Talk:White pride/Archive 1

New Picture Needed
The picture of the neo nazi's is not representative of the article, it is generally accepted that European American Pride and white power are separate issues. Therefore, the article photo is a violation of NPV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylant07 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is not neutral
'''There have already been a similar discussion on this page, but the distinction between the concepts of black and white pride on Wikipedia is NOT neutral. The same goes for White power and black power. This post will be half clarification of the problems and half debate of them. I do realize that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and I will act hererafter.

No matter what group is dominant or what group is the majority, there should not be a such cultural distinction as we see here. To counter the justification of Wikipedias distinction that White Pride and White Power are typically more often with racist motivation than other variants, it shall be mentioned that the very movements that started Black Pride and Black Power had racialist/racist motivations; such as black supremacy or racist hatred directed towards whites. This includes most of the bigger movements that I mention in this post, but are not limited to them.

Numerous surveys have showed that whites are not statistically more racist than blacks, only its the definition of racism that is wrong. It has been established that many people actually believe that the definition of racism is when a white person discriminates any other ethnicity - and there by there is no such thing as racism directed at whites. By this definitions, only whites can be racist, and naturally whites would be the most racist.

The recent problems with black supremacy (Kamau Kambon) in USA, have emphasized how alive the race problems are, and how actual the racial double standard actually is - in a totally opposite direction then previously believed so. Similar scandals where whites have called for lynching or extermination of blacks today (in these cases, getting media interest before discrimination have proven much more difficult) have made much more impact, and in this relation it is worth mentioning that there does not exist a white relligion with millions of members or supporters, with the official belief that all blacks are devils and should die (read: Nation of Islam), and relligiously integrated racism on such a scale have proven impossible with the white population.

Am I trying to say, that blacks that say Black Pride or Power are worse then people who say White Power/Pride? No. I am simply saying that the opposite is not worse then blacks doing so. Black Pride or Power is as racist as White Pride or Power. Whether it is even racist is also a matter of debate, but since only White Power is considered racist, there are more blacks using Black power, this indicating a high degree of Black racism.

Wikipedia is no discussion forum, and I am only saying these things so we can see what the problems are with this article - that this article is based on the non-neutral American racist double-standards. Why do they have to be a part of Wikipedia? Why is those standards neutral, when they in fact are considered racist in other countries?

Do something. This article suffers from influence of the affirmative action of the american society directed towards its black minority - accepting black racism, taking extremely seriously white racism, or even nominating non-racist white movements or terms racist, even though there are similar (they ARE similar) black movements or terms.

The term  power/pride, simply states that one believes in owns ethnicitys power, or that one is proud of ones own ethnicity or culture. Some racists then use these terms or maybe just because of affirmative action, the definitions change. That is not right, and it is not justification of a double standard, and if people think it is, then thats subjective and not Wikipedias concern.

This subject deals with racial pride and "racial" power, rather then anything else. So some racists use these terms, and so the american society has political correctness from the whites and affirmative action, but should we therefore change the very definition of things and bow down for this racist double standard? I think not, at least that is not Wikipedian policy (abolish racism and stay neutral).''' 85.82.195.131 19:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the points advanced in this incoherent screed are dealt with fully below and in the article. There's not much to add. So you disagree. So you don't think that minorities are entitled to their anger. Fine. This article is not about "black power" or "white power". Those are different articles. Although there are racist organizations that advocate black pride (e.g., NOI), for the most part black pride is a credo advanced to combat systemic and cultural oppression of black people. This can't possibly apply to white people, because there is nowhere in the world - the western world, at least - where white people face systemic or cultural oppression. Furthermore, I've yet to be presented with compelling evidence that white pride is either 1) not reactionary (i.e., a conservative/racist/knee-jerk response to the notion of black people being organized or proud of their heritage) or 2) advocated by any organizations that are either not racist themselves or not directly tied to racist organizations. - Maggie --67.71.120.136 18:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

well for one thing AMERICA would be a good place to start for instance the ability of blacks in school to say racist things and no they get in no trouble a white kid says something thats suspension isn't that opression?

Bias
This article has been labelled as biased; however in the absence of discussion or evidence I will assume this is a frivolous tagging and will remove the tag. If anyone disagrees feel free to replace the tag along with an explanation AdelaideRandel 23:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
The article as it stands is pure apology for white pride. It is based on a number of fallacious and readily refutable arguments, namely:

1. White pride is analogous to black pride as opposed to white pride is a reactionary response to black pride & similar movements. 2. White pride is simply a state of being proud of one's origins, rather than a call for supremacy. (The reference provided is Stormfront - a noted racist webpage! 3. The doctrine of the Fourteen Words is not necessarily racist, nor are they necessarily neo-nazi. (Despite the fact that David Lane coined them for the purposes of the KKK, Aryan Nations, and Order!)

