White Nationalism

[rturner76]

Skin color can be one basis for a culture, among other traits.

See above

 

[Chany]

Preferences.

Some prefer one trait, others prefer other traits. Skin color is a trait, among other traits such as height, baldness, religion, behavior, etc. Simple as that.

Some of those traits are not just preferences. Culture is about social life, language, religion, its own internal past, the arts, etc. Religion and how you live your day to day life are not just preferences of culture; they are culture.

I can see how one culture can promote a certain set of traits as beautiful, for example and how these traits can be related to race. Even in these instances, it just confirms the connection between racism and cultures who promote such practices.

Again, however, race is still contingent and not necessary. Differences between physical appearances are used to justify similar practices among people who are considered the same race, such as within European countries. It just happens that certain races tend to exhibit certain traits more often.

 

[Chany]

People who look like they're from India cooking with lots of curry. In fact it's actually quite predictable.

Indian culture has certain culinary styles, as well as other practices. The racial traits are contingent with this culture. By this, I mean having the racial/ethnic traits typically associated with an Indian are often related due to the fact that these two objects (race and culture) occurred in the same setting. However, they are not necessary: they can easily disconnected from one another, such that a person can be Indian ethnically but not have any personal connection to Indian culture, and vice-versa. To assume a person follows an Indian culture because they are Indian ethnically sounds an awfully a lot like racism. It's like assuming I eat at McDonald's often because I am American.

 

[ananda]

White isn't a culture it's a color.

Neither is black ... but what is this, then? I'm not saying skin color is a culture. It is one potential identifier of a culture.

There are blonde haired Jews. Will they be included in your Nation? What about Slavic people? They are white. Turkish people are white will they be included? How about Armenian? Are you talking about WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestants)? If so what about Catholic French or Italians? There are white Brazilians and Colombians, will they be included? You see how dividing along color lines is not practical? Ethnicity and color are two different things. What are you talking about?

I never said that color was the only cultural significator. Color is one among many others.

I can see someone 1. white colored, 2. wearing a yarmulke, 3. with braided hair, 4. a beard, 5. in a black suit ... and altogether, form a certain cultural expectation about this person.

 

[ananda]

Some of those traits are not just preferences. Culture is about social life, language, religion, its own internal past, the arts, etc. Religion and how you live your day to day life are not just preferences of culture; they are culture.

I can see how one culture can promote a certain set of traits as beautiful, for example and how these traits can be related to race. Even in these instances, it just confirms the connection between racism and cultures who promote such practices. Your culture says people of a certain

Again, however, race is still contingent and not necessary. Differences between physical appearances are used to justify similar practices among people who are considered the same race, such as within European countries. It just happens that certain races tend to exhibit certain traits more often.

I'm not saying that "white" or "black", etc. is "culture". I'm saying that color is one identifier (among others) that can identify a certain unique culture.

 

[Chany]

Name one example of a culture of which skin color is a necessary part of it, such that this culture could not exist without people of this skin color. How does the pigment of skin affect the existence of Japanese culture, for example. I am not talking about how we look at people and try to decide what cultural background they have. Please define "identifier" and "identify".

Also, do not mix things like race and skin color together. Skin color is simply a physical manifestation of genetic material; race is a human construct we invented in our never-ceasing question to catalog, stereotype, and organize everything into neat little groups. In fact, it is not that much of a stretch to see culture (as an idea) as something of human construction.

 

[quatona]

Name one example of a culture of which skin color is a necessary part of it, such that this culture could not exist without people of this skin color.

The (sub)culture White Nationalism?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Indian culture has certain culinary styles, as well as other practices. The racial traits are contingent with this culture. By this, I mean having the racial/ethnic traits typically associated with an Indian are often related due to the fact that these two objects (race and culture) occurred in the same setting. However, they are not necessary: they can easily disconnected from one another, such that a person can be Indian ethnically but not have any personal connection to Indian culture, and vice-versa. To assume a person follows an Indian culture because they are Indian ethnically sounds an awfully a lot like racism. It's like assuming I eat at McDonald's often because I am American.

Ethnicities are often identified by their cultural practices. That's just the way it is.

 

[Chany]

Ethnicities are often identified by their cultural practices. That's just the way it is.

I more likely to identify an ethnicity based upon physical characteristics or what the person tells me if I can't discern it. I don't really go "Indian culture, therefore, Indian ethnicity", I go "Indian physical characteristics, therefore, Indian ethnicity". People do sometimes identify ethnicities with a certain culture, but, as I've shown, these connections are contingent and are not really based on race.

 

[Pammalamma]

Racism isn't Christian, because we all come from the same two people originally. However, if we think Christians are "dangerous" because some of them misapply scripture in a racist way, that seems to me like being afraid of lumberjacks, because lumberjacks have chainsaws, and chainsaws have been used to cut people up. The word of God is like a sword, and just like any weapon, it can be used in a damaging way or in a helpful way.

To me, the most racist belief is atheistic evolution, which views humans as animals and was used as justification for slavery and genocide. But I'm not afraid of atheists, I just don't see leaving Christianity as a way to escape racism. We all have to look in our hearts and ask if we are loving others as we should, no matter what our beliefs are.

 

[Paulos23]

To me, the most racist belief is atheistic evolution, which views humans as animals and was used as justification for slavery and genocide. But I'm not afraid of atheists, I just don't see leaving Christianity as a way to escape racism. We all have to look in our hearts and ask if we are loving others as we should, no matter what our beliefs are.

The theory of evolution is only about 150 years old, slavery is far older then that. How was slavery justified before that? You may want to look that up.

As for genocide, are you sure that is solely do to evolution? Or does it have it's root in hatred in another group and evolution is the most recent excuse?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Most cultural differences aren't really important. It is when an ethnic group is identified with a dangerous or disagreeable practice that trouble (racism) can start.

 

[Chany]

The (sub)culture White Nationalism?

This is what I was thinking about, sub-cultures. I was wondering if their where different groups within White Nationalism who argue over what exactly "white" is. It may seem stupid to us, but what exactly are the characteristics of the white race that are acceptable? I can imagine some are more restrictive then others.

I see your point though. I was just wondering though: is it possible for someone of a different race to support the ideals of white nationalism? Sure, it would be stupid and make no sense rationally, but, come on, these are people we are talking about. Things can get rather stupid really fast.

 

[Pammalamma]

The theory of evolution is only about 150 years old, slavery is far older then that. How was slavery justified before that? You may want to look that up.

As for genocide, are you sure that is solely do to evolution? Or does it have it's root in hatred in another group and evolution is the most recent excuse?

Thomas Jefferson referred to apes and rhetorically drew Africans as a differently evolved strain as justification for not freeing slaves. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp. I did not claim that all slavery has been justified by a belief in evolution. Historically, slavery has been viewed as a simple fact of life for people who were in debt, and tolerated widely by most civilizations that lack a humanistic belief in equality.

Genocide has occurred for innumerable reasons, but in the case of Shoah, evolution and Nietzsche were indispensable parts of the reason behind it. In Cambodia, it was atheistic Communist philosophy. So, evolution has, indeed been used to justify slavery and genocide.

 

[Paulos23]

Thomas Jefferson referred to apes and rhetorically drew Africans as a differently evolved strain as justification for not freeing slaves. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp. I did not claim that all slavery has been justified by a belief in evolution. Historically, slavery has been viewed as a simple fact of life for people who were in debt, and tolerated widely by most civilizations that lack a humanistic belief in equality.

Thomas Jefferson didn't know about evolution, so I don't know how you can make that connection. It is true that they didn't see them as quite human, but if you want to lump evolution in there we can lump the Bible in as well.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp
http://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3535

Also, slavery is not the same as indentured servitude. It is true that slaves have had more rights in some societies then others, but it is still they where owned and where not free to leave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Genocide has occurred for innumerable reasons, but in the case of Shoah, evolution and Nietzsche were indispensable parts of the reason behind it. In Cambodia, it was atheistic Communist philosophy. So, evolution has, indeed been used to justify slavery and genocide.

In the case of the Holocaust it is more due to the strong anti-Semitic feelings in Europe.
http://www.projetaladin.org/holocau...the-basics/the-reasons-for-the-holocaust.html

For the Communist party, it is because they want to take away any power from any other organization. And at the time it was invented the Church was seen as a center of power reinforcing the capitalist system. It is more a form of statism where belief is directed to the state, not to non-belief.

 

[quatona]

This is what I was thinking about, sub-cultures. I was wondering if their where different groups within White Nationalism who argue over what exactly "white" is. It may seem stupid to us, but what exactly are the characteristics of the white race that are acceptable? I can imagine some are more restrictive then others.

I´m sure there are differences, but since this whole thing is constructed from a "us vs. them" pov, I suspect there isn´t much interest in a proper definition. As long as you keep the lines blurred. Similarly to the TrueChristian strategy: On the one hand you can boast with those billions of Christians out there, on the other hand you can declare others "not True Christians" (interestingly often by standards which reduce the number of (True)Christians to an insignificant fringe group). IOW you can make sure the bad guys are always "them".

I see your point though. I was just wondering though: is it possible for someone of a different race to support the ideals of white nationalism? Sure, it would be stupid and make no sense rationally, but, come on, these are people we are talking about. Things can get rather stupid really fast.

Not sure if this answers your question, but as far as I know there were cases when ethnic groups managed to convince members of other ethnic groups of their own superiority.

 

[Pammalamma]

The name of the book is, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." "Races." That is what evolution is about. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

However, I wouldn't ever expect someone who doesn't believe in God to admit anything negative about evolution, because they don't have the freedom not to believe in evolution. They have to either believe in evolution or go through life with certain knowledge of impending destruction and doom. I've actually taught my kids not to argue evolution with atheists, because it might as well be their religion. I used to believe in it for years and even taught it in school, but have come to question it over time.

My original point stands: social Darwinism has done a lot of damage. Nothing you can say or refer to will change that, so it's best to just admit it. That does not mean we should fear atheists, however, which was claimed about Christians earlier in this thread: "This is why I want to run from Christians, because they use the Bible to justify racism." That makes no more sense than fearing atheists because of social Darwinism. That was my point.

 

[quatona]

However, I wouldn't ever expect someone who doesn't believe in God to admit anything negative about evolution, because they don't have the freedom not to believe in evolution.

What makes you think that?
Firstly, I have problems following your implicit "God vs. evolution" dichotomy.
Secondly, I feel completely free to say something negative about natural forces - in fact, they can be quite annoying, at times. I fail to see how that´s different with evolution theory (even though - as opposed to other natural forces - it seems to have little to none significance for the way I lead my life).
So here it comes: Evolution is a nuisance. I wish it weren´t there.
I said it. Nothing changed.

They have to either believe in evolution or go through life with certain knowledge of impending destruction and doom.

Whut? Could you expand a little on that? I always get curious when people tell me what I believe and know but am not aware of myself.

I've actually taught my kids not to argue evolution with atheists, because it might as well be their religion.

That´s some weird reasoning.

My original point stands: social Darwinism has done a lot of damage.

Of course it has. Now you just need to explain how you manage to create the necessary connections atheism-evolution, and how Social Darwinism follows from evolution theory, and you will almost have a case.

Nothing you can say or refer to will change that, so it's best to just admit it. That does not mean we should fear atheists, however, which was claimed about Christians earlier in this thread: "This is why I want to run from Christians, because they use the Bible to justify racism." That makes no more sense than fearing atheists because of social Darwinism. That was my point.

I agree with this point. I´m wondering, though, why you felt the need to say so many stupid things that were completely unnecessary for making it.

 

[Paulos23]

I am going to respond to this post a bit out of order, mostly because it makes more logical sense to me.

However, I wouldn't ever expect someone who doesn't believe in God to admit anything negative about evolution, because they don't have the freedom not to believe in evolution.

We do have that freedom, just like you have the freedom to not believe in a strict interpretation of Genesis. I am not defending facts here, I am just correcting what I see as misinformation. You are free to believe what you want, but I am also free to inform and correct what I see as incorrect information.

They have to either believe in evolution or go through life with certain knowledge of impending destruction and doom.

I don't know where you get that. I accept evolution because of the evidence as the best description on how the species formed. I don't get morals from it, I don't get commandments or dogma from it. I don't base my life on it.

And even if I didn't accept evolution, that doesn't mean I would accept Christianity anyway. But that is another topic for another time, but lets just say I find a lack of evidence supporting the Christian claims.

I've actually taught my kids not to argue evolution with atheists, because it might as well be their religion. I used to believe in it for years and even taught it in school, but have come to question it over time.

And that is your right. I just find the reasons you post lacking and emotional.

The name of the book is, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." "Races." That is what evolution is about. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Social Darwinism is misapplied evolutionary theory to things it was not meant to explain. It has done lots of damage. But it is not the theory of evolution.

And his use of the word races doesn't mean now what it meant then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts#Charles_Darwin_and_Race

My original point stands: social Darwinism has done a lot of damage. Nothing you can say or refer to will change that, so it's best to just admit it. That does not mean we should fear atheists, however, which was claimed about Christians earlier in this thread: "This is why I want to run from Christians, because they use the Bible to justify racism." That makes no more sense than fearing atheists because of social Darwinism. That was my point.

I agree that Social Darwinism has caused much damage. But it is not solely tied to atheists. Christians have used it as well, as well as people of other faiths. And it is still used today by many politicians today. Are you claiming they are all atheists?

As far as comment, I have known Christians to use the punishment of Cain to justify racism. But I don't hold that against all Christians.

And that is part of my point, atheists do not all agree on the same issue except for one question. Just like not all Christians agree with points in the Bible, except for a few. To tie evolution to atheists is to commit a classification error. It is not holy to us, it is not sacred, and the minute it doesn't stand up to evidence and rigorous testing we will drop it and find another explanation.

 

[bhsmte]

The name of the book is, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." "Races." That is what evolution is about. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

However, I wouldn't ever expect someone who doesn't believe in God to admit anything negative about evolution, because they don't have the freedom not to believe in evolution. They have to either believe in evolution or go through life with certain knowledge of impending destruction and doom. I've actually taught my kids not to argue evolution with atheists, because it might as well be their religion. I used to believe in it for years and even taught it in school, but have come to question it over time.

My original point stands: social Darwinism has done a lot of damage. Nothing you can say or refer to will change that, so it's best to just admit it. That does not mean we should fear atheists, however, which was claimed about Christians earlier in this thread: "This is why I want to run from Christians, because they use the Bible to justify racism." That makes no more sense than fearing atheists because of social Darwinism. That was my point.

Fear atheists?

You do realize, the majority of Christians agree with the theory of evolution?

And when you add up the numbers, many, many more Christians agree with evolution, vs atheists.