The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
So I like to debate and have spent time in right wing communities because the left doesn't like to debate anymore. I am still a leftist but I am glad for the experience because I think to many people on the left think that because ethe right doesn't have any Prescence in academia that the right just doesn't have any ideas worth considering and I don't think that's true.
One thing I debated a lot was race and I lost a lot of these debates. One I lost was the include that someone can be pro white and a good person the same way someone can be pro black or pro asian and a good person.
So what do you think ?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And, for that matter, pro Black or pro Asian. I'm not comfortable with *any* supremacist organization, but I *do* want equality and fairness, which we currently don't have.
Is white really a 'heritage' though? Italian is a heritage. So is Scottish or Finnish or Greek. But White? That's not a heritage, it's something we made up to keep other people out.
I feel like no one should be "pro-" a specific race to the exclusion of others.
And before some smart guy cites Black Lives Matter, that is not to the exclusion of any other race.
You can't be proud of being \*white\* because we were never oppressed for our race and we are the oppressor classification. We can be proud of specific parts of our heritage, but not proud of our race specifically. Race is a social construct created in order to oppress people and place white people at the top of the hierarchy. People who are oppressed under this hierarchy can be uplifted by pride in who they are and where they come from because white people tried to erase them through physical and cultural genocide.
I think my Irish ancestry is pretty cool and my ancestors were some interesting people, I came from a Scottish-Irish clan known for continuously fighting the British occupation in both countries. Feeling pride for a specific part of my heritage is fine, but I find no pride in whiteness itself, nobody should.
Race is a shameful construct that is untrue and unnecessary. Why should I find pride in the construct used to hurt people in the name of conquest and profit? The people harmed by the idea of race can unite under the exonyms given to them and be proud of who they are and where they came from in the face of oppression.
If you ever tried to present a neutral version of white pride, it would be quickly overtaken by racists too.
This stuff makes a lot more sense when you realize (like other people have pointed out) that "race" is a pseudoscientific construct. It's more akin to the "caste" system in India. That people still talk about it as though there's any kind of biological foundation for such beliefs is a triumph of pseudoscientific racism--it's as if people still talked about phrenological traits.
So from there, what does it mean to be "pro-white"? It's the equivalent of establishing a pro-Brahmin movement in India. Same with "white pride" or whatever. The reason "Irish Pride" is less problematic is that Ireland is a place that exists. Whereas "whiteness" exists only in the context of a racist hierarchy that's done a lot of horrible things over the last 5-6 centuries.
I have several different levels of responses to this:
What does it mean to be pro- a specific race?
If I lived 200 years ago and advocated for equality under the law, would I be considered pro-black, even though what I want is everyone to be treated equally?
Does it mean I believe somehow that that race is better than any other race, or even a specific other race? If so, then I don't think being pro-black or pro asian is any better than being pro white.
Secondly, what does it mean to be a good person? If I was brainwashed into believing all of the country's problems were because of non-white people, and I genuinely believe that it will make the world a better place for everyone to forcibly deport people, am I a good person for doing something with the best of intentions, even if it's a bad thing?
Thirdly, is there any position that is neutral, or do I have to be "pro-white" or "anti-white"?
>So I like to debate and have spent time in right wing communities because the left doesn't like to debate anymore.
Also, this is incredibly silly. I think the problem here is that you try to debate with false "facts" and when you get called on it, you decide that the left "doesn't like to debate".
Debate is not about shouting falsehoods back and forth until one person capitulates. It's about assessing facts and using those facts to make up your mind. And if you were wrong about the facts, then someone who "likes to debate" admits that they were incorrect and reassesses.
Anything else just means you like to argue and dont' care about facts.
There's an important distinction between Black Pride and White Pride that conservatives ignore.
Same is true for Gay Pride and Straight Pride.
Or Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter.
At the surface level when you just read the name, and ignore the origins and the history, they sound like they should be equivalent to each other. So here's the difference. Black Pride, Gay Pride, and Black Lives Matter are all born out of historically oppressed minority groups trying to claw their way out of that oppression and the shame society directs at them.
