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

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

I disagree with you about “woke.” It is the only succinct term to describe the set of far-left identity-obsessed authoritarian zealots who call anyone who disagrees with their agenda a white supremacist.

Right - so, people that don't exist. Gotcha.

[Gulliver Foyle]

In response to the original poster white supremacy means the exact same thing it did in 1880. The only difference for white supremacists now is that they have to be a bit more circumspect in expressing the ideology now because society has become a bit more sane and condemns it, at least publicly.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by gnome

I have to disagree back because it's applied to far more than just zealots, in order to dismiss anyone who advocates for marginalized people as zealots.

Not im my experience. Wokism is a secular fundamentalist identitarian religion based on a postmodernism and Critical Theories. Moderate wokism is a contradiction.

Quote:

The same thing was done with “SJW...”

And therien you reveal the lie. Social Justice (capitalzed) was never about social justice. It was, and is, an Orwellian name for a radical, illiberal identitarian worldview steeped in Critical Theory.

Quote:

Why not just say "zealots" if that's all you mean?

Because that term is not specific enough. There are lots of zealots who aren't woke.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

Wokism is a secular fundamentalist identitarian religion based on a postmodernism and Critical Theories...

...that doesn't exist.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by jt512

I disagree with you about “woke.” It is the only succinct term to describe the set of far-left identity-obsessed authoritarian zealots who call anyone who disagrees with their agenda a white supremacist.

How about some specificity? Do you consider the entities on the following list to be (A) white supremacist (B) sufficiently adjacent to warrant call-out or (C) neither... ?

David Duke
Richard Spencer
Nick Fuentes
Jason Kessler
KKK
Identity Evropa
American Freedom Party
Paul Gosar
Donald Trump

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

In response to the original poster white supremacy means the exact same thing it did in 1880.

The phrase wasn't used in 1880.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by varwoche

How about some specificity? Do you consider the entities on the following list to be (A) white supremacist (B) sufficiently adjacent to warrant call-out or (C) neither... ?

David Duke
Richard Spencer
Nick Fuentes
Jason Kessler
KKK
Identity Evropa
American Freedom Party
Paul Gosar
Donald Trump

Shhhh. Some people are trying to sleep in this thread!

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Even the New York Times included an editorial suggesting that the definition has changed. Included is a link to an article stating how good nutrition was, wait for it, white supremacist.

They're definitely not using the 1880 definition!

[jt512]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

Even the New York Times included an editorial suggesting that the definition has changed. Included is a link to an article stating how good nutrition was, wait for it, white supremacist.

They're definitely not using the 1880 definition!

"Even the New York Times”? As if that is surprising?

And no matter what the editors of the NYT might want us to think, the meaning of “white supremacist” has not changed in the minds of the overwhelming majority of Americans, including, I suspect, the tiny minority of actual American white supremacists. Rather, this manipulation of the term is typical of the woke’s language-change agenda, a page right out of the Orwellian playbook.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by jt512

I disagree with you about “woke.” It is the only succinct term to describe the set of far-left identity-obsessed authoritarian zealots who call anyone who disagrees with their agenda a white supremacist.

"Woke" has and had accrual log before racist right wing pundits decided to redefine it. It means to be aware of the racism and discrimination that goes on around all of us all the time and how this discrimination harms people.

The racist pundits on the right want nothing more than to convince their sheep that racism isn't real so they vilify any term that explains it to people. Woke is just the latest example, it had never previously meant what you think it means and you've just fallen victim to a coordinated effort to normalize racism.

[d4m10n]

Found a definition which might be serviceable at the diversity & social justice glossary:

White supremacy is a historically based, institutionally perpetuated system of exploitation and oppression of continents, nations and peoples of color by White people and nations of the European continent, for the purpose of maintaining and defending a system of wealth, power and privilege.

The only problem I can see with this approach is that it's a bit fuzzy at the edges of Europe, e.g. does the Ptolemaic Kingdom^WP count as such a system?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by lomiller

"Woke" has and had accrual log before racist right wing pundits decided to redefine it. It means to be aware of the racism and discrimination that goes on around all of us all the time and how this discrimination harms people.

Meant. Past tense. It's all but impossible to use the word that way now that the Rightists have abused it.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The only problem I can see with this approach is that it's a bit fuzzy at the edges of Europe, e.g. does the Ptolemaic Kingdom^WP count as such a system?

