Is black nationalism racist?

Yea.

Stop being such a pushover and party like it's 1939

Well, 3 cheers for consistency. I agree.

Do you think that there's necessarily a problem with in-group preference? Pretty much all groups exhibit a certain degree of tribalism. The only group that tends to be demonized for doing so however is white people (specifically men). If black people want segregation (in universities for example they are actually calling for this/safe "no whites" spaces), it seems to be generally supported and cheered by a large portion of the left. If white people called for the same thing.. I think we both know what would happen.

Is in-group preference inherently wrong? Is it wrong to trust people who look/act like you more than people who don't? I'm pretty sure there are studies that show babies naturally gravitate more towards people who look like them/their parents.

I read the wikipedia definition for white nationalismand thought "That doesn't sound so bad. I wouldn't exactly call someone a racist who had these beliefs". But thank you for showing me I was mislead.

Replace the word "white" with any other demographic, and the majority of people wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

If you identify your “tribe” based on race I would say you’re a racist.

There are different ways of defining ethnicity.

One way (seemingly) based on national and genetic heritage (eg. English), and another (seemingly) based on ancestral and regional heritage (eg. Nordic).

(Eg. African American is defined as an ethnicity by some, but not by others.)

Regardless of which way... White is not an ethnicity.

There isn’t “white” culture. Being a culturalist, nationalist, etc., isn’t racist - assuming these things are linked to race is.

Do you think the point this guy is trying to make means he is a racist?

I got through almost a minute of that and yes, yes he is.

So that makes all feminists sexist, and pretty much all identitarians who make white people the "outgroup" based on them being white, racist.

Cool, glad we agree.

It’s hard to take you seriously when you confuse sex and race while simultaneously trying to put words in my mouth.

I'm not confusing anything. You said it was racist if you based your "tribe" off your race. Seems like that'd easily translate to making your tribe based off your gender = sexist.

Feminists are female supremacists/man haters, who base their "tribe" off having a vagina, which makes them sexist.
Identitarian groups (like BLM for example) who hate white people are clearly racist.

I don't know why people keep posting this.

He completely rejected that later on, and renounced the Nation of Islam and embraced Sufi-Sunni Islam.

Two of his daughters married non-black people, and he was fine with it...

If you want to continue our discussion don’t try to pigeonhole me in to your translations.

Tell me if I am wrong.

Words, especially on the internet, can have various contexts. The different understandings of context cause confusion when the context of words conflicts with itself.

Nation = a distinct group of people. Or, sometimes it can mean just a group of people who share similar languages, and perhaps live close enough to each other. The range and scope of ethnic distinction varies, ie indigenous native Americans are considered a nation unto themselves. But, the scotts-irish in American overwhelming identity with being apart of an abstract concept called the an American, which they believe is the word for their nation. It can be broad strokes, or very distinct, it's all so very abstract.

Supremacy = "The quality of being supreme." Which essentially means a dominance in a particular area or subject. A very abstract concept. The conflict of this context, is that it can also have a malicious context when applied to distinct groups of people, who are probably living in the same national umbrella of diverse groups. The context of any national supremacy doesn't make any sense, when referring to specific nationalities. If you were to go back 1,000 years ago, to the indigenous Americans in their areas, they cannot be supreme unto themselves, they could only be supreme onto others(which did not exist). But, if the context was simply, "to dominate an area," then yes indigenous Americans were the supreme nation 1,000 years ago... because they were the dominate presence there. Supremacy is being used in the context for supremacy in territorial presence and the other context is the maliciousness where one group dominates another. If I were to say, "there is an Asian supremacy in Asia," the context seems like nothing malicious just territorial, and if I were to say, "there is Asian supremacy in Greece," it would imply something like an Asian mafia dominating and taking over.

White = Another abstract concept, but, none the less, a broad stroke of people that share some distinction. The distinction being white. Just like being Asian, or African... broad strokes.


So, white nations and white nationalism would be two different things. 1. A white nation would imply an already pre-existing and distinct group of people, who could be categorically what they describe themselves to be. 2. The context white nationalism, could either imply, the advocacy of creating or maintaining a distinct dominance in a territory. The contextual problem arises when there is no dominate white nation to really speak of, then white nationalism becomes malicious in it's usage. It's all so confusing. The scotts-Irish are a kind of a "white nation," they're born into this nation, and probably have the evolutionary instinct that they don't really want to dominate other groups, but, want to dominate the area they grew up in because its difficult to survive in a vulnerable or poor area in fragmented communities... In the same way, Asians might want to dominate Asia for similar reasons.

Either way, it seems supremacy and nationalism can have the same contextual meaning, but, also can mean two different things to various people. Both could be mean maintain/preserving, and/or dominating others. My suggestion would be to use different words, because many people will naturally think of them as hostile. Consider that this might of been the intention of creating such words/context in the first place.

I just legitimately wanted to know if what he was saying is considered racist, because I can't tell (certified autist).

Who pigeonholed you? You made a statement, and I expounded based off that statement. You said tribalism based on race is racist. I agree. That makes BLM racist. I further stated that feminism which is tribalism based on gender is sexist.

This seems pretty straight forward.

Don't "translate" my posts to other topics and say "cool, glad we agree."

This seems pretty straight forward.

Well now you seem mad. Are you saying you misspoke? BLM isn't even "another topic", as it's a racial identitarian group who bases their tribal identity on their race. That's literally what we were talking about, and you stated that race-based tribalism is racist. So you agree that BLM is racist. This isn't me misquoting you, or stretching or translating what you said. You said BLM is racist, because race-based tribalism is racist.

If we're to believe you're even remotely intellectually consistent, you would easily be able to apply the same principals to gender-based tribalism, and thus arrive at the conclusion that feminism is sexist.

That ... or I don’t want my thoughts on sex and race summed up in a single sentence by some random on the internet in a hyperbolic question.

I’m talking about race here, if you want to talk about sexism with me ask a question.

Ok skip the feminism. BLM is racist, yes?

Something that needs to be addressed is that the idea of a white ethnostate implies is that the white nationalist wants that state to be culturally White or culturally Japanese or Spanish you name it that is what that means so for example a white nationalist whether you're American or Hungarian or polish wants to preserve the cultural identity in your nation which means immigrants are allowed to migrate to their country however they must assimilate into that nation's cultural identity for example a muslim immigrant to the UK following British law and assimilating to British society as opposed trying to bring their former nations laws with them

This will be the last time I respond to a post of yours formed in that way.

“Do you think BLM is racist?” Would be acceptable.

This, very much - allowing some room for evolving as new ideas come in - as long as they don’t fundamentally alter the core of the country and don’t come too fast.

Generalizations are not usually accurate in general, as I said, the two are not mutually exclusive depending on the person, however a person who is not a white supremacist but is a white nationalist would not think that white people are better or above other ethnic groups, they simply want to live among their specific ethnic group for various reasons.

So you're going to mince words over the way a question is formed rather than answer it. You obviously understand the question. Either answer it, or don't, but don't pretend it has anything to do with the way I worded it.

And you can choose to do so. Why you do you need an entire country to be an ethnostate? There are tons of cities which would cater to your preferences. Pick one and move there.

as a white man i feel personally attacked by this thread.

jk opie its all about how you look at the world without worrying about how other people look at you.