Nationalism/Pride

[HeavenDuff]

I know nationalism is generaly well-accepted as correct and ethical in right wing circles, but I've been thinking a lot lately about nationalism and other forms of identital pride (pride isn't used in a pejorative way) among left wing circles. Usually, pride seems to be reserved for historicaly oppressed groups or devalued groups such as women, native americans, homosexuals, blacks, etc. This is how we end up with most modern left wing movements and ideologies supporting gay pride, feminism, native americans nationalist groups, etc.

But often, these same groups are recalcitrant to the idea that you can be proud of being white, proud of being heterosexual, proud of being a man. Of course, I'm not talking about masculinist groups (as opposants of feminist groups) or white pride groups (which are very often racist, white supremacists or neo-nazi groups). Obviously, left wing circles will oppose these groups, but that's not what I want to discuss here. I'm not here to ask conservatives or ethno-nationalists if this is right or wrong. I'm familiar with what right wing circles usually think about this.

Let's put this in simple terms. What I want to discuss here is the coherence left-wing circles ideology and why they would think it to be appropriate to support groups celebrating feminity, but not those celebrating masculinity (of course, I'm proposing thing in the theoretical idea that these groups (or indiviual's opinions) can exist without it being constructed in opposition to women's right groups for example).

I know this kind of thread could easily derail. I must insist again on this idea: I'm not here to ask you guys if you think left wing circles are right or not. I'm here to try and understand the thought process, ideology and coherence of this ideology. If I see any kind of hate toward left wing or even right wing ideologies, I won't take part in the discussion. I'm not interrested in this endless debate.

-------------------------------------------------------

To start up the discussion, I've myself have observed that very often, left wing circles will only legitimate these kinds of pride in situations where the group expressing this pride has been (or still is) victim of discrimination or oppression of any form. This kind of pride would, according to this idea, be legitimized by a situation of social inferiority.

So... here's hoping this thread won't end up hitting a wall.

[Camarohusky]

There are tons of groups that are proud of being white, and being male, and being heterosexual. They're called 'mainstream culture.'

The reason the left wing supports the minority groups is because they're needs and wants and goals are not represented by mainstream culture. So when a mainstream group says it needs extra representation they are, to the eyes of many, asking for disproportionately more representation.

Another reason is that many of the majority support groups are racist groups veiled under the guise of merely supporting the majority. Do remember that David Duke's key description of his group was merely a group supporting the needs of white people. FYI, his group was the KKK.

Here are some examples of groups that support majorities that are very well accepted, even on the farthest left:

Football and other sports groups (men's territory with women being a rare fully included member)
Gentlemen's clubs
Christian groups
groups like the Elks and Lions
Fraternities
and so on and so forth.

In short the idea of a majority needing a support or pride group is the majority wanting to have their cake and eat it too (with a little dash of gloating involved)

[Natick]

vice did an interesting documentary and article on the "white student union" once

when i hear the words, "i want the right to say i'm proud to be a white male" from these people in particular, i can't help but answer that they have that right. it never went anywhere. what they want is the right to say that they're proud to be white and not feel awkward about it or get any heat for it.

personally, i've never gotten behind the idea of nationalism or ethnic pride. i'm mixed anyway, white and hispanic and whenever a few of my relatives point my being half-columbian as a nickname or to be cute or affectionate or whatever, i just find it uncomfortable, not because i feel shame but because i feel completely indifferent to things like that. ethnicity isn't something anyone achieves, let alone gets to choose and that's a hard fact.

all this being said, i don't know if i can speak for this on political level since i hardly keep up with the news these days and this isn't the first time i've ever said any of this. i can somewhat understand why minority-x pride groups would find white male pride groups a little entitled but the reaction seems a bit hypocritical to me at the same time, on a level of principle.

[HeavenDuff]

At 10/1/13 12:28 AM, Natick wrote: i just find it uncomfortable, not because i feel shame but because i feel completely indifferent to things like that. ethnicity isn't something anyone achieves, let alone gets to choose and that's a hard fact.

Like being a woman or an homosexual.

[HeavenDuff]

At 10/1/13 12:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote: There are tons of groups that are proud of being white, and being male, and being heterosexual. They're called 'mainstream culture.'

That is not my point. And I disagree anyway. There is a lot of stuff that came from black cultures that made it into the mainstream, and there is a lot of underground cultural material that is associated with whites. Anyway, what I meant is that amongs left-wing circles, it doesn't seem to be accepted to say that you are proud of being white, or being a male, or being heterosexual.

The reason the left wing supports the minority groups is because they're needs and wants and goals are not represented by mainstream culture. So when a mainstream group says it needs extra representation they are, to the eyes of many, asking for disproportionately more representation.

I agree with this.

Another reason is that many of the majority support groups are racist groups veiled under the guise of merely supporting the majority. Do remember that David Duke's key description of his group was merely a group supporting the needs of white people. FYI, his group was the KKK.

Yes, I mentionned this in my opening post. But here in Quebec, we've had a strong nationalist movement during the 70's, the 80's and the 90's. This nationalist ideology in Quebec still exists today, though not as strong as it was before. The movement exist to defend the rights and culture, history and cultural heritage of the french canadians, aka Quebercs. I've remembered receiving very negative reactions from other students in a political sociology class at my university when I talked about "us" quebecers. To them, being proud of being a Quebecer was apparently racist and ethnocentric. When I brought up the fact that we were pretty much using the same methods to revaluate our culture as native americans, it kind of get confused, while some of them eagerly dismissed my point, as it was apparently obvious that these two cases were not comparable...

Football and other sports groups (men's territory with women being a rare fully included member)

Not professionnals. And usualy I think that's because when it comes to physical strenght, women aren't very offended to be told that they are generally not as strong as men.

Gentlemen's clubs
Christian groups

Very much criticized by left wing circles.

In short the idea of a majority needing a support or pride group is the majority wanting to have their cake and eat it too (with a little dash of gloating involved)

If we leave aside the idea of having pride groups or groups defending rights for a specific group, we can talk about individual pride of being a part of one or another group. And apparently, saying that I'm proud of straight is wrong. I have a gay friend who wears this "Gay by nature, Proud by choice" t-shirt. And this is extremely well-accepted by left-wing circles, while the first case isn't.

