It’s shades of racism. Technically, in the way we analyze it in political theory. White nationalism does not require white supremecy. Either the position that whites are inherently superior. Or the political structures where white dominate (which also doesn’t technically require the idea that whites are superior).
In practice these ideas all go hand in hand. And you won’t really find a white nationalist or white separatist that isn’t also a white supremacist. And it’s very much true that they use “I’m not a white supremacist, I’m a white nationalist” as cover.
My issue with describing these as euphemisms. Is that it accepts the claim that white nationalism or white seperatism are less bad, or more appropriate than white supremacy. Which is the point of these assholes focusing on these particular facets of their ideology.
White nationalist isn’t a euphemism because it’s a heinous thing in it’s own right. Not because it’s a friendly or valid sobriquet for white supremecy.
“It’s ok I’m just a white nationalist” isn’t a horse shit arguement because it’s a way to hide white supremecy. It’s a horse shit arguement because being a white nationalist isn’t OK.
Accepting it as a euphemism, cedes the idea that white nationalism is acceptable but white supremecy isn’t. It plays into the bad faith arguement, letting things operate on their terms.
Like I said not technically. In terms of analyzing things, how we describe these ideologies. They describe different approaches. But all of them are rooted in racism.
And it’s complicated by the fact that white supremecy refers to two separate, but deeply connected things. The position that whites are inherently superior. And the idea that whites should hold a dominant position in society and politics. The former is the usual justification for the latter. But they don’t inherently follow from one another.
With white separatism it’s a little easier to see the divide. Separatism does not necessarily require nationalism. It’s possible to advocate for the separate races and ethnicities into communities within a nation. And it’s possible to advocate for such separation without arguing any given race or ethnicity is inherently better than another.
But in practice you almost never see these ideas in isolation. Particularly among white racists. And it’s nearly impossible to arrive at any of them without starting from the others. So in the real world their pretty much inextricable.
Practically. The utility comes in in describing particular shades of the ideology. And it is true that racist douches try to obscure their racism by insisting on one term or the other.
Steve King included white supremacy in his statement. AND considering the way that actual white supremacists have employed white nationalism as a means of advocating for a white supremacist national policies (which would NOT include white people moving somewhere with no people of color, it would include ethnic cleansing of existing communities), it’s merely splitting white power hairs.
Many more thanks than I’m allowed to give Mindysan33. We knew it was a marketing whitewash (!) but it’s good to have the fact that it was explicitly created for that purpose out on the table.
Whether one is more acceptable than the other, as you point out, is like contrasting different colors of shit.
However, one is more marketable, as demonstrated by the fact that one is more accepted than the other. You won’t find someone saying, “I’m not a white nationalist, I’m a white supremacist!”
The Party of Frank Luntz has been deliberately degrading our public discourse by twisting words for decades now. I am not going to cooperate or condone it.
I think you’re largely right right on that when it comes to present day miscreants, and I don’t think there are many examples of prominent white supremacists in this country who are not also white nationalists for all practical purposes at this point.
I’d argue that this is only the case because the concept of what nationalism entails, and white nationalism in particular, has been muddied and deliberately skewed. I don’t think it’s euphemistic at all to make clear that being a “white nationalist” includes, at its core, a concept of white supremacy along with other unsavory political aspects.
And to those who think that exploring the differences (and commonalities) that may exist that shade overlapping sets of belief shouldn’t matter and/or is somehow excusing them or that merely describing something as “bad” should be sufficient, I’d point out that discussing how different flavors of abhorrent beliefs doesn’t excuse them, it helps us talk about them like adults who are capable of discussing, say, the differences between German Nazi ideology of the 1930s and contemporary neo-Nazi ideology in America without implying that either is anything other than trash.
He certainly did and I’m not disputing that or excusing that.
And these types certainly do use both white nationalism, and white separatism as preferred terms to shield themselves from accusations of racism. And at least white nationalism is rooted in a deliberate attempt to do that.
What I’m saying is the best way to prevent them from doing that is to refuse to accept that white nationalism or separatism are softer or acceptable concepts. Insisting that they’re just the same thing by a different name just invites the cultural thunderdome justifications they offer. And ultimately just validates the attempt to present it as something less egregious.
Pointing out the connection between these things is part of undermining them. But think it’s very important to stress white nationalism and white separatism are bad in there own right, and the entire circle jerk is isn’t an acceptable dodge.
Who cares if you’re a white nationalist, instead of a white supremacist. That isn’t any better, and it’s still fundamentally racist.
For Steve King, all these terms are interchangeable with “sack of crap.”
Having gone through the thread I guess I have to concede that “white nationalist” is a term coined to soft-pedal racism. That does make me feel like I’m taking crazy pills. If I went with my gut, “white nationalist” is about the scariest, most odious term of them all. The idea that it would be more marketable than other terms seems grossly wrong.
I don’t actually accept that, because it’s not. Despite segregation, at no point in American history did people of different skin colors actually live in racial exclusive communities.
They’ll do that no matter what, though, because they’re whole goal is an ethnically cleansed America built on white supremacy.
There’s like wise a separation in the utility of this pitch for recruitment, and the extent to which they’re effective at diffusing criticism. They’re not particularly good at diffusing criticism these days. But every reformed white supremacist I’ve ever met was taken in by the nationalist/separatist language and talk about ethnic pride and white/European heritage.
I HAVE SEEN IT.
There’s a large but slightly less visible contingent of white supremacists, particularly among libertarians, but also certain ends of the alt right and certain types of neo-nazis. That are essentially globalist or trans-nationalist.
And it’s where you run into the legitimate divide between white supremecy in general and white nationalism in specific.
The nationalist end of it is often, being nationalist, focused on the disposition of a particular nation (or set of nations). The existence, or creation of a pure white home land. And all the trappings that go with other sorts of nationalism. The isolationism, trade protectionism, militarism and national myth making. Africa or Haiti can go ahead and be a “shit hole countries” full of browns, but my nation is a white nation and we can only make it strong as a white nation. Or even the claim that any given nation is stronger as a racially pure nation, regardless of which race (which tends to be used as a Dodge/dog whistle).
Where as the globalist end of it is more concerned about about elevating the white race, globally. Across and through national borders. Without regard to those nations being racially pure or wholly white. And tends to accept all the precepts of hard globalism. With it’s breakdown of national divisions and ecconomic barriers. So long as that’s done to elevate and empower the white race, or only to the benefit of the white race.
The globalist types tend to have no problem with describing themselves as white supremacists. But balk at being described as nationalist.
It does seem to be. And I don’t recall specifics but I think white separatist was as well. I’m sure if you trace it back “white supremacist” was coined as a positive as well.
The more important thing is that people try and use them that way. It’s not a shield that seems to work particularly well, except among people who are looking for plausible deniability (Like the GOP). And the new hotness seems to be adopting the language of social justice and identity politics.
But the terms, where ever they come from, have gained significant adoption among critics and academics for unpacking and specififying certain ideas or branches within white supremecy specifically and racism in general.
So what we usually mean by white nationalism does strike me as the most frightening approach. If only because it’s proved the most popular and compelling. White nationalists have had considerably more success attracting followers and tilting or over throwing governments. And the racial globalist end of it is a little bit less dedicated to the whole “let’s over throw the government thing”. You tend not to find other approaches in the militia movement (especially globalist ones). Where as white nationalism and white separatism are really the base ideology that binds all those movements to each other.
And I sure as shit don’t. I just don’t think getting bogged down in arguing the finer points of it is a particularly good way of arguing it down.
This sort of thing comes up a lot in discussions on how to defuse false belief. When you’re debating some one on a subject like this. Whether it’s racism, psuedo science, conspiracy or extreme religious views. You’ve got a catch 22, engaging these people gives them a platform. And just that act makes their arguements seem compelling to people.
Ignoring them does nothing to undermine them. But giving them space to air their arguements, even if you carefully refute as many as you can often makes their ideas seem more valid. In large part because you can’t hope to firmly refute each claim, and they’ll tend to use arguements and fallicies to make basic facts seem unsettled. Creating the impression that there is a debate at all, or that their position might be a viable alternative.
This is basically how the Gish gallop works. That shitty debate and punditry tactic where people just keep slinging dodgey statements as fast as they can. If the opposing view gets bogged down attempting to fact check or refute every statement, the public tends to view the person with verbal diarea as more credible. Because you can’t possibly definitively refute every statement, and it allows that person to set the terms, select the topics and generally drive the conversation. It puts them in control.
And the pretty well established way to get up over that is to more broadly call bullshit on the whole thing, and present your own positions. Reasserting control by moving the discussion to the points you want to hit.
It’s also how what about ism works. People keep throwing out unrelated things so and so has done. And now we’re not talking about how Donald Trump is a predator we’re talking about the finer points of the Clinton Impeachment.
Getting bogged down in whether supremecy and nationism are the same thing, just becomes a discussion of racist arguements. I think “that’s still wrong and it’s still racist” is a more effective response than “that’s just another name white supremecy”.
Well, it doesn’t exist (and never did) and there is no way to get there from here without a shit ton of ethnic cleansing. It’s a mythical concept that can’t exist without a whole lotta violence involved. [ETA] Which I’d argue that advocates for such are well aware of.
The two are interconnected though, not disconnected. The concept of nation doesn’t not exist outside of the concept of a national order. This book addresses those nuances quite well:
And most people I’ve seen who use “globalist” who are white supremacists do so in terms of supporting white nationalist ideology.
I mean, aren’t you the one who is advocating for understanding the difference here?
I think that’s the same position, though. Saying something is just white supremacy by another name is saying it’s racist. It’s the white supremacists who are arguing that it’s not the same thing at all…
I think that one came from academia. Academics like to create precise jargon for things because they are actually going to talk about them precisely. When racists come up with their own terminology I guess it’s probably safe to think of it as interchangeable because it’s not like they were being rigourous.
I guess this is the place where my mind starts to explode. People feel like if they start asking, “Why can’t white people have a homeland?” (like that guy talking about Thailand in some other thread recently) they are somehow turning racism into a rational point of discussion.
Maybe it’s just because I’ve totally integrated the knowledge that there isn’t such a thing as the “white” race or the “white” people. If Ireland chose to close its borders to immigration I’d be put off by that, but it wouldn’t be the white nationalism, it would be Irish nationalism (though if that actually happened I’d assume it would happen under a racist political movement that would oppress dark-skinned Irish people).
So I guess I can see the convolution that people put their thinking through to get to the idea that a white nation could be a thing without thinking about ethnic cleansing. But it strikes me as utter nonsense.
Sure but there are variations that argue for the subjugation of other races instead of genocide or displacement.
It’s no less fucked and wrong. But genocide isn’t inherent. And less so with white supremecy than white nationalist/separatism.
Pretty much. But the variations between the two help to explain how you get shit like pro isreal, or even Jewish Jewish white supremacists. They wrongly view Isreal as a pure ethno-state (or potential one). And right wing racist fetishization of Russia. Russia gets viewed as both one of those aggressive ethnostates, or a white race-state. But also as the potential heart of a white transnational Union in Europe.
Among other things because those are both complicated bits of weird.
Because there is a difference, and understanding the various movements and ideologies here is important. Because they’re isn’t just one kind of, or group of racists.
At the very least it helps avoid a situation where attempting to shout some one down turns into just discussing the relative merits of White nationalism obe white supremecy. Because that’s just letting the white nationalist make himself look good.
None of these thing are entirely seperated, they’re all just different smells of racism. And the problem with white nationalist isn’t that it often relies on white supremecy. It’s that it’s fucking racist. A Homeland for the white race isn’t stupid or wrong just because it never existed, and the terms needed to get there. It’s that there’s no such thing as the white race and the entire ediface is evil in it’s own right however we choose to label the variations.
I don’t like the line that white nationalism is bad because it’s white supremecy by another name. Because it makes it possible to argue with it. White nationalism is bad because it’s white nationalism and white nationalism is bad. Yeah the white nationalist is also a white supremacist. But even if he wasn’t it’d still be a bad thing.
The latter is a favorite dog whistle for Jewish. The former gives Peter Theil such a hard on that he built a bunker in New Zealand full of bitcoins and intern blood.
It’s not just only racism or a problem if it’s genocide. None of it is acceptable part of our discourse. Not a single shred of it. There is literally no reason not to put it all in the same basket, because it all leads to degrees of the same place, is advocated by the same people, and is just a false in reality. But going back to the book I posted, they argue that the language of the first globalization of the 19th century rested on both white nationalist exclusivity (white man’s countries) and the emergence of the nation-state as a means of state craft. They go hand in hand, in fact.
The problem is that we don’t want a white nationalist or a white supremacist in power, either one. And the fact that the two have become conflated in recent years means that in reality there is not difference. I’m all for scholarly discussions and distinctions, but this isn’t an academic conference, it’s real life. At some point, people who hold odious views that are anathema to human freedom need to be called out. Splitting hairs between white nationalists or white supremacists only gives them a win, because we’re once again ignoring the threat that actually exists, which are people who wish to subjugate others.
Well duh. That’s my entire point. It’s no less acceptable and I’m not sure that outside the context of a discussion or in academic literature that it’s helpful - meaning having the racists themselves proclaim a difference, in order to hide their true colors which is what most often happens when this distinction gets floated.
Most people understand globalist by the antisemitic terminology, just so you know.
And yes, I’m well aware of globalization as a historical phenomenon. I’ve read like a shit ton of books on it, and am at least as well informed as a wikipedia article, thanks.
