• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does white America have nothing to do with White Supremacy?

Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
140
Reaction score
53
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
In discussing the fundamental issue of how to affect change in a backwards culture, one has to be confrontational. We saw this in the civil rights movement in the United States:

It is pretty indisputable that most white Americans were not engaed in actively murdering or lynching black americans (from the post civil war era up to the civil rights movement of the 1960s). However, most leaders of the civil rights movement did not react to reports of lynchings or murders of black americans by saying "white people have nothing to do with white supremacy." It was just the opposite. Civil rights leaders made sure that they held White America, at large, responsible. This made sense. Afterall, even though only a very small miniority of White Americans were actively engaged in this conduct it was "White America" and "White Culture" that was ENABLING this conduct to a large degree. It was important to highlight that even though many white Americans were not actively killing black Americans, too many white Americans were either indifferent or tacitily approving of the conduct of a few. Of course many white Americans were actively fighting alongside black Americans in the name of civil rights, but this didn't matter because they knew white America, at large, had a problem.

My point is that the success of the civil rights movement, in fundamentally changing the American landscape, depended in large part on holding White America at large culpable for the terrorization of Black Americans. Which leads to my question why have the very same liberals who may have been marching for civil rights and holding White America accountable for a very small minority of White Americans, not holding the Islamic world to the same accountability. While only a relatively small number of muslims belong to terrorist organizations aren't there many more who are either tacititly approving their conduct, or are indifferent.

You repeatedly hear "Islam has nothing to do with Islamic Terrorism"? Is this true? and if so Does white America have nothing to do with White Supremacy?
 
Well, you do have an awful lot of people who say that all white people are complicit in perpetuating "white privilege" and all the bad things which go along with it simply by being white.

These people, of course, are backwards idiots.
 
Well, you do have an awful lot of people who say that all white people are complicit in perpetuating "white privilege" and all the bad things which go along with it simply by being white.

These people, of course, are backwards idiots.

Im not sure I think they may have a point to a certain degree. Culpability operates in many shades. However, one can't help but see the irony in that many people who are willing to extend culpability to such an utterly vast degree to their own "white culture" are not willing to do so to another culture "Islam." Maybe westerners these days are just overly introspective and in some sense need to start comparing themselves to other cultures to get a better handle on whats good and bad in their own society.
 
Only actual racists, and morons denying majority privilege and falsely labeling minority organizations as racist, are responsible.
 
Im not sure I think they may have a point to a certain degree. Culpability operates in many shades. However, one can't help but see the irony in that many people who are willing to extend culpability to such an utterly vast degree to their own "white culture" are not willing to do so to another culture "Islam." Maybe westerners these days are just overly introspective and in some sense need to start comparing themselves to other cultures to get a better handle on whats good and bad in their own society.

No, I think you're right -- I think there are many people who would buy into the "white privilege" charge who would lose their **** if you tried to apply the same thinking to Jihadist terrorism.
 
Only actual racists, and morons denying majority privilege and falsely labeling minority organizations as racist, are responsible.

What is "majority privilege"?

East Asians do better than Whites in many walks of life that are often complained about by liberals and minorities. Should we claim yellow privilege? Are Asians a majority? I'm not sure what you mean by this.
 
What is "majority privilege"?

Look it up. The concept is taught in high school level sociology. As you learn about it, remember that specific race is incidental.

East Asians do better than Whites in many walks of life that are often complained about by liberals and minorities. Should we claim yellow privilege? Are Asians a majority? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

There are more Asian gang members than black. You're using selective data to push a false narrative.
 
Look it up. The concept is taught in high school level sociology. As you learn about it, remember that specific race is incidental.



There are more Asian gang members than black. You're using selective data to push a false narrative.

I don't give two ****s about what is indoctrinated into the minds of children in highschool. In fact, I understand the "concept" of majority privilege but don't understand how the majority alone accounts for inequality. It's not as simple as that. Things like average IQs, single motherhood, and culture contribute a lot as well.

When people complain about inequality, they don't complain about numbers of gang members by race. They complain that, for example, whites typically make more money on average than blacks. However, the same is true that East Asians, on average, make more money than whites. The same is true with crime rates, education, housing, careers, etc...
 
I don't give two ****s about what is indoctrinated into the minds of children in highschool.

You recommend children not get a high school education? Wow.

In fact, I understand the "concept" of majority privilege but don't understand how the majority alone accounts for inequality.

No one claims that. You've no grasp of the concept.

When people complain about inequality, they don't complain about numbers of gang members by race. They complain that, for example, whites typically make more money on average than blacks. However, the same is true that East Asians, on average, make more money than whites. The same is true with crime rates, education, housing, careers, etc...

False. Where did you get this narrative?
 
You recommend children not get a high school education? Wow.



No one claims that.



False. Where did you get this narrative?

Starts out with a strawman.

Then you need to explain yourself more. Your original argument sounded very one dimensional.

What exactly about that is false?
 
In discussing the fundamental issue of how to affect change in a backwards culture, one has to be confrontational. We saw this in the civil rights movement in the United States:

It is pretty indisputable that most white Americans were not engaed in actively murdering or lynching black americans (from the post civil war era up to the civil rights movement of the 1960s). However, most leaders of the civil rights movement did not react to reports of lynchings or murders of black americans by saying "white people have nothing to do with white supremacy." It was just the opposite. Civil rights leaders made sure that they held White America, at large, responsible. This made sense. Afterall, even though only a very small miniority of White Americans were actively engaged in this conduct it was "White America" and "White Culture" that was ENABLING this conduct to a large degree. It was important to highlight that even though many white Americans were not actively killing black Americans, too many white Americans were either indifferent or tacitily approving of the conduct of a few. Of course many white Americans were actively fighting alongside black Americans in the name of civil rights, but this didn't matter because they knew white America, at large, had a problem.

My point is that the success of the civil rights movement, in fundamentally changing the American landscape, depended in large part on holding White America at large culpable for the terrorization of Black Americans. Which leads to my question why have the very same liberals who may have been marching for civil rights and holding White America accountable for a very small minority of White Americans, not holding the Islamic world to the same accountability. While only a relatively small number of muslims belong to terrorist organizations aren't there many more who are either tacititly approving their conduct, or are indifferent.

You repeatedly hear "Islam has nothing to do with Islamic Terrorism"? Is this true? and if so Does white America have nothing to do with White Supremacy?

Your theory is bull****

Whate America was not guilty of racism during the jim crow era

certain portions of the south were

The majority of whites did not act out of a sense of guilt but rather fairness
 
In discussing the fundamental issue of how to affect change in a backwards culture, one has to be confrontational. We saw this in the civil rights movement in the United States:

It is pretty indisputable that most white Americans were not engaed in actively murdering or lynching black americans (from the post civil war era up to the civil rights movement of the 1960s). However, most leaders of the civil rights movement did not react to reports of lynchings or murders of black americans by saying "white people have nothing to do with white supremacy." It was just the opposite. Civil rights leaders made sure that they held White America, at large, responsible. This made sense. Afterall, even though only a very small miniority of White Americans were actively engaged in this conduct it was "White America" and "White Culture" that was ENABLING this conduct to a large degree. It was important to highlight that even though many white Americans were not actively killing black Americans, too many white Americans were either indifferent or tacitily approving of the conduct of a few. Of course many white Americans were actively fighting alongside black Americans in the name of civil rights, but this didn't matter because they knew white America, at large, had a problem.

My point is that the success of the civil rights movement, in fundamentally changing the American landscape, depended in large part on holding White America at large culpable for the terrorization of Black Americans. Which leads to my question why have the very same liberals who may have been marching for civil rights and holding White America accountable for a very small minority of White Americans, not holding the Islamic world to the same accountability. While only a relatively small number of muslims belong to terrorist organizations aren't there many more who are either tacititly approving their conduct, or are indifferent.

