Is It Okay To Be White? - Page 28 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is It Okay To Be White?

1. Yes, It Is Okay To Be White.
51
67%
2. No, It Is Not Okay To Be White.
12
16%
3. Other
13
17%
#14866732
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.


:lol:

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.
#14866734
Victoribus Spolia wrote:How is European history not a collective history and how can you say that such peoples have no collective accomplishments? What about industrialization?


Europe is composed of different people and different nations. They never collectively self-identified as a single group in any significant way until recently.

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.


There are other reasons for having pride in collective identity. But no one has mentioned any for white people.

My point was that this oppression is what makes the difference between balck pride and white pride.

Black people can be proud of overcoming adversity as a group. White people cannot.

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.


No one ever said anything about forbidding anything.

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.


Except they were not enslaved because they were white. They were enslaved because the Saracens had the opportunity to do so, and the economic motives. It had nothing to do with skin colour.

How so? Also, how do you know he went on to advocate for anything more than it is okay to be white?


Because the whole “it’s okay to be white” poster campaign was supposed to make people join white power groups. It has even been mentioned in this thread. Were you unaware of this?

As for Wintrich, I read several news articles.

:lol:

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.


Sure, he must have been arrested for another reason.

What was this reason?
#14866739
Pants-of-dog wrote:Europe is composed of different people and different nations. They never collectively self-identified as a single group in any significant way until recently.

Yes they did.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Black people can be proud of overcoming adversity as a group. White people cannot.

I disagree.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Except they were not enslaved because they were white. They were enslaved because the Saracens had the opportunity to do so, and the economic motives. It had nothing to do with skin colour.

Those from Nigeria and Niger were not enslaved because their skin color was Black either. They were enslaved because it was easy and for the money.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because the whole “it’s okay to be white” poster campaign was supposed to make people join white power groups. It has even been mentioned in this thread. Were you unaware of this?

Yes. I have no intention of joining a "white power" group like blacks joined the Black Panther "black power" group.
#14866743
Pants-of-dog wrote:Europe is composed of different people and different nations. They never collectively self-identified as a single group in any significant way until recently.


So what, blacks are of many different nations as well, we do speak of European culture and European peoples as a collective and they are spoken of in such ways in Academic circles. So I say again: How can you say such do not have collective accomplishments?

Pants-of-dog wrote:There are other reasons for having pride in collective identity. But no one has mentioned any for white people.

My point was that this oppression is what makes the difference between balck pride and white pride.

Black people can be proud of overcoming adversity as a group. White people cannot.


I am proud of the colonial history of my people, industrialization, classical music, and the concept of Western Christendom, as generally white achievements. There, I mentioned some things to be proud of.

No one denied that "overcoming oppression" was something to be proud of, my point is that there has been an attitude in academic circles that white people should NOT be permitted to have white pride groups on campus, even though other ethnic groups have such.

Likewise, it seems to me, never-having-been-collectively-oppressed is itself a great achievement to be proud of, even in comparison to overcoming oppression (which implicitly admits of having been oppressed in the first place).

Pants-of-dog wrote:Except they were not enslaved because they were white. They were enslaved because the Saracens had the opportunity to do so, and the economic motives. It had nothing to do with skin colour.


Under that criteria, black slavery did not begin on a purely racial basis, but became so over time.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because the whole “it’s okay to be white” poster campaign was supposed to make people join white power groups. It has even been mentioned in this thread. Were you unaware of this?

As for Wintrich, I read several news articles.


Wintrich was a white house media correspondent invited to speak by Campus Republicans. We aren't talking about Richard Spencer or David Duke here, we are not talking about open racialists or white nationalists, we are talking about an Alt. Light guy at best, he could not be said to have been recruiting college kids for cross-burnings, lets get real....he was a WH media guy invited by Republicans, he was a mainstream conservative talking on a supposedly, according to you, uncontroversial topic.

So I say Again: How do you know his speech was on something more than being okay to be white and was, in fact, some sort of white supremacist recruitment pitch (as you are insinuating)?

:lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure, he must have been arrested for another reason.

What was this reason?


