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

[The Don]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

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

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.

[jt512]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by jt512

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.

Again, I think I would require evidence to support that claim.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Again, I think I would require evidence to support that claim.

Here's the faculty from my alma mater.

https://www.bristol.ac.uk/people/?se...ence%2FPhysics

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

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

https://www.bristol.ac.uk/physics/eq...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.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by The Don

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.

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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Venom

We don't need an exact date when pan-European whiteness became a thing.

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.

Originally Posted by Venom

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Venom

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

I've no way of testing this claim, but it sounds plausible.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'd be content with a highly approximate date, or even a couple early instances of the idea in print.

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.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Again, I think I would require evidence to support that claim.

You would just find some excuse to write off the evidence, as you always do when it conflicts with your ideology,

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

You would just find some excuse to write off the evidence, as you always do when it conflicts with your ideology,

And what is my ideology?

[jt512]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

And what is my ideology?

I think we’ve sufficiently visited that topic elsewhere.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

I think we’ve sufficiently visited that topic elsewhere.

Nice dodge. Any evidence yet that it's impossible for white men to get a job in academia?

[jt512]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Nice dodge. Any evidence yet that it's impossible for white men to get a job in academia?

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.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

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.

Sorry. "Very hard".

And you brought ideology up, not me.

[dirtywick]

"why should i, you wouldn't believe me anyway" always a convincing argument

[Donal]

Originally Posted by ahhell

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

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.

Quote:

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.

People like you, mainly

[uke2se]

"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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

The US literally defined citizens by the 1790's as 'free white men'.

Not exactly. You're probably thinking of the Naturalization Act of 1790^WP 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.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Off the top of my head it's inarguable that by the 1750's it was a coherent concept.

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.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

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.

Off the top of my head this is inarguably wrong.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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.

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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Venom

And when else would this have happened?

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.

Originally Posted by Venom

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.

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.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Not exactly. You're probably thinking of the Naturalization Act of 1790^WP 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.

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

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

Off the top of my head this is inarguably wrong.

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.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

"why should i, you wouldn't believe me anyway" always a convincing argument

To be fair, jt512 and I have what might be described as a "body of work".

[Venom]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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.

Because these ancient conquerers did not consider themselves white people in non-white land. There was no united white identity yet.

[JoeMorgue]

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.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

To be fair, jt512 and I have what might be described as a "body of work".

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Again, I think I would require evidence to support that claim.

I would call it accurate, but of course it isn't actually easier for non whites or non males.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

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

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.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

...you can start by reading about François Bernier (1684)

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.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

...and then the 1775 work of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach.

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?

[jt512]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I would call it accurate, but of course it isn't actually easier for non whites or non males.

You literally don’t know what you are talking about. STEM departments are desperately seeking so-called diversity candidates.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

[snip]Now you're just punking me.

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.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Is Coffee Racist?

It's like a Poe, though. I don't know if it's real.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

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' ...

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?

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Engaging with your pseudo-intellectual filibuster is always a mistake.

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.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Venom

Because these ancient conquerers did not consider themselves white people in non-white land. There was no united white identity yet.

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.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

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.

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.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

Is Coffee Racist?

It's like a Poe, though. I don't know if it's real.

Wow, what a scoop. Imagine finding something on the internet that confirms your predetermined beliefs. What are the odds.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

Is Coffee Racist?

It's like a Poe, though. I don't know if it's real.

It's real. Everything is racist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKlvCkhEik

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by jt512

You literally don’t know what you are talking about. STEM departments are desperately seeking so-called diversity candidates.

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]

Originally Posted by jt512

It's real. Everything is racist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKlvCkhEik

Another amazing scoop: A Youtube video with just over 600 views. Who says the right wing doesn’t do investigative journalism?

[jt512]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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.

Tough ****. I learned decades ago that ideologues accept no evidence that contradicts their ideology.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by jt512

Tough ****. I learned decades ago that ideologues accept no evidence that contradicts their ideology.

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.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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.

"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.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by jt512

"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.

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.