Black Pride! (Yay.) Brown Pride! (Yay.) White Pride! (Punch)

[Drozjeck]

Small ITT note: (sorry for thread jump)

Skin Color is far less relevant that culture you grew up in.

in my college, you can almost tell the Africans apart from the Black Americans.
Africans act like Africans...
Blacks act like Blacks.
skin color is not the separator. actions, manners, and modes of thought are.
if only i could get a Black Englishman to enroll here...he'd throw everyone off their typical meter!

[Geniasis]

I expect to be able to live out my life in America. I do NOT wish to live in Africa, or in Mexico, or in Asia, or anywhere else but in America. Yet, if those people come here and replace American culture with their own, then I am having those places forced upon me.

If people like Stormfront get what they want, living out your life in America won't be an option. They'd send you to Africa, or Mexico, or Asia, or just about anywhere else but in America.

[Czardas]

Are you kidding me? Then we will be a Brazil-esque hellhole, and there's no way I'm sticking around to be surrounded by the scum of the earth. Once the nonwhites take over, America is dead to me.

And I refuse to tolerate a hodgepodge of mud cultures.

Referring to nonwhites as "the scum of the earth" and "mud cultures" is a clear use of offensive language intended to inflame and denigrate; *** warned for trolling. ***

Yet you are a Mud People shouldn't you go back to Mexico or Iceland or some shit?

Continued use of the term "mud person" to refer to Cobhanglica appears to constitute flamebait. *** Warned therefor. ***

Let us try to carry on without trolling either entire races or each other, please. Thanks.

[United Gackle]

When i hear "White Pride" i think of the KKK for some reason Lol

[Blademasters765]

I'm proud to be white, not because we conquered, killed or sold into slavery atleast some of each race,

I would be proud of myself no matter what the colour of my skin was, Does it make me any different, perhaps but I would still be proud,

I don't see how the mistakes of past can be blamed upon the modern white's, we didn't go around killing blacks, Asians and Indians, we didn't sell them into slavery, we just happen to of been born with that history

yet I wonder, when we all finally see eye to eye and put down our differences, can't we all just talk and get together without forming gangs and supremest groups, without being scared that the group of people that are a different colour to you, that are walking towards you in the street aren't going to beat lonely defencless you to a bloody pulp

I believe that we should all lay down our indifference's, we shouldn't judge each other by the colour of our skin but by each others personalities

[Geniasis]

When i hear "White Pride" i think of the KKK for some reason Lol

Gee, I wonder why...

[Blademasters765]

When i hear "White Pride" i think of the KKK for some reason Lol

Gee, I wonder why...

well when I think beard, I think Biker

[Unchecked Expansion]

When i hear "White Pride" i think of the KKK for some reason Lol

Gee, I wonder why...

You never really do see a 'White's are equal to other ethnicities and demand fair treatment' marches do you? I mean, apparently that's what white pride is all about, but all the marches are about superiority and a cultural siege mentality

[Geniasis]

well when I think beard, I think Biker

...

OK, that one has a little more wiggle room for interpretation.

[Innsmothe]

well when I think beard, I think Biker

...

OK, that one has a little more wiggle room for interpretation.

Yeah, I generally think of masculine gay man. >.>

[Blademasters765]

...

OK, that one has a little more wiggle room for interpretation.

Yeah, I generally think of masculine gay man. >.>

really, how did 'beard' make you picture that

[Bottle]

It does leave out women and children, though.

Eh, classically Men means humans. There was a prefix for Male as well as Female in old English, but it got dropped

Eh, not so much, according to the original Constitution. Female human beings were absolutely NOT regarded as equals, and it took something like 150 years for them to even start getting legal equality. Let's not bullshit around about it. When "men" is supposedly used as a term for "human," more often than not it really does mean ONLY MEN.

More importantly, "All men are created equal" didn't stop slave owning. So let's not ignore our history, eh?