You repeatedly hear "Islam has nothing to do with Islamic Terrorism"? Is this true? and if so Does white America have nothing to do with White Supremacy?

I see the correlation you are making here but they really aren't the same things. People can choose to embrace Islamic doctrine or not. People cannot choose their skin color.

So, okay. Looking around the world, with a few exceptions, the most prosperous nations are those with a predominantly white population. Why is this? IMO, this is not because white people are in any way superior or supreme, but it is because those with a predominantly white population are people who are remnants from the Roman Empire who were mostly Christian. And Christianity, of all religions, lends itself to organization, order, democracy, and liberty. Even those white people who are not Christian descended mostly from people who were and therefore were infused with the values whether or not they recognize them as Christian values.

Islam has its own expectations and culture but liberty, individual initiative, independence, and individual choice are not among them.
 
KKK Genes take many generations to eliminate
 
So did we look up the Muslim inventions? iPhone? Mathematics?
And would we rather be black or white in the United States?
Deafening silence from people who no conception of their white advantages since birth
 
So did we look up the Muslim inventions? iPhone? Mathematics?
And would we rather be black or white in the United States?
Deafening silence from people who no conception of their white advantages since birth

Iphone? Are you referring to Steve Jobs? He was half white-american / half arab, but if you saw him walking down the street you would think he was a white guy and I certainly don't think he ever identified as a Muslim. But yes Arabs did contribtute to our understanding of Alegebra.

Anyway this is a little bit of a non-sequiter. Do you think white America has something to do with racist Murders of miniority's even if they aren't doing the killing themselves? And if so does this same logic apply to muslims?
 
Anyway this is a little bit of a non-sequiter. Do you think white America has something to do with racist Murders of miniority's even if they aren't doing the killing themselves? And if so does this same logic apply to muslims?

A white denying the existence of majority privilege or labeling the NAACP racist is actively involved in perpetuating systemic privilege and th accompanying injustice against minorities. It's like a Muslim advocating terrorism. It's not a passive stance or disinterest.
 
Iphone? Are you referring to Steve Jobs? He was half white-american / half arab, but if you saw him walking down the street you would think he was a white guy and I certainly don't think he ever identified as a Muslim. But yes Arabs did contribtute to our understanding of Alegebra.

Not only have Muslims added to the human race understanding of the universe themselves but a large percent of Western generated knowledge would had disappear forever during the dark age but for the books that was save in the middle east and later return to the West by way of the crusades.
 
A white denying the existence of majority privilege or labeling the NAACP racist is actively involved in perpetuating systemic privilege and th accompanying injustice against minorities. It's like a Muslim advocating terrorism. It's not a passive stance or disinterest.

A white person denying the exitence of "majority privilege" is the same as advocating terrorism? I disagree. I think a white person advocating for killing non-whites is the same as a muslim advocating for terrorism.

Also is it just whites who have to apologize for existing in larger numbers in certain areas? Or does majority privilege apply to say a Japanese person in Japan or an Arab in Saudi Arabia?
 
A white person denying the exitence of "majority privilege" is the same as advocating terrorism? I disagree. I think a white person advocating for killing non-whites is the same as a muslim advocating for terrorism.

The point is, those engaged in denying majority privilege are actively involved in the perpetuation of it and the accompanying injustices. They are not tacit.

Also is it just whites who have to apologize for existing in larger numbers in certain areas?

There's no apology needed from anyone except racists and those that apologize for and support them. In majority privilege, race is incidental and not a driving factor.

And it's not about numbers (population demographics), it's about power (social dynamics) though those often coincide.

Or does majority privilege apply to say a Japanese person in Japan or an Arab in Saudi Arabia?

There is some argument for that regarding other minorities, but a global context is proper analysis. A white in Japan or SA is generally seen as money or education and as such is treated exceptionally.
 
Last edited:
The point is, those engaged in denying majority privilege are actively involved in the perpetuation of it and the accompanying injustices. They are not tacit.



There's no apology needed from anyone except racists and those that apologize for and support them. In majority privilege, race is incidental and not a driving factor.

And it's not about numbers (population demographics), it's about power (social dynamics) though those often coincide.



There is some argument for that regarding other minorities, but a global context is proper analysis. A white in Japan or SA is generally seen as money or education and as such is treated exceptionally.

Majorities not only have privilege, majorities rule, minorities get what the majority consents to and no more.
 
Majorities not only have privilege, majorities rule, minorities get what the majority consents to and no more.

The majority power will not act against the self-interest of the group - that's simple logic. Thus, the majority cannot be disadvantaged as a group. The majority does, unfortunately, through bigotry, stereotypes and self-interest, disadvantage minorities as a group. It's just the way the world works (proven by a mountain of scientific evidence) until education makes the injustice clear. Being white is not what drives the problem, being the majority is what drives the problem; race is incidental.
 
I could give a rats ass whether some minority only thinks of me as a white person with privilege.

Tough ****....and get a life!
 
The point is, those engaged in denying majority privilege are actively involved in the perpetuation of it and the accompanying injustices. They are not tacit.



There's no apology needed from anyone except racists and those that apologize for and support them. In majority privilege, race is incidental and not a driving factor.

And it's not about numbers (population demographics), it's about power (social dynamics) though those often coincide.



There is some argument for that regarding other minorities, but a global context is proper analysis. A white in Japan or SA is generally seen as money or education and as such is treated exceptionally.

I agree with your global analysis. Whites do have an advantage when they travel to non majority white countries compared with some other races and ethnicities.

However, you focus on the fact that Majorities act only in self-interest which is generally true however what do you make of anomalies such as Asian-Americans. For example, Asian Americans, while only about 7% of the total American population are beating whites in just about every objective social welfare measure.
Higher Median Income
Higher Rate of College Education
Lower incarceration Rate
Less likely to be killed by Police
Longer Life Expectancy
 
The majority power will not act against the self-interest of the group - that's simple logic. Thus, the majority cannot be disadvantaged as a group. The majority does, unfortunately, through bigotry, stereotypes and self-interest, disadvantage minorities as a group. It's just the way the world works (proven by a mountain of scientific evidence) until education makes the injustice clear. Being white is not what drives the problem, being the majority is what drives the problem; race is incidental.

Those who think that they have a grievance should of course take that up with the majority, I am all about free minds and free speech and THE ARENA FOR THE COMBAT OF IDEAS where we do our best one hopes to conduct a full and a fair fight though of course we do that for crap now days but...........at the end of the day the majority decides...... sometimes we agree that a super-majority is needed but as we just saw in the Senate that can go away at any time we choose.
 
I agree with your global analysis. Whites do have an advantage when they travel to non majority white countries compared with some other races and ethnicities.

I'm glad you see that. The reason is, in social dynamics, the majority is power not numbers. Wherever we go we maintain a global power advantage and are seen in that light.

However, you focus on the fact that Majorities act only in self-interest which is generally true however what do you make of anomalies such as Asian-Americans. For example, Asian Americans, while only about 7% of the total American population are beating whites in just about every objective social welfare measure.
Higher Median Income
Higher Rate of College Education
Lower incarceration Rate
Less likely to be killed by Police
Longer Life Expectancy

They don't only act in self interest. AA is an example of acting in the interest of society as a whole. They don't act against self interest - that's why the majority cannot be disadvantaged as a group by society.

Your claims regarding Asians are cherry picked from within larger stats, misconstrued analysis and conclusions and are misleading. The often spewed reason is "Asian culture". Racists like to tell us that "black culture" is the reason for gangs, while ignoring there are more Asian gang members than blacks and not claiming gang culture is Asian culture.
 
Back
Top Bottom