Why is taking pride in your people if you're white seen as a negative thing by libtards...

Why is taking pride in your people if you're white seen as a negative thing by libtards? Having white pride is synonymous with white supremacy according to them. Yet black pride is seen as a positive thing. Why is it that white rich college kids are the ones encouraging this narrative?

I'm proud when I see us prospering, I expect anyone other races to do the same. What's the problem in taking pride in your surroundings? I don't consider myself racist, and I do not look down on any other race.

I'm from Holla Forums if that matters. I just want your thoughts.

Other urls found in this thread:

jacobinmag.com/2017/01/safety-pin-box-richard-spencer-neo-nazis-alt-right-identity-politics/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

I don't. Also most black people I know don't have a real problem with it. They're more afraid of KKK than anything else.

Just don't take your white pride out on other people and I got no complaints.

you don't even know them you memelord

Because whiteness (literally a made up term to describe economically muh privileged europeans) stands for oppression. It is not even an ethnicity for fuck's sake.

But yeah it would probably be better to find an actual ethnicity if you want to do the 'muh pride!' thing than a color.

Saying that you're proud of white accomplishment is like saying you're proud that the sun shines and the wind blows. It's redundant.

This and that's why the liberal narrative became to deny white culture even exists, when it used to be "stop crying about black history month, white history month is every other month of the year". Libs are dividing into libertarian-socdems (reasonable) and the prog-fasces (insane) now.

because 99% of the time white pride IS white suppremecy. 90% of the time black pride is not black supremacy.

Identity politics without class consciousness breeds fascism.
jacobinmag.com/2017/01/safety-pin-box-richard-spencer-neo-nazis-alt-right-identity-politics/

This. Taking pride in your race/sexuality/nationality is retarded. You didn't CHOOSE to be born that way.

If white, rich, college-educated young people (the apex of humanity according to you) encourage this narrative, then who are you to oppose it? A filthy spic?

I agree without having to read a Jacobin article tyvm. Neoliberal technocracy and the organic unity of society proposed by the progs (equity), with symbolic icons in power is fascist mysticism of the progressive variety (the one the left loves to pretend never existed). Their policies in effect drive right wing authoritarian activation which drives right national-fascism. Both tend to grant the state more and more repressive powers. It's tensions between transnational global capital and national capital. Of course when the state has become fully repressive and the people are fully disempowered (either becoming coddled state dependents with learned helplessness under prog-fascism, or minority racial rule under right-fascism) it won't really matter either way, the bourgeoisie always wins.

Being "proud" of sharing through birthright the same arbitrary grouping as some remarkable people you are not even remotely connected to is beyond neurotic.

All racial pride a shit fam. We aren't liberals, and anyone saying any racial pride is good here is a shill. Because Soros is scared of us so he pays some shills.


This.

there's literally nothing wrong with taking pride in your culture regardless of your ethnicity. It's that white "nationalism" is a supremacist ideology because it takes pride in the colonialist aspects of european and american culture and appropriating symbols of oppression while hiding behind the veneer of wanting to celebrate its culture. Europeans only collective culture is that of imperialism and Christianity which only served as an extension of that.

Reminder that the same people who say this complain about Eurocentrism. I understand combatting supremacism but holy shit get your fucking story straight.

Daily reminder that "white" is not a real racial category and was created solely by the bourgeoisie in order to aid in their various imperialist projects. I mean wasn't it a bit convenient that the only people being exploited by european/colonial powers were "non-white"? Also note how the Irish suddenly became white in the mid-20th century after a century of being seen as practically subhuman (same thing with European jews as well.)

my story is as straight as can be.

But you post-colonialism types reaffirm this by creating the category PoC, which is a euphemism for non-white. It's the flipside of white supremacy and tacitly affirms it (as correct) while seeking to undermine it (as immoral).

According to Holla Forums all the lost Aryan tribes through The Middle East, Asia, and the Indian subcontinent are getting bumped up to White status!

"This ain't your granddaddies white supremacy! We're inclusive now!*

*Only when we want to claim your accomplishments/victories as our own to add to our collective white pride."

Which liberal arts professor taught you that one?

Teutonic History Month when?

I personally don't think anyone should take pride in something they have control over.

But I guess it's because that white pride is usually associated with white supremacy and the KKK, while black pride is usually associated with the civil rights movement etc.

because it is, whiteness only exists insofar as its opposites exist i.e. blackness, and non-whiteness. These were used as concepts to justify imperialism in south america and africa, by bringing salvation and civilization to the savages thanks to the innate superiority of whites.

it's called cognitive dissonance.


pic

but that wasn't a eurocentric view at all, I was just too lazy to put quotations around some of the terms.

Liberals may be hypocrites, but this doesn't make it any less idiotic to take pride in things that aren't accomplishments on your part.