[Innsmothe]

Yeah, I generally think of masculine gay man. >.>

really, how did 'beard' make you picture that

Not many people in worldly culture (apart from scandinavians.) tend to grow beards anymore.
And really butch gay men are famous for them...and massive amounts of chest hair....

[Leepaidamba]

You never really do see a 'White's are equal to other ethnicities and demand fair treatment' marches do you? I mean, apparently that's what white pride is all about, but all the marches are about superiority and a cultural siege mentality

For now.

[Unchecked Expansion]

You never really do see a 'White's are equal to other ethnicities and demand fair treatment' marches do you? I mean, apparently that's what white pride is all about, but all the marches are about superiority and a cultural siege mentality

For now.

Keep an eye on that. It might go down fine, it might attract a bunch of white power thugs

[Unchecked Expansion]

More importantly, "All men are created equal" didn't stop slave owning. So let's not ignore our history, eh?

Like I say, America really never lives up to the ideals. But they're nice ideals. Shame we don't have anything written down that well
At least it's turning out better than the 'American Dream', income mobility being what it is

[Geniasis]

...

OK, that one has a little more wiggle room for interpretation.

Yeah, I generally think of masculine gay man. >.>

I tend to think, "snuggie for the face".

...

I'm from Seattle.

[Blademasters765]

really, how did 'beard' make you picture that

Not many people in worldly culture (apart from scandinavians.) tend to grow beards anymore.
And really butch gay men are famous for them...and massive amounts of chest hair....

Mate, you haven't been to Australia have you

[Geniasis]

Mate, you haven't been to Australia have you

Or anywhere on the West Coast of the U.S.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Note: Before I begin, I apologize (as is often the case) for a hit-and-run massive post in a thread I have deliberately tried to avoid and have only read in parts (because I found much of it too nauseating too read). This may be repetitive, off-point, etc, and is almost certainly too long.

I do wish to make a few general comments on some of the subjects of this thread:

1. A distiction should be made (for multiple reasons) between "pride" in one group and discrimination and oppression of other groups. They sometimes go hand-in-hand, but aren't inherently linked. As discussed below, majority pride in particular tends to be based on or linked to the oppression or degredation of others. No one should be discriminated against or treated unfairly because of their "race," nationality, ethicity, skin color -- perceived or real -- whether they be "white," majority, "black," "brown," minority, etc.

2. There is a massive difference between minority/oppressed group pride and majority/in-power group pride. Although I could explain this in numerous ways, I shall simply copy the words of this blog/other forum post:

It's very common to see people complaining about how say, there's gay pride, or African-American Pride, or other minority groups celebrating themselves, but it's considered wrong for there to be talk of white pride or straight pride. I can understand the reasoning. At first glance it seems like reverse racism, that you're not allowed to be proud of who you are if you're not a minority.

But there is one big difference between the two, as I see it, that some people seem to miss.

Being part of a minority comes with it's problems. Whether it's explicit racism against someone for being Arab in the weeks after September 11, 2001, having fewer opportunities in life because you're African American, or being on the receiving end of screams of "faggot", minorities often get the message that they are somehow inferior. That they're not as good as the people in the majority, and should "keep to their own kind", or be "fixed" when possible. That they are lesser people.

The whole point of the minority having pride in themselves, having a pride celebration, is to fight back against that. To say, "I am PROUD to be (part of X minority)". That they're not ashamed of being a part of it, because there's nothing wrong. It's a way of telling their detractors that those people are wrong. After all, who would openly celebrate something they should be ashamed of?

This is why pride movements for the majority don't get accepted as well. Nobody is being given the message that there's something wrong with being white, that they should be ashamed of being Christian, that they're inferior because they are straight. Yes, I know, fringe groups may suggest that, but they aren't really taken seriously.

Because there isn't that message of being a lower form of human, there's no need for people in the majority to admit to being there. No inferiority to shake off.

And since there's no need to defy people giving them a negative message, there is a question of what purpose majority pride really serves. If you don't need to say "I'm just as good as anyone else", then the perception becomes that you're actually saying "I'm better than everyone else" - even if that's not the message.

