrians danced there. Italians. The Finns. Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, depending on who was ahead in Scandinavia at any point in time. Anyone unlucky enough to be on a ship seized by Barbary pirates. White Africans who lived in Africa for generations.

Whites aren't some monolithic entity that looms over the downtrodden of the world, ready to stomp them into the dust like the Dark Lord of Mordor, as much as you'd like us to be.

If you're gonna think that turnabout is fair play, at least make sure beforehand there's something for you to turn about.

From the OP "A campaign began to demonstrate the extent of anti-white racism in the US".

[FelrikTheDeleted]

From the OP "A campaign began to demonstrate the extent of anti-white racism in the US".

Turns out people can be prejudiced towards a white person without oppressing them, who would've thought.

[Irona]

From the OP "A campaign began to demonstrate the extent of anti-white racism in the US".

Turns out people can be prejudiced towards a white person without oppressing them, who would've thought.

...?

[Tesernia]

The Poles. The Lithuanians. The Latvians. The Estonians. The Irish. Basically anyone who ever lived in the Balkans at a time that the Ottomans and Austrians danced there. Italians. The Finns. Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, depending on who was ahead in Scandinavia at any point in time. Anyone unlucky enough to be on a ship seized by Barbary pirates. White Africans who lived in Africa for generations.

Whites aren't some monolithic entity that looms over the downtrodden of the world, ready to stomp them into the dust like the Dark Lord of Mordor, as much as you'd like us to be.

If you're gonna think that turnabout is fair play, at least make sure beforehand there's something for you to turn about.

From the OP "A campaign began to demonstrate the extent of anti-white racism in the US".

Yes. What's your point? It doesn't count because I listed European cases?

America's a country of immigrants, isn't it? Where do you think did the white population in America come from? Quite a lot of their ancestors would qualify as "refugees" by modern standards, for all kinds of reasons, to boot.

[Werkerbloed]

I really don't see any point in this. Most of what you may call "attacks on white people" are usually incorporated when in direction to racists, not to just some random white person. If white people were oppressed in this world, then they would not comprise of the lower class suburbs, be in the war-torn countries of the world, and be denied specific privileges, and yet none of that has even happened once in this year in a wide scale. Sure, there may be some people out there who legitimately have a racial prejudice towards white people, but it's never been blown up like with other racial prejudices (eg: apartheid, colonialism, basically the last 300 years).

That last bit is most certainly not true. You have to look no further than the ethnic cleansing of white Africans in South Africa to see that's blatantly false.

Indeed, that is actually an example of white prejudice, but most what this "it's ok to be white" slogan is, is a force in 1st world politics, where most of the mainstream coverage comes from. If you want the left to actually take this slogan seriously, talk about the actual racial prejudice going on in southern Africa, not some measly controversy going on in the USA.

[Herador]

Turns out people can be prejudiced towards a white person without oppressing them, who would've thought.

...?

Pretty straightforward there guy. I can be insulted for being white, but not be oppressed, two separate concepts.

[Irona]

"Finally, although not statistically significant at conventional levels, white men are marginally more likely to support the tax in proximity to a poor black person, compared with a poor white person"

Yeah so I guess we can ignore that. The study doesn't get the result you claim.

Not the part i'm talking about.

Compared with those passing an affluent-seeming white man, those who passed a nattily dressed black man were less likely to stop and sign a petition; passing by an impoverished-looking black man made the study’s subjects slightly more likely to stop and sign.

Beyond offering evidence of some racial avoidance, suggested Young, white men appeared to be judging poor white men more harshly than they do poor black men.

“There’s a higher expectation that this person should be working, that he doesn’t face the obstacles a black man does,” Young said.

They might support it at statistically negligable levels, but when you include stopping as well as supporting, its notable

So white people stopping more often for poor blacks than poor whites, even if they aren't actually more likely to give monetary support, means that white people face discrimination "on an extent" that justifies this campaign?

[36 Camera Perspective]

The statement didn't say "It's okay to be a white gay" or "It's okay to be a poor white" or "It's okay to be a white women". It said "It's okay to be white".

We were moving from the specifics of what the poster said to the question of whether or not white people are being discriminated against. I suggest that they certainly are, especially with respect to the massive alienation the rhetoric of contemporary social justice often confronts them with. When Bernie Sanders said "If you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor", that perfectly exemplifies the left's inability to apply intersectionality to white people. The poster, if anything, is a response to that sense of alienation, an attempt to show that white people aren't being fully included in the rhetoric of the left. The resulting reactions have decisively illustrated their point.

Furthermore none of those people are being discriminated against because of the 'white' part. It's because of the 'gay' or 'poor' or 'women' part.

This misses the entire point of intersectionality. My identity can't be divided into parts; I am one whole person. I am not one part straight, one part white, and one part poor, ad ininfitum. I am just indivisibly poor, white, and straight, full stop. All of these factors are constantly in play, and that's the point of looking at identity intersectionally.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

...?

Someone replied to you, explaining as to why what you said was demonstrably false (if we are to believe he is correct). You posted the question from the link, I could only assume one of two things: one, you were pointing out that the question pertains to the US only (despite the fact that you said "White people", which could be taken for meaning every white person), or two, you asserting that there isn't any prejudice towards white people.

[Irona]

From the OP "A campaign began to demonstrate the extent of anti-white racism in the US".

Yes. What's your point? It doesn't count because I listed European cases?

America's a country of immigrants, isn't it? Where do you think did the white population in America come from? Quite a lot of their ancestors would qualify as "refugees" by modern standards, for all kinds of reasons, to boot.

I don't see how historic oppression in parts of Europe, based on nationality rather than race, justifies a campaign in America about anti-white discrimination.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not the part i'm talking about.


They might support it at statistically negligable levels, but when you include stopping as well as supporting, its notable

So white people stopping more often for poor blacks than poor whites, even if they aren't actually more likely to give monetary support, means that white people face discrimination "on an extent" that justifies this campaign?

When they stop they aren't more likely to give support, but they're more likely to stop.
It's one example of discrimination that white people face, there are others, including being more proportionally likely to be shot by cops if committing a crime in the US.
(Though black people are proportionally to white people more likely to be shot, when you narrow the field down to those committing crimes, black people are less likely to be shot than white people. The reason for disproportionate deaths among black people from police shootings is higher crime rates, and thus, poverty and poor cop-community relations. However, the media hysteria over shooting black criminals has led to black privilege in that regard, the focus should have been on restraint on use of force in general, alongside discussions on generational poverty and redistributive taxation to the poor, not to the black poor.)

[Washington Resistance Army]

That last bit is most certainly not true. You have to look no further than the ethnic cleansing of white Africans in South Africa to see that's blatantly false.

Indeed, that is actually an example of white prejudice, but most what this "it's ok to be white" slogan is, is a force in 1st world politics, where most of the mainstream coverage comes from. If you want the left to actually take this slogan seriously, talk about the actual racial prejudice going on in southern Africa, not some measly controversy going on in the USA.

The campaign isn't meant to make the left take it seriously. It's meant to show white people that some of those who always clamor for diversity are themselves racist. Which frankly it has done a decent job of, the number of people you can find saying it's not okay to be white is troublesome.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Indeed, that is actually an example of white prejudice, but most what this "it's ok to be white" slogan is, is a force in 1st world politics, where most of the mainstream coverage comes from. If you want the left to actually take this slogan seriously, talk about the actual racial prejudice going on in southern Africa, not some measly controversy going on in the USA.

The campaign isn't meant to make the left take it seriously. It's meant to show white people that some of those who always clamor for diversity are themselves racist. Which frankly it has done a decent job of, the number of people you can find saying it's not okay to be white is troublesome.

Apparently it's triggering to say it's fine to be white.

If you are genuinely disturbed by a poster affirming that it's ok to be white, then you need psychological help to alleviate your triggers; the rest of the world doesn't have to walk on eggshells around you all the time. Sorry.

[Irona]

The statement didn't say "It's okay to be a white gay" or "It's okay to be a poor white" or "It's okay to be a white women". It said "It's okay to be white".

We were moving from the specifics of what the poster said to the question of whether or not white people are being discriminated against. I suggest that they certainly are, especially with respect to the massive alienation the rhetoric of contemporary social justice often confronts them with. When Bernie Sanders said "If you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor", that perfectly exemplifies the left's inability to apply intersectionality to white people. The poster, if anything, is a response to that sense of alienation, an attempt to show that white people aren't being fully included in the rhetoric of the left. The resulting reactions have decisively illustrated their point.

Furthermore none of those people are being discriminated against because of the 'white' part. It's because of the 'gay' or 'poor' or 'women' part.

This misses the entire point of intersectionality. My identity can't be divided into parts; I am one whole person. I am not one part straight, one part white, and one part poor, ad ininfitum. I am just indivisibly poor, white, and straight, full stop. All of these factors are constantly in play, and that's the point of looking at identity intersectionally.

