Legitimate celebration of white culture?

pickarooney

Is there such a thing? Is it to be encouraged or is it just 'a bad thing' once it glorifies whitey?
There are many legitimate societies and websites celebrating all manner of racial, national and religious greatness, but once it's about whiteness it's invariably something radically different. Any websites that do exist seem to be the complete opposite, concentrating purely on hatred, vilification and denigration of others as opposed to celebrating their own lifestyles and history.
I've no personal interest in this, it just struck me as odd.

sovtek

pickarooney wrote:

Is there such a thing? Is it to be encouraged or is it just 'a bad thing' once it glorifies whitey?
There are many legitimate societies and websites celebrating all manner of racial, national and religious greatness, but once it's about whiteness it's invariably something radically different. Any websites that do exist seem to be the complete opposite, concentrating purely on hatred, vilification and denigration of others as opposed to celebrating their own lifestyles and history.
I've no personal interest in this, it just struck me as odd.

What is "white" culture anyway?
Did we all originally come from Whiteland or something?

simu

There are plenty of sites, festivals etc celebrating the culture of groups made up mostly (but not necessarily exclusively) of people with white skin but to me celebrating "white" culture is as meaningless as celebrating the culture of people with green eyes.

bonkey

pickarooney wrote:

Is there such a thing?

<tasteless>
An albino convention, maybe?
</tasteless>

jc

pickarooney

Indeed, what is white culture? What is black culture? What is Asian culture?

It does sound pointless, even ludicrous to us. So why do things such as black power etc. exist? Same with gay groups and other "minority" associations. Are they not counter-productive? What is the point in celebrating the commonality of a genetic accident? Why stress the fact that you're a minority in one aspect while ignoring that you're a majority in others? You're in the minority as, say, a Lebanese in New Zealand, but in the majority as a heterosexual right-hander.
Is it merely a form of elitism, or what reason do people have to belong to societies whose criteria for membership are based on physical attributes rather than common interests or goals?

por

simu wrote:

There are plenty of sites, festivals etc celebrating the culture of groups made up mostly (but not necessarily exclusively) of people with white skin but to me celebrating "white" culture is as meaningless as celebrating the culture of people with green eyes.

In the US Febuary is Black History Month, is this meaningless ?.

I'm WHITE and I'm PROUD

simu

por wrote:

In the US Febuary is Black History Month, is this meaningless ?.

It's probably meaningful for those Americans who are are brainwashed into seeing the world through simplistic filters...

I'm WHITE and I'm PROUD

Of what? "Wow! My skin is less pigmented than that of other people!" "Gee whiz! Look how little light my skin absorbs!"

por

simu wrote:

It's probably meaningful for those Americans who are are brainwashed into seeing the world through simplistic filters...



Of what? "Wow! My skin is less pigmented than that of other people!" "Gee whiz! Look how little light my skin absorbs!"

Blacks say it, why can't I. I'm proud of being a member of a racial group (northern europeans) that are responsible for the developemd of western civilisation as we know it.

billy the squid

Could it be possible that the origins of the likes of "black culture" came from the fact that in one point in time they were oppressed and forced into slavery. it is this cultures way of saying "I am (insert colour /race here ) and I am damn proud of it and any hatred for me that you have will make me stronger"

You would see the same in gay communities where at one time, it was a criminal offence to be gay, now in most places, you have gay pride movements.

White people in general have not been oppressed or dominated by another race this might be the reason that they have not had a reason to stand up and seek recognition from others

bonkey

por wrote:

I'm WHITE and I'm PROUD

So am I, but in my case, I generally don't relate the two facts, because they've got nothing to do with each other.

jc

bonkey

por wrote:

Blacks say it, why can't I.

Well, in their case it typically arose as them turning the very thing that made them oppressed into a symbol of pride.

In your case, it would taking the very thing that symbolised oppressors and claiming to be proud of it.

But hey...if your proud of that....you go right ahead and re-affirm to the world that you're glad that we oppressed so many people.

Or maybe you'd like to rethink they "if they can do it, why can't I" logic, which associates your reasoning with theirs.

jc

PH01

I'm more pink than white, with freckles.
When I'm cold I turn blue and when I get drunk and excited I turn red. And when I'm sick I turn pasty.
So I really don't understand why I'm called 'white', or why I should have a 'white culture'? Or why I should celebrate it?

pickarooney

Bollocks if having pale skin symbolises oppression. If you're going to use such a simplistic gauge to judge people and hold them responsible for the actions of others, hundreds of years ago, then you're a moron.
If you reckon your skin colour, be it brown, pink or green, is a reason to be proud (or ashamed), then you're also a moron.
All you're doing is reinforcing the nonsensical idea that your pigmentation somehow makes you better or worse than someone else. The very idea you're supposedly fighting against.
So far most posts have been wishy-washy (I've been deliberately cagey so as not to light the fuse of indignant righteousness so far) and contradictory. Skin colour is no grounds fro celebration if it's one shade, but it's ok if it's another? Toss.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

Did we all originally come from Whiteland or something?

Yes. Europe.


White Culture would theoretically be common European culture - classical music, opera, renaissance literature, ballet and architecture. Perhaps even a Vienna ball. On that basis White Culture, when identified as European, does exist. Of course, the sad reality is that if one were to see a celebration of White Culture it would probably involve a lot of Klansmen and line dancing; which other than not been very representative of White Culture is ironically as cultural as a yogurt.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Yes. Europe.


White Culture would theoretically be common European culture - classical music, opera, renaissance literature, ballet and architecture.

So I can celebrate the renaissance as being mine despite the fact it was in a totally different country on the basis that they are white? o_O

As someone already pointed out celebration of X is normally where X has previously been oppressed. I don't recall "white" being oppressed, although you could probably get away with celebrating your Irish heritiage.

pickarooney

You celebrating the renaissance is as relevant as someone born in Philadelphia in 1978 celebrating the end of slavery.
And why is it legitimate to celebrate your Irish heritage? Because a few people were short of spuds in the 18th century?

Redleslie2

Hobbes wrote:

I don't recall "white" being oppressed.

Except by other "whites".

Hobbes

pickarooney wrote:

You celebrating the renaissance is as relevant as someone born in Philadelphia in 1978 celebrating the end of slavery.

Not really because they can probably trace their family line back to Slavery, where as the renaissance happened into a totally different country and I have no link to that.

Don't assume just because there is a Black Heritage day that every black person celebrates it.

And why is it legitimate to celebrate your Irish heritage? Because a few people were short of spuds in the 18th century?

Probably because I came from Ireland as did my family?

bonkey

pickarooney wrote:

Bollocks if having pale skin symbolises oppression.

If you use the "they do it, so why can't I", then you need to look at why they're doing it, and how that reflects on you.

So far, thats the only reason offered here by anyone as to why they believe in "white pride".

I haven't suggested that every reason for white pride is invalid.

If you reckon your skin colour, be it brown, pink or green, is a reason to be proud (or ashamed), then you're also a moron.

So, all the blacks who see taking positive action about their colour, as a means of fighting against the historical oppression and continuing racist attitude about them are morons???

I see...and how should they react to being oppressed/discriminated against for their colour without being morons? By accepting that their colour makes them inferior? By keeping their mouths shut and saying nothing?

All you're doing is reinforcing the nonsensical idea that your pigmentation somehow makes you better or worse than someone else. The very idea you're supposedly fighting against.

If thats how you want to look at it...fine. I would see it as the exact opposite. I would see it as a refusal to be cowed by those who insist you are inferior because of your colour.

You know...like many disabled people like to bear their disability as a badge of pride....to show those who insist that it somehow makes them inferior just how full of crap they can be. I guess all those disabled are morons in your eyes too, yeah?

Skin colour is no grounds fro celebration if it's one shade, but it's ok if it's another?

I see. And if instead of naming it "black pride" (or whatever), they named it something catchy like "Previously Enslaved But Now Liberated Fellow Human Beings Who Refuse To Allow Their Physical Differences To Continue To Be Used As A Badge of Shame Against Them Any More"......would that be ok, or would they still be morons?

Seriously...would PEBNLFHBWRTATPDTCTBUAABOSATAM celebrations be equally moronic in your eyes, or would the catchy name-change actually make a difference in validity?

If it was the Irish abroad, and they were clebrating "Irish and Proud of It" in retaliation to a belief that we were some form of Untermenschen, good to have on the building site, but nowhere else.....would that be moronic?

Now look at people celebrating being white. What are they celebrating their whiteness for? What catchy name change can we give them? Well...if they're doing it on the grounds of "well its ok for those PEBNLFHBWRTATPDTCTBUAABOSATAM guys, then it must be ok for us", then it would appear to me that - at best - they are celebrating not being black.

You need a reason to celebrate. That can be either from joy/pride in something, or celebration-as-protest. The whole "Black Pride" movement comes from the latter of these, not the former. If you want to see that as moronic.....go right ahead.

jc

por

There seems to be a stigma around expression of pride in being a white Northern European. As soon as one mentions it and the infulence it has had on our world the term 'opression' is thrown into the argument.
Whites have had a great infulence on the world we live in, look at the prosperious, demcratic vibrant nations beyond Europe that white Northern European setelment has built, USA, Canada, Aus, NZ.
Now look at post independence Africa and the state it is in (beacuse the Europeans did not hang around), look at Zim. and the way a country so rich 20 years ago is now on it's keens because it's white farmers have been expelled and replaced with cronies who will not farm the land, thus letting their country starve.