I suppose the answer for those people who want to be proud of themselves when they're in the majority is to find an event for celebrating all forms of whatever attribute you're talking about. If you want to be proud to be straight, do it at a gay pride parade - yes, there are plenty of straight people there, either in support (such as PFLAG), or just to enjoy themselves, and by supporting minority sexuality, you're supporting the freedom of sexuality, and thus your own sexuality. If you want to celebrate being white, see if there's an event celebrating racial diversity - as you'll get to celebrate yourself in the process, since you fit into the picture of diversity also.

The point is that movements or events to celebrate minority pride are usually not exclusionary - you don't have to belong to the group to give them your support, and in the process, you show your pride in who you are. Majority pride, on the other hand, is almost always exclusionary - and this is why they're often seen as negative to the minority. By excluding those minority groups, they're once again implying they're not as good, since they're not welcome.

Note that I feel any group that celebrates pride in themselves while excluding people who are not part of that minority, yet wish to offer their support, or supports pride in a way that suggests they are "better" than others groups, is sending the wrong message, and should not be looked upon as being a positive influence, but a negative one.

Addendum: Note that I don't see ethnic pride such as "Irish Pride" as fitting into the category of "majority pride" (at least here in the US). They're not a majority, and they're not celebrating the attribute that puts them in the majority. Sure, they're white, but they're not having pride being white, they're having pride in being Irish - being white isn't really relevant there. Just wanted to clarify that, as some people have expressed concerns I was suggesting that those kinds of pride were also harmful.

3. Although race is very real as a socio-political construct and it makes perfect sense for "racial" minorities to seek pride for the reasons stated above, it is important to remember (as I've brought up copious times) Race is little more than a social construct without scientific support. Similarly, human skin color is widely diverse within "ethnicities" or so-called "races" and it is essentially meaningless as a means to categorize people -- except, again, as a social construct. link I bring this up (again) because many of you insist on arguing about these questions from false premises.

4. The notion of "white pride" is particularly absurd for copious reasons. "White" people aren't really white in skin color -- and include a wide variety of skin, hair, eye colors and other physical features. Unlike "black," "brown," "yellow," or "red," (etc) people, white people have not (at least on a mass scale) never been systematically mistreated or oppressed for being white. There is no definition of a "white" person and people disagree all the time (and have disagreed historically) about who was/is "white." Etc, etc, etc.

5. There seems to be some serious denial going on that whites (particularly white males) are GENERALLY¹ privileged (at least in the U.S.) and minorities are disadvantaged.

A. Minorities and women have a steep hill to climb just to catch up with centuries of general white male advantage. For example, as historian Roger Wilkins pointed out in 1995, African-Americans had (at that time) a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else. Add 15 more years of progress to that now. Thus, as President Lyndon Johnson explained:

In far too many ways American Negroes have been another nation: deprived of freedom, crippled by hatred, the doors of opportunity closed to hope...

[T]his victory--as Winston Churchill said of another triumph for freedom--"is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

That beginning is freedom; and the barriers to that freedom are tumbling down. Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in American society--to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. It is the right to be treated in every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity and promise to all others.

But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.

Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.

This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

For the task is to give 20 million Negroes the same chance as every other American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities--physical, mental and spiritual, and to pursue their individual happiness.

B. Even if the legacy of past racism and sexism were erased, discrimination against minorities remains a major, ubiquituous problem in the U.S. For example, African-Americans are hugely disadvantaged due to racism in the United States. See, e.g., The State of Black America 2010: Executive Summary (6p, pdf); Race at Work (8p pdf) (a study showing that othewise identical black job applicants were less than half as likely to be successful as white applicants AND otherwise identical black job seekers fair no better than white felons just released from prison); Urban Institute: The Black-White Jobless Gap; Urban Institute: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Among Low-Income Families; Testimony of Harry Holzer at the Meeting of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Racial discrimination clearly persists in the labor market, though it is more powerful against some groups of minorities than others").