Neutral? Please. Pure, unabashed racism. [Edited to sign my comment, thereby excusing me from the below 'simplist explaination'] --67.71.122.58 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would respond to the unsigned comment above in the simplist terms. Your arguements are not a refutation of NPOV, but your own opinion. This article may contain "apology", but it does explain the White Pride ideals. This explaination is what makes this article worthy of remaining here. Avsn 23:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A good start, but...
I think this is a good start to a new "non-apologetic" article. I would say the old article was more informative, but this start should settle some arguments. --Avsn 19:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think so. Add to it if you wish, but I've marked it a stub for now. -Maggie --70.50.76.161 21:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but I won't bite that bait. I wash my hands of your nonesense.  --Avsn 22:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered! -Maggie
 * Don't be. You're simply just not worth the time or effort, and I don't care to give you further chance to violate the WP:NPA policy.--Avsn 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeph1 (talk • contribs).
 * The editor(s) of this page are portraying white pride in a negative light. Meanwhile Black pride and Asian pride, for example, are shown in a positive light. What is with the hypocrisy? It's like these editors have never heard early 90s rap and underground rap today. Talk about Black pride and hate. And i don't doubt there are Asian groups out there somewhere very racist towards whites too. So whoever, stop pulling the pc bullsh**


 * Truly, your love of non-white people shines through. No doubt you've encouraged your son to convert to Judaism and your daughter to marry a black man.  Why ever would people think of "White Pride" in a negative light?? -Bindingtheory 23:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thing is, Zeph, your paranoiac, nativist rant notwithstanding, there's a difference between white culture systemically oppressing minorities, and minorities kind of resenting that. -Maggie --70.50.78.189 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You two above just don't get it. Why would i need to show my love for non-white people? What would that prove? Nothing. Except that i'd be some PC a-hole trying to make myself feel better. I have family members that are black, Jewish and even gay. They have their pride. Why can't i have mine? According to you two, i can't. Because i'm just the evil, intolerant white oppressor of the minorities. Talk about not having open minds. I like how you think you know me when you see some words written on a factual unreliable website like Wikipedia and try to approach me in a manner meant to discredit what i was saying. Specifically, to Maggie, what do you truly know about oppression throughout history. There was oppression long before slavery began in the west. All of which was done by non-whites. Even during slavery many non-whites were involved in slavery. Ever hear of the involvement of rival African tribes capturing and selling those from other tribes? Ever hear of the Islamic/Arab involvement in slavery that continues to this day?

Come back with a real position instead of one taught to you.
 * Being a jew kind of taught me something about a legacy of oppression. Being a woman too. Who knew? I'd also point out that your attempted trivialization of black slavery is disgusting in the most astonishingly unselfconscious way. Exactly the sort of thing you'd expect to come from someone whose opening invocation is a Colbert-style "I have black friends".


 * It's not a matter of being closed-minded to point out that, in the Western world, non-whites (and non-males and non-straights) face (and have always faced) obstacles that white, straight men don't. And the only organizations that have ever excluded straight white men are the ones that were created because their founders were excluded from all others.


 * All that being said, the article as it stands is entirely balanced on this matter; it points out the difference of opinion, and notes accurately that the term "white pride" is almost entirely used by white supremacists. -Maggie --70.50.78.189 22:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, you didn't get what i was trying to say. It'd be a waste to try to explain myself to someone of your special stature. Only in your confused world would you think i was trying to trivialize slavery. This article is completely biased against whites as a whole in having respect for their culture and ancestry while other "pride" entries are shown as a great thing. Even though the major observers of Asian and Black pride are mostly racist too. But it's fine for them.


 * And somehow it's fine for you to be intolerant of straight, white males yet wrong for straight white males to have intolerance for anything. All because of their skin color. What's the definition of racism again?


 * Zeph, I would suggest you simply abandon any argument with this "Maggie". She has shown herself to be incapable of anything other than stupidity on a talk page.  Eventually she will attack you specifically (and violate the WP:NPA policy again). Just give up. Avsn 18:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

From a previous post: "It's not a matter of being closed-minded to point out that, in the Western world, non-whites (and non-males and non-straights) face (and have always faced) obstacles that white, straight men don't. And the only organizations that have ever excluded straight white men are the ones that were created because their founders were excluded from all others."

Exactly what does this have to do with White Pride? Bringing up discrimination within the context of different organizations relates to this article how? You are throwing around some heavyweight assumptions that society's leaders have always acted exclusively on behalf of white, straight 'non-females'. There are millions of white, straight, 'non-females' who are living in poverty throughout the Western world. The allegation that all white males have colluded to keep minority groups in check is questionable at best. Ask any lower-class or even middle-class white male how well they feel represented in Washington D.C., Berlin or Dublin. The answers may supprise you.