According to quantum physics, everything is a bit fuzzy at the edges. Being fuzzy at the edges doesn't mean things don't exist.

[jt512]

duplicate

[jt512]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Found a definition which might be serviceable at the diversity & social justice glossary:

White supremacy is a historically based, institutionally perpetuated system of exploitation and oppression of continents, nations and peoples of color by White people and nations of the European continent, for the purpose of maintaining and defending a system of wealth, power and privilege.

The only problem I can see with this approach is that it's a bit fuzzy at the edges of Europe, e.g. does the Ptolemaic Kingdom^WP count as such a system?

That definition sounds reasonable, but viewed through the lens of Critical Social Justice, every institution in every western county fits the definition. That word “historical” in the definition carries a lot of weight. Any institution that was developed by white Europeans is seen as white supremacist today, no matter how non-racist it is today, merely because of its historical roots, including

• Elementary school math
• Academia
• Medicine
• Medical school
• Science
• And anything and everything

[Donal]

Originally Posted by ahhell

No point in trying but hey, what the post is saying is that "White Supremacy" used to describe the belief that white people are inherently better that other people and action should be taken to ensure white people are in charge. It used to almost exclusive describe groups like the KKK, WAR, and their adherents. Now we've got teh LA times calling Larry Elder the Black Face of White Supremacy. Based on the old definition of White Supremacy, thats a self-contradictory phrase.

A Black man running to be the governor of a state, can't be white supremacy. Unless the phrase now means something else. In which case we need a new phrase describe the philosophy of the klan et al.

I just want to be clear, are you saying Larry Elder can't be considered a white supremist specifically because he is black?

If he were white, would you be willing to consider that he is a white supremacist?

Quote:

Edit to add:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy

Not opening that at work, but does it say that adherents have to be white?

Quote:

That second quote is basically saying, I'm using white supremacy to mean something other than what most everyone else thinks.

Aren't you using a logical fallacy? Is the term being used correctly?

Quote:

And that's not even nearly the most expansive way the term is used.

Is it all possible that with an expanded understanding of historical context6 and social issues, that the definition hasn't changed, but rather we realize more things qualify?

[ahhell]

I'm saying I don't see how a black man running for governor of a state can be considered white supremacy regardless of his statements. I suppose there might be some Black men out there that fit a reasonable definition of white supremacy. Not one that would have them also want to be in charge of anything, let alone the biggest state in the US.

When you expand a definition of a word or phrase to mean something that most folks wouldn't use it to describe, well, that word or phrase quickly becomes useless.

I can use factoid to mean something widely believed but that is actually false all I want but its still on me that folks think I just mean trivia. Using jargon outside of the jargon's context will generally be misunderstood.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

The phrase wasn't used in 1880.

Yet we can identify millions of white supremacists from 1880.

But hey keep your head stuck in the sand if it makes you feel better.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by ahhell

I'm saying I don't see how a black man running for governor of a state can be considered white supremacy regardless of his statements. I suppose there might be some Black men out there that fit a reasonable definition of white supremacy. Not one that would have them also want to be in charge of anything, let alone the biggest state in the US.

So, you agree a black person can be a white supremacist. You just don't think they would run for office. Are you saying white supremacy doesn't have use for "model minorities"?

Quote:

When you expand a definition of a word or phrase to mean something that most folks wouldn't use it to describe, well, that word or phrase quickly becomes useless.

Again, did the definition expand, or has our understanding expanded?

Quote:

I can use factoid to mean something widely believed but that is actually false all I want but its still on me that folks think I just mean trivia.

So, in certain contexts, you wouldn't try to clarify what the word actually means?

Quote:

Using jargon outside of the jargon's context will generally be misunderstood.

So don't use a word that doesn't apply?

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Donal

So, you agree a black person can be a white supremacist. You just don't think they would run for office. Are you saying white supremacy doesn't have use for "model minorities"?



Again, did the definition expand, or has our understanding expanded?



So, in certain contexts, you wouldn't try to clarify what the word actually means?



So don't use a word that doesn't apply?

By any reasonable definition, not in any positions of power.

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.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Meant. Past tense. It's all but impossible to use the word that way now that the Rightists have abused it.

