Legitimate celebration of white culture?

The Corinthian

the_syco wrote:

But do we blame England for the screw ups this country makes (Bertie Bowl, etc)?

Actually, we used to not so long ago. Nowadays we blame the Church or Fianna Fail.

mycroft

the_syco wrote:

Its easy to blame the countries for their past mistakes. But do we blame England for the screw ups this country makes (Bertie Bowl, etc)? No. Some problems may be created by ex-colonial's, but not all the problems are their fault.

No one is saying it's entirely all the colonials faults we are saying that the colonial infulence continues into the present day as Africian nations are still being exploited by the west.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

No one is saying it's entirely all the colonials faults we are saying that the colonial infulence continues into the present day as Africian nations are still being exploited by the west.

Actually that’s not entirely true to say that no one is saying it's entirely all the colonials fault. A recurring and underlying theme from the detractors of European culture in this thread has been:

1. Somehow and to some degree pretty much all of the developing World’s (read: Africa) problems have a European-colonial root to them.
2. We should not be proud of our cultural heritage due to the great historical crimes perpetrated by our ancestors.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually that’s not entirely true to say that no one is saying it's entirely all the colonials fault. A recurring and underlying theme from the detractors of European culture in this thread has been:

1. Somehow and to some degree pretty much all of the developing World’s (read: Africa) problems have a European-colonial root to them.
2. We should not be proud of our cultural heritage due to the great historical crimes perpetrated by our ancestors.

Not detractors more trying to raise awareness at the price the developing
world paid for some of our great achievements, and we should not look at the story of say "how the west was won" without realising the price indignious people paid for these victorys. We should pramatically and honest hold those achievements up againist the cost other people had to pay for them.

Secondly you've never even admitted that the West has anything to answer for its behaviour in Africa.

pickarooney

redleslie2 wrote:

The nazis were very much into the idea of white pride and the celebration of northern european culture were they not?

And Bin Laden's an Arsenal fan. Extrapolate at will.

mycroft wrote:

Head thumbs againist keyboard.

Okay once again for the hard of thinking.

The belgians beliefs led to them giving power and responsibilty to the Tutsi minority, breeding the racial tension.

It's the the believe its the system of government that the belgians developed around this belief that the Tutsi were genetical superior that bred the resentment. Does that make it clearer?

Is that much different to the system of government Britain developed around the belief that Protestants in Ireland were genetically superior to Catholics (perhaps not strictly true) or (just for redleslie) the one Hitler developed around the belief that Christians were genetically superior to Jews? No responsibility on the followers of the doctrine?

Redleslie2

pickarooney wrote:

And Bin Laden's an Arsenal fan. Extrapolate at will.

That's interesting but not very helpful at all. Try googling "white pride" or some of the stuff Por has come out with like "white and proud" and have a look at what comes up. Well I know you know what comes up but try it anyway then tell me why the celebration of white culture by bands like Landser is not legitimate.

I dunno, maybe since boards can have a gay/lesbian board, a white pride one should be set up too.

pickarooney

Why do you keep on with this? We all know that the first thing that comes to mind when someone mentions white pride/power is neo-nazis and swastikas. There's no interest in discussing this, that's why I put the question mark in the thread title - i.e are there any non fascist-related notions of the term? If a white pride board did exist (just to pre-empt another disingenuous response, please don't mention Stormfront), what kind of threads could you expect to find in it (again, if you can keep your mind off nazis for 5 minutes, it would be appreciated).

Redleslie2

pickarooney wrote:

Why do you keep on with this?

I sort of want to know why artistes like Landser and sites like Stormfront are not legitimate and representative expressions of white nationalism or white pride or whatever you want to call it.

i.e are there any non fascist-related notions of the term?

White nationalist is the preferred term I believe but no I don't think so and I think it's been explained fairly adequately in the thread why that is so.

If a white pride board did exist (just to pre-empt another disingenuous response, please don't mention Stormfront), what kind of threads could you expect to find in it (again, if you can keep your mind off nazis for 5 minutes, it would be appreciated).

There'd be a lot of made up history, pseudo science, arguments over whether europe's jews can be called white or not and rubbish about how a gay pride carnival and a KKK meeting are the same thing I'd guess.

And don't try tell me what I can and cannot mention please. This isn't stormfront.

pickarooney

So 'please' is the new 'sieg heil' now?
FFS, it's as though I asked if there were any films with Bruce Willis besides Die Hard and every single post you made mentioned John McClane.
Congratulations, you've succesfully Godwined me into complete disinterest. Chalk it up as another victory for the ostrich faction.

