White student union proposed at Towson University

[jimmy eat jazz]

It is not a false comparison. Both are groups that have a race requirement to join. No difference. I personally would not join them as I would see no need to join them. You are simply willing to think negatively of them based on what might happen. I am not. I will judge them based on what they do, not what they might do.

You are correct in saying that I am 'willing to think negatively of them,' but where I differ is what follows, as I would phrase it this way, 'based on what will inevitably happen.'

Again, what % of people who join this group do you really guess won't be racists of one stripe or another?

More, I simply don't agree with the concept of 'white culture.' It doesn't exist, and when used, is almost inevitably a euphemism for racist culture.

But I've made my case, so no need to argue this further. Feel free to reply and I'll leave it at that.

 

[Stoked]

If that group has historically suffered, and continues to suffer, oppression, discrimination, social and economic marginalization, etc. then possibly (not definitely) Yes.

Note that this DOES NOT describe whites in the USA.

A white group is NOT racist becasue they happen to be white. They are racist based on their actions and words. To claim and oppose them just because they are white is a racist idea in my opinion.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

A white group is NOT racist becasue they happen to be white. They are racist based on their actions and words. To claim and oppose them just because they are white is a racist idea in my opinion.

I actually agree with you. I am not opposing them because they are white, I am opposing them based on the type of people experience clearly shows such a group would attract. I guess the main diff here is that you are more optimistic about who might join such a group, I am not. I'd love to see some counterexamples to show I might be wrong, but I imagine they are hard to find.

 

[Stoked]

You are correct in saying that I am 'willing to think negatively of them,' but where I differ is what follows, as I would phrase it this way, 'based on what will inevitably happen.'

Again, what % of people who join this group do you really guess won't be racists of one stripe or another?

More, I simply don't agree with the concept of 'white culture.' It doesn't exist, and when used, is almost inevitably a euphemism for racist culture.

But I've made my case, so no need to argue this further. Feel free to reply and I'll leave it at that.

Thank you for confirming that you oppose them only becasue they are white. That sounds like a racist idea to me. Arguing about the past does not chage that you are against this idea because they are white. That is your sole objection

Keep in mind I am NOT calling you racist. I just see that as a racist idea.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Thank you for confirming that you oppose them only becasue they are white. That sounds like a racist idea to me. Arguing about the past does not chage that you are against this idea because they are white. That is your sole objection

Keep in mind I am NOT calling you racist. I just see that as a racist idea.

I said I wouldn't reply, but I feel you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I'm saying.

So let me try be plain (but probably fail), in the abstract, I have no problem with forming an org to promote 'white interests' or 'white culture' or what have you.

BUT in practice, (1) there are no such thing as 'white interests' 'white culture', etc. and when used, the terms almost inevitably are used as euphemisms for racism (2) such a group would inevitably only attract racists, and (3) thus 'knowing #2 in advance, were such a group to be formed, it is most likely formed for the hidden purpose of being a cover for racists.

You are arguing abstracts, I am arguing concrete practical implications. At least that's how it seems to me.

 

[Stoked]

I said I wouldn't reply, but I feel you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I'm saying.

So let me try be plain (but probably fail), in the abstract, I have no problem with forming an org to promote 'white interests' or 'white culture' or what have you.

BUT in practice, (1) there are no such thing as 'white interests' 'white culture', etc. and when used, the terms almost inevitably are used as euphemisms for racism (2) such a group would inevitably only attract racists, and (3) thus 'knowing #2 in advance, were such a group to be formed, it is most likely formed for the hidden purpose of being a cover for racists.

You are arguing abstracts, I am arguing concrete practical implications. At least that's how it seems to me.

Then we will have to disagree as I completely disagree.

 

[One Brow]

One could make the arguement that by giving the above mentioned groups specific celebration months you are placing them above the others. Or argue the reverse. That you are showing them who is truly the boss. That you will allow them a pathetic little month because you control the rest.

Race and racism will never go away because everyone continues to make it an issue in their attempts to even (or slant in some cases) the playing field. Only when race is ignored and unimportant will the field truly be even.

One could argue anything. The history taught in schools is inarguably eurocentric, regardless of what one argues.

