even BLM discourse typically strays into ethnic nationalism, either by advocating to supplant the white minority, or by black separatist nationalism.
Legit: I think the Liberal plan is implicitly “you can’t have oppression by an ethnic majority if you don’t have an ethnic majority,” but I don’t think they realize just how badly that can backfire.
During the Second World War, the Japanese Canadian population of coastal British Columbia was divided and resettled across the Canadian interior.
The Japanese Canadians did not concentrate anywhere. There were no resettled communities, only families and individuals. They did not live close to one another. They did not make new communities, out of a fear that they might once again become public enemies.
A few thousand left for Japan after the war was over. Those who stayed in Canada did not usually return to their homes in the Pacific exclusion area, which had been sold by civilian authorities at a profit.
The resettled families did not keep their language. They did not keep their culture. They kept friends among themselves, but they did not do it in public, and they did not pass it on to their children. Their children went to Anglophone schools. They made Anglophone friends.
And as the older generation died, it forgot. Their children grew up in a community that was not their own. But, for those children, it was different. This was their home now. This was their community.
Almost. They felt apart from it, somehow. Sometimes, by a word or a look, they felt as though they did not belong. They felt as though there was something missing. Sometimes they felt as though they did not know where they had come from. Sometimes they felt as though they did not know who they were.
They felt as though their parents had taken something from them. They had done it out of fear, or out of hope. The children had not understood what they were missing. Their parents understood it much too well.
As adults, they talked to one another, those with the same skin, with the same names, about that feeling of absence. Not often, but sometimes.
But they forgot those feelings, and those moments, most of the time. They lived and worked in a world that told them this was their community, and these were their people, and this was where they belonged.
Until it isn’t.
Until, suddenly, they remember.
Doesn’t this suggest Ethnic Nationalism, though?
Anonymous asked:
fierceawakening answered:
…someone who understood what i was trying to say, omfg
and also like… do people know what to Google? I do, but that’s because I’ve already been in SJ circles
I mean, like, I haven’t actually Googled “things that offend POC” (and wouldn’t) but I can easily imagine that it, or queries like it, might return exactly the sorts of result SJ types would not want un-woke-yet wypipo reading.
So it’s… my problem is it seems so much like advice from inside the circle. And… dude, we have a country to save. We need to be talking to people outside the circle, getting them to come in. And that means not setting up barriers like “don’t talk to me unless you are THIS woke”
Yeah, googling can produce some seriously bad results from time to time - like, right now, typing “did holocaust happen” into Google actually gives me a page titled … “Top 10 reasons why the holocaust didn’t happen” as its #1 search result … wtf.
SPLC did some time ago post a piece ( https://www.splcenter.org/20170118/google-and-miseducation-dylann-roof ) arguing that this sort of terrible google results to unfortunately-formulated queries was actually an important part of what got someone like racist mass murderer Dylann Roof drawn into violent white supremacism in the first place.
Which makes it … kinda odd to see that flippant “google it” type responses without any specifics (like, say, search phrases or date ranges or similar) are apparently still a thing.
This!
I wanted to say that too but I didn’t have the evidence ready to hand. Thank you!
I had a discussion with someone who, it turns out, was using “Whiteness” to mean “White supremacy” which last time I checked they maintained should have been understood effortlessly by others to mean that. It’s three pages into the Google results with “Whiteness definition Sociology” before that meaning is mentioned.
A link to eg. that Everyday Feminism or Ta-Nehisi Coates article that explains whatever is WAY more helpful and less likely to send an already irritated and uninformed person into the hands of people who violently disagree with Social Justice.
That, yes.
Honestly I really don’t like these weird… expanded definitions of “white supremacy” much either. I mean, I think it’s worthwhile to mention that white people who fancy ourselves nice and nonoppressive can hold views that are actually grounded in some weird racist shit.
But if whiteness itself is “white supremacy,” how the hell do we accurately describe what happened in Charlottesville, or the ideology those people openly endorsed?
> Everyday Feminism or Ta-Nehisi Coates
Not sure if that’s even productive. Maybe Bannon was right, and the whiteness=white-supremacist identity politics equivocation will make white people vote for white identitarians because there is no escape anyway.
EF feels like a parody of itself.
It’s difficult for me to see that kind of strategic equivocation as *not* bad-faith-motivated.
Relating to the Japanese kimono issue, a surprisingly thorny topic is Chinese traditional dress from Qing dynasty (1644-1912).
This is the most recent “old China” costume available, and is seen in many iconic movies and TV dramas. But occasionally people object to it being worn in public, eg. for ceremonial purposes, due to all the awkward associations it has.
Firstly, the Qing dynasty was Manchu, not Han. This really should not matter, as in theory China includes dozens of distinct ethnic groups, and anyway Manchu is practically indistinguishable from Han at this point. But still, Qing is a foreign dynasty, much like Yuan (Mongols), and insufficiently Chinese.
Secondly, the later Qing dynasty was an era of humiliation for China, when the weakened empire was carved up by European empires and Japan, losing a lot of wars and signing a lot of unequal treaties under duress. So it’s a historical period that does not appeal to many nationalists.
Thirdly, the Qing dynasty is “old China”, feudalism, the bad old days, everything that new China got away from. There can’t be anything good about it, otherwise what would that say about new China. The younger generation might not feel this message as strongly, but it’s instructive to look at the opening ceremony for the Beijing Olympics, which featured a historical retrospective which jumped from the Ming Dynasty to the 1990s, consigning the Qing, Nationalists, and Mao all to the memory hole.