You are evading the point, how is stealing and assault in response to speaking not being a snowflake, but getting in an altercation in an attempt to recover your stolen property being a snowflake?
#14866752


I think brown pride is also racist and these racial pride people are mostly criminals or prison inmates. Multiculturalists may be encouraging gangstar activities in the Hispanic community. The Aryan Brotherhood is a whites-only street gang and prison gang, while the Brown Pride gang is a Mexican-American street gang based in Nashville, Tennessee. I think minorities do not need to be urged to be proud of their cultures by white liberals as there are already enough proud racists in minority communities. Nashville has several thousand members in nine street gangs that go by names such as the Bloods, Crips, Asian Pride, Brown Pride. The Crips are an African-American gang, which claims to be a spin-off of the Black Panther Party.
#14866762
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So what, blacks are of many different nations as well, we do speak of European culture and European peoples as a collective and they are spoken of in such ways in Academic circles. So I say again: How can you say such do not have collective accomplishments?


Blacks that were enslaved and brought to the US were cut off from their home cultures, and were forced to recreate an identity in the US that was based on a shared history of oppression instead of ethnic heritage as Europeans did.

I am proud of the colonial history of my people, industrialization, classical music, and the concept of Western Christendom, as generally white achievements. There, I mentioned some things to be proud of.


Man, edgelords talking about how proud they are of colonialism are boring.

Yes, your feelings of pride are relevant and important. :roll:

None of these are things that white people did collectively as a race.

No one denied that "overcoming oppression" was something to be proud of, my point is that there has been an attitude in academic circles that white people should NOT be permitted to have white pride groups on campus, even though other ethnic groups have such.


Well, since most white pride people are racist, this comes as no surprise.

Likewise, it seems to me, never-having-been-collectively-oppressed is itself a great achievement to be proud of, even in comparison to overcoming oppression (which implicitly admits of having been oppressed in the first place).


Except you guys did oppress each other. You were just never oppressed because of your skin colour by people of another skin colour. It is like being proud of only stepping in the feces of purebred dogs.

Under that criteria, black slavery did not begin on a purely racial basis, but became so over time.


And that is historically how it happened, as far as I know.

Wintrich was a white house media correspondent invited to speak by Campus Republicans. We aren't talking about Richard Spencer or David Duke here, we are not talking about open racialists or white nationalists, we are talking about an Alt. Light guy at best, he could not be said to have been recruiting college kids for cross-burnings, lets get real....he was a WH media guy invited by Republicans, he was a mainstream conservative talking on a supposedly, according to you, uncontroversial topic.

So I say Again: How do you know his speech was on something more than being okay to be white and was, in fact, some sort of white supremacist recruitment pitch (as you are insinuating)?

:lol:


Again, the poster campaign that you and your wife claimed was epically controversial (which it was not) was the effort to make people racist. This guy was just trolling and, in that respect, was more successful than the failed poster campaign.

You are evading the point, how is stealing and assault in response to speaking not being a snowflake, but getting in an altercation in an attempt to recover your stolen property being a snowflake?


No one assaulted your trolling snowflake. He went there to get offended. He did. Now all you guys can pretend to be victims. Success for you!
#14866918
Lucian Wintrich "It's OK to be White" Speech at University of Connecticut



Published on Nov 28, 2017
Lucian Wintrich was set to give his "It’s OK to be White speech" at the University of Connecticut and a Leftist woman stole his property while the crowd cheered against him, calling him a "Nazi" and other common phrases.

It appears that she stole his notes or his actual speech and he attempted to retrieve it from her. Her accomplice in the green jacket then attacks Lucian from behind to prevent Lucian from getting his papers back from the woman. The Police enter, not knowing what happend, and arrest Lucian. Obviously, the leftist don't believe in free speech, but believe is stealing and violence against others of a different opinion.
#14866952
I have some questions:

First of all, how does white privilege work in situations where whites in the minority and sharing citizenship with a non-white majority i.e. South Africa?

Are the whites privileged in this instance, even if they are a minority?

And my studies of this idea seem to reveal that the white privilege theory holds that whites cannot be discriminated against, or very unlikely to be so. The idea is that the subtle behaviour of people and inherent biases in all people, including non-whites, will result in a better treatment of whites. Therefore according to this logic even if whites become a minority they will still be better treated than others and not face any type of discrimination.

And according to this logic, does it therefore make European fears of becoming a minority irrational? (from white privilege theory point of view)
#14866966
Political Interest wrote:I have some questions:

First of all, how does white privilege work in situations where whites in the minority and sharing citizenship with a non-white majority i.e. South Africa?

Are the whites privileged in this instance, even if they are a minority?


That would depend on the history of the community.

In the case if South Africa, Apartheid left most black people economically disadvantage. This then makes it harder for black people to, for example, finish university.