Which leads me back to my original theory. Apparently, in most left wing circles, what gives the legitimacy for someone to show proud of being part of one or another group, is discrimination toward this group. And I'm also not sure that this is a conscious choice they've made.

[Entice]

What does the majority want?

Minority groups act out because they feel they're lacking something. Homosexuals want gay marriage. Women are concerned about the wage gap. Racial minorities sometimes feel that they are disenfranchised in some way. To what extent these issues are actually present is up for debate but the logic behind it makes sense, and I can understand why they feel this way.

When a white heterosexual male comes out and demands representation, he's not really asking for anything. He just has a vague demand for as much attention as the minorities around him, it seems. If they could raise some actual issues, that aren't unimportant cultural things like "how come we can't say the n-word but black people can!" then I'd be much more willing to listen.

[poxpower]

At 10/1/13 12:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

The reason the left wing supports the minority groups is because they're needs and wants and goals are not represented by mainstream culture.

Heterosexual white males are not 50% of the country, therefore they are a minority.
It's a foolish argument anyway as in places where white people are the minority (such as in South Africa), I doubt it's well-viewed for them to organize "white pride" anythings or to talk about white nationalism or how being white is something worthwhile.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xz5kfy_louis-theroux-whites-de-boers-in-south-africa_lifestyle

Minorities, as you call them, even though demographically if you add up women, gays, handicapped, muslims, blacks, latinos etc. etc. are the majority, have tons of power in America.

Affirmative action is a perfect and deep example of how much power minorities have accrued for themselves by guilt-tripping empty-sacked white males and university officials. The standards of entry to many professions and schools is now so low for all applicants to make sure a certain number of blacks get in that education is garbage.

The feminist movement is so strong on television that merely questioning their shrill motives is grounds for endless attacks. Here is a good channel for a multitude of talks and examples of this nonsense: http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat?feature=g-subs-u

HR departments also. They have trained a legion of "diversity" and"sensitivity" consultants who basically do nothing whatsoever for a company but vet them into some sort of "they aren't racists" imaginary club.

The Zimmerman case shows you just how it's a total lie to claim mainstream culture is somehow against minorities. A latino man legitimately defending himself from a black teenager was portrayed as a racist white man hunting and killing a defenceless black child.

Yet it is not ok to form any commitees or do any studies to even check if any of these measure are too extremes. If you were to demand funding for a study to see if white students are disadvantaged because of affirmative action, you would get laughed at simply because black people generally still under perform in society. Even if you were to find out that affirmative action did not help blacks but hindered white kids, you could not go on television and say it. You'd most likely just lose your job and be called a racist.

What group really is performing well in America? It's a minority: Jewish people, and more specifically, Ashkenazi jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews
Who is denying anyone their rights to be proud of being Jewish? They are white males and dominate heavily in fields like banking, television, movies, law and sciences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDM7yQVU4ZE

Why? Because they're fucking smart that's why. Not because of some mystic "Jew male privilege" and "Jew conspiracy" and "Jew ancestry". This country wasn't founded by Jews but lo and behold they came here and because they're naturally brilliant and educated, they have succeeded extremely well. But in our culture it's NOT OK to make fun of them for being Jewish, but it's okay to make fun of them for being white males. Go figure. They don't have any trouble at all succeeding in society, why should their feelings be spared? Why do they need groups to represent them? How few people do you need to be enough of a minority to warrant a group?

You can also be proud to be Christian, which is the majority religion of the USA. They are also in most position of political power yet when have you ever heard that it's wrong to be proud of your Christianity?

Again still you can be proud of your ancestry. You can be proud of your Italian, Spanish, French or British ancestry, even though those countries were warmongering colonialists and just as worthy of random history-hate as "white people" in general.

So again, this case that it's all about "white heterosexual males" being the majority and therefore not in "need" ( which is not even what we're talking about, we are talking about simple RIGHT ) of pride or representation just doesn't stand up at all in my opinion.

[HeavenDuff]

At 10/1/13 08:52 AM, poxpower wrote: Heterosexual white males are not 50% of the country, therefore they are a minority.

Well that's retarded... If you use a combination of three specificities... nobody will ever be a minority. The use of minority in political, social and economical matters is really broad anyway. I doesn't necessarly mean that they are part of a group that is smaller in numbers. Women for instance aren't a minority, but had to fight an uphill battle to gain rights that males had. Making a combination of groups like these to create a "minority" group, would be missunderstanding the problems each of these groups went through.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/1/13 12:59 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: That is not my point. And I disagree anyway. There is a lot of stuff that came from black cultures that made it into the mainstream, and there is a lot of underground cultural material that is associated with whites.

Pop music is about it for that. Look at everything else though. TV, movies, music other than pop/hip hop, video games and so on. In these areas most non-whites are token characters or they are caricatures. Often times when they are legit they receive serious underground backlash (see Darius Rucker in country). White culture is main stream. Male culture is mainstream. Hetero culture is mainstream. All of the views and needs of these groups are HEAVILY represented in the mainstream American zeitgeist.

Anyway, what I meant is that amongs left-wing circles, it doesn't seem to be accepted to say that you are proud of being white, or being a male, or being heterosexual.

Because left wing groups don't see it as being proud of oneself or one's heritage. Few people would fault anyone merely for being proud of who they are. The show of being more represented than others yet STILL NEEDING/WANTING a support group or a pride group is what the left wing doesn't like. It would be like (hyperbole) going to Africa and complaining to starving people how much you hate the food you have and stating because of that you need some of the aid food.

Another reason is that many of the majority support groups are racist groups veiled under the guise of merely supporting the majority. Do remember that David Duke's key description of his group was merely a group supporting the needs of white people. FYI, his group was the KKK.

To them, being proud of being a Quebecer was apparently racist and ethnocentric.

First off, that's a much deeper issue than you make it out to be. Being a Quebecer at its core is to be a secessionist. May not mean that so much anymore, but that's the root of it, and many Canadians especially west of the Lakes still strongly believe this. I don't fully understand the candian-quebecer relationship, but I know this is a large undertone that has yet to be removed from the group the same way the confederate flag has largely been in the US.

Not professionnals. And usualy I think that's because when it comes to physical strenght, women aren't very offended to be told that they are generally not as strong as men.

I'm talking about the fans. Often times many things women fans do get a reaction of "you're just here because of your boyfriend" from male fans. Fully integrated female sports fans are few and far between largely because men don't want them to be, not because women don't like the sports as much. There are times that I even end up doing this too and I am less misogynistic than most men out there.

Gentlemen's clubs
Christian groups

Very much criticized by left wing circles.

Strip clubs and Young Life? Hardly. If you take a peek you'll notice that liberal locales are havens for strip clubs. My state perhaps the most liberal in the US once (and possibly still) holding the title of most adult stores/strip clubs per capita.

Christian social groups that mind their own business and merely serve to enrich the lives of their members are treated as very different from the religions themselves. You'll find some mocking of younglife (due to the stuffy sorts of youth that take part) but you'll rarely find anyone on the left complaining about the group not being open to all. Same goes for other religious social groups.

In short the idea of a majority needing a support or pride group is the majority wanting to have their cake and eat it too (with a little dash of gloating involved)

If we leave aside the idea of having pride groups or groups defending rights for a specific group, we can talk about individual pride of being a part of one or another group. And apparently, saying that I'm proud of straight is wrong. I have a gay friend who wears this "Gay by nature, Proud by choice" t-shirt. And this is extremely well-accepted by left-wing circles, while the first case isn't.

It's the show of it. Your friends shirt says in other words "I am proud of who I am, and I will be that way even when the majority of people look down on me for it." The straight pride shirt sends several messages: "I am proud of who I am" a fairly positive message, but also "I'm proud I'm part of the majority and don't have to deal with the crap those OTHERS deal with." and "I'm not gay and that makes me happy, because being gay is stupid." Sure those meanings are a bit strecthed, but when you're dealing with such raw emotions and such hate, people are likely to assume the worst when a person of the majority brings up their status in the majority.

Which leads me back to my original theory. Apparently, in most left wing circles, what gives the legitimacy for someone to show proud of being part of one or another group, is discrimination toward this group. And I'm also not sure that this is a conscious choice they've made.

Not at all. I wear shirts all the time that state things about myself that I am proud of, and I am a white heterosexual male. I wear sports jerseys. I tell people I'm proud of the part of the country I am from. I am proud of my heritage.

The issue arises when the subject of the pride is already a hot button issue with heavy discrimination involved. Saying I'm proud of going to the University of Washington is very different than saying, I'm proud of being white. The former is a statement, the latter carries massive baggage.

Perhaps the biggest issue here that goes over the heads of people who complain about this issue is something my mother always told me: "I'ts NEVER about what you meant to say. It's always about what everyone else though you meant." No one cares if you're merely intending to express pride in your heritage, because what you actually end up expressing is a lot more than that, and little of the extras are good.

[HeavenDuff]

At 10/1/13 12:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Pop music is about it for that. Look at everything else though. TV, movies, music other than pop/hip hop, video games and so on. In these areas most non-whites are token characters or they are caricatures. Often times when they are legit they receive serious underground backlash (see Darius Rucker in country). White culture is main stream. Male culture is mainstream. Hetero culture is mainstream. All of the views and needs of these groups are HEAVILY represented in the mainstream American zeitgeist.

You mean I'm being so white when I'm wearing my Koby Bryant shirt, listening to Carlos Santana, eating my spaghetti while watching the Walking Dead series on tv? I have to disagree with you on that. I can name you countless examples of artists, actors, musicians, atheletes, etc. who recieve a lot of positive attention and who aren't white, heterosexual and a man.

I kind of get why you'd think that, but maybe you aren't phrasing it right or you aren't giving the correct demonstration of your point.

Because left wing groups don't see it as being proud of oneself or one's heritage. Few people would fault anyone merely for being proud of who they are. The show of being more represented than others yet STILL NEEDING/WANTING a support group or a pride group is what the left wing doesn't like. It would be like (hyperbole) going to Africa and complaining to starving people how much you hate the food you have and stating because of that you need some of the aid food.

I remember Fathers For Justice (which is a group fighting for the rights of the dad) was considered by many in left-wing circles as a masculinist and sexist group. Even though there seems to be inequalities defavoring divorced fathers toward their children.

First off, that's a much deeper issue than you make it out to be. Being a Quebecer at its core is to be a secessionist. May not mean that so much anymore, but that's the root of it, and many Canadians especially west of the Lakes still strongly believe this. I don't fully understand the candian-quebecer relationship, but I know this is a large undertone that has yet to be removed from the group the same way the confederate flag has largely been in the US.

I was simplifying the debated for the matter of the discussion we are having right here. And calling us secessionnist is innacurate. Plus, it's one of the basic rights guaranteed by the convention of Geneve for a population to have the right to have their sovereignity. It's a rather imperialist approach to say that it as "yet to be removed from the group".

I'm talking about the fans. Often times many things women fans do get a reaction of "you're just here because of your boyfriend" from male fans. Fully integrated female sports fans are few and far between largely because men don't want them to be, not because women don't like the sports as much. There are times that I even end up doing this too and I am less misogynistic than most men out there.

You'd still have to agree, that sports aren't exclusively for whites or males. It is dominated by men, but not exlusive to males. Wearing a "Gay by nature, proud by choice" t-shirt, is an act with an exclusive message.

Strip clubs and Young Life? Hardly. If you take a peek you'll notice that liberal locales are havens for strip clubs. My state perhaps the most liberal in the US once (and possibly still) holding the title of most adult stores/strip clubs per capita.

I wouldn't confuse a liberal state with a left-wing cirlce, however. Especially considering how being a liberal in the USA, isn't exactly "left-wing". It's farther to the left compared to conservatives, but it's not a social-democrat, or socialist, or anti-globalization group (or party). And considering the tense relationship between left-wing ideologies and the political establishment, I wouldn't consider Democrats to be representatives of left-wing circles.

It's the show of it. Your friends shirt says in other words "I am proud of who I am, and I will be that way even when the majority of people look down on me for it." The straight pride shirt sends several messages: "I am proud of who I am" a fairly positive message, but also "I'm proud I'm part of the majority and don't have to deal with the crap those OTHERS deal with." and "I'm not gay and that makes me happy, because being gay is stupid." Sure those meanings are a bit strecthed, but when you're dealing with such raw emotions and such hate, people are likely to assume the worst when a person of the majority brings up their status in the majority.

This pretty much goes the same way I imagined it.

Not at all. I wear shirts all the time that state things about myself that I am proud of, and I am a white heterosexual male. I wear sports jerseys. I tell people I'm proud of the part of the country I am from. I am proud of my heritage.

Like I said, they aren't exclusive and directly stating the pride to be a part of a closed-group. Professionnal sports are very often dominated by blacks (except when it comes to being a quarter-back and hockey player). And of course, it's not the same way everywhere and whitin each group. Left-wing nationalism still exists, and there are a lot of diversified approaches and ideologies on the left side of the political spectrum.

Perhaps the biggest issue here that goes over the heads of people who complain about this issue is something my mother always told me: "I'ts NEVER about what you meant to say. It's always about what everyone else though you meant." No one cares if you're merely intending to express pride in your heritage, because what you actually end up expressing is a lot more than that, and little of the extras are good.

True.

[Dr-Worm]

The difference is that black/women/gay pride groups serve a vital function as expressive tools of protest. By publicly and vocally making their presence known and asserting their racial/gender/sexual identities as positive things to be proud of, they shed light on and push back against the political and cultural marginalization that these groups often suffer. It's a social activism strategy that's proven incredibly effective over the past half-century.

In this context, organizations established to celebrate the groups that already wield a disproportionate amount of the power and representation in society would be redundant and pointless at best, destructive and offensive to the groups who actually need these kinds of organizations to have their voices heard at worst.

At 10/1/13 12:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote: There are tons of groups that are proud of being white, and being male, and being heterosexual. They're called 'mainstream culture.'

Exactly. You said it better than I did.

At 10/1/13 01:27 AM, Entice wrote: When a white heterosexual male comes out and demands representation, he's not really asking for anything. He just has a vague demand for as much attention as the minorities around him, it seems.

Yup, also a great point.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/1/13 07:18 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: You mean I'm being so white when I'm wearing my Koby Bryant shirt, listening to Carlos Santana, eating my spaghetti while watching the Walking Dead series on tv?

Cherry picking. Anyway, spaghetti and the Walking Dead are still very white items. What about things like hamburgers, or shows like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Mad Men and so on? And movies too. Look at the recent superhero movies, there's been a good and full total of ONE non white hero and about a couple of women, who more often serve as sex symbols than visions of female strength. You can find exceptions here and there but white people, and male interest, and heterosexual interest are far more represented in mainstream culture than other cultures. It is also a rare case that a hetero, or a male, or a white person is used in a token capacity, whereas a great deal of gays, women, and minorities ARE used as token or as the butt of jokes.

I kind of get why you'd think that, but maybe you aren't phrasing it right or you aren't giving the correct demonstration of your point.

It's really hard to see a point you don't want to see.

I remember Fathers For Justice (which is a group fighting for the rights of the dad) was considered by many in left-wing circles as a masculinist and sexist group. Even though there seems to be inequalities defavoring divorced fathers toward their children.

I do not know enough about this group or about the reaction to this group to comment on it.

I was simplifying the debated for the matter of the discussion we are having right here. And calling us secessionnist is innacurate. Plus, it's one of the basic rights guaranteed by the convention of Geneve for a population to have the right to have their sovereignity. It's a rather imperialist approach to say that it as "yet to be removed from the group".

The Quebecer group is at its root a secessionist group. Regardless of its current main views, the secession of Quebec from Canada has always been a core tenet of the group. Your statement about a people deserving sovereignty is a perfect example of this.

You'd still have to agree, that sports aren't exclusively for whites or males. It is dominated by men, but not exlusive to males. Wearing a "Gay by nature, proud by choice" t-shirt, is an act with an exclusive message.

No it's not. I am a straight male who has taken active roles in numerous LGBT groups. Some of the most active members of the minority association at my law school were white. These groups are NOT exclusive.

True.

If you agree with that basic idea, what is your question then? I have said several times that the issue is the message that claiming the need for extra pride or support when you are already the primate (as in peak, not as in the biological order) group in that category. It's like a wealthy person saying they don't have enough money. The connotation of being held superior yet still asking for more when the rest of the classes are merely asking for equality is the singular reason why such groups are held in contempt by the left.

[HeavenDuff]

At 10/1/13 07:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Cherry picking. Anyway, spaghetti and the Walking Dead are still very white items. What about things like hamburgers, or shows like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Mad Men and so on? And movies too. Look at the recent superhero movies, there's been a good and full total of ONE non white hero and about a couple of women, who more often serve as sex symbols than visions of female strength. You can find exceptions here and there but white people, and male interest, and heterosexual interest are far more represented in mainstream culture than other cultures. It is also a rare case that a hetero, or a male, or a white person is used in a token capacity, whereas a great deal of gays, women, and minorities ARE used as token or as the butt of jokes.

I could have said bagels, two. What I meant is that what you seem to perceive as a closed-off culture is already a mix of various cultures. I don't think we should so eagerly define what is white and what isn't. It's a little more complex then that. And Walking Dead is very multicultural. I read the comics and watch the show. Blacks are very important, and one of the main characters is an asian.

Games Of Throne is about european-ish medieval powers, it makes sense the way it is.

Otherwise I get your point, it makes sense. I'm just trying to point it out how much we have evolved through the last few decades when it comes to minorities and female representations in culture. Looking only at mainstream culture would be a mistake though. Mainstream culture might appeal to the masses, but there are countless individuals who have a much deeper culture then what is available in the mainstream.

It's really hard to see a point you don't want to see.

lol, wat?

The Quebecer group is at its root a secessionist group. Regardless of its current main views, the secession of Quebec from Canada has always been a core tenet of the group. Your statement about a people deserving sovereignty is a perfect example of this.

I do not see your point. We are like Catalans, fighting for political and cultural preservation. We have the right to do so, like any historicaly oppressed minority.

No it's not. I am a straight male who has taken active roles in numerous LGBT groups. Some of the most active members of the minority association at my law school were white. These groups are NOT exclusive.

You are a part of the group, true. But you aren't a part of the group that is represented/defended by this group. It's not the same thing.

If you agree with that basic idea, what is your question then? I have said several times that the issue is the message that claiming the need for extra pride or support when you are already the primate (as in peak, not as in the biological order) group in that category. It's like a wealthy person saying they don't have enough money. The connotation of being held superior yet still asking for more when the rest of the classes are merely asking for equality is the singular reason why such groups are held in contempt by the left.

I'm actually trying to get to share ideas and discuss. I'm just pointing out elements from your posts that I'm not too sure about or that I disagree with. I'm not opposing you, I'm merely trying to get people to share ideas and opinions on the matter.

[HeavenDuff]

Sorry, I forgot to paste-in that part of my post.

At 10/1/13 07:27 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: The difference is that black/women/gay pride groups serve a vital function as expressive tools of protest. By publicly and vocally making their presence known and asserting their racial/gender/sexual identities as positive things to be proud of, they shed light on and push back against the political and cultural marginalization that these groups often suffer. It's a social activism strategy that's proven incredibly effective over the past half-century.

I've never questionned that.

In this context, organizations established to celebrate the groups that already wield a disproportionate amount of the power and representation in society would be redundant and pointless at best, destructive and offensive to the groups who actually need these kinds of organizations to have their voices heard at worst.

It's not just about power, it's about having the right to be proud of yourself. And apparently, it isn't right to be proud of those things. This is what I've felt through my various contacts with left-wing ideologies and circles. The only thing that seems to be acceptable is to celebrate specific cultural material. In this way, me being proud of being part ot the metal community seems to be very well-accepted. But metal, while it is dominated by whites, isn't limitative in this way. We have great asian, indian, black, etc. arstists among our ranks. But never, is it acceptable to celebrate being white.

I know why there are reasons for this, though. Just trying to see what everybody's opinion is on that matter.

Exactly. You said it better than I did.

Well, I do not fully understand how I'm so much of a part of mainstream culture...

[poxpower]

At 10/1/13 11:03 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:

At 10/1/13 08:52 AM, poxpower wrote: Heterosexual white males are not 50% of the country, therefore they are a minority.

Well that's retarded... If you use a combination of three specificities... nobody will ever be a minority.

You mean a majority. And yes.
That is how the game is played. You don't have to prove that, as an individual, you are suffering from these so-called "systemic" inequalities that are caused by the "white male majority" or "white male culture". All you have to do is find what minority you can claim to be in the list of "politically accepted minorities" and then complain.

No part of "mainstream culture" is "white pride" or "male pride" or "straight pride" as Camaro claims either.

Going back to the Jewish example: Because of the holocaust, it's ok to have Jew pride or at least it's not okay to make fun of Jews. But demographically speaking they are overwhelmingly powerful and responsible for "mainstream culture".

So if you were Jewish, it would be ok to be proud of Einstein, Charlie Chaplin or Jon Stewart for being Jewish but if you were just white it wouldn't be ok to be proud of them for their whiteness.

It's not a matter of genetics either as people who are proud of their ethnicity ( latinos for instance ) don't claim to be genetically superior, they just claim to have a distinct and worthwhile culture whereas you cannot be proud of the accomplishments of white people, you may only feel shame for their mistakes. You can't attribute anything to white ingenuity, talent or hard work ( for instance, like 95% of nobel prizes, modern inventions, science, democracy ) unless you do so by selecting a smaller portion of whites either be language, ethnicity, religion or whatever else.

Anyway the point is that none of these people care about white priviledge or proving it exists. They have just found an endless fountain of benefits from which to draw as long as white people / men are too damn weak and stupid to say "hey wait a minute we kind of made all of this".

Just look at the advances women have made. No matter how many advantages you give them, they don't even come close to outshining men in higher circles of sciences. Feminists will never cease to blame this on male privilege, ever. Not until at least 50% ( or more ) of, say, Nobel prizes in sciences are given to women each year.

They are not really interested in the question of "why" anymore, all they want is for their group to be as good as whatever they perceive the leading group to be ( for instance the USA has a half black president but that doesn't really matter to them as again there is no point in time when they will achieve enough "equality" ). Their premise is always that their group is equal if not superior to others and therefore they are OWED the same measure of success and that success will always have to trickle down from those who arguably actually earned it to those who cry and whine that they truly are the ones deserving of it because of "systemic inequality" or whatever decades/centuries-old ancestral slight.

Yeah anyway that's what I think.

[Dr-Worm]

At 10/1/13 08:28 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: It's not just about power, it's about having the right to be proud of yourself.

I would argue that only straight white men have the luxury of separating the two. It's easy to separate the personal from the political when your personal identity has little to no discernible effect on how society treats you. It's easy to say "it's not just about power" when you already have the power.

But power is inextricably going to be linked to pride for people who actually need to assert the latter to achieve the former.

Games Of Throne is about european-ish medieval powers, it makes sense the way it is.

It's also about Middle Eastern-ish medieval powers and the lily-white goddess-queen who saves them from themselves.

But whatever, I don't think Camarohusky is necessarily saying that Game of Thrones should have more non-white characters, just that it's one example among many of the overwhelming and disproportionate representation of white people on television. Sure, GoT kind of has to have a near-exclusively white cast given its setting, but isn't that part of the problem, that shows that kind of have to have near-exclusively white casts are more often than not the only ones that get greenlit, stay on the air, or dominate the cultural conversation?

I'm just trying to point it out how much we have evolved through the last few decades when it comes to minorities and female representations in culture.

Sure, but the problem hasn't gone away. Not by a long shot.

Looking only at mainstream culture would be a mistake though.

No, I think mainstream culture is kind of the only one that matters in a discussion like this, because its the only one that everyone takes part in (whether we want to admit it or not; at the end of the day you're just as much a part of "the masses" as everyone else) and its the one in which representation or lack thereof has the most profound effects. The mainstream determines the general cultural climate of the entire society.

And besides, "mainstream" is a relative term that can be applied in one way or another to pretty much any subculture, and even then I would hardly say that niche subcultures are somehow exempt from these issues in the first place (you said as much when you mentioned how the metal community is dominated by whites).

[HeavenDuff]

At 10/2/13 02:09 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: I would argue that only straight white men have the luxury of separating the two. It's easy to separate the personal from the political when your personal identity has little to no discernible effect on how society treats you. It's easy to say "it's not just about power" when you already have the power.

Well, there are specific situations I've encountered in which being a young white male as had negative effects. And talking about power, you have to distinguish holding the power and being a part of the group that generally holds the power. I'm not specifically empowered by the fact that I'm a white male. In fact, in my field of study it's kind of hard to be a man sometimes.

I've encountered situations in which I have to argue that I have the right as a scholar to study a subject and to understand it because I'm a man. Apparently in some (I insist on the some) feminist circles, being a woman makes you automaticaly more able to understand gender domination, feminity, sexual and gender discrimination, etc. While being a part of a specific group might give you a point of view I could never have, it's a fucking lie that women understand these things better then men because they are women. This is sexism in it's own way. I'm majoring in political science and will most likely work on a subject concerning gender discrimination and sexism. Yet, I still have to argue from time to time, not to explain my views on a matter, but just to acquire the legitimacy to be a scholar and learn about those things.

I've also heard quite a few times people saying that "whites" are responsible for the politics affecting native americans, even though the same person will argue that we don't have control over our governments and their decisions. Often it seems easy to use whites as scapegoats for political unfairness. Though our political systems might really be held by a white political establishment, that doesn't make "whites" responsible for the shitty threatment reserved to native americans.

Just yesterday, I've read a post a woman (who claims to be a feminist) wrote against men who were criticizing the position a female political figure in Quebec made concerning feminism and secularism. She was mocking the fact that it was men who were criticizing this female politician on her feminist ideas.

So what I understand, is that she was basically saying that men, because they had dicks, couldn't understand a theoretical concept that has nothing to do with belonging in a biologicaly defined group. That's sexism right there.

But whatever, I don't think Camarohusky is necessarily saying that Game of Thrones should have more non-white characters, just that it's one example among many of the overwhelming and disproportionate representation of white people on television. Sure, GoT kind of has to have a near-exclusively white cast given its setting, but isn't that part of the problem, that shows that kind of have to have near-exclusively white casts are more often than not the only ones that get greenlit, stay on the air, or dominate the cultural conversation?

I still don't see how there are not enough blacks in movies or tv shows. We have so many black actors!

And besides, "mainstream" is a relative term that can be applied in one way or another to pretty much any subculture, and even then I would hardly say that niche subcultures are somehow exempt from these issues in the first place (you said as much when you mentioned how the metal community is dominated by whites).

Yes, and that seems to be a problem to you. Why?

[poxpower]

Here HeavenDuff, this might interest you. You surely will have noticed many of the things he is talking about are true not only among your own circle of friends but in society in general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qk9R3u0r00

[Camarohusky]

At 10/1/13 08:27 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: I could have said bagels, two. What I meant is that what you seem to perceive as a closed-off culture is already a mix of various cultures. I don't think we should so eagerly define what is white and what isn't. It's a little more complex then that. And Walking Dead is very multicultural. I read the comics and watch the show. Blacks are very important, and one of the main characters is an asian.

You're cherry picking again.

And yes, Bagels are white. They are not Christian (as if we still tie them to being only Jewish anymore, which we do not.)

That's not the point. I could go through 10,000 items of Americana (like food, TV, movies, music) and pick a handful of minority based subjects too. However, there MERE existence of minorities in culture does not change that mainstream culture is heavily geared toward white people. How many Oscars have gone to minorities? How many shows main characters are minorities? How many of the minority characters are 'token'? Do you remember the uproar about Rue in the Hunger Games movie? Many people decried how they could make such a good character black. The vast over-representation of people and points of view are geared toward white people and toward males (as is the case in video games).

Games Of Throne is about european-ish medieval powers, it makes sense the way it is.

So? They could have made the completely made up universe diverse and it wouldn't have ruined the story at all.

Otherwise I get your point, it makes sense. I'm just trying to point it out how much we have evolved through the last few decades when it comes to minorities and female representations in culture. Looking only at mainstream culture would be a mistake though. Mainstream culture might appeal to the masses, but there are countless individuals who have a much deeper culture then what is available in the mainstream.

So? There's a huge difference between subculture and mainstream culture. Subculture is relegated to a small group of people and does not play a role in the national zeitgeist. Not only that subcultures represent the "them" of society (whether by want or by nature). Your culture being a subculture is a strong reinforcement that you are not normal, and often times are not good enough to be normal, especially when your culture is a subculture not by will.

I do not see your point. We are like Catalans, fighting for political and cultural preservation. We have the right to do so, like any historically oppressed minority.

French Canadians have a strong culture and being proud of being French Canadian is proud of the culture. This is VERY different than a group seeking the sovereignty of Quebecers, as you put it.

You are a part of the group, true. But you aren't a part of the group that is represented/defended by this group. It's not the same thing.

The members are my friends and I share their goals. I am a part of the group. YOU can try to say I am not, but in that YOU are the one who making the arbitrary lines, not the group itself.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/2/13 10:10 AM, poxpower wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qk9R3u0r00

Ah yes. An old arrogant sounding man in a sailor suit can sip his brandy and blame the problem of liberals, thus eliminating the actual problem.

Bravo, Pox. Post another video and you might cure breast cancer by blaming it on Male guilt.

[AxTekk]

At 10/1/13 01:27 AM, Entice wrote: What does the majority want?

Minority groups act out because they feel they're lacking something. Homosexuals want gay marriage. Women are concerned about the wage gap. Racial minorities sometimes feel that they are disenfranchised in some way. To what extent these issues are actually present is up for debate but the logic behind it makes sense, and I can understand why they feel this way.

When a white heterosexual male comes out and demands representation, he's not really asking for anything. He just has a vague demand for as much attention as the minorities around him, it seems. If they could raise some actual issues, that aren't unimportant cultural things like "how come we can't say the n-word but black people can!" then I'd be much more willing to listen.

I think that's exactly it.

Also, factor in that no white person identifies primarily as "white" except for those who have an agenda. I'm a Londoner first. After that I guess I'm British and part Jewish. After that I guess I'm South English, Urban and bisexual. You would have to get really far down the list for "white", "male" and "cis-gendered" to be mentioned because, frankly, it's very unusual that I have to think about them. They are pretty meaningless to my life as I see it. Maybe if I was a black transsexual my race and sex would have been such an issue in my life that I would think about them a lot more.

The reason there's a stigma to "white pride" is because few white people without a racial agenda really give a shit that they're white. I see it as pretty meaningless. I'm proud of London, I'm proud of Britain, I'm proud of my fractional Jewish heritage, my sexuality and even the fact I'm a city-boy. Get down to the fact I'm white, cis-gendered, male etc, and although there would be plenty to be proud of there it's really not something I think about. If you do care about it daily, and take being white, cis-gendered and male as your major source of pride the chances are that you do so as a reactionary. The chances are also that you're a bigot.

And so we get the stigma.

[Dr-Worm]

At 10/2/13 03:09 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Well, there are specific situations I've encountered in which being a young white male as had negative effects.

Yeah, specific situations. Situations that you eventually exit to go back to a normal society that not only doesn't have those negative effects, but in fact constantly and overwhelmingly caters to you. Black people and women can't do that, because for them, the normal society is the one that treats them negatively.

And talking about power, you have to distinguish holding the power and being a part of the group that generally holds the power.

Okay, let me put it this way. Being white confers certain privileges. Being a man confers certain privileges. By themselves they don't confer all the privileges, and even if you're both of those things there are obviously lots of other ways in which you can lack sociopolitical agency (of course we haven't even talked about what's really the largest source of privilege and oppression: money). But you can be utterly powerless in all other aspects of life and you'd still have the particular advantages of being white and male. You'd still be better off than someone who was in the exact same position as you but was black or female.

I'm not specifically empowered by the fact that I'm a white male.

Yes you are.

Have you ever felt that white people are underrepresented in positions of power and cultural representation? Ever been racially profiled by the police or security? Ever had people take measures to try to keep you from voting because of your race? Ever had trouble getting a job or a loan or a cab as a result of your race? Ever had people eye you with suspicion or disdain or fear on the street as a result of your race?

Have you ever felt that men are underrepresented in positions of power and cultural representation? Ever had politicians try to restrict your reproductive rights? Ever been sexually harassed at work, at a party, on the street, online? Ever been sexually objectified? Ever been marginalized, trivialized, or even treated with hostility at work, school, your social group, in the subculture of your favorite hobby, as a result of your gender? Ever gotten paid less as a result of your gender? Ever felt unsafe being out alone at night as a result of your gender? Ever felt pressure from family/community/society to focus on your looks, getting married, domestic life instead of your talents, your education, your career?

The advantages are largely implicit, but they're certainly there. It's easy not to notice them when you're the one benefitting. Can't blame you for it, my sheltered honky ass was hardly aware of these things until well into college.

Yet, I still have to argue from time to time, not to explain my views on a matter, but just to acquire the legitimacy to be a scholar and learn about those things.

That situation really sucks and is unfair, and I can certainly sympathize with it having been a humanities student myself occasionally facing similar issues. But we chose to live and work in those spaces, we didn't have them imposed on us, and they're small, specific niche areas of our lives, not the massive unavoidable culture that everyone lives in and that effects every aspect of daily life. It's not really comparable.

But more to the point, I don't see how establishing some kind of male pride organization would in any way help to resolve these issues.

I've also heard quite a few times people saying that "whites" are responsible for the politics affecting native americans

Well, the current situation with the reservations is certainly informed by a history of genocide and racist policies, but I don't really know enough to comment.

I still don't see how there are not enough blacks in movies or tv shows. We have so many black actors!

How many black characters are protagonists and not side characters? How many of them don't fall into stereotypical roles? How many of them have their own personal motivations and full character arcs, and don't exist solely to help white characters through theirs? How many TV shows and movies have more than one or two black characters?

At 10/2/13 11:40 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Do you remember the uproar about Rue in the Hunger Games movie? Many people decried how they could make such a good character black.

Or the uproar over the Indian-American Miss America. Or that ridiculous whining about Idris Elba playing some minor character in Thor. In any case, you're absolutely right. It's not just a matter of under-representation, it's also that the problem reinforces itself by lashing out at any attempts at diversity.

It also perpetuates itself by taking stories that could be diverse and whitewashing them. Avatar: The Last Airbender has a predominantly Asian cast and two of its main heroes are brown-skinned. In the live-action film adaptation, all of the major characters are white, save for the villains.

So? They could have made the completely made up universe diverse and it wouldn't have ruined the story at all.

See: Firefly, which takes place in a fictional universe heavily influenced by the Old West, but features women and black people in prominent roles and positions of power anyway.

At 10/2/13 10:10 AM, poxpower wrote: Here HeavenDuff, this might interest you.

Ugh.

Alternately, if you want to learn a bit more about the subject from actual scholars and not random YouTube rants, check out Richard Dyer's "White: Essays on Race and Culture." The book traces the history of cultural representations of whiteness throughout Western visual culture, eventually focusing on examples from modern cinema (since that's Dyer's usual area of study).

[lapis]

At 10/1/13 07:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Quebecer group is at its root a secessionist group. Regardless of its current main views, the secession of Quebec from Canada has always been a core tenet of the group. Your statement about a people deserving sovereignty is a perfect example of this.

Whoa whoa whoa. They're an ethnicity, you know. You're kind of proving his point about people being dismissive of pride/Nationalism when the one expressing it is white. What do you think about Scottish, Flemish or Basque pride and/or Nationalism? How about South-Africa? What if an Afrikaner says he's proud to be white and what if a Bantu says he's proud to be black?

[AxTekk]

At 10/2/13 02:40 PM, lapis wrote: What if an Afrikaner says he's proud to be white and what if a Bantu says he's proud to be black?

Question: Would you disagree that the Afrikaner would be more likely to be affiliated with groups interested in repressing a certain race than the Bantu?

Bear in mind that Afrikaners are in a pretty unique situation too. They are white and also a minority that will think about their race daily, and it may well prove a big obstacle in certain situations. You would very often find people identifying as primarily white without having any kind of agenda. It's disingenuous to say that a white American is in the same situation.

[lapis]

At 10/2/13 03:12 PM, AxTekk wrote: It's disingenuous to say that a white American is in the same situation.

I'm not saying that, I'm not even saying that a white American and a white Quebecois are in the same situation. On the contrary: what I think HeavenDuff was trying to say when he threw people reacting negatively to his assertion of being from Quebec into the debate was that it are actually people on the 'left' who are unable to distinguish between whites in one situation and whites in another. What I found funny was that Camaro sort of proved his point by dismissing all notions of Quebecois identity or nationhood as mere secessionism. That's why I tried to drag him out by asking him questions about Scots and Afrikaners, but you've kind of spoiled it by giving the answer for him. /rage

[lapis]

I tried to drag him out

*draw
But make no mistake: I do not discriminate between dragging and drawing in any kind.

[HeavenDuff]

At 10/2/13 02:16 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Yeah, specific situations. Situations that you eventually exit to go back to a normal society that not only doesn't have those negative effects, but in fact constantly and overwhelmingly caters to you. Black people and women can't do that, because for them, the normal society is the one that treats them negatively.

Not exactly. That's my day-to-day world.

Okay, let me put it this way. Being white confers certain privileges. Being a man confers certain privileges. By themselves they don't confer all the privileges, and even if you're both of those things there are obviously lots of other ways in which you can lack sociopolitical agency (of course we haven't even talked about what's really the largest source of privilege and oppression: money). But you can be utterly powerless in all other aspects of life and you'd still have the particular advantages of being white and male. You'd still be better off than someone who was in the exact same position as you but was black or female.

I know that. You are missunderstanding me, and I don't like to be taken for a fool.

That situation really sucks and is unfair, and I can certainly sympathize with it having been a humanities student myself occasionally facing similar issues. But we chose to live and work in those spaces, we didn't have them imposed on us, and they're small, specific niche areas of our lives, not the massive unavoidable culture that everyone lives in and that effects every aspect of daily life. It's not really comparable.

The fact that it was a choice shouldn't change a thing about the fact that we should be respected for what we think, do and contribute rather then the color of our skin and what we have in our pants. What you just said it's like saying a woman shouldn't complain if she was threated like shit in med school in the 60's, after all, it was her choice to chose that field of study, it was not forced on her.

I also do not like how because our problems as whites or males are not of the same magnitude we shouldn't mention them and try fixing these problems. It's not because black kids in Africa are starving that social security here would be somehow a matter of less importance.

But more to the point, I don't see how establishing some kind of male pride organization would in any way help to resolve these issues.

I was not talking about resolving issues, but rather how it is never seen as legitimiate to do so among left-wing circles. And I was also talking about the fact that we aren't individualy allowed either, to say that we are proud of being part of *insert majority group name here*, while it seen as legitimate to celebrate being gay, a female, hispanic, etc.

Well, the current situation with the reservations is certainly informed by a history of genocide and racist policies, but I don't really know enough to comment.

It is white political establishment that is responsible. But considering how elitist and oligarchical this power is, I don't see much responsibility on the part of powerless citizens... At very best, you could say that we are indirectly responsible of these policies because our vote-catching political system isn't built to consider minorities interests until they are important enough in terms of vote to be considered.

How many black characters are protagonists and not side characters? How many of them don't fall into stereotypical roles? How many of them have their own personal motivations and full character arcs, and don't exist solely to help white characters through theirs? How many TV shows and movies have more than one or two black characters?

Denzel Washington
Morgan Freeman
Will Smith
Samuel L. Jackson
Danny Glover
Don Cheadle
Ken Foree
Eddie Murphy
Forrest Whitaker
Laurence Fishburne

I think you can answer that question by yourself. Just think about these guys's roles on the big screen. If you would have said that black females don't have much interresting representations in movies and tv series I would have agreed. But black males... not the same story.

However, we are pretty much agreeing on pretty much everything, we just do not agree on the degree.

At 10/2/13 03:31 PM, lapis wrote: I'm not saying that, I'm not even saying that a white American and a white Quebecois are in the same situation. On the contrary: what I think HeavenDuff was trying to say when he threw people reacting negatively to his assertion of being from Quebec into the debate was that it are actually people on the 'left' who are unable to distinguish between whites in one situation and whites in another. What I found funny was that Camaro sort of proved his point by dismissing all notions of Quebecois identity or nationhood as mere secessionism. That's why I tried to drag him out by asking him questions about Scots and Afrikaners, but you've kind of spoiled it by giving the answer for him. /rage

This is pretty accurate. Somehow when it's mostly white people (and I say mostly white because Quebec's population and culture is already very diverse) cultures that fight for their freedom and identity, they have to justify themselves all the time and/or have their needs dismissed based on negative interpretations of their political and social objectives. Lapis said it right with this sentence: "dismissing all notions of Quebecois identity or nationhood as mere secessionism."

[Camarohusky]

At 10/2/13 02:40 PM, lapis wrote: Whoa whoa whoa. They're an ethnicity, you know.

I think you need to reread the entire thread. he has OPENLY stated that his "Quebecer" group (note, how did NOT use the ethnic French Canadian description) supported sovereignty as a people. Sovereignty as a people when you are part of a bigger nation? Hmmm, sound secessionist to me. Pays to pay attention now.

You're kind of proving his point about people being dismissive of pride/Nationalism when the one expressing it is white.

That's a shallow and lazy attempt at understanding. I am merely stating that a major reason people come off as defensive toward "quebecer" groups is that these groups (mind you, this does NOT include French Canadian pride) often exist for the end game of becoming separate from their country. Same goes for other groups like the Scottish. Merely having Scottish Pride is fine, but when you claim to be a Scottish Republican Socialist you re actively claiming yourself as something different than merely being proud of your heritage, as Heavenduff has openly and expressly done here.

The oddest part is that you knee jerk in a vein attempt to stop what you think is a knee jerk reaction. I suggest you actually know the width, breadth, and depth of a puddle before you dive in. I know it takes time and work, but you may actually know what the hell you're talking about.

[HeavenDuff]

At 10/2/13 04:36 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I think you need to reread the entire thread. he has OPENLY stated that his "Quebecer" group (note, how did NOT use the ethnic French Canadian description) supported sovereignty as a people. Sovereignty as a people when you are part of a bigger nation? Hmmm, sound secessionist to me. Pays to pay attention now.

I've used French Canadian because I was speaking in English and wouldn't use it in French. I usually use the word Quebecer or Québécois, myself.

And if you are willing to legitimate all form of historical imperialism based on the idea that "they are part of a bigger nation" (in which they were forced, btw) to bring down our fight for sovereignty as just a big bad secessionist ideology... then you might want to look into Canadian and Quebecian history a little better....

[HeavenDuff]

At 10/2/13 04:28 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Not exactly. That's my day-to-day world.

Well, not day-to-day... but it's common.