White Anxiety, and a President Ready to Address It (1 Viewer)

[truthatallcost]

Something I have learned about whiteness and white identity: When these subjects come up, too many whites immediately engage in all-give-and-no-take tactics. They claim to "just want logical arguments," or to be able to "speak without being attacked," but what they're really asking for is the privilege to make insensitive and ignorant comments without being called on it. We're seeing a lot of that in this thread, where implicit and explicit claims that even the phrase "white identity" is racist are met with immediate defensiveness instead of critical examination of why clinging to a so-called white identity could be racist.

No one has made a rational argument for the case of white identity being racist.

 

[Irredentist]

Left leaning posters- which is it; are white people a monolithic group that needs to be punished for the collective guilt of their ancestors, or are they not a monolithic group, and therefore share no common identity? You've gotten your warped beliefs entangled in contradiction again.

I suppose that depends on how you define "white people". If you are referring to humans of Indo European descent, that covers an incredibly diverse array of people, including Europeans, Indians, and Iranians. Of course, it would be absurd to say that all of these groups have a sense of common identity, even though are genetically related. But if you restrict your definition of whiteness solely to the European branch of the Indo European family, you might say that they do share a common identity as Europeans, although that is a relatively recent concept, as even within the last century there have been significant cultural and ethnic conflicts between different European groups. However, by and large I would agree that Americans of European descent, who we call "white", do share a sense of common identity.

 

[truthatallcost]

And yes, it does not make sense to talk about a European identity since the historical experience among different European nations was so diverse.

This is ridiculous. We're not talking about Europeans circa 1200, were talking about European identity today, which includes the phenomenon of the European Union, a common currency in the Euro, and the free movement between countries, which up until the introduction of a foreign non-European derived threat (Islamic terrorism) worked just fine. Of course there is a bond between people of European descent, which isn't replicated with people from other continents. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. Why do European expats living abroad naturally nod to each other in the street, or gravitate towards each other when they bump into each other in a cafe, or a crowded venue? Because they recognize others who possess the same identity. All this blabbering on about African Americans being the only people on earth with a shared identity, because only people whose ancestors were slaves in America have an identity? Who do you expect will believe this?

 

[pamak]

This is ridiculous. We're not talking about Europeans circa 1200, were talking about European identity today, which includes the phenomenon of the European Union, a common currency in the Euro, and the free movement between countries, which up until the introduction of a foreign non-European derived threat (Islamic terrorism) worked just fine. Of course there is a bond between people of European descent, which isn't replicated with people from other continents. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. Why do European expats living abroad naturally nod to each other in the street, or gravitate towards each other when they bump into each other in a cafe, or a crowded venue? Because they recognize others who possess the same identity. All this blabbering on about African Americans being the only people on earth with a shared identity, because only people whose ancestors were slaves in America have an identity? Who do you expect will believe this?

History ALWAYS plays role in shaping a group's identity, and history is as much relevant for that identity as it was in the past. If you think the opposite, then feel free to explain why a modern European who came to the US in the early 1900's as many Greeks and Southern Europeans did, should adopt an American identity that is linked to the Founding Fathers. What is the common history that comes as a result of "whiteness" between a white rancher in Texas and a white Jew or Greek in New York? By contrast, a black anywhere in the US has adopted the Black group's historical experience of slavery even if the particular person itself did not have his ancestors working as slaves in the US. This is similar to the American identity of a white Greek in NY and a white rancher in TX which comes by the common adoption of a historical narrative about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Here we do not talk about Europeans living abroad. We talk about Europeans who became AMERICANS! By the way, how do your recognize by his "whiteness" a European?

 

[JMaximus]

And yes, it does not make sense to talk about a European identity since the historical experience among different European nations was so diverse. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to talk about an African identity IN THE US because the African slaves came and lived (or died) as individuals and not as part of an ethnic group. In fact, many times even the slaves' family was separated as they were sold to different masters. Notice also that for both the Latinos and Native Americans, the identity is more about their particular tribe or ethnicity. For example, a Latino from Mexico will identify himself as Chicano ( Chicano - Wikipedia). We tend to call everybody "Mexican" but that is only because we "whites" give them such identity.
-----------------------



You do not need to have a personal connection for the identity . Perhaps her anscestors were not slaves in the US but other Somali Blacks were.





First of all, let's put things in the right perspective. The slavery in American was one of the most brutal forms that ever existed. The slaves in the Ottoman Empire and North Africa had rights that no slave in the US could enjoy or even dream that he could enjoy.

Mamluk - Wikipedia

Mamluk (Arabic: مملوك mamlūk (singular), مماليك mamālīk (plural), meaning "property", also transliterated as Mameluke, mamluq, mamluke, mameluk, mameluke, mamaluke or marmeluke) is an Arabic designation for slaves. The term is most commonly used to refer to non-muslim slave soldiers and Muslim rulers of slave origin

Now, after addressing the poor comparison of the different forms of slavery, I can agree with you that IF there was a white community in North Africa with roots to slavery, then THAT white community in THAT region would have a valid "white" identity because that identity would have been anchored on a common historical experience.

There is nothing of substance to your premise that group identity can only be based on "common historical experience".

It's just something you're making up.

 

[Irredentist]

This is ridiculous. We're not talking about Europeans circa 1200, were talking about European identity today, which includes the phenomenon of the European Union, a common currency in the Euro, and the free movement between countries, which up until the introduction of a foreign non-European derived threat (Islamic terrorism) worked just fine. Of course there is a bond between people of European descent, which isn't replicated with people from other continents. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. Why do European expats living abroad naturally nod to each other in the street, or gravitate towards each other when they bump into each other in a cafe, or a crowded venue? Because they recognize others who possess the same identity. All this blabbering on about African Americans being the only people on earth with a shared identity, because only people whose ancestors were slaves in America have an identity? Who do you expect will believe this?

Your argument seems sound for the most part, but at this point I must question the usefulness of the term "white" as applied to individuals of European descent. After all, it is not just Europeans who display the characteristically light skin tone and facial appearance that we associate with whiteness. Iranians and other Central Asians often display this phenotype as well, albeit not universally due to significant admixture from turkic peoples. So, if "whiteness" today functions more as a cultural and ethnic category than a racial one, perhaps the term itself is outdated.

 

[truthatallcost]

You do not need to have a personal connection for the identity . Perhaps her anscestors were not slaves in the US but other Somali Blacks were.

The North American slave trade consisted of Africans primarily purchased from West Africa. Somalia lies all the way on the exact opposite side of the continent, in eastern Africa. Arab slave traders, along with black slave traders were the ones to enslave people from eastern Africa. This is how the predominant religion in Somalia became Islam. Yet someone like Ilhan Omar, born in east Africa, emigrated to the USA as a child, and practicing a religion that 95% of religious African Americans don't practice, belongs to this same identity? It sounds to me like your criteria for belonging to black identity is based solely on skin color, while white Americans can't have a shared identity, because your criteria for them consists of a stringent plethora of minute differences which would negate any similarities. Very confusing.

 

[pamak]

There is nothing of substance to your premise that group identity can only be based on "common historical experience".

It's just something you're making up.

I give an explanation about how a group identity is formed, and specifically how a group identity is formed in America based on Black race! And I argue why it does not make sense to talk about a "European identity" in the US based on racial terms of "whiteness." If one wants to dispute what I say he is free to give his premise. I would like to see then, how he can explain such "European connection" when a person of English origin may be Black or of Indian origin with a long family history of his ancestors residing in UK.

 

[Irredentist]

The North American slave trade consisted of Africans primarily purchased from West Africa. Somalia lies all the way on the exact opposite side of the continent, in eastern Africa. Arab slave traders, along with black slave traders were the ones to enslave people from eastern Africa. This is how the predominant religion in Somalia became Islam. Yet someone like Ilhan Omar, born in east Africa, emigrated to the USA as a child, and practicing a religion that 95% of religious African Americans don't practice, belongs to this same identity? It sounds to me like your criteria for belonging to black identity is based solely on skin color, while white Americans can't have a shared identity, because your criteria for them consists of a stringent plethora of minute differences which would negate any similarities. Very confusing.

Technically I don't think Somalians belong to the same racial group as Subsaharan Africans. They have always tended to see themselves as a separate group, which from a genetic standpoint they are, being most closely related to North Africans.

 

[pamak]

The North American slave trade consisted of Africans primarily purchased from West Africa. Somalia lies all the way on the exact opposite side of the continent, in eastern Africa. Arab slave traders, along with black slave traders were the ones to enslave people from eastern Africa. This is how the predominant religion in Somalia became Islam. Yet someone like Ilhan Omar, born in east Africa, emigrated to the USA as a child, and practicing a religion that 95% of religious African Americans don't practice, belongs to this same identity? It sounds to me like your criteria for belonging to black identity is based solely on skin color, while white Americans can't have a shared identity, because your criteria for them consists of a stringent plethora of minute differences which would negate any similarities. Very confusing.

In West Africa is where they were traded. Slaves could come from Somalia too. See slave routes of map

Slavery in Africa - Wikipedia

The experience of slavery provides a common narrative for every black in the US.

 

[pamak]

Technically I don't think Somalians belong to the same racial group as Subsaharan Africans. They have always tended to see themselves as a separate group, which from a genetic standpoint they are, being most closely related to North Africans.

They do not have to belong to the same racial group. The key issue is the adoption of a common experience of slavery as the unifying glue that connects the members of the group. Let me give you an example talking about the Greeks. Today, modern Greeks are connected by the narative that they are part of a group which established historically the foundations of the western civilization. From a biological perspective, there is no doubt that there is a difference between ancient and modern Greeks and that the latter have been biologically influenced by other people, from Romans, to Arabs, to Venetians and even to northern European people like the Vikings ( When the Vikings met the Greeks - The Archaeology News Network)

Still, such biological details are completely irrelevant to modern Greeks and their identity.

 

[Huey Freeman]

Democrats have based their entire growth strategy on identity politics for several decades. Now that a segment of GOP voters appear to be following in your footsteps, you've finally found a branch of identity politics that you can't embrace :lamo

Whites are the masters of identity politics. Don't believe me? Calculate the probability of there being 43 white male Presidents in a row. This merits repeating. Calculate the probability of there being 43 white male Presidents elected consecutively. I'll even make this easier and just count both genders of blacks and whites. You don't even have to include the other racial groups. The p value is so low that it tells you that these events did not occur by random chance.

The reason "identity politics" even came up is because black people - for the first ****ing time in US history - are able to use their electoral clout to elect any mother****er that they want to. Obama proved that if you can get black voters mobilized, they, by themselves, will determine the outcome of a Presidential election. Indeed, we know that Hillary Clinton lost, in part, because the black vote wasn't as motivated with Obama. However, in Alabama, the black vote gave Doug Jones the first Democratic seat in Alabama since the 90's. And, white people hate that ****. "How dare the coloreds vote," white people fumed. And, in response, white people struck down a portion of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and went about on a spree to purge voter rolls. Georgia, for example, closed polling precinct in all of the black counties; in Randolph County, Georgia which is nearly 2/3 black and 430 square miles, white people closed 7 of 9 polling places. Think about that. This is all done to prevent blacks from engaging in our democracy and it is the reason why people of color now look at white people with contempt. How dare you monsters go around preaching to Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Turkey, China, or North Korea about their human rights abuses while you clowns hung people of color on trees, sic dogs on them, and use their bodies as kindling for your profane enjoyment; all the while, you actively come up with machinations to prevent people of color from voting while having the audacity to deny it to our faces.

 

[pamak]

Whites are the masters of identity politics. Don't believe me? Calculate the probability of there being 43 white male Presidents in a row. This merits repeating. Calculate the probability of there being 43 white male Presidents elected consecutively. I'll even make this easier and just count both genders of blacks and whites. You don't even have to include the other racial groups. The p value is so low that it tells you that these events did not occur by random chance.