You are failing to note the intrinsic greed that dominates many human beings as group, not just the power elite that run the show. Also, some of your vocabulary is awkward to say the least. Isn't a 'non-male' just a 'female' and a 'non-female' just a 'male'? Once again, this relates to the article how? This is not an entry on gender equality, the glass ceiling or sexism. Let's stick to defining the article, not talking about unrelated topics or inserting fuzzy science terms like 'non-male' or 'non-female'. Thank you.--Saintlink 12:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll respond to this comment only by noting the following: 1) that my usage of 'fuzzy science terms' like 'non-male' is full of transparent irony that you've obviously missed; 2) that it's pointless of you to lexture me on conflict theory ('the intrinsic greed that dominates many human beings') in this highly simplistic fashion when a more developed version of the same theory is the basis for my arguments; and 3) feeling that whiteness is something to be proud of is different from feeling that blackness (or gayness) is something to be proud of, because white people have never been oppressed (ie, made to internalize shame) on the basis of their whiteness. Yes, there are a lot of white American men living in poverty. But they can safely assume that it has nothing to do with the color of their skin; and if they feel a reactionary need to be proud of the color of their skin because the obvious eludes them, well, all too often they court racism. Just as the term white pride was apparently coined by white supremacists and neo-nazis. If not, find me a documented earlier usage of the term by someone who doesn't either deny the Holocaust, or think that black people are deleterious to the social fabric, or who doesn't think that America (or whatever) is a White Christian nation under God.


 * Incidently, a 'non-male' is not necessarily female. A 'non-male' could be intersexed, transgendered, or somethin' else. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 15:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * *sigh* I'm white. I'm currently serving in the U.S. Army. I'm 26, not particularly rich (I'm in the military, after all), and I date an American woman who happens to be half-Vietnamese. I'm mostly Irish (who, upon their arrival in the United States, which treated quite badly on basis of their nationality) and I come from a family with a long line of men who've served in the military. I'm proud of my "white" heritage. The problem with your reasoning, Maggie, is that the way you've presented your objections to this article makes it seem as if ALL white men who proclaim to have pride in being white are *gasp* RACIST! I present myself as an example of your fallacy. Yes, "White Pride" has racist connotations. However, it is NOT exclusively racist. Just as black/asian/latino/whatever pride presents both sides of the racism coin. Any of these racial pride movements have inherent qualities of the "My-Race-Is-Better-Than-Yours" tug-of-war. The article, in my opinion, is balanced. "White Pride" is not an exclusively-racist term, whatever its roots be. BRGillespie 21:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So if you think the article (which I mostly wrote) is balanced, then what's wrong with my reasoning? And what does it matter what I say here? I never suggested that all people who claim to have pride in their white heritage are racist. I did, however, suggest - accurately - that the term "white pride" is used (or has been co-opted, or whatever) to conceal or normalize racist beliefs. If you're genuinely proud of your heritage, you ought to be angry at sons-of-bitches like Don Black and David Duke who, by association, made the act of having pride in your heritage (totally legitimate - there can be no denying that, say, the Irish have been oppressed throughout their history) a dirty word. - Maggie --65.95.150.214 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Bah!... and I was just about to delete my commentary as irrelevant, since this talk page subsided months ago (my comment was a bit "knee-jerk"). A good point about being at supremacist members twisting the wording to support their platform. Still, I perceived (correctly or incorrectly) that since this term may have originated with a white supremacist/nationalist/whatever organization it made all persons who had "white pride" inherently racist (which I'm not). That was the genesis of my comment.BRGillespie 22:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Needs to Start Over
This article does not conform with the Wikipedia NPOV in my opinion. The way it is currently phrased one might think that "White Pride" is exclusive to the neo-Nazi or skinhead movements. While there may be links or even popular connotation with such a reference, to leave the article it the current state does not provide a more nuanced look the topic. As referenced by previous posters, the language of the current version of this article is highly inflammatory and narrow-minded in scope. How about a more generic description in terms of pride of one's culture at the beginning of the article. If links are to be established with other movements such as White Nationalism or neo-Nazism then let them be in follow-up paragraph. The previous edits of this page imply that "White Pride" is solely a "hate based" movement. For example, why is this statement permitted in light of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines?

"But whereas the latter two movements are viewed as celebrations of self-worth and solidarity on the part of groups generally perceived as oppressed minorities, White Pride is seen by critics as an attempt to reinforce the very hierarchies that gave rise to that oppression."

Viewed by whom? Stormfront.org? The ADL? The Black Panthers? The American Nazi Party? I refer once again to the WP policy page: Words_to_avoid

Such brash and overly simplistic statements without any sort of official endorsement or disclaimer from external sources makes me question the supposed "viewed by" status of such claims. Where are the polls? Census data? Published op-eds? Exactly how do we come to the conclusion that all of the subjects described above are irrefutably intertwined. There appears to be a lack of physical evidence. Once again, I propose a generic draft of pride of one's race/color/national origin or whatever we can agree upon to be the core root of "White Pride". Any other connections between "White Pride" and Nazism, Skinheads, White Nationalism and so on should follow a more universal description of "White Pride".