Additionally, I not so long ago read the following in Girardeau A. Spann, "Disparate Impact," [url]The Georgetown Law Journal[/url] Vol. 98:1133-1163 (2010) (excerpts) (emphasis added) and it will probably piss people off (largely because it is true):

Even though we know better, we cannot seem to control our behavior. That is what it means to be addicted.

Likewise, the United States is addicted to racial discrimination. Even though we know that treating racial minorities as inferior to whites is inconsistent with the moral, ethical, and legal theories of equality to which we have long subscribed, the benefits to the white majority of continued discrimination against racial minorities are apparently too compelling for the culture to resist. From the seizure of Indian lands, to slavery, to official segregation, to wartime hysteria, to de facto segregation, to the invalidation of affirmative action,⁹¹ and most recently to the resegregation of public schools,⁹² white majoritarian United States culture has been committed to the subordination of racial minority interests in pervasive and persistent ways. That is a form of white supremacy. And our addiction to it is an addiction from which we appear no more able to wean ourselves than we have been able to wean ourselves from our addiction to foreign oil.

The belief that white interests are more important than racial minority interests is simply a constitutive element of United States culture. One of the things that it means to be an American is to have internalized, at some very fundamental level, the realization that it is permissible to sacrifice minority interests for the benefit of whites. And that realization is often both deep and unconscious in nature.⁹³ That is why we tolerate the dramatic discrepancies in the allocation of societal resources that continue to exist between whites and racial minorities. Justice Ginsburg has emphasized that conscious and unconscious biases have caused large racial disparities to continue to exist in unemployment, poverty, access to health care, and access to education.⁹⁴ Moreover, minorities continue to suffer discrimination in employment, real estate markets, and consumer transactions.⁹⁵ Minorities are also statistically discriminated against in matters as diverse as retail car negotiations, kidney transplants, and bail setting.⁹⁶ Recent social cognition research using the Implicit Association Test to measure unconscious racial prejudice has demonstrated that most of us remain influenced by vast amounts of unconscious prejudice.⁹⁷ And other recent research has indicated that our culture transmits subtle racial stratification messages so successfully that even young children quickly learn to internalize the culture’s commitment to minority inferiority, despite the efforts of their parents to instill in them values of colorblind race neutrality.⁹⁸

Subtle forms of voting discrimination against racial minorities remain serious enough that Congress recently, and overwhelmingly, authorized the Voting Rights Act of 1965—even though the Roberts Court has now threatened to hold the Act unconstitutional.⁹⁹ And, of course, residential housing segregation continues to exist in the United States at such an alarming rate that it has been referred to as “American Apartheid.”¹⁰⁰ The advantages and sense of natural entitlement entailed in being white in the United States remain so strong that Cheryl Harris has characterized whiteness as a property right.¹⁰¹ Commentators have even suggested that the surprising vitriol that has accompanied conservative assaults on President Obama’s undeniably moderate health care and other economic programs—as well as the personal attacks on President Obama himself—are motivated at least in part by lingering racial animosity emanating from the intolerable idea of having a black person serve as President of the United States.¹⁰² Even racial minorities themselves have at times kept a low profile in the health care debate for fear that popular recognition of the degree to which health care reform would benefit minorities might increase the chance that reform proposals would be defeated.¹⁰³

If you are white, and you have any lingering doubts about the existence of embedded racial inequalities in the culture, simply ask yourself whether you would mind waking up tomorrow morning as a member of a racial minority group. If the culture has truly freed itself from the influence of embedded racial inequalities, you should be largely indifferent about the race that you will become overnight. But I suspect that most whites are not indifferent. Indeed, one informal survey showed that white college students thought that they would be entitled to $1 million in damages per year if they were suddenly transformed from white into black.¹⁰⁴

...Race is so deeply embedded in the fabric of the United States that racial discrimination is simply a constitutive aspect of the culture. Nevertheless, the United States did recently elect Barack Obama as its first black President. Despite contrary suggestions, however, that does not mean that the United States has now evolved to a post-racial stage of development in which the problems of racial discrimination have largely been relegated to the past. Rather, it means that the United States has now evolved to a new stage of development in the sophistication of its techniques for practicing racial discrimination.

