• 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.

arthwollipot said:
Yeah, I think I'd require some evidence of that claim.
Click to expand...

Thinking back to my university days in the 1980's, all of my professors were white and male. I expect that the course, Physics, was a major factor but I wouldn't have expected a great deal of diversity in other science and engineering departments.

As a result a smaller proportion of professors are white and male (well is couldn't realistically be higher) and I suppose that some of the unsuccessful candidates would blame "woke" in the event that a woman, person of colour and or member of some minority was successful. Back in the day, when everyone was white and male I suppose they would have blamed the old boy network or some other factor - rather than their own deficiencies.

I don't doubt that a smaller proportion of academic positions are being secured by white males than in the past, but ISTM that the problem was a lack of opportunity back then rather than some kind of conspiracy against white males these days.
 
The Don said:
That sounds like you're claiming that no white males are currently being employed in academic positions where there is at least one candidate who is not a white male.

That doesn't sound right to me. :confused:
Click to expand...

It means that it is currently very hard for a white male to get a job in academia, no matter how well qualified he is.
 
arthwollipot said:
Again, I think I would require evidence to support that claim.
Click to expand...

Here's the faculty from my alma mater.

https://www.bristol.ac.uk/people/?search=Faculty+of+Science/Physics

It seems that some white males are still managing to slip through the cracks. :rolleyes:

Clearly their days are numbered given that the department has a policy on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.

https://www.bristol.ac.uk/physics/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/

In my year of a few hundred Physics undergraduates, only four were women and although there were a number of foreign students mainly from Hong Kong, Malaysia and other parts of the Commonwealth, the vast majority were British and almost all of them were white. There's a lot of room for more inclusivity without excluding white males.
 
The Don said:
In my year of a few hundred Physics undergraduates, only four were women and although there were a number of foreign students mainly from Hong Kong, Malaysia and other parts of the Commonwealth, the vast majority were British and almost all of them were white. There's a lot of room for more inclusivity without excluding white males.
Click to expand...
This is what I see, too. Those who are in the historically privileged class (generally white cis hetero men) always see the inclusion of people not of that class as an erosion of their positions.

The student intake at the Australian National University (ANU), which is well known to me because I can literally see it right now if I look out the window, is 1/3 international and 2/3 domestic. Of the international students, 74% are from China (source, 2021). It would be wrong of me to look at all the Chinese students and claim that it's hard for white students of British ancestry to get a position there.
 
Venom said:
We don't need an exact date when pan-European whiteness became a thing.
Click to expand...
I'd be content with a highly approximate date, or even a couple early instances of the idea in print. There is no “white supremacy” prior to the cultural construction of whiteness, IMO.

Venom said:
No, these weren't perfectly consistent across the Spanish, Portuguese, English, Dutch territories, but more or less they agreed on whites being on top and in control.
Click to expand...
As these four nations vied for power in North America over the first few centuries of colonization, about all they could agree upon was the need for Native American allies with significant territorial control within the continental interior—Pekka Hämäläinen published an excellent book about this historical process in 2022. Europeans also agreed that their own nations ought to prevail in the struggle to take and hold territory, even when that meant other "whites" were slain by native allies.

Venom said:
And I don't find it a coincidence that "whiteness" is by and large the obsession of New World/diaspora Europeans.
Click to expand...
I've no way of testing this claim, but it sounds plausible.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'd be content with a highly approximate date, or even a couple early instances of the idea in print.
Click to expand...

The cited links do contain some of that though? I'm not sure what more specifically you'll demand, but that's a weird request.

Off the top of my head it's inarguable that by the 1750's it was a coherent concept. The US literally defined citizens by the 1790's as 'free white men'. Iirc, it was the early 1600's when the idea of 'white people' became popular, but I'm not sure it made it into legal codes by then.