If you need a reason to feel good about yourself, DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR FUCKING LIFE

Classical racial categories were constructed and manipulated by elites and imperial powers, of course. But it's ridiculous to think that the perception and categorization of white people across the entire world now is simply the product of internalized colonial oppression. That attributes extreme levels of agency to Europeans and their colonial centers while denying any to the rest of the world (who must be totally dominated by structure even when it didn't significantly affect their region, highly 'le noble savage'-esque), very Eurocentric. When pressed on this, your type tend to flip over to strong relativism, which is totally inconsistent as well. It's almost purely circular reasoning.

the white race is a plague.

the sooner they are exterminated, the better.

Dean Blunt?
Don't be spooked

Because your ancestors were evil, so apparently that means you can't have pride in your heritage without sharing in their sins.

For normal people, having pride in their culture means wearing out traditional clothing, making cultural foods, learning their language, etc. If you just said "I'm proud to be scottish!" no one would bat an eye.
Europe is not a unified culture, and whiteness is almost never used to refer to a specific european culture. Saying you have "white pride" is meaningless and obviously used in the context of white supremacy.

Being proud of your heritage does not mean it gets to be "white pride." You can be proud of your English, Scottish, French, Dutch, (insert any whatever the fuck European) heritage.
Don't act stupid.

Pride is a sin for a reason OP
It always leads to supremacy-complexes

:^)

I literally never said anything about white people or their perception, I was speaking in terms of concepts like "whiteness" and "blackness" and how they present false dichotomies. I was speaking about how white nationalism is built on the symbolism of oppressing other groups, not a celebration of european culture(s). Secondly, I never attributed a high level of agency to Europeans while subsequently denying the third world any, nor that they're magically dominated. Native peoples had their own civilizations, and cultures prior to European colonialism, and it was dominated and replaced by Europeans thanks to their advanced technologies, and resources. When pressed with the questions why they were able to dominate them, or for the reason, racial hierarchy and religion were presented as excuses.

Ok, fair enough, but you still are talking about a level cultural dominance over the entire world that never actually existed and endured, despite the extent of the empires. I'm just tired of post-colonial bullshit, it's a neoliberal cult afaik.

No.

And I forgot to mention my analysis is from the superstructure, not the base.

Mesitzo's being forced to convert to catholicism never happened to you? Genocide of 100 million natives never happened? Or how about the complete cultural, and social destruction of African slaves, who had no recollection of their past, their ancestors, or family and were forced to adopt American culture from a standpoint of a second class citizen.

What about Islam's supercession and destruction of traditional cultures. Are you forgetting about the Arabic slave trade, or are just Eurocentric to your core? I just find it strange that post-colonialist types tend to be out and out neoliberals, the end game is the universal cooption, commodification then finally destruction of all diversity and culture.

And again I forgot to mention, this is where my symbolic analysis of white nationalism ties into. This is the perception of "white nationalism," and "white culture," and this is subsequently what white nationalists pride themselves on. The idea of the german being proud for belonging to a society that formed the german idealists and some of the most brilliant mathematicians on the planet is replaced by Adolf Hitlers regime.

We were never talking about arabs, and islamic supremacy over the middle east and India.

That was just before capitalism bro.

same guy, the majority of Indians I know of absolutely despise muslims as a whole, and so do the Buddhists, and so do the Sikhs.

Of course you weren't because that runs against whiteness = oppression narrative which only ever focuses on the European conquests (and tends to dramatize them as if the colonial centers were totalitarian in all cases).


Not complaining about white slavery, just wondering why this is ignored. Mercantile trading empires were "before capitalism", depending on where you draw the line on your modes of production.

no because I never argued for the premise that whites were the only ones capable of oppression and cultural hegemony. We were focused on Europeans because the entire thread was focused on white nationalism.

I'm arguing that a hard black and white analysis such as yours tends to be implicitly Eurocentric, reproducing the very hegemonic ideology it ostensibly seeks to overcome. But I'll leave it there because you don't appear to be a full blown post-colonialist, who I was largely leveling such a claim against.

...

...

Nationalism is a spook and the EUcan ben reformed to be full blown communist that's for sure

I never presented anything a dichotomy, only the dichotomy from the point of view of the white supremacists who cling on to their ideals of whiteness and blackness, and the symbols they entail.

There are still leftists that think this is true.

It's almost like you've got the cogdiss bad baby. Let me help you.

Maybe I'm being too idealistic, but one can dream.

Welcome to our ranks comrade, here is your collectives toothbrush and provisional catgirl fleshlight

Okay

Euro-symbolism is encoded into the language we use, the entire philosophical tradition which spawned the ideological categories you now use, is my point if that makes sense. People such as yourself, though not necessarily you, as you seem more nuanced, are tacitly accepting a construct in service of its own overcoming perhaps without realizing it. I'm trying to argue for CONSISTENCY, as inconsistent analyses will create incoherent results, nothing else.

