White Supremacy

1246716

Comments

  • ISTM that the British Empire was about white supremacy; it was the "white man's burden" to rule over other races. Of course that view is complicated by the fact that only the English were considered to be really white. The Scottish might qualify, the Irish and Welsh probably not, while no one European could be taken seriously.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Sure, but if you're trying to paint a picture of an Empire-building nation convinced of its own supremacy then including times when we've tried to save another nation from invaders - at the request of that nation's legitimate government, no less - is a bit disingenuous.

    Ah, yes, the old "we were invited" gambit. Sometimes it's even true.

    But I don't think the message of "an Empire-building nation convinced of its own supremacy" is lost because of the occasional quirk where Britain's interests might have coincided with those of the host nation's.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    lilBuddha

    I take your point about the link between racism and violence. I was thinking about verbally aggressive behaviour as a warning sign of potential physical aggression. But my post omitted that point. Bad wording.

    I also agree with Doublethink re prejudice against foreigners who are recogniseably white. Accent differences are not as easily recognisable as skin colour differences, but they are still markers of difference and may stimulate innate tribalism.
    The British child of a Polish parent does not suffer the same as the Polish parent. The British child of the Jamaican parent does.
    Whilst xenophobia cuts across skin colour, it fades from white skin far easier than brown.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited August 13
    Gwai wrote: »
    Who is racism against in your country then? It seems too easy to focus on groups you don't have as many of. I can think of groups in the UK or Canada that I would gather from the media are more common and still face significant prejudice.

    When I was growing up in my corner of the UK, it was rare to see a black face. We had a number of Chinese people (who certainly experienced racism - both of the ching-chong slitty eyes variety, and of the assumption that they all ran chip shops and takeaways), and a number of people from the Indian subcontinent (all generically called "Pakis", and assumed to run takeaways and corner shops).

    There was, as I remember, a clear distinction drawn between foreigners and immigrants - someone could visit from India, or Africa, or Hong Kong, and be not exactly accepted as one of us, but at least respected as a person of some status, if a bit of an exotic curiosity. Those of the same complexion who had immigrated to the UK found it much harder to get that kind of respect. That must have been a class thing.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    The strongest correlations for voting Brexit were level of education, job type, age and income, in that order. Whether you were white made almost no difference at all. Source.

    Whether or not you voted Brexit based on racist factors (given that 36% of BME voted Leave) is a much more granular discussion, although I have little doubt that all the racists did, in fact, vote Leave.
    I think this is a better representation.Most of the maps show an overlap of the demographics. So, whilst education is a factor, it overlies the whiter areas as well. You want to exonerate the people there from racism, but that is ridiculous. Education levels are tied to explicit racism. People are naturally xenophobic, or at least xenocautious, AKA tribal. For the white, rural British to be less racist would make them outliers in the general trend of human behaviour.
    Was xenophobia the only factor? no. Was it a major factor? Yes.

    Anybody can be racist or xenophobic. That 36% BME voted leave simply means that they consider themselves British, not that everyone else does.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    I used to live in a vastly multicultural northern English city and now live in rural Scotland, where they let us English in!


    But the most blatent (recent ) racism i heard was Here. It was immediatly called out and the people in question now know not to go there again.

    .
    But here's the thing. White Supremacy hasn't really got the same history in the UK as it has in the USA. We speak the same language but we have way different histories.
    But it does have a history. What Britain has lacked, for most of its history, is very many brown-skinned residents.
    The colonists and their racist attitudes towards the native brown-skinned people were English for the first 192 years.
    The way the empire treated the brown peoples it invaded didn't come from nowhere.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    The strongest correlations for voting Brexit were level of education, job type, age and income, in that order. Whether you were white made almost no difference at all. Source.

    Whether or not you voted Brexit based on racist factors (given that 36% of BME voted Leave) is a much more granular discussion, although I have little doubt that all the racists did, in fact, vote Leave.
    I think this is a better representation.Most of the maps show an overlap of the demographics. So, whilst education is a factor, it overlies the whiter areas as well. You want to exonerate the people there from racism, but that is ridiculous. Education levels are tied to explicit racism. People are naturally xenophobic, or at least xenocautious, AKA tribal. For the white, rural British to be less racist would make them outliers in the general trend of human behaviour.
    Was xenophobia the only factor? no. Was it a major factor? Yes.