Redleslie2

Anyone hear the Spanish fans celebrating white culture last night in the game against England? Making monkey noises at black players is a bit of a low brow way of celebrating one's culture it has to be said, but valid enough.

bonkey

por wrote:

As soon as one mentions it and the infulence it has had on our world the term 'opression' is thrown into the argument.

Well, thats because oppression was central to the influence we historically had.

prosperious, demcratic vibrant nations beyond Europe that white Northern European setelment has built, USA, Canada, Aus, NZ.

And look at the indigenous peoples that Northern European settlement has enacted (or attempted to enact) genocide upon in order to build each one fo those countries...

Now look at post independence Africa and the state it is in (beacuse the Europeans did not hang around),

Uh-huh. Look at the state it was in before the Europeans left, where the natives were treated as inferior, were oppressed, and so on. Not much to be proud of.

look at Zim. and the way a country so rich 20 years ago is now on it's keens

When you say the country was rich....you mean "the whites in the country were rich", don't you though...because thats where the richness was - in the hands of the whites.

So really, you're basically saying we should be proud that we successfullly explouted the natives, and that we could do so far more effectively than the current in-power factions of the natives themselves can exploit the rest of their own people having wrested control from the whites which was never going to be given freely.

There is much achieved in our history to be proud of.....but most of the signifcant achievements must be tempered with a basic acknowledgement that it was achieved at the cost of subduing, oppressing, and/or slaughering people who's only crimes were to not be a successful, white, North European and to be in the white, North Europeans' way.

jc

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

So I can celebrate the renaissance as being mine despite the fact it was in a totally different country on the basis that they are white? o_O

Most of the Renaissance too place in Italy; however it profoundly influence the culture of the entire continent, including Ireland. It was not a cultural influence for African, Islamic or Asian culture.

Additionally, let’s not forget that one of the most profound cultural influences throughout Europe has been the Church - the art and music promoted by Rome was for centuries a pan-European affair.

By the Sixteenth century, European culture was already fairly homogenous. An Irishman could move to another European city and integrate relatively quickly. And most notable is that culture had no boundaries by that stage and later - where did Handel first play his Messiah after all?

As someone already pointed out celebration of X is normally where X has previously been oppressed. I don't recall "white" being oppressed, although you could probably get away with celebrating your Irish heritiage.

I proposed that an interpretation of White could be European as trying to link culture to race is not very believable.

the_syco

We call it St Patricks Day, when we celebrate being Irish.

Its a global thing.

We go out, and get hammered.

=-=

A white hetrosexual male cannot sue anyone for being racist or sexist towards him, but anyone can sue him for being racist or sexist.

pickarooney

bonkey wrote:

So, all the blacks who see taking positive action about their colour, as a means of fighting against the historical oppression and continuing racist attitude about them are morons???

I see...and how should they react to being oppressed/discriminated against for their colour without being morons? By accepting that their colour makes them inferior? By keeping their mouths shut and saying nothing?


If thats how you want to look at it...fine. I would see it as the exact opposite. I would see it as a refusal to be cowed by those who insist you are inferior because of your colour.

I see. And if instead of naming it "black pride" (or whatever), they named it something catchy like "Previously Enslaved But Now Liberated Fellow Human Beings Who Refuse To Allow Their Physical Differences To Continue To Be Used As A Badge of Shame Against Them Any More"......would that be ok, or would they still be morons?

jc

Who's being enslaved now? It's over, and has been for centuries. Let it lie. Concentrate on doing something positive for now and for the future in stead of harping on about the past. What sense does it have for people born centuries after the fact to bang on about it to other people born aeons after it happened?

Who's being opressed? The very fact that people have a right to found or belong to an organisation indicates the exact opposite.

Who's insisting on inferiority based on colour? If you truly want equality, why not aim for it by ignoring the artifical boundaries erected by the establishment you're railing against? If your purpose is to prove that skin colour is not a valid reason for prejudice, why the hell use colour (or sexuality, or ease of mobility) as your flag?

Seriously, if Irish people were to go about moaning about the famine or Cromwell to English people all the time, do you not think they'd get a bit pissed off and want less to do with you than if you let go your baggage and concentrate on making the most of what you've got?

What purpose does celebration-as-protest serve only to embarass the innocent and further polarise those with prejudices?

Just because you don't get into a slanging match with some scanger who has a go at your mother or calls you a "kweear" doesn't mean you accept it or agree with it. Rise the fúck above that or you're no better than them.

Hobbes

por wrote:

There seems to be a stigma around expression of pride in being a white Northern European.

Or rather people would just look at you funny instead. Taking pride in being Irish, ok thats fine, taking pride in being European, fine too. White Northern European?? what are you a polar bear?

bonkey

pickarooney wrote:

Who's being enslaved now? It's over, and has been for centuries. Let it lie.

You're telling me that there isn't a single black person who is discriminated against for the colour of their skin???

Concentrate on doing something positive for now and for the future in stead of harping on about the past.