I suspect this is an attempt at the 'Line Drawing Fallacy' where even highly related concepts will be rejected and the inability to meet a specific 'line' will be used to downplay the entire argument.
 
arthwollipot said:
Nice dodge. Any evidence yet that it's impossible for white men to get a job in academia?
Click to expand...


Not wanting to again discuss your ideology is not dodging any claim, and I didn’t claim it was impossible for whtie men to get a job in academia.
 
Last edited:
"why should i, you wouldn't believe me anyway" always a convincing argument
 
ahhell said:
By any reasonable definition, not in any positions of power.
Click to expand...

Depends on how yo define power. Do you think everyone who holds an office is completely in charge of that office? There is also the question as the whether or not Elder's run was a good faith attempt at winning the office and not just an attempt at publicity.

So, the phrase has expanded to mean things in addition to what it used, what do call the ideology of the klan, WAR, et al now? Otherwise, its conflating a bunch of stuff. Which I think is the probably why some folks are doing it.
Click to expand...

People like you, mainly
 
Last edited:
"It's hard for white men to get hired in academia" is such a wild claim. It rather betrays a right wing echo-chamber diet of media.
 
tyr_13 said:
The US literally defined citizens by the 1790's as 'free white men'.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. You're probably thinking of the Naturalization Act of 1790WP which provided a pathway to citizenship for a relatively small fraction of those living on the continent. It is nevertheless a good example of "whiteness" conveying legal privileges which were unavailable to men whose ancestors were primarily from Africa, Asia or the Americas.

tyr_13 said:
Off the top of my head it's inarguable that by the 1750's it was a coherent concept.
Click to expand...
I cannot imagine what would compel someone to say something is inarguable without providing even a shred of evidence to back up their claim. That's just...a mind-bendingly anti-skeptical approach.

tyr_13 said:
I suspect this is an attempt at the 'Line Drawing Fallacy' where even highly related concepts will be rejected and the inability to meet a specific 'line' will be used to downplay the entire argument.
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head this is inarguably wrong.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'd be content with a highly approximate date, or even a couple early instances of the idea in print. There is no “white supremacy” prior to the cultural construction of whiteness, IMO.
Click to expand...

And when else would this have happened?

After early modern Europeans had explored the world, created permanent settlements in foreign lands, and took inventory of the people in their new territories, white supremacy, white cultural domination, call it what you want... seems to me like the natural consequence of a globalized social hierarchy that did not exist previously.

The slave traders, merchants, and later colonists roughly agreed that there were whites, blacks, and Amerindians in the world. And mixing between the races was more tolerated in some cultures than others.

Is it so difficult to conclude these attitudes carried on to the present? It's not like whiteness was invented by Marxist activist professors at UC Berkeley.
 
Venom said:
And when else would this have happened?
Click to expand...
One of the reasons I mentioned the Ptolemaic Kingdom earlier was to point out that some Europeans had been exerting power outside of Europe in the millennia preceding the age of exploration and colonization. They were perfectly aware of other peoples to the east and south of Europe, long before the conquest of the Americas kicked off.

Venom said:
After early modern Europeans had explored the world, created permanent settlements in foreign lands, and took inventory of the people in their new territories, white supremacy, white cultural domination, call it what you want... seems to me like the natural consequence of a globalized social hierarchy that did not exist previously.
Click to expand...
It's not remotely obvious to me how this is different in kind from the strong sense of cultural superiority enjoyed by the Greeks and Romans as they were expanding their empires or by the Hebrews as they were taking the "Promised Land" from the native Canaanites. Conquering peoples tend to see themselves as superior, since that helps make conquest feel justified. The only difference, so far as I can tell, is the invention of whiteness as a social construct at some point along the way, which could then be layered upon the standard attributes of homophily/xenophobia which appear to be cultural universals.
 
d4m10n said:
Not exactly. You're probably thinking of the Naturalization Act of 1790WP which provided a pathway to citizenship for a relatively small fraction of those living on the continent. It is nevertheless a good example of "whiteness" conveying legal privileges which were unavailable to men whose ancestors were primarily from Africa, Asia or the Americas.
Click to expand...

