I appreciate this dialogue, for me it boils down to something very simple that I think anyone can understand, if blacks, Asians, jews, muslims etc. are allowed, even encouraged, to celebrate and spread their culture, Whites should be able to do the same without being criticized and denigrated, which they are, as soon as groups of White people start to organize they are called racists and all kinds of other names, for me its as simple as that
Thanks for another 'conversation' between what I call a Utopist and a Realist. Could you guess which one I side with?
"CLEANTHES: I agree with you that races are slightly different from each other and that they probably create slightly different cultures."
The adverb 'slightly' tells of one with no basis in reality.
"CLEANTHES: Yes, with some minor qualifications, I think that’s a fair assessment. Especially among educated elites in the media and at universities."
Sadly, this is an attempt to conflate education with a college degree. Indoctrination would be an excellent substitute for education, at least in most non-STEM degrees.
Well done. Although, I'd abandon the demureness and embrace an assertive tone instead. After all, truth is on your side. Just because some negative consequences are likely to arise, doesn’t mean you're directly responsible. Accepting tradeoffs as embedded in reality is the mature and sensible position. Otherwise, as liberalism continues its wake of destruction, you’re left with nothing more than a defeatist/fatalistic response such as:
“Oh well, nothing can be done. The alternatives are probably worse. Alas, the consequences are what they are. At least my intentions are good!”
Now ask yourself, “But, for how long can I hold to this position?
I think a white (or ethnic) identity is natural and healthy. The only caution imo is to not dehumanise/be unreasonable about the out groups (including individuals within them). Also a society is imo only as impressive as its culture/people (e.g. virtues, competencies, etc).
The fact that a tag like "White Identity" even exists gives the measure of how completely (and poisonously) Western civilisation's enemies (and I mean enemies WITHIN not external enemies) have gained control of the language of debate. Even as conservatives fight back against these enemies, they are coralled into adopting a language (and frame of reference) foisted on them by the hyper-progressive Left. Think of all the bogus 'x-ism and 'x-phobia words that have now unquestioningly been adopted in conservative discourse....and weep for our civilisation. End of rant. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/are-we-making-progress
Why do you refer to it as white identity, rather than European identity? White seems like a superficial label based on skin colour, whereas European refers to the people who emerged in Europe and who gave the world modern civilisation.
"White civilization is the civilization that white people created, namely, Western Civilization. Of course, Western Civilization is not exclusively white. But it is still majority white, and it was once overwhelmingly white. Progressives perceive this, which is why they often rail against the “whiteness” of the West. They abominate it precisely because it is too white."
The West is not white. It is not black. It is not Asian. It is open to everybody. It is a set of ideas. And those should be cherished and protected from the parochial notion that they are the property of one race or people.
---
Wrong, Cleanthes. The West is white. The non-white bit has been imported. Some will assist in the maintenance and even the evolution of our European cultures. Most will not. We already see this. Significant numbers will need to be carried by the rest. We also see this phenomenon too.
They, the non-whites, all refer to us as Westerners. And by that they mean white people. The Chinese and Japanese, the Africans, the Arabs, the Indians. It is only us who hesitate. They have no qualms.
If we do not assert ourselves we allow the liberals to convince everyone of the magic dirt theory. That if someone is born in the US or the UK it makes them the same as our ancestors. If that is the case then why don't Indians think of Rudyard Kipling as being Indian? He was born in Bombay and spoke Punjabi like a native. Why would Saudis not consider a child of white parents born in one of their hospitals a Saudi or an Arab? Only Western liberals think like this. And it is precisely this group who are destroying us.
All I'd add is the usual caveats. No person or group is inferior, just different.
It is probably worth reminding us no multi-ethnic, multicultural society has ever survived. This is life on hard mode. A cosmic justice campaign about 90 percent of the world's population views as suicide.
Problem for me is that there are many whites I do not want to make common cause with. So, if I were to descend into that feral crouch, I would not find myself amongst 'my people'. I actually like some people who aren't white too, so I'm really screwed I guess...
there's no such thing as white identity. or black identity. or Asian identity. Asians include Indian Brahmins and Filipino Negritos , who have in common only the label Asian. Black includes Zulus and dark-skinned Puerto Ricans, and many of the latter do not identify as "black" at all. White includes shanty-town Argentinians and Swedish royals. these labels are all absurd.
Race is not culture and culture is not race. Anyone attempting to make distinctions based on origin or skin tone should be roundly and loudly censured. Anyone not making distinctions based on culture and values is ignorant and dangerous.
What is "white identity"? Do all whites have the same identity? Same shared identity? What is it? I'm Russian and definitely white! I don't think I share more of my identity with a Portuguese than with an Uzbek. You can't assume the same skin color means the same identity! Nor can you equate white with being Western.
Simple white identity, a la "we want what everyone else is allowed to have" won't work. White Hajnalis are too lacking in identarian sentiments, and victorious movements among them have to claim a specific universalist moral cause. The segregationists lost when they stuck to legal technicalities and refused to make the HBD case in order not to offend their black housekeepers. Freedom of association was simply never going to hold against "judge me by the content of my character".
Seems to me it is helpful to explore the criteria for how we put ourselves in boxes or terms. Polish philosophers, after great persecution under German Nazis, and the USSR, developed an approach to the “person” that while upholding something common in all humans, there is also something entirely unique to each person. The term “unrepeatable” was then applied to the person, who was not reduced to some mere abstraction. And persons could only be known as subjects rather than objects through love. Seems to me the key to identity here is a complex combination of the objective nature of the person (we exist to be happy, and we are moral animals), along with the mysterious dimension (which is that each person has his/her own subjective experiences and circumstances that no one else has in the exact same way). Holding these two dimensions together perhaps generates a bridge between what all have in common, and the importance of the differing experiences that prompt the shaping of our characters. This applies to every group that may have shared experiences and it involves listening to them. While nonetheless not taking for granted what we all share in common: that we are created for relationship, and love, while seeking happiness.
Should Whites Embrace White Identity? A Dialogue
I appreciate this dialogue, for me it boils down to something very simple that I think anyone can understand, if blacks, Asians, jews, muslims etc. are allowed, even encouraged, to celebrate and spread their culture, Whites should be able to do the same without being criticized and denigrated, which they are, as soon as groups of White people start to organize they are called racists and all kinds of other names, for me its as simple as that
Thanks for another 'conversation' between what I call a Utopist and a Realist. Could you guess which one I side with?
"CLEANTHES: I agree with you that races are slightly different from each other and that they probably create slightly different cultures."
The adverb 'slightly' tells of one with no basis in reality.
"CLEANTHES: Yes, with some minor qualifications, I think that’s a fair assessment. Especially among educated elites in the media and at universities."
Sadly, this is an attempt to conflate education with a college degree. Indoctrination would be an excellent substitute for education, at least in most non-STEM degrees.
Well done. Although, I'd abandon the demureness and embrace an assertive tone instead. After all, truth is on your side. Just because some negative consequences are likely to arise, doesn’t mean you're directly responsible. Accepting tradeoffs as embedded in reality is the mature and sensible position. Otherwise, as liberalism continues its wake of destruction, you’re left with nothing more than a defeatist/fatalistic response such as:
“Oh well, nothing can be done. The alternatives are probably worse. Alas, the consequences are what they are. At least my intentions are good!”
Now ask yourself, “But, for how long can I hold to this position?
I think a white (or ethnic) identity is natural and healthy. The only caution imo is to not dehumanise/be unreasonable about the out groups (including individuals within them). Also a society is imo only as impressive as its culture/people (e.g. virtues, competencies, etc).
The fact that a tag like "White Identity" even exists gives the measure of how completely (and poisonously) Western civilisation's enemies (and I mean enemies WITHIN not external enemies) have gained control of the language of debate. Even as conservatives fight back against these enemies, they are coralled into adopting a language (and frame of reference) foisted on them by the hyper-progressive Left. Think of all the bogus 'x-ism and 'x-phobia words that have now unquestioningly been adopted in conservative discourse....and weep for our civilisation. End of rant. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/are-we-making-progress
Why do you refer to it as white identity, rather than European identity? White seems like a superficial label based on skin colour, whereas European refers to the people who emerged in Europe and who gave the world modern civilisation.
"White civilization is the civilization that white people created, namely, Western Civilization. Of course, Western Civilization is not exclusively white. But it is still majority white, and it was once overwhelmingly white. Progressives perceive this, which is why they often rail against the “whiteness” of the West. They abominate it precisely because it is too white."
Western Civ is a priceless gem.
The West is not white. It is not black. It is not Asian. It is open to everybody. It is a set of ideas. And those should be cherished and protected from the parochial notion that they are the property of one race or people.
---
Wrong, Cleanthes. The West is white. The non-white bit has been imported. Some will assist in the maintenance and even the evolution of our European cultures. Most will not. We already see this. Significant numbers will need to be carried by the rest. We also see this phenomenon too.
They, the non-whites, all refer to us as Westerners. And by that they mean white people. The Chinese and Japanese, the Africans, the Arabs, the Indians. It is only us who hesitate. They have no qualms.
If we do not assert ourselves we allow the liberals to convince everyone of the magic dirt theory. That if someone is born in the US or the UK it makes them the same as our ancestors. If that is the case then why don't Indians think of Rudyard Kipling as being Indian? He was born in Bombay and spoke Punjabi like a native. Why would Saudis not consider a child of white parents born in one of their hospitals a Saudi or an Arab? Only Western liberals think like this. And it is precisely this group who are destroying us.
All I'd add is the usual caveats. No person or group is inferior, just different.
It is probably worth reminding us no multi-ethnic, multicultural society has ever survived. This is life on hard mode. A cosmic justice campaign about 90 percent of the world's population views as suicide.
Whites should embrace whiteness the way Israelis embrace Jewishness.
You don't see Jews taking shit over Israel the way Whites did over BLM.
Problem for me is that there are many whites I do not want to make common cause with. So, if I were to descend into that feral crouch, I would not find myself amongst 'my people'. I actually like some people who aren't white too, so I'm really screwed I guess...
there's no such thing as white identity. or black identity. or Asian identity. Asians include Indian Brahmins and Filipino Negritos , who have in common only the label Asian. Black includes Zulus and dark-skinned Puerto Ricans, and many of the latter do not identify as "black" at all. White includes shanty-town Argentinians and Swedish royals. these labels are all absurd.
Race is not culture and culture is not race. Anyone attempting to make distinctions based on origin or skin tone should be roundly and loudly censured. Anyone not making distinctions based on culture and values is ignorant and dangerous.
What is "white identity"? Do all whites have the same identity? Same shared identity? What is it? I'm Russian and definitely white! I don't think I share more of my identity with a Portuguese than with an Uzbek. You can't assume the same skin color means the same identity! Nor can you equate white with being Western.
Blacks are of poor character
Simple white identity, a la "we want what everyone else is allowed to have" won't work. White Hajnalis are too lacking in identarian sentiments, and victorious movements among them have to claim a specific universalist moral cause. The segregationists lost when they stuck to legal technicalities and refused to make the HBD case in order not to offend their black housekeepers. Freedom of association was simply never going to hold against "judge me by the content of my character".
I propose the following rejoinder, "yes, and blacks are of poor character!" Specifically, 80% of blacks (including 64% of Black Republicans!) support stealing my wealth to pay reparations for slavery. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2022/08/30/black-americans-views-on-reparations-for-slavery/.
What is “identity” ?
Seems to me it is helpful to explore the criteria for how we put ourselves in boxes or terms. Polish philosophers, after great persecution under German Nazis, and the USSR, developed an approach to the “person” that while upholding something common in all humans, there is also something entirely unique to each person. The term “unrepeatable” was then applied to the person, who was not reduced to some mere abstraction. And persons could only be known as subjects rather than objects through love. Seems to me the key to identity here is a complex combination of the objective nature of the person (we exist to be happy, and we are moral animals), along with the mysterious dimension (which is that each person has his/her own subjective experiences and circumstances that no one else has in the exact same way). Holding these two dimensions together perhaps generates a bridge between what all have in common, and the importance of the differing experiences that prompt the shaping of our characters. This applies to every group that may have shared experiences and it involves listening to them. While nonetheless not taking for granted what we all share in common: that we are created for relationship, and love, while seeking happiness.
Fantastic stuff. Thanks Bo.