Internationality is about connecting the indivisible 'parts' of you that are discriminated against. Your 'whiteness' is about as important in the discrimination against you as whether you have a tattoo. That's why its not a core part of internationality.

A poor white gay man, might be discriminated against because their poor and gay but not because their white. A poor black gay man, is likely to suffer discrimination because of being poor, black and gay. Internationality is about connecting all factors that are subject to discrimination.

[New Edom]

http://wjla.com/news/local/its-okay-to-be-white-sign-posted-on-doors-of-montgomery-blair-hs-in-md
https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/ ... d-america/

A campaign began to demonstrate the extent of anti-white racism in the US by handing out flyers with 5 words on them. "It's okay to be white."

Instructions:

Do Not Alter The Message
Do Not Alter The Flyers
Anyone Who Tries To Change Things Is A Shill
There Is No Phase 2

It’s Okay To Be White. 5 words. Simple, elegant, effective. The plan is working. Stick to the plan. There is no phase 2.

If you take part remember; print the original flyers in the pic, post them in legal areas, be aware of cameras, and get home safely.

Do not trespass. Do not Vandalize. Do not post over other signs or flyers. Do not say anything racist or provocative in the comments of news stories. We are giving the left all the rope they want and they are racing to hang themselves. The goal is to expose the media’s anti-white bias through their reaction to a harmless flyer. It is working. Stick to the plan. There is no phase 2. Anyone who suggests change is a shill.

Reaction;

“Really? Those type of posters? In a school as diverse as Blair,” asked senior Antoinette Ntomb.
School stats show 15 percent of Blair’s student body is Asian, 24 percent are black, and 33 percent are Hispanic.
“As a parent, yeah, it’s something that troubles me. It troubles us,” said parent Shaun Burke.

Principal Renay Johnson sent parents a letter that said in part “… we will not fall victim to attempts to divide us. We are committed to providing a safe and welcoming environment for every student.”
“I am hoping there is not a repeat, but I guess we will see,” said parent Mayu Mishina.

According to San Francisco’s CBS affiliate KPIX, UC Davis students found posters in their college and this immediately caused students to react negatively.

“Are you insinuating that people of color are saying it’s bad to be white?” asked Ales Lee, of the UC Davis Black Leadership Council. “Whoever is posting these photos, I don’t think they’re realizing how triggering these posters are for people.”
UC Davis Chancellor Gary May wrote in the California Aggie that UC Davis encourages dialogue about ideas “many find disturbing,” he added that “fliers, however, are not dialogue.”

Josh Dalavai, president of the undergraduate student association at UC Davis said it was okay to be white, then immediately added that the fliers were a “brazen appeal to white victimhood,” which is a “very primitive, very tribal, narrow-minded ideology.”

According to HuffPo, Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, Maryland found the fliers in their school and sent a letter home to parents to tell them that this was “a concerted national campaign to foment racial and political tension in our school and community” in order to divide community members.

President of Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota, William Craft, added it’s okay to be white, but added that non-whiteness is viewed by too many as “not okay,” adding that “to be other than white is all too often to be subjected to discrimination, lack of opportunity, and even the threat and reality of violence.”

(Note, the last is the only reasonable response, though doesn't highlight anti-white sentiments demonstrated to exist by this campaign and others.)

Universities and schools across the country, as well as some other areas, are being targeted by the poster campaign.
I approve of the campaign and think it makes its point fairly straightforwardly. The stunt relies on the same rhetorical justifications as "Black lives matter", though doesn't rely on the argument of disproportional shootings that prompted the saying which has been shown to be dubious when stats are evaluated.

The statement should not be controversial, but is. That's somewhat revealing for both phrases.

EDIT:
If you believe the phrase "Black lives matter" should have been put forward as "All lives matter" and reject the rhetorical justifications, arguing it heightens racial tensions and such, it is consistent to oppose this campaign, unless you view it as making a point along those lines or highlighting it by provoking progressives into making the argument that it should say "It's okay to be any race" or whatever.

I get why it's being done, and do not oppose the campaign being launched, but I think that two wrongs don't make a right. Identity politics has soured and gone stupid. Frankly, I wish that they would all shut up, but since they will not, by all means, let "white lives matter" join the fray.

I find that most liberals and leftists are not as open minded as they think that they are, and beleive in things by rote rather than by inquiry. They tend to sneer at their opponents and believe that they are inherently better in every way.