• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread "White Supremacist" really has no meaning anymore.

catsmate said:
Why is it captioned in English?
Click to expand...

That's to convince Americans of how scientific it all is. Americans can't read Cyrillic, you know that. ETA: It's a genetic flaw in our makeup. Ask any Russian.

I like how the Tatar is a dead ringer for Lenin.
 
Last edited:
sackett said:
That's to convince Americans of how scientific it all is. Americans can't read Cyrillic, you know that.

I like how the Tatar is a dead ringer for Lenin.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of that toy where you get a guy's face and steer metal flecks around with a magnet to make beards and stuff
 
big controversy with this piece, about 40 years ago it came out the original artist switched the georgian and the armenian and the guy that posed for the azerbaijani face was actually a moldovan.

so i don't know who to trust
 
Venom said:
Well yeah the common color connotation of white in terms of specific skin tone and phenotype is stronger than the other races, and that's what makes it wildy inconsistent. Call the races A, B, and C if you like. It doesn't make their observations unsound. Some regions of the world like India are mixed race and the people can be placed along a phenotypic spectrum. People on one end of that spectrum like Freddie Mercury and Nikki Haley have white privilege in Western countries when their origins are concealed and there's no "brown" connotation that taints their image in the eyes of racists. There's your cultural construction.

The fact that people often associate countries with a single stereotypical look when several races can occur inside a single country or even in a single ethnic group doesn't invalidate the scientific findings. It just means people are simple minded.
Click to expand...


Yes, in fact 'population group A, B, and C' would be more valid the vast majority of the time. It's almost always sub-populations inside what is commonly thought of as 'races' that have any of claimed shared characteristic besides skin color (and often not even that).

You need to read the thread title. Talking about the influence that early mistaken ideas about human variation had on the concept of whiteness and white supremacy is in no way enlightened by bringing up tendencies of skull shape in sub-populations that almost if you squint and set the goalposts in a very specific place correlate to some old boundaries of 'race'. You can always move those boundaries up or down to come up with tendencies. It's set seeking as well as irrelevant.

Again, the common, public, ideas of 'race' are the ones under discussion.
 
tyr_13 said:
Yes, in fact 'population group A, B, and C' would be more valid the vast majority of the time. It's almost always sub-populations inside what is commonly thought of as 'races' that have any of claimed shared characteristic besides skin color (and often not even that).

You need to read the thread title. Talking about the influence that early mistaken ideas about human variation had on the concept of whiteness and white supremacy is in no way enlightened by bringing up tendencies of skull shape in sub-populations that almost if you squint and set the goalposts in a very specific place correlate to some old boundaries of 'race'. You can always move those boundaries up or down to come up with tendencies. It's set seeking as well as irrelevant.

Again, the common, public, ideas of 'race' are the ones under discussion.
Click to expand...

This series of sidetrack posts was a response to post 347 you need to remember.
 
tyr_13 said:
That they were not motivated by what we today call white supremacy doesn't mean they didn't refine the idea of what we would today call 'white race(s)'. Again, d4m10n's attempted handwave of that aside. One even used that exact term.
Click to expand...
Speaking of handwaves, did you ever answer my question about whether those early scientific attempts at formulating races came up with a concept which even sort of matches "whiteness" as commonly understood today? Last I checked, we don't generally include either Amerindians or the peoples of the Indian subcontinent under the heading of whiteness.

tyr_13 said:
Again, the common, public, ideas of 'race' are the ones under discussion.
Click to expand...

Precisely. In order to be promoting "white supremacy" in the modern sense of the phrase you need a concept of "whiteness" which reasonably resembles the current one plus the idea that those peoples are better than others in some important sense. Your two examples were lacking on both counts, which is why I questioned whether you read your own sources.
 
Last edited:
tyr_13 said:
You demanded both early uses of 'whiteness as a concept' and 'white supremacy' because you argued the latter could only happen after the former. You now complain that being given proof of the existence of the former is 'punking you' and that the previous links with dated pictures refencing the race based chattle slavery isn't evidence for either.

You're not being serious. Engaging with your pseudo-intellectual filibuster is always a mistake. Hopefully others will ignore your requests and move the conversation on.
Click to expand...

tyr_13 said:
He's already hand-waved explicit racial categorization as 'counting' as the idea of 'whiteness' or racialization growing because it wasn't also explicitly white-supremacists and didn't map close enough to modern ideas of 'whiteness'. This ignores that even today what constitutes 'whiteness' is both in flux and has slightly different meanings in different groups. 'Do Italians and Indians count as white' shouldn't be enough to dismiss the explicit category of a 'white race', but here we are.

It's just the line drawing fallacy as a filibuster. It will never be a definitive enough 'line' to match, even if that takes rampant goalpost moving.
Click to expand...

d4m10n said:
Speaking of handwaves, did you ever answer my question about whether those early scientific attempts at formulating races came up with a concept which even sort of matches "whiteness" as commonly understood today? Last I checked, we don't generally include either Amerindians or the peoples of the Indian subcontinent under the heading of whiteness.



Precisely. In order to be promoting "white supremacy" in the modern sense of the phrase you need a concept of "whiteness" which reasonably resembles the current one plus the idea that those peoples are better than others in some important sense. Your two examples were lacking on both counts, which is why I questioned whether you read your own sources.
Click to expand...


I did and you're still not serious with nonsense goalposts that if you took them seriously would require absurd conclusions like real 'white supremacy' not existing in the 1940's because Italians and Irish weren't yet considered white people.

You were proven wrong and are now hanging your hat on 'white supremacy' being inconsistent as if that were the fault of the people observing it and not a flaw with the idea itself. Because you seem to have failed to incorporate this knowledge into your reasoning, or are pretending to have not, it is important to remind everyone that white supremacy is bad and stupid and always has been. The apologetics of pretending something can't be the 'really bad stuff' because it's not really 'white' is likewise, flatly stupid. There are brown people today who support white supremacy because they think they're the 'white people' of their areas. Yes, that is stupid and no, that doesn't make it any less observably true. The semantic wonkery of trying to say something isn't really the thing we agree is very bad and harmful because 'white' is a stupid concept to begin with isn't sound reasoning. It's the Straw Vulcan school of critical thinking.
 
It is not as if the Nazis ever came up with an objective definition of Aryan, which didn't prevent them from declaring Aryan supremacy.

An anecdote: The mother of a German friend of mine was looked down upon in her village during the Third Reich because she had brown eyes and very black hair. The other children called her a Gypsy.

The Nazis had teams of 'race specialists' who travelled all over the country to measure children's skulls to determine if they were real 'Aryans'. Fortunately for her, she was one of very few children whose skull came close to the 'Aryan' ideal.

Nazi racial theories considered the "purest stock of Aryans" the Nordic people, identified by physical anthropological features such as tallness, white skin, blue eyes, narrow and straight noses, doliocephalic skulls, prominent chins, and blond hair, including Scandinavians, Germans, English and French, with Nordic and Germanic people being the "master race" (German: Herrenrasse).
Aryan Race: Connotation of the term Aryan in Nazi racial theories (Wikipedia)
Click to expand...


And nowadays, we have DNA! :)
White Supremacists, You Won't Like Your DNA Results (The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on YouTube, Oct 7, 2017 - 5:27 min)

White Supremacist Learns He's 14% Black (HuffPost, Nov 13, 2012 - 2:23 min)

White officer sues, claims racism after finding out he's 18 percent African (Click On Detroit| Local 4 | WDIV on YouTube, April 6, 2018 - 2:36 min)
 
tyr_13 said:
I did and you're still not serious with nonsense goalposts that if you took them seriously would require absurd conclusions like real 'white supremacy' not existing in the 1940's because Italians and Irish weren't yet considered white people.
Click to expand...
I find it amazing that asking for a coherent and usable definition of the actual thread subject is considered "nonsense goalposts" around here.

tyr_13 said:
...it is important to remind everyone that white supremacy is bad and stupid and always has been.
Click to expand...
I never suggested otherwise and it strikes me as moral grandstanding for you to pretend I did so.

tyr_13 said:
The semantic wonkery of trying to say something isn't really the thing we agree is very bad and harmful because 'white' is a stupid concept to begin with isn't sound reasoning.
Click to expand...
What exactly is the thing we agree is bad and harmful, in your view? The OP doesn't provide a definition.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I find it amazing that asking for a coherent and usable definition of the actual thread subject is considered "nonsense goalposts" around here.
Click to expand...

tyr_13 said:
You demanded both early uses of 'whiteness as a concept' and 'white supremacy' because you argued the latter could only happen after the former. You now complain that being given Uproof of the existence of the former is 'punking you' and that the previous links with dated pictures refencing the race based chattle slavery isn't evidence for either.
Click to expand...


d4m10n said:
I never suggested otherwise and it strikes me as moral grandstanding for you to pretend I did so.
Click to expand...

tyr_13 said:
Because you seem to have failed to incorporate this knowledge into your reasoning, or are pretending to have not, it is important to remind everyone that white supremacy is bad and stupid and always has been. The apologetics of pretending something can't be the 'really bad stuff' because it's not really 'white' is likewise, flatly stupid.
Click to expand...


d4m10n said:
What exactly is the thing we agree is bad and harmful, in your view? The OP doesn't provide a definition.
Click to expand...

tyr_13 said:
You demanded both early uses of 'whiteness as a concept' and 'white supremacy' because you argued the latter could only happen after the former.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning still demands that 'white supremacy' as it is used today didn't exist when Italians and Irish weren't considered 'white'. When did that stop? Early 1980's? If you reject the concept of 'white races' being applicable in the 1700's for 'white races' being inconsistent, you have to reject the same of the 1980's. Your reason leads to absurd conclusions and your demands are absolutely contingent on 'whiteness' as a concept being reasonable enough to you to be an argument. There is no requirement that the concept make sense to be applied, because people act on absurd concepts all the time (like you here).
 
d4m10n said:
What exactly is the thing we agree is bad and harmful, in your view? The OP doesn't provide a definition.
Click to expand...

As the reason for the OP, let me state that's it's really not "White Supremacy" as a political movement. Rather, the issue is the use of "White Supremacy" as an excuse to cancel or deride anything that those on the far left do not like. For example, if you do not accept that a trans identified man is a woman, then you're a White Supremacist.

Transphobia is a White Supremacist Legacy of Colonialism
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
As the reason for the OP, let me state that's it's really not "White Supremacy" as a political movement. Rather, the issue is the use of "White Supremacy" as an excuse to cancel or deride anything that those on the far left do not like. For example, if you do not accept that a trans identified man is a woman, then you're a White Supremacist.

Transphobia is a White Supremacist Legacy of Colonialism
Click to expand...

Seems like you might be giving the author of that article a lot more credibility than they actually have. Do you think Paramo speaks for the political left or something?
 
dann said:
It is not as if the Nazis ever came up with an objective definition of Aryan, which didn't prevent them from declaring Aryan supremacy.

An anecdote: The mother of a German friend of mine was looked down upon in her village during the Third Reich because she had brown eyes and very black hair. The other children called her a Gypsy.

The Nazis had teams of 'race specialists' who travelled all over the country to measure children's skulls to determine if they were real 'Aryans'. Fortunately for her, she was one of very few children whose skull came close to the 'Aryan' ideal.

And nowadays, we have DNA! :)
Click to expand...

The interesting thing is it seems the Anglosphere historically has been a bit stricter about who's Aryan or "white" than even the Nazis. The Nazis didn't claim people with dark features are non-Aryan, but you can hear everyday Americans think this about white. Pull up that Benjamin Franklin quote about fellow Europeans being "tawny" and not literally white enough for his taste lol.

I'm guessing the black-white dichotomy of American race relations caused this more than anything else. That any perceived deviation from the whitest British islander-white is a sign of foreign admixture or something, when it's just as likely to be simple internal variation.
 
Trausti said:
Don't leave out the Soviets, comrade.

