White Student Union

[Siro]

I'm offended that you were offended when I said I was offended that you were offended when I was offended.

Don't care. You lost the right to be offended when you made the decision to become white.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

So people can't be proud of their heritage if they are white, but it is OK for people of any other ethnicity? What about in 15 years when whites are the minorities? Will it be OK then?

And what is white heritage? There is German heritage, Polish heritage, Italian Heritage, British heritage . . . etc., but what, pray tell, is white heritage (other than code word for racism)?

If whites become an oppressed minority and victims of a systematic attempt to deny them full partication in society, economy and political system, then I suppose it may become OK then. But, really, given historic precedent, what are the odds of that happening?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Exactly the response I was hoping for. As we have discussed before, I do not think any group should focus help only based on race, but it is OK for non white groups to do so. As we have discussed before, I believe all people should be treated equally based on their situation, not their color. There are many very disadvantaged white people that will never have a chance. Who cares how many other white people have had an advantage? We have had this discussion before, and I do not think we need to do it again.

But then disadvantaged white people are not disadvantaged because of their race or skin color. The same cannot be said for (many) disadvantaged black people.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I'm offended that you were offended when I said I was offended that you were offended when I was offended.

I am offended that you would be so offended. No offense.

 

[fishonjazz]

Don't care. You lost the right to be offended when you made the decision to become white.

 

[fishonjazz]

And what is white heritage? There is German heritage, Polish heritage, Italian Heritage, British heritage . . . etc., but what, pray tell, is white heritage (other than code word for racism)?

What is black heritage? Do all blacks come from the same country?

 

[Jamezz]

What is black heritage? Do all blacks come from the same country?

He must think they all come from NIGERia...

 

[Deleted member 848]

What is black heritage? Do all blacks come from the same country?

Black culture has been homogenized because they were stripped of their identities and enslaved when coming to the US. Their identities were reformed as Black Americans, which is now the identity they share as a group.

Actually think about the stuff jimmy is saying. He's right. What is it precisely that white people want their unions to stand up for?

 

[Stoked]

Black culture has been homogenized because they were stripped of their identities and enslaved when coming to the US. Their identities were reformed as Black Americans, which is now the identity they share as a group.

Actually think about the stuff jimmy is saying. He's right. What is it precisely that white people want their unions to stand up for?

I think Jimmy has some good points and his different view point is often quite valuable.

But white American culture is quite different than white German culture, white British culture, white French culture, white Swiss culture... I think this is an ineffective argument. I will concede that black Americans had it stripped away by force up front where white Americans have had it stripped away simply by time and generations.

The way it happened is undeniably worse for blacks. But either way the cultures are different here than overseas, white or black. I don't think Jimmy's argument for that was a good one.

 

[GVC]

Actually think about the stuff jimmy is saying. He's right. What is it precisely that white people want their unions to stand up for?

Do you only ask questions?

FWIW, Jimmy and Siro have been on point in this thread/on this topic (lest you lump me in with Joe and Jamezz). It's too bad you won't consider the points they're making.

 

[fishonjazz]

Black culture has been homogenized because they were stripped of their identities and enslaved when coming to the US. Their identities were reformed as Black Americans, which is now the identity they share as a group.

Good answer

 

[GVC]

The way it happened is undeniably worse for blacks. But either way the cultures are different here than overseas, white or black. I don't think Jimmy's argument for that was a good one.

You're missing the point.

What's the difference between the dominant American culture and what you're calling 'white American culture'? That dominant American culture has historically been exclusionary on the basis of race. When you call American culture 'white culture', or form 'white' cultural groups, you're effectively saying that the dominant American culture/community is still only available to 'white' people. If you're not 'white', you're not welcome.

An excluded 'race' forming a group does so to find solidarity against this exclusion. There is a clear difference in this distinction.

Further, I've not seen any groups that celebrate a particular European ethnic heritage -- Irish, Spanish, German, etc. -- being railed against. While these cultures/ethnicities may have a history of exclusion/racism, they aren't intrinsically racist. You can be a 'black' German; you can't really be a 'black' 'white'-American.

With that said, I still don't think idiots should be barred from forming idiotic groups or expressing idiotic opinions (for various reasons I'd be happy to discuss if Dal ever answers some of the questions he's been asked).

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

What is black heritage? Do all blacks come from the same country?

You overlooked the second part of my post, ". . . systematic attempt to deny them full partication in society, economy and political system . . ." Blacks have forged a racial identity as a result of being the victims of centuries of systemic, institutional discrmination. It is this common experience (among other things) that has been an impetus for them to forge a common bond and identity.

What are whites going to forge a common bond and identity around, centuries of economic, social and political privilege and systemic, institutional discrmination against blacks?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You're missing the point.

What's the difference between the dominant American culture and what you're calling 'white American culture'? That dominant American culture has historically been exclusionary on the basis of race. When you call American culture 'white culture', or form 'white' cultural groups, you're effectively saying that the dominant American culture/community is still only available to 'white' people. If you're not 'white', you're not welcome.

An excluded 'race' forming a group does so to find solidarity against this exclusion. There is a clear difference in this distinction.

Further, I've not seen any groups that celebrate a particular European ethnic heritage -- Irish, Spanish, German, etc. -- being railed against. While these cultures/ethnicities may have a history of exclusion/racism, they aren't intrinsically racist. You can be a 'black' German; you can't really be a 'black' 'white' American.

With that said, I still don't think idiots should be barred from forming idiotic groups or expressing idiotic opinions (for various reasons I'd be happy to discuss if Dal ever answers some of the questions he's been asked).

Brilliant post . . . up until the last paragraph. Here I disagree. I do think that idiots should be barred from forming idiotic groups, assuming these groups require official sanction to function (true on college campus, not true in general society), as any 'white heritage' group is code word for 'white supremecy' group, and I do not think institutions (where they have the power to grant official status to voluntary groups) should be granting official status to what are, in essence, hate groups.

 

[Stoked]

You're missing the point.

What's the difference between the dominant American culture and what you're calling 'white American culture'? That dominant American culture has historically been exclusionary on the basis of race. When you call American culture 'white culture', or form 'white' cultural groups, you're effectively saying that the dominant American culture/community is still only available to 'white' people. If you're not 'white', you're not welcome.

An excluded 'race' forming a group does so to find solidarity against this exclusion. There is a clear difference in this distinction.

Further, I've not seen any groups that celebrate a particular European ethnic heritage -- Irish, Spanish, German, etc. -- being railed against. While these cultures/ethnicities may have a history of exclusion/racism, they aren't intrinsically racist. You can be a 'black' German; you can't really be a 'black' 'white' American.

With that said, I still don't think idiots should be barred from forming idiotic groups or expressing idiotic opinions (for various reasons I'd be happy to discuss if Dal ever answers some of the questions he's been asked).

I said "white American culture" because Jimmy made the distinction of white culture. He used "white heritage" and I messed that up with "white culture". I can see the point he is making but I think he did so in a poor manner that muddies the water. Your explanation of his point is a much better one and not really one I disagree with that much.

I was arguing against his method not so much his point.

As for groups, I absolutely disagree with Jimmy here. "idiot" is often no more than those who do not share ones opinions and/or view points. That is not a precedent we want to set. On campuses "white heritage group" and "white supremacy group" are not mutually inclusive. Then can be, and usually are, the same thing but it's not an absolute. I don't think any hate groups (possible with any group regardless of how they define members) should receive any funding or support from the university.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I said "white American culture" because Jimmy made the distinction of white culture. He used "white heritage" and I messed that up with "white culture". I can see the point he is making but I think he did so in a poor manner that muddies the water. Your explanation of his point is a much better one and not really one I disagree with that much.

I was arguing against his method not so much his point.

As for groups, I absolutely disagree with Jimmy here. "idiot" is often no more than those who do not share ones opinions and/or view points. That is not a precedent we want to set. On campuses "white heritage group" and "white supremacy group" are not mutually inclusive. Then can be, and usually are, the same thing but it's not an absolute. I don't think any hate groups (possible with any group regardless of how they define members) should receive any funding or support from the university.

I interested in how you think I muddies the water so I can try to clarify. Dashing off a post in under 1 minute doesn't always facilitate clear prose.

For me an 'idiot' in this context is NOT merely something I disagree with (e.g, I would not object to a tea bagger group, although I think tea baggers are sprinkeled liberally with lower intelligence types) but groups that are formed for the primary or secondary purpose of fomenting hate and discord (e.g., white heritage groups), plus I'd add groups that promote silly, pseudo-science or conspiracy theories. Note also that my context is limited to groups formed with the official approval of an oversight body, such as college clubs, not general, run of the mill voluntary association groups, which I would not put limits on, as I see this violating freedom of association.

 

[Stoked]

I interested in how you think I muddies the water so I can try to clarify. Dashing off a post in under 1 minute doesn't always facilitate clear prose.

For me an 'idiot' in this context is NOT merely something I disagree with (e.g, I would not object to a tea bagger group, although I think tea baggers are sprinkeled liberally with lower intelligence types) but groups that are formed for the primary or secondary purpose of fomenting hate and discord (e.g., white heritage groups), plus I'd add groups that promote silly, pseudo-science or conspiracy theories. Note also that my context is limited to groups formed with the official approval of an oversight body, such as college clubs, not general, run of the mill voluntary association groups, which I would not put limits on, as I see this violating freedom of association.

My dislike of your argument was based off you singling out different countries where whites are the predominate. Heritage and/or culture is different from country to country. Regardless of the predominate race.

You are right that it is often more complicated and nuanced that what is type dup quickly.

But I try to take posts at what is actually typed. Not what I think they mean. then I engage and clarification usually comes out.

I can see the difference in whites and blacks from a American historical standpoint in many areas. I see why they foster and encourage these groups. I think they are ultimately unsuccessful for what many of their aims are when it comes to race relations.

I have 0 problem with them being proud of their heritage and fostering it. Rock on.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

My dislike of your argument was based off you singling out different countries where whites are the predominate. Heritage and/or culture is different from country to country. Regardless of the predominate race.

You are right that it is often more complicated and nuanced that what is type dup quickly.

But I try to take posts at what is actually typed. Not what I think they mean. then I engage and clarification usually comes out.

I can see the difference in whites and blacks from a American historical standpoint in many areas. I see why they foster and encourage these groups. I think they are ultimately unsuccessful for what many of their aims are when it comes to race relations.

I have 0 problem with them being proud of their heritage and fostering it. Rock on.

Well, those countries were just examples. We can add any country: Mexican heritage, Pakistani heritage, Moroccon heritage, Haitian heritage, Sudanese heritage, etc. Within those countries, moreover, are different groups that have their own unique identities, again formed out of common experience. The point is that their identity is formed not be race, per se, but by common cultural bonds/historical bonds. Similarly, black identify in the US is formed not by race again, but by common experience of slavery and systemic, institutional discrmination. The same would be true regardless of their race.

While I suppose in theory there might be some kind of 'white heritage,' I struggle to know what it is, and when it is invoked, it is nearly always done so as code word for something else.

 

[Stoked]

Well, those countries were just examples. We can add any country: Mexican heritage, Pakistani heritage, Moroccon heritage, Haitian heritage, Sudanese heritage, etc. Within those countries, moreover, are different groups that have their own unique identities, again formed out of common experience. The point is that their identity is formed not be race, per say, but by common cultural bonds/historical bonds. Similarly, black identify in the US is formed not by race again, but by common experience of slavery and systemic, institutional discrmination. The same would be true regardless of their race.

While I suppose in theory there might be some kind of 'white heritage,' I struggle to know what it is, and when it is invoked, it is nearly always done so as code word for something else.

Now you are making a better argument. Also would that not also apply to Hispanics? At least the systemic racism?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Now you are making a better argument. Also would that not also apply to Hispanics? At least the systemic racism?

Sure it would apply to Hispanics.

At some time, it probably also applied to Irish, or Italians, etc. but over time, they've become so integrated into US society that such identities have broken down or transformed into something else. You'd be hard pressed, moreover, to find many lingering vestiages of discrimination against Irish or Italians. Blacks have nowhere nearly achieved the same degree of integration into US society, and race-based discrimination against blacks remains pervasive, so something akin to a 'black identify' remains (although it's not nearly as monolithic as all that).

Whites, as a group, have not had such a shared, common experience of oppression or discrimination (no shared 'us against them'), so there's no 'white identify' analagous to a black identify. What common experiences we've had have, for large part, formed more of an American identify than any kind of race-based identity.