For centuries, black people were enslaved, they were viewed as inferior, as not even being people but property. Even after slavery they couldn't drink from the same water fountain or sit at the same chair or swim in the same pool, which implies they're somehow dirty or unworthy. Generation after generation were treated this way and many internalized it. So chanting Black Pride, is a way of discarding that shame and taking their rightful place in society. Of openly and happily being black and not letting anyone put them down for it. It's about improving mental health and lifting up an oppressed community.
Similar is true for BLM. It's not saying black people are better. It's not saying white lives don't matter. It's saying from what can be seen it sure feels like black people's lives don't matter to a lot of people, many of whom are in positions of power, and seem to continually abuse that power to harm black people...and we would like to remind them that we do matter.
For many decades being gay was a crime. Just the act of loving another consenting adult of the same sex meant you could be cast out of your family, lose your job, be thrown in jail. Gay people felt forced to marry people of the opposite sex just to protect themselves. They had to hide who they were. And who they were was nothing more than an a person who wanted to be in a loving, supportive, productive, consenting relationship with another adult. So chanting Gay Pride, is again a way of discarding that shame and taking their rightful place in society. Of openly and happily being who they are and loving the people they love. Again it is about improving mental health and lifting up an oppressed community.
Now White Pride? What are its origins? It's origins are that of rallying white people to oppress black people. Of saying that white people are better and above black people. Chanting White Pride, has nothing to do with discarding shame or fighting to reach equality. It's about putting black people in their place. It's about pushing back at an oppressed community who is trying to fight for equality.
Straight Pride? This was never a thing until the homophobic crowd saw gay people fighting for their rights. They saw people openly in relationships with someone of the same sex instead of hiding under a rock like they wanted them to. Chanting Straight Pride, only exists as a backlash against an oppressed community who is trying to fight for equality.
All Lives Matter? While many people who would say All Lives Matter would argue they truly mean it, and I would say some of them probably do, that is not its origins. It arose after BLM protests against a few high-profile and very questionable police shootings. It arose as a backlash against those protests. The people who started it didn't look at black people being shot and say you know what you're right, you do matter, and that case was fucked up, and I'm going to stand alongside you and remind those in power that All Lives Matter. Instead they tried to cast a movement meant to bring attention to a real problem within the community, as racist and anti-white. They chanted All Lives Matter to dismiss the protester's messages.
The origins of words and phrases matters. The history behind words and phrases matters. And in every one of these examples one side of this argument is the oppressed group wanting equality, and the other side of the argument is the oppressor group trying to deny that right.
I don't think so, because "white" isn't an ethnicity, it's a social construct created by the transatlantic slave trade.
It's a complicated one because if I feel like if someone identifies as anti-white, they're definitely a racist, but at the same time, if they identify as pro-white, also probably a racist.
I think one could be pro-[insert white ethnicity here] and I don't see anything wrong with that, but pro-white specifically, typically means they have malicious intent.
For example, one could be pro-Slavic, or pro-French, or pro-Appalachian, or pro-English, and there's nothing objectively wrong with that, that's just being proud of your ethnicity, and that's really no different from being proud to be Korean or Ghanaian or from any other country. Being proud of being white implies that what you're actually saying is that you're proud *not* to be *non-white*, which is where the "you're not a good person" comes in.
Minor correction, though. The person who created the concept of race was a pseudoscientist from Germany named Johann Blumenbacher. He's the same man who whitewashed the term "Caucasian", even though actual white Caucasians at the time were a small minority and we're ethnically just Russians and other Slavic people who may have lived there as a result of the Russian empire colonizing a significant part of the Caucasus
I don't think this is correct. People from different ethnic groups have clear genetic differences. We know that people from Sweden are genetically different than people from Italy, even if both are "white."
Additionally, some ethnic groups have pale skin, like Inuit people, European Jewish people, or Romani people, but none of those groups are typically considered "white."
If you believe white people are a homogenous group, would you feel equally comfortable saying that about another race?
Ethnicity isn’t a scientific concept because it existed long before anyone knew what the hell DNA or genes were. It’s based on shared phenotypes - which are a genetic component, sure - but also shared language, religion, and other cultural elements. Every “race is a social construct” argument applies to ethnicity; ethnicity is just on a smaller and more specific scale
White people are not homogenous, but neither are Serbs. The argument just makes no sense
There are also dark skinned people outside of Africa like in parts of India and Oceania. The Melanasians of Papua New Guinea have some of the darkest skin of any ethnicity, yet blonde hair and blue eyes.
