White Anxiety, and a President Ready to Address It

[JMaximus]

It is up to the people, but it is also up to the type of the classification.

The classification is skin color. So skin color is the only common trait required.

You cannot expect the people to form a group identity under every type of the classification you use to classify them.

You also cannot dictate that they don't.

So, you are faced now with the simple reality that you cannot provide examples of how eye-color and white skin are effective today in forming such group identities when such links cannot even convince more than half of the white people (in the case of skin color). and when there are not any visible groups of "blue-eye" citizens working towards a common objective.

Whether people choose to adopt a possible identity or not (and in the case of "whiteness" many actually do) is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not such group identity is possible based on skin color alone (without necessary reference to "historical experience").

And my coverage of how these traits can identify groups has been more than adequate.

In other words, both concepts are not perceived as being valid to form a group identity, and I explained the reason (lack of common narrative).

Again, you are not the person to tell other people whether their concepts of group identity are "valid" or not.

From trying to dictate others' feelings to declaring their identity invalid your argument is moving from absurdism to straight-up authoritarianism.

 

[pamak]

Yet the whole thing about white privilege that those elites push doesn't apply to them.

Very convenient.

I do not see how this has anything to do with my quote that you address

 

[Parrish]

What nonsense. It was about taxes

All one has to do is look at old video of them demonstrating and read their posters and banners during that time. Fiscal responsibility and austerity was furthest from their minds. And the elected members of the Freedom caucuses all voted for 45's tax bill giving relief to the wealthiest of Americans and corporations.

 

[truthatallcost]

Of course Jews are not WASPs since WASP means White Anglo Saxon Protestant. But most Jews DO consider themselves whites. The same is true with the Greeks, Italians, and other whites who are not Anglo Saxons and Protestants. The fact that his response equated whites with only WASPs shows the mentality of an old era where Jews and Southern Europeans were not considered "true" whites.

It's really a loaded issue, because while on the one hand, most Jews go out of their way to asert that their ancestry is traceable to the mid east, they then turn around and accuse us of saying they're not white enough. I rarely ever hear Arabs complain that they're not racially accepted by whites. They'd probably laugh at the idea. But Jews are another matter, and they seem to want the distinction of being white when its profitable, and also want to believe that they're separate from white people.

 

[pamak]

The classification is skin color. So skin color is the only common trait required.



You also cannot dictate that they don't.



Whether people choose to adopt a possible identity or not (and in the case of "whiteness" many actually do) is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not such group identity is possible based on skin color alone (without necessary reference to "historical experience").

And my coverage of how these traits can identify groups has been more than adequate.



Again, you are not the person to tell other people whether their concepts of group identity are "valid" or not.

From trying to dictate others' feelings to declaring their identity invalid your argument is moving from absurdism to straight-up authoritarianism.

I do not dictate what people can do or cannot do. I just see the facts upon which I base my claims, and as long as you cannot provide evidence that the classification of "whites" unify white people you just express a personal hope of what you wish to happen with the classification of "whiteness" and not the reality around you.

Yes, in Nazi Germany's narrative such trait of "whiteness" could be used to form some identity but you like it or not today's world has rejected such narrative!

I am not trying to dictate YOUR feelings and I certainly know that I cannot dictate a racist's feelings. But I can still argue that your and his feelings are irrelevant in our modern society. And if you and he tries to push a narrative of a BS oppression of whites, he will have to give logical arguments to convince the vast majority of the white people about the narrative's validity!

 

[pamak]

It's really a loaded issue, because while on the one hand, most Jews go out of their way to asert that their ancestry is traceable to the mid east, they then turn around and accuse us of saying they're not white enough. I rarely ever hear Arabs complain that they're not racially accepted by whites. They'd probably laugh at the idea. But Jews are another matter, and they seem to want the distinction of being white when its profitable, and also want to believe that they're separate from white people.

Why it is wrong that Jews go out of their way to assert that their ancestry is traceable to the mid east, and how does it affect their "whiteness"?

Arabs will laugh with the idea that are at the same group with Europeans AND Jews but this is related again not to the color of the race but to the historical context (again the narrative) of the long-term confrontation with white supremacist European colonialists (where white meant only western-Europeans) and Jews (the latter more so in the 20th and 21th century).

 

[Airyaman]

As much as I'd like to blindly believe in a Tweet from an MSNBC media personality, which contains no link to a main source, I think I've learned how foolhardy that is.

Let's unpack Ms Bertrand's Tweet now:



International terrorism arrests were higher than arrests for domestic terrorism, which Chris Wray's spokeswoman had to admit amounted to 90, not 100.



