Essay talk:Why "White Pride" is a sham

Boo-yah! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
 * Feel free to link, edit, etc. I'm not feeling over-literate today.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 18:14, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 * When I have time, I have a lot of thoughts to add to this. Mostly to flesh out things you already have here. Researcher 18:40, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 * I appreciate that. I just sort of puked out a foundation.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 18:43, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 * Im in yr esya crrectin yr topys human  19:08, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Black pride is racist too. I'm sick of this.
 * then leave.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:06, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 * Racism is hating a group of people for no reason other than race. Mistrusting (Or even hating) the people who oppressed you for hundreds of years and continue to do so today is not racist, it is how humans respond to oppression. I think we should all try to get along, but if you'll deny the wounds left upon minorities by whites in the west, you're a damned fool.UncleHo (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't decide between "supremist", supremecist", etc. Any is fine with me.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:08, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 * OK, I think "supremacist" is the common usage, but then I thought you might have been making a joke, so I asked in the edit comment. human  19:19, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 * I wasn't going for humor, but now you've put an image of the Supremes in my head to go with this.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:40, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Pal, you seemed to suggest that we could edit your essay. I hope my addition meets with your approval. Researcher 19:52, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 * It was more of an invitation than an implication. Much appreciated.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 20:07, 28 November 2007 (EST)

No oppression of whites?
There IS oppresstion and dicrimination towards whites. There's affirmative action, and we should also maintain pride in our race since it is soon to be a minority (reason: Mexican hordes) I am proud to be whi...I mean an American, or something.,. 11:04, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Ethnicity
This is just a PC term for race. Does anyone dispute that? If not then that sentace should be deleted.122.105.221.214 05:49, 7 December 2008 (EST)
 * There is actually a difference. "Race" is a much broader, less well defined term than ethnicity.  Researcher 16:30, 7 December 2008 (EST)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(anthropology) for definitions of race. They all mean just about the same thing. What is your definition of 'ethnicity'. 122.105.219.12 10:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't get this
So what your saying white people can't be proud of their heritage? I'm european, can i not be proud to be european in the same way an african-american can be proud? I don't get this. I proud of where i came from, where i came from happend to endow me with white skin, therefor i am proud to be white. theres nothing racist about it Oh and black people hating white people for oppression, it still hate, regardless of what your reasoning is--BenB (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem, as I see it, with "white pride" as opposed to "black pride" or "native pride" is that "black" or "native" indicates a particular culture and heritage, whereas "white" does not. I see nothing racist about "British pride", "Scandinavian pride", "Russian pride" or even "German pride", but "white pride" seems to imply that you're proud not because you belong to a particular culture/heritage, but because you don't belong to a number of these.  For me, that's racism.  As for me personally, I'm not a fan of nationalism, so I'm not really "proud" of my heritage in any way. PhillipA (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What PhillipA said. Blue eyes and red hair may also be consequences of a european heritage, but it would seem nonsensical to proclaim "blue eye and ginger pride." Perhaps it's best to avoid the skin colour when expressing pride in your heritage, since it's not as if you or your ancestors set out with the goal of achieving white skin. I struggle as well to understand nationalism. Pride in a country is good, but it's too easily invoked by some guy with his arse on a barstool - effectively riding along on the achievements of others. Put another way, the Scots may have an impressive heritage, but it doesn't follow that all Scotsmen are worthy of admiration, or that they should take pride in their ability to grow ears. White pride definitely sends the wrong message, as does black pride in my opinion. The latter is considered more acceptable in the west because of historical injustices, and the former is almost entirely associated with racist nutjobs celebrating the fact that they received an arbitrary set of numbers in the genealogical lottery. -- 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Black" or "native" indicates a particular culture and heritage. Bunk. One cannot place all "black" and "American Indian" cultures in single lumps in that manner, any more than one can place all "white" cultures in a single lump. The problem with "white pride" (also a problem in fringe "black pride" groups) is that it is not really about pride in being white, but just a smokescreen for hating anyone who is not white. 16:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the smokescreen aspect that certainly lead PalMD to put "sham" in the title. It's using something supposedly positive for something that is, in actuality, negative. Now, the thing I don't get, is the whole "pride" thing. To me, pride is something that you take in your achievements. As people are basically born black, white, gay, blue-eyed or ginger, it's not much of an achievement. Yes, struggling successfully against oppression is an achievement but that's not what people want to celebrate and admire. But then again, that's just me taking issue with semantics so isn't really too important. 17:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be something in human nature which makes people "proud" of things they have not worked for. Perhaps there should be a "Tall pride" movement for tall people and a "Short pride" movement for those closer to the earth. Makes about as much sense as "White pride" - as Armondikov says, nobody worked at being born white.--BobIt's windy! 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ethnic pride movements are, as I understand it, a celebration of the fact that the group in question has remained culturally distinct despite pressures to assimilate. That is certainly true of the American Indian movements. 17:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see TX rebut this with his "white/germanic/nordic/whatever pride is not a sham" spiel. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Who? What? Which? 17:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The douchebag who talks more than he listens and takes severe pride in his ethno-"religious" background. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have to play devil's advocate to make a rebuttal of this, as I am completely in agreement with PalMD on points addressed. 18:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you a lot of took pride in whatever ethnicity you claim to be. You probably think you've explained it tirelessly, but you don't make nearly as much sense as you think you do. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case, one would think that White Pride, being a group dedicated to racial prejudice despite pressure to assimilate into a more progressive and tolerant society, was equally valid... But I see where you're coming from there, and it explains it slightly more, although I don't see how it applies when you just go by skin colour alone (which you can't really "assimilate"), and going by preserving cultural attitudes alone provides needless divisiveness. 18:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem there is the conflation of phenotypic and cultural factors. For example, Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye is about the existential crisis of a black girl who wants to have blue eyes like Shirley Temple. Black pride was a reaction to that sort of attitude, that black people were ugly and inferior because they did not resemble the white people who were the only ones held up as paragons of beauty and excellence in those days. 18:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem there is the conflation of phenotypic and cultural factors. For example, Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye is about the existential crisis of a black girl who wants to have blue eyes like Shirley Temple. Black pride was a reaction to that sort of attitude, that black people were ugly and inferior because they did not resemble the white people who were the only ones held up as paragons of beauty and excellence in those days. 18:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Testing for race
Interestingly there's an article here about genetic testing. It highlights a Native American who didn't want to be tested. Presumably(?) in case it showed she wasn't as racially "pure" as she believed. 18:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts
As I believe it has been mentioned already, I see all these "pride" movements as attempts to steal someone else's credit. Some guy somewhere (an inventor, artists, fighter etc) does something and a whole bunch of people afterwards try to find a characteristic (they didn't work for) in order to stick themselves in and claim some of that.

It's not just colour prides, the exact same ideology, whatever its name, can be seen in a whole lot of "prides" around.
 * Examples:


 * A white pride-ist pretending that gothic cathedrals and such "belong" to them despite the fact that they, personally, couldn't carve the likeness of a potato out of butter.
 * A hick talking about how they "saved Europe" in WWII. Despite them having been born both after the event, and never having fired a bullet in a WWII war. (that's a favourite)
 * A hick again, talking about how "Americans" build the space shuttle or something, despite he, himself being unable to tell which way a rocket goes unless it has an arrow painted on it.
 * A team fan, talking about how "their team" won and how "they" (watch the "they") won/screwed Y team fans.
 * Examples of college dropouts that went and became rich. Ignoring of cource the amount of college dropouts that didn't.

I recognise zero prides around. A vietnameze architect has more in common with a renaissance architect than a European working 9 to 5 a photocopier will ever have. A rocket scientist in China has more in common with a rocket scientist in NASA than someone like Palin will ever have. If you haven't personally fought in a war, then you have no more in common with them than a native New Zealand fisherman. If you haven't build it, actually worked on it, touched it, put the goal yourself, you have no claim over it. Period. And some people need to be constantly reminded of that until they finally decide to focus on their individual existence and their cv.

The funny thing is that there is also the reverse of it in the form of "guilt" and "collective guilt" or something. Interestingly, these are fast to be claimed not so much by the people concerned but by others, which my observation is that they are going to be the same kind of ilk with the one believing in "Prides". (Of cource, pride-ists will always remember the famous composer from their country but not the famous pedophile from their country).
 * Examples:


 * If someone's grandpa was a murderer or something, then he is supposed to have a problem with it or something. (aka all kinds of "bloodline" ideologies)
 * As we know, the most current generation of Europeans are supposed to be indebted for WWII forever, to the most current generation of Americans. Even if they never started a war.
 * I am sure that according to terrorist logic somewhere, if an American kills someone, then all of them are guilty. Even a liberal guy in New York who might be even against the war. (Similarly, according to conservative logic, if a Muslim kills someone, then all of them are guilty)
 * Conservapedia's use of words like "professor values", when used in a conjunction with an article where a professor or something did something bad. (And of cource Nazis had a newspaper which was reporting all the crimes a "jew" did, and anti-immigrations nationalists will report all the crimes an "immigrant" did, and so on).
 * Examples of college dropouts that didn't become rich. Ignoring the amount of college dropouts that did.

Conclusion. It's BS. It's all BS. Frankly, I suspect that my opinion regarding this "phenomenon" is about the same with the opinion Ayn Rand would have, and I am sure that she would use words like "collectivist" and "parasites", by the metric ton. And in that case she would be right. No one but the actual creators have a right to pride of their actions. No one but the actual perpetrators of a crime should feel guilt.

I can see some value in movements whose point is essentially cancelling out attempts by said "pride-ists" to guilt trip them. (Like black, homosexual and feminist pride) But they are only good until their objectives are accomplished. They also suffer from the problem that, me for example, I might be against white pride, but I cannot claim "black pride" can I? So they exclude members sympathetic to their cause, when someone could simply have unified "anti-racist" and "anti-sexist" movements instead.Sen (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Id acknowledge the sensibility of a hick taking a pride in American achievements in space exploration, since his tax dollars help fund it. To disallow that is like saying that the canteen staff at a hospital play no part in helping save lives. 17:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think a college dropout talking about other dropouts doing well is doing it out of pride for the group of "college dropouts". I would think it has more to do with rationalization than pride. Internetmoniker (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. And various miners all over the world might have mined ored which were later used to forge important components. And I don't recognise the right of such pride to either. Why? Because said hick could be paying taxes all day, and said miners could be mining ore all day and they would never have created a rocket until the end of their lives. Personally, I don't even recognise the guy who authorized the program as having any claim at it. Give me a pen and I can authorise you space elevators and dyson spheres all day (I can pay 50p towards their construction too!). The fact is, that at some point, some specific, few, engineers, had to actually do the difficult thing, and think/do the thing.


 * Also why stop regressive claims and responsibility at the last tax payer? Or only money? What about knowledge and information? What about the guys who educated the hick and/or engineer, enough to get a job? What about the guys who discovered the mathematics to make that job possible? I can assure you that if I start chaotically & deterministically regressing, I can go all the way down to the first primordial cell. Of course I have noticed that any such forms of prides conveniently stop at the level said pride person happens to be in. Sen (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pride isn't binary. A hypothetical manager who gave Einstein time off to work on his sciency stuff wouldn't be seriously credited as a contributor, yet they do deserve a small measure of credit. It comes down to a rational evaluation of the level of contribution. I imagine many of us would in-part attribute our achievements to parental influences, even though much has occured since childhood. 18:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also the cultural influence. For example, there were several scientists who were inspired to their accomplishments by science fiction films, whcih means that the people who made those films (and, more generally, the cultural zeitgeist that inspired them to do so) can take some small credit. 18:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am proud to share 99.99% of my dna with those I admire. I am embarrassed to share it with those I deplore. I am also proud to share 9x% of it with a banana. I like Sen's comment.  04:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Race problem
As discussed extensively in the biologic, sociologic, and anthopologic literature, race, as such, is a societal construct, not a biological one. While there are obvious, superficial differences between groups of people, race, as such, is not all that useful a concept. Ethnicity is a more proper term.

Rebuttle: Race as defined on wikipedia's historical defintions page, is a large group of people based on ansestry. By dening race, you are dening al least one of the following: that there is a large amount of people or that there is little or no ancestry.

The power problem
While the argument is perhaps a bit shopworn, "whites" hold the majority of political, corporate, and professional positions in the U.S., the the idea that there is oppression of whites is ridiculous

Rubuttle: Non sequitur here. FBI stats show that any given black person is far more likely than any given white person to comit a hate crime against the other, and when asked "Do you think hate was a motive in the crime?" the gap is even larger. And of course, you seem to have forgoten about affermative action, where descrimination against caucasians is not just legal, but manditory. To adrees your point, caucasians succseed despite all the descrimination agianst them in the form of hate crimes and AA.

""whites" hold the majority of political, corporate, and professional positions" - LOL!! You have a black President and a Black Attorney General. But blacks have no power. Give us a break!&mdash; Unsigned, by: 168.1.80.84 / talk / contribs

The lie
While any individual is certainly allowed to define their own ethnic identity, white supremacists invent an ethnic identity where there is none, and then assign an involuntary identity to others.

No reference. Next! (just this line)

Invention of white ethnicity
Whites in the U.S. do not have a unified ethnic identity. White supremacists often share certain beliefs, etc, that resemble ethnicity in some ways, but vary from group to group. Most whites Americans do not self-identify as "white" as much as they do as "American".

Rebuttle: It is unlikely all members of any group shares a unifed ethnic identity, and your second point is irrelevent. People who are proud to be white don't tell all whites that they have to be proud too (though they might tell people not to hate themselves).

Involuntary assignment of others' ethnicity
White supremists tell others what ethnic group they must belong to. They decide who they think is black, Jewish, etc, and also decide what that identity means. The inherent contradiction is that they create their own fake ethnic identity because they consider it their "right", but they deny that same right to others.

Rebuttle: Unsorsed, so it can be ignored. Next!

The "If White Pride is racist, then Black Pride is racist too!" canard
The "Black Pride" movement, starting all the way back with Marcus Garvey and "Black is Beautiful," arose to rebut the (then-widespread) assumptions that black people were inherently worse than white people. It did not strive to say that black people were superior to white people, but instead to help the oppressed black people of the United States take pride in themselves. This was necessary because the oppressive systems of slavery and segregation both included means of making black people internalize the logic of oppression. While it can be argued that some specific organizations took this too far, such as the Nation of Islam and its strange mythology about the origins of white people, by and large mainstream "Black Power" is and has always been about infusing self-esteem into the down-trodden, not asserting that blacks are superior to whites.

In contrast, White Pride is something specifically crafted by white supremacists to justify recreating that system of oppression.

Rebuttle: That rebuttle all relies on the last statement, which is unsoursed. Also, few consider blacks infirior anymore. P.S. don't give me anakdotal evidence.

The truth
White pride is a cloak for racial and ethnic hatred. In some, it is simply a misguided home for the lost; in others, an avenue to irrational violence.

Rebuttle: Unsorsed again. You need to supply references if you are to be taken seriously. P.S. This is also an argument from adverse consiquences. 110.32.136.49 (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I love how 'rebuttle' becomes  'rubuttle' . This is pretty hilarious. 05:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop using anakdotal evidence against him; beside it is completly unsorsed so he can ignore it. 05:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh god you're right. I withdraw all my words. 05:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your attack on my spelling is an ad hommanim Mei, and pi you don't need a reference for pointing out logical falices, exept of course where you got the idea it is a fallicy. I got it from . 110.32.136.49 (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BoN can't spell to save their life. That's not "ad hom", it's a simple observation that they are only marginally literate. 08:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that red link totally owned me. 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so fast 110. If you look at the timestamps you will see that I rebutted you before you actually said anything, making me some kind of demi-god. 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pi, your point being? And calling someone a troll is just more name calling designed to shout down the opponent.110.32.136.49 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I mean in this case.
 * My point is so far you have done nothing but make yourself easily mockable. It is hard to take you seriously when you have given us is nothing except reasons to just laugh at you. Do you have an actual argument to present or shall you continue to be the site's clown? 06:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect PI was eithe3r drunk or bored, hence the typisodes  06:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, I was never that bad. 06:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Pi, I have given you pleanty of arguments. For you to disscuss. There's no need to be so nasty on my first (major) post. 110.32.136.49 (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll bite (PJR style):
 * Race as defined on wikipedia's historical defintions page, is a large group of people based on ansestry. By dening race, you are dening al least one of the following: that there is a large amount of people or that there is little or no ancestry. Note: it says historical defintions, science changes and definitions change, do try to keep up with the times.
 * Non sequitur here. FBI stats show that any given black person is far more likely than any given white person to comit a hate crime against the other, and when asked "Do you think hate was a motive in the crime?" the gap is even larger. And of course, you seem to have forgoten about affermative action, where descrimination against caucasians is not just legal, but manditory. To adrees your point, caucasians succseed despite all the descrimination agianst them in the form of hate crimes and AA. A black person is far more likly to commit a hate crime that a black person? That just plain makes no sense. Affirmative action is an attempt to correct past injustices. This generations rich will beget the next's generations rich. This generations poor will beget the next's generations poor. Blacks have historically been discriminated against and so have a lower social economic standing purly because of the family they were born into, that my friend is discrimination. Affirmative action tries to counter the fact that a black person on average starts the race several meters behind.
 * It is unlikely all members of any group shares a unifed ethnic identity, and your second point is irrelevent. People who are proud to be white don't tell all whites that they have to be proud to (though they might tell people not to hate themselves). I completly fail to understand the point you are trying to make other than agree with what is already written.
 * Unsorsed, so it can be ignored. Next! Badly spelt. Next!
 * That rebuttle all relies on the last statement, which is unsoursed. Also, few consider blacks infirior anymore. P.S. don't give me anakdotal evidence. This rebuttle relies on the fact that you rebuttled the last point, which you didn't.
 * Unsorsed again. You need to supply references if you are to be taken seriously. P.S. This is also an argument from adverse consiquences. Again more incoherant scrawlling. It is only argument from adverse consequences if consequence follows from the premise. In this case it does not. White Supremist wanted a way to dress the foul ideology up, so they invented White Pride to attempt to make it more plaitable, not the other way around. 07:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You want a PJR-off? You've got one. Next time do paragraphs so the text is easier to read and rebut. "Note: it says historical defintions, science changes and definitions change, do try to keep up with the times." Okay what's the new defintion of race? Don't forget to give a sorse. Your Dictionary says that a race is a population of people shearing traits, whether it be genes, phizical traits, or blood types.

"A black person is far more likly to commit a hate crime that a black person? That just plain makes no sense. Affirmative action is an attempt to correct past injustices. This generations rich will beget the next's generations rich. This generations poor will beget the next's generations poor. Blacks have historically been discriminated against and so have a lower social economic standing purly because of the family they were born into, that my friend is discrimination. Affirmative action tries to counter the fact that a black person on average starts the race several meters behind." I have corrected the crime thing, so you are now free to rebut it. AA may be justified, but it's still discrimination.

"I completly fail to understand the point you are trying to make other than agree with what is already written." To simplify: so what?

"Again more incoherant scrawlling. It is only argument from adverse consequences if consequence follows from the premise. In this case it does not. White Supremist wanted a way to dress the foul ideology up, so they invented White Pride to attempt to make it more plaitable, not the other way around." I suppose you're right here, or you would be if you provided a sourse. 110.32.136.49 (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Again I should have said more. I ment a sourse for white pride being an excuce for White Supremists.

Hello? You still there? I don't mind if you don't want to continue the debate but I would rather you told me why you left. 110.32.144.201 (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I am still looking for references for you. Typing "white pride" into a search engine gets you nothing but site's like stormfront and other know racist websites trying to paint white pride as being affirmative of the "white race" rather than as racist. I am now trying to find serious academic works that discuss the topic. I am trying to find a copy of White Power, White Pride, from the online sample it appears to trace the term "white pride" back to speech by KKK leader in 1996. But there is a 1997 paper called Beyond White Pride: Identity, Meaning and Contradiction in the Canadian Skinhead Subculture, which would imply that the term is older than that still. 03:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. 110.32.144.140 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my slow arseness about this, I have a lot to do at the moment. 00:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey PalMD, why arn't you joining in? You're suppost to defend your essay here. 110.32.144.140 (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Pal, why aren't you arguing? You can at least say why. 110.32.136.190 (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He doesn't edit here much anymore, he is a resident in a hospital and has a popular blog - doesn't have much time for two year old essays. 11:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone else then? 110.32.131.13 (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. "I ment a sourse for white pride being an excuce for White Supremists"  Anyone whose spelling is that atrocious has no claim to pride or mastery of anything.  If you claim to be "white" and to be "proud" then I have to ask, "what of?".  10:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * . Stop with the personal attacks. To have you know I am 15 and being bad at one thing does not make you bad at everything, which is what you seem to be suggesting. 110.32.131.13 (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This site is very quick to brand anyone we disagree with as a troll
It is really not a good look. --DamoHi 10:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the BON is a troll, I think they are an idiot. That said, people are free to call idiots trolls if they want.  10:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In some ways I agree that people should be free on this site to call others trolls if they like. On the other hand, calling someone who is genuinely making an argument a troll is nothing more than an adhominem attack and should be discouraged or banned. I suppose I draw a distinction between attacks on a persons character (ie a troll) and attacks on a persons ability to make a rational argument (ie an idiot).  I should have thought that if someone objects to being called a troll (provided they are not obviously trolling) then they have the right to remove the insult, particularly if they seek to continue to put forward their arguments.  DamoHi 11:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Human, you are being very welcoming to the newcomer. Very polite and intolerent of intolerence. 110.32.131.13 (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Two more (although rather trivial things): don't be PC and say "they", say he. (By the way I am male.) Second why are you calling me BoN? 110.32.131.13 (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me google rationalwiki that for you: BoN -- Nx  / talk 11:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a number or visitors who take delight in taking stances that they know will be controversial and then take umbrage when it raises controversy. If you hold strong atheist views then posting those views on CP is trolling, however reasonable they are. Similarly coming here and posting views that are obviously counter to the hive mind, and then defending those views in a dogmatic and uncompromising fashion, whilst it won't get you banned, it does mark you out as a trouble maker.
 * Consider the motives of those who come here to preach views that are guaranteed to annoy the majority of the sites members. It is quite evident that they are not here to persuade, the views they post are stated in strident terms with no sense of compromise. No, they're here to tell us that we're somehow lacking. Lacking in pro-life morality or libertarian political astuteness to cite two recent examples. In short they're here to cause trouble.
 * So if trouble makers arrive we don't ban them but we do have the right to point out that they're troublemakers, or, to put it concisely, trolls. Bob Soles (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how I am being any more dogmatic or uncompramising than the rest of you, the only reason people think I'm a troll is becuase I disagree with this essay. See what Damo said above. You (and indeed most of the people on this page) also need to AGF rather than call anyone who doesn't toe the party line a troll. 110.32.131.13 (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you post here? What do you want to achieve? Bob Soles (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And what does AGF mean - Google has never heard of it. Bob Soles (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to end the editors here's clear anti-cacausian mentality. For example "Racism is hating a group of people for no reason other than race. Mistrusting (Or even hating) the people who oppressed you for hundreds of years and continue to do so today is not racist, it is how humans respond to oppression. I think we should all try to get along, but if you'll deny the wounds left upon minorities by whites in the west, you're a damned fool."
 * Now Bob, remember the Balance fallacy. AGF is assume good faith. 110.32.131.13 (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "clear anti-Caucasian mentality"? Dude, my skin color is practically "clear".  I am SPF 30 white as white can be.  And "White Pride" is simply racism.  02:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Caucasian ≠ White, Human. Caucasian also covers people of Western Asia, the Middle East and India. I would hazard a guess he specifically means the indigenous populations of Europe - Celtic, Germanic, Slavics, Nordics etc - groupings of people based on their language who are loosely termed "white". This should be fun to watch as nobody has ever successfully defined "white" United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind being a classic example. 07:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that. My pinkness is due to Celticallity, mostly.  07:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But here's my point - you're trying to end the editors here's clear anti-Caucasian mentality. - well, you're going the wrong way about it. Here's a little tip, saying there's a clear anti-Caucasian mentality is a really bad move. It's insulting the people you're trying to persuade and, as soon as you do that, you've lost good faith and you won't persuade anyone.
 * I'm not talking about right or wrong, I'm talking about how you debate. You complain about ad-hom attacks but by saying we have an anti-Caucasian mentality you are making an ad-hom attack. Be reasonable and we'll be reasonable. Be a troll and you'll get called a troll. Bob Soles (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

UI Another thing you might want to consider is to give some positive arguments in favour of the opinion you want to express. Above, all you have written is a rebuttle of someone elses ideas without replacing them with anything positive in their place. Perhaps you should write your own essay explaining your point of view rather than being simply a contrarian. DamoHi 12:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe I shouldn't of said that, but it is still true. I will post an essay here (on RW) that is based on a opinion piece on racism that I did for an English project in April. Nevertheless, the essay here is full of flaws and Pal bares the burden of proof to say that something is immoral. (Likewise, Human does the same for it being racism, especially considering that they (seem) to advocate it for white pride but not black pride. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.") Please correct me if that is not their intentions. Note, everyone, that I was being insulted long before I said something that was intended to be an explination for my actions. I repeat, I regret saying it now, partialy becuase both Bob and human nitpicked at what I said and missed the point entirely. 110.32.131.13 (talk)
 * How do you start an essay? 110.32.131.13 (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Type "Essay:your title" into the searchbox. That should get you to an option that says "you can create this page".  Click on it and type.  07:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've created the essay now. It's at Essay:There is more Racism to White People than Black People. 110.32.131.13 (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "power problem"
At the risk of sounding like some damn dirty antisemite, isn't there at least some logical explanation as to why a good majority of executives in both economic and political power (not to mention the entertainment industry) are not only white but jewish? The notion that whites can't be (and have never been) oppressed or are the only race not allowed to be proud of smacks of the kind of anti-white diatribe spewed by liberal arts professors who care more about imparting their own backwards ideals on their impressionable students who, frankly, picked the least useful major possible.

Sure, one could bring up the classic argument of slavery, assuming they didn't realize that A: Africans often sold members of their own tribes to slave traders, B: Similarly, black slavery had actually existed in Africa thousands of years before Europeans arrived, especially around the Sahara.

While I personally find the act and subsequent conditions of slavery deplorable, it should be noted that, while initially rocky, it helped bring a once savage race of people into civilization.

Also, I personally find it funny in a morose way that "Black Power" is a celebrated cultural term while "White pride" is considered one of the most racist things a person could have. While it may be hard to believe, white people actually do suffer from a form of oppression as anti-white rhetoric from the social justice crowd (see: Liberals) makes life genuinely worse for whites, at least in America. In the same vein, it's technically okay to have "Muslim pride" despite the overwhelming percentage of extremism that, through cultural coddling after 9/11, eventually becomes terrorism that costs the lives not only of whites, but blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and all the rest as they get caught up in the blast.

In short, despite what most would say, whites aren't actually exempt from oppression just because they have a history of oppression.
 * I think you're missing the point here. Whatever whites experienced proportional to other minorities throughout history doesn't really merit a "White Pride" moniker, especially not in places where whites have always held power such as the United States or Europe. Also given the context of "White Pride", this is nearly wholly reactionary and deflection from the other minorities that have been oppressed by whites. You just supported my argument with your rail against "anti-white rhetoric from the social justice crowd". They don't make "life genuinely worse for whites" by any stretch, if you look at the recurrent power differences between whites and the other minorities; those differences are still there and still mostly in favor for whites. And whatever you're arguing about "teh evil anti-white liberals" trivializes not only minority problems, but actual problems that whites might have faced in other parts of the world in history. That still doesn't justify White Pride for what I said earlier, but if you really want to call attention to oppression, "college professors are being mean to me" isn't an example.
 * Also, there's your blatantly racist "Europeans civilized the savages so their slavery is justified" take on things and that part of your post is reprehensible (not to mention inaccurate) and makes the rest of your points not as salient or in good faith (though your handwringing about anti-white language also has me hesitate to give you benefit of doubt), but I'll pretend like you never argued that. Actually, a lot of your rhetoric mirrors alt-right talking points and maybe try not using them? Have you considered that maybe it has to do you with your questionable rhetoric that you find anti-white language everywhere, maybe directed at you, or these so-called "anti-white" language lobbied at some "education" gave you the idea that "Africans were filled with savages"? 18:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On the slavery PRATT, I'd like to point out this. It wasn't African natives that owned the ships that hauled slaves around the world. It wasn't African natives who owned the plantations in Europe, the Caribbean, Africa, and the Americas. It wasn't native Africans who built an international industry spanning much of the globe based on the use and sale of human chattel. And it especially wasn't native African tribes who started a war about slavery that split the U.S. apart and which we are still cleaning up the fallout from. It was white people. If you can't understand that the native tribes who dealt in human flesh formed less than a quarter of the slave trade, then you're either dishonest or an idiot. 19:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Those so-called "tribes" were full fledged kingdoms fyi. West Africa was home to a flourishing center of civilization prior to Western interference. — Oxyaena Harass  19:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)