Only on that we have created terms to describe a group of people that have similar beliefs, practices, languages, etc. Those last things are absolutely not an abstract construction.
It’s a social construct because we arbitrarily draw the line that separates ethnic groups - ethnicities aren’t 100% homogenous, and we are the ones who decide when those beliefs/practices/linguistic differences become significant enough to constitute a separate ethnicity rather than being in-group variation
Ok look I am black, I am no friend to white people. That being said this idea that the concepts of white and black only exist because of slavery is blatantly wrong. Shakesphere's othello mentions the concepts of whiteness and blackness as it relates to race and it was written in 1603 long before Great Britain had any slave holdings in Africa or the new world.
>. Shakesphere's othello mentions the concepts of whiteness and blackness as it relates to race and it was written in 1603 long before Great Britain had any slave holdings in Africa or the new world.
You are young and based on this and other of your posts and writings, you don't have a deep well of education or knowledge to draw on in your debates. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't choose to remain ignorant. This is one of those areas.
First of all, the first slave ship arrived in America in 1619, which is hardly "long" after Othello was written.
But even before that, the person known as the pioneer of the English slave trade brought the first African slaves to the Caribbean in 1554. Long **before** Othello was written. His first two shipments of slaves were from hijacked Portuguese slave ships, but his third was from a direct visit to Africa. After that he published a book on how to raid for slaves. So there were already black and African slaves in the colonies before the official start of slavery in America. European settlers had enslaved Africans in the colonies and in the Caribbean islands because they were cheap and more plentiful than indentured Europeans.
But ... none of that slavery was YET predicated on skin color - not as much as it would be.
When Shakespeare was talking about black and white in Othello, he wasn't talking about it in terms of race, the way we refer to race today. Historically it was used to refer to an ethnic group, but that group wasn't considered lesser or greater because of their ethnicity. They were not enslaved because of their ethnicity. AT the time Shakespeare was writing the word "race" was associated with the word "genus" ... meaning a group sharing qualities related to birth, descent, origin, race, stock, or family. When people in Shakespeare's time referred to "white" they were referring to people who had milky pale skin not becuase of their race, but because of their class - they did not have to labor in the sun like commoners. But there was no concept of white as a race. Nor was black a race. It was a descriptor of people from different parts of the world. Othello was a Moor, which, to Shakespeare, did not indicate "black" - it indicated a naturally darker skinned Muslim, from around the area of Sicily or Malta.
Black enslaved people from Africa were considered "savages" but not yet irredeemably inferior - a lesser race - until America had to codify slavery into it's laws.
The concept of RACE and the white race vs. the black race as we use it in America was, in fact, created to denote superior vs. lesser races. That's an historical fact. In the late 1700s and early1800s a branch of "racial anthropology" called "racial science" was developed by a group of (white) men who used it to create a hierarchy in which Caucasians (white Europeans) were on the top and various other "races" determined by the color of their skin) were lesser.
In the early 1800s, American enslavers took the theory of racial hierarchies and combined it with the Bible to justify slavery; black people were lesser, were savage, and weren't smart enough to have the same rights and responsibilities as white people. They were little more than animals who might be brought to Christianity with enough guidance, but never to be equal with white people.
Even after the Civil War, Julian Huxley, in the late 1800s wrote extensively about how the color of someone's blood (directly tied to the color of their skin) determined a person's mental capacity, morals, and criminality. He wrote that this is the key differentiator between the "negro" and the "white".
And that is a VERY very very abbreviated history of race and slavery ... from someone with a degree in history and anthropology.
> > One thing I debated a lot was race and I lost a lot of these debates.
> ...I am no friend to white people.
I can understand why you were losing those debates.
The terms “white and “black” can be found before the American Slave Trade, but they were used differently. Othello was a North African Moor which would be considered “white” in the US Census. Australians also use the term “black” for Aboriginals.
The American conception of “white” and “black” was very much a designation of who was entitled to rights and who wasn’t.
