Talk:White nationalism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

Before this page goes any further, I think it should be expanded into "racial nationalism" or something like that, so include all such movements (e.g. black nationalist movements in Africa, etc.).

I think the use here of "caucasians" is bizarre as white nationalists are presumably against actual caucasians. I understand that caucasian may be (incorrectly) used as an American euphamism for white but it is strange to use it in an encyclopedia. Secretlondon 18:04, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

The term "Caucasian" has a long history of anthropological usage to describe the "race" that "white" Europeans, Middle Eastern, North African, and Southwest Asians supposedly belong to. There is really no other widely understood label that means the exact thing. Many Americans use the term, somewhat incorrectly, to simply mean "white", but that wasn't my point.

My point was that "White Nationalists" or Supremacists generally have a view of "white" that excludes people who general American, British, Australian or other such societies would consider white, such as Jews, native European Muslims (i.e. Balkan Muslims), and perhaps even Slavs. Anyway, any definition of "white" is bound to be subject to individual prejudices or viewpoints.

Who is White

The writer of the below listed statement " Hispanics, Portuguese, and Italian people may or may not be considered white, based on regional backgrounds (Basque Spaniards and Northern Italians may be accepted while Sicilians and Puerto Ricans aren't)." seems to have a very limited knowledge of the concepts of race, culture and ethnicity. Puerto Rico, much like the US is a place inhabited by people of differing races, and or ethnicties. Among the population one can find people who are White, Black and or of mixed racial stock. As for Sicillians? I have seen many who can be mistaken for Nordics! Waldemar Freyre

from Svigor - sorry if I'm posting this in someone else's space, I'm a Wikipedia noob. Rick said I should discuss my extensive edits in "talk" and this is the only place I could see to post my comment. Is this the right place, or am I missing something? Okay, now I see how it works. I'd be happy to find a good place to discuss this. I'm a White Nationalist, and I have a pretty good handle on current White Nationalist thinking, and the original article was far less than satisfactory.

I understand that this article is not likely to end up as a presentation of White Nationalism from a WN p.o.v., but I think it's fair to at least include both sides of the argument.

"I think the use here of "caucasians" is bizarre as white nationalists are presumably against actual caucasians. I understand that caucasian may be (incorrectly) used as an American euphamism for white but it is strange to use it in an encyclopedia."

You're essentially correct. The proper term is Caucasoid, not Caucasian. They have the same etymological origin, but the two words have quite different meanings.


Haha, I just found this: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/White-nationalism So which is chicken and which is egg?

"and perhaps even Slavs." No, you're thinking of the Third Reich. In my experience, less than oh, one percent of all White Nationalists consider Slavs non-white. In fact, in my two years posting and reading regularly at Stormfront.org, I think I 'might' have heard ONE person refer to slavs as non-white.

Nationmaster is a mirror of Wikipedia. The nationmaster entry is presumably out of date. And I agree about the use of term caucasian. Secretlondon 10:39, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite

Okay, I'm going to post my proposed version of the entry for White Nationalism, so we can discuss it and I can address any issues people have with it:

White Nationalism is a form of racial nationalism, an identity movement that argues that white people should live (or at least be allowed to live) separately from non-whites in order to maintain their racial distinctiveness and preserve their culture and way of life. Some people assume that White Nationalism is related to "White supremacism" although the two concepts actually stand in opposition by their very definition since White Nationalism advocates separation and the rights of a people of common genetic and cultural heritage to have sovereign rule over itself, while supremacism advocates racial supremacy and oppression.

One of the major driving forces behind White Nationalism is a double standard perceived by its members as prevalent in western civilization that allows, even encourages racial and ethnic nationalism among non-whites, and suppresses and pathologizes it among whites.

The term "race" holds value for White Nationalists, who base their personal identity upon genetic characteristics to varying degrees. Unlike egalitarianism, White Nationalism argues that race is real and entails significant human group differences in behavioral psychology, social identity, and physiology.

The term White Nationalist has been used by Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan, Christian Identity and Aryan Nations groups, which have generally overlapping ideologies based on the perceived necessity to maintain white racial integrity.

Partially as a result of the violent and radical image of some of the white supremacist groups, a growing number of White Nationalists have adopted less hostile rhetoric, and portray themselves as conservatives interested in maintaining traditional values, including white dominance in American life. Many of these groups do not advocate white supremacy and instead call for white separatism. Some reject the label of "racist" in favor of "racialist" or "racial realist" due to the popular misconception that racism requires racial hatred.

American Renaissance and the Council of Conservative Citizens are two leading examples of mainstream White Nationalist organizations in the United States. In Europe, several "far" right political parties such as the British National Party, France's Front National, and the Austrian Freedom Party have won fairly wide support based on platforms characterized by the mass media as advocating racial separatism in addition to traditional nationalism. Some critics of more mainstream conservativism in the United States and the United Kingdom go further and claim an undercurrent of white nationalism exists in right wing politics (i.e Willie Horton, Pat Buchanan, Pete Wilson, Enoch Powell)- a charge most conservatives bitterly contest.

White Nationalists often have a definition of whiteness that is narrower than that in mainstream usage. Many White Nationalists use cultural as well as genetic criteria for determining whiteness: one oft-cited rule of thumb is that a white person is a "descendant of European Christendom." Others use strictly genetic criteria, without cultural distinctions. Jews and Muslims are rarely considered white by White Nationalists, even if they appear to be European, mostly for historical and cultural reasons: many White Nationalists argue that both groups are already represented by their own forms of racial nationalism. Others exclude them based on the "descendants of European Christendom" cultural-genetic criterion above.

In white minority nations such as South Africa or some Latin American states, there are often arguments for white homelands as well.

See also

External links

Critique of Existing Entry

These are excerpts from the original, along with my problems with them in bold:

White nationalism is a term given to an identity movement that argues that white people (sometimes incorrectly called "caucasians") should live separately from non-whites in order to maintain racial purity, and preserve their culture and way of life.

I feel that the fact that White Nationalism is a subset of racial nationalism is worth mentioning from the outset. "[S]ometimes incorrectly called "caucasians" belongs in a footnote, not in the exposition.

When the idea that whites should live separately is mentioned, it's worth mentioning that there is a WIDE variety of opinion within White Nationalism on this subject. Some feel that repealing laws which infringe on white freedom of association is sufficient, and do not advocate legally-enforced separation. In the middle, there's the majority opinion that separatist WN nations should be established, rather than an enforced separation for all whites, willing or no. On the "right," there's the opinion that historically white nations like the U.S.A. and Europe should enforce mass expulsion of non-Whites. Even this is an oversimplification - there is no monolithic WN position on this, for example many WNs feel that European nations should expel all non-whites, but the U.S.A. should only make room for racial enclaves.

Another problem is the "racial purity" passage. "Racial purity" is misleading, again because there is no WN consensus even on whether there is such a thing, let alone whether it is a goal of WNism. I'm a scientific racist myself, that is, racial reality informs all my beliefs about terms like "racial purity." I am fully aware of the fuzzy borders of race in terms of genetics, and I reject terms like "racial purity" as less than useful. "Racial distinctiveness" or "racial heritage" or "genetic identity" are all far more useful (and accurate) terms than "racial purity."

The term "race", though according to some long dispensed-with in terms of any meaningful scientific value, still holds social value for many who (in part or in whole) base their personal identity upon genetical characteristics.

"Though according to some long dispensed-with in terms of any meaningful scientific value" - is this really the place to insert this information? Is this a definition of White Nationalism, or a refutation of it? This kind of schizophrenia runs throughout the original, and makes for poor writing. As I stated above, I don't expect this entry to be a WNist tract, but I do expect an honest representation of what WNism is, and I do expect enough room for that representation to breathe. I'm sure the entry on race that is linked to has more than enough grist for the race-denial crowd. Even if this caveat does belong here, it shouldn't be included in the same paragraph that sets forth the WN beliefs concerning race, much less in the same sentence.

In all parts of the world, personal identity reflects the degree of awareness and connectivity to the outside world and foreign cultures, thus "race issues" tend to be seen as related to xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and other "culture clash" paradigms.

Let me be frank and ask, just what the hell does that mean? This is a muddy sentence that is badly in need of a rewrite. I can't even figure out what it means, so it's hard to determine if it would belong or not if rewritten.

Similar concerns that may be a catalyst for a distinction of personal identity are religion, gender, language, and differences regarding these issues are often manifested in conflict of one form or another.

How are conflicts over religion, gender, and language directly related to racial nationalism? If there's a point to be made here, make it, or remove this detritus.

Some of these groups have condoned violence in the past, and some have built up strong followings mainly in prisons.

The issue of violent behavior and rhetoric among WN groups deserves its own paragraph, if it's to be broached, I think. "[A]nd some have built up strong followings, mainly in prisons," is an obvious attempt to link WNism with the old pathology canard. The National Alliance, America's foremost WN advocacy group, has a membership in which the highly educated and members of the professions are overrepresented by a factor of seven when compared to the American population at large. This is as relevant as the "mainly in prisons" bit.

As a result of the violent and radical image of some of the white supremacist groups, a growing number of white nationalists have adopted less hostile rhetoric, and portray themselves as conservatives interested in maintaining traditional values, including white dominance in American life.

The growing strength of mainstream, non-violent voices in WN groups is not solely a result of the violent and radical image of some white supremacist groups, therefore I rewrote it as being part of the impetus.

Many of these groups deny advocating white "Supremacy" and instead call for "Separatism" - often with the canard that 'mainstream' minority groups such as the NAACP and LULAC are "separatist" as well.

It is not only true that many of these groups deny advocating white supremacy, many groups actually do not advocate white supremacy. This sort of not-so-subtle phrasing is part of what I object to. Is this to be an honest presentation of WNism, or a refutation of WNism? As for the "canard" statement, this has little to do with WNist belief, even if true. I've never heard a WN refer to the NAACP as a "separatist" group. I have many times heard from WNs the complaint that advocacy groups for non-whites are publically supported and given positive press, while advocacy groups for whites are automatically classified as "white supremacists." This is a quite salient distinction, no?

Many also reject the label of "Racist" for "racialist", and point to studies which the contend show clear disparities in "racial" abilities.

The WN view on race and racial science deserves it's own paragraph, not just the second half of a sentence. It's also worth explaining why many WNs reject the term "racist," if it's worth mentioning the rejection itself. Some may object to my rewrite above, but in my experience the word "hatred" does not appear in dictionaries in the definition of "racism," while it does appear in the definition of the term in the vernacular.

In Europe, several far right political parties such as the British National Party, France's Front National, and the Austrian Freedom Party have won fairly wide support based on platforms widely seen as advocating racial separatism in addition to traditional nationalism.

I changed "far right" to "'far' right" above because that is the common characterization, it isn't hard fact. I also felt worth adding the fact that that characterization is one expressed in the media, but that doesn't make it necessarily so.

Jewish and Muslim peoples are rarely considered "white", even if they appear to be European.

If this is to be mentioned, an explanation is required.

Hispanics, Portuguese, and Italian people may or may not be considered white, based on regional backgrounds (Basque Spaniards and Northern Italians may be accepted while Sicilians and Puerto Ricans aren't).

This passage is extremely problematic. First of all, Portugal and Italy are nations, not races, and currently neither nationality carries racially exclusive connotations. Swedish and Russian people "may or may not be considered white" too. So, the passage is nonsensical. Second, "Hispanic" is a very racially ambiguous term, and essentially includes a variety of racial groups whose membership in the group "Hispanic" essentially boils down to language and history, not to race. Third, the idea that Sicilians and Puerto Ricans are considered non-white by all WNs is simply wrong. Many WNs recognize that some Puerto Ricans are at least genetically white, and most accept Sicilians as white.

Put simply, this passage needs to go, it's far more wrong than right.

In white minority nations such as South Africa or some Latin American states, there are often arguments for a "white homeland" as well, and white Nationalism takes on a more literal meaning.

There are indeed arguments for white homelands in South Africa and some Latin American nations, but I fail to see how there WNism takes on a more literal meaning - explication is called for here.

These are by no means my only problems with the original, there are quite a few errors of omission, widespread muddled language, subtly hostile language (the consistent unnecessary use of quotes around terms like white, race, whiteness, white homeland, etc.) and outright grammatical errors as well, but I won't deal with them now.

Regarding the links, I think an explanation of WNism deserves a bit more than a single link to a WN forum. So, I included links to some salient WNist or WN-sympathetic sites.

~Svigor

Silence?

Funny, my edits two days ago were removed within a few minutes of their posting, but I've not heard jack now that I'm on the talk page (as requested). If no one's engaged me here on this issue by tomorrow I'm going to take that as tacit approval of my arguments and begin editing again.

~Svigor

Regarding the search function

Also, I find it a bit strange that I have to enter "White Nationalism" in the main search function, then repeat the search with the Google engine, then click on one of the links to pages containing the link to "White Nationalism" link, and then scroll down and click on the link to "White Nationalism" just to get to the White Nationalism page. What kind of B.S. is that? ~Svigor

It's a problem with Wikipedia seraching currently. However, if you use "White nationalism" (no quotes -- note the lower case 'n') and press the "Go" button, it should take you there automatically. RickK 23:13, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I hadn't even considered case sensitivity, thanks. ~Svigor

Racial Nationalism vs. White Nationalism

"Before this page goes any further, I think it should be expanded into "racial nationalism" or something like that, so include all such movements (e.g. black nationalist movements in Africa, etc.)."

I agree that a separate entry for racial nationalism should be included, but I disagree with the idea that all forms of racial nationalism should be dealt with on a single page. I intend to expand this page in future, so I think the idea a bad one just in terms of space considerations. Then you have the argument about whether Zionism qualifies as racial nationalism, whether Zionism and National Socialism should be moved to the racial nationalism page, etc. I don't think anyone wants that. ~Svigor

Regarding External Links

Please explain the thinking behind disallowing the links I'm adding

One or two are sufficient, these pro-white nationalism links are excessive. RickK 23:11, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Check the external links for "Zionism" and get back to me.~ Svigor (sorry dunno how to make the cool sig seen around here)

Reverting

Only three reverts are allowed per user per article per 24 hour period. You have reverted White nationalism more than three times. Please stop now. RickK 23:12, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

So, I can only change and have my changes removed three times per article per 24 hour period? That's interesting.

That's the rule. RickK 23:16, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Well, this rule brings up an interesting dilemma. Until now I've been relying on fair play. I could of course bring this up at the Stormfront.org board and have dozens of posters there come here and join this controversy. As I said up until now I've been relying on fair play, and I wasn't interested in making this a war. I see that you've decided to let the links remain - I appreciate that, and I'll just go cool off now.

I'm not threatening you with "a war," I'm simply making you aware that I hadn't brought the egregious imbalance of this article to the attention of my fellow SFers yet, in the hopes that I could sort this out by myself. The only reason I'm even mentioning this is that dozens of SFers would make for many more reverts per 24 hour period.

If you tried doing something as you threatened to do, the article would be protected from editing (not by me, since I have edited the page even though my edits consist of nothing but revertsions, as far as I can remember), so that would accomplish little except to garner bad feelings. RickK 23:39, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
It's not a "threat" to inform people of the imbalance of an article. The natural thing for me to do in the first place would be to post a thread at SF about the article, its lack of balance, and suggest that interested WNs do something about how their ideology was being portrayed unfairly. Instead, I decided to keep things quiet and see if I could do something on my own first. ~Svigor
In this article you are not informing people outside Wikipedia. Instead you are threatening to bring in puppets to force your view. The community will frown on anyone threatening such tactics. I'd advise against making any more threats. - Tεxτurε 23:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh yeah, my "puppet army." Heh, where are all my "puppets" when my bills need paying, I wonder. Yeah, it would be sooooo wrong to let White Nationalists influence the article on...White Nationalism. ~Svigor
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=threat
threat
n.
1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.
Which definition, pray tell, did my statment fall under?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_nationalism/Archive_1&oldid=1089156680"