White Pride and White Nationalism

[Quetzal]

This is an argument I see used a lot. The argument for white pride and nationalism. I read and hear it often: "why can't I be proud of my culture?" You can. You have always been able to do so. We have Irish pride celebrations, German drinking festivals and Serbian food festivals. Any European culture you can think of has organizations in North America dedicated to taking pride in their heritage. No one will give them (or you) grief.

However, when you begin to talk about "white pride", we begin to run into some issues. That's not a culture. That's a skin color. There is no white culture, never was. There is no pan-European culture, never was. Europe is a continent, not a culture or ethnicity.

Now, some of you are thinking: "But wait! Black pride! How is that okay?" Go find a black person and ask them if their ancestors were slaves. When you find one who says "yes", proceed to ask them "what country in Africa were your ancestors from?" Do you know what their answer will be? "I don't know." This is because their culture was taken from them. It was beaten out of them. They were enslaved, Christianized, and then white washed. The one unifying feature they have as a people is that history of slavery and that history of being black. They can't have Liberian pride, or Congolese pride, or "insert African country" pride. They have no idea where their ancestors came from other than the broad region of West Africa.

Meanwhile us white people can often trace our ancestors to specific cities and regions. I can trace my mother's maiden name to a single hamlet in England. I know where I came from. I don't have white culture, I have English/German culture. Most black communities do not have that luxury.

 

[Kemosloby]

This is an argument I see used a lot. The argument for white pride and nationalism. I read and hear it often: "why can't I be proud of my culture?" You can. You have always been able to do so. We have Irish pride celebrations, German drinking festivals and Serbian food festivals. Any European culture you can think of has organizations in North America dedicated to taking pride in their heritage. No one will give them (or you) grief.

However, when you begin to talk about "white pride", we begin to run into some issues. That's not a culture. That's a skin color. There is no white culture, never was. There is no pan-European culture, never was. Europe is a continent, not a culture or ethnicity.

Now, some of you are thinking: "But wait! Black pride! How is that okay?" Go find a black person and ask them if their ancestors were slaves. When you find one who says "yes", proceed to ask them "what country in Africa were your ancestors from?" Do you know what their answer will be? "I don't know." This is because their culture was taken from them. It was beaten out of them. They were enslaved, Christianized, and then white washed. The one unifying feature they have as a people is that history of slavery and that history of being black. They can't have Liberian pride, or Congolese pride, or "insert African country" pride. They have no idea where their ancestors came from other than the broad region of West Africa.

Meanwhile us white people can often trace our ancestors to specific cities and regions. I can trace my mother's maiden name to a single hamlet in England. I know where I came from. I don't have white culture, I have English/German culture. Most black communities do not have that luxury.

I heard the black slaves were sold to traders by other black people. They were probably prisoners or captives that would have otherwise been killed. What makes you think anyone beat their culture out of them and forced them to become White Christians?

Also, what is the justification for gay pride?

 

[निताइ dasa]

Calling it "black" pride, seems to suggest racial connotations, and hence why you get the backlash from the white nationalists. Would not a better term be "African American culture"? It avoids bringing skin color into it.

I can sorta identify with the situation too. My ancestors were indentured laborers who were taken by the British from India to work in the sugar canes of Fiji. Many of us have no idea from which part of India we came from, but we don't call our culture "brown culture", but we label it Fiji-Indian culture because it recognizes the Indian roots, but also the fact that the culture formed in a Fijiian environment. I don't see the point of bringing race labels into it at all. Even in Australia, the first Europeans that came here were convicts. In our current generation, very few white Australians know from where in England their original fore-fathers came from. Of course they can trace it back, but nearly all Australian's label their culture as Australian culture, not White culture or European culture.. Its interesting actually, whenever we have a post colonial society, the culture is never generally the same as that of the original colony. I would actually label American culture as something distinct from European culture.

(nice reddit repost btw).

 

[Quetzal]

Would not a better term be "African American culture"?

Their culture is not rooted in American culture, but one could make the argument for African culture, though. But remember, so much of their history is derived not from the fact that they were from Africa, but because they were black.

 

[Kirran]

I heard the black slaves were sold to traders by other black people. They were probably prisoners or captives that would have otherwise been killed. What makes you think anyone beat their culture out of them and forced them to become White Christians?

Also, what is the justification for gay pride?

They were enslaved for multiple generations and deprived of abilities to significantly organise to preserve their culture.

Who on Earth said anybody tried to force them to be white?

The justification for gay pride is that it is standing up to the historical and current prejudice and oppression which gay people experience.

Calling it "black" pride, seems to suggest racial connotations, and hence why you get the backlash from the white nationalists. Would not a better term be "African American culture"? I can sorta identify with the situation too. My ancestors were indentured laborers who were taken by the British from India to work in the sugar canes of Fiji. Many of us have no idea from which part of India we came from, but we don't call our culture "brown culture", but we label it Fiji-Indian culture because it recognizes the Indian roots, but also the fact that the culture formed in a Fijiian environment. I don't see the point of bringing race labels into it at all. Even in Australia, the first Europeans that came here were convicts. In our current generation, very few white Australians know from where in England their original fore-fathers came from. Of course they can trace it back, but nearly all Australian's label their culture as Australian culture, not White culture or European culture.. Its interesting actually, whenever we have a post colonial society, the culture is never generally the same as that of the original colony. I would actually label American culture as something distinct from European culture.

nice reddit repost btw.

To a large extent, 'black' in the USA really means the African-American ethnicity, which is a distinct group that has emerged from black people who've gone through the experience of slavery, who have developed their own culture and have their own historical narrative that makes them distinct from people of other backgrounds. While this ethnicity does in many cases absorb second-generation immigrants from Caribbean and African nations as well, ultimately its core is in that shared experience of oppression in the USA.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Their culture is not rooted in American culture, but one could make the argument for African culture, though. But remember, so much of their history is derived not from the fact that they were from Africa, but because they were black.

Hence the term African America. America is a society with many cultures. You can be Irish-American, Italian-American, African-American etc. The former represents the origins of the culture while the latter represents where the culture develops. To label something as "black-culture" to me seems quite hypocritical. But I get your point, cultural identity I think needs to be distinct from the label of the culture itself. (I could see myself a brown being an important part of my identity, but my culture is still Fiji Indian).

To a large extent, 'black' in the USA really means the African-American ethnicity, which is a distinct group that has emerged from black people who've gone through the experience of slavery, who have developed their own culture and have their own historical narrative that makes them distinct from people of other backgrounds.

Sure I get that. But it seems far too often that the term black is misinterpreted to mean something other then denoting a specific culture. I think it makes things easier if one does not use any color terms at all. In any Post Colonial society a settled group has a distinct culture that has its roots in a) the origin (where the group original came from) and b) where the culture developed lending to its distinctness. That is why the term African American makes sense to me, but Black doesn't. Of course, if its just semantics its fine, but it seems to paves a dangerous precedent I think (for white nationalist groups etc)..

 

[Kirran]

Here's an assortment of people referred to as 'black'. We have four continents represented here. So as a general racial term, the idea black culture is an absurdity.

But in the American context it means something much more specific than this. As Brits and Australians we need to be aware of that different in the meanings of terms.

I remember the routine of a black British comedian, who said he was ordering food in a fast food joint in the USA, and the black guy in line behind him heard his accent and asked if it was real, and the guy said yeah it's real. The guy responded 'Woah, I thought you were black black!' So there seems to be a kind of two-level understanding of the term black in the USA, the narrower of which refers to African-Americans and the other to all people of dark skin or of African descent.

 

[Quetzal]

But in the American context it means something much more specific than this. As Brits and Australians we need to be aware of that different in the meanings of terms.

Well said.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Just playing devils advocate here (I agree with you guys on most above points),

Could one make an argument for White Culture on the basis that certain countries are colonized by people from all different places in Europe, but they were united by the fact they were white? If the experience of slavery united black people from all different backgrounds to form one culture, could one make an argument that the experience of being slave owners (being white, i.e perceiving themselves to be the superior to blacks) united white people from all different parts of Europe to have a "White Culture"? Its a pretty horrifying point, but I think it stands. Because this is essentially the process in which we get merging of cultures. Two groups from different backgrounds find a similarity (whether it is a feature such as being black, or an experience, such as slavery or something like religion or language) and this common feature leads to the merging and creation of a distinct culture. Like similiar to the merging of the Germanic tribes to form the first Reich. or the tribes of Israel. If we warrant common experiences as a means of defining culture, then the term White Culture could make sense (although it comes with quite a bit of negative connotations).

 

[Kirran]

Just playing devils advocate here (I agree with you guys on most above points),

Could one make an argument for White Culture on the basis that certain countries are colonized by people from all different places in Europe, but they were united by the fact they were white? If the experience of slavery united black people from all different backgrounds to form one culture, could one make an argument that the experience of being slave owners (being white, i.e perceiving themselves to be the superior to blacks) united white people from all different parts of Europe to have a "White Culture"? Its a pretty horrifying point, but I think it stands. Because this is essentially the process in which we get merging of cultures. Two groups from different backgrounds find a similarity (whether it is a feature such as being black, or an experience, such as slavery or something like religion or language) and this common feature leads to the merging and creation of a distinct culture. Like similiar to the merging of the Germanic tribes to form the first Reich. or the tribes of Israel. If we warrant common experiences as a means of defining culture, then the term White Culture could make sense (although it comes with quite a bit of negative connotations).

While there is to a certain extent a common culture among white people within particular areas based on a common experience, e.g. White South Africans, White Americans, White Australians, this isn't something which has stood for the amount of time that African-American culture has. Slave owners were like 1-2% of White Americans, incidentally. And the conception of white is changing constantly, a century ago it was very different. Originally, in the USA white people were British people, Protestant Irish people and people from the Netherlands and certain areas of northwest Germany. That was it. Over time that definition has changed, and socially refers to all people of European descent. Official US Gov. definition is that a white person also can be from North Africa, the Middle East or Central Asia.

So I would say the fact that it has changed and that people have identified with ethnic groups within that broad banner, and the fact there's little in common across the whole group, means the idea of white culture doesn't make much sense. After all, what would be held in common across white culture?

 

[Quetzal]

If we warrant common experiences as a means of defining culture, then the term White Culture could make sense (although it comes with quite a bit of negative connotations).

Let's remember, in regards to black culture, they are defining their culture this way because they have no alternative related to the cultural history. I think culture is more than common experiences but when that is all you have, how else do you define yourself?

 

[निताइ dasa]

And the conception of white is changing constantly, a century ago it was very different. Originally, in the USA white people were British people,

Lets not confuse the term "white" with the White culture (which defined by the common experience of whites during colonization and whether those traits have carried on till today). I think, you may be looking at white, as a racial classification here.

e.g. White South Africans, White Americans, White Australians, this isn't something which has stood for the amount of time that African-American culture has.

Hmm I'm actually really liking this discussion. Let me break it down as I see it. Actually I agree, White identity (i.e formed from the common experience of Europeons) is not as prominent or as unique as "Black" identity (i.e formed form the common experience of those in Slavery). This is because, many of the practices that characterized "white" identity (such a traditional Christian norms, a common Language despite different backgrounds, different standards of etiquette and behavior (think Chivalry) ) were often adopted by the oppressed class (African Americans) as a means of exercising power. That being said, I actually disagree with you that the features of "White identity" have not stood the test of time. I think they have just like Black identity however today the boundaries between these two identities have become fluid. Some of the commonalities (i.e features that have their origin the group of white people that colonized America) that I can think of from the top of my head would be things like a common language (English, despite different European backgrounds), a common etiquette (eating with a knife and fork etc), a very similiar moral/religious system (centered around Christianity), standards of beauty, common arts etc. But I also think that due to the context, there was very little development of European based cultures, but there was huge developments in African American culture. Hence why it seems to be that the "White" portion of the American culture seems to be not that different from its European origins, while the "Black" portion of American culture has developed to have a very distinctive character (that is distinct from African traditions).

Let's remember, in regards to black culture, they are defining their culture this way because they have no alternative related to the cultural history. I think culture is more than common experiences but when that is all you have, how else do you define yourself?

Sure, in that light, it makes sense. Actually the one part of the original post that I disagree with is that they "had no alternative". It was not they didn't have any alternatives, but rather then basing their cultural identity on origin (which was too vague) or physical appearance, they chose a common experience (of slavery and the unity that bought). This common experience gave rise to district culture. In this light, black culture makes sense, I agree. I also disagree with the author when she/he said that there is no "pan-european' culture. Of course was. European culture (aka Western Culture) exists because European peoples were usually isolated from other continents and traded/interacted among themselves leading to this hybridization). The Romans and the English were particular important in this because there were many points in time where they were able to unite the majority of Europe under one banner (and hence form a common culture). The thing that has to be understood is that culture is not easily defined. It is complex and there are many layers. It is simply a way of grouping two a population/s together on the basis of similarity.

 

[metis]

Also, what is the justification for gay pride?

You actually have to ask?

I'm not gay, but what's wrong with them having pride?

 

[Kirran]

Lets not confuse the term "white" with the White culture (which defined by the common experience of whites during colonization and whether those traits have carried on till today). I think, you may be looking at white, as a racial classification here.

I think it's impossible to separate - white culture is the culture of white people, that's what it's meaning. It's adhering to that racial classification.

Hmm I'm actually really liking this discussion. Let me break it down as I see it. Actually I agree, White identity (i.e formed from the common experience of Europeons) is not as prominent or as unique as "Black" identity (i.e formed form the common experience of those in Slavery). This is because, many of the practices that characterized "white" identity (such a traditional Christian norms, a common Language despite different backgrounds, different standards of etiquette and behavior (think Chivalry) ) were often adopted by the oppressed class (African Americans) as a means of exercising power. That being said, I actually disagree with you that the features of "White identity" have not stood the test of time. I think they have just like Black identity however today the boundaries between these two identities have become fluid. Some of the commonalities (i.e features that have their origin the group of white people that colonized America) that I can think of from the top of my head would be things like a common language (English, despite different European backgrounds), a common etiquette (eating with a knife and fork etc), a very similiar moral/religious system (centered around Christianity), standards of beauty, common arts etc. But I also think that due to the context, there was very little development of European based cultures, but there was huge developments in African American culture. Hence why it seems to be that the "White" portion of the American culture seems to be not that different from its European origins, while the "Black" portion of American culture has developed to have a very distinctive character (that is distinct from African traditions).

I don't know what the common experience of Europeans is though. And OK, so nowadays we'd say the history of Irish Americans is part of white history in America, but when the Irish were really coming over to the USA in waves they weren't considered white people.

I'll go through the things you suggest here:

English language - I wouldn't say this is universal to white culture and white experience. English was used across the board. Certain groups would historically have been set aside by dint of their using English deemed as non-standard and inferior. This would include African-Americans, but also Italian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans.

Common etiquette - I totally acknowledge this is a European-derived thing, but there'd have been white groups which didn't bother with it, or which only picked it up upon arriving in America exactly like Asian groups and so forth. Hell, you use a knife and fork right?

Common religion - again, I see your point but I think it's worth looking at the historical attitudes towards it - Catholics were not at all thought of as being in a similar religious system.

As for standards of beauty, common arts etc, you may well be right. But I would suggest this is more the normative culture of the American/Australian elite that you're referring to, which was generally either exclusively or more easily accessible to whites than to Jews and blacks and Arabs and Chinese and Irish and Italians, rather than being white culture per se.

 

[metis]

I do not have a problem with white pride, black pride, or purple-with-pink-polka-dots pride, as long as it's not at the expense of downgrading others.

 

[निताइ dasa]

English language - I wouldn't say this is universal to white culture and white experience. English was used across the board. Certain groups would historically have been set aside by dint of their using English deemed as non-standard and inferior. This would include African-Americans, but also Italian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans.

Sure, I;ll give you that English might be too universal.

Common etiquette - I totally acknowledge this is a European-derived thing, but there'd have been white groups which didn't bother with it, or which only picked it up upon arriving in America exactly like Asian groups and so forth. Hell, you use a knife and fork right?

Sure, but like I said, cultural boundaries have become more fluid today. We see many young white people adopting aspects of Black culture. Even Black people adopted aspects of Europeon culture as a means of excersizing power (one of the rules of a hegemonic society is that in order to excersize power you must adopt the cultural practices, i.e laws, norms etc of the ruling class). (I actually don't eat with a knife and fork btw ahaha).

Common religion - again, I see your point but I think it's worth looking at the historical attitudes towards it - Catholics were not at all thought of as being in a similar religious system.

Sure, there were minor difference, but if you look at Christian norms and beliefs as a whole and contrast that with any other independent culture (like the hindu tradtions, african traditions etc) there are huge and stark differences.

But I would suggest this is more the normative culture of the American/Australian elite that you're referring to, which was generally either exclusively or more easily accessible to whites than to Jews and blacks and Arabs and Chinese and Irish and Italians, rather than being white culture per se.

Yeah I agree it was normative totally. But I do think that is a defining feature of white (European culture). I think we take for granted how much of the normative practices we have today that have their roots in European culture. It is why academics refer to the world as the Western world, c.f Eastern world, Middle Eastern world. Western culture, is pretty much European culture that has become pretty normalized in countries. Post Colonialism is a whole theory which deals with the ramifications of when two cultures (the European colonizers and the natives of a country) clash and how it leads to oppression, conflict and finally forging of a distinct culture.

 

[metis]

Sure, I;ll give you that English might be too universal.



Sure, but like I said, cultural boundaries have become more fluid today. We see many young white people adopting aspects of Black culture. Even Black people adopted aspects of Europeon culture as a means of excersizing power (one of the rules of a hegemonic society is that in order to excersize power you must adopt the cultural practices, i.e laws, norms etc of the ruling class). (I actually don't eat with a knife and fork btw ahaha).



Sure, there were minor difference, but if you contrast Christian norms and beliefs as a whole and contrast that with any other independent culture (like the hindu tradtions, african traditions etc) there are huge and stark differences.



Yeah I agree it was normative totally. But I do think that is a defining feature of white (European culture). I think we take for granted how much of the normative practices we have today that have their roots in European culture. It is why academics refer to the world as the Western world, c.f Eastern world, Middle Eastern world. Western culture, is pretty much European culture that has become pretty normalized in countries. Post Colonialism is a whole theory which deals with the ramifications of when two cultures (the European colonizers and the natives of a country) clash and how it leads to oppression, conflict and finally forging of a distinct culture.

Very nice post, imo.

 

[Parchment]

Remember the Hutus and the Tutsis? According to wikipedia The Rwanda genocide was blamed on ideas planted by YT colonialists instead of on the people that were actually committing it- I'm sure they all held hands and sung kumbaya before the White devils showed up (sarcasm)
.Origins of Hutu and Tutsi - Wikipedia
" While the Hutu are the ethnic majority of Rwanda, in racialist ideology originally introduced by European colonizers, the Tutsi were often identified as a separate race and also foreign,"

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Whatever one's skin color, people would be better served by taking pride in things that actually matter, like your health, appearance, conduct, accomplishments, family, and friends. Taking "pride" in categorical accidents of birth invariably leads to separation from "others" and a sense of self-superiority.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Whatever one's skin color, people would be better served by taking pride in things that actually matter, like your health, appearance, conduct, accomplishments, family, and friends. Taking "pride" in categorical accidents of birth invariably leads to separation from "others" and a sense of self-superiority.

Wow, you've just said what I was thinking . It never made sense to me to be proud of something that we are given or born with. Would it not be better to be proud of something that we achieved by our own hard work and efforts?