And my studies of this idea seem to reveal that the white privilege theory holds that whites cannot be discriminated against, or very unlikely to be so. The idea is that the subtle behaviour of people and inherent biases in all people, including non-whites, will result in a better treatment of whites. Therefore according to this logic even if whites become a minority they will still be better treated than others and not face any type of discrimination.


Whites can be discriminated against. This does not change the fact that the subtle behaviour of people and inherent biases in all people, including non-whites, will result in a better treatment of whites. A single person can still discriminate against whites on an individual level, even if the society as a whole does not.

Because of the fact that most western nations have had racism and/or some other that favours whites, the general bias will be to not discriminate against whites and still have white privilege even if they are in the minority.

And according to this logic, does it therefore make European fears of becoming a minority irrational? (from white privilege theory point of view)


Yes and no. History and its effects on the economic situations of different sectors of the population are more significant than demographics, but demographics can still be important.
#14867307
maz wrote:Image

:lol:



One simple picture says more than the prolonged verbal masturbation of thousand self hating white beta cucks!

:D
#14867311
Pants-of-dog wrote:In the case if South Africa, Apartheid left most black people economically disadvantage. This then makes it harder for black people to, for example, finish university.


But this situation is not permament. There is an emerging black and upper class in South Africa. And more white South Africans are becoming poor.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Whites can be discriminated against. This does not change the fact that the subtle behaviour of people and inherent biases in all people, including non-whites, will result in a better treatment of whites. A single person can still discriminate against whites on an individual level, even if the society as a whole does not.


All attempts to quantify white privilege have happened in the West where whites are the majority.

It would be interesting to see if they still enjoy these same privileges in other conditions.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because of the fact that most western nations have had racism and/or some other that favours whites, the general bias will be to not discriminate against whites and still have white privilege even if they are in the minority.


Which societies have not had racism?
#14867326
Political Interest wrote:But this situation is not permament. There is an emerging black and upper class in South Africa. And more white South Africans are becoming poor.


No one said it was permanent. Social relations are always in flux. What will not change is the past, even though the impact of that past can lessen over time.

In order for white South Africans to be just as marginalised as black South Africans, the history of white South Africans would have to change.

All attempts to quantify white privilege have happened in the West where whites are the majority.

It would be interesting to see if they still enjoy these same privileges in other conditions.


Again, since privilege is culturally specific, changing demographics would have different effects on different societies. If white privilege in a society is based mostly on demographics, then there would be a significant change. If privilege is based on history and socioeconomic standing, then a change in demographics might have no significant impact at all.

Which societies have not had racism?


None that I can think of, to be honest.
#14901652
I used to have a lot of white guilt. I don't have much anymore. The reason is because I've realized if any other race or ethnic group were in the position of technological dominance that white Europeans were, they would have done the same terrible things as whites did, & probably much worse. Imagine any Africans, Arabs, South Asians, East Asians, aboriginals anywhere...these aren't wonderfully humane people ...they're human too. Imagine any of them with powerful militaries. Of course they would colonize the globe, murdering, raping, and plundering people along the way, ripe with racism and religious idiocy just as whites have been.

Yes whites have done bad things, it doesn't mean it's right, but it means they're human, and humans with power are selfish and cruel. I don't feel guilt for things I never had a hand in, and I'm damn glad & lucky that my ethnic/racial group dominated the world instead of being dominated by another. White countries have also done wonderful things, things that have improved the lives of many billions, things that most other groups don't and wouldn't do if they were in the same position of power, and the west will never be thanked for it, just resented.

Whites have the most humane and civilized peoples and cultures in human history, but also not perfect.
#14901653
The thing is, @Unthinking Majority, you are not supposed to have "white guilt". You are supposed to merely acknowledge, and recognize, the advantages you have been lucky enough to get because of this history. That and acknowledge that others have not always been so lucky, and privileged.
#14901681
These theories are based upon the unique history, timing, and a war being fought over slavery in the US. A war that was not necessary to end slavery. Once the majority is convinced of something, it happens. How it happens is almost irrelevant, yet we use these irrelevancies to create general theories of racial relations. Pure nonsense.
Without the unnecessary war, the US ending slavery would be no different than all the countries before it.
Our theories of slavery in the US disadvantaging people more than slavery elsewhere is imagined nonsense. At the same time, you have people of all color coming to the US for it’s advantages.
How we see the US depends upon our imagined connection to a distorted history shaped by propaganda. It is a land of racial intolerance if your Black family has been here for generations, but a land of opportunity for recent Blacks from Africa.
Obviously, the reality is somewhere between our imaginings. Skin color has far less to do with our history than the accidental timing of events which created a lot of false assumptions.
As I have said before, 4 million slaves freed into a decimated Southern Whites of 8 million should have resulted in non stop slaughter. Blacks and whites should be proud of what we have accomplished. It has been a very short time, since the civil war historically to accomplish the impossible.
Yes, it is okay to be white or any other color. Our progress was a joint effort as our problems share joint responsibility. These theories simply try to divide effort and blame by color and that is a historical lie.
#14901686
One Degree wrote: A war that was not necessary to end slavery. Once the majority is convinced of something, it happens.
:roll: If that were truly a reality, you wouldn't have the gun violence that you have in the USA, and gun control wouldn't be considered so controversial.

