>So what, we can only be proud of an identity if it's one that's been victimized? What absurd standard is that?
dont know where i ever implied that?
black and gay power / pride are about empowering and giving identity to an often disenfranchised people. white power isn't about empowering white people or giving an identity to white people because white people have specific identities that blacks dont, and when have white people ever been disenfranchised (to the same extent as minorities.) it's almost exclusively used to mean white superiority over others, and not just because it has 'white' in the name.
pretty much as simple as that.
>Of course people can use Sudanese or Congan culture.
it doesnt make sense for a south african to dress like a sudan tribal (as an example).
it doesnt make sense for people to act as and represent cultures they have no relationship with. i dont have any problem with a white person wearing mehdni, but if youre white and you decide to identify as a desi person... like no, thats not who you are, youre white.
>What the fuck is with the "It's the only thing the majority of American black folk have"? I can say the same for a vast amount of white people. What about American culture? Do the blacks not have access to that?
poor wording on my part. black people also have american culture. but white people might have polish or czech culture in conjunction with their american culture. whereas, african americans may only have their american culture, the culture of a country their ancestors were forcibly brought to (and yes i know white people also arent native to america, but white people came whereas black people were brought.)
>Yeah, and by that logic if whites want to, they should be able to identify with the white race if they have no idea where their family came from.
sure i guess, but when has that ever happened? if white people were as disenfranchised as minorities, and started using 'white power' as a means of identity and empowerment, then i could see the meaning of white power becoming more in line with the meaning of black power. but that probably wont happen because it wasnt the whites who were kidnapped and lost their history and original cultures.
the reason why using 'white power' as a means of identity and empowerment for white people doesn't work out because 1) white people already have the identity that was stripped from black people, meaning it makes no sense for them to use the term as a means of gaining identity. 2) white people arent the disenfranchised people: blacks and minorities are. white people tend to be the privileged lot. 3) white power is, again, used by neo-nazis and the KKK to mean white supremacy at a much higher frequency than black power being used by neo-nazis to mean black supremacy.
> Black power isn't anti-racist, there are countless black power advocates who support black separatism or black supremacy.
there are extremists to every group. in this case, people using black power to mean black supremacy are the extremists and should not be paid attention to.
i wish i could say the same for when people use white supremacy, but the problem is, thats all the terms ever been used for.
>vast majority of white America don''t look back to their ancient ancestors to find identity, they find it in their being American. Why are black people different?
let's say theres a classroom with ten students in it. five of the students are wearing red shirts and the other five are wearing blue shirts. the students with the red shirts have golden star stickers, passed down through generations of their family, eventually landing in the hands of the students. the red shirts are proud of their golden stars.
the students with the blue shirts dont have stickers and thus cant be proud of much. and so, they instead decide to celebrate what they all have in common: blue shirts, thus creating the movement of blue shirt power (lmao.)
the red shirts see this and decide they want 'power', too, and come up with red shirt power. but the conflict is that the red shirts already have their stickers, and the whole power movement was for the kids who didnt have stickers to celebrate other things they had in common besides stickers.
in response, red shirters say "well we dont pay attention to our stickers much anyway, why cant you just not care about the stickers like we do?"
(basically, although american Joe may not care about his roots that much and feels more american than he does european, he still has roots though: he can still say hes 1/4 polish 1/4 greek 1/4 italian or something. this gives him a sense of identity. black people cannot do this. so, the black power movement may give a black person the identity they lack from slavery as well as the empowerment they are not given from a racist system.)
and also the red shirters used to whip the blue shirters everyday until one day they decided not to.
>Slavery was awful. But it's not happening now to blacks in America, so I really don't give a shit about it.
well thats a shame, because slavery has long-lasting affects and impacts blacks today, albeit in a non direct way and mostly as a result of events immediately after slavery ended (ie during reconstruction era.)
> I'm fine with diversity, but if a white guy gets passed over for a job for a less qualified black guy because of his race is OK, what's wrong with him demanding some white power and wanting that job that he deserved?
nothing i guess, but people are still going to construe 'white power' in this case to mean 'white supremacy' because again that is all the phrase has ever been used for.
and i dont think this scenario happens as often as you think it does.
>There are race quotas. There are scholarships specifically closed off to whites
it seems like in the scenario of a race quota, youre assuming the black person is automatically less qualified for the job than a white person. if the black and the white are seeking the same job and have identical backgrounds and resumes, then I just dont see the problem with hiring the black over the white to ensure theres more diversity in the work place.
I think youre also assuming black and white children grow up through the same identical educational system. 75% of black children are poor during childhood (compared to 30% white kids.) Only three in four poor kids complete high school whereas 9 out of 10 non-poor kids complete high school (see: same previously linked source.). So if theres anything that can help black kids make it out the hood, and get a better education, im with it.
>But it's happened the other way, yet in that case, you don't seem to have a problem with it.
i dont like any racism. the problem is i tend to see more racism directed at minorities rather than white people. so im not defending white people as much as i am minorities.
>Why is race different to country?
because a scotsman and a slav have a completely different culture, heritage, history, ethnicity.
>Yeah, but if I were to come to a white power approach in meaning whites = blacks, what's wrong with that.
nothing, but when has white power ever been used in that way? mainly because it doesnt make much sense... as a white person youre empowering yourself and showing that youre on the same level as a black person.. who has historically always been lesser than you...
>Black power just means giving more power to black people
there a differenc between asking for the same power as others and outright supremacy.
>It's not twisting that to ask for more black power to be given to blacks than whites have.
uh, yeah, it is.