Hmm, we're getting more vague by the second. Now the 'statistic' rules out much of domestic terrorism, to only focus on domestic terrorism with a racial motivation attached.



'Most' of the 40% of domestic terrorism cases that involve racial motivation, are white supremacists. Well, now we have no idea what percentage of domestic terrorism cases are attributable to white supremacists, besides that its 'most of 40%', which could be any number from 20.1% to 39.9%.

:doh :doh :doh :doh :doh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f352c66a0c3b

So Wray got it wrong, not Bertrand? Is that what this post is about? Or was it that there was indeed an increase in domestic terrorism arrests? Or was it that 40% of 850 (that's 350) cases being investigated were racially motivated, most of them from white supremacists?

Not sure what you were trying to convey.

 

[JMaximus]

I do not dictate what people can do or cannot do. I just see the facts upon which I base my claims, and as long as you cannot provide evidence that the classification of "whites" unify white people you just express a personal hope of what you wish to happen with the classification of "whiteness" and not the reality around you.

'Unify' has nothing to do with anything. It's just another irrelevant condition you've introduced (along with historical experience and nationality) to obfuscate what is really a simple issue that happens to be contrary to your worldview.

Yes, in Nazi Germany's narrative such trait of "whiteness" could be used to form some identity but you like it or not today's world has rejected such narrative!

I am not trying to dictate YOUR feelings and I certainly know that I cannot dictate a racist's feelings. But I can still argue that your and his feelings are irrelevant in our modern society. And if you and he tries to push a narrative of a BS oppression of whites, he will have to give logical arguments to convince the vast majority of the white people about the narrative's validity!

Unfortunately, racist and irrelevant don't equal wrong (incorrect).

 

[Grand Mal]

What does pick one mean?

Pick one or don't. I don't care. I'm not going to chase you around in circles, I'm just telling you that 'white identity' is no identity at all. If you want to identify as something and can't decide, then 'white' fills in a blank, I guess, but it means nothing.

 

[truthatallcost]

So Wray got it wrong, not Bertrand? Is that what this post is about? Or was it that there was indeed an increase in domestic terrorism arrests?

You wouldn't expect a journalist employed by MSNBC and Politico to fact check something before disseminating it for public view, apparently. Makes sense.

Or was it that 40% of 850 (that's 350) cases being investigated were racially motivated, most of them from white supremacists?

No. The WaPo story doesn't specify the exact number. Notice that we aren't being given concrete data from Wray's office, yet the MSM is nonetheless pushing the narrative of white supremacist terrorists. Since last October, the FBI has made more arrests in cases of international terrorism than domestic terrorism. Even with the supposed 'rise in white supremacism', the FBI continues to arrest more international terrorists, i.e. foreign related terrorists.

Not sure what you were trying to convey.

You admitted that the Tweet you linked to 'got it wrong', but you don't know what I'm trying to convey. Hm, right.

 

[Deuce]

Not necessarily-




Migration is what causes some people to lose their native culture, and these African Americans never lost theirs, because they simply remained in place as a community. Blacks who moved away to New York, Chicago, or elsewhere lost their connection to their roots the same way that Italians who left Little Italy did, as they made their way to other states.

You understand that for hundreds of years that “migration” wasn’t actually consensual, right?

 

[truthatallcost]

Why it is wrong that Jews go out of their way to assert that their ancestry is traceable to the mid east, and how does it affect their "whiteness"?

When we're talking about white identity, somehow I doubt that anyone pictures an Arab from Saudi Arabia, or a Sephardic rabbi. We know who were referring to when we discuss white people, and sorry, but Jews have a long history of lumping every non-Jewish person into one category (gentile), and declaring themselves superior to them, thus willfully separating themselves.

Arabs will laugh with the idea that are at the same group with Europeans AND Jews but this is related again not to the color of the race but to the historical context (again the narrative) of the long-term confrontation with white supremacist European colonialists (where white meant only western-Europeans) and Jews (the latter more so in the 20th and 21th century).

Wow. Read a friggin history book. Jewish slave traders owned the European slave trade at one time, where they traded in Christian Europeans (6th century onwards). We hear so much about pogroms and antisemitism, without so much as a word about why Europeans came to adopt antisemitism. Instead, we're fed a steady diet if historical half-truths, lies, and insinuations that are designed to make one believe that Europeans are just genetically monstrous unless kept under control.

 

[Parrish]

News — FBI

Most US cases of terrorism cases are home grown. OOPS, TAAC.

 

[truthatallcost]

News — FBI

Most US cases of terrorism cases are home grown. OOPS, TAAC.

Most domestic terrorists are homegrown Parrish? Lol, you're cute.

 

[pamak]

'Unify' has nothing to do with anything. It's just another irrelevant condition you've introduced (along with historical experience and nationality) to obfuscate what is really a simple issue that happens to be contrary to your worldview



Unfortunately, racist and irrelevant don't equal wrong (incorrect).

The ability to unify people in a group is a veryyyyyy relevant and necessary concept for any SOCIAL or POLITICAL action. It is you, who tries to change the reality when you see that it does not provide evidence that agree with your views. if you want to create meaningless groups in your head or in some laboratory based on some common biological characteristic you choose, you can certainly do so. If you expect to mobilize a group to vote and support political action based on such identities, you are delusional.

 

[pamak]

When we're talking about white identity, somehow I doubt that anyone pictures an Arab from Saudi Arabia, or a Sephardic rabbi. We know who were referring to when we discuss white people, and sorry, but Jews have a long history of lumping every non-Jewish person into one category (gentile), and declaring themselves superior to them, thus willfully separating themselves.

No, we do not know who you are referring to. And I will remind you in case you forgot that we live in the USA and not in Saudi Arabia or the Middle East. And no, I cannot imagine an Arab or Jew in the US who does not see himself as white. Nor do I see any classification in the US regarding race that includes concepts like "Jew" or "Arab." So, you just pull things out of your ass!

And the fact that Jews may lump others as "gentiles" does not mean that they believe that they are not whites. I know Greeks who classify the word in Greeks and "non-Greeks." On top of that, it is ridiculous to use the word "Jew" in the way you use the word "white." The concept of "Jew" is more narrow and is closer to the concept of "Greek" or "AngloSaxon."

Wow. Read a friggin history book. Jewish slave traders owned the European slave trade at one time, where they traded in Christian Europeans (6th century onwards). We hear so much about pogroms and antisemitism, without so much as a word about why Europeans came to adopt antisemitism. Instead, we're fed a steady diet if historical half-truths, lies, and insinuations that are designed to make one believe that Europeans are just genetically monstrous unless kept under control.

Ohh wait a minute!

Are you telling me that antisemitism was justified because the Jewwwwwwwwwws traded slaves? Why was this antisemitism ONLY against the Jews and not the other Semitic people like the Arabs? And what about the slave trade of the AngloSaxons? And what abut the slave trade of the Romans or the Greeks earlier? It is you who needs to actually learn world history!


So why do not you reveal your real face and stop the double language in your posts? I dare you to tells us YOUR definition of "whiteness." You gradually reveal that your "white" America does not include the Jews. It also does not include the Arabs and the Middle-Easterners in general. It certainly does not include the Turks (who are not Arabs) and obviously does not include Latinos, Blacks and Asians.

 

[marke]

So Wray got it wrong, not Bertrand? Is that what this post is about? Or was it that there was indeed an increase in domestic terrorism arrests? Or was it that 40% of 850 (that's 350) cases being investigated were racially motivated, most of them from white supremacists?

Not sure what you were trying to convey.

We live in a nation heavily influenced by bias against whites, Christians and conservatives. Are whites assaulting cops on city streets and celebrating that sort of thing? Not usually but those who do are dummass rebels against civilization.

Do white lawmakers call on their supporters to go out and attack democrats and their families at restaurants? Not usually but those who do are uncivilized barbarians.

 

[phattonez]

Are you telling me that antisemitism was justified because the Jewwwwwwwwwws traded slaves? Why was this antisemitism ONLY against the Jews and not the other Semitic people like the Arabs?

1. Because Jews lived in Europe. Arabs didn't.
2. Did you forget the countless wars between Christians and Muslims? The many invasions? The crusades?

 

[pamak]

1. Because Jews lived in Europe. Arabs didn't.
2. Did you forget the countless wars between Christians and Muslims? The many invasions? The crusades?

1 You should communicate with your buddy because his explanation was because Jews traded slaves
2 Christians and Muslims are not races. By the way, the white Christians of western Europe sacked Constantinople also which had Orthodox, white Christians (Sack of Constantinople (1204) - Wikipedia).

Not only that but the Byzantine Empire fought against Arabs and Muslims too and in fact it was the Byzantine Empire which received most of the blows from both of them. And Jews were also present in the Byzantine Empire (and later the Ottoman Empire).

Still, the most brutal form of antisemitism developed in northern Europe!

 

[pamak]

...

Same challenge for you:

Tell us which type of "whites" are included in your list. You accidentally revealed that you include only WASPs (White- Anglo-Saxon-Protestants) but I want you to be clear about it.

It seems for whatever reasons you do not include the Jews. Correct?
I guess, you do not also include the Arabs and the Turks. Correct?
I would not be surprised if you do not include the Greeks too. They look more like the Jews and the Arabs than the Northern Europeans.

Are you going to change US forms (including immigration forms) to make sure that there is a racial classification for American "Jews," Greeks, "Slavs" and all other whites that are not part of your list of "real" WASP whites?

 

[Airyaman]

We live in a nation heavily influenced by bias against whites, Christians and conservatives. Are whites assaulting cops on city streets and celebrating that sort of thing? Not usually but those who do are dummass rebels against civilization.

Do white lawmakers call on their supporters to go out and attack democrats and their families at restaurants? Not usually but those who do are uncivilized barbarians.

What is this nonsense?

 

[marke]

What is this nonsense?

To sum up, those public figures who have advocated assaulting republicans in restaurants are barbarians. And those morons who have marched down city streets calling for cops to be murdered or fried like pigs in a blanket are savage barbarians also. Anyone assaulting a cop is an idiot. And so forth.

 

[dixon01767]

Liberal means the same today as it always has.

No it does not.

 

[JMaximus]

The ability to unify people in a group is a veryyyyyy relevant and necessary concept for any SOCIAL or POLITICAL action. It is you, who tries to change the reality when you see that it does not provide evidence that agree with your views. if you want to create meaningless groups in your head or in some laboratory based on some common biological characteristic you choose, you can certainly do so. If you expect to mobilize a group to vote and support political action based on such identities, you are delusional.

Now you want to add "social and political action" and "voting" to your bag of unnecessary and irrelevant conditions for group identity based on skin color?

Your list of 'no true white person' conditions just gets longer the more you post. So far, it's at:

• Historical experience
• Historical context
• Nationality
• Social action
• Political action
• Voting

Yet in spite of all these contrived parameters - so contrived, it should be made clear, as a matter of convenience to your argument and not out of necessity or appeal to actual reality - countless numbers of people - some on this very forum - consider themselves part of 'white identity' just because their skin is light-colored.

... if you want to create meaningless groups in your head or in some laboratory based on some common biological characteristic you choose, you can certainly do so.

I don't want to do anything. The people involved will decide the characteristics important to their identity and, if they choose, relate to others who have identified themselves in a way they find similar/appealing/whatever.

If you expect to mobilize a group to vote and support political action based on such identities, you are delusional.

I don't expect to do anything. The people who identify with these various groups will decide what they want to do - they are free humans. I also won't tell them how to feel or declare their identify invalid (because I'm not a fascist).

You seem to be missing the central idea here: group identity is a matter up to the people identified and the groups they choose to identify with. It isn't up to me. And it isn't up to you.

Your attempt to introduce condition after condition in an effort to support your declaration against other people's identities as 'invalid' doesn't constitute a real argument; it just constitutes the nutty ramblings of an openly authoritarian bigot.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Left leaning posters- which is it; are white people a monolithic group that needs to be punished for the collective misdeeds 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.

Neither.

When this country was founded power in terms of politics and finance was held almost exclusively by Anglo-Saxon land owners. They had their own biases and beliefs that varied from person to person (Ben Franklin did not like Germans one bit), whereas Alexander Hamilton was largely against slavery, but overall they professed a distaste towards people unlike them, and they had a very narrow definition (compared to today) as to whom they accepted more or less as equals.

Take for example the Irish, who during the early decades of the United States were seen as violent and alcoholic, with anti-Irish sentiment hitting a peak in the 1840s. But then after the civil war there was a noticeable drop off in it, as it gradually faded (though not completely) from public perception. Coincidentally, after the civil war is when blacks were free and black men got the right to vote. Funny how that is.

Then in the early 20th Century it was the Italians who got the same treatment, being seen as criminals, violent, and untrustworthy. They were the primary target of the Immigration Quotas of the 1920s, and to a lesser degree Eastern Europeans. Funny thing is, you ask the average person today if Italians and Slavs are white, you get the same answer if you ask if Irish are white. And after the Civil Rights movement kicked off, suddenly that anti-Italian sentiment faded from public view. Of course you still had stereotypes, as you do for everyone, but none of the institutionalized segregation and de facto discrimination.

It's almost like you could summarize American history of social progress with the fact that every time we made some major leap in terms of egalitarianism towards racial and ethnic minorities, the definition of "white" becomes a lot more inclusive, and the people that were previously stigmatized were welcome into the fold.

After all, can you imagine the religious right of the 1980s embracing Milo Yiannopoulos?