If racism ended with the Civil War, ML King wouldn't have had to speak out for civil rights in the USA.

Your assessment about slavery and the war are at odds with the reality, and history. I suppose you're going to say that men such as Martin Luther King were unnecessary too, and that things would have changed without any protests and public outcry.

One Degree wrote:It is a land of racial intolerance if your Black family has been here for generations, but a land of opportunity for recent Blacks from Africa.
That's because the Blacks living there have fought to get equal rights from racists like you. It's still not there quite yet. You're evidence of that mentality still surviving.

One Degree wrote:Skin color has far less to do with our history than the accidental timing of events which created a lot of false assumptions.
Skin colour has a great deal to do with your history, unless you're white, of course.

One Degree wrote:As I have said before, 4 million slaves freed into a decimated Southern Whites of 8 million should have resulted in non stop slaughter. Blacks and whites should be proud of what we have accomplished. It has been a very short time, since the civil war historically to accomplish the impossible.
It is still not accomplished, as people still live with the legacy of racism, and racism is not a thing of the past, as is evidenced by the shit you write here.

One Degree wrote:These theories simply try to divide effort and blame by color and that is a historical lie.
Only a white, racist person would say such rubbish. Jim Crow laws never existed? No segregation in the military? You're living the lie, and are also deluding yourself.

The abolition of slavery at the end of the Civil War did not end the racism against Black people. By what you are saying, I can see it's alive and well in the white privileged American fucked up ego.
#14901693
@Godstud
You don’t get what I am saying. Instead of hundreds (at the most) of racial killings after the civil war, why were there not thousands? Both sides felt justified. There was unbelievable restraint and tolerance shown by both. Just like today, you pick out the rarity and insist it is the commonplace. It is simply a distorted reality.
The 50’s are used as an example of racial intolerance yet vast numbers of Black families had good lives. Factory work, especially automobile, paid great wages with full retirement after 20 years. Compare that to today.
There would be no equality without the willing cooperation of whites. There would be no peace without the willing cooperation of Blacks who realize change takes time.
MLK was a valuable instrument but the changes would happen without him. You take the necessary pain change requires and decide it was avoidable. It was not. The history I see, is both sides creating the changes with astoundingly less violence than we should have expected.
Why would you expect such impossible changes to take place without hardship? The impossible does not come easily.
#14901696
The Blacks did not automatically gain any sort of power after the Civil War. They were in no position to rebel or any such thing, as they might have been granted their "freedom", but they had no equality under the law, or with society.

The 50s were good? unless you were Black, right? Racial segregation. White's only places. Dream on! You talk like a person who knows nothing about society OR history.

yeah... Hangings in Mississipi, racial injustice.. oh yeah the 50s were great. :roll:

On December 31, 1952, for the first time in seventy years, a full year passed with no recorded incidents of lynching. Defined as open, non-judicial murders carried out by mobs, lynching befell people of many backgrounds in the United States but was a frequent tool of racial terror used against black Americans to enforce and maintain white supremacy.

Though the diminished frequency of lynching signaled by the 1952 report was encouraging, the Tuskegee Institute warned that year that “other patterns of violence” were emerging, replacing lynchings with legalized acts of racialized inhumanity like executions, as well as more anonymous acts of violence such as bombings, arson, and beatings. Similarly, a 1953 editorial in the Times Daily of Florence, Alabama, noted that, though the decline in lynching was good news, the proliferation of anti-civil rights bombings demonstrated the South’s continued need for “education in human relations.”

https://racialinjustice.eji.org/timeline/1950s/

You really know fuck all about American history if you're saying the Blacks had it good in the 50s. :lol:
  • 1
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 32

My iPad was a gift so my kids and grandkids could[…]

They though he was going to give a great speech th[…]

If God disrupts a WH press conference, can the eve[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

If Trump actuallly understood Economics, he would […]