    Anybody can be racist or xenophobic. That 36% BME voted leave simply means that they consider themselves British, not that everyone else does.

    I absolutely resent and refute the notion that I want to exonerate people from racism, as evidenced by my second paragraph. Racism was a factor in voting Leave, but it was far from the only factor.

    If you want to argue that a lack of education makes someone more likely to be racist, then it's for you to prove. All the Brexit vote showed was that lack of education was more likely to make someone vote Leave.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    What I said was lack of education makes explicit racism more likely. Implicit racism is a much broader thing and what we are dealing with when we are talking about white discomfort in talking about white supremacy.
    Regarding Brexit, what this says to me is that the uneducated were more likely to vote based on racism/xenophobia. And the educated were more likely to see the economic problems caused by Brexit being a separate issue to race/xenophobia.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 13
    Factoid.

    My point here is the picture of institutional and culturally hegemonic racism in the UK is complex. You can not directly take the analysis of racial issues in the USA and transplant them to the UK. The situation is different, not necessarily better, but different.

    In many ways the most socially acceptable racism in the UK at the moment is against Muslims and travellers and the Roma. The majority of people are generally ashamed enough about racism against black people to try to pretend they’re not prejudiced about them.
  • The majority of people are generally ashamed enough about racism against black people to try to pretend they’re not prejudiced about them.

    That was the case here until Obama was elected. Then the curtain was rolled back.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What I said was lack of education makes explicit racism more likely. Implicit racism is a much broader thing and what we are dealing with when we are talking about white discomfort in talking about white supremacy.
    The results of this study, according to Wodtke, “at the very least … cast doubt on the argument that cognitive ability is inherently liberalizing.”

    Reading your own links for comprehension would be lovely.
    Regarding Brexit, what this says to me is that the uneducated were more likely to vote based on racism/xenophobia. And the educated were more likely to see the economic problems caused by Brexit being a separate issue to race/xenophobia.

    The statistics - actual surveys of actual people - say otherwise, but sure, you can be wrong.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What I said was lack of education makes explicit racism more likely.

    I'm not sure that's the case. If you look at American history, for example, many of the most ardent and expressive racists came from educated and wealthy backgrounds. Woodrow Wilson was president of Princeton before he was president of the United States and he was arguably the most racist post-Civil War president until the current one (who also attended "the best schools"). George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Theodore Bilbo, John Calhoun . . . these were all men with access to a level of education far beyond that of the typical American of their day and they positively reveled in explicit racism.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    mousethief wrote: »
    The majority of people are generally ashamed enough about racism against black people to try to pretend they’re not prejudiced about them.

    That was the case here until Obama was elected. Then the curtain was rolled back.

    Though the majority are still generally ashamed enough about racism, the Brexit vote appears to have given licence for racists to be publicly racist again. Certainly, playing whack-a-mole with various far-right groups is far less fun than I thought it would be.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What I said was lack of education makes explicit racism more likely. Implicit racism is a much broader thing and what we are dealing with when we are talking about white discomfort in talking about white supremacy.

    So what do you think "implicit racism" is ?

    What the article says is that intelligent people are capable of nuanced views in which willing the end does not imply willing every possible means to achieve that end.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What I said was lack of education makes explicit racism more likely. Implicit racism is a much broader thing and what we are dealing with when we are talking about white discomfort in talking about white supremacy.
    The results of this study, according to Wodtke, “at the very least … cast doubt on the argument that cognitive ability is inherently liberalizing.”

    Reading your own links for comprehension would be lovely.
    Regarding Brexit, what this says to me is that the uneducated were more likely to vote based on racism/xenophobia. And the educated were more likely to see the economic problems caused by Brexit being a separate issue to race/xenophobia.

    The statistics - actual surveys of actual people - say otherwise, but sure, you can be wrong.
    Educated people do better on explicit racism, but not so much in implicit racism. Surveys are only good within limitations.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What I said was lack of education makes explicit racism more likely.

    I'm not sure that's the case. If you look at American history, for example, many of the most ardent and expressive racists came from educated and wealthy backgrounds. Woodrow Wilson was president of Princeton before he was president of the United States and he was arguably the most racist post-Civil War president until the current one (who also attended "the best schools"). George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Theodore Bilbo, John Calhoun . . . these were all men with access to a level of education far beyond that of the typical American of their day and they positively reveled in explicit racism.
    Talking more modern times. Educated people are more likely to agree that minorities suffer disadvantage, but they are less likely to vote for things to change that, especially if they perceive a disadvantage to themsleves.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Factoid.

    My point here is the picture of institutional and culturally hegemonic racism in the UK is complex. You can not directly take the analysis of racial issues in the USA and transplant them to the UK. The situation is different, not necessarily better, but different.
    It is different, but there are similar elements. Having walked both shores, I see loads of similarity.
    In many ways the most socially acceptable racism in the UK at the moment is against Muslims and travellers and the Roma. The majority of people are generally ashamed enough about racism against black people to try to pretend they’re not prejudiced about them.
    And also ashamed enough to not talk about the racism not expressed and that leads to implicit racism maintaining strength and rearing its head as it is now.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for someone to be a white supremacist ?

    Is it sufficient for someone to be emotionally invested in the distinction between white and black races, to believe that the white race has been somehow wronged (e.g. their country isn't theirs any more) and to want to set right that wrong ?

    Or is some of that not necessary, or is more necessary ?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    At work, in the dining room people often sit in racial group at break times. The catering department, of which I am part, tends not to do this as the teams are small and mixed race. It breaking away into
    Cultural groups are people being racist? Are white people being supremacist? Unlike the US my indigenous people are white. How does that affect the situation?
  • RussRuss Shipmate

    If we take the first sentence of that as the definition, then there is no white supremacism without the (? do we agree that it is thoroughly discredited) belief in white superiority.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »

    If we take the first sentence of that as the definition, then there is no white supremacism without the (? do we agree that it is thoroughly discredited) belief in white superiority.

    Who is "we"? You're on record with the claim that racial prejudice is "empirically correct" so I'm not sure there's a "we" here.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    At work, in the dining room people often sit in racial group at break times. The catering department, of which I am part, tends not to do this as the teams are small and mixed race. It breaking away into
    Cultural groups are people being racist?
    I think racism is part of the equation. If the UK were truly cool about being multi-cultural, I don't think groups would form along those lines.
    Hugal wrote: »
    Are white people being supremacist?
    Some might be, but the most reasonable answer is that people group by what makes them comfortable. Racism and xenophobia will have played parts in that discomfort.
    Hugal wrote: »
    Unlike the US my indigenous people are white.
    Nope. And there is no solid record of what would count the same way as indigenous regardless. The movement into, and out of, what are now the British Isles was far too constant from the beginning.
    Hugal wrote: »
    How does that affect the situation?
    Indigenous represents people that the power structure disadvantages. White people are the power structure in the UK.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Unlike the US my indigenous people are white.
    Nope. And there is no solid record of what would count the same way as indigenous regardless. The movement into, and out of, what are now the British Isles was far too constant from the beginning.
    We can, however, say that biologically they were part of the Caucasoid population of Europe.

    Who were, or became, pale skinned. Quit with the shoehorning.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 14
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Unlike the US my indigenous people are white.
    Nope. And there is no solid record of what would count the same way as indigenous regardless. The movement into, and out of, what are now the British Isles was far too constant from the beginning.
    We can, however, say that biologically they were part of the Caucasoid population of Europe.

    Who were, or became, pale skinned. Quit with the shoehorning.
    Who's shoehorning. Because most contemporary British are white and the early settlers of the Isles were white does not make contemporary Brits indigenous.
    There is a reason why people in north-eastern Asia have a strong resemblance to indigenous people in the Americas. However, a Yakut woman is not an indigenous American, even if she was born in Texas. Even if her great, great, great grandparents were all born in Texas. Not how it works.
    Regardless, you are ignoring that being white in the UK, indigenous or not, is not the same as being Native Indian in America or aboriginal in Australia.
  • What would you define as an indigenous Brit ?
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Who's shoehorning.
    You are.
    Because most contemporary British are white and the early settlers of the Isles were white does not make contemporary Brits indigenous.