Sketches used by the Soviet police to identify suspects based on ethnicity, 1960s

[IMGw=800]https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2D3KwFLoz8c/X3-L5JyAVHI/AAAAAAAAaPI/AwyNQDpv1DYhcZ38nISdNTE47cjKZzc_ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1200/typical-face-soviet-union.jpg[/IMGw]
Click to expand...

That the Soviet Government often treated non Russian people as second class citiznes was a major inspiration for George Orwell line in "Animal Farm":
"All Animals are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Then Others".
 
Thermal said:
Seems like you might be giving the author of that article a lot more credibility than they actually have. Do you think Paramo speaks for the political left or something?
Click to expand...

well it was on medium. it's not one of those websites where anyone can write anything they want there.
 
You're a White Supremacist if you listen to classical music.

It’s Time to Let Classical Music Die

Western classical music is not about culture. It’s about whiteness. It’s a combination of European traditions which serve the specious belief that whiteness has a culture—one that is superior to all others. Its main purpose is to be a cultural anchor for the myth of white supremacy.
Click to expand...

Do you drink coffee? You're a White Supremacist.

Is coffee racist? How drinking coffee perpetuates white supremacy

Created by Black people for Black people—and now a pillar of white supremacist capitalism. If you consume coffee, you are helping an industry built on racism.
Click to expand...
 
Trausti said:
It's a frequent refrain.
Click to expand...

OK, but opinion pieces ate often put up exactly because they're unusual or controversial, not because they represent mainstream thought.

Like, if you asked the average left leaner if they thought classical music was white supremacist, they'd likely laugh in your face, and mean it.

Would you put up an article by an actual Nazi endorsing genocide as a widely accepted view of the political right, or would that be "different"?
 
Archived from the Washington Post:

Once reserved for the gravest of racial trespasses, thanks to the influence of Kendi and other charlatans like Robin DiAngelo, “racism” is now routinely employed to describe anything from workplace microaggressions to terrorist attacks. The march on Charlottesville was white supremacy, but so too is asking Black people to show up to Zoom meetings on time. The anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss called such terms “floating signifiers”: bits of phraseology that are “void of meaning and thus apt to receive any meaning.” The mainstreaming of Kendi’s brand of anti-racism has made “racism” into a word so plastic as to have lost all descriptive power — and with it all moral magnitude. At a moment when actual white supremacy is on the rise, the loss of “racist” as a condemnation with real ethical and political power is of grave consequence and may ironically be Kendi’s most significant contribution to American politics.
Click to expand...
 
Thermal said:
OK, but opinion pieces ate often put up exactly because they're unusual or controversial, not because they represent mainstream thought.

Like, if you asked the average left leaner if they thought classical music was white supremacist, they'd likely laugh in your face, and mean it.

Would you put up an article by an actual Nazi endorsing genocide as a widely accepted view of the political right, or would that be "different"?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Often I think people play dumb about the obfuscation. I don't think it takes a genius to not get distracted by more fringe opinions on social justice out there.
 
Venom said:
Exactly. Often I think people play dumb about the obfuscation. I don't think it takes a genius to not get distracted by more fringe opinions on social justice out there.
Click to expand...

For fringe opinions they have a tight grip and hold sway over the Republican party.
 
Darat said:
For fringe opinions they have a tight grip and hold sway over the Republican party.
Click to expand...

it really depends on whether you're defining fringe as unpopular or crazy. often, they go hand in hand, but not always
 
Trausti said:
You're a White Supremacist if you listen to classical music.

It’s Time to Let Classical Music Die



Do you drink coffee? You're a White Supremacist.

Is coffee racist? How drinking coffee perpetuates white supremacy
Click to expand...

Perfect examples. Both are written by blatant anti-white racists, both are bat **** crazy, and more than a little stupid in their treatment of facts.

By your reasoning, the most virulent Klansmen and Nazis are "representative of the right". You have no intellectual high ground to object when the political right is portrayed as such. It's your own fruit-loopy standard being used. For my part, I don't take crackpot extremes as representative of the mainstream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom