Should we worry about racism towards white people?

Post Reply New Topic

Yep. It is pretty odd.

It's pretty complex. Many people actually do consider Turkish people to be "white." Those who don't consider them "white" consider the fact that they are Muslim in the overall equation. To some people, "Muslim" automatically means "nonwhite."

Within police reports here in NYC, both Arabs and East Indians were considered to be "white" in the old days. Nowadays, the Indians are considered to be their own "race." Arabs are still considered "white."

Yeah those people are Caucasian, I think most people would consider Albanians or Bosnians white even though they are also Muslim. What I also find silly is people who are 1/4 black 3/4 white are considered black by lots of people.

In the old days, in some parts of the southern United States, one was considered "black" if that person was 1/32 black.

Being 1/32 black means that one great-great-great grandparent was black. The other 31 people in that line of descent were white.

The racism against black people in the US was extremely profound in the past. The racism against black people in other places, most of the time, wasn't nearly as profound.

Many times, after a black male person was lynched, the person was castrated as well.

Never heard White people ever described as "nefarious" nor "cultish". And saying that "the media" (which in the US is mostly composed of, and owned by White people) need to be reminded that all folks in their own race "are not evil" is nonsense wrapped in nonsense.

The elite want to divide people one way to do this is giving a platform to people who attack whites.

Most non aristocratic Mexicans are Mestizo (White-Indian mix), or are pure Indian, and thus do in fact look quite distinct from European ancestry Americans (who are usually only of European ancestry, though often of mixed within Europe ancestry).

one side of the UK press has for some time been trying to push an agenda of 'whites are hard done by'. IMO it's just another way of trying to stir up hatred and division, which they have a history of doing.

Well, people with lighter skin are less likely to be shot by the cops for no reason. That's a fact.

A lot of people see this as an attack on lighter-skinned people (even though it clearly isn't) and so they develop an "Us white people have to stick together!" attitude.

Eventually, a few hyper-imaginative paranoids join this movement and so people start concocting pseudo-historical, mythology about how truly amazing the white race is ... even though the concept of "white unity" is extremely modern.

That's already something which exists. What might really boil your noodle is considering a future in which white Americans are demonised and in which they are also a demographic minority.

It's a redundant consideration either way, to my mind. The answer to racism is not racism, and it's especially not the answer to perceived racism. Moral principles which lack reciprocation are piss-poor moral principles.

Citation needed. Especially regarding the underlined text.

I think this question boils down differently in different places.

South Africa? It's a very big concern as it could very well turn to atrocity in the next five years, and there's nowhere else where things look quite that bad.

Europe, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand? It certainly erodes our civic nationalism and we should probably be doing whatever we can to find better inroads to problem solving than allowing racism really from any side. I think the only valid sense of 'us vs. them' exists when one group can't do anything, at all, about their situation. In cultures that are based on civic nationalism and trying to solve problems it's not meet for it to become a fixture or to be excused by 'It's not racism if you don't have institutional power' in the long run. If things are crap then temporary anger is understandable but if it becomes race identity vs. race identity and that takes on its own vitality then we're headed toward some nasty times and doing so voluntarily out of our own pigheadedness.

I would certainly agree with the above.

It happened in Zimbabwe (to the extreme detriment of Zimbabwe, by the way).

Yeah. There's a term for that. They call it the "one-drop rule".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

The "one-drop rule" is one of the stupidest rules ever created by humankind. During the Middle Ages, Jews who converted to Christianity were often accepted into European society. This means that a very large portion of white people are part Jewish.

A lot of the British upper classes are in fact distantly mixed race apparently Princess Diana was part Indian, Indian probably being the most common admixture. The richest Citizen the Duke of Westminster is a descent of a black Russian Noble.

This will never happen because, even if non-whites become the majority in America, the ruling class will continue to be white.

Addionally, America is moving towards racial equality, not anti-white hate.

The idea that the ruling class care about anyone below them is laughable, they will gladly demonise poor whites to stay in power.