On why White pride is racist and Black pride/"Dia de La Raza" arent.

First, I begin this post, which in a sense can be a flame bait, stating that no race is better than other and that white people are neither under, nor above, other races when it comes to human rights.

I beleive this thread is relevant do to the current political climate that we are going through in the US. Is not to say that there hasnt been racism before or that there is more racism now, because this is clearly not the case, what I am going to try to adress in the this thread is a disturbing movement in the american political right, which is traying to turn "White" and more specifically, White Christianity, into the very definition of American identity.

To this thesis, I see 2 possible reactions from the conservative right (Note, I am not talking about ALL conservatives but certain sub-set). First, and compleately understandably, the flat out dismisal of my tesis as just me playing the "race car" which has now become some sort of Goldwin's law. Indeed I do beleive the Tea Party is fulled by racism but that is my opinion. As for now I dont have any strong argument to back up my statement, but just anecdotal evidence such as some of Glen Becks comments and a couple signs Ive seen at rallys.

Now the second possible reaction I might get from the conservative right is the one that really gets me going, the one that frightens me and the one I object to. Such an answer goes on to say that "Whites" have a right to be afraid of discrimination too. That this administration has attacked the civil rights of Whitness by not prosecutting hate crimes against whites, and that there is a double standars to judge racism; that while is not Ok for a white person to be racist to other races, it is ok for other races to be racist to whites. Indeed, they would point out, we are in the middle of a "Culture war".

On the surface this seems to be a legitamete concern because, indeed, white people can be and are discriminated against in very special and rare circumstances (unless your are an albino living in Africa which is on itself a rare and special circumstance) because, lets admit it, it is far less common than say, discrimination against blacks. Still discrimination against a person just because such a person is "white" and thus causing harm to said person is a senseless and abhorent way of conducting oneself which can not be excused, and which is not, unlike what some people would have us believe.

Still, the portrayel given by personalities such as Bill Oreilly, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh (note that while the media is soupousedly left-leaning, I, a leftist, can name more conservative anchors than I can do Liberal ones) ect... are preaching about this so called "culture war".

With December in coming, and El Dia de La raza being held the 12th of October, and do to the popularity of the tea-party, the conservative media, the republican primary, and the fact that our president is a Black men son of an African Muslim, this new installment of the Culture war, I predict, will be specially virulent, but not in the usually way, but in the subversive attire of the presidential elections.

I will argue that, indeed, we are in a culture war, not against "whitness" or if you will "caucasianity" and "christianness" but that we are at war against certain minorities, specially Latinos, Muslims, and Atheists, and more generally, African Americans, and Jewish Americans.

It is not secret that the US, while being a "secular country" is a few short steps away from being a confessional state. Such a secular state as of now adheres to Monoteism (one nation under "GOD" not gods but GOD) which forces millions of school childrens to, either adhere to this religious dogma, get out of the classroom, sit quietly, or skip a line of the pledge, often times becoming a focus of scorn and disapprobation from teachers and students alike. One would believe this would be enough, nonetheless, the ACLU files dozens of complains against state sanctioned displays of Christianity, which constitute an endorsement of the same, all the time. Indeed we live in a state of things in which removing crosses from schools and auditoriums, the 10th commandments from courthouse, is a declaration of war against real america, but in which arbitrarily removing Muslim people from flights isn’t. Indeed, to the conservative right it is acceptable to pass laws that would force Latinos to demonstrate their identity is politically acceptable, to question the nationality of the president on the grounds that he is Black and that his second name is Hussein, to execute black people in a disproportionate amount taking into account the severity of the crimes they have committed which in the case of a white offender usually receives a far more lenient treatment. And the worst aspect of all, is that in the eyes of the conservative right, they are the victims. Indeed white identity, they say, Is under attacked and they are defendless victims. Rural America, white America, Chrisitan America, REAL America is under siege. Sure, it took Bush 8 years to destroy the economy and yet Obama, after 3 years gets all the blame (because, the amount of destruction that can be done in 8 years can be rebuilt in 3 years since building is so much easier than destroying!). He is not a real citizen. He is a Marxist. He is a Hitler. He hates white people. He will impose an atheist Muslim state. The problem is that white isn’t an ethnicity, Christianity isn’t the official religion of the US, and that Obama is a center right president. Indeed the mere mention of “white” culture is on itself racist. Because, white isn’t a culture. Michael Jackson was white, African Americans Albinos are white. If Michael Jackson had been attacked by a black because of the color of his skin, sure that would have been a hate crime, but if he had been attacked by a white because he was black, then that would too been a hate crime. We haven no problem with Irish culture, Italian culture, English Culture, Polish culture, German Culture, Greek Culture, Castillian Culture, Duth Culture. But, when we suggest the existence of a “white” cultures which has as its fundamental aspect being chrisitan and living in the US, then we have a racist conception of the world.

Even the infamous "dia de la raza" which is the clasic example used by people who defend the existence of a double standard when it comes to the tolerance of minority pride, but not mayority pride, is a clear example of how Whitness does not constitude culture.

Unlike what many american conservatives beleive, when the term Raza is used in spanish, it actually refeers more to integration and racial mixing, than the purity of race itself. A common slogan for the 12th of October ocation is "celebrating the day a new race was borned" which is a refernce to the racil mixing between the already mixed spaniards (european, basque, arab and jewish) with the native indians and the black slaves who inhabitted this lands. Unlike the british colonisation and later american genocide against the indians, what went on in the rest of the America´s after the intial brutality of the Conquistadores and the plagues that desimated the native populations was a process of integration and not of segragation as it happend in the US. The Spaniards came not to colonise, but to plunder gold, and integrate the pagans into christianity. Thus the latin American countries would abolish slavery before the US, and the nations that would arise would be more secular, even the confesional ones, than the US. On the other hand the intial colonisers of America where puritans, no wonder the US became so succesfull then, since whole communities emmigrated together and created organised and well administered seattlements that prospered, yet some of the darkest aspects of this colonisation remains. The American founding father, where not and did not beling to this puritan mind set. Quite the contrary, the where "liberals" contemporaries of the French Revolution, whom inspired by liberal thinkers such as Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes, created the US, a secular, liberal, republic. Those who claimed to be the tru descendants of this traditions, are mistekening our liberal constitutionalists from the puritans founders of a couple of seatlements whom cant be said to be the founders of "the real America" we claim to beleive in. Yet, this does not mean that we shun them, on the contrary, we honour the more positives aspects of their culture and recognize the impact on who we are today in the celbration of thanks givings. Arguing that El Dia de la Raza is racist would be like arguing Thanks giving is racist.

The current mindset of the American conservative right, that the US should always remain white and christian, are not based on the enlightment that created our constitution, but on certain puritan beleives, the worst aspects of it. I would urge to some of the members of the conservative right to follow the example of the Amish or the Mormons, who dont try to impose their beliefs as national dogmas. Who dont mascarade their religiousity in political discurses about whom are, and whom deserve to be true americans. The only true americans are the American Indians and thus no specific race other than them should claim to truly own this land. Demograhpic changes happens and are inevitable, thus traying to tie our national values, to the color of the skin overlooking culture and heritage, and to chrisitanity, is dooming the US to fail, for it has been its liberal believes, and not its consevatives dogmas, which have guaranteed our survival in time. Eventually, the descendants of the Europeans who inhabitted this country, will be succeeded by a new mijority of races, which together will be more, but whom will still abide by the same universal values that created this country. We should not fear this change, but embrace it, in our share multi cultural future, where what define us is not our religion, the color of our sking or our ethnicity, but our shared loanging to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, and the persuit of happiness always respecting others.

edited 7th Oct '11 5:52:46 PM by Baff

Because other cultures are a minority in America.

I use "minority" in the sociological sense, which is a group of people which is on the margins of social ability and entitlement. Thus, women are a minority, even though they're technically superior, numerically, in the US.

So, people encourage minorities to be proud of their heritage, rather than letting other people tell them to conform.

In theory, this is kind of nice. In practice, it's a... mixed bag, really.

Racism requires one to be coming from a position of power. White Americans are the institution, and therefore, are able to impose a racist system on minorities. Minority racism is just a reaction to that.

I disagree. Women are not a minority. Discrimiantion and minority status are different issues.

Minorities are not racist by pride of themselves. Neither are Irish descendents racist for being proud of being Irish descendents.

On the other hand, white pride is racist, because it determines self-worth solely by the colour of the skin. It overlooks all culture and inheritance and when it doesnt, it claims chrisitanity and being a "true" american its fundamental tenants. Thus such a believe is a racist beleives since it claims America should be white and chrisitan.

edited 7th Oct '11 5:56:48 PM by Baff

They're getting to be up there in equality. I think, in a discussion of social minorities in the United States, women would get their own categorical discussion, because they're in limbo between accepted and suppressed in our society.

edited 7th Oct '11 5:59:24 PM by USAF713

If the dominant culture of America was truly based on puritanical Christian beliefs, it would be against pride of all varieties, wouldn't it?

Majorities can be opressed. So I would say that whomever made the categoration your are suggesting above is not precisely an expert on the field, and isnt truly qualified to discuss the subject since it doesnt make that basic diferentiation.

For example the White minority opressed the black minority in South Africa, yet, claiming that the black where a minority in South Africa because of this... isnt a logical statement.

Well it was... and some of it remains.

edited 7th Oct '11 5:59:39 PM by Baff

There are actually minority groups that are racist; it's just not the same as the KKK or any Neo-Nazi groups, since they are not coming from a position of power.

By the way, I am a minority, so I'm not speaking from the white perspective here.

edited 7th Oct '11 5:58:51 PM by tropetown

} Agreed. But that doesnt mean that black pride, latino pride, gay pride, Irish Pride, Italian pride, or even Chrisitan pride should be constructed as racist by rule and not by exception.

The clear exception is "American White" pride for the reasons I enumarated above.

edited 7th Oct '11 6:01:16 PM by Baff

Oh, you don't like the sociological definition of minority? It's not a numeric concept, it's a power concept. A minority lacks political and social power. They are marginalized, which is defined as "deprived of control of choice based on some inherent trait."

Women are a numeric majority, but a sociological minority.

edited 7th Oct '11 6:01:43 PM by USAF713

Ineed. I dislike it very much. Besides, you cant claim that is the definiton of minority, it sounds like the definition of some theorist, I would invastigate it do... since u might be right about that anyways.

Take South Africa for example: the White minority opressed the black mayority, yet, claiming that the black where a minority in South Africa because of this... isnt a logical statement.

edited 7th Oct '11 6:03:51 PM by Baff

You'll have to convince the entire field to change their use of terms, then...

Minority, as defined in sociology.

I'm sorry you don't like the logic of it, but it's no different than some other two fields using a word differently.

edited 7th Oct '11 6:05:42 PM by USAF713

"A minority is a sociological group that does not make up a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society. A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority — it may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power. To avoid confusion, some writers prefer the terms "subordinate group" and "dominant group" rather than "minority" and "majority", respectively"

From Wikipedia.

So, while I am talking about minorities and the strict use of the word, their are other meaning to that word.

edited 7th Oct '11 6:06:12 PM by Baff

I grasp what you mean by minority. I'm simply noting that a subordinate group, if you prefer the alternate term, is not necessarily numerically inferior.

yea ur right about it I reckon. But for your enjoyment I post the following video, which best charactersis this (in my opinion) silly semantic categorisation.

Racism is racism, regardless of whether or not you come from a position of power. Being part of the suppressed minority does not prevent you from being a disgusting bigot. But it does make it more socially acceptable to go all in for "black pride" and such because people are a bit more afraid to call you out on it. The only thing being a bigot in a position of power does is let you express it a more obviously harmful way.

You could argue that there's something to be promoted in American culture, but it's not really a "white" thing—I've seen second-generation immigrants adopt it as well. It's a combination of a lot of different cultures, but I think it's mostly the legacy of the pioneer spirit. I'd be much more supportive of promoting that sort of pride than of promoting white pride.

edited 7th Oct '11 6:38:02 PM by feotakahari

Because people think that whites don't deserve anything to be proud about, even other white people.

Racial pride is bullshit. Cultural pride is completely understandable. It just so happens that a lot of cultures tend to be defined by a particular racial group, though that is growing less true these days. (Particularly in America.) I'm all for pride in my country. I am not for pride in my race.

American education doesn't push pride for our country in the right way.

Well, the US is still 66% Caucasian, and is fit to have Caucasians as the numerical majority until the 2030s, I think, if not the 2050s (I do not recall the exact projected date).

Racial pride is, in fact, pretty dumb. Cultural pride is not, if done correctly.

Racism is nonsense, as race is a meaningless construct propagated to justify European imperialism. Nationalism makes far more sense, and is deeply built into each one of us, whether or not we recognize it. Of course, it's still dangerous if it's allowed to go unchecked. Cultural pride is something that you should express, though the government isn't really under any obligation to encourage foreign culture. Not that it should do anything to discourage it, of course.

edited 7th Oct '11 7:01:46 PM by tropetown

One thing that bothers me is the "caucasian" label. Im not from "Caucasia" and there is no Caucasia. Im European, specifically Italian(touch of irsh and german too). If other groups are named after where they came from, I want the same.

Further more, there a slight touches of Anti-europeanism I see around, though most of it dosn't seem malicious as much as forgetful or ignorant. perfect example, we have a Asian-american heritage month, African american history month, ect. I want a European-American history/heritage month!

Another thing that bugs me is the race-based schollar ships. Why should I be less able to apply because my ancestors lived a few hundred miles north of where his/her ancestors did? While I admit they were a great thing to have in the 1800s to later 1900s because they might have been excluded for their race, this is 2011! Theres no need for it anymore!

edited 7th Oct '11 7:08:08 PM by Joesolo

Really? So until Europeans started conquering other places, no one noticed that people from far away places looked different?

We have a European-American month.

It's called "all-year 'round."

edited 7th Oct '11 7:10:55 PM by USAF713

Fine A specifically named and celebrated month about the famous people and great benifits that Europeans have brought to this nation, complete with television adds about it on nickleodeon.