Why is it pretty much never the victims who say this about any given issue???

And its not only in the past. Its an ongoing problem, but I decided that if I added "Who Are Still Discriminated Against" (after the words "Human Beings") to the catchy new name to replace Black Pride, it would become somewhat long and unwieldy....so I went with catchiness over total accuracy.

My apologies. As of now, its PEBNLFHBWASDABWRTATPDTCTBUAABOSATAM.

That should clear up any confusion.

Honestly...I can't see why anyone was so daft as to go for contentious names like "Black Pride" when such snazzy acronyms like this one are much better...

What sense does it have for people born centuries after the fact to bang on about it to other people born aeons after it happened?

Because its effects are still being felt, and the mentality which gave rise to it all is still rife.

If you truly want equality, why not aim for it by ignoring the artifical boundaries erected by the establishment you're railing against?

Brecause in order to gain equality, you must first surmount those artificial boundaries.

The idea is not unlike Affirmative Action, which basically reasons that because we have made a situation so unequal, we must favour the disadvantaged just to put them on an effective equal footing.

If and when equality is reached, I'll agree that affirmative action has no place. Until that day, the disadvantaged are absolutely correct in highlighting their case, and by making it very bloody clear how and why they are disadvantaged, and that it is something they do not agree with.

If your purpose is to prove that skin colour is not a valid reason for prejudice, why the hell use colour (or sexuality, or ease of mobility) as your flag?

To provide a counter-balance to those who use the same colour as their flag of oppression.

Seriously, if Irish people were to go about moaning about the famine or Cromwell to English people all the time,

I'd ask them to show me the ongoing discrimination by the English against the Irish that they were retaliating against, and how they were disadvantaged by it.

Actually....I'm more likely to tell them to shut the hell up because they're not disadvantaged by it....but I reckon I'd be a total idiot to say that to blacks about racial discrimination.

What purpose does celebration-as-protest serve only to embarass the innocent

I don't know about you, but I'm not embarrassed by blacks celebrating their colour as a means of highlighting an ongoing problem. I see it as a reminder that they are discriminated against by many, even if I'm not amongst those.

I would, however, be embarrassed by a bunch of people espousing por's "weren't we great, conquering the world" celebrating in the face of those who still bear the injustice of the discrimination that was central to that conquering and remains to this day.

and further polarise those with prejudices?

Yes...if thats what it takes. Get the rest of society - the majority - to villify the racists. Get the majority to stop turning a blind eye, and to stop taking comfort in the "well, I'm not racist, so I don't need to concern myself with the problem". Get them to think "who are these assholes who are causing so much hassle that these people take the streets in this manner". Get them to speak out against racists. And if it involves making hte racists more racist....well....that will only make them less acceptable to society at large, and ultimately will help in their downfall as their petty reasoning is shown increasingly for the empty self-aggrandising bigotry that it is.

[/quote]Just because you don't get into a slanging match with some scanger who has a go at your mother or calls you a "kweear" doesn't mean you accept it or agree with it. Rise the fúck above that or you're no better than them.[/QUOTE]
<Shrug>

...because thats the only problem blacks have regarding their skin-colour....people calling them names. There's no other discrimination at all...no bigger problem which the name-calling is simply symptomatic of. Nope. Its just name-calling.

Man...I really want in to your world. The only racist problem that haven't been consigned to the past is name-calling!!! It sounds fscking wonderful compared to this one. How do I get in?

jc

RasTa

Hobbes wrote:

Or rather people would just look at you funny instead. Taking pride in being Irish, ok thats fine, taking pride in being European, fine too. White Northern European?? what are you a polar bear?

haha. Im half and half and take pride in just being alive to be honest. I've seen alot of crap over the summer that most people take for granted. Por you sound like someone out of the BNP who will never say a bad word against white people.

por

RasTa wrote:

Por you sound like someone out of the BNP who will never say a bad word against white people.

I have no problem saying bad things against white people and I have no problem with people of colour moving to and living in Ireland.
I believe the white regime in South Africa was despicable, and in Zimbabwe the regime prior to 1980 were hardly saints but at least they were feeding the country unlike the current dictatorship.
Overall I believe that Northern European influence has done more good than bad over history.

Hobbes wrote:

White Northern European?? what are you a polar bear?.

Hobbes, you are a barrel of laughs

sovtek

pickarooney wrote:

Who's being enslaved now? It's over, and has been for centuries. Let it lie. Concentrate on doing something positive for now and for the future in stead of harping on about the past. What sense does it have for people born centuries after the fact to bang on about it to other people born aeons after it happened?