Racism has its own inertia, and obeys something akin to Newton's First Law. It's not taught overtly, it's taught by subtle hints, little clues, selection bias, and in a dozen other quiet ways. None of that ceases when "race is ignored". For example, even though officially, race is ignored in the New York criminal justice system, balck drivers are more likely to have their cars searched 9even though they are no more likely to be carrying drugs), more like to be arrested for the same amount of drugs, more likely to be charged with a felony after arrest, more likely to face the stiffer penalties in a federal court after being charged, get longer jail sentences at any particular court level, etc. All of this is being done by people who are "ignoring race" and say that race is "unimpotant".

 

[One Brow]

There's no such thing as 'white culture,' except perhaps on militia camps in Idaho or somewhere in the Deep South.

Actually, the vast majority of the culture is white culture, with little pockets of other things thrown in. It doesn't seem like white culture is a distinct thing if that is the only culture you are exposed to.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Then we will have to disagree as I completely disagree.

Yep, oil and water you and me.

I've enjoyed the discussion though. Thanks.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Actually, the vast majority of the culture is white culture, with little pockets of other things thrown in. It doesn't seem like white culture is a distinct thing if that is the only culture you are exposed to.

if you want to phrase it that way, go ahead. Such a phrasing, however, inevitably carries the tinge of bigotry, as likely to perceived by wide swaths of people, so long as you know.

 

[One Brow]

To show how meaningless "XXXX history month" is.

I don't think I'll let Morgan Freeman define what has meaning to me. Does he define what has meaning to you?

 

[One Brow]

A white group is NOT racist becasue they happen to be white. They are racist based on their actions and words.

Due to the reality of the American culture, it's not possible for a group defending "white rights" group to not be racist (nor is it possible for a group defending "mens rights" to not be misogynist). Being white (or male) makes your life easier in dozens of ways, most of which an individual person doesn't even see.

In your view, in the USA, what would a non-racist group to devoted to "white rights" be defending? What sort of actions or changes in law or culture would they support?

 

[One Brow]

if you want to phrase it that way, go ahead. Such a phrasing, however, inevitably carries the tinge of bigotry, as likely to perceived by wide swaths of people, so long as you know.

I've been accused of much worse. would it sound better coming from authors you knew were white? Many scholars of race relations have light skin. I can give you a couple of links.

 

[Stoked]

Due to the reality of the American culture, it's not possible for a group defending "white rights" group to not be racist (nor is it possible for a group defending "mens rights" to not be misogynist). Being white (or male) makes your life easier in dozens of ways, most of which an individual person doesn't even see.

In your view, in the USA, what would a non-racist group to devoted to "white rights" be defending? What sort of actions or changes in law or culture would they support?

I certainly disagree with the above.

What would they stand for? How about things such as supporting and celebratign white culture. Communtiy service, better education, family values...

You know, things other groups fight for.

The idea that a group of whites or men cannot form a group that is not racist or mysogonist is insane to me.

Could they be racist? Sure they could be. Just as much as any other race based group could be. I jsut refuse to accept that becasue they are a white group they are racist.

 

[Hayward Supremacist]

A white student union would certaintly oppose affirmative action, and that's a good thing. My employer embraces diversity (because you know, an all-white workforce sucks and this countries history is complete bigotry), and I've watched more qualified whites get passed over for promotions over less qualified and in some cases, downright incompetent minorities and women get promoted over them. Thankfully I'm out of there in a few years.

The Republican party is soft on social issues and this won't even be brought up since they are so afraid to upset minorities, just another reason why I like groups such as a white student union. Hell, they'd have a better shot as converting white liberals to their side than trying to pander to minorities (and I say this knowing all too well how mentally retarded white liberals are), unfortunately the media would be ALL OVER them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CftuJCHl9l4

Every other group can celebrate their heritage except whites. Japan is 98.5% white and nobody calls for multiculturalism there. White countries are for everybody though.

 

[Scat]

I don't think I'll let Morgan Freeman define what has meaning to me. Does he define what has meaning to you?

Based on your definition of what makes one a race expert then I'd have to say that Mr. Freeman is indeed a race expert.