An example of how a compromise could be reached can be found on the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism#A_critical_view

The pro/con arguments are much clearer in terms of what a "White Nationalist" is and isn't. Such clarity is lacking in this "White Pride" document.

Also, how about a disambiguation for the White Pride Band? Shouldn't they be referenced at the top of the page as a disambiguation?

Finally, could we please attempt at keeping this conversation civil? It goes without saying that this is a "hot-button" topic for many, that doesn't mean we can't act like adults and try to resolve any differences of opinion. Shall we move forward?--Saintlink 07:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The evidence you adduce that a productive compromise can be reached on topics such as these is absurd. The "critical view" is dismissed immediately by the article as "wrongly characteriz[ing]" White Nationalism.


 * I understand that the "view by" graf ought to be cited; but if you delete it suddenly the article stands as pure apology for White Pride, as some kind of benign counterpart to Black Pride or Gay Pride, even though the term appears to have been coined by racists and white supremacists, no matter how it's used. The difference is between (my) unsupported facts and (AVSN's, or Zeph's) plain disinformation. -Maggie


 * Incidentally, how could any reasonable person consider this article unbalanced when it includes the phrase "not inherently racist"?

Jews and Gays?
I don't see why Jews and Gays can't be proud of thier race, as this article suggests. I know that Jews that are actualy white are few and far between, but jeez. SilentRage 09:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Homosexuality isn't a race. It is a philosophy and/or lifestyle. There is no such thing as an 'ethnic gay'. If I misunderstood the way you phrased the paragraph above could you please elaborate? Thank you.--Saintlink 14:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You've misinterpreted. What the article suggests - correctly, might I add - is that proponents of white pride generally don't consider jews to be white, or include homosexuals in their clique. Keep in mind that white pride is above all a reactionary movement that emerged to protest things like black pride and gay pride. The implication, I guess, is that black people or gay people (or jews, or whatever have enough pride, or ought not be so proud...
 * There is such a thing as gay pride, although, as Saintlink noted, homosexuality isn't a race. Of course, Saintlink also stupidly refers to homosexuality as a 'philosophy', or a 'lifestyle' (like equestrian, I guess) rather than a sexual orientation, implying presumably that gay people can just change their minds about whom they find desirable. I'm not sure if it's fair for me to identify Saintlink as a proponent of White Pride, but if he is, his case should offer a case-in-point of why (or rather, in what capacity) White Priders exclude homosexuals from their reveleries.


 * Of course one might reasonably argue that there are no such things as races - a scientific fact that has to underpin any objective discussion of an issue like 'white pride'). As a jew I'm inclined to doubt whether there is any such thing as jewish pride. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry - that third paragraph is mine. I've corrected the spacing, I hope, to make that obvious. Avsn, I suspect that I ought to apologize for (directly or indirectly) accusing you of racism. It now seems to me that you are, at the very worst, naive - and that your ideology is basically benign and probably not racist. Keep in mind that a naive person cannot be blamed for their errors, and your error is an error of interpretation, or an error of contextualization. There is nothing wrong with being proud of one's European origins. The trouble is, you seem to describe yourself as a proponent of White Pride because you are under a mistaken impression as to the common usage of the term. White Pride is a term that is almost always used by white supremacists. Note the Google results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22white+pride%22&meta= . White Pride is synonymous, in common usage, with White Power. That does not mean that it is necessarily racist to be proud of one's lineage, if that lineage is white. It just means that racists have co-opted the term. A similar (although opposite) case is that of the term antisemitism. An anti-Semite is not opposed to Semites; rather, the term "semite" was co-opted, in this context, to refer exclusively to jews. It's not the dictionary's fault, per se - it's one stupid person's fault, but sadly the stupid person's idea caught on, and we all have to abide convention, because if we didn't we wouldn't understand one another. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 03:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The part that I was talking about was that the article said that Jews and Gays can't be apart of white pride. That's all. It was just a question. While were off topic, your point doesn't make any sence, "Maggie". Just because some other people that are racist, use the term "white pride" doesn't mean that we can't be proud of our heritage. And to be proud of my heritage when I'm white, is "White Pride". There is no other term for it, and the "common usuage" for it, as you put it, is irrelivent. If we all abided by this convention, the white race would be doomed, as there is no other term possible for white pride, and by your definition, white pride is racist. As far as I'm conserened, your post is opressive, and I resent it. SilentRage 16:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All I say to that, SilentRage, is that straightforward English doesn't appear to be your strong suit. You have (1) misinterpreted the topic sentence of the article (2) no grasp of the concept or primacy of conventional usage, and (3) a spelling impediment. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 22:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, you have nothing more intelligent to say, so you insult my spelling ability. Good job, jackass! Nevermind the fact that I was frustrated with what you said, so I typed fast without checking for spelling/grammar errors. I bet that my spelling and grammar aren't perfect now, either. Who cares? And as far as I'm conserened, your "conventional usage" can go to hell. I already explained why I looked past that. Pay attention next time. I actually like people like you. You completely dismiss what the person before you said, and show your true colours as a debate "impediment", as you said. People like me fight to make things right, so people can celebrate their heritage and race without discrimination or fear that they will be labeled "racist" for doing so. While people like you troll websites and try to cause trouble and make it seam like white pride is a bad thing. Who is the real racist now, bitch?! I'm done here, you've already shown your true colours. I'm not wasting my time anymore with an internet troll like you. SilentRage 15:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront
I would like to respond to 70.50.79.26's reversion of my previous edit. Stormfront is not an organization, nor is it "white supremacist". It is nothing more than a discussion forum, and the only ideal it can be said to advocate, insofar as much as a forum can be said to advocate an ideal, is "white pride" (as the banner insignia indicates). It is a very large forum with well over 85,000 members whom have a diversity of opinions, ranging from Identity Christians to National Socialists to people who are simply proud of their European heritage. Thus, it is biased and pejorative to try to pigeonhole it into a single arbitrary label. The entry on Stormfront is sufficient in describing the website; there's no need for unclear and arbitrary adjectives.