    The British Isles were scoured down to the bedrock during the last ice age. Any people who had previously lived there had left, and it was only repopulated once the ice had retreated. The first resettlers were from mainland Europe (below the ice line), most likely initially from Iberia, using the land bridge and spread from there. Most white Britons are descended from these early settlers. Latter waves of immigration stirred the gene pool a little, but not to any great extent, and most of the invaders were from the same genetic heritage as the settled people anyway.

    So, yes, contemporary Britons are as indigenous as you're going to get, considering that unless you're an African still living in the Rift Valley, your ancestors will have migrated to get to where you are now. Not indigenous in terms of an oppressed minority, sure, but indigenous in terms of 'this is where our ancestors lived', yes.

    It doesn't make us special, though. It's just an interesting fact.
  • ShubenacadieShubenacadie Shipmate
    edited August 14
    It looks as if people are talking at cross purposes here. Doc Tor is using the word 'indigenous' in its 'plain' dictionary sense -- 'originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native' (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2011 edition). Lilbuddha is using it in the more specialised sense of indigenous peoples marginalised by later arrivals, as defined here.

    Perhaps we need a clearer way of distinguishing the two -- assuming it's too late to choose a different word (which in any case might be equally ambiguous, unless invented specially), and if a phrase like 'marginalised indigenous populations' is too cumbersome, maybe using a capital letter for the specialised meaning would do.
  • Capitalising is a bit subtle - I didn’t realise the UN had a system - perhaps UN recognised indigenous or just UN indigenous ?
  • Indigenous in western Canada.
    The Cree people which are the largest First Nations group in Canada originated between Lake Superior and James Bay - Ontario. They were starting to expand west and then established trading relations with the French in New France (Lower Canada, the piece of Québec along the St Lawrence River). They aren't the original inhabitants here, but they've been here since the later 1600s. So they are indigenous and native here before the rest of us. (There's enough of them to really matter, about 16% of the population are part of recognized groups. 20-25% in total. )

    Cree people joined up with French, and with Scottish traders. They had families. This created another aboriginal people called Métis. They're legally of different status than people with "treaty status", but have their own indigenous rights. (The Métis lost two wars against the British, one in Manitoba and one is Saskatchewan.)

    I think what ends up happening is that at some point in time, the idea of who is the original inhabitants is crystallized. Here because the British wanted to "organize" the land and open Rupert's Land to European settlement before Americans would infiltrate and try to take over. We have the group that massacred Custer (good job!) living on a Reserve near Saskatoon (Dakota Whitecap Sioux). They aren't indigenous to the area, but have that status here anyway.

    It seems to me that in the UK, you've decided that the white people mix up until the end of the middle ages circa 1500 is the original inhabitants. It isn't true, but it is truthy.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    It seems to me that in the UK, you've decided that the white people mix up until the end of the middle ages circa 1500 is the original inhabitants. It isn't true, but it is truthy.

    Apart from some lowlanders, the genetic variation of the population is pretty static until the late 18th century, and probably fairly static until the 19th, early 20th.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    It seems to me that in the UK, you've decided that the white people mix up until the end of the middle ages circa 1500 is the original inhabitants. It isn't true, but it is truthy.

    Apart from some lowlanders, the genetic variation of the population is pretty static until the late 18th century, and probably fairly static until the 19th, early 20th.

    How is this known? Invasions of Romans, Angles, Saxons, French, who else?
  • The genetic variation in Britain in 390 was very different than it was in 1100.
  • What about the Picts, and other such folk?

    Thx.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    What about the Picts, and other such folk?

    Thx.

    Picts, Celts, various Roman soldiery (presumably a comparatively small number), Anglos, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, various other Vikings, Normans (upper crust mostly). They didn't all start in Blighty, they came in waves.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    It looks as if people are talking at cross purposes here. Doc Tor is using the word 'indigenous' in its 'plain' dictionary sense -- 'originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native' (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2011 edition). Lilbuddha is using it in the more specialised sense of indigenous peoples marginalised by later arrivals, as defined here.
    Doc Tor is not a right-wing extremist. But the instance on calling white Britons indigenous is the very language used by right-wing extremists to marginalise immigrants. So even if I agreed with Doc Tor on his definition, insisting on using a word in a conversion where it is doesn't fit makes it irrelevant at best.
    In short, for purposes of this conversation, whether white Brits are indigenous doesn't bloody matter.
  • Re Roman soldiery:

    I did some poking around. (Searched on "were roman legions racially diverse".) Roman soldiers were a pretty diverse bunch. So they may well have contributed their genetic material.

