Is it ok to be proud to be white?

Skunkworks said:
Institutional systemic racism debunked.
Click to expand...

You see what you want to see, swap those uni stats with actual university attainment and it flips it. It's almost like it has very little to do with race when discussing white attendance at uni and more class and location (see the difference between a poor white kid in london and a poor white kid in barnsley).

Those stats also don't include private schools, which admittedly only make up around 6-8% of student numbers but it's widely known their uni enrolment is much higher and that they're predominately white students making up the numbers.

Same with crime stats, and to an extent incomes, look at the difference between the circumstances they emigrated under and you start to see why some groups fare much better than others, Indians especially. The second wave of Indian immigrants into the UK were mostly very wealthy and educated in english language schools.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_minority
 
Skunkworks said:
Institutional systemic racism debunked.
Click to expand...

Basically this. We can all see the "Social Justice" movement for the grift that it is. Quite simply another case of the wealthy and powerful are trying to play everyone against each other. Hence pushing the virtue-signalling equality/diversity/anti-racist/victimhood mindset with the deliberate intention to distract everyone from holding them to account!
 
I think being proud of your skin colour is retarded. It's like being proud of your hair colour.

I can understand people being proud of their heritage and cultures, if that's what's meant, but tbh there isn't much "white" culture so much as national culture and history.
 
Devrij said:
I think being proud of your skin colour is retarded. It's like being proud of your hair colour.

I can understand people being proud of their heritage and cultures, if that's what's meant, but tbh there isn't much "white" culture so much as national culture and history.
Click to expand...

Think you need to look up the achievements of Europe throughout the middle ages, renaissance and modern period if you think it's only national culture and history.
 
That's what I don't understand about this push for things like "Black History month". Surely within Africa there are just as many diverse cultures as in Europe. Clearly there no such thing as "white culture".

Wouldn't it make more sense if we referred to it as "African culture" or "African history month" if we want to celebrate that regions contribution to British society?
 
Last edited:
silvagti said:
That's what I don't understand about this push for things like "Black History month". Surely within Africa there are just as many diverse cultures as in Europe. Clearly there no such thing as "white culture".

Wouldn't it make more sense if we referred to it as "African culture" or "African history month" if we want to celebrate that regions contribution to British society?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but what the people who support it want is pro-black (and especially anti-white) racism. So that's what they're working for. Because that's what they want.

Of course they're also being racist in various other ways, but that's a side effect rather than their intention. They believe in racial group identity (or are pretending to do so in order to gain power and money because it's once again fashionable) so they believe in the idea of "they're all the same". That's what belief in unchosen group identity is - the belief that "they're all the same". Adding the word 'identity' on the end doesn't change the meaning at all because it was always implied. People using the older form of the expression of that belief didn't mean that all the people they were referring to were literally the same, absolutely identical clones of each other. They meant that they were going to treat all those people as a single identity, a simple collection of stereotypes, and use that as an excuse for irrational prejudice and discrimination. Exactly the same thing that "progressives" do, in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons. Of course, the favoured group identity has to be treated in the same way. So pro-black racists also have to believe (or pretend to believe) that "blacks are all the same" as much as they have to believe (or pretend to believe) that "whites are all the same". They can't acknowledge the existence of different cultures because that reality negates the racism that is the core of their belief system. So, for example, they can't acknowledge a distinction between San and Zulu despite them being radically different cultures because they regard both San and Zulu as "black" and therefore must believe (or pretend to believe) "they're all the same".

Which targetting is fashionable may change, but the fundamentals of the ideology can't change because they're what the ideology is.
 
Dis86 said:
Think you need to look up the achievements of Europe throughout the middle ages, renaissance and modern period if you think it's only national culture and history.
Click to expand...

I think their point was that those cultures and histories are attached to peoples (usually nations) rather than to a stupidly obviously wrong description of skin colour while ignoring everything else. The attachment isn't always entirely accurate (bagpipes, for example, aren't only Scottish) but it's far, far better than the mindless racism of attaching all culture and history to specific races, let alone the almost inevitable result of that way of thinking - believing that everything good is <insert race here> and everything bad is <insert race here>.
 
Dis86 said:
Think you need to look up the achievements of Europe throughout the middle ages, renaissance and modern period if you think it's only national culture and history.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but they aren't my achievements, so why should I be proud of them, other than the fact they seem to have the same skin colour as me.?
 
amigafan2003 said:
Yeah, but they aren't my achievements, so why should I be proud of them, other than the fact they seem to have the same skin colour as me.?
Click to expand...

Then why do we have black pride and gay pride?

The civil rights movement in the states has bugger all to do with most black people alive today.
Same for the acceptance of homosexuality. Few of the campaigners remain alive.

Yet we have gay pride and black pride and both are accepted, in fact of you question or criticise either you're ostracised.
 
Dis86 said:
Then why do we have black pride and gay pride?

The civil rights movement in the states has bugger all to do with most black people alive today.
Same for the acceptance of homosexuality. Few of the campaigners remain alive.

Yet we have gay pride and black pride and both are accepted, in fact of you question or criticise either you're ostracised.
Click to expand...

They'll have different meanings for individuals but mostly to celebrate how far they've come in terms of rights and as a reminder of the work still to be done.

Pride and some of the antics on display are criticised heavily by LGBT+ people without ostracisation.
 
Dis86 said:
Then why do we have black pride and gay pride?
Click to expand...

Because most members of that group have done something to further and progress the rights of the collective.

Its fine if you have actively done something to contribute, otherwise its just riding coat tails.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Because most members of that group have done something to further and progress the rights of the collective.

Its fine if you have actively done something to contribute, otherwise its just riding coat tails.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the vast vast vast majority won't have.
 
explicit4u said:
They'll have different meanings for individuals but mostly to celebrate how far they've come in terms of rights and as a reminder of the work still to be done.

Pride and some of the antics on display are criticised heavily by LGBT+ people without ostracisation.
Click to expand...

And white people can't celebrate how far we've come in terms of science, tech etc? Throughout most of modern history human advancement was driven by white, male Europeans. Heck the modern industrial world was pushed forward by a few British white males who were the drivers of the industrial revolution.
 
Angilion said:
I think their point was that those cultures and histories are attached to peoples (usually nations) rather than to a stupidly obviously wrong description of skin colour while ignoring everything else. The attachment isn't always entirely accurate (bagpipes, for example, aren't only Scottish) but it's far, far better than the mindless racism of attaching all culture and history to specific races, let alone the almost inevitable result of that way of thinking - believing that everything good is <insert race here> and everything bad is <insert race here>.
Click to expand...
Thanks, this is exactly what I was trying to say.

I think the reason we see black pride instead of "African" pride, for instance, is because that's how our language works.

Michel Foucault wrote on this (how discourse is shaped by power) and I'm a fan of his work, but essentially we don't tend to talk about "white people" we tend to talk about Americans, brits, Europeans etc because there's nobody in power who groups us all together as "white people". Whereas speaking of afro Caribbean culture is usually referred to as black culture/heritage, and when one group adopts a type of discourse, it creates an oppositional position to adopt. Eg by grouping those cultures and events under "black" it creates the possibility for "black pride" to exist and encompass all of that.

It's a language thing. Racists (and we're going a long way back here, slave owners etc) don't care if you're African, African American, or anything inbetween so it's all "black", and that creates a group in itself who can self identify as part of it and create oppositional discourses.

That's my take anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom