White Nationalism

Ok, well my premise is this. American Whites have lost their identity as German/French/etc. In many cases even "WASP" americans have lost their identity. They are all 'white'. Really, they have little to no identity other than 'white' or 'American'. In general, people react badly with no sense of identity and culture (as shown by decline of native americans and alcoholism when the culture was damaged beyond a certain point). So, they -need- an identity. Many whites would likely be 'Dixie' or 'Mormon' or whatever regional/cultural/whatever identities. Should general 'whites' be given an autonomous republic? (White American Council Socialist Republic or whatever).

This isn't about some of the questionable statements white nationalists made, it's more about white people needing an identity or sense of self and some measure of cultural preservation (however that is defined). Even if 'white' was a category to promote oppression, well that is all 'whites' have so I dunno about destroying their 'identity' given I doubt many of them can/will go back to being German or Italian....

Race is an undeniable facet of one's self-identity, just as ethnicity can be and nationality is. The question you raise concerns not only nationhood, but a territorial conception thereof. So, you're asking whether we believe white Americans should be provided with a racially exclusive territory which can be utilized for the purpose of establishing an autonomous republic? Personally, I'm of the opinion that national boundaries in North America should be drafted primarily along cultural lines, because American national identity transcends ethnic and racial divisions. The principle of free association practiced in a communist commonwealth will provide individuals with the means by which to socialize with whomever they please and organize ethnic and/or racial institutions to celebrate their respective identities, if they so choose. A separate territory just seems unnecessary for the task of respecting one's identity, and I'm fairly confident the working class will be of that opinion as well, when the moment comes to settle the national question following the revolution.

Yes, my main point is 'what do you think about whites having a territorial unit for their culture'

Celtiberian wrote: Personally, I'm of the opinion that national boundaries in North America should be drafted primarily along cultural lines, because American national identity transcends ethnic and racial divisions.

The strongest promoters of "Americanism" are white americans as well as recent immigrants. The black population has their own identity and is the most likely to ditch "Americanism" and arguably always has resisted those claims.

A separate territory just seems unnecessary for the task of respecting one's identity, and I'm fairly confident the working class will be of that opinion as well, when the moment comes to settle the national question following the revolution.

There would still be white nationalists talking about preserving the white race. Giving them their own territory to do with as they wish (within reason - i.e. no genocides) would help remove those pressures. White Nationalists can try to promote a higher birth rate, try to import other whites from Europe/Asia or South America, promote white culture or provide whites as a certain percentage of employees or ministers, etc.

EDIT: I assume some majority-white ethnic groups will want some sort of autonomy for whatever purposes (i.e. Utah Mormons)

Warsie wrote:Yes, my main point is 'what do you think about whites having a territorial unit for their culture'

Celtiberian wrote: Personally, I'm of the opinion that national boundaries in North America should be drafted primarily along cultural lines, because American national identity transcends ethnic and racial divisions.

The strongest promoters of "Americanism" are white americans as well as recent immigrants. The black population has their own identity and is the most likely to ditch "Americanism" and arguably always has resisted those claims.

A separate territory just seems unnecessary for the task of respecting one's identity, and I'm fairly confident the working class will be of that opinion as well, when the moment comes to settle the national question following the revolution.

There would still be white nationalists talking about preserving the white race. Giving them their own territory to do with as they wish (within reason - i.e. no genocides) would help remove those pressures. White Nationalists can try to promote a higher birth rate, try to import other whites from Europe/Asia or South America, promote white culture or provide whites as a certain percentage of employees or ministers, etc.

EDIT: I assume some majority-white ethnic groups will want some sort of autonomy for whatever purposes (i.e. Utah Mormons)

How about we have an American nationalism instead?

Most "blacks" actually prefer integration over having their own "identity", and there is more difference between "whites" in Alabama and "whites" in Massachusetts than either have to the "blacks" in those states.

It is these racial divisions that are the problem in the first place in America, and we need to annihilate them if this nation is going to last. Americans should identify with their city, state, and nation, and that does require a lot of policies that involve far-reaching changes to the Union. This is due to a lot of state boundaries not accurately accounting for the cultural differences, especially in the Western states. I think this should rectified soon.

So yes, I agree with Celtiberian, North American boundaries should be based on cultural lines. Though, I think that all borders should be based on culture, and I am fervently against all forms of racial nationalism. As in, I actually despise it as more of a form of superficial tribalism than anything that is actually nationalistic.

Uberak wrote:
How about we have an American nationalism instead?

Because American nationalism is inherently white and pro-white, even in the era of "multiculturaism". Whites still dominate the U.S. union so any American nationalism would be inherently pro-European as opposed to African. American nationalism is centralist and imperialist and destructive of regional identity. A Post-American State would preserve those cultures better, or more accurately allow the cultures to be guided by their populations as opposed by imperial elites. Being subjected to white americanism, even in a socialist state would suck.

I'd prefer pan-americanism to that (think a north american analogy to Dugin's Eurasianist ideology)

Most "blacks" actually prefer integration over having their own "identity", and there is more difference between "whites" in Alabama and "whites" in Massachusetts than either have to the "blacks" in those states.

[citation needed]. ht tp: // www . jstor. org / table / pdfplus / 3088374 . pdf page 243 shows a significant support for black nationalism among the black population themselves; and blacks all over the U.S. still have cultural trends and speech patterns.

It is these racial divisions that are the problem in the first place in America, and we need to annihilate them if this nation is going to last.

This "nation" will not last, and honestly it should not last. It was a multinational state from the beginning, an Empire if you are uncharitable about it so it should be broken apart for ethnic self-determination for all groups.

This is due to a lot of state boundaries not accurately accounting for the cultural differences, especially in the Western states. I think this should rectified soon.

You mean the Mormon borders drawn?

http://www.jstor.org/table/pdfplus/3088374.pdf
Gives me a 404

HomelessArtist wrote:
Gives me a 404

shitty jstor. it's an academic study titled "the antipathy of black nationalism"

This one?: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3088374?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21104416053591
We'll need Jstore accounts to read it anyway, look up some other eivdence.

HomelessArtist wrote:This one?: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3088374?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21104416053591
We'll need Jstore accounts to read it anyway, look up some other eivdence.

lemme just quote from it then:

Figure 1 reports the individual questions tapping
various components of a black nationalist ideology. Af?
rican Americans overwhelmingly support the various
components of a black nationalist ideology, which may
reflect both real support and response effects. With the
exception of two survey items, each component of black
nationalism receives at least 50 percent support which
is somewhat higher than similar survey items asked in
the 1980s.3
The more practical or realistic aspects of black na?
tionalism win greater support. For instance, a large per?
centage of African Americans support the notion that
blacks should shop in black stores when possible (84.0
percent), blacks should rely on themselves (83.3 percent),
blacks should control the economy in their communities
(73.9 percent), black children should study an African
language (70.7 percent), and blacks should control the
government in their communities (68.3 percent). About
half of the support for these items comes from individu?
als who are intensely supportive. Less widely endorsed
are the ideas of all black male schools (62.2 percent), par?
ticipation in black-only organizations (56.5 percent), and
blacks form their own political party (50.1 percent). In?
terestingly, virtually all of the support for blacks forming
their own political party is intense support.
Least supported are the ideas that African Americans
should always vote for a black candidate (26.5 percent)
and that blacks should form their own nation (14.0 per?
cent). Compared to the other survey items, these two
questions may not be seen as necessary or achievable.
Perhaps African Americans view the development of
their own nation in the United States or going back to
Africa as unattainable and the possibility of voting for
anyone other than a white candidate for president with a
creditable chance of winning as improbable (or wasted
votes). This is consistent with the research by Marx
(1967) and Gurin, Hatchett, and Jackson (1989). Marx,
who found that 20 percent would support a separate
black nation in 1964, suggests that "most respondents re?
garded a negro nation not only as politically unfeasible
but as undesirable" (1967,29).
Figure 2 shows the level of support (or consistency)
across our black nationalism items. Support for black na?
tionalism is not a matter of individuals agreeing with only
a few items, but rather a wide range of elements of black
nationalism enjoying support. At the extremes, fewer than
1 percent endorse none of the nationalism items and 5
percent endorse all of them. On average, five nationalism
items are endorsed, which translates into about 68 percent
of African Americans supporting at least that many. Given
the high level of consistency across the black nationalism
items which is suggestive of a coherent ideology, we exam?
ine these same items and several items tapping social
identity using factor analytical techniques.

There is a strong support for black nationalism, and in a socialist state with the chanses for asserting black national counciousness, the support for an autonomous region will increase drastically because it will be "realistic" and "practical". Remember the leaders of 1916 Easter Rising werent exactly popular when they pulled it.

Those idea seem to stem from the division the american working class experiences.
They are divided to be conquered.

Warsie wrote:

Uberak wrote:
How about we have an American nationalism instead?

Because American nationalism is inherently white and pro-white, even in the era of "multiculturaism". Whites still dominate the U.S. union so any American nationalism would be inherently pro-European as opposed to African. American nationalism is centralist and imperialist and destructive of regional identity. A Post-American State would preserve those cultures better, or more accurately allow the cultures to be guided by their populations as opposed by imperial elites. Being subjected to white americanism, even in a socialist state would suck.

I'd prefer pan-americanism to that (think a north american analogy to Dugin's Eurasianist ideology)

Most "blacks" actually prefer integration over having their own "identity", and there is more difference between "whites" in Alabama and "whites" in Massachusetts than either have to the "blacks" in those states.

[citation needed]. ht tp: // www . jstor. org / table / pdfplus / 3088374 . pdf page 243 shows a significant support for black nationalism among the black population themselves; and blacks all over the U.S. still have cultural trends and speech patterns.

It is these racial divisions that are the problem in the first place in America, and we need to annihilate them if this nation is going to last.

This "nation" will not last, and honestly it should not last. It was a multinational state from the beginning, an Empire if you are uncharitable about it so it should be broken apart for ethnic self-determination for all groups.

This is due to a lot of state boundaries not accurately accounting for the cultural differences, especially in the Western states. I think this should rectified soon.

You mean the Mormon borders drawn?

Firstly, American Nationalism isn't centralist at all, considering that America, as a nation, is supposed to be a union of states. Federalism is inherent in American Nationalism. Secondly, how is it pro-white? There are tons of Latin American countries that have variety of skin tones amongst the population, and no one seriously advocates for separate states based on that. Note that all of those Latin American countries were formed by their white elites, much like the United States. Are black Cubans somehow less Cuban? Are dark-skinned Brazilians less Brazilian than their light-skinned counterparts? Not to mention that America did use a few freed slaves in their forces in the Revolutionary War like the British, with both cases being done out of desperation. And, the Civil War and the granting of rights to black men by the will of the Republican party, which practically reinforced nationalism in the US, proves that America is NOT a white nation. Nor is any nation for that matter. Lastly, multiculturalism refers to the "salad bowl" idea of different cultures retaining their distinct identities amongst immigrants and minorities within the same area of land as opposed to the assimilationist idea of having one national, regional, and city identity. Ironically, multiculturalism is closer to what you're talking about except for the case of full-on black nationalism. It is also funny that you call it imperialist when America was born out of an anti-imperialist revolt essentially as a federation of mostly independent states. Also, the US has a mostly liberal policy on culture, and a lot of those "cultures" you talk about are honestly shit. "Black culture" is honestly Southern culture injected with all the shit associated with being a poor minority confined to a ghetto and with that touch of pseudo-African shit that is based on a misinformed understanding of African culture. I don't even find it surprising that wealthy black people who aren't part of an industry that thrives on racial stereotyping often "act white" or become "uncle Toms". Oh, and "white culture" isn't any fucking better. "White culture" is just stupid cosmopolitan shit spewed by the haute bourgeoisie capitalists through shitty mass media mixed in a few remnants of American traditions. You can blame all of the geographical displacement caused by capitalism and suburbanization for this. Americans should identify by their city, region/state, and nation. Much like how a Municher identifies with Munich, Bavaria, and Germany. The United States is an inherently inclusive and assimilationist nation, period.