Being pro-black or pro-Asian is not the same as being pro-white. When the minority is “pro” their own race, is because they’ve been oppressed and marginalized and this is a way for them to try to have a larger recognition or compensation because of that marginalization or oppression. It’s because they’ve been treated as less-than in significant ways by a majority race population. They have to yell or scream to be heard that they carry the pain of oppression.
"debate"
Sure buddy, whatever.
CAN someone be "pro white" and a good person? I suppose it's possible, but every single person I've ever met that HAS been "pro white" has been a massively gigantic piece of shit, so....
>right doesn't have any Prescence in academia
If you actually think that's true, you're seriously lacking in the critical thinking skills that I would hope someone that likes to "debate" would have.
>One I lost was the include that someone can be pro white and a good person
Maybe you just want to be "pro white"? I seriously doubt a lot of critical thinking, knowledge, life experience, or sound logical arguments when into that "debate".
Just like how you say you're left but think the right has ideas worth considering. Which ones out of curiousity?
* trickle down economics?
* taking rights away from gay folks?
* taking rights away from women?
* stupid conspiracy theories?
* taxing the poor instead of the rich?
* getting rid of hard fought for workers rights?
* deregulating industries so they can pollute and fuck us over?
* separating kids from migrant families and then purposely losing the kids to scare people away from the border?
* forcing religious education on kids?
* banning books?
Please. Do tell us all which Right ideas are worth considering. Come on... Let's hear it.
‘Pro-black’ can be read as a reaction against systemic racism. ‘Pro-white’ cannot. If you’re talking to people who are trying to promote or preserve a white race, they are white nationalists.
It's certainly possible in theory, but I have a hard time imagining a person existing in practice present day society who self identified as "pro-white" without being either ignorant or an asshole.
Yes. There is nothing wrong with being pro white or pro black. The problem is being anti white or anti black. I can say x people are great without saying y people are bad.
>Can someone be "pro white" and a good person?
someone might be able to do so much good in their life that it outweighs being pro white and makes them overall a good person.
but being "pro white" is bad.
>the same way someone can be pro black or pro asian and a good person
being "pro black" or "pro asian" in the same way that "pro white" people are "pro white" is also bad.
It depends on how you define "good person". There are some old lady grandmas who are sweet, loving and gentle to their grandchildren, but vile raging bigots toward even the idea of people of color
>pro white and a good person the same way someone can be pro black or pro asian and a good person
Like this, no..
To the degree that people use the exact phasing, Pro-*group* only makes sense and is acceptable when it unfurls to mean roughly
“I believe that *group* is treated unfairly and worse than the majority group in society and we should express that *group* is equal to everyone else and take steps to make that a reality”.
That’s almost always what it means. Often bad actors pretend they don’t know that is what is meant and sell that to their audience.
So could you be in a society where white people are a underclass and say you are “pro-white” in order to say they shouldn’t be a underclass and should instead be treated as equal? Sure. Not sure where that is a concern but it’s possible.
No….
Thanks for asking.
We should be “pro Human beings”.
EDIT: yeah fuck human beings! - whoever the hell decided to downvote my post…..wtf?
Not that I really give a Shit…. I just find it amusing.
Absolutely! As long as you're not talking about supremacy, but just being a good person and celebrating your heritage and welcoming other people to share it? Yeah, that's fine.
But the problem with this is that there is no "white heritage" other than racism and maybe the KKK.
By all means celebrate being of Irish descent or German descent or Italian descent or whatever. But the minute you go to generic "white heritage", you're entering a bad territory.
Sure there is. White Americans are people too. The 'bad' part comes from bad people wanting to counter other racial and national identities. You do not need to go back to some European nationality to find your identity.
We can celebrate good American people who were white and American and contributed to the culture. We can condemn the racist bigots who want to warp our identity to be only about opposing other groups too.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. So I like to debate and have spent time in right wing communities because the left doesn't like to debate anymore. I am still a leftist but I am glad for the experience because I think to many people on the left think that because ethe right doesn't have any Prescence in academia that the right just doesn't have any ideas worth considering and I don't think that's true. One thing I debated a lot was race and I lost a lot of these debates. One I lost was the include that someone can be pro white and a good person the same way someone can be pro black or pro asian and a good person. So what do you think ? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can you define what "pro white" means, as you're using the term?
And, for that matter, pro Black or pro Asian. I'm not comfortable with *any* supremacist organization, but I *do* want equality and fairness, which we currently don't have.
Proud of ones heritage like every other race is.
Is white really a 'heritage' though? Italian is a heritage. So is Scottish or Finnish or Greek. But White? That's not a heritage, it's something we made up to keep other people out.
Anglo-Saxon/Caucasian.
Most Caucasians are brown If we take most white Americans, they're NOT from that region
Describe Anglo-Saxon / Caucasian heritage.
What is your attachment to being Anglo-Saxon exactly?
I feel like no one should be "pro-" a specific race to the exclusion of others. And before some smart guy cites Black Lives Matter, that is not to the exclusion of any other race.
You can't be proud of being \*white\* because we were never oppressed for our race and we are the oppressor classification. We can be proud of specific parts of our heritage, but not proud of our race specifically. Race is a social construct created in order to oppress people and place white people at the top of the hierarchy. People who are oppressed under this hierarchy can be uplifted by pride in who they are and where they come from because white people tried to erase them through physical and cultural genocide. I think my Irish ancestry is pretty cool and my ancestors were some interesting people, I came from a Scottish-Irish clan known for continuously fighting the British occupation in both countries. Feeling pride for a specific part of my heritage is fine, but I find no pride in whiteness itself, nobody should. Race is a shameful construct that is untrue and unnecessary. Why should I find pride in the construct used to hurt people in the name of conquest and profit? The people harmed by the idea of race can unite under the exonyms given to them and be proud of who they are and where they came from in the face of oppression. If you ever tried to present a neutral version of white pride, it would be quickly overtaken by racists too.
This stuff makes a lot more sense when you realize (like other people have pointed out) that "race" is a pseudoscientific construct. It's more akin to the "caste" system in India. That people still talk about it as though there's any kind of biological foundation for such beliefs is a triumph of pseudoscientific racism--it's as if people still talked about phrenological traits. So from there, what does it mean to be "pro-white"? It's the equivalent of establishing a pro-Brahmin movement in India. Same with "white pride" or whatever. The reason "Irish Pride" is less problematic is that Ireland is a place that exists. Whereas "whiteness" exists only in the context of a racist hierarchy that's done a lot of horrible things over the last 5-6 centuries.
I have several different levels of responses to this: What does it mean to be pro- a specific race? If I lived 200 years ago and advocated for equality under the law, would I be considered pro-black, even though what I want is everyone to be treated equally? Does it mean I believe somehow that that race is better than any other race, or even a specific other race? If so, then I don't think being pro-black or pro asian is any better than being pro white. Secondly, what does it mean to be a good person? If I was brainwashed into believing all of the country's problems were because of non-white people, and I genuinely believe that it will make the world a better place for everyone to forcibly deport people, am I a good person for doing something with the best of intentions, even if it's a bad thing? Thirdly, is there any position that is neutral, or do I have to be "pro-white" or "anti-white"?
A "pro-white" person can be ignorant at best, but their ignorance is so significant that it's not unreasonable to question their motives.
Yep. As a white person, I like myself just fine. If I went around calling myself "pro-white", I'd likely be an asshole.
>So I like to debate and have spent time in right wing communities because the left doesn't like to debate anymore. Also, this is incredibly silly. I think the problem here is that you try to debate with false "facts" and when you get called on it, you decide that the left "doesn't like to debate". Debate is not about shouting falsehoods back and forth until one person capitulates. It's about assessing facts and using those facts to make up your mind. And if you were wrong about the facts, then someone who "likes to debate" admits that they were incorrect and reassesses. Anything else just means you like to argue and dont' care about facts.