    This is evidently a VERY volatile idea. For an example:

    "A Kerfuffle About Diversity in the Roman Empire: How a children’s cartoon ignited a debate about skin color in Roman Britain, and what it has to do with genetics" (The Atlantic).
    Note: There's a link to the cartoon video just under the picture. I haven't followed it, so viewer beware. It was made for children, though.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    That article has a further link to one in New Scientist (Ancient invaders transformed Britain, but not its DNA) describing a study that found that of the various invaders, only the Anglo-Saxons made an appreciable genetic contribution to the mainland Caucasian population, which is dominated by DNA inherited from prior settlers.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Invaders. From the BBC link I posted earlier:
    Throughout recorded history the island has consisted of multiple cultural groups and identities. Many of these groupings looked outwards, across the seas, for their closest connections - they did not necessarily connect naturally with their fellow islanders, many of whom were harder to reach than maritime neighbours in Ireland or continental Europe.
    Which corresponds with the Newscientist link. So, the the distinct populations in the British Isles would share DNA, and likely culture, with the populations they came from on mainland Europe. Further diluting the concept of indigenous Britons.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    edited August 15
    Well of course they share DNA with the populations they came from - who doesn't? What else would it mean to for one population to "come from" another? That doesn't mean any claim to be indigenous is diluted, it just means they're descended from other human beings.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited August 15
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    It looks as if people are talking at cross purposes here. Doc Tor is using the word 'indigenous' in its 'plain' dictionary sense -- 'originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native' (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2011 edition). Lilbuddha is using it in the more specialised sense of indigenous peoples marginalised by later arrivals, as defined here.
    Doc Tor is not a right-wing extremist. But the instance on calling white Britons indigenous is the very language used by right-wing extremists to marginalise immigrants. So even if I agreed with Doc Tor on his definition, insisting on using a word in a conversion where it is doesn't fit makes it irrelevant at best.
    In short, for purposes of this conversation, whether white Brits are indigenous doesn't bloody matter.

    Not sure if this is where Doc Tor and Hugal were going, but I think it does make a difference inasmuch as it points to a place where the UK and the US conversations about race are different.

    In the US, if someone has a problem with black people, then that is pretty obviously a problem with race.

    In the UK, the conversation about race is mixed up with a conversation about immigration. So someone can rationalise racism by saying what they're really worried about is the strain on the NHS, fragmentation of communities, and pressure on jobs, and equally someone can sound (or be made to sound) pretty racist when they genuinely are worried about those things.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    OK so what about the Caribbean? Are the current people group indigenous or was it original peoples.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But the instance on calling white Britons indigenous is the very language used by right-wing extremists to marginalise immigrants. So even if I agreed with Doc Tor on his definition, insisting on using a word in a conversion where it is doesn't fit makes it irrelevant at best.
    In short, for purposes of this conversation, whether white Brits are indigenous doesn't bloody matter.

    No, but yes. If you insist that white Brits are not indigenous to the British Isles, then no one is going to take you seriously about anything else you have to say about race. If you insist that it's not important that white Brits are indigenous to the British Isles, that's a different conversation - but it's going to be much better to simply acknowledge the fact and move on.

    What British history shows is that these islands have been invaded by different cultures, not by different races. Celtic culture was pushed to the fringes by Saxon culture (Roman culture was largely erased). Viking culture pushed down from the north, and Norman culture up from the south. The Norman and Viking lords replaced the Saxon lords, but the peasantry remained the same.

    But thinking about it, the Enclosure Act, the Clearances, and the Industrial Revolution invoked a greater cultural change than any of the waves of migration. WWI again utterly altered Britain. Even talking to my mum about her childhood (she was 3 when WWII started), it's as if she's describing a different country. I had echoes of it, growing up in the countryside, but my life and hers were extraordinarily divergent. I might be (partly) descended from the people who built Stonehenge, Silbury Hill, the Uffington White Horse, wrote the Lindesfarne Gospels and Beowulf, and fought battles at Baddon and Stamford Bridge - but there is no connection in culture. We are a different people to them.

    And that's why British white nationalism is stupid.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Not sure if this is where Doc Tor and Hugal were going, but I think it does make a difference inasmuch as it points to a place where the UK and the US conversations about race are different.

    In the US, if someone has a problem with black people, then that is pretty obviously a problem with race.

    In the UK, the conversation about race is mixed up with a conversation about immigration.

    I'm pretty sure that U.S. discussions of immigration are also mixed up with race. You may have heard of the American president's problems with immigrants from certain places.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    OK so what about the Caribbean? Are the current people group indigenous or was it original peoples.
    Whilst there is some indigenous DNA in portions of some populations, there is not continuous cultural link. So, IMO, no.
  • Unless you think indigenous people spring up out of the dirt or that land invariably belongs to the descendants of the first humans who set foot there, this deep dive into DNA is not useful in a discussion of contemporary white supremacy.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    It looks as if people are talking at cross purposes here. Doc Tor is using the word 'indigenous' in its 'plain' dictionary sense -- 'originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native' (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2011 edition). Lilbuddha is using it in the more specialised sense of indigenous peoples marginalised by later arrivals, as defined here.
    Doc Tor is not a right-wing extremist. But the instance on calling white Britons indigenous is the very language used by right-wing extremists to marginalise immigrants. So even if I agreed with Doc Tor on his definition, insisting on using a word in a conversion where it is doesn't fit makes it irrelevant at best.
    In short, for purposes of this conversation, whether white Brits are indigenous doesn't bloody matter.

    Not sure if this is where Doc Tor and Hugal were going, but I think it does make a difference inasmuch as it points to a place where the UK and the US conversations about race are different.

    In the US, if someone has a problem with black people, then that is pretty obviously a problem with race.

    In the UK, the conversation about race is mixed up with a conversation about immigration. So someone can rationalise racism by saying what they're really worried about is the strain on the NHS, fragmentation of communities, and pressure on jobs, and equally someone can sound (or be made to sound) pretty racist when they genuinely are worried about those things.
    IME it is inaccurate to separate out the economic fear from the xenophobia because they go hand in hand. Especially in this day and age where it takes but a second to find ties between immigration and a strengthened economy. It is the racist/xenophobe rhetoric that spreads the inaccurate view of immigrant = economic threat. In other words, people believe the threat because it aligns with their established belief, or welcome the belief because it helps focus a fear on a tangible target. Same result either way.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Unless you think indigenous people spring up out of the dirt or that land invariably belongs to the descendants of the first humans who set foot there, this deep dive into DNA is not useful in a discussion of contemporary white supremacy.

    It is and it isn't. It's useful in the sense that it undermines a leg of (certainly English) white nationalism - they will say something about their heritage and their ancestors and, if you can get them to sit down and talk with you, you can show them it means jack shit. That we, and the Scandis and the Irish and the Germans and the French all share that same heritage and we have the same ancestors, and that there isn't English DNA. From there, we can move on to what is Englishness - today's UKIP/EDL stalwart having very, very little in common with past cultures: almost everything that they see, say, do or believe has arisen in the last 50-100 years.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Unless you think indigenous people spring up out of the dirt or that land invariably belongs to the descendants of the first humans who set foot there, this deep dive into DNA is not useful in a discussion of contemporary white supremacy.
    White nationalists use the term to legitimise hate. White, not quite nationalists let the rhetoric absolve them from engaging in the debate. Between white nationalism and multiculturalism, there is an infinite gradation. Most people live somewhere in the middle values and that is what makes talking about white nationalism uncomfortable.
  • Okay, I can see how talking about the fluidity of populations/ cultures/ genetics takes the wind out of many a nationalist sail. I'm leery, though, of feeding the potential implication that if some people can trace their lineage to some "indigenous" group, that they really do have some special claim to a particular patch of land. There are claims of "autochthony", with varying degrees of legitimacy, that are used to back demands for ethnic cleansing or segregation. My family in Malaysia have been there for generations but because they are Chinese they are not considered "sons of the soil" and have fewer rights; certain nationalist hotheads call them "guests."
This discussion has been closed.