Past as in 2 years ago. If right wingers are continued to be allowed to change the meaning of words willy-nilly, just so they can vilify anyone who says racism exists how can you expect anything but rampant racism?

When right wingers use the "woke" in the sense the poster I responded to think it should be used then the need to be called out for actively promoting racism, and this needs to happen every single time they use the word that way.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by ahhell

That second quote is basically saying, I'm using white supremacy to mean something other than what most everyone else thinks. And that's not even nearly the most expansive way the term is used.

I don't think the secondary usage of white supremacy is all that objectionable the more I think of it.

It's like using racism in the literal sense and as a system of race-based oppression.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Found a definition which might be serviceable at the diversity & social justice glossary:

White supremacy is a historically based, institutionally perpetuated system of exploitation and oppression of continents, nations and peoples of color by White people and nations of the European continent, for the purpose of maintaining and defending a system of wealth, power and privilege.

The only problem I can see with this approach is that it's a bit fuzzy at the edges of Europe, e.g. does the Ptolemaic Kingdom^WP count as such a system?

Nah, I would limit the usage to the post-European colonial age when the white-black dichotomy really began to globalize and colonialists had to systematically distinguish themselves from the black slaves and indigenous in their new settlements.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Venom

Nah, I would limit the usage to the post-European colonial age when the white-black dichotomy really began to globalize and colonialists had to systematically distinguish themselves from the black slaves and indigenous in their new settlements.

Did colonial age Europeans take a more supremacist view than their Roman forebears?

https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/e...em%20a%20favor

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Venom]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Did colonial age Europeans take a more supremacist view than their Roman forebears?

https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/e...em%20a%20favor

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

They explicitly used terms like white, black, etc. and that has a direct connection to how they're used today and the stratification of their former colonies. That's the relevance of European colonialism versus ancient history.

The ancient Romans to my knowledge did no such thing. Besides, around the Mediterranean you didn't have quite as diverse encounters as in the Age of Exploration. It's well known they had a class system. I don't think "Wait a minute, are you really white?" "Am I really white?" was a question that crossed the minds of people in the Roman and Near Eastern empires like it did the inhabitants of colonial Americas, Africa, and Australia, who had racial hierarchy laws.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Venom

They explicitly used terms like white, black, etc. and that has a direct connection to how they're used today and the stratification of their former colonies.

This is a claim that would be all the better if backed up with evidence. I've seen Columbus' early journals and don't recall him doing this, though he obviously thought it was just fine to oppress and enslave native peoples.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[gnome]

Originally Posted by jt512

That definition sounds reasonable, but viewed through the lens of Critical Social Justice, every institution in every western county fits the definition. That word “historical” in the definition carries a lot of weight. Any institution that was developed by white Europeans is seen as white supremacist today, no matter how non-racist it is today, merely because of its historical roots, including

• Elementary school math
• Academia
• Medicine
• Medical school
• Science
• And anything and everything

I think there is a fundamental disregard to proportion and context here. In some of these cases questioning the methodology seems to be conflated with being against the entire subject. In others I wonder how "mainstream" the opinion is. Not everyone interested in social justice is one big monolith.

[8enotto]

In the Roman system it made a difference if you wore an iron ring, or a wide leather belt with your owner's name on it. They enslaved their own as fast as conquered cultures. Later times had focused on one physical trait making another lesser than them.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

According to quantum physics, everything is a bit fuzzy at the edges. Being fuzzy at the edges doesn't mean things don't exist.

Right, but my point remains that the definition I quoted is fuzzy at the edges in both space and time. Can we meaningfully say that Christopher Columbus was a white supremacist? Surely he perpetuated a "system of exploitation and oppression of continents, nations and peoples of color" for the "purpose of maintaining and defending a system of wealth, power and privilege" designed to benefit "nations of the European continent," but can white supremacy meaningfully predate the idea of whiteness itself? If so, why not include the Roman Empire and the Ptolemaic Kingdom?

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by varwoche

How about some specificity? Do you consider the entities on the following list to be (A) white supremacist (B) sufficiently adjacent to warrant call-out or (C) neither... ?

David Duke
Richard Spencer
Nick Fuentes
Jason Kessler
KKK
Identity Evropa
American Freedom Party
Paul Gosar
Donald Trump

Maybe jt512 is researching some of the lesser known entities before weighing in.

