• REDACTED@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Not talking about this page (clearly fascist), but purely psychological question - can white people have white people communities, similar to Asian, Black, Arabic, etc without getting hated for it? Like, does it in your mind look wrong when a bunch of white people make white people community versus black people for black people? Is this racism, chat? This is a serious question that’s triggering my cognitive dissonance

    • Son_of_Macha@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      No because white isn’t anything like an ethnicity, white Americans are a mix of many different ethnicities including about 10% African. In Europe we don’t have white people, we have Germanics and Slavs and Celts.

    • shawn1122@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      Is white a unifying culture in anyway? Wouldn’t calling it Europeans and their diaspora make more sense?

    • Seleni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Short answer: NO. Because ‘white’ is not a culture, and because ‘white’ people were, and sometimes still are, racist assholes.

      Long answer: So the reason black people (in the US especially) have an aggregate conglomerate group identity is because they were brought over as slaves, seperated from all their family, and basically had their own cultures beaten out of them. They had to rebuild their cultural identity from scratch.

      ‘Asians’ tend to not have a bloc group identity except when they get together as a bloc to stand up to white people being assholes (again, yay racism). Individual cultures did, in the past, have insular cultural communities (again speaking mostly US-centric) because ‘white’ people in the US didn’t want ‘those icky non-whites’ living near them (to the point of codifying it into law in many cases). They had to create their own communities in specific ‘permitted’ locations, based on nationality (hence the development of ‘Chinatowns’ and such).

      ‘White’ people, on the other hand, moved to the US voluntarily and were able to keep their cultures intact and plop them wherever they felt like. So it’s disingenuous at best and outright racist and belittling at worst to claim a ‘white’ identity because ‘black people get to do it’, completely ignoring the fact that black people only do it because people labeling themselves ‘white’ forced them into it.

      Edit: adding to this, it is possible for ‘white’ people to have a cultural identity. For example, my family all came from Sweden, and for quite a while found comfort in hanging out with fellow transplants from the home country while we learned the language, found jobs, and such.

      As a result my ancestors built Swedish halls, held Swedish festivals, and so on—in fact we still do today, to celebrate our heritage. But we are celebrating Swedish heritage.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Depends a lot on “where” the community is.

      Most communities aren’t based on skin color, rather mainly based on shared language, shared culture or shared religion. Hispanic communities can have people from a number of Latin American countries, like Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia, Venezuela, these can include people with white skin ('murican racism is based a lot more on xenophobia than actual skin color). Brazil has some germanic communities in the state of Santa Catarina, but you can also find people of Polish and Austrian descent there, these are all super white, as you’d expect, but not hated for being white, although the density of nazi sympathizers there is significant.

      Most black communities in the Americas formed either from populations of freed slaves or from their resistance settlements, so they often didn’t “share” a culture[1], but shared that common background of slavery. Not only that, they were often shunned and hunted by the white society, thanks in no small part to racist propaganda. They were more or less forced to live in their own “black only” communities.

      Lastly, there are small european communities in places around Africa and SE Asia, like in India and Taiwan. These communities will tend to be “white” for the same reason hispanic communities tend to be hispanic, or arabic communities tend to be arab: because the people that plan to join them often share a common background and, since they’ll be strangers in someone else’s land, it’s better to have a group you know to help you get started.


      1. slave owners figured out the hard way that having too many slaves from the same region made it easier for them to organize and revolt ↩︎

    • webp@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      If the majority of your community already is white, doesn’t that satisfy whatever urge that is? Why would there be a further need, if there are many white people in your community already, to have an exclusively white space, unless you are a racist? The point of POC communities is to connect with people who face the same struggles in society as a racial minority, so would the point of a group formed by a white majority be to unite under the shared “oppression” of a majority?

        • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          2 days ago

          More so than that. It was the Nazi-era term referring to “the true Aryan German people”, and excluding all the Nazis regarded as degenerate or un-Aryan, as used in the adjective “volkisch”.

          • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            Yep. Much like the swastika was a Hindu and Buddhist symbol (that Hindus and Buddhists have largely given up b/c Nazis) “volk” is one of those things the Nazis tainted for good.

            • Lumidaub@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              2 days ago

              We do still use the word though, without associating it with the Third Reich at all. It’s a neutral way to refer to ethnicities for example. “Wir sind das Volk” (“we are the people (of this country)”) means the sovereignty of the people.

              “Völkisch” however is tainted (and when non-Germans use “Volk”, it is indeed at least suspicious).

                • Lumidaub@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  I’m assuming it’s the same root, yes. “Folklore” in German means the same thing, although we pronounce it differently. Don’t ask me why we don’t spell it “Volklore” - if I had to guess, I’d say the term is older than the spelling “Volk”, not least because “Lore” on its own doesn’t exist (anymore) in German.

            • sfxrlz@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Volksempfänger(propaganda radio), Volkswagen, Volkssturm, völkischer beobachter(nazi newspaper) etc. all originate in that time or were used excessively. So maybe not directly but there are lots of signs or rather word combinations that originated in that time.

  • Jayjader@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I would love to troll them with some videos on people that are literally white as snow, either some kind of stop-motion or other animation approach. Then report all the Nazi shit as “this is peach/pink people, not white”.

    Not that it would do much good, but just maybe they would get frustrated enough to take the insurance down — or at the very least explicit that they use the unambiguously racist meaning of “White”.