Racial discrimination used to be both blatant and explicitly rooted in the doctrine of white supremacy. But post-racial discrimination is now more subtly rooted in the very doctrine of racial equality itself. The discriminatory allocation of benefits and burdens, to which United States culture has always been committed, has now simply been folded into the baseline allocation of resources that we treat as the neutral starting point for assessing the racial legitimacy of any reallocation regime. And redistributive efforts to upset that baseline by diverting resources from whites to racial minorities can now be viewed as entailing reverse discrimination against whites. This form of post-racial discrimination has been developing over the last few decades, but the election of President Obama seems to have given the technique more widespread appeal than it has previously been able to command. That makes post-racial discrimination particularly dangerous because both the perpetrators and victims may come to view the practice as morally and legally legitimate.

Post-racial discrimination permits the ways in which the culture generates and perpetuates racial differences among its members to be subsumed by the core concept of racial legitimacy. Historically, the things that we have done to each other in the name of race always seemed legitimate to the white majority at the time that they were being done. Seizing Indian lands was legitimate because conquerors are permitted to keep the spoils of their successful conquests. Slavery was legitimate because white supremacy made slaves subhuman. De jure segregation was legitimate because God and nature established intrinsic differences between the races. Persistent de facto segregation was legitimate, even after the invalidation of de jure desegregation, because the value we place on liberal autonomy precluded compelled association. More recently, the invalidation of affirmative action and antidiscrimination laws has been deemed legitimate because our efforts to prevent discrimination against racial minorities has ended up producing the more serious problem of discrimination against members of the white majority.

As the culture matures, prior justifications for racial discrimination inevitably lose their luster and eventually fall out of favor. New justifications must then be found to take their place. The claim that redistributive efforts to aid racial minorities actually constitute reverse discrimination against whites appears to have considerable present appeal. But the plausibility of that claim does depend upon the belief that there is no longer any significant discrimination against racial minorities to be remedied. It is this belief that has given rise to the claim that we now live in a post-racial culture. And it is this pursuit of racial “equality” for whites that has elevated post- racialism into our presently preferred form of discrimination against racial minorities.

Our collective predisposition to sacrifice the interests of racial minorities for the interests of whites seems to be firmly embedded in our cultural attitudes and values. Accordingly, it is difficult to imagine how our inclination to engage in racial discrimination can ever be overcome without adopting some sort of precommitment strategy that forces us to engage in the behavior that would be produced by racial equality even if we do not yet have the capacity to assimilate the values of racial equality. Recognizing the moral and legal legitimacy of disparate impact discrimination might well serve as such a precommitment strategy. By forcing ourselves to allocate societal resources in a way that approximates the resource allocation that would exist in a race-neutral culture, we might be able to escape the gravitational pull of our embedded racial attitudes.

-----------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:

92. See Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 746–48 (2007)(plurality opinion) (citing Brown II as authorizing resegregation of public schools).
93. See Charles R. Lawrence III, The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism, 39 STAN. L. REV. 317, 322–23 (1987) (arguing that much contemporary racial discrimination is unconscious).
94. See Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 299 (2003) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
95. See id. at 299–302 (discussing striking racial disparities that continue to exist in distribution of societal resources).
96. See Ian Ayres, [url]PERVASIVE PREJUDICE?: UNCONVENTIONAL EVIDENCE OF RACE AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION[/url] 19–44, 165–232, 233–311 (2001) (documenting statistical discrimination).
97. See Jerry Kang, Trojan Horses of Race, 118 HARV. L. REV. 1489, 1509–14 (2005) (discussing unconscious racial bias revealed by Implicit Association Test).
98. See Po Bronson & Amy Merryman, See Baby Discriminate: Kids as Young as 6 Months Judge Others Based on Skin Color. What’s a Parent To Do?, NEWSWEEK, Sept. 14, 2009, at 53 (describing racial attitudes in young children).
99. See Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2504, 2508–11, 2513–17 (2009) (discussing facts and holding); id. at 2511–13 (suggesting that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would now be unconstitutional). Justice Thomas expressed similar sentiments, stating that “[t]he Court quite properly alerts Congress that § 5 tests the outer boundaries of its Fifteenth Amendment enforcement authority and may not be constitutional.” See id. at 2519 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).
100. See generally LOEWEN, supra note 26, passim (documenting history of intentional residential segregation in United States); MASSEY & DENTON, supra note 26, passim (discussing concept of urban residential “hypersegregation” in United States).
101. See Cheryl I. Harris, Whiteness as Property, 106 HARV. L. REV. 1707, 1714–15 (1993) (discussing sense of white entitlement).
102. See, e.g., Yamiche Alcindor, Seeking Healing, Seeing Hostility: Some at Black Family Reunion Criticize Protests Against Obama, WASH. POST, Sept. 14, 2009, at B1 (discussing racially motivated opposition to Obama); Maureen Dowd, Boy, Oh, Boy, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 13, 2009, at WK.17 (same); Colbert I. King, A Dangerous Kind of Hate, WASH. POST, Sept. 12, 2009, at A17 (same); Anne E. Kornblut & Krissah Thompson, Race Issue Deflected, Now as in Campaign: Obama Maintains Criticism Is About Policy Differences, WASH. POST, Sept. 17, 2009, at A1 (discussing comments of former President Carter that some opposition to President Obama is racially motivated); cf. Hendrik Hertzberg, Comment: Lies, NEW YORKER, Sept. 21, 2009, at 33 (including race among factors motivating paranoia generated by Obama and his programs).
103. See Krissah Thompson, Minority Groups Raise Voices on Reform: Advocates Still Wary of Making Race a Central Issue in Health Care Debate, WASH. POST, Oct. 8, 2009, at A9 (discussing participation of minorities in health care debate).
104. See ANDREW HACKER, TWO NATIONS: BLACK AND WHITE SEPARATE, HOSTILE, UNEQUAL 43–44 (2003) (describing survey). See generally id. passim (describing many ways in which blacks and whites continue to live in two different worlds, where blacks are treated as inferior to whites).

¹ This is a deliberate gross generalization. Although being white in America is an advantage, not every white male is going to be better off than every minority, or (more specific to my examples) every African-American.

BOTTOM LINE: Quit whining about the plight of the poor white male. You aren't being oppressed (at least in the U.S. & Europe) by minorities. You are -- on average or in general -- privileged. You benefit just from being white and from your ancestors being white. Quit the fucking bitching already.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

There's nothing wrong with feeling pride about who you are. The problem is when you let that pride make you think you're better than everyone else. That's where the folly lies.

[German Zerabithea]

Snip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31M_MdSVxV8 (1:48)

[ALMF]

No, genealogy is quite important. Genetic makeup is the only way that a nation can be firmly and clearly defined regardless what populations pass through its territory. Living on the land controlled by a nation does not make you part of that nation.

The logical conclusion of your hypothesis is zero-migration/genocide better to abandon it before it does any more harm.

[The Norwegian Blue]

*snip*

Fantastic post, TCT. That last excerpt in particular was an excellent, if sobering, read.

Sadly, I have no doubt most of the people who really need to read it will ignore it, but there's not much one can do about that.

[Farnhamia]

*snip*

Fantastic post, TCT. That last excerpt in particular was an excellent, if sobering, read.

Sadly, I have no doubt most of the people who really need to read it will ignore it, but there's not much one can do about that.

We should petition the Mods to create a pinned thread into which all of TCT's posts can be pasted, or at least linked. It would save us all a lot of time hunting down the one we want.