 

[NUMBERICA]

That right there is the problem. There should be no heritage or history months. It should all be taught and celebrated all the time.

One could make the arguement that by giving the above mentioned groups specific celebration months you are placing them above the others. Or argue the reverse. That you are showing them who is truly the boss. That you will allow them a pathetic little month because you control the rest.

Race and racism will never go away because everyone continues to make it an issue in their attempts to even (or slant in some cases) the playing field. Only when race is ignored and unimportant will the field truly be even.

If you're suggesting that racism wouldn't exist without things like Black History Month, I'd suggest you're not at all living in reality.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

A white student union would certaintly oppose affirmative action, and that's a good thing. My employer embraces diversity (because you know, an all-white workforce sucks and this countries history is complete bigotry), and I've watched more qualified whites get passed over for promotions over less qualified and in some cases, downright incompetent minorities and women get promoted over them. Thankfully I'm out of there in a few years.

The Republican party is soft on social issues and this won't even be brought up since they are so afraid to upset minorities, just another reason why I like groups such as a white student union. Hell, they'd have a better shot as converting white liberals to their side than trying to pander to minorities (and I say this knowing all too well how mentally retarded white liberals are), unfortunately the media would be ALL OVER them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CftuJCHl9l4

Every other group can celebrate their heritage except whites. Japan is 98.5% white and nobody calls for multiculturalism there. White countries are for everybody though.

I can imagine that the Japanese would find it kind of odd that you refer to them as 'white.'

I can assure you, moreover, that the chances that a 'white student union' would be effective in convincing liberals (or non-racists) about anything, other than their overt bigotry, are extremely remote.

Japan is also a pretty racist society in many respects and views its 'culture' as superior even to what you'd call 'white culture.'

Out of curiosity, are you pals with Carolina Jazz?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

One could argue anything. The history taught in schools is inarguably eurocentric, regardless of what one argues.

Racism has its own inertia, and obeys something akin to Newton's First Law. It's not taught overtly, it's taught by subtle hints, little clues, selection bias, and in a dozen other quiet ways. None of that ceases when "race is ignored". For example, even though officially, race is ignored in the New York criminal justice system, balck drivers are more likely to have their cars searched 9even though they are no more likely to be carrying drugs), more like to be arrested for the same amount of drugs, more likely to be charged with a felony after arrest, more likely to face the stiffer penalties in a federal court after being charged, get longer jail sentences at any particular court level, etc. All of this is being done by people who are "ignoring race" and say that race is "unimpotant".

Putting profiling under the banner of racism is certainly a disservice to any discussion. Is the percentage of drug possession truly equal in New York City of cars searched? You have to prove that. Also, are those cars being searched BECAUSE the alleged owner is black? Or is it because alleged owners of cars that arouse the suspicions of police happen to be black. And even if it is equal, racism isn't the only conclusion. The statements, or thought processes, "This guy is black, so he must be a bad guy, so I'm searching his car for drugs" and "This guy is black, and blacks seem to have a higher rate of drug possession, so I'm more likely to find drugs than a random guy" are two entirely different statements, even if the actions are the same. Stereotyping should also not be put under the banner of racism. Two different things.

And this concept of "minorities can only accurately appreciate and portray racism accurately" is completely ridiculous. Sure, the wronged minority is surely more emotionally involved, but there's no way that the majority doesn't understand racism less than the minority.

AND, if you do want to play that way, I can pretty much guarantee you that I lived and worked where my "race" was much more minor demographically than any Hispanic or black individual that is currently alive in the United States.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

"White culture" is a misnomer, especially in the U.S. where at its founding, many subsets of people, who all happened to be what many would consider "white," had completely different cultures and customs and religions. What can you really say about "white culture" other than its varying religions tend to be paternalistic? There's too much variety from its European roots to make some conglomerate statement and call it culture.

"Black culture" can be more defined, though often misappropriated. Black Americans will tend to have a more similar ancestry than other Americans. Also, ancestry is more difficult to trace beyond the American roots given African tribes didn't keep familial records of the slaves they sold to the Europeans. Thus, black Americans have a rallying point that Americans mainly of European descent don't have.