A couple of decades ago, led by putrid characters such as the people behind VDARE, robes were replaced with suits and ties. And "white nationalist " replaced "white supremacist".

[jt512]

Originally Posted by gnome

I think there is a fundamental disregard to proportion and context here. In some of these cases questioning the methodology seems to be conflated with being against the entire subject. In others I wonder how "mainstream" the opinion is. Not everyone interested in social justice is one big monolith.

I’m mostly familiar with what’s going on in science and academia. Essentially leadership of every scientific publishing house in the English-speaking world has been taken over by woke activists. Same with every major scientific/academic honor society (NAS, AAAS, etc.) as well as the professional societies in mathematics, physics, chemistry, psychology, etc.) Most university administrations are woke as well; good luck getting an academic position or promotion without pledging to DEI goals of the university. Ditto for funding.

The opinion is not mainstream, except at the top of elite institutions, where the power is. In fact, opinions have nothing to do with it. What’s going on is that woke activists are redefining the mission of these institutions from scientific/academic/publishing to Social Justice.

[dirtywick]

what were some things you could do before they took over that you can no longer do now?

[jt512]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

what were some things you could do before they took over that you can no longer do now?

if you were the most qualified candidate for an academic position you could get it even your identity didn’t fit into a certain favored category.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by jt512

It depends. If you are a white male applying for an academic position and you were the most qualified, you could get the job. Not any more.

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.

[dirtywick]

i'd also note that hiring people who don't meet the qualifications over those that do versus hiring people who do meet the qualifications while passing on a white guy that also meets the qualifications, but somebody thought was a better choice are two different things that often get conflated. but, only one of those is a problem.

that said, i was hoping for a real answer. if you say you're familiar with this problem, then follow up with somebody may not have gotten a job somewhere because woke is, you know, meh

[Venom]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Right, but my point remains that the definition I quoted is fuzzy at the edges in both space and time. Can we meaningfully say that Christopher Columbus was a white supremacist? Surely he perpetuated a "system of exploitation and oppression of continents, nations and peoples of color" for the "purpose of maintaining and defending a system of wealth, power and privilege" designed to benefit "nations of the European continent," but can white supremacy meaningfully predate the idea of whiteness itself? If so, why not include the Roman Empire and the Ptolemaic Kingdom?

I don't think so. Pan-Europeanism and scientific racism by racial anthropology didn't exist before the exploration/colonial era. There was no unity among people who today call themselves white (against the rest of the world) as far as we can read.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Venom

Pan-Europeanism and scientific racism by racial anthropology didn't exist before the exploration/colonial era.

I'm not getting the sense either of those existed when Columbus was laying the groundwork for massive exploitation of indigenous Americans by European colonizers. When would you date the rise of pan-European identity outside of the melting pot context of North American whiteness?

Originally Posted by Venom

There was no unity among people who today call themselves white (against the rest of the world) as far as we can read.

Asking for unity seems a bit of a stretch; Erwin Rommel & Bernard Montgomery didn't confab over how best to divide up North Africa.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Venom

I don't think so. Pan-Europeanism and scientific racism by racial anthropology didn't exist before the exploration/colonial era. There was no unity among people who today call themselves white (against the rest of the world) as far as we can read.

As evidenced by the fact that Irish, Italians, Spaniards and other majority catholic European culture groups were called "the n****** of Europe" at various points over the last three centuries when more dominant protestant cultures wanted to do them down.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'm not getting the sense either of those existed when Columbus was laying the groundwork for massive exploitation of indigenous Americans by European colonizers. When would you date the rise of pan-European identity outside of the melting pot context of North American whiteness?

Forget about Columbus! We don't need an exact date when pan-European whiteness became a thing. It's on record that diaspora Europeans implemented systems of racial categorization to keep track of who's who in their empires, a task their forbearers weren't burdened with for I think obvious reasons. 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_people_of_color
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial...ty_Act_of_1924

And I don't find it a coincidence that "whiteness" is by and large the obsession of New World/diaspora Europeans.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Asking for unity seems a bit of a stretch; Erwin Rommel & Bernard Montgomery didn't confab over how best to divide up North Africa.

I'm talking in terms of racial identity of course.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by The Don

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.

Yeah, I think I'd require some evidence of that claim.