--Ryodox 00:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Stormfront is privately owned; it employs several people. That makes it an organization. It is owned and operated by the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. That makes it a white supremacist organization. Contributors to the Stormfront messageboard are not what most people mean when they say "the Stormfront website". They mean the Stormfront organization, a mouthpiece and pulpit for Don Black. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Stormfront White Nationalist Community, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message." &mdash; from Stormfront's user registration page


 * If you can provide a cited quotation from Don Black in which he outlines the ideology of the Stormfront "organization", and prove that that ideology constitutes the Merriam-Webster definition of white supremacism, then I will cease to challenge the validity of that label as it is used in this article.


 * However, if you hold that all of an owner's past actions or beliefs absolutely define the ideology of the organization as a whole, then by your definition Wikipedia is an objectivist, libertarian organization; a "mouthpiece and pulpit" for Jimmy Wales.


 * --Ryodox 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a registered charity. Stormfront is not. And unlike Jimbo Wales, Don Black does in fact describe his organization as having a unified ideology: he describes Stormfront contributors as "White activists" here: http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php?t=204019 "White activism" can evidentally mean whatever you want it to mean as long as you don't want it to mean tolerance of diversity. The organization was founded to support the senate run of David Duke, another Klanner, another white supremacist. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why White Nationalism is the same as White Supremacism
... because "white nationalists" believe that the first world (all prosperous nations) are the eminent domain of white people and white people alone. Racial seperatism is the same as white supremacy when ethnic minorities are segregated out of America and Europe, into less developed countries. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You cannot say that "White nationalist" are the same as "white supremacist" Without being racist yourself. Just like you cant support black people useing the term Honky or black pride but call a white guy who uses the term N#G#$ a racist. This whole page argues whether or not white pride is racist, Am i right? In my opinion If White pride is racist So should be black pride and native pride Ect. I see natives walking around my city every day wearing Native pride hats but if I was to were one that said white pride I would be called racist, Why? In are society Whites are the only ones that get labeled as racist, therefore were the ones that get it the worst.I see black go one T.V all the time and call white people Crackers and honkeys Ect. Now if a white went on T.V and said Ni@$r all Hell would break loose.I grew up in a Fairly poor neighborhood And i remember being called "A white peice of S#@t" at least once a week. I Never heard one person call a black or a native who called me that get labeled as Racist or as You would say "A BLACK supremacist". Everyones excuse for not labeling them is that there people were discriminated against Yada Yada Yada. My people (Ukrainians) were discriminated agianst just as much if not more than any other race. Our holocaust isnt even taught in schools yet Stallon Killed more Ukainians than hitler killed Jews. My Point is that You cant go around calling any white person whether its a member of the KKK or just a normal guy, Racist without calling yourself a Racist for Bashing white people But suporting blacks and natives to do the Same thing. Kye 198.166.216.71 07:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're grasping for straws here in an effort to synonymize the two ideologies to justify your use of the term "white supremacist" in describing White Nationalist organizations and people. I've already made the difference between the two clear; I was hoping you'd keep personal prejudices out of this. White supremacism entails racial heirarchy; i.e. White people ruling over people of other races. White Nationalism doesn't entail this. Your explanation also falls apart when it comes to highly industrialized nations like China and Japan.


 * --Ryodox 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * True, China is highly industrialized. But I said "developed", and it's absurd to suggest that a totalitarian regime is "highly developed". In any event, the trouble with 'white nationalists' is really threefold, and you haven't answered the accusation: firstly, white nationalism shunts off black people to the Africa that white imperialism has demolished; it also allows no place on Earth for Jews, Roma, or homosexuals; and it refuses to acknowledge that America was a Native American country first and foremost, for the vast majority of its history. As soon as a White Nationalist announces that he's ready to turn over the United States to the Chippewa, though, maybe I'll toot my horn in a different direction.

Rewrite 07/10/2006
The major issue people seemed to be having stemmed from whether or not white pride is by definition white supremacy. In the interest of fairness and balance, I've reworded it to include both viewpoints. I think I've been fair to the non-supremacists without erasing the fact that supremacists do use this term. It seems some are desparate to make white pride refer only to racist beliefs, while others would like to scrub any racial connotation from the definition entirely. Both are relevant and valid viewpoints. The truth is that white pride means both those things, so we have a duty to present both things. It's never going to be one way or the other in our lifetimes. It is a topic with conflicting views, so the best that can be done is to make an effort to voice those views. The size of this discussion is larger than the article. This is what happens on a hotly debated topic. Edit as you may, but I will fight to the death for this to remain balanced.


 * I agree. However, too often times many people try to make White Nationalism and white supremacism synonymous, when there are in fact distinguishable differences between the two.  They may either not be aware of these differences, thinking the terms to be interchangeable, or simply have an agenda of their own and deliberately confuse them.  There are really very few true advocates of white supremacy today, but White Nationalist organizations, websites, and personalities are frequently labelled "white supremacist" by their detractors (e.g. the Anti-Defamation League).  This term is usually inaccurate, however, because most White Nationalists do not advocate racial heirarchy or supremacy; instead supporting the idea of racial separation (see David Duke's statement on the matter ).


 * Therefore I am asking that the "white supremacist" label not be used in articles where the subject is explicitly White Nationalist. Too often these inaccuracies are upheld because of a common ignorance of the differences and an ingrained mental association between anything "pro-White" and "white supremacism".  I am committed to truth and neutrality, and I  believe that if one cannot prove through quotations that a person or organization advocates racial heirarchy, then the term "supremacist" is inaccurate and should be omitted.


 * --Ryodox 17:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I was leaving white nationalism out of the picture because of the danger of further confusing the three. My personal understanding is that white pride does not necessarily equal white nationalism.

White nationalism does not necessarily equal white supremacy.

White supremacy, while it DOES EQUAL RACISM (the belief that races have certain characteristics, and the belief that the characteristics of their particular race make them more fit to lead), it does not necessarily equal HATRED, or support of VIOLENCE or GENOCIDE)

The difficulty is that for SOME people, including SOME confessed hate groups they mean the same thing. They have openly SAID that is what they believe "White Pride" to be; or they belong or have belonged to groups who have.

David Duke for example is perhaps the worst example to give for a white nationalist who does NOT support white supremacy due to his known past membership in the KKK.

That's like calling Malcolm X a civil rights champion after his spewing racial hate with the Nation of Islam during his early years.

Neither have the credibility. If you want to throw white nationalism into the stew or a representative of that view, I say great. Just pick one that doesn't support supremacy or hate groups clarify the difference between nationalism, supremacy, and supporters of neither. All have used the term "white pride" to describe their beliefs.

Even if you can accomplish this, it still does not change the fact that supremacists and hate groups openly use the term "White Pride" to represent their agenda. Supremacy is relevant to this article and should stay.


 * I think your edit was well-intentioned, but it wasn't too well written or organized (there was a great deal of repetitive, excessive, and somewhat overwrought material), so I had a go at it, restoring certain phrases that I think were better rendered in the original, whilst maintaining an apologist sentence in the opening paragraph. This edit also gave me the chance to revise some of my earlier writing, so that's all the better. Change if you like, but I'm watching this article like a hawk. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You won't believe this Maggie, but I like what you've done mostly. I've never heard of a shibboleth and I worry that others won't know what it means. Can you either keep it and internally link it, or pick a more common english word. I looked it up and the definition exactly fits how supremacist use it, so you're dead on, but not every one is a closet hebrew scholar like yourself.

...Generally not homosexuals or jews... OK, I don't know why you felt so strongly about that. In the case of the supremacist I thought that was obvious, they don't like anyone that isn't them. But since "generally" covers the exception to the rule as well It stays safe.

"But opponents of White Pride...whereas White Pride is"

This is only true for those who do believe White Pride = White Supremacy. I don't think it's pride that is being opposed here, unless for that person White Pride = White Supremacy.

If I leave the bit about the oppressed minorities vs sanitizing the face of the white supremacist, which is a relevant belief by many but not all and it's caustic enough to appease the toughest of those who believe WP=WS.

Would you settle for:

But those for whom White Pride is White Supremacism argue that movements like Black Pride represent affirmations of    self-worth and solidarity on the part oppressed minorities - whereas White Pride represents an attempt to reinforce the very hierarchies that gave rise to that oppression, and also to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacism.

I watch this like a hawk too. The two things I don't want to see:

The removal/reduction of the acknowlegement that not all professed supporters of white pride hold supremacist or racist views. That is, for them at least White Pride is not equal to White Supremacy.

The removal/reduction of the acknowlegement that supremacists or racists DO use the term "White Pride" to describe their beliefs. Therefore it cannot be completely removed.

So long as those things are clear, and maybe linking the term shibboleth, since it's hebrew and only people who can speak it would know what it means. I like what you've done and it reads better than my beating a dead horse.

Can you live with that?


 * Well, I'm glad that we can mostly agree on the form the article has currently taken. I should protest, though, that "shibboleth" is not some obscure biblical term known only to Hebrew speakers - it's in fairly common usage in English, being a loanword like "Sabbath". Anyway, I've linked the word "shibboleth" rather than remove it, because you can never have too many links, and because people who think White Pride is purely benign could stand to expand their vocabularies a bit.
 * I've slightly altered the second paragraph as per your suggestions, really for clarification. I don't think anyone actually thinks that White Pride necessarily equals White Supremacy, which you seem to be implying - rather, White Pride is a necessary precondition for white supremacism. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, so White Pride is a precondition for White Nationalism, and White Nationalism is a precondition to White supremacism, but the three terms are not interchangeable. The only thing with which I have a problem is misusing terms.


 * I'd also like to answer the above mention about past activities which make one a White supremacist, and state that peoples' beliefs change. David Duke has repudiated his past association with the Ku Klux Klan and has demonstrated that he isn't in favour of supremacy of any sort, so he's a White Nationalist.


 * --Ryodox 00:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

For Maggie, I still have issue with the phrase, "but the opponents of white pride argue." should include the idea that these opponents are of the opinion that white pride (is equal to or may ultimately result in) white supremacy.

But before you get upset, you have brought up a VERY good point that you should include in the usage section. That some people (fear, disbelieve, distrust?) that White Pride WILL NOT RESULT in supremacy. This lends itself to the reasoning why some are CONCERNED with WP, as apposed to simply being insulted and rejecting it outright.

For Ryodox, It's tough getting some people to swallow the idea that White Pride isn't necessarily racism. I didn't specifically refer to white nationalists by name. If it is their belief that the term "White Pride" is not the same as White Supremacy, then we have dealt with it already as an example White Pride proponent who does not have supremacist ideals. However, you could include white nationalists as an example of a group who believes that.

With that said, there is a separate "White Nationalist" page that is going through the exact growing pains that we are here on whether nationalism is supremacism or not. As for David Duke. Yes he has in fact changed his tune, as Malcolm X dropped his racist agenda.

The concern I have is that if you use David Duke as an example of the voice of White Nationalism, people are going to take one look at his past and automatically assume there is no difference in the terms.

Likewise it would be hard to swallow the idea that Malcolm X gave up his evil ways and now whitey OK by him.

You can do it, Wikipedia allows anyone to edit the article. I don't think it would stay part of the article as long as you hoped. I think Maggie above for one would shred anything David Duke had to say on his past alone. I'd rather see you give white nationalism as an example of a non-supremacist white pride belief if that is what it is and leave it at that. If you want to give an example, perhaps pick a less controversial messenger. You are an editor too.


 * I have edited the article to include mention of "White Nationalist" along with "white supremacist", in an effort of compromise. I've also fixed up a number of minor things. I hope this will be considered.


 * --Ryodox 02:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with it Ryodor, it's CONSIDERED done, unless someone removes it. We can link it to the White Nationalist page, so if they must look it up, they can. Very Cool! leave it up to the white nationalist page to debate it's meaning, LOL. -Iasonis

Oh, Maggie! I'm curious, How did you REALLY want to use shibboleth in that sentance? "The 14 words are a bunch of shibboleth!"?


 * Suggesting that David Duke has changed his tune, disavowed hatred, etc., etc., is the foulest kind of bullshit. All he's repudiated is violence, because advocating violence made white supremacists look even stupider than they are. He remains one of the most hateful creatures on the planet. And comparing him to Malcolm X is stomach-churning. Furthermore, Ryodox's weblog identifies him as having an "interest" in "national socialism". Somehow I doubt he meant in a scholarly way. Youth today! If they're not having rainbow parties they're Neo-Nazis. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 03:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I said he changed his tune. I didn't say anyone liked how it sounded, or that it was believable. I don't believe him. Well it doesn't matter now, he didn't wind up doing the David Duke thing. On the Malcolm X thing, I don't see why that churns your stomach. In his early speeches, he clearly hated whites and his views were clearly racist. It's not OK for him to do that, simply because he's black. You aren't suggesting that racial hate speech is acceptable for blacks are you? Two wrongs don't make a right. You must admit I was right though, you'd have shredded David Duke, if he suggested that he represented a non-supremacist.

-Iasonis


 * I'm not defending Malcolm X, and the position of the Nation of Islam on Jews has always been loathsome. But in terms of Malcolm's relationship to white people, surely you must acknowledge that there's a difference between a black person - a direct victim of white racism - expressing hatred towards a white people, and a white person who has never been victimized by a black person expressing hatred towards that 'race'. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 04:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maggie, it helps to explain it. But it does not excuse it. I just think that all other races must be held to the exact same standard. Not to do so means the exact opposite of equality. We are supposed to be correcting inequality, we can't do that with double standards.

I'm usually one to believe that someone can turn over a new leaf and I give Malcolm more credit than Duke. It's just in Duke's case in particular. I'm not sure I buy it. He has always seemed to invent a way to make his views more palatable. But in doing so, he is more than willing to use the controversy of his racist past to profit. Why not just change your belief and sincerely go public and apologize. But he seems to thrive off the controversy like a freak show. Particularly going into politics.


 * Well I'm not disputing that Duke is slime, nor do I think his rhetoric now is any less offensive than it ever was. But the nature of hatred is that it's relative, and holding all 'races' to the same 'standard' without taking into account the tendency of one group to oppress and hegemonize the other isn't fairness or neutrality, it's defeatism, or merely (possibly insidious) oversimplification. - Maggie--70.50.79.26 14:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There's where I disagree - tendency. I disagree that one group has an inborn pre-programmed TENDANCY to oppress. Insert any malevolent action for the word "oppress." In short I don't believe that any race TENDS toward the opression of another. Opression, when it does take place is learned (encouraged, discouraged,accepted,rejected) on a situational basis) Every race (group,religion) has been oppressed at some time by someone. It is purely situational, social, and political who does the opression and who receives it.

One of the powers that the written word has given us, is the ability to record and study how these things come to pass. With that we can prevent them. It is only through political and social circumstance that things like slavery and the holocaust were done to the groups that they were done to, by those groups that did them.

They are not the typical example-they are the MOST RECENT examples. Examine one of your own sentances, for example:

"But the nature of hatred is that it's relative, and holding all 'races' to the same 'standard' without taking into account the tendency of one group to oppress and hegemonize..."

In it you suggest that we should hold different races to a different standard; that a particular race has a particular characteristic that is by nature evil.

That's RACISM. We're all guilty of it to some extent.

Though I don't imagine you running around with armband on suggesting what we gas white guys, this type of thought is the seed of racism. It is only situational, political, and social who is planting the seed and why.

The nazis felt oppressed by the jewish of their country. Hitler rose to power under an economic pretext. He preached that jews were opressing germans by taking jobs away from non-jewish germans. That is the nazi explaination of why they did what they did.

They felt JUSTIFIED because they felt OPPRESSED. Whether or not it was true depends purely on point of view of the speaker. The point is they FELT oppressed, and that's why they did what they did. As I said in Malcolm X's case, It EXPLAINS it, but it doesn't EXCUSE it.


 * Obviously by "tendency" I meant historical tendency, especially recent (i.e., post-Columbian) historical tendency. In no way does that suggest that white people oppress others as a matter of racial course - keep in mind that my arguments are premised on the scientific fact of races not existing in any objectively determinable or discernable form. I think that moots most of the rest of what you've said. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 23:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

While true my use of the term "race" was lazy. I used it in the general sense to mean "group." Race is only one example of a group, but race still applies since it is a group. By your rationale, the persecution of Christians by Jews demonstrates a "historical" tendancy toward opression. Though it isn't the most recent, this very same GROUP wound up being OPRESSED as well. This suggest that ALL GROUPS diplay a tendancy to OPPRESS (given the right political/social situation) and run the risk of being OPPRESSED themselves.

It's wholly possible to be an oppressed oppressor, all that's required is the right political or social situation. Whether we call the group a race, religion, ethnicity, clique, gang, crew, or peer group does not matter. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Claiming one group has a historical tendancy is (possibly insidious) oversimplification.


 * The phrase "historical tendency" doesn't denote the existence of a single instance of a behavior in a given subject's entire history (re: Jews and early Christians). On the contrary, the term "historical tendency" generally refers to a number of instances, sustained with some regularity, over a long period of time. And, in this sense, the historical tendency of white people since Columbus to oppress, well, everyone else, can hardly be doubted. Agreed?
 * I also think it's highly misleading to characterize the persecution of Nazarenes by the ancient Jewish establishment of Judea as a case of "Jews" oppressing "Christians". It's more of a case of Jews antagonizing other Jews, with most of the oppressing being taken care of by the Romans. -Maggie--70.50.79.26 01:