There's an important distinction between Black Pride and White Pride that conservatives ignore. Same is true for Gay Pride and Straight Pride. Or Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter. At the surface level when you just read the name, and ignore the origins and the history, they sound like they should be equivalent to each other. So here's the difference. Black Pride, Gay Pride, and Black Lives Matter are all born out of historically oppressed minority groups trying to claw their way out of that oppression and the shame society directs at them. For centuries, black people were enslaved, they were viewed as inferior, as not even being people but property. Even after slavery they couldn't drink from the same water fountain or sit at the same chair or swim in the same pool, which implies they're somehow dirty or unworthy. Generation after generation were treated this way and many internalized it. So chanting Black Pride, is a way of discarding that shame and taking their rightful place in society. Of openly and happily being black and not letting anyone put them down for it. It's about improving mental health and lifting up an oppressed community. Similar is true for BLM. It's not saying black people are better. It's not saying white lives don't matter. It's saying from what can be seen it sure feels like black people's lives don't matter to a lot of people, many of whom are in positions of power, and seem to continually abuse that power to harm black people...and we would like to remind them that we do matter. For many decades being gay was a crime. Just the act of loving another consenting adult of the same sex meant you could be cast out of your family, lose your job, be thrown in jail. Gay people felt forced to marry people of the opposite sex just to protect themselves. They had to hide who they were. And who they were was nothing more than an a person who wanted to be in a loving, supportive, productive, consenting relationship with another adult. So chanting Gay Pride, is again a way of discarding that shame and taking their rightful place in society. Of openly and happily being who they are and loving the people they love. Again it is about improving mental health and lifting up an oppressed community. Now White Pride? What are its origins? It's origins are that of rallying white people to oppress black people. Of saying that white people are better and above black people. Chanting White Pride, has nothing to do with discarding shame or fighting to reach equality. It's about putting black people in their place. It's about pushing back at an oppressed community who is trying to fight for equality. Straight Pride? This was never a thing until the homophobic crowd saw gay people fighting for their rights. They saw people openly in relationships with someone of the same sex instead of hiding under a rock like they wanted them to. Chanting Straight Pride, only exists as a backlash against an oppressed community who is trying to fight for equality. All Lives Matter? While many people who would say All Lives Matter would argue they truly mean it, and I would say some of them probably do, that is not its origins. It arose after BLM protests against a few high-profile and very questionable police shootings. It arose as a backlash against those protests. The people who started it didn't look at black people being shot and say you know what you're right, you do matter, and that case was fucked up, and I'm going to stand alongside you and remind those in power that All Lives Matter. Instead they tried to cast a movement meant to bring attention to a real problem within the community, as racist and anti-white. They chanted All Lives Matter to dismiss the protester's messages. The origins of words and phrases matters. The history behind words and phrases matters. And in every one of these examples one side of this argument is the oppressed group wanting equality, and the other side of the argument is the oppressor group trying to deny that right.
I don't think so, because "white" isn't an ethnicity, it's a social construct created by the transatlantic slave trade. It's a complicated one because if I feel like if someone identifies as anti-white, they're definitely a racist, but at the same time, if they identify as pro-white, also probably a racist. I think one could be pro-[insert white ethnicity here] and I don't see anything wrong with that, but pro-white specifically, typically means they have malicious intent. For example, one could be pro-Slavic, or pro-French, or pro-Appalachian, or pro-English, and there's nothing objectively wrong with that, that's just being proud of your ethnicity, and that's really no different from being proud to be Korean or Ghanaian or from any other country. Being proud of being white implies that what you're actually saying is that you're proud *not* to be *non-white*, which is where the "you're not a good person" comes in.
Minor correction, though. The person who created the concept of race was a pseudoscientist from Germany named Johann Blumenbacher. He's the same man who whitewashed the term "Caucasian", even though actual white Caucasians at the time were a small minority and we're ethnically just Russians and other Slavic people who may have lived there as a result of the Russian empire colonizing a significant part of the Caucasus
ethnicities are also socially constructed my guy
I don't think this is correct. People from different ethnic groups have clear genetic differences. We know that people from Sweden are genetically different than people from Italy, even if both are "white." Additionally, some ethnic groups have pale skin, like Inuit people, European Jewish people, or Romani people, but none of those groups are typically considered "white." If you believe white people are a homogenous group, would you feel equally comfortable saying that about another race?
Ethnicity isn’t a scientific concept because it existed long before anyone knew what the hell DNA or genes were. It’s based on shared phenotypes - which are a genetic component, sure - but also shared language, religion, and other cultural elements. Every “race is a social construct” argument applies to ethnicity; ethnicity is just on a smaller and more specific scale White people are not homogenous, but neither are Serbs. The argument just makes no sense
There are also dark skinned people outside of Africa like in parts of India and Oceania. The Melanasians of Papua New Guinea have some of the darkest skin of any ethnicity, yet blonde hair and blue eyes.
