White Supremacy discussion thread

[Drew Durrnil]

I ain't going through this whole thread, so ya'll tell me: were there any good "behold the master race" moments?

there was a very dumb attempt to prove that white people were the superior race, mostly by embarrassing themself repeatedly and generally convincing no one

I can't wait for the white supremacy discussion thread version 2

[Zurkir]

All I’ve seen is a heated ancient Egypt discussion for a couple of pages, current topic is the civil war era and slavery, and the come and go of if hate speech is to be allowed or not. Of course I’ve been in and out myself. There probably were plenty of those moments.

I may have missed them but what I’m surprised I haven’t seen is the classic “Asians and Arabs are white” insistency and the usual Asian women fetishism that typically arises during literally any discussion about race.

I would say that the civil war era is related to white supremacy because slavery is an example of white supremacy and white supremacy was rampant during that era.

The civil war era discussion I’d say fits here yes though “slavery is an example of white supremacy” is a bit of a stretched generalization.

[Nakena]

*shrug* For afrocentrists they find it self-affirming to picture the Egyptians as black because they're conceptualized as a "great civilization" in our culture. White Supremacists push back against them to affirm the opposite because they're white supremacists.

Nevermind that afrocentrism is conceding to white cultural narratives by ignoring actual great African civilizations like Mali and Ethiopia, but I digress.

White supremacists wish the Egyptians were nordic superman and afrocentrists wish they looked like Mark Morrison. In reality the Egyptians were probably neither of the extremist groups' ideals, at least not entirely.

I think Arch is probably the only one who could answer this definetively. But I doubt the old egyptians where related to the proto-europeans. I may be wrong though.

[Atheris]

How about this for a discussion of white supremacy? Southern Secession was all about slavery and the supremacy of the white man over the black man. All the documents I'm citing can be found here. I'm offering snippets because they are damn LONG and I'd rather focus on the most relevant bits.

...

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

...

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact.

...(cut for length)

...

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

...

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

...

And, of course, the Cornerstone Speech, given by Confederate VP Alexander Stephens (source)

...
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.[Applause]
...

Too long. Me no read.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I got hell for defending free speech. White supremacy is grotesque, but I'm not for banning it in the sense of speech, as that could open up a door that we don't want to open. I'm for keeping them out of government of course, but not repealing the first amendment.

Thank you.

And since people argue over whether someone (say, Trump) is a white supremacist/racist/etc, it's...it's just not gonna bode well.

I don't think Trump is a white supremacist, just a jerkass. This has been TED Talks with WF.

He is a racist, but it is more mild than historical segregationists, and he is mostly just a narcissist.

[Atheris]

36% percent said 'Yes'?! ARE YOU OUTTA YOUR MIND?!?!

No, free speech is based.

[Countesia]

Before this thread gets too long i think we should just pass the talking stick around, so those who wish can simply state their status a white supremacist. So we can all go home :shrug:

[Kowani]

I would say that the civil war era is related to white supremacy because slavery is an example of white supremacy and white supremacy was rampant during that era.

The civil war era discussion I’d say fits here yes though “slavery is an example of white supremacy” is a bit of a stretched generalization.

in what world was slavery not an example of white supremacy when that was literally the justification given for it

[Nakena]

there was a very dumb attempt to prove that white people were the superior race, mostly by embarrassing themself repeatedly and generally convincing no one

I can't wait for the white supremacy discussion thread version 2

White Supremacy Discussion Thread II: BLEACHED edition

The thread nobody wanted. But was absolutly deserved.

I ain't going through this whole thread, so ya'll tell me: were there any good "behold the master race" moments?

I doubt so.

[Vorausen]

How about this for a discussion of white supremacy? Southern Secession was all about slavery and the supremacy of the white man over the black man. All the documents I'm citing can be found here. I'm offering snippets because they are damn LONG and I'd rather focus on the most relevant bits.

...

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

...

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact.

...(cut for length)

...

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

...

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

...

And, of course, the Cornerstone Speech, given by Confederate VP Alexander Stephens (source)

...
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.[Applause]
...

Too long. Me no read.

To sum it up, the Confederacy seceded from the union because of slavery.

[Viennaria]

To truly have free speech, you must give everybody free speech no matter what, even if they are wrong and racist. Because of this, white supremacy is wrong, but they should be able to express their views. However, I also think that people blame any slight injustice in the world on racism and white supremacy.

[Zurkir]

The civil war era discussion I’d say fits here yes though “slavery is an example of white supremacy” is a bit of a stretched generalization.

in what world was slavery not an example of white supremacy when that was literally the justification given for it

Southern American slavery was more of an economic thing. The south’s economy was so heavily structured on slavery it was rather pathetic in that alone. The South didn’t hang on to slavery SOLELY to “suppress an inferior race”. They were more worried about all of the money they would lose and having to reshape their economy.

As for slavery itself? Human slavery isn’t a solely white thing (as much you seem to want it to be) as slavery has been seen all throughout history in all corners of the world.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Too long. Me no read.

To sum it up, the Confederacy seceded from the union because of slavery.

They couldn't turn the U.S. into a slaver empire that would take over Latin America so they wanted their own country. You can have slavery or the values we were founded on, not both, and people were finally realizing that.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

I ain't going through this whole thread, so ya'll tell me: were there any good "behold the master race" moments?

All I’ve seen is a heated ancient Egypt discussion for a couple of pages, current topic is the civil war era and slavery, and the come and go of if hate speech is to be allowed or not. Of course I’ve been in and out myself. There probably were plenty of those moments.

