Proud to be white

This is the double-bind: they're baiting, but not taking the bait allows the baiting to continue.

And FWIW, what wackass messageboards have you been checking out and anyway who the fuck CARES? I avoid slsk chatrooms precisely because I hate this kinda talk, but beyond that, I wouldn't say there's exactly an abundance of 'white pride' on music messageboards or anything. Not that it's any less dunderheaded and offensive than any other kind of pride that isn't achievement-based, persecution or no. No?

Thing is, this applies almost as much to the people across the aisle: "otherizing" is hardly a problem unique to the white-pride demographic!

The notion of "proud to be white" breaks down in a way that "proud to be Italian/Irish/whatever" or "proud to be American" doesn't -- because the lack of specificity implies that skin color really is the only signifier being used. As opposed to "proud to be a Yankee" or "proud to be a Southerner", or even "proud to be a [insert hyphenated blueblood name here]": a group that's contiguous enough, specific enough, that it otherwise makes sense to be proud to be a part of it.

The notion of black pride could I suppose be seen as problematic when set in opposition to "white pride", were it not for the fact that, y'know, people were taken from Africa in chains, and thus their descendants were frequently denied the opportunity to know where exactly in Africa their ancestors were from. And I certainly don't think one can object to taking pride in African-American culture (something for which "black" is often used as a shorthand, though many Africans might raise an eyebrow).

On the other hand, positing a solidarity between all African-Americans, and all Africans, is a signifier purely based on skin color, and doesn't seem to me all that different from positing a solidarity between white Americans and white Europeans -- unless you make the argument that it's an alliance between oppressed peoples. But does the average black American really have significantly more in common with someone from Mozambique than someone from Guatemala, or Myanmar? In that situation, I'm not sure that the black person's desire to see brotherhood in "someone [who looks] like me" is really any nobler than the Euro-American alliance -- in both cases, it's basically tribalism at work, regardless of race, isn't it?

(There's something to be said in here about the strange relationship between whiteness, Jewishness, and the Semitic peoples in general.)

Of course this points to a larger problem, at least in the States, which is the asymmetry of access to/occupancy of cultures. In other words, mainstream cultural traditions, most of which have historically been European in origin, are supposed to be accessible to all, and are supposed to self-modify in response to demographic and socioeconomic trends. (Whether they actually do these things is another question entirely, but we see them as having that obligation.) We don't have that same expectation of minority cultural traditions and expressions -- it's OK for there to be a parallel discourse that's black, Latino/Hispanic, Vietnamese, whatever, and that discourse can be a space solely dedicated to its inhabitants, with no expectations that it'll make itself open to outsiders. To put it crudely, race is seen as an unacceptable reason for a white party to object to a black party-crasher, but not for an all-black party to object to a white party-crasher. A "black businessmen's club" vs. a "white businessmen's club". (Or, straights in the gay/lesbian bar; men in the women-only space; and so on.)

I think it's obvious socially and historically why this is, and how this is of benefit in a restorative sense. But at the same time I think if you invoke power relationships as the sole reason and justification for this, you start getting onto very thin ice, because it's very hard for anyone to get behind an ideology that accuses them of an essentially indelible guilt. As is so often the case, pragmatism, and the open embrace of same, seems like a much more workable way to get everybody on the same page (rather than casting about with allegations of original sin and whatnot).

Anyway, to get back to the original poster, my response would be to ask him, specifically, what he's proud of! Odds are good that you might get something to which you could reply, "Well, then aren't you really saying that you're proud to be American/English/whatever?"

PP, yes, it is.

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1340485

Saying that one is proud to be white is kind of an indicator that one's life sucks because, well... in my experience, it's kind of great to be white.

i dont normally see stuff like this anyhow, but weirdly i did yesterday, on the middlesboro football board (dont ask), which seemed to be laced with 'deport all muslims' typ;e threads, which had people attempting to argue back, but without any real outcome other than prolonging and even increasing the amount of threads covering it there. it struck me as futile, and giving things dignity that didnt deserve it, but perhaps there is an argument that its good for people to realise that people didnt agree with them (as an underlying strand of this kind of stuff is 'im just saying what you're thinking' and 'most people agree with me but daren't say because of pc liberal control and bias in the media')

I find this strangely comnforting. You guys are, like, the smartest intarfolks I know, and no one has popped in to point out that there's some obvious rhetorical strategem that all the smart people just know to pull out.

But then, nabisco hasn't checked in yet...

We don't have that same expectation of minority cultural traditions and expressions -- it's OK for there to be a parallel discourse that's black, Latino/Hispanic, Vietnamese, whatever, and that discourse can be a space solely dedicated to its inhabitants, with no expectations that it'll make itself open to outsiders. To put it crudely, race is seen as an unacceptable reason for a white party to object to a black party-crasher, but not for an all-black party to object to a white party-crasher.

This is because powerful liberal laws and institutions seek to "represent the other", whereas the powerless are just expected to "be the other". And it's precisely in that (patronizing) difference that the power and legitimacy of liberal institutions resides.

The thing is, we're living in a period when liberal institutions are being undermined by the neo-con right, which has discovered postmodern relativism (eg the relativist argument that creationism should be taught in schools and universities as "just another belief, as good as any other"). What emerges is a pluralistic level playing field which isn't level at all because, although nothing is representing anything other than itself, or claims to be objectively any better than anything else, some people are still richer and more powerful than others, and can ride roughshod over them. The winners are still the winners, but they just stopped feeling guilty about it.

In these circumstances, I'd suggest that all we can do is try to defeat the powerful by the usual means -- guns, unions, scorn -- and try to ensure that they aren't replaced by new, worse masters. At the other side of that tunnel there's someone saying "I'm proud to be white" without disturbing us in the slightest. "You go, girl!", we'll reply.

(p.s. logdafucout - you know you're still logged in right?)

i swear I first read that as "defeat the powerful by the usual means -- guns, unicorns"

Momus OTM

what's interesting to me about the people who say the kinds of things mentioned in the original poster's question is that it seems to represent a desire to be the Other. wanting one's skin color to be recognized as an attribute, to have a POSITIVITY in culture, rather than the negative qualities whites have in the US (which is the power to NOT be recognized for one's skin color; hence the power to be relatively physically attributeless; hence the power to have easy access to the "public sphere" where ideas and not bodies are supposed to reign supreme). that anyone would desire this, given the power dynamics associated with having Notable Skin, seems fundamentally ignorant of how shit works. if whites could somehow, for some reason, make their skin color a positive attribute rather than a negative one, it would only possible if whites had become a numerical and cultural minority!

I am proud to be a Taurus.

Oh, and dogtags:

http://www.boomspeed.com/truebluebaby/unicornMIblk.JPG

Nothing, dude. You're tons of miles away from them, and nothing you say or do over an internet connection is going to change a fucking thing at all. Just ignore them; they're obviously trying to compensate for something if they feel the need to be so overt like that.

I do, hence the "butnotreally" part in my fake email... This just seemed like a "logged out" kinda topic...

if whites could somehow, for some reason, make their skin color a positive attribute rather than a negative one, it would only possible if whites had become a numerical and cultural minority!

oh but many white Americans really believe they are! it's precisely that aggrieved Bill O'Reilly "we're under attack" approach that sticks in my craw like white hot demon cum.

it's contemptible when done knowingly and somehow no less contemptible when taken up by everyday folks who just feel generally aggrieved. I mean, life is hard enough, and blacks and mexicans get preferential treatment and why can't all just be treated equally it's NOT FAIR etc etc

I know that ignoring them is the sane thing to do, but after years of this shit I think I'm just reaching the end of my tether. And it's hot.

but. um. it's a dud.

I'd love to meet someone who was not proud of their children. "They're nothing special", said Area Man.

ihttp://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e35/dopeblock/beetlejuice.jpg

Go to Google. Enter "white pride". Peruse the first few hits.

-- rogermexico (tenthreaso...), August 13th, 2006.

This argument applies to black people too, right?

-- DV (dirtyvica...), August 21st, 2006.

no, they are racist against Saint Bernards

I know, but the original post stated:

they've been there forever, but lately I seem to see more of these motherfxxkers cruising around the message-board world in places where normal people hang out, dropping casual messages in their sigs

I suggest swishing with warm salinated water. Spit, don't swallow. Demon seed is murder on the digestive tract.

The smartest post so far is lurker #2421 inc's. S/he raised the "asymmetrical multiculturalism" argument:

'We don't have that same expectation of minority cultural traditions and expressions -- it's OK for there to be a parallel discourse that's black, Latino/Hispanic, Vietnamese, whatever, and that discourse can be a space solely dedicated to its inhabitants, with no expectations that it'll make itself open to outsiders. To put it crudely, race is seen as an unacceptable reason for a white party to object to a black party-crasher, but not for an all-black party to object to a white party-crasher.'

This is because powerful liberal laws and institutions seek to "represent the other", whereas the powerless are just expected to "be the other". And it's precisely in that (patronizing) difference that the power and legitimacy of liberal institutions resides.

That post is not smart, and I love the idea that different standards are applied to different racial categories because of "powerful liberal laws and institutions." How about because those categories are not equal?

Lurker goes on to say, "I think if you invoke power relationships as the sole reason and justification for this, you start getting onto very thin ice, because it's very hard for anyone to get behind an ideology that accuses them of an essentially indelible guilt." But recognizing racial privilege is not the same thing as original-sin-like guilt, and who said race was indelible?

Here's one response to the "but gosh, I bet you wouldn't say that if I were black" argument:

Black is both a racial category and an ethnicity. It's the ethnicity created by belonging to the category (which was created), the history and heritage of Africans and their resilience in the face of racism. White is just the category: It exists as a culture only in ironic relation to the cultures it excludes, so pride in the category just means pride in exclusion, or isolation.

White is just the category: It exists as a culture only in ironic relation to the cultures it excludes, so pride in the category just means pride in exclusion, or isolation.

This argument may be cogent, but it is not quite the crushing, unanswerable retort one might hope for. White pride is a visceral, tribal identification for people who have no obvious personal reasons for pride (aka losers).

Personally I wouldn't mind saying, "Yes! Now that I stop and think, I am exceptionally proud that Sir Isaac Newton, Buffalo Bill Cody and Niels Bohr had skintones similar to mine. Not to mention Gil Hodges, Joseph Stalin, and Machine Gun Kelly. Being white is like belonging to one great, happy family. How do you suggest we celebrate?"

― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:53 PM (3 years ago)

i don't get this puzzle. guns, unicorns, corn?

i'm guilty of being white btw

x-post: But even jokingly equating skin pigmentation with race meets these guys halfway through the crazy glass.

The rationalizations on this thread aren't all that far from this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_pride

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

My biggest beef White Priders or esp. people who are all "They can say n***** why can't I?" is that they live in an ahistorical fantasy but are interacting with a reality that is continually shaped by history.

If Africans came over and made white Americans into their slaves and then once that was made illegal treated them like subhumans for a hundred years - all the while doing everything in their power to make sure whites stay poverty-stricken and uneducated - then yeah, your White Pride would be based on persevering through a historical, terrible racial trial.

But the argument's even more basic than that: There were no "white Americans" or even a "white race" or "white people" before slavery. White and black only exist because those categories were invented by European colonial landowners. Before the late 1600s, there were "heathens" and "Christians," and other categories serving similar purposes. But it's crazy to talk about "white people" as a concept neutral from racism or power or these made-up categories, as this Wikipedia page does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people

Yeah, this book review in the NY Times a few days ago talks about the shifting definition of "white" -- pretty interesting, I thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/books/review/Gordon-t.html

^^^author was pretty funny on Colbert

Also liked this Alberta Phillips column in the Austin Statesman yesterday, about how the perceived and shifting definition of "white" figures in when Latinos and Arab-Americans fill out Census forms:

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/mark-it-right-if-you-dont-want-to-496133.html

I don't think white people in the US have ever been repressed or been told they are inferior for being caucasian, whereas other groups have had that happen for their ethnic groups.

Declaring pride in this case is a positive reaction to negativity. "Proud to be white" reads like "I have very thin skin and a poor understanding of history" to me.

thin white skin

OTM. When have white people been repressed for being white, by a non-white person?

That book looks interesting, but I almost get the sense that her having written previous works on modern slavery causes her to downplay or sidestep it here--it's perverse that it goes without mention in the NYT review. And looking at whiteness through the ancient lens seems misleading: Mostly it's an explanation of why we use the equally absurd word Caucasian, right? When that's just another word for the arbitrary category created in the 17th Century. But I don't want to sell a good book short.

When have white people been repressed for being white, by a non-white person?

― Adam Bruneau, Friday, April 2, 2010

Some might say... MARCH 21, 2010 NEVAR FORGET

OTM. When have white people been repressed for being white, by a non-white person?

― Adam Bruneau, Friday, April 2, 2010 4:46 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

i don't even want to go here, but: this has actually happened, don't be naive, dude. wishing away anti-"white" racism is counterproductive---the fact that it ~has~ happened (v v rarely) ought to buttress yr arguments against racism, not erode them. granted, "repressed" doesn't = "targeted" (one is systemic, the other isn't), but the plain truth is that white ppl have been singled out for violence/discrimination within the last decade (cf white africans in southern africa). i'm kinda being pedantic (i certainly don't want to make it seem like omg white ppl be REPRESSED) but the mere fact that this kind of thing has happened before is what informs some of yr white priders misguided self-righteousness: "see?! sometimes whites are the specific and undeserving target of prejudice! CIRCLE THE FUKKIN WAGONS!" the real enemy isn't whiteness, it's racism, writ large.

obv this hasn't really ever happened in the US, but i think the point stands

Versions of the same thing happen everywhere, but how is whiteness not the enemy in those cases?