As for those statistics, I got a statistic that during the Civil Rights Era, only a significant minority of the population supported black nationalism and integration was supported by a vast majority. So, this suggests either a massive downgrading of the black person's conscious or that black nationalist ideas are an issue that needs to be dealt with. (I am looking for the statistic and will show you it as soon as I find it.)

Why can't it last? I mean, an integrated America probably has more common history than any sub-Saharan African country or even any Latin American country. Most of the differences between the "races" are in fact class-based. The United States merely has a somewhat racialized class system, which is something that Latin American countries had. And yet, I don't see a Cuban black nationalism despite blacks making up the same portion of the population. In fact, a lot of the cultural traits considered "unique" to the "races" in America are actually relatively new and often are more based on stereotypes than anything resembling truly different cultures. And honestly, I would be glad to even have the chance to utterly destroy them in favor of a truly American culture that consists of federated regional cultures that form the basis of the states within the Union. The best part is that they do exist or at least existed before all the displacement associated with capitalism ruined them in favor of a bland cosmopolitan culture with racialized divisions. And, it would solve a lot of our economic and city-level ills to integrate. Looking at Detroit over here. Also, please distinguish a FEDERATION from an EMPIRE. The United States was explicitly founded on the principle of avoiding the formation of an Empire. Now, you can say that the centralization that has occurred is a failure to reach that ideal, but the fact that the ideal is anti-empire means that you are wrong. But yes, America needs to build itself as a nation along with the different states/regions and even our cities to a lesser extent, and this is actually an idea that has been around for a while in the United States. Though, it wasn't as explicit as what I am saying.

Also, I live in the Metro-Detroit area, and I have driven up and down Woodward Avenue. I SAW what the geographical segregation of races does. It fucks everything up. And if you want to make all of America like that shithole known as the Metro-Detroit area, then FUCK YOU! I hope you burn in hell along with whatever ghetto-worshiping friends you have. And, don't get me fucking started on how capitalists use racialism to divide the working class and make them oppose each other as opposed to the capitalist class.

(I should calm down, but seriously. Look what happened to my city! Segregation raped everything good out of it!)

Unless you want the Black Belt to be independent only, then you pretty much have a poor third-world country that can't even feed itself well then. And, most black people won't be covered by such a change.

On a calmer note, a religious state is almost as bad as a racial state, so I'm not in favor of that. I meant something like an larger Oregon that represents the common culture of the Cascadia region, a New Netherland state representing New York City's culture along with parts of New Jersey and Connecticut, a united Dakota, a united Carolina, or even an united South or Appalachia. (That should be up to the people to decide.)

Uberak wrote:
Firstly, American Nationalism isn't centralist at all, considering that America, as a nation, is supposed to be a union of states.

It wouldn't be 'nationalism' but 'confederalism' then.

Secondly, how is it pro-white?

Because the U.S. was founded by white people on white values. The "Founding fathers" made it clear about being a country for 'the white man' and citizenship open to 'free white peoples' etc etc. The declaration of independence mentions the british inciting slave uprisings and attacks by native america. It was an explicitly white project.

There are tons of Latin American countries that have variety of skin tones amongst the population, and no one seriously advocates for separate states based on that. Note that all of those Latin American countries were formed by their white elites, much like the United States. Are black Cubans somehow less Cuban? Are dark-skinned Brazilians less Brazilian than their light-skinned counterparts? Not to mention that America did use a few freed slaves in their forces in the Revolutionary War like the British, with both cases being done out of desperation.

There's several racially based separatist groups in Latin America

MODERN:
The Mapuche Independence Movement (Chile/Argentina)
The Southern Brazilian independence movement (Southern brazil is italians/germans who don't want to share a state with the predominantely black northeast)
Northeast Brazil AFAIK has a similar movement
Zapatistas - Mayan rebels in Chiapas.

HISTORICAL:
The Palmairas slave uprising
Mapuche wars of resistance against Chile/Argentina
Mayan Casta Wars
Guatemalan Civil War
Haitian War of Independence

And, the Civil War and the granting of rights to black men by the will of the Republican party, which practically reinforced nationalism in the US, proves that America is NOT a white nation.

The US is an Empire multinational state but white americans are still a 'founding population'

Nor is any nation for that matter. Lastly, multiculturalism refers to the "salad bowl" idea of different cultures retaining their distinct identities amongst immigrants and minorities within the same area of land as opposed to the assimilationist idea of having one national, regional, and city identity.

The US adopted a 'melting pot' ideology.

It is also funny that you call it imperialist when America was born out of an anti-imperialist revolt essentially as a federation of mostly independent states.

It doesn't matter what white americans lie to themselves about not running an Empire. They used to admit it explicitly in turn of 20th c.

The United States is an inherently inclusive and assimilationist nation, period.

So Ferguson shows how "inclusive" white americans re? LOL

It may be "inclusive" to immigrants, but not to indigenous victims of its' imperialism.

As for those statistics, I got a statistic that during the Civil Rights Era, only a significant minority of the population supported black nationalism and integration was supported by a vast majority. So, this suggests either a massive downgrading of the black person's conscious or that black nationalist ideas are an issue that needs to be dealt with. (I am looking for the statistic and will show you it as soon as I find it.)

Remember, most blacks wanted "integration" for access to the resources whites had. If they could be guaranteed equal resources without integration a LOT of blacks would have dumped that like a hot potato. "Integration" does not mean "you want to live with white people and deal with them" it meant "you didn't get the shitty books and bathrooms and schools" to most blacks.

And yet, I don't see a Cuban black nationalism despite blacks making up the same portion of the population.

in post-revolutionary cuba the blacks literally interbred with everyone else - and furthermore, there were african counciousness poets etc. And in a lot of cases, the Cuban blacks could still remember where they came from specificlly.

Also, please distinguish a FEDERATION from an EMPIRE. The United States was explicitly founded on the principle of avoiding the formation of an Empire. Now, you can say that the centralization that has occurred is a failure to reach that ideal, but the fact that the ideal is anti-empire means that you are wrong.

So the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is completely democratic now because of it's ideals and naming?

Also, I live in the Metro-Detroit area, and I have driven up and down Woodward Avenue. I SAW what the geographical segregation of races does. It fucks everything up. And if you want to make all of America like that shithole known as the Metro-Detroit area, then FUCK YOU! I hope you burn in hell along with whatever ghetto-worshiping friends you have.   And, don't get me fucking started on how capitalists use racialism to divide the working class and make them oppose each other as opposed to the capitalist class.

(I should calm down, but seriously. Look what happened to my city! Segregation raped everything good out of it!)

Unless you want the Black Belt to be independent only, then you pretty much have a poor third-world country that can't even feed itself well then. And, most black people won't be covered by such a change.

That's because of deindustrialization as opposed to inherent segregation Note before deindustrialization Detroit was a thriving, strong black metropolis with black businesses. Now, Atlanta has taken the place of being a 'black mecca' and whatnot. Also, the black belt can feed it self given the QUALITY OF THE SOIL there - as well as the black belt has access to the ocean in multipla places/can easily get access to the ocean - and a significant portion of the black population is there - including a nice, ready-made capital full of black abilities (Atlanta)

Also, nationalism and national liberation is a strong force and being forced to deal with people you have a grudge will not make socialist revolution easier. Partitioning and population transfer will, as each ethnic groups can focus on improving their standards, developing their culture and being able to work with the other groups without an inherent nastiness

On a calmer note, a religious state is almost as bad as a racial state, so I'm not in favor of that. I meant something like an larger Oregon that represents the common culture of the Cascadia region, a New Netherland state representing New York City's culture along with parts of New Jersey and Connecticut, a united Dakota, a united Carolina, or even an united South or Appalachia. (That should be up to the people to decide.)

oh