Sure, but that isn't to say that these ideas and symbols can't progress beyond their original meanings, or that they in any shape possess a european essence to them. As for the statement regarding analyses, the point of it is to accept analyses as far as its own consistency lends it, but analyses isn't some comprehensive ideal, there's no such thing as accepting a form of analyses from only one school of thought. Analyses can become as comprehensive and vast as it wishes to be, so I find a more nuanced analyses to be a more palatable one as it takes in more aspects of reality in at once.

That's all I'm trying to say. Global consistency is a normative ideal, it may not ever be truly attainable in reality, but to give up striving for it is a fool's errand as well. Thanks for the convo, sportsfan.

dis

also black pride is pride in the face of institutionalized oppression.

300 years of slavery + 100 more years of institutional discrimination + several more decades of police brutality, being evicted from homes to raise property values, being imprisoned for live just for drug possession , etc. = you get to be proud of your race.

cry harder about "white oppression" tho.

White supremacy was the reality from 1492 to 1945 especially as whites became the first to explore the world in the age of discovery and to discover industry putting them ahead of all other peoples allowing to subjugate all of them with colonialism and slavery. White supremacy was widely accepted. Actually, Hitler's ideas like white supremacy, militant anti-semitism, and colonizing and enslaving others were not that unusual at the time. But the Zeitgeist has changed, with the aftermath of WW2 the ideas of the Nazis have been opened up to scrutiny. Black pride hasn't been opened up to scrutiny because it isn't associated with the Nazis. So basically its all because of the Nazis.

Rhetoricians like you uphold neoliberal technocracy in most cases but never seem interested in direct solutions. It's bizarre.

Here's an idea: the ~7x overbalanced incarceration rate is actually the average, in many cases judges convict roughly the same rates, but it's heavily skewed due to some outrageously racist judges in some areas. These judges have public records, find them and remove them. One link in the chain of actual, quantifiable, existing institutional racism removed.

Or how about ending the drug war like lolberts push for but you don't ever want to be seen associating with by your friends down at the gin bar.

Pretty much everyone on Holla Forums thinks the War on Drugs is a disaster and needs to stop.

But they're also mainly larping liberals who can't stand lolberts and will never team up with them under any circumstances unlike the inhabitants of reality in pic related.

I don't want the war on drugs to stop. I want it to expand and become more lethal, Duterte style.

DEATH TO THE DEALERS

Those are two different systems that you're analyzing and can't be held to the same scrutiny, further I did accept that the european essence of racial systems that the colonialists imposed would give way to history over time. It's the white supremacists that say these systems are permanent and objective. I also never "gave up" on trying to obtain an ideal form of analyses (although I think much of what gives analyses credit and objectivity has to do with technological advancement and history).

Go to bed Holla Forums

Cool. I have no problem with this, I didn't mean to assume your position. You must admit many post-colonial theorists are retarded though? I think it helps WN propaganda when you have these people spouting purely circular reasoning, as the EXACT SAME logic neatly transposes into WN thought. And these people are often too emotionally invested from skewed reading about atrocity after atrocity (also, in some cases, embellished by other overzealous scholars) to see through the dissonance to realize that, imho.

I hold that the systems were products of much the same cultural milieu, although there wasn't the same profit motive/class dimension, behind for example the slave trade, who were heavily incentivized to propagandize representations of Africans, and the Europeans in many cases had no other channel of information. The patrician noblesse oblige of the bourgeois liberal intellectuals, also the philosophers, played a role in enabling this as well.

It's purely ideological and recursive in my opinion.
That's an accurate assessment to be honest, although if anything the enlightenment philosophers had actually cast the exact opposite light onto the horrors of colonialism and even Jefferson himself admit this when he regarded that the constitution and slavery are held in contradiction.

I'd just add this:
There were a wide range of views. Jefferson wasn't all of the founders, physical anthropology didn't emerge in a vacuum.

What's with tankies and reactionary idiocy?

Further, it's disingenuous to suggest anti-racialism was more than a minority view. See Kant for example. The US abolitionists tended to view it as "spiritual equality" rather than reified egalitarianism.


Pol psyops/teenage ideological tourists/Gommunism is inherently fucked, sorry Leftcom.

Yeah they weren't, but I was referring to those who inspired the liberal revolutions of the 18th and 19th century, Locke, Newton, Rousseau and so on. I was stating that the discourse on slavery, and imperialism came largely from the enlightenment philosophers, and so to did Marx's ideas.

True. And this is why I think any honest critique of society and history must include a criticism of intellectuals as intellectuals, which intellectuals (for whatever reason???) seem reluctant to pursue.

Yeah, I agree and we're essentially getting into critical theory at this point and the large base of Adorno's works.