Author Topic: The "Black" and "White" Identity Politics Scam  (Read 1846 times)

NSFAN

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
    • View Profile
Have not watched this yet, but I can already tell you the first face on the left of the title screen is closer to the Aryan phenotype than the rest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuDuKOSQXgk

It is possible that the first two people on the left of the title screen are closer racially to each other than they are to the last two on the right.

Comment:
Quote
It's depressing how good humans are at dehumanising others to justify their actions. Even in languages this is seen. Often in tribal languages it's speakers are known as "The People" and of course non-speakers would be called something else. It's crazy to think how small the distances were between tribes considering the other as not humans, maybe even in eyesight. It's the saddest part about the slave trade to me, how some tribes were happy to sell their enemies to the whites, seeing them as animals. Makes me sick.

This is tribalism, Gentiles and Turanians subvert nation-states with their tribalism to this day. The election of Donald Trump in the U.S. is a perfect example of this.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2022, 01:08:49 am by NSFAN »

NSFAN

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
    • View Profile
Adoptee Story: "I Didn't Know I Was Black Until You Told Me"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82dkyG-w7wU

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/20/the-invention-of-whiteness-long-history-dangerous-idea

Quote
If you asked an Englishman in the early part of the 17th century what colour skin he had, he might very well have called it white. But the whiteness of his skin would have suggested no more suitable basis for a collective identity than the roundness of his nose or the baldness of his head. If you asked him to situate himself within the rapidly expanding borders of the known world, he would probably identify himself, first and most naturally, as an Englishman. If that category proved too narrow – if, say, he needed to describe what it was he had in common with the French and the Dutch that he did not share with Ottomans or Africans – he would almost certainly call himself a Christian instead.

That religious identity was crucial for the development of the English slave trade – and eventually for the development of racial whiteness. In the early 17th century, plantation owners in the West Indies and in the American colonies largely depended on the labour of European indentured servants. These servants were considered chattel and were often treated brutally – the conditions on Barbados, England’s wealthiest colony, were notorious – but they were fortunate in at least one respect: because they were Christian, by law they could not be held in lifetime captivity unless they were criminals or prisoners of war.

Africans enjoyed no such privilege. They were understood to be infidels, and thus the “perpetual enemies” of Christian nations, which made it legal to hold them as slaves. By 1640 or so, the rough treatment of indentured servants had started to diminish the supply of Europeans willing to work on the sugar and tobacco plantations, and so the colonists looked increasingly to slavery, and the Atlantic-sized loophole that enabled it, to keep their fantastically profitable operations supplied with labour.
[...]
Toward the end of the 17th century, this scheme witnessed a significant shift: many of the laws that regulated slave and servant behaviour – the 1681 Servant Act in Jamaica, for example, which was later copied for use in South Carolina – began to describe the privileged class as “whites” and not as “Christians”.

One of the more plausible explanations for this change, made by Rugemer and the historian Katharine Gerbner, among others, is that the establishment of whiteness as a legal category solved a religious dilemma. By the 1670s, Christian missionaries, including the Quaker George Fox, were insisting that enslaved Africans should be inducted into the Christian faith. The problem this posed for the planters was obvious: if their African labourers became Christians, and no longer “perpetual enemies” of Christendom, then on what legal grounds could they be enslaved? And what about the colonial laws that gave special privileges to Christians, laws whose authors apparently never contemplated the possibility that Africans might someday join the faith?

The planters tried to resolve the former dilemma by blocking the conversion of enslaved Africans, on the grounds, as the Barbados Assembly put it in 1680, that such conversion would “endanger the island, inasmuch as converted negroes grow more perverse and intractable than others”. When that didn’t work (the Bishop of London objected) they instead passed laws guaranteeing that baptism could not be invoked as grounds for seeking freedom.
[...]
As late as 1694, a slave-ship captain could still question the racial logic newly employed to justify his trade. (“I can’t think there is any intrinsick value in one colour more than another, nor that white is better than black, only we think it so because we are so,” Thomas Phillips wrote in his diary.)
[...]
The economic utility of the idea of whiteness helped spread it rapidly around the world. Du Bois was not wrong to call it a religion, for like a religion, it operated at every psychological, sociological and political scale, from the most intimate to the most public. Like a religion, too, it adapted to local conditions. What it meant to be white in British Virginia was not identical to what it would mean in New York before the American civil war, in India during the Raj, in Georgia during Jim Crow, in Australia after Federation, or in Germany during the Third Reich. But what united all these expressions was a singular idea: that some group of people called white was naturally superior to all others. As Benjamin Disraeli, the Victorian prime minister and one of the most committed race ideologists of his time, put it, “race implies difference, difference implies superiority, and superiority leads to predominance”.

The idea of whiteness, in other words, was identical to the idea of white supremacy.

That final sentence captures an important fact about the formation of a tribal in-group identity.

And, regarding Disraeli, it is no surprise he is a professional tribalist:
Quote
Disraeli was born on 21 December 1804 at 6 King's Road, Bedford Row, Bloomsbury, London,[n 1] the second child and eldest son of Isaac D'Israeli, a literary critic and historian, and Maria (Miriam), née Basevi.[3] The family was mostly from Italy, of Sephardic Jewish, mercantile background (of Italian-Jewish descent).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli

Quote
Even Gandhi, during the early part of his life, accepted the basic lie of whiteness, arguing that “the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan” and that “the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race”.
[...]
For all their evident success, the devotees of the religion of whiteness were never able to achieve the total vision they longed for. In part, this was because there were always dissenters, including among those who stood to gain from it, who rejected the creed of racial superiority.
[...]
Yet if the religion of whiteness was never able to gain acceptance as an unchallengeable scientific fact, it was still hugely successful at shaping social reality. Some of this success had to do with its flexibility. Thanks to its role in facilitating slavery, whiteness in the US was often defined in opposition to blackness, but between those two extremes was room for tactical accommodations. In 1751, Benjamin Franklin could claim that only the English and Saxons “make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth”, and nearly 80 years later, Ralph Waldo Emerson would insist that the Irish, like the Chinese and the Native American, were not caucasian. Over time, however, the definition of who counted as culturally white expanded to include Catholics from southern Europe, the Irish and even Jews, who for centuries had been seen as quintessential outsiders.

The religion of whiteness also found success by persuading its adherents that they, and not the people they oppressed, were the real victims. In 1692, colonial legislators in British Barbados complained that “sundry of the Negroes and Slaves of this island, have been long preparing, contriving, conspiring and designing a most horrid, bloody, damnable and detestable rebellion, massacre, assassination and destruction”. From there, it was a more or less straight line to Woodrow Wilson’s claim, in 1903, that the southerners who started the Ku Klux Klan were “aroused by the mere instinct of self-preservation”, and to Donald Trump’s warning, when he launched his presidential campaign in 2015, that Mexican immigrants to the US were “bringing drugs. And they’re bringing crime. And they’re rapists.”
[...]
Political appeals to white solidarity diminished slowly but certainly. In 1955, for example, Winston Churchill could still imagine that “Keep England White” was a winning general-election theme, and even as late as 1964, Peter Griffiths, a Conservative candidate for parliament, would score a surprise victory after endorsing a nakedly racist slogan. By 1968, however, when Enoch Powell delivered his “Rivers of Blood” speech – in which he approvingly quoted a constituent who lamented that “in 15 or 20 years’ time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man” – he would be greeted by outrage in the Times, which called it an “evil speech”, and expelled from the Conservative shadow cabinet.

Similarly, rightist political strategists in the US felt the same way:
Quote
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*gger, n*gger, n*gger." By 1968 you can't say "n*gger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*gger, n*gger."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1970s_and_1980s)

In only a decade, the Counterculture was able to kill the supreme grip white supremacy held for 300 years, although the white supremacists remained:
Quote
This gradual rejection of explicit, government-enforced white supremacy was hugely consequential in terms of public policy. Yet it did not mean that whiteness, as a political force, had lost its appeal: in the weeks after Powell’s speech, to take just one example, a Gallup poll found that 74% of Britons supported his suggestion that brown-skinned immigrants ought to be repatriated. It also left unresolved the more difficult question of whether whiteness was truly separable from its long history of domination.

Instead of looking too hard at the sordid history of whiteness, many white people found it easier to decide that the civil rights movement had accomplished all the anti-racism work that needed doing. The result was a strange détente. On the one hand, whiteness retreated as a subject of public attention, giving way to a new rhetoric of racial colour-blindness. On the other hand, vast embedded economic and cultural discrepancies allowed white people to continue to exercise the institutional and structural power that had accumulated on their behalf across the previous three centuries.
[...]
Even the phrase “white supremacy”, which predates the word “racism” in English by 80 years and once described a system of interlocking racial privileges that touched every aspect of life, was redefined to mean something rare and extreme. In 1923, for example, under the headline White Supremacy Menaced, the New York Times would print an article which took at face value a Harvard professor’s warning that “one of the gravest and most acute problems before the world today” was “the problem of saving the white race from submergence in the darker races”.

See also:
Quote
The Rising Tide of Color: The Threat Against White World-Supremacy (1920), by Lothrop Stoddard, is a book about racialism and geopolitics, which describes the collapse of white supremacy and colonialism because of the population growth among "people of color", rising nationalism in colonized nations, and industrialization in China and Japan. To counter the perceived geopolitical threat, Stoddard advocated restricting non-white immigration into white-majority countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rising_Tide_of_Color_Against_White_World-Supremacy

Quote
By the 80s and 90s, however, at least in white-dominated media, “white supremacy” was reserved only for the most shocking and retrograde examples of racism. For many people who grew up at that time, as I did, the phrase evoked cross burnings and racist hooligans, rather than an intricate web of laws and norms that maintained disparities of wealth, education, housing, incarceration and access to political power.

And now we have the misfortune of the clunky vocabulary "white privilege" replacing the original meaning of white supremacy. "Privilege" imples there could be some unprivileged form of whiteness, or a state wherein "non-whites" cease being unprivileged and equal to the supposed "privileges" of "whites". In reality, the mere existence of "white" tribal identity is the root of the problem, not the abstract concept of "privilege".

Quote
In the 80s and 90s, a group of legal scholars that included Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Cheryl Harris and Richard Delgado produced a body of research that became known as critical race theory, which was, in Bell’s words, “ideologically committed to the struggle against racism, particularly as institutionalised in and by law”.

Alongside critical race theory, and in many ways derived from it, a new academic trend, known as whiteness studies, took shape. Historians working in this subfield demonstrated the myriad ways in which the pursuit of white supremacy – like the pursuit of wealth and the subjection of women – had been one of the central forces that gave shape to Anglo-American history. For many of them, the bill of indictment against whiteness was total: as the historian David Roediger put it, “it is not merely that whiteness is oppressive and false; it is that whiteness is nothing but oppressive and false.”

In the fall of 1992, a new journal co-founded by Noel Ignatiev, one of the major figures in whiteness studies, appeared in bookstores around Cambridge, Massachusetts. Called Race Traitor, the magazine wore its motto and guiding ethos on its cover: Treason to Whiteness is Loyalty to Humanity. The issue opened with an editorial whose headline was equally provocative: “Abolish the white race – by any means necessary.” This demand, with its echoes of Sartre by way of Malcolm X, was not, as it turned out, a call for violence, much less for genocide.
[...]
For Ignatiev and Garvey, whiteness had been identified with white supremacy for so long that it was folly to think it was salvageable. “So long as the white race exists,” they wrote, “all movements against racism are doomed to fail.” What was necessary, in their view, was for the people called “white” – people like them – to forcefully reject that identification and the racial privileges that came with it.

And when WNs won't give up their racial identity, what then? Who will be the hero willing to implement the Final Solution ending white supremacy and racism?

Zea_mays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Continued from above.

Quote
When I was in graduate school during the early 00s, toward the end of the whiteness-studies boomlet, I often heard – including from my own mouth – the argument that the real problem was that white people weren’t talking enough about their racial identity. If you could get people to acknowledge their whiteness, we told ourselves, then it might be possible to get them to acknowledge the unfair ways in which whiteness had helped them.

How does trapping anti-white pale-skinned people into the mindset that they are forever and unchangably tainted by "whiteness" help to abolish "whiteness"?

Quote
In 1860, a man who called himself “Ethiop” published an essay in The Anglo-African Magazine, which has been called the first Black literary journal in the US. The author behind the pseudonym was William J Wilson, a former bootmaker who later served as the principal of Brooklyn’s first public school for Black children. Wilson’s essay bore the headline, What Shall We Do with the White People?

The article was meant in part meant to mock the white authors and statesmen who had endlessly asked themselves a similar question about Black people in the US. But it was not only a spoof.
In a tone that mimicked the smug paternalism of his targets, he laid out a comprehensive indictment of white rule in the country: the plunder and murder of the “Aborigines”; the theft and enslavement of Africans; the hypocrisy embodied by the American constitution, government and white churches. At the root of all this, he wrote, was “a long continued, extensive and almost complete system of wrongdoing” that made the men and women who enabled it into “restless, grasping” marauders. “In view of the existing state of things around us,” Wilson proposed at the end, “let our constant thought be, what for the best good of all shall we do with the White people?”

Much has changed since Wilson’s time, but a century and a half on, his question remains no less pertinent.

Quote
In his 2019 book Whiteshift, Kaufmann argues that the history of oppression by white people is “real, but moot”, and he advocates for something he calls “symmetrical multiculturalism”, in which “identifying as white, or with a white tradition of nationhood, is no more racist than identifying as black”. What shall we do with the white people? Kaufmann thinks we should encourage them to take pride in being white, lest they turn to more violent means: “Freezing out legitimate expressions of white identity allows the far right to own it, and acts as a recruiting sergeant for their wilder ideas.”

Another usual suspect:
Quote
Eric Kaufmann was born in Hong Kong and raised in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and Japan.[1] His ancestry is half Jewish, one-quarter Chinese and one-quarter Costa Rican.[2][3] His father Steve Kaufmann is of Jewish descent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Kaufmann

Quote
From another perspective – my own, most days – whiteness means something different from other racial and ethnic identities because it has had a different history than other racial and ethnic identities. Across three-and-a-half centuries, whiteness has been wielded as a weapon on a global scale; Blackness, by contrast, has often been used as a shield.

That's because, "whiteness" (like Jewishness) is not a mere ethnic group. It is a tribal identity. An in-group specifically defined to differentiate the tribe from, and broadcast the belief in supremacy over, out-group members.

And "blackness", despite being a crude category, was created by whites (and not by "blacks" trying to form a tribal in-group), explaining the asymmetry.

Quote
Nor is there much reason to believe that whiteness will ever be content to seek “legitimate expressions”, whatever those might look like. The religion of whiteness had 50 years to reform itself along non-supremacist lines, to prove that it was fit for innocuous coexistence. Instead, it gave us Donald Trump.

The religion of Jewishness has had at least 3000 years to reform itself along non-tribal lines and prove it was qualified for innocuous coexistence. Instead it has given us Eric Kaufmann (and Jared Kushner, and Jason Miller, and the apartheid state of Israel, and Disraeli, etc. etc. etc.).

Quote
Yet even this does not fully answer Wilson’s question.  [...] Late in his life, James Baldwin described whiteness as “a moral choice”, as a way of emphasising that it was not a natural fact. But whiteness is more than a moral choice: it is a dense network of moral choices, the vast majority of which have been made for us, often in times and places very distant from our own. In this way whiteness is a problem like climate change or economic inequality: it is so thoroughly imbricated in the structure of our everyday lives that it makes the idea of moral choices look quaint.
[...]
As with climate change, however, the only thing more difficult than such an effort would be trying to live with the alternative. Whiteness may seem inevitable and implacable, and Toni Morrison surely had it right when she said that the world “will not become unracialised by assertion”. (To wake up tomorrow and decide I am no longer white would help no one.)

Here's what the moral choice to abolish "whiteness" looks like on the individual level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

Here's what it looks like on a policy level:
Quote
It is said the South will never submit — that we cannot conquer the rebels — that they will suffer themselves to be slaughtered, and their whole country to be laid waste. Sir, war is a grievous thing at best, and civil war more than any other ; but if they hold this language, and the means which they have suggested must be resorted to ; if their whole country must be laid waste and made a desert, in order to save this Union from destruction, so let it be. I would rather, Sir, reduce them to a condition where their whole country is to be re-peopled by a band of freemen, than to see them perpetrate the destruction of this people through our agency. I do not say it is time to resort to such means, and I do not say that the time will come, but I never fear to express my sentiments. It is not a question with me of policy, but a question of principle.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens

And, well, this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7397
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: The "Black" and "White" Identity Politics Scam
« Reply #49 on: August 30, 2022, 02:40:52 am »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7397
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7397
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: The "Black" and "White" Identity Politics Scam
« Reply #51 on: November 26, 2022, 05:16:23 pm »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-familys-photo-album-includes-122833877.htmlhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/one-familys-photo-album-includes-122833877.html

Quote
One family's photo album includes images of a vacation, a wedding anniversary and the lynching of a Black man in Texas
...
As a historian and director of the Lynching in Texas project, which has documented more than 600 racial terror lynchings, I receive regular emails from journalists, scholars and activists who want to discuss the history of racial violence.

https://lynchingintexas.org/

Quote
My conversations with reporters and historians did not prepare me for one of the emails I received last winter. The writer, a Chicago memorabilia dealer, offered to mail me a photo album that included a picture from a Texas lynching.

I responded that I would appreciate the opportunity to review the album and to help identify the victim.

About a week later, I opened the envelope and found five photos, a small cartoon and a key labeled “Teddie’s pictures.”

Each of the photographs was numbered.

The first was a 6-by-5-inch image of what appeared to be burning wood. It proved difficult to decipher. But the description clarified matters.

It read: “Burning of negro in front of old City Hall, Waco, Texas.”
...
official state interpretation holds that slavery, racism and racism’s deadly manifestation, lynching, did not serve as systemic forces that shaped Texas history but were instead aberrations without any fundamental meaning for Texans – or even beyond the state.

Teddie’s photo album, which also included pictures of Teddie and her husband doing normal, everyday things like riding donkeys and going to wedding anniversary dinners, presented a direct challenge to this interpretation.
...
Why would an educated white woman from Pennsylvania include a picture of a Black lynching victim in a personal photo album?

Why would she take her photos out of chronological sequence and place the lynching picture as the first photo in the album?

One thing is for sure: lynching was not motivated by hate for "black" people. Similarly, riding donkeys was not motivated by hate for donkeys. Here is the donkey-riding photo:



Do the "whites" look like they hate the donkeys they are riding? Or do the "whites" look like they just think it's OK to be "white"? (Also note the sexually dimorphic riding postures (which have nothing to do with hating the donkeys either). See also: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/dress-decolonization/msg5632/#msg5632 )

"Whites" hate no one. Bullies never hate their victims. Their victims are their  entertainment. Why would they hate their own entertainment? Hate is a leftist emotion:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/true-left-breakthrough-hate/

Continuing:

[quote[]The answers to these questions reveal a great deal about Texas just 100 years ago.

In my view, the album exposes the priority that Anglo Texans – even new arrivals to the state – placed on white supremacy and Black subjugation.

Teddie likely pasted the picture of Jesse Thomas’ burning body at the beginning of her album because it featured an electrifying, adrenaline-charged event that viscerally illustrated the nature of her new Texas home.[/quote]

I agree.

Quote
In May 1922, for example, white Texans carried out in one month at least 10 lynchings, more lynchings than in any other state but Georgia for the entire year.

Eight of the Texas victims killed in 1922 were burned at the stake in a form of torture that most people today associate with the so-called Dark Ages.

But these horrific acts happened in modern Texas, just a few generations ago. And white people caught the events on film and put the photos in their own family albums.

Related:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/crypto-lynching/

Woke comments:

Quote
white people who went to church the following Sunday and pretended to be moral human beings.

Quote
It was sport. They had picnics. It’s entertaining for the masses.

Quote
These Ritualistic Tortures and Human Sacrifices are  among their most-loved and prized memories.

Quote
and no atonement for this, yet black people are told over and over again to get over it!

Quote
The "normalcy" of lynch photos in pale people's photos album is atrocious. They don't even SEE that there is something wrong with this.

Quote
Bet these all those white people went to church too.

Quote
Now these racists go around wearing red hats and calling themselves MAGA.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2022, 05:27:59 pm by 90sRetroFan »