White Student Union

[jimmy eat jazz]

What is black heritage? Do all blacks come from the same country?

You overlooked the second part of my post, ". . . systematic attempt to deny them full partication in society, economy and political system . . ." Blacks have forged a racial identity as a result of being the victims of centuries of systemic, institutional discrmination. It is this common experience (among other things) that has been an impetus for them to forge a common bond and identity.

What are whites going to forge a common bond and identity around, centuries of economic, social and political privilege and systemic, institutional discrmination against blacks?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You're missing the point.

What's the difference between the dominant American culture and what you're calling 'white American culture'? That dominant American culture has historically been exclusionary on the basis of race. When you call American culture 'white culture', or form 'white' cultural groups, you're effectively saying that the dominant American culture/community is still only available to 'white' people. If you're not 'white', you're not welcome.

An excluded 'race' forming a group does so to find solidarity against this exclusion. There is a clear difference in this distinction.

Further, I've not seen any groups that celebrate a particular European ethnic heritage -- Irish, Spanish, German, etc. -- being railed against. While these cultures/ethnicities may have a history of exclusion/racism, they aren't intrinsically racist. You can be a 'black' German; you can't really be a 'black' 'white' American.

With that said, I still don't think idiots should be barred from forming idiotic groups or expressing idiotic opinions (for various reasons I'd be happy to discuss if Dal ever answers some of the questions he's been asked).

Brilliant post . . . up until the last paragraph. Here I disagree. I do think that idiots should be barred from forming idiotic groups, assuming these groups require official sanction to function (true on college campus, not true in general society), as any 'white heritage' group is code word for 'white supremecy' group, and I do not think institutions (where they have the power to grant official status to voluntary groups) should be granting official status to what are, in essence, hate groups.

 

[Stoked]

You're missing the point.

What's the difference between the dominant American culture and what you're calling 'white American culture'? That dominant American culture has historically been exclusionary on the basis of race. When you call American culture 'white culture', or form 'white' cultural groups, you're effectively saying that the dominant American culture/community is still only available to 'white' people. If you're not 'white', you're not welcome.

An excluded 'race' forming a group does so to find solidarity against this exclusion. There is a clear difference in this distinction.

Further, I've not seen any groups that celebrate a particular European ethnic heritage -- Irish, Spanish, German, etc. -- being railed against. While these cultures/ethnicities may have a history of exclusion/racism, they aren't intrinsically racist. You can be a 'black' German; you can't really be a 'black' 'white' American.

With that said, I still don't think idiots should be barred from forming idiotic groups or expressing idiotic opinions (for various reasons I'd be happy to discuss if Dal ever answers some of the questions he's been asked).

I said "white American culture" because Jimmy made the distinction of white culture. He used "white heritage" and I messed that up with "white culture". I can see the point he is making but I think he did so in a poor manner that muddies the water. Your explanation of his point is a much better one and not really one I disagree with that much.

I was arguing against his method not so much his point.

As for groups, I absolutely disagree with Jimmy here. "idiot" is often no more than those who do not share ones opinions and/or view points. That is not a precedent we want to set. On campuses "white heritage group" and "white supremacy group" are not mutually inclusive. Then can be, and usually are, the same thing but it's not an absolute. I don't think any hate groups (possible with any group regardless of how they define members) should receive any funding or support from the university.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I said "white American culture" because Jimmy made the distinction of white culture. He used "white heritage" and I messed that up with "white culture". I can see the point he is making but I think he did so in a poor manner that muddies the water. Your explanation of his point is a much better one and not really one I disagree with that much.

I was arguing against his method not so much his point.

As for groups, I absolutely disagree with Jimmy here. "idiot" is often no more than those who do not share ones opinions and/or view points. That is not a precedent we want to set. On campuses "white heritage group" and "white supremacy group" are not mutually inclusive. Then can be, and usually are, the same thing but it's not an absolute. I don't think any hate groups (possible with any group regardless of how they define members) should receive any funding or support from the university.

I interested in how you think I muddies the water so I can try to clarify. Dashing off a post in under 1 minute doesn't always facilitate clear prose.

For me an 'idiot' in this context is NOT merely something I disagree with (e.g, I would not object to a tea bagger group, although I think tea baggers are sprinkeled liberally with lower intelligence types) but groups that are formed for the primary or secondary purpose of fomenting hate and discord (e.g., white heritage groups), plus I'd add groups that promote silly, pseudo-science or conspiracy theories. Note also that my context is limited to groups formed with the official approval of an oversight body, such as college clubs, not general, run of the mill voluntary association groups, which I would not put limits on, as I see this violating freedom of association.

 

[Stoked]

I interested in how you think I muddies the water so I can try to clarify. Dashing off a post in under 1 minute doesn't always facilitate clear prose.

For me an 'idiot' in this context is NOT merely something I disagree with (e.g, I would not object to a tea bagger group, although I think tea baggers are sprinkeled liberally with lower intelligence types) but groups that are formed for the primary or secondary purpose of fomenting hate and discord (e.g., white heritage groups), plus I'd add groups that promote silly, pseudo-science or conspiracy theories. Note also that my context is limited to groups formed with the official approval of an oversight body, such as college clubs, not general, run of the mill voluntary association groups, which I would not put limits on, as I see this violating freedom of association.

My dislike of your argument was based off you singling out different countries where whites are the predominate. Heritage and/or culture is different from country to country. Regardless of the predominate race.

You are right that it is often more complicated and nuanced that what is type dup quickly.

But I try to take posts at what is actually typed. Not what I think they mean. then I engage and clarification usually comes out.

I can see the difference in whites and blacks from a American historical standpoint in many areas. I see why they foster and encourage these groups. I think they are ultimately unsuccessful for what many of their aims are when it comes to race relations.

I have 0 problem with them being proud of their heritage and fostering it. Rock on.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

My dislike of your argument was based off you singling out different countries where whites are the predominate. Heritage and/or culture is different from country to country. Regardless of the predominate race.

You are right that it is often more complicated and nuanced that what is type dup quickly.

But I try to take posts at what is actually typed. Not what I think they mean. then I engage and clarification usually comes out.

I can see the difference in whites and blacks from a American historical standpoint in many areas. I see why they foster and encourage these groups. I think they are ultimately unsuccessful for what many of their aims are when it comes to race relations.

I have 0 problem with them being proud of their heritage and fostering it. Rock on.

Well, those countries were just examples. We can add any country: Mexican heritage, Pakistani heritage, Moroccon heritage, Haitian heritage, Sudanese heritage, etc. Within those countries, moreover, are different groups that have their own unique identities, again formed out of common experience. The point is that their identity is formed not be race, per se, but by common cultural bonds/historical bonds. Similarly, black identify in the US is formed not by race again, but by common experience of slavery and systemic, institutional discrmination. The same would be true regardless of their race.

While I suppose in theory there might be some kind of 'white heritage,' I struggle to know what it is, and when it is invoked, it is nearly always done so as code word for something else.

 

[Stoked]

Well, those countries were just examples. We can add any country: Mexican heritage, Pakistani heritage, Moroccon heritage, Haitian heritage, Sudanese heritage, etc. Within those countries, moreover, are different groups that have their own unique identities, again formed out of common experience. The point is that their identity is formed not be race, per say, but by common cultural bonds/historical bonds. Similarly, black identify in the US is formed not by race again, but by common experience of slavery and systemic, institutional discrmination. The same would be true regardless of their race.

While I suppose in theory there might be some kind of 'white heritage,' I struggle to know what it is, and when it is invoked, it is nearly always done so as code word for something else.

Now you are making a better argument. Also would that not also apply to Hispanics? At least the systemic racism?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Now you are making a better argument. Also would that not also apply to Hispanics? At least the systemic racism?

Sure it would apply to Hispanics.

At some time, it probably also applied to Irish, or Italians, etc. but over time, they've become so integrated into US society that such identities have broken down or transformed into something else. You'd be hard pressed, moreover, to find many lingering vestiages of discrimination against Irish or Italians. Blacks have nowhere nearly achieved the same degree of integration into US society, and race-based discrimination against blacks remains pervasive, so something akin to a 'black identify' remains (although it's not nearly as monolithic as all that).

Whites, as a group, have not had such a shared, common experience of oppression or discrimination (no shared 'us against them'), so there's no 'white identify' analagous to a black identify. What common experiences we've had have, for large part, formed more of an American identify than any kind of race-based identity.

 

[One Brow]

What right's are being infringed upon by the formation of a white student union?

Ideally, none. In reality, white student unions, like other group supposedly about white, are really about keeping other groups down. The top dog doesn't need help to equalize it with the top dog.

 

[Gameface]

Ideally, none. In reality, white student unions, like other group supposedly about white, are really about keeping other groups down. The top dog doesn't need help to equalize it with the top dog.

But the top dog might not remain the top dog without protectively working to be as good as it can be.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Ideally, none. In reality, white student unions, like other group supposedly about white, are really about keeping other groups down. The top dog doesn't need help to equalize it with the top dog.

Oh, hi.
Good to see you OB.