While slavery was abolished (I think America being the last country to do so) in 1865, that's hardly centuries ago. A century would be more accurate.
Now then we had the lovely Jim Crow laws enacted to virtually keep that slavery in place by making sure that the former slaves couldn't achieve any true economic independence....so basically they all had to be gardeners, maids, etc etc.
That legally ended less than 40 years ago.
Then you had Apartheid South Africa which only ended a DECADE ago and is still around in some ways because the companies that profited off it are still making sure that the majority stay where they were in terms of poverty.
I still marveled at how whenever the only seat left on a bus in Dublin would be next to an African that people would still nervously look around and avoid sitting down next to him/her.
I couldn't believe that my wife's former boss (she was working as a waitress and he owned the restaurant on Dame Street) told her that he "doesn't speak to ****" when an American black guy wanted to talk to him about his bill. Quite ironic considering my wife is a white South African.
But your right, it was all over aeons ago.

sovtek

por wrote:

I believe the white regime in South Africa was despicable, and in Zimbabwe the regime prior to 1980 were hardly saints but at least they were feeding the country unlike the current dictatorship.

Yea they were feeding the population by default...of course no one went hungry and the white farmers were just giving the food away to feed the poor blacks there. And those altruistic white farmers didn't take the land from the inhabitants of that country and the white farmers were the ones busting their ass in the hot sun everyday to provide the harvest that they made handsome profits from.
And the current dictatorship didn't arise out of the fight to become independent from the white colonial regime. No it had no baring whatsoever on making Mugabe what he is today....because any memory of government the Matabele or Shona have didn't come from the white regime's before them.
I really don't get the logic. Europe comes in and takes over the place...exploiting the natives and getting rich off it. But then they all leave very suddenly or are forced out after bloody battles....and it's all the fault of the brutal black regimes that took over. Being that their cultures were virtually wiped out, along with their own methods of governing themselves...leaving them with their European model. But then it's still all their fault and our "First World" governments are all a bunch of saintly, competent managers who would never use their posititions to enrich themselves.

Overall I believe that Northern European influence has done more good than bad over history.

Because the world was just full of savages before the Northern Europeans came around. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

While slavery was abolished (I think America being the last country to do so) in 1865, that's hardly centuries ago. A century would be more accurate.

Actually, Mauritania was the last nation to officially abolish slavery in 1980. Even in the Americas, the US was not the last to abolish it – that honour falls to Brazil, in 1888.

Now then we had the lovely Jim Crow laws enacted to virtually keep that slavery in place by making sure that the former slaves couldn't achieve any true economic independence....so basically they all had to be gardeners, maids, etc etc.

Not unusual, Abyssinia (Ethiopia) officially abolished slavery in 1921, however it continued as an effective practice until it was finally stopped in 1936 (less said about how that happened the better ).

Then you had Apartheid South Africa which only ended a DECADE ago and is still around in some ways because the companies that profited off it are still making sure that the majority stay where they were in terms of poverty.

Didn’t Uganda strip all citizens of Asian or Indian origin of citizenship and then deport them in 1972? Many also argue that something similar is presently (and ironically) happening to Europeans in Zimbabwe.

All in all, white people don’t have a monopoly on being ****, so I suggest you get over the guilt trip, TBH.

Redleslie2

por wrote:

Overall I believe that Northern European influence has done more good than bad over history.

Why the emphasis on northern europe I wonder. Southern and eastern europeans like the romans, greeks and byzantines were somewhat influential on the course of world history. Anyway, any talk of white culture without considering the importance of arab, persian and other influences is silly. It was the arabs that taught europeans how to keep accounts, a huge volume of their works on commerce, maths and science were translated into latin in the middle ages and words like tariff, zero, magazine, almanac and algebra are all from arabic.

pickarooney

Can you not the hypocrisy of associating "white" history with oppression, colonisation, genocide etc. and ignoring the positive aspects of it while overlooking the exact same despicable elements of "black" history?

Take slavery for example. The people who were brought to the Americas as slaves were already slaves before they left. They were enthralled and then sold by other black Africans. Slavery still exists, and is even on the increase in parts of Africa. But white people alive today should be ashamed of what some unrelated white people did centuries ago?
Apartheid South Africa was an appalling situation, but it was controlled by a tiny minority of white people. Far more white people worldwide condemned it and refused to trade with the apartheid regime than were actively involved in it.

How many objected when Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam encouraged a million men to march on Washington? If their white equivalent, the Ku Klux Klan had done the same, what sould have been the reaction?

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

It was the arabs that taught europeans how to keep accounts, a huge volume of their works on commerce, maths and science were translated into latin in the middle ages and words like tariff, zero, magazine, almanac and algebra are all from arabic.

Actually, the Arabs more correctly reminded rather than taught the Europeans as many of the mathematical principles we took from them were originally Roman or Greek and had been lost to us as a result of the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Of course the Arabs added to mathematics (both algebra and zero are theirs) and also arguably the Greeks pinched mathematics from the Egyptians in the first place.

Redleslie2

Then there's the very northern european Mr.Christ of course.

por

Redleslie2 wrote:

Why the emphasis on northern europe I wonder.

Take a look at the Americas.
Northern Europeans (British and Germans mainly but also some French and Scandinavians) colonised the USA and Canada, and look at how prosperous and developed they have become.

Now look at what the Southern Europeans (Spanish and Portuguese) colonised in Central and South America., look what it has become poor, corrupt, etc etc.

This however may also be to do with a difference between Protestant and Catholic rather than North and South Europe.

sovtek

pickarooney wrote:

Can you not the hypocrisy of associating "white" history with oppression, colonisation, genocide etc. and ignoring the positive aspects of it while overlooking the exact same despicable elements of "black" history?

I'm not overlooking the positive aspects of European culture or any other. I do question the motives of people who need to identify it with "white" culture.

Take slavery for example. The people who were brought to the Americas as slaves were already slaves before they left. They were enthralled and then sold by other black Africans. Slavery still exists, and is even on the increase in parts of Africa.

I'm well aware of the history of slavery and the Africans part in it. On the other hand we are supposedly the bringers of "civilization" to the "savages" yet it was the money and goods that bought these slaves that further encouraged that enslavement.

But white people alive today should be ashamed of what some unrelated white people did centuries ago?

Yes they should be ashamed of it...and make sure the effect it still has on us today is reversed. If I remember correctly...it took until Clinton for a US President to even apologize for slavery and Howard refused to apologize to the Aboriginies a few years ago.

Apartheid South Africa was an appalling situation, but it was controlled by a tiny minority of white people.

Far more white people worldwide condemned it and refused to trade with the apartheid regime than were actively involved in it.

Yes a majority of white people condemned it while alot of their governments secretly supported it and America (and the UK IIRC) even sent military aid to the Apartheid regime to fight against the ANC in surrounding countries, like Angola and Mozambique.
I memory is hazy but didn't France, along with UK and the US also refuse to condemn Apartheid in a UN Resolution?

How many objected when Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam encouraged a million men to march on Washington?

Actually alot of white people did object in America and the media downplayed it with reports "The 500,000 Man March" which became a running joke in America.
Of course many people, blacks included condemn Farrakhans racist ideology towards Jews as well.

If their white equivalent, the Ku Klux Klan had done the same, what sould have been the reaction?

IIRC Farrakhan and his group have never gone out and hung white peope on a large scale.
Comparing the KKK to the Nation of Islam is like comparing the Nazi's to PETA.

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, Mauritania was the last nation to officially abolish slavery in 1980. Even in the Americas, the US was not the last to abolish it – that honour falls to Brazil, in 1888.

Not unusual, Abyssinia (Ethiopia) officially abolished slavery in 1921, however it continued as an effective practice until it was finally stopped in 1936 (less said about how that happened the better )

K so even less than a century then.

Didn’t Uganda strip all citizens of Asian or Indian origin of citizenship and then deport them in 1972? Many also argue that something similar is presently (and ironically) happening to Europeans in Zimbabwe.

All in all, white people don’t have a monopoly on being ****, so I suggest you get over the guilt trip, TBH.

And I suggest you tell me when I ever said that white people have a monopoly as well I suggest you tell me how the Europeans in Zimbabwe isn't linked to the history of those said Europeans ruling said country.

sovtek

por wrote:

Take a look at the Americas.
Northern Europeans (British and Germans mainly but also some French and Scandinavians) colonised the USA and Canada, and look at how prosperous and developed they have become.

The European colonists come in a wipe out the original inhabitants and then take over all the nice rich land..

Now look at what the Southern Europeans (Spanish and Portuguese) colonised in Central and South America., look what it has become poor, corrupt, etc etc.

And that had nothing to do with the US/UK and France coming in afterwards and continuing the colonial tradition...ie Phillipines, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Grenada, Haiti, Cuba.........etc etc.

This however may also be to do with a difference between Protestant and Catholic rather than North and South Europe.

Maybe...if you don't look too closely.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

K so even less than a century then.

Only for African and Middle Eastern states though, which wasn’t really your argument – no nasty white men enslaving the poor oppressed black man, which kind of defeats your argument, in fairness.

And I suggest you tell me when I ever said that white people have a monopoly as well I suggest you tell me how the Europeans in Zimbabwe isn't linked to the history of those said Europeans ruling said country.

It’s probably more closely linked to the same kind of political opportunism that we saw in Uganda when Idi Amin decided that all the Asians living there didn’t deserve to continue living there.

Of course, with regard to Zimbabwe, I would note that arguing that past colonial injustice justifies the brutal suppression of a (white) racial minority is a bit like the old justification for anti-Semitism on the basis that the Jews crucified Christ.

por

sovtek wrote:

And that had nothing to do with the US/UK and France coming in afterwards and continuing the colonial tradition...ie Phillipines, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Grenada, Haiti, Cuba.........etc etc.

And what colonial tradition did the US/UK and France countine in countries like Brazil, Argentina, Cille, Columbia, Bolivia, Peru, Venesuala, none that I can recall.

sovtek wrote:

And I suggest you tell me when I ever said that white people have a monopoly as well I suggest you tell me how the Europeans in Zimbabwe isn't linked to the history of those said Europeans ruling said country.

So you are saying it's OK for blacks to oppress whites on the basis of history?

The crux of this is, and it has been stated by others is that it's OK for races other than white to express their pride etc but when whites do it it is some way glorifying a past of oppression of natives.

the_syco wrote:

A white hetrosexual male cannot sue anyone for being racist or sexist towards him, but anyone can sue him for being racist or sexist.

Very true, have a look at advertising in the US. In an ad containing a scene between people of different races the white male is portrayed as a bumbling buffoon where as the non-white is portrayed as being smart and inelegant, put it the other way round and you would have up roar from minority organisations. A good example of this is a Reebok ad during the Superbowl in 2003. It was called 'Terry Tate office Linebacker', it was basically a huge African American in an office situation tackling people and enforcing office rules etc. In the ad Terry Tate mainly tackles weedy white workers, and rarely workers of other races or black workers. If that was a white man tackling non-white workers the networks would be too scared to put it on air.

Here is a link to the ads. http://www.xtrememass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105

Moriarty

por wrote:

Very true, have a look at advertising in the US. In an ad containing a scene between people of different races the white male is portrayed as a bumbling buffoon where as the non-white is portrayed as being smart and inelegant, put it the other way round and you would have up roar from minority organisations. A good example of this is a Reebok ad during the Superbowl in 2003. It was called 'Terry Tate office Linebacker', it was basically a huge African American in an office situation tackling people and enforcing office rules etc. In the ad Terry Tate mainly tackles weedy white workers, and rarely workers of other races or black workers. If that was a white man tackling non-white workers the networks would be too scared to put it on air.

Perhaps if there were more black people in office employment and more white people playing linebacker in american football, the roles would have been reversed.

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote:

Only for African and Middle Eastern states though, which wasn’t really your argument – no nasty white men enslaving the poor oppressed black man, which kind of defeats your argument, in fairness.

Ummm you mean a formerly ruled by a European country that abolished slavery after independence from Europe doesn't support my argument? Not that I every stated in any argument that white people have a monopoly on oppression of others.

It’s probably more closely linked to the same kind of political opportunism that we saw in Uganda when Idi Amin decided that all the Asians living there didn’t deserve to continue living there.

You mean that Idi Amin that was originally backed and installed by America Idi Amin?

Of course, with regard to Zimbabwe, I would note that arguing that past colonial injustice justifies the brutal suppression of a (white) racial minority is a bit like the old justification for anti-Semitism on the basis that the Jews crucified Christ.

Maybe, if you're really trying to stretch that there's no direct historical link between white colonialism and the eventual backlash it causes. Especially when one tries to suggest that the negative aspects of "black" history are somehow divorced from that link.
While the equation of white farmers taking land from black inhabitants and the process of land reform (that only started two decades ago), with Jews and Jesus is tenuous. It reminded me of Hitler's idea of placing arm bands on Jews coming from the Middle Ages.

sovtek

por wrote:

And what colonial tradition did the US/UK and France countine in countries like Brazil, Argentina, Cille, Columbia, Bolivia, Peru, Venesuala, none that I can recall.

I guess you aren't aware of the School of the Americas and how many of the rulers of that list of countries "graduated" from there. Or maybe the coup a couple of years ago in Venezuala that America hailed, even though it deposed the democratically elected leader...of whom the people helped put back in power a couple of days later.

So you are saying it's OK for blacks to oppress whites on the basis of history?

How did you logically come up with that?

The crux of this is, and it has been stated by others is that it's OK for races other than white to express their pride etc but when whites do it it is some way glorifying a past of oppression of natives.

I think bonkey covered this point quite well already.

Very true, have a look at advertising in the US. In an ad containing a scene between people of different races the white male is portrayed as a bumbling buffoon where as the non-white is portrayed as being smart and inelegant, put it the other way round and you would have up roar from minority organisations. A good example of this is a Reebok ad during the Superbowl in 2003. It was called 'Terry Tate office Linebacker', it was basically a huge African American in an office situation tackling people and enforcing office rules etc. In the ad Terry Tate mainly tackles weedy white workers, and rarely workers of other races or black workers. If that was a white man tackling non-white workers the networks would be too scared to put it on air.

Here is a link to the ads. http://www.xtrememass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105

Because the history of America has made alot of black people sensative about images of themselves in the media.
Personally I don't agree always agree with that but I understand the history behind it.
I also believe that if there were alot of other issues addressed regarding race then that would probably disapate.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

Ummm you mean a formerly ruled by a European country that abolished slavery after independence from Europe doesn't support my argument?

Slavery which incidentally predated the same Europeans ever getting near those places. And let’s not forget those African nations (few as they were) that never really bothered with getting rid of slavery (e.g. Ethiopia), even without European colonialism. So, no it does not really support your argument because it’s not very believable.

Not that I every stated in any argument that white people have a monopoly on oppression of others.

However you’ve repeatedly postulated that any oppression by non-white people on themselves or others is ultimately and historically the fault of white people. That comes as close to stating that white people have a monopoly on oppression of others as makes no difference.

You mean that Idi Amin that was originally backed and installed by America Idi Amin?

Again, it’s the white man’s fault apparently. No one installed Mugabe; oh wait, that’s still the white man’s fault.

Maybe not, if you're really trying to stretch that there's no direct historical link between white colonialism and the eventual backlash it causes. Especially when one tries to suggest that the negative aspects of "black" history are somehow divorced from that link.

No one is attempting to deny a link, by way of reasoning, between white colonialism and the eventual backlash it causes. However, a reason is not a justification - neither should it be accepted as a carte blanc permission for such nations to do as they will.

Otherwise, by your logic, Israeli expansionism is presently justified as a backlash to their expulsion from Judea by the Romans.

Somehow all of, in particular, Africa’s ills are ultimately the White Man’s Burden. Any genocide, slavery, war, famine or corruption there is apparently as a direct result of backlash of European colonialism. The entire continent would be a utopist paradise otherwise, because they could never have been so cruel without our oppression.

In short, get over it.

While the equation of white farmers taking land from black inhabitants and the process of land reform (that only started two decades ago), with Jews and Jesus is tenuous. It reminded me of Hitler's idea of placing arm bands on Jews coming from the Middle Ages.

The idea is not tenuous, as it was used as a moral justification based upon what was perceived to be an historical injustice to persecute the descendants of the perpetrators of that historical injustice. You are accepting much the same in Zimbabwe.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Somehow all of, in particular, Africa’s ills are ultimately the White Man’s Burden. Any genocide, slavery, war, famine or corruption there is apparently as a direct result of backlash of European colonialism. The entire continent would be a utopist paradise otherwise, because they could never have been so cruel without our oppression.

In short, get over it.

How about the fact the any number of African countries are still paying off the massive loans from the world bank, that have been run up, very often by the corrupt regiemes installed by the west during the 70s. These massive debts are crippling economies and money which should be going towards building infrastructure and helping their own people are going instead to service the interest of an unpaybackable debt which the west run world bank insisted they do.

We're still screwing over africa we've just gotten more subtle.

pickarooney

^^^not even slightly relevant, unless it's an extravagant public display of self-flagellation. This "we" you're referring is a wholly different notion to the simplistic pigeonholing of people by skin colour.
How many kids did you oppress and how many economies did you destroy before breakfast?

Jesus, WE (of lighter hue) are equated to THE WORLD BANK now? And they talk about judging people based on a few bad apples...

Victor

Of course the white Zimbabweans didn't quite feed the populous at large, what with tobacco being the country's main crop. Unless it was chewing tobacco. :rolleyes:

pickarooney wrote:

But white people alive today should be ashamed of what some unrelated white people did centuries ago?

No, not ashamed, for the vast majority of them did not commit those acts. However, many still benefit from the profits of those historical acts. The cities of 19th century Europe and the United States were (in part) built on the back of slaves used in mining and forestry in Africa.

por wrote:

Take a look at the Americas. Northern Europeans (British and Germans mainly but also some French and Scandinavians) colonised the USA and Canada, and look at how prosperous and developed they have become.

Then where did all them **** come from? Did the all just magically show up in Alabama / Marseille / London in 1968?

por wrote:

Now look at what the Southern Europeans (Spanish and Portuguese) colonised in Central and South America., look what it has become poor, corrupt, etc etc.

Can I scream "Enron" quickly enough? And might they be poor because of capital repatriated to Europe and spent on luxuries and war?

por wrote:

This however may also be to do with a difference between Protestant and Catholic rather than North and South Europe.

Ah, you don't want to be doing that now, the rest of the whiteys get upset when you expose the Catholic / Protestant divide and expose the Irish Catholics as non-white. Wouldn't want to expose the fact the KKK hates Catholics.

The Corinthian wrote:

...Uganda ... **** ....

All Ugandans are fully heterosexual. There is no sexual deviance in Uganda.

pickarooney

Victor wrote:

However, many still benefit from the profits of those historical acts. The cities of 19th century Europe and the United States were (in part) built on the back of slaves used in mining and forestry in Africa.

Viking Dublin, in its day, was the site of the largest slave market in Europe.
Should we expect an apology from the Danes any time soon?

Victor

pickarooney wrote:

Viking Dublin, in its day, was the site of the largest slave market in Europe. Should we expect an apology from the Danes any time soon?

Can you legitimately claim proximity 10th century vikings and between present day Danes?