Redleslie2

pickarooney wrote:

So 'please' is the new 'sieg heil' now?

What are you on about now?

FFS, it's as though I asked if there were any films with Bruce Willis besides Die Hard and every single post you made mentioned John McClane.
Congratulations, you've succesfully Godwined me into complete disinterest.

Doesn't answer my query I'm afraid.

Chalk it up as another victory for the ostrich faction.

Who or what the heck is that?

mycroft

pickarooney wrote:

Is that much different to the system of government Britain developed around the belief that Protestants in Ireland were genetically superior to Catholics (perhaps not strictly true) or (just for redleslie) the one Hitler developed around the belief that Christians were genetically superior to Jews? No responsibility on the followers of the doctrine?

Okay so let me let me great this straight in your mind the behaviour of segeration acceptable. Cause this post seems to make sense that it is

pickarooney

mycroft wrote:

Okay so let me let me great this straight in your mind the behaviour of segeration acceptable. Cause this post seems to make sense that it is

No it doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination or leap of logic. I'd thank you not to make spurious claims just for the sake of it. The obvious point is that in a situation where an outside power sees fit to enforce a system of segregation, the party which accepts the situation of prominence thrust upon it and which acts upon it, be that burning out Jews or beheading Tutsis, is not an innocent party and must be held responsible for its actions.

redleslie2 wrote:

What are you on about now?

I asked you repeatedly and politely if you woudn't mind staying on the subject instead of departing on tangents. You equated this request with a fascist gagging-order.

redleslie2 wrote:

Doesn't answer my query I'm afraid.

Your query as to why Landser/Stormfront is not a legitimate expression of white pride?
I've never heard of Landser before, and never read too much of the Stormfront website, but from skimming over the lyrics and a couple of threads all I could see were expressions of hate, fear and aggression. Not pride. That is why I personally do not consider it an expression of white pride. I may be wrong, there may be threads celebrating ballet and the works of Chaucer. If there are, apologies to the peaceful contributors.

Redleslie2

pickarooney wrote:

I asked you repeatedly and politely if you woudn't mind staying on the subject instead of departing on tangents. You equated this request with a fascist gagging-order.

I think it is as on topic as discussions about colonialism and Rwanda, probably more so.

Your query as to why Landser/Stormfront is not a legitimate expression of white pride?
I've never heard of Landser before, and never read too much of the Stormfront website, but from skimming over the lyrics and a couple of threads all I could see were expressions of hate, fear and aggression. Not pride. That is why I personally do not consider it an expression of white pride. I may be wrong, there may be threads celebrating ballet and the works of Chaucer. If there are, apologies to the peaceful contributors.

Well they go on about Vikings a lot. Vikings vikings vikings. There might be a couple of mentions in there about Chaucer but since he was directly influenced by a lot of non-white stuff (Article about the Arabian Nights stories and their influence on European literature.) he'd probably get called a race traitor or something.

mycroft

pickarooney wrote:

No it doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination or leap of logic. I'd thank you not to make spurious claims just for the sake of it. The obvious point is that in a situation where an outside power sees fit to enforce a system of segregation, the party which accepts the situation of prominence thrust upon it and which acts upon it, be that burning out Jews or beheading Tutsis, is not an innocent party and must be held responsible for its actions.

And do you not then agree that the government which enforced this situation also should bear some responsibilty?

I haven't said that african nations aren't responsible for their actions. But the problem haven't just started the moment europe rid itself of it's colonys, first world policy and governments have help create africa's problems and continue to do so due so, and they must accept some responsibility.

pickarooney

mycroft wrote:

And do you not then agree that the government which enforced this situation also should bear some responsibilty?

I haven't said that african nations aren't responsible for their actions. But the problem haven't just started the moment europe rid itself of it's colonys, first world policy and governments have help create africa's problems and continue to do so due so, and they must accept some responsibility.

You asked me that already and I answered it (post 84). I knew youse weren't reading before posting

SkepticOne

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.

softek wrote:

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

pickarooney wrote:

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.

Sometimes groups form to highlight percieved injustice and seek redress. For example, the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland were a response to the perception of discrimination in areas like housing and jobs. I use the term "percieved" to avoid getting bogged down in a discussion about the rights and wrongs of that particular movement. A minority group of foreigners in a country may form similar groups for similar reasons.

Other groups form simply to express their shared identity to each other and to outsiders. This is often based on a foreign national identity but could be purely cultural. Why they do this, and not simply drop their identity and merge into the background culture is a fairly deep question, imho. Cultures tend to try to persist. Imo, this is simply one of the characteristics of cultures.

On the issue of White/Black/Asian culture, of course when you look at each of these closely, they are simply convenient labels for an huge diversity of different cultures. It is simply a grouping of different things based on some superficial characteristic. We tend to do this more when the cultures are foreign or exotic. Rather than go into detail we seek shortcuts even if these are gross simplifications.

To get back to the original question. We tend not to see 'white culture' celebrations, because, being the majority default culture we are already surrounded by expressions of this. Also, we tend not to group the various cultures that make up the superficial 'white culture' into one category, becuase it is not exotic or foreign to us. It is like accents: we in Ireland see the differences in Irish accents from around the country, but to an American, say, they are all 'Irish' accents.

So, for the most part, we don't tend to see the need to do these things. Those that do, e.g. the various neo-Nazi groups do so out of the perception (wrongly, imo) that they are the ones being persecuted - that they are the ones, if not already in the minority, then soon to become one. We might laugh at this, but it is their (incorrect) perception that makes them form these groups.

On the question of legitimacy, such groups are legitimate in part (imo) to the extent to which the perceptions behind the motivation of the group are accurate.

There are also issues of pure race and sectarian hatred which I've left out from the above and are quite real, but it is important to discuss other aspects too.

mycroft

pickarooney wrote:

You asked me that already and I answered it (post 84). I knew youse weren't reading before posting

No you misconstrued what I was saying

"I don't think there's any doubt that Euro-American interference is partly responsible for Africa's situation. What I find condescending is the apparent suggestion that, no matter how zany the Belgians' theories may have been, the poor eejit Africans gobbled it up and took it as gospel because they wouldn't know any better."

Implying my argument was that essentially the ignorant darkies gobbled up the belgian mumbo jumbo.

Which p*ssed me off no end.

So therefore you believe that Europe and the US should start doing something effective to sort out the mess they've caused?

pickarooney

SkepticOne wrote:

To get back to the original question. We tend not to see 'white culture' celebrations, because, being the majority default culture we are already surrounded by expressions of this. Also, we tend not to group the various cultures that make up the superficial 'white culture' into one category, becuase it is not exotic or foreign to us. It is like accents: we in Ireland see the differences in Irish accents from around the country, but to an American, say, they are all 'Irish' accents.

White people aren't the majority everywhere though. In South Africa for example, they're a distinct minority, so theoretically it should be allowable to celebrate white culture there?
The boers were, at one stage, unwilling subjects to rule, so they fill that criteria as well. However, Afrikaner movements tend to be among the most despised in the world (having met some of them, and listened to some of the delusional crap they come out with, it's completely understandable).

mycroft wrote:

So therefore you believe that Europe and the US should start doing something effective to sort out the mess they've caused?

Ideally, every one of us would do something concrete to help alleviate the debt and misery of our fellow men, and not just wait for governments and corporations to do it. Unfortunately,the 'developed' nations didn't get where they were by being nice to the less well-off, as is the case with the richer individuals. I'm not an economist, and can't understand what purpose it serves the richer countries to have unpayable debts owed them, as opposed to having a more stabel, developing country actually paying back a reduced debt, but for me the only way the third world is ever going to improve economically is if it's advantageous for the first.
The third world countries are going to have to get their act together somehow and stop the endless circle of exchanging one cash-guzzling despot for another. Who should assume the responsibility of establishing some kind of normalcy among Africa's rulers, paving the way for social development, education and helathcare for the people etc.?
This is way OT, but the original subject is pretty much dead at this stage - What if Africa's main problem was not its poverty, but its richness? If there wasn't so much oil, gold, diamonds, uranium on the continent, perhaps there wouldn't be so much outside interference, and less means for the dictators to opress their people.

SkepticOne

pickarooney wrote:

White people aren't the majority everywhere though. In South Africa for example, they're a distinct minority, so theoretically it should be allowable to celebrate white culture there?

I think the general point I was trying to make was that groups form for the purpose of strengh through solidarity. When people judge such groups from the outside, they decide whether such strength is justified. Is the strength of the group (in this case the white South Africans) not the problem itself? Yet within these groups there is often the feeling of weakness. A lot of Afrikaners believed that they would be wiped out should majority rule arrive. The delusional nature of this belief detracted from the legitimacy of the group, I would argue.

I gave the example of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland. In this case one side of the sectarian divide felt that it was being unjustly discriminated against. That it was the minority in that case is not really relevant. It is quite possible to be the majority and be in a weakened position. I gave also gave the examples of minorities because these are examples familiar to us here but I did not intend these to be the only example.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually that’s not entirely true to say that no one is saying it's entirely all the colonials fault. A recurring and underlying theme from the detractors of European culture in this thread has been:

1. Somehow and to some degree pretty much all of the developing World’s (read: Africa) problems have a European-colonial root to them.
2. We should not be proud of our cultural heritage due to the great historical crimes perpetrated by our ancestors.

I don't think any detractor has said either of those things at all. Thats just what the "anti-detraction" side is claiming has been said.

What people have been repeatedly saying is that (in order)

* Some, and to some degree, European-colonial history has been and still is a significant contributor to the problems endemic in the developing world, and so we cannot just walk away and say "well, you're independant now, its allyour mess".

* We should not be proud of our cultural heritage whilst ignoring the great historical crimes perpetrated by our ancestors in the forming of that heritage.

Now...if I'm wrong...please show me where someone has said anything more forceful than that, because I genuinely can't find anything....but there are no shortage of posts from the "critical of the argument" side deciding that this is what has been said.

Maybe I'm the one mis-reading this, but to me this thread is kinda reading more like :

A : You shouldn't dissociate the evils of our past from the associated glories, nor fail to recognise that many of those problems remain today.
B : How can you say we're to blame for everything??? White Mans Burden! White Mans Burden!!!! Why is everything always our fault??? FFS - I shouldn't feel guilty about the horrific things <some group> did, but didn't they do some really cool stuff that we should be proud of.
A : But you're still deliberately only looking at the good side.
B : There you go again. Everything is our fault. White Mans Burden. We should all feel ashamed according to you, and never take any pride.

jc

pickarooney

Perhaps there should be two distinct sub-groups per group then - White Pride and White Shame, Black Pride, Black Shame etc. ?

mycroft

pickarooney wrote:

Perhaps there should be two distinct sub-groups per group then - White Pride and White Shame, Black Pride, Black Shame etc. ?

Whoosh is that the sound of Bonkey's point flying over your head?

The point we're trying to make is any celebration must at the same time be tempered by the cost paid by indigenous people around the world.

I think America would be a better place if every fourth of July they held a minutes silence for the native Americans slaughtered to give them the land of the free.

Understand and embrace what your culture has given you, while at the same time realise at what price it came at. It would certainly negate all the negative "white power" types who see history through a set of extreme filters.

Eloquently put btw Bonkey.

pickarooney

Well if bonkey's went over my head, the volleyed return fairly zipped past you down the tramline. There are no groups called Black Shame or Gay Repentance or Jewish Remorse. Why? Because nobody black, Jewish or gay has done anything wrong, individually or as a group? Or simply because the point of a pride group is not to focus on negative things?

If you're to understand and embrace what your culture has given you, does that apply to all aspects of it or just selective ones? For example, someone who celebrates their (O)Irishness with Guinness and aran sweaters and traditional music, but doesn't acknowledge all the positive parts of their current culture which have come from The UK, the US and Europe.
Take someone born in the US with dark skin. If he is to celebrate aspects of his culture, parts having either some connection to Africa or to segregation-era America, he should certainly not ignore all the wars, invasions and, if we're to be single-standard about it, slavery that the land of his birth is responsible for, right?

mycroft wrote:

I think America would be a better place if every fourth of July they held a minutes silence for the native Americans slaughtered to give them the land of the free.

Maybe it's just me, but I think I would be revolted by that if I were a 'native American' (I don't think that term makes any sense, but in the absence of better umbrella term...).

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Now...if I'm wrong...please show me where someone has said anything more forceful than that, because I genuinely can't find anything....but there are no shortage of posts from the "critical of the argument" side deciding that this is what has been said.

However, those more open to their European heritage have repeatedly acknowledged that Europe and the West is not blameless, repeatedly. Nonetheless, the more politically correct detractors still have maintained that we’re not contrite enough to their likings. Repeatedly we’re told all - not some, and to some degree - of Africa’s ills are as a result of European imperialism.

They accuse those arguing in favour of European culture of being selective in what we choose – then choose to view everything from an equally selective, and opposite, light.

In reality, I would concur with your more moderate view JC that we are indeed partially responsible, but we cannot be considered the cause of all evil and neither can we be held accountable for all future evil that befalls the developing World. We could cancel all their debt, avoid any influence on their affairs and if they manage to fsck it up again, shall that be our fault again?

According to some it would be. Bullshĩt.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

We could cancel all their debt, avoid any influence on their affairs and if they manage to fsck it up again, shall that be our fault again?

I don't know. I'll tell you after we do our part, and I can see how genuinely and honestly we've done it.

See...this is the thing. Not once have we really tried to set things right. There are precious few, if any, cases where we have unopportunistically tried to undo the wrongs of the past. The closest would be the debt-forgiveness of recent years, but that has often come with conditions as well.

Every major concession has been fought for and won, not given freely and typically comes with a price-tag attached.

Time and time again - such as with the standard financial model of the IMF - the key idea seems to be "protection of the developed-nation investment", and not "whats best for the country we're supposed to be assissting."

And yet, all too many cry "haven't we done enough already"?

No. We haven't. Not at that level. And at a societal level...well...anyone who says that we've stamped out enough intolerance to not have to worry or care about whats left...I can't argue with that mindset.

jc

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

No. We haven't. Not at that level. And at a societal level...well...anyone who says that we've stamped out enough intolerance to not have to worry or care about whats left...I can't argue with that mindset.

Be still my bleeding heart...

The problem is that no atonement will ever suffice by your logic without perhaps falling upon our own collective economic swords. Call me selfish, but there are limits to the debts incurred by the sins of our fathers.

But then again, I can’t argue with sanctimonious self-loathing either.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

The problem is that no atonement will ever suffice by your logic

What? I said that we have never tried atoning without also seeking to gain for ourselves....and that this will never be enough. Where have I said that no atonement will ever be enough?

Seriously...my second last post was wondering where all these extreme re-descriptions of positions like mine come from...and then you do and do it again...

Call me selfish, but there are limits to the debts incurred by the sins of our fathers.

Yes there are. I've never suggested otherwise. What I've suggested is that we have never once made a serious effort to get anywhere near those debts.

I can’t argue with sanctimonious self-loathing either.

I'm guessing this is just you once-again trying to paint my position as far more extreme than I am continuously clarifying it not to be?

jc

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Be still my bleeding heart...

The problem is that no atonement will ever suffice by your logic without perhaps falling upon our own collective economic swords. Call me selfish, but there are limits to the debts incurred by the sins of our fathers.

But then again, I can’t argue with sanctimonious self-loathing either.

The elimination of third world debt would not be economic suicide, and if managed carefully and correctly you wouldn't even have significant side effects. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker.

Well if bonkey's went over my head, the volleyed return fairly zipped past you down the tramline. There are no groups called Black Shame or Gay Repentance or Jewish Remorse. Why? Because nobody black, Jewish or gay has done anything wrong, individually or as a group? Or simply because the point of a pride group is not to focus on negative things?

And you'll discover that a large portion of the worlds war and agression comes from "hooray my culture and hertiage and place of birth is better than yours so I have a god given right to dominant you".

Gays, Blacks and Jews were persecuted and oppressed to different degrees over the last 500 years. Gays were criminals till 30 years ago, so many black in america still have to answer police questions for "driving while being black".
And we don't need to go into the jewish thang. The point is until very recent history these social groups were made to feel inferior, repressed or seen as diseased. Are you going to begrudge them a chance to be proud of who they are?

We (by We I mean northern europeans) have had a fairly sweet deal since the Renaissance I think a North European pride day would have an air of smugness about it.

Which is why I don't support any organisation no matter how benign that supports something like "white" or "northern european" heritage, they're like honey for ultra nationalist, and race supremists, who feel they can benefit by abusing such a group, to twist their ideals.

Maybe it's just me, but I think I would be revolted by that if I were a 'native American' (I don't think that term makes any sense, but in the absence of better umbrella term...).

And giving them casinos and the right to sell fireworks was just classy.....

Agent Orange

If you celebrate white culture, then you are a Nazi. Simple as that.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

What? I said that we have never tried atoning without also seeking to gain for ourselves....and that this will never be enough. Where have I said that no atonement will ever be enough?

Had you quoted that sentence in it’s entirety you would have noted that it qualified the statement by saying “…without perhaps falling upon our own collective economic swords”. As I said; there are limits to the debts incurred by the sins of our fathers.

What I've suggested is that we have never once made a serious effort to get anywhere near those debts.

Well, that’s where you and I would disagree. As with any open-ended debt we can find ourselves perpetually paying it, or choose to call it paid. I would choose the latter.

I'm guessing this is just you once-again trying to paint my position as far more extreme than I am continuously clarifying it not to be?

Maybe it’s far more extreme than you realize it is.