...You don't see how this provides what you asked for in addition to the other links having other examples?

I cannot imagine what would compel someone to say something is inarguable without providing even a shred of evidence to back up their claim. That's just...a mind-bendingly anti-skeptical approach.
Click to expand...

Your ignoring of the other evidence provided for you made me, again, decide it wasn't worth it to provide another link. Again.

Off the top of my head this is inarguably wrong.
Click to expand...

Evidence?


EDIT: **** it, you can start by reading about François Bernier (1684) and then the 1775 work of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Then when you handwave or ignore those too I'll remember why putting in effort for those who already dismissed that of others is just an exercise in ego.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
It's not remotely obvious to me how this is different in kind from the strong sense of cultural superiority enjoyed by the Greeks and Romans as they were expanding their empires or by the Hebrews as they were taking the "Promised Land" from the native Canaanites. Conquering peoples tend to see themselves as superior, since that helps make conquest feel justified. The only difference, so far as I can tell, is the invention of whiteness as a social construct at some point along the way, which could then be layered upon the standard attributes of homophily/xenophobia which appear to be cultural universals.
Click to expand...

Because these ancient conquerers did not consider themselves white people in non-white land. There was no united white identity yet.
 
This is just the "Da liberals call everyone racists so that means I get to be a little racist, ya know as a treat" argument again.
 
tyr_13 said:
You don't see how this provides what you asked for in addition to the other links having other examples?
Click to expand...
I don't see why you seem to believe I don't see that, but as to the other wiki links I'd need to know which particular bits you're thinking about as early examples of whiteness as a socially constructed concept.

tyr_13 said:
...you can start by reading about François Bernier (1684)
Click to expand...
I got as far as "he did not establish a cultural hierarchy between the so-called 'races' that he had conceived" before giving up on the idea that Bernier promulgated anything resembling white supremacy. It may also be noted that he didn't exactly have an idea of "whiteness" which maps on to anything remotely resembling legal implementations of white supremacy which come along decades later.

tyr_13 said:
...and then the 1775 work of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach.
Click to expand...
Now you're just punking me.

Finally, I am of opinion that after all these numerous instances I have brought together of negroes of capacity, it would not be difficult to mention entire well-known provinces of Europe, from out of which you would not easily expect to obtain off-hand such good authors, poets, philosophers, and correspondents of the Paris Academy; and on the other hand, there is no so-called savage nation known under the sun which has so much distinguished itself by such examples of perfectibility and original capacity for scientific culture, and thereby attached itself so closely to the most civilized nations of the earth, as the Negro.​

And this...

Alexander von Humboldt wrote on his and Blumenbach's view: "While we maintain the unity of the human species, we at the same time repel the depressing assumption of superior and inferior races".​

Do you actually read your own sources?
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
I would call it accurate, but of course it isn't actually easier for non whites or non males.
Click to expand...


You literally don’t know what you are talking about. STEM departments are desperately seeking so-called diversity candidates.
 
d4m10n said:
[snip]Now you're just punking me.
Click to expand...

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 [IUproof[/I] 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.
 
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' ...
Click to expand...
Do you sincerely believe Bernier's inclusion of "populations from Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, India, south-east Asia, and the Americas" maps on to the idea of whiteness that we're talking about here? If so, how so? If not, why cite to him?

tyr_13 said:
Engaging with your pseudo-intellectual filibuster is always a mistake.
Click to expand...
Please feel free to refrain from doing so; I prefer interlocutors who actually address my arguments or questions instead of just dumping links without reading them first.
 
Last edited:
Venom said:
Because these ancient conquerers did not consider themselves white people in non-white land. There was no united white identity yet.
Click to expand...
I think it's worth asking how and when this "united white identity" came about. Katharine Gerbner hypothesizes that it was an innovation designed to substitute for non-Xn religious identity as an outgroup marker:
One of the more plausible explanations for this change, made by Rugemer and the historian Katharine Gerbner, among others, is that the establishment of whiteness as a legal category solved a religious dilemma. By the 1670s, Christian missionaries, including the Quaker George Fox, were insisting that enslaved Africans should be inducted into the Christian faith. The problem this posed for the planters was obvious: if their African labourers became Christians, and no longer “perpetual enemies” of Christendom, then on what legal grounds could they be enslaved? And what about the colonial laws that gave special privileges to Christians, laws whose authors apparently never contemplated the possibility that Africans might someday join the faith?​
From the Guardian article I linked earlier, which shows that the invention of whiteness happened in the Americas in contemporaneous to—or perhaps a bit before—European scientific attempts to create racial categories.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I think it's worth asking how and when this "united white identity" came about. Katharine Gerbner hypothesizes that it was an innovation designed to substitute for non-Xn religious identity as an outgroup marker:
One of the more plausible explanations for this change, made by Rugemer and the historian Katharine Gerbner, among others, is that the establishment of whiteness as a legal category solved a religious dilemma. By the 1670s, Christian missionaries, including the Quaker George Fox, were insisting that enslaved Africans should be inducted into the Christian faith. The problem this posed for the planters was obvious: if their African labourers became Christians, and no longer “perpetual enemies” of Christendom, then on what legal grounds could they be enslaved? And what about the colonial laws that gave special privileges to Christians, laws whose authors apparently never contemplated the possibility that Africans might someday join the faith?​
From the Guardian article I linked earlier, which shows that the invention of whiteness happened in the Americas in contemporaneous to—or perhaps a bit before—European scientific attempts to create racial categories.
Click to expand...

I don't find the timeline unreasonable. And I think the religion as a proxy for whiteness makes sense. Also language, like how Spanish is viewed by Americans today.

But the European naturalists were just trying to formalize what people before them already had a sense of from experience. After all it didn't take a genius to figure out who was in charge in the new global power structure that had emerged, no matter whose empire you visited. It didn't take a naturalist to create reasonable categories of people based on general appearance and organize society so that you're always on top.

I would say that's whiteness and white supremacy in practice already.
 
jt512 said:
You literally don’t know what you are talking about. STEM departments are desperately seeking so-called diversity candidates.
Click to expand...

This is just another baseless assertion that does nothing to substantiate your earlier baseless assertion. Your argument doesn’t become magically more convincing if you just keep piling these on top of each other.
 
johnny karate said:
This is just another baseless assertion that does nothing to substantiate your earlier baseless assertion. Your argument doesn’t become magically more convincing if you just keep piling these on top of each other.
Click to expand...


Tough ****. I learned decades ago that ideologues accept no evidence that contradicts their ideology.
 
jt512 said:
Tough ****. I learned decades ago that ideologues accept no evidence that contradicts their ideology.
Click to expand...

Whom exactly is it tough **** for? Do you think normal people are bothered when goofballs make moronic claims they can’t substantiate? No one cares. It just reaffirms that nothing people like you say should be taken seriously.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Who exactly is it tough **** for? Do you think normal people are bothered when goofballs make moronic claims they can’t substantiate? No one cares. It just reaffirms that nothing people like you say should be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


"People like me" being the 95% of the population that is to the right of the people like you. The 5% of the (US) population that are the woke left are hardly "normal" either statistically or psychologically.
 
jt512 said:
"People like me" being the 95% of the population that is to the right of the people like you. The 5% of the (US) population that are the woke left are hardly "normal" either statistically or psychologically.
Click to expand...

95% seems high. I doubt there are that many mediocre white guys out there who are irrationally threatened by Black people being allowed to teach. But I’m open to persuasion. Perhaps you could link to a YouTube video with 600 views that will convince me to change my mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom