crank wrote: You only have to look at a few threads here to see how many still actively deny how seriously fucked up the law/legal system/cops/courts/prisons are for minorities, especially blacks..

Sendraks wrote:

Nicko wrote:I think the label of "white pride" would be completely fine - well, as fine as "black pride" - for a person of European ancestry to wear were it not for the fact that it has been irrevocably linked with white supremacy.

I think the white supremacy point, while valid, doesn't actually detract from the fact that there is no context for the phrase "white pride" to have meaning. Shorn of the racist connotations, the use of the phrase is little more than a childish entitled rant to the effect of "they have that, I want some to" because some white people think they are missing out. They think that they are hard done by because they don't grasp why "black pride" exists.

tolman wrote:
Were someone 'proud to be black' in a black/arab border region in Africa where neither group was particularly dominant, that would seem a kind of pride with much in common with 'white pride'

Sendraks wrote:

Nicko wrote:Perhaps you haven't considered that what I'm saying goes both ways.

Oh I have, but within the context of the western world, "black pride" makes sense and "white pride" doesn't precisely because of the context.

tolman wrote:If not simply trying to select criteria to support one's own emotional conclusions, it's not obvious why 'response to oppression' is the only or major factor someone should use when considering whether pride is justified.

tolman wrote:Were a black second-generation immigrant from Nigeria to fictional nation where racism isn't still a problem to say they were proud to be black and proud of their Nigerian heritage, would you say the second type of pride 'didn't make sense' because it might use different criteria to the first, and might not even meaningfully draw on oppression as a justification?

Sendraks wrote:

tolman wrote:If not simply trying to select criteria to support one's own emotional conclusions, it's not obvious why 'response to oppression' is the only or major factor someone should use when considering whether pride is justified.

Doesn't this then just become a semantics argument about which word is the most appropriate one to use?

Sendraks wrote:The rationale for why the "black pride" movement exists is well documented. If you're suggesting that it is not justified, then feel free to set out your arguments as to why.

Sendraks wrote:

tolman wrote:Were a black second-generation immigrant from Nigeria to fictional nation where racism isn't still a problem to say they were proud to be black and proud of their Nigerian heritage, would you say the second type of pride 'didn't make sense' because it might use different criteria to the first, and might not even meaningfully draw on oppression as a justification?

F.I.F.Y

tolman wrote:
It seems more like you trying to find rationalisations to justify only the kinds of pride you approve of.

tolman wrote:Even given your idea of pride being justified by [a group] overcoming adversity, while I may not agree with them, some people presumably could apply that idea, look at 'white peoples' going out and colonising all manner of (for them) extreme environments and see achievement to be proud of in that, especially if (as many people do) they conveniently ignore or sideline (or are substantially ignorant of) all the negative aspects.

tolman wrote:Unless it's only achieving things in the face of adversity caused by other people which counts.

tolman wrote:I also find strange the claim that 'white pride' is simply some kind 'me too' of reaction to 'black pride'.

tolman wrote:
No you didn't, you completely fucked it up.

tolman wrote:If they were living in a racism-free nation, there would seem to be no justification under your standards for them being proud to be black,

tolman wrote:In the question, I was accepting your justifications would apply to the first type of pride.

Calilasseia wrote:Quite simply, the problem isn't skin colour. It's unrestrained power elites, duplicitously manipulating irrational fears about difference.

...

From time to time, whites were involved in the slave resistance. As early as 1663, indentured white servants and black slaves in Gloucester County, Virginia, formed a conspiracy to rebel and gain their freedom. The plot was betrayed, and ended with executions. Mullin reports that the newspaper notices of runaways in Virginia often warned "ill-disposed" whites about harboring fugitives. Sometimes slaves and free men ran off together, or cooperated in crimes together. Sometimes, black male slaves ran off and joined white women. From time to time, white ship captains and watermen dealt with runaways, perhaps making the slave a part of the crew.
...
Only one fear was greater than the fear of black rebellion in the new American colonies. That was the fear that discontented whites would join black slaves to overthrow the existing order. In the early years of slavery, especially, before racism as a way of thinking was firmly ingrained, while white indentured servants were often treated as badly as black slaves, there was a possibility of cooperation. As Edmund Morgan sees it:

There are hints that the two despised groups initially saw each other as sharing the same predicament. It was common, for example, for servants and slaves to run away together, steal hogs together, get drunk together. It was not uncommon for them to make love together. In Bacon's Rebellion, one of the last groups to surrender was a mixed band of eighty negroes and twenty English servants.
As Morgan says, masters, "initially at least, perceived slaves in much the same way they had always perceived servants... shiftless, irresponsible, unfaithful, ungrateful, dishonest..." And "if freemen with disappointed hopes should make common cause with slaves of desperate hope, the results might be worse than anything Bacon had done."

And so, measures were taken. About the same time that slave codes, involving discipline and punishment, were passed by the Virginia Assembly,

Virginia's ruling class, having proclaimed that all white men were superior to black, went on to offer their social (but white) inferiors a number of benefits previously denied them. In 1705 a law was passed requiring masters to provide white servants whose indenture time was up with ten bushels of corn, thirty shillings, and a gun, while women servants were to get 15 bushels of corn and forty shillings. Also, the newly freed servants were to get 50 acres of land.
Morgan concludes: "Once the small planter felt less exploited by taxation and began to prosper a little, he became less turbulent, less dangerous, more respectable. He could begin to see his big neighbor not as an extortionist but as a powerful protector of their common interests."

Manticore wrote:I wouldn't worry. If the 'white race' die out, we only have to send a few people from Africa to a cold climate and in 25,000 years or so we will have a load more.