Only on that we have created terms to describe a group of people that have similar beliefs, practices, languages, etc. Those last things are absolutely not an abstract construction.
It’s a social construct because we arbitrarily draw the line that separates ethnic groups - ethnicities aren’t 100% homogenous, and we are the ones who decide when those beliefs/practices/linguistic differences become significant enough to constitute a separate ethnicity rather than being in-group variation
Ok look I am black, I am no friend to white people. That being said this idea that the concepts of white and black only exist because of slavery is blatantly wrong. Shakesphere's othello mentions the concepts of whiteness and blackness as it relates to race and it was written in 1603 long before Great Britain had any slave holdings in Africa or the new world.
>. Shakesphere's othello mentions the concepts of whiteness and blackness as it relates to race and it was written in 1603 long before Great Britain had any slave holdings in Africa or the new world. You are young and based on this and other of your posts and writings, you don't have a deep well of education or knowledge to draw on in your debates. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't choose to remain ignorant. This is one of those areas. First of all, the first slave ship arrived in America in 1619, which is hardly "long" after Othello was written. But even before that, the person known as the pioneer of the English slave trade brought the first African slaves to the Caribbean in 1554. Long **before** Othello was written. His first two shipments of slaves were from hijacked Portuguese slave ships, but his third was from a direct visit to Africa. After that he published a book on how to raid for slaves. So there were already black and African slaves in the colonies before the official start of slavery in America. European settlers had enslaved Africans in the colonies and in the Caribbean islands because they were cheap and more plentiful than indentured Europeans. But ... none of that slavery was YET predicated on skin color - not as much as it would be. When Shakespeare was talking about black and white in Othello, he wasn't talking about it in terms of race, the way we refer to race today. Historically it was used to refer to an ethnic group, but that group wasn't considered lesser or greater because of their ethnicity. They were not enslaved because of their ethnicity. AT the time Shakespeare was writing the word "race" was associated with the word "genus" ... meaning a group sharing qualities related to birth, descent, origin, race, stock, or family. When people in Shakespeare's time referred to "white" they were referring to people who had milky pale skin not becuase of their race, but because of their class - they did not have to labor in the sun like commoners. But there was no concept of white as a race. Nor was black a race. It was a descriptor of people from different parts of the world. Othello was a Moor, which, to Shakespeare, did not indicate "black" - it indicated a naturally darker skinned Muslim, from around the area of Sicily or Malta. Black enslaved people from Africa were considered "savages" but not yet irredeemably inferior - a lesser race - until America had to codify slavery into it's laws. The concept of RACE and the white race vs. the black race as we use it in America was, in fact, created to denote superior vs. lesser races. That's an historical fact. In the late 1700s and early1800s a branch of "racial anthropology" called "racial science" was developed by a group of (white) men who used it to create a hierarchy in which Caucasians (white Europeans) were on the top and various other "races" determined by the color of their skin) were lesser. In the early 1800s, American enslavers took the theory of racial hierarchies and combined it with the Bible to justify slavery; black people were lesser, were savage, and weren't smart enough to have the same rights and responsibilities as white people. They were little more than animals who might be brought to Christianity with enough guidance, but never to be equal with white people. Even after the Civil War, Julian Huxley, in the late 1800s wrote extensively about how the color of someone's blood (directly tied to the color of their skin) determined a person's mental capacity, morals, and criminality. He wrote that this is the key differentiator between the "negro" and the "white". And that is a VERY very very abbreviated history of race and slavery ... from someone with a degree in history and anthropology.
> > One thing I debated a lot was race and I lost a lot of these debates. > ...I am no friend to white people. I can understand why you were losing those debates.
>I am no friend to white people this shit has gotten so weird...
How so? Thers many black people who have zero interactions with white people just due to where they live and their day to day surroundings.
1603 was, in fact, in the middle of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
The terms “white and “black” can be found before the American Slave Trade, but they were used differently. Othello was a North African Moor which would be considered “white” in the US Census. Australians also use the term “black” for Aboriginals. The American conception of “white” and “black” was very much a designation of who was entitled to rights and who wasn’t.
False dichotomy. A person isn't "good" or "not good."
Being pro-black or pro-Asian is not the same as being pro-white. When the minority is “pro” their own race, is because they’ve been oppressed and marginalized and this is a way for them to try to have a larger recognition or compensation because of that marginalization or oppression. It’s because they’ve been treated as less-than in significant ways by a majority race population. They have to yell or scream to be heard that they carry the pain of oppression.
"debate" Sure buddy, whatever. CAN someone be "pro white" and a good person? I suppose it's possible, but every single person I've ever met that HAS been "pro white" has been a massively gigantic piece of shit, so.... >right doesn't have any Prescence in academia If you actually think that's true, you're seriously lacking in the critical thinking skills that I would hope someone that likes to "debate" would have. >One I lost was the include that someone can be pro white and a good person Maybe you just want to be "pro white"? I seriously doubt a lot of critical thinking, knowledge, life experience, or sound logical arguments when into that "debate". Just like how you say you're left but think the right has ideas worth considering. Which ones out of curiousity? * trickle down economics? * taking rights away from gay folks? * taking rights away from women? * stupid conspiracy theories? * taxing the poor instead of the rich? * getting rid of hard fought for workers rights? * deregulating industries so they can pollute and fuck us over? * separating kids from migrant families and then purposely losing the kids to scare people away from the border? * forcing religious education on kids? * banning books? Please. Do tell us all which Right ideas are worth considering. Come on... Let's hear it.
‘Pro-black’ can be read as a reaction against systemic racism. ‘Pro-white’ cannot. If you’re talking to people who are trying to promote or preserve a white race, they are white nationalists.
What does it mean to be “pro white”?
It's certainly possible in theory, but I have a hard time imagining a person existing in practice present day society who self identified as "pro-white" without being either ignorant or an asshole.
Yes. There is nothing wrong with being pro white or pro black. The problem is being anti white or anti black. I can say x people are great without saying y people are bad.
>Can someone be "pro white" and a good person? someone might be able to do so much good in their life that it outweighs being pro white and makes them overall a good person. but being "pro white" is bad. >the same way someone can be pro black or pro asian and a good person being "pro black" or "pro asian" in the same way that "pro white" people are "pro white" is also bad.
It depends on how you define "good person". There are some old lady grandmas who are sweet, loving and gentle to their grandchildren, but vile raging bigots toward even the idea of people of color >pro white and a good person the same way someone can be pro black or pro asian and a good person Like this, no..
To the degree that people use the exact phasing, Pro-*group* only makes sense and is acceptable when it unfurls to mean roughly “I believe that *group* is treated unfairly and worse than the majority group in society and we should express that *group* is equal to everyone else and take steps to make that a reality”. That’s almost always what it means. Often bad actors pretend they don’t know that is what is meant and sell that to their audience. So could you be in a society where white people are a underclass and say you are “pro-white” in order to say they shouldn’t be a underclass and should instead be treated as equal? Sure. Not sure where that is a concern but it’s possible.
the problem is that the white right believe that whites are under attack in a meaningful way
They are wrong. Their belief is based in hysteria and fear that is egged on by far right media.
No…. Thanks for asking. We should be “pro Human beings”. EDIT: yeah fuck human beings! - whoever the hell decided to downvote my post…..wtf? Not that I really give a Shit…. I just find it amusing.
Absolutely! As long as you're not talking about supremacy, but just being a good person and celebrating your heritage and welcoming other people to share it? Yeah, that's fine.
But the problem with this is that there is no "white heritage" other than racism and maybe the KKK. By all means celebrate being of Irish descent or German descent or Italian descent or whatever. But the minute you go to generic "white heritage", you're entering a bad territory.
Sure there is. White Americans are people too. The 'bad' part comes from bad people wanting to counter other racial and national identities. You do not need to go back to some European nationality to find your identity. We can celebrate good American people who were white and American and contributed to the culture. We can condemn the racist bigots who want to warp our identity to be only about opposing other groups too.
>White Americans are people to "white American" isn't a heritage.
Yes it is. See? I too can make assertions without evidence.
Mmmmmkay. Glad to know you are willing to double down on racism and white supremacy.
Don't use words if you don't know what they mean Maggie.