I may have missed them but what I’m surprised I haven’t seen is the classic “Asians and Arabs are white” insistency and the usual Asian women fetishism that typically arises during literally any discussion about race.

Is it a stupid question to ask if Persians/Arabs are white without accidentally sounding racist?
I am of confusings.

[Atheris]

Too long. Me no read.

To sum it up, the Confederacy seceded from the union because of slavery.

Ah. I already knew that.

[Atheris]

in what world was slavery not an example of white supremacy when that was literally the justification given for it

Southern American slavery was more of an economic thing. The south’s economy was so heavily structured on slavery it was rather pathetic in that alone. The South didn’t hang on to slavery SOLELY to “suppress an inferior race”. They were more worried about all of the money they would lose and having to reshape their economy.

It didn't start that way, but it certainly evolved into it, as seen in the various Confederate declarations of independence.

[Nakena]

All I’ve seen is a heated ancient Egypt discussion for a couple of pages, current topic is the civil war era and slavery, and the come and go of if hate speech is to be allowed or not. Of course I’ve been in and out myself. There probably were plenty of those moments.

I may have missed them but what I’m surprised I haven’t seen is the classic “Asians and Arabs are white” insistency and the usual Asian women fetishism that typically arises during literally any discussion about race.

Is it a stupid question to ask if Persians/Arabs are white without accidentally sounding racist?
I am of confusings.

Some claim they are. Others not. It's a pointless discussion.

Iranians are aryan though for that matter.

[Zurkir]

All I’ve seen is a heated ancient Egypt discussion for a couple of pages, current topic is the civil war era and slavery, and the come and go of if hate speech is to be allowed or not. Of course I’ve been in and out myself. There probably were plenty of those moments.

I may have missed them but what I’m surprised I haven’t seen is the classic “Asians and Arabs are white” insistency and the usual Asian women fetishism that typically arises during literally any discussion about race.

Is it a stupid question to ask if Persians/Arabs are white without accidentally sounding racist?
I am of confusings.

When perpetrators of crime “they are white/Indo-European” (like what we saw with Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa) and when they are victims of crime they are their own sovereign race (s) and unique culture. That’s the answer.

[Zurkir]

Southern American slavery was more of an economic thing. The south’s economy was so heavily structured on slavery it was rather pathetic in that alone. The South didn’t hang on to slavery SOLELY to “suppress an inferior race”. They were more worried about all of the money they would lose and having to reshape their economy.

It didn't start that way, but it certainly evolved into it, as seen in the various Confederate declarations of independence.

I’m not excluding general hatred and racism from the equation, just to clarify. But keeping slaves wasn’t all about this immoral fetish for owning and suppressing a minority people in the nation. It was about money and economic base, the hatred and superiority complexes just were part of the equation.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Is it a stupid question to ask if Persians/Arabs are white without accidentally sounding racist?
I am of confusings.

When perpetrators of crime “they are white/Indo-European” (like what we saw with Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa) and when they are victims of crime they are their own sovereign race (s) and unique culture. That’s the answer.

So it's...all political?

[Atheris]

When perpetrators of crime “they are white/Indo-European” (like what we saw with Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa) and when they are victims of crime they are their own sovereign race (s) and unique culture. That’s the answer.

So it's...all political?

Always has been.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

So it's...all political?

Always has been.

And it once again frames white people as the perpetrators! Hooray!!!!
/s

But perhaps it should be up to Arabs/Iranians rather than politics to decide.

[Kowani]

in what world was slavery not an example of white supremacy when that was literally the justification given for it

Southern American slavery was more of an economic thing. The south’s economy was so heavily structured on slavery it was rather pathetic in that alone. The South didn’t hang on to slavery SOLELY to “suppress an inferior race”. They were more worried about all of the money they would lose and having to reshape their economy.

in addition to being a massive oversimplification, this doesn't address what i said, and it's not entirely true
despite making southern states rich, slavery kept millions of southern whites poor
yet the system depended on those poor whites to keep functioning, and their motivation was definitely not "money"
hell, there came a point (before the invention of the cotton gin), where slavery was rapidly becoming unprofitable, even for the planter class, and yet any talk of abolition was anathema, because slaves (and african-americans in general) had been so thoroughly dehumanized

As for slavery itself? Human slavery isn’t a solely white thing (as much you seem to want it to be) as slavery has been seen all throughout history in all corners of the world.

i realize that enlightened centrists like to do this shit all the time but in a conversation about the civil war, it's very clear which instance of slavery we're talking about, there's no reason to fucking whataboutism

[Zurkir]

When perpetrators of crime “they are white/Indo-European” (like what we saw with Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa) and when they are victims of crime they are their own sovereign race (s) and unique culture. That’s the answer.

So it's...all political?

Personally - I recognize Arabs as their own peoples and cultures. And the handful of Arab friends I have all laugh at being compared to/called white Europeans.

I mentioned Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa above. He “looked white” and everyone was linking that shooting to white supremacy within hours of it happening. Then his name and identity were released. Twitter was scrambling to prove that “Arabs are white”.

Me - I just like being a “true Aryan” myself.

[Diarcesia]

To truly have free speech, you must give everybody free speech no matter what, even if they are wrong and racist. Because of this, white supremacy is wrong, but they should be able to express their views. However, I also think that people blame any slight injustice in the world on racism and white supremacy.

The bolded part in a negative light is a rather American supremacist (American-centric if I'm being charitable) take anyway.