The reason "identity politics" even came up is because black people - for the first ****ing time in US history - are able to use their electoral clout to elect any mother****er that they want to. Obama proved that if you can get black voters mobilized, they, by themselves, will determine the outcome of a Presidential election. Indeed, we know that Hillary Clinton lost, in part, because the black vote wasn't as motivated with Obama. However, in Alabama, the black vote gave Doug Jones the first Democratic seat in Alabama since the 90's. And, white people hate that ****. "How dare the coloreds vote," white people fumed. And, in response, white people struck down a portion of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and went about on a spree to purge voter rolls. Georgia, for example, closed polling precinct in all of the black counties; in Randolph County, Georgia which is nearly 2/3 black and 430 square miles, white people closed 7 of 9 polling places. Think about that. This is all done to prevent blacks from engaging in our democracy and it is the reason why people of color now look at white people with contempt. How dare you monsters go around preaching to Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Turkey, China, or North Korea about their human rights abuses while you clowns hung people of color on trees, sic dogs on them, and use their bodies as kindling for your profane enjoyment; all the while, you actively come up with machinations to prevent people of color from voting while having the audacity to deny it to our faces.

Let me add the decisions against the RACIAL gerrymandering which targeted blacks, and which of course, even though it was stopped in courts YEARS AFTER THE ELECTIONS, it STILL affected the constitutional rights of black voters, and of course the legal decision could not reverse the result of the past elections !

North Carolina's Racial Gerrymandering Was Unconstitutional - The Atlantic

The Supreme Court Finds North Carolina's Racial Gerrymandering Unconstitutional
The justices end a six-year fight over 2011 congressional maps that diluted black voting strength in the state.

 

[JMaximus]

I give an explanation about how a group identity is formed, and specifically how a group identity is formed in America based on Black race! And I argue why it does not make sense to talk about a "European identity" in the US based on racial terms of "whiteness." If one wants to dispute what I say he is free to give his premise.

I did dispute what you said.

I pointed out that your bull**** attempt to frame the issue in terms of "common historical experience" was bull****. Since your argument rests on that single premise, removing it alone is sufficient to dispute the entire argument. You've no longer a leg to stand on, as they say.

I would like to see then, how he can explain such "European connection" when a person of English origin may be Black or of Indian origin with a long family history of his ancestors residing in UK.

There is no need to explain such a thing. The thread is about white people - regardless of origin. The identity is based on common skin color (as the term 'white identity' would imply) not "common historical experience".

Your premise on what constitutes group identity is flawed and no one else is obliged to abide by it.

 

[truthatallcost]

1. When I was born in 1937, the word "American" was assumed to refer to a person of European ancestry.

Hey wtg Parser. Not to sound rude, but I'd figured you were in your 50s or so, which seems to be the average demographic age for DP.

2. There was no need for "Americans" to think of their "identity."

3. In those days, when an American went for a job interview, for example, her/his competitors were all Caucasians.

4. In 2019, when an American goes for a job interview, her/his competitors will be Americans of ALL ethnicities.

a. Is it so strange that growing numbers of Caucasians (whose proportion of the total population is shrinking) are starting to think about their "identity"? At job interviews, many Caucasians might understandably wonder whether their "identity" might hinder them from being hired.

b. Among Democrats, there is serious talk that either the presidential or the vice-presidential post must NOT be filled by a Caucasian. Again, is it any wonder that Caucasian candidates for either position think about their "identity" and how it will affect their chances?

I believe that simple survival instincts are beginning to bloom in Caucasian Americans minds. Canadian posters on DP used to say that they couldn't quite understand Americans obsession with race. That's because Canada was still 75-80% white, and so those Canadian posters unknowingly were experiencing the same kind of thing you describe in the USA of the 1930's- an unconscious benefit of living in a country where racial agitation and extortion isn't a reality. I haven't heard Canadians make the claim that America is overly obsessed about race in several years however, a sign that they too are headed down the same multicultural path, and good luck to them.

 

[Obscurity]

If whites lack an identity, and choose trump to be that identity, they do not deserve to have a choice in their identity.

 

[pamak]

I did dispute what you said.

I pointed out that your bull**** attempt to frame the issue in terms of "common historical experience" was bull****. Since your argument rests on that single premise, removing it alone is sufficient to dispute the entire argument. You've no longer a leg to stand on, as they say.



There is no need to explain such a thing. The thread is about white people - regardless of origin. The identity is based on common skin color (as the term 'white identity' would imply) not "common historical experience".

Your premise on what constitutes group identity is flawed and no one else is obliged to abide by it.

In other words, you are disputing by ranting instead by having a reasonable conversation to support your dispute.

If you wan to dispute what I say, do me a favor and follow the conversation I have with other posters. I was pushing back against the claim that "whiteness" can be used to form some type of "European identity." Unless one wants to be a racist...in which case it makes sense to push such narrative of "whiteness" even though there are no historical links to adopt such identity.

And yes, racists are not obliged to abide by what I say. They can push a narrative of "whiteness" even if it is unreasonable to use it as a bond among "Europeans" or among whites in general. You may be aware that there are whites in Latin America too who speak Spanish and Blacks in the UK who speak English (and many of them went there during the American Revolutionary War since the British promised them freedom from the colonial slavery!

 

[JMaximus]

...in which case it makes sense to push such narrative of "whiteness" even though there are no historical links to adopt such identity.

Only if you take the faulty position that identities are only valid if based on "historical links".

They can push a narrative of "whiteness" even if it is unreasonable to use it as a bond among "Europeans" or among whites in general. You may be aware that there are whites in Latin America too who speak Spanish and Blacks in the UK who speak English (and many of them went there during the American Revolutionary War since the British promised them freedom from the colonial slavery!

People who claim "white identity" may claim a lot of other identities as well, such "European identity".

Just because the two identities aren't one and the same does not mean they cannot be shared together.

Unless one wants to be a racist...
...

And yes, racists are not obliged to abide by what I say.

Calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a racist doesn't make you right.

 

[pamak]

Only if you take the faulty position that identities are only valid if based on "historical links".



People who claim "white identity" may claim a lot of other identities as well, such "European identity".

Just because the two identities aren't one and the same does not mean they cannot be shared together.



Calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a racist doesn't make you right.

I am not talking about JUST identities. I am talking about RACIAL identities of "whiteness" and "blackness" which are the PRIME identifiers of a group. And I explained why it does not make sense to have "white identity" playing such unifying role. Only racists would try to elevate the importance of "whiteness" and make it the prime characteristic of one's "European " or of any other additional "identity."

 

[JMaximus]

If whites lack an identity, and choose trump to be that identity, they do not deserve to have a choice in their identity.

Agreed.

We should discount an entire race of humanity just because we don't like their political preferences...

 

[JMaximus]

I am not talking about JUST identities. I am talking about RACIAL identities of "whiteness" and "blackness" which are the PRIME identifiers of a group. And I explained why it does not make sense to have "white identity" playing such unifying role. Only racists would try to elevate the importance of "whiteness" and make it the prime characteristic of one's "European " any other additional "identity."

And your explanation - that its members lack "historical links" and "common historical experiences" - is bull****.

It's an identity based on skin color. It doesn't require any kind of historical anything.

 

[pamak]

And your explanation - that its members lack "historical links" and "common historical experiences" - is bull****.

It's an identity based on skin color. It doesn't require any kind of historical anything.

An identity based on "skin color" and not common historical links is useless and can never really unify whites. This is why there are many white Europeans like me living in the US (and white Americans) who cannot accept with such racist identities and do not feel that belong to the same group that white racists want to belong! Ohh, add to the above things related to ethnic cultures, like that the Mexican culture is much closer to the Greek one than the German or English cultures. I can say the same for the southern Europeans in general.

 

[JMaximus]

An identity based on "skin color" and not common historical links is useless and can never really unify whites.

Says you. So far you've yet to demonstrate why that is so.

This is why there are many white Europeans like me living in the US (and white Americans) who cannot accept with such racist identities and do not feel that belong to the same group that white racists want to belong!

Your personal feelings are not an argument. Nor does continuing to call people who disagree with you racists make you right.

 

[pamak]

Says you. So far you've yet to demonstrate why that is so.



Your personal feelings are not an argument. Nor does continuing to call people who disagree with you racists make you right.

You confuse argument with physics where scientists set experiments to demonstrate the soundness of their theories.

I made an argument and presented different evidence to support it, including the fact that "whiteness" cannot even unify more than 50% of whites. This by itself shows why such bond is not valid to form a group identity.

 

[Obscurity]

Agreed.

We should discount an entire race of humanity just because we don't like their political preferences...

I'm sorry. Trump is not representative of me as a white. I dont identify as a racist and an authoritarian or a Christian.