Pants-of-dog wrote:In some thought experiment where history took a different turn, advocating for a white homeland would not be necessarily supremacist.
Cute. This is called modal reasoning, but I doubt you knew that, and if you mean this, this would demonstrate that there is not logical connection between white nationalism and white supremacy.
Pants-of-dog wrote:In our current reality with our history, it is.
you still haven't demonstrated this with evidence. Please demonstrate that no white nationalism on earth in 2018 can possibly be anything but supremacist.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am using the Wikipedia definitions for both white supremacy and white nationalism.
You defined, in the post in question, white supremacy as domination of other races and as inherent superiority, which are not the same thing.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Because unclaimed regions do not exist? And they have not existed for the past ten thousand years or so.
What about Antarctica? According to international law, that region has no claim by any one power and no indigenous people would be displaced by its appropriation.
Likewise, some white nationalism aspire to a white homeland in their native homeland of europe, in some places, this would require little to no displacement of large numbers of minorities, especially in certain slavic states.
Furthermore, just as black nationalism in native black regions is not supremacist (according to your logic), how would white nationalism in white native regions be supremacist under the same logic? Especially if no non-white indigenous were displaced?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please explain how taking back land that was stolen from blacks or indigenous people is supremacist. Thanks.
1. You are answering a request for an explanation (that was not satisfied) with a question, so I have no obligation to answer you since you have refused to the case I first requested.
2. Assuming that supremacy is one race dominating another (which was the second definition YOU GAVE), my claim is that the expropriation of white lands in south africa by blacks would meet your definition
of racial supremacism. You rebutted this and said that such "doesn't count" because of colonialism or whatever; however, I pointed out that your definition
does not admit of that exception, nor would your other definition admit of that exception.
You gave two definitions, these are YOUR
definitions. Definition one: racial supremacy is belief in one's race as inherently superior.Definition two: racial supremacy is the domination of one race by another. Neither of these definitions give exception to retributive acts.
Thus, no matter which of the definitions you use, blacks expropriating white lands would be supremacist and it doesn't matter if the whites had colonized previously, as neither of your definitions admit for those exceptions.
Thus, if blacks expropriate lands of whites, if it is a form of dominating a minority race (which it is) it would be immoral racial supremacism.
if they did so out of a feeling of racial superiority, it would also be racial supremacism.
and a desire for revenge is irrelevant to either of these definitions.
You must either use different definitions, or admit that blacks expropriating white lands in South Africa is a racist and supremacist policy.
Thus, unless you can prove otherwise, the burden of proof is one you based upon the nature of your own definitions.
So please provide evidence for your claims.