Pants-of-dog wrote:They have no collective history and accomplishments. This is hecause they were never racialised and never had to fight as a racialised group for anything.
How is European history not a collective history and how can you say that such peoples have no collective accomplishments? What about industrialization?
Likewise, on what grounds can you say that a group must first be an oppressed and racialized victim group before it can have pride in itself? If anything, the fact that one's group was able to become victimized in the first place seems to be something that should be moved passed, not extolled as something to be proud of.
Why should a group that has not been subjugated as a racial collective be forbidden from being proud of its accomplishments, while a group that was systematically oppressed and subjugated be proud of their racialized history of oppression? That seems counter-intuitive.
Of course, that whites were not systematically oppressed at certain times, is not entirely true anyway, as Hindsite has pointed out with white slavery, mostly at the hands of the Saracens.
Pants-of-dog wrote:f that was all that ye said, then it would not have been a problem. Of course, everyone knows that the “it’s okay to be white” thing is a teojan horse for racism.
How so? Also, how do you know he went on to advocate for anything more than it is okay to be white?
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to whine about how taking your papers, while you are lying to people, is a horrible attack that deserves violence, then yes, you are a snowflake.
No, attacking and stealing a speaker's papers as a response to his legal and permitted speech, whether its contents are true or not, is not an acceptable response and reflects some serious whiny, cry-baby, unhinged, snowflake insanity. The speaker going to retrieve HIS papers and defend himself when he is assaulted, is perfectly rational and normal, that is not being a snowflake, that is getting your shit back and not allowing someone to attack you.