So what is a nationalist cosplayer to do? Revive Hanfu, of course!
Or to put it differently,
if 50% of the population is bisexual,
or the gender ratio is distorted,
or overall hormone levels and mating strategies significantly change,
then it makes sense to revisit the idea of multiple marriage for normies.
(Much like, for vegans, vatmeat becoming available means revisiting the idea of eating meat!)
A social synthesis for a healthy society depends on various conditions/truths about that society. The rules for a society of near-immortals are naturally going to be different from the rules for a society with a life expectancy of 40.
“God put this drive very strongly inside males so that we can be providers and supporters for more than one woman,” Mr. Trad said.
Nominative determinism strikes again!
the virgin monogamist vs. the Trad bigamist?
[583] Dr. McDermott summarizes the literature demonstrating the effects of the practice of polygyny on women, children and men, and concludes that many negative consequences touch upon each of the groups.
[584] Women in polygynous relationships are at increased risk of mental health problems as a result of higher rates of domestic violence, including sexual abuse, and co-wife conflict. They also tend to fare worse financially.
[585] Children of polygynous unions have worse outcomes than their monogamously born counterparts, as measured in a variety of ways. They face a higher risk of mortality. Young girls are often married to much older men and engage in early sexual behaviour, which has repercussions for their life expectancy and physical well-being. Where girls give birth frequently, shortened inter-birth intervals pose a heightened risk for various problems which can affect both the mother and the child.
[586] As for effects on men, Dr. McDermott notes that polygyny causes the proportion of young unmarried men to be high, up to a ratio of 150 men to 100 women. This leads to a need for a polygynist community (at least a closed one) to excise at least half of the junior boys, the so-called “Lost Boys”. “Junior boys who are thrown out of such societies at much greater rates in order to make a sexually asymmetrical system viable, often receive less education and achieve lower levels of employment, as they are forced onto a society with few skills and no social support” (at para. 33).
[587] Junior males who are unable to find wives represent “a class of largely poor, young, unmarried men who are statistically predisposed to violence” (at para. 34).
2011 BCSC 1588 Reference (re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada)
Call me a Modernist, but this is one aspect of ancient Traditionalism that can be left behind, never to return until either sex or sexual orientation has become far more flexible (under Transhumanism) than it is today.
Suppose there is a girl who was born when her mother was sixteen. And her mother was born when her grandmother was sixteen. And suppose this burden of caring for a child at the age of 16 has contributed to an intergenerational cycle of poverty that has harmed her family and her education.
A boy of sixteen comes to her and says (roughly translated),
“Hey girl, your mother recklessly had a kid at age 16, and her mom recklessly had a kid at age 16, so you should get with me and recklessly have a kid at age 16! After all, if they didn’t do the same thing, you wouldn’t exist!”
Is this a good idea? I mean, after all, if they didn’t do it, she wouldn’t exist.
No, it is not a good idea. In fact, this argument does not make sense…
unless, implicit in the argument, you have access to a time machine and can change the past.
However, if one did have a time machine, that opens up an entirely different bucket of ethics which this argument completely fails to address.
This applies to abortion regardless of whether other arguments are also valid - “but if your mother aborted you…” implies time travel.
This applies to immigration, regardless of whether other arguments are also valid - “but if immigration laws were different…” implies time travel.
Anonymous asked:
argumate answered:
no no to avoid call outs you have to exist in a state of quantum uncertainty where you neither interact nor not interact with any other cultures
Alright, alright, fine.
We’ll just get all the white people to sign up for the various PoC cultures, then have a final battle to the death in the Australian outback using those cultures’ traditional weaponry. The winning faction gets to be the official most #Woke and all the remaining white people will be genetically modified to fit into it.
East Asian people shamelessly adopting/stealing (a debate to be had there) black American music is a huge growth industry right now. The Teriyaki Boyz were way ahead of their time.
Ironically you could argue that they’ve also appropriated the act of appropriating black culture, because that’s a foundation of white American culture
Do you believe in cultural intellectual property rights, or not?
That’s the real question posed.
rocketverliden asked:
Nah, actually I was thinking that there are lots of other southerners we could choose from for replacement statues, specifically ones that weren’t all “rah rah slavery” and so on. Some of them could be a lot more modern, others from before the war, and so on. U.S. founding fathers from those states would be the ideal option for many of them - it reaffirms membership in the US, still has lots of historical weight, and so on.
They shouldn’t be more black than the proportional share of the population, though.
The goal here is to provide an alternative, positive regional identity for the white southerners that is not rooted in the racism inherent to the Confederacy. (And the racism was inherent - at least one governor or whatever went on about how yeah, this was about slavery, and yeah, this was about “the inferiority of the negro race” and so on.)
History is big. There is a lot that can be chosen from when we decide what to emphasize. There are many people, with many stories. With this, we could step sideways.
(The exception is generic confederate soldier statues, which should stay. After all, the side that wins the war usually thinks it’s the ethical side, since most factions fighting a war think they’re the ethical side, so removing them just means legitimizing the idea of removing monuments to soldiers of losing sides in general.)
However, I don’t think the capital-L Left, in broad strokes, wants the southern whites to have a positive southern identity. I think it wants to crush them in order to celebrate itself and its righteousness.
It doesn’t like the founding fathers, either. It doesn’t like the United States of America.
It could celebrate the power of the very ideals this nation’s founders espoused as the source of some of the very power that overturned the cruelty they allowed at this nation’s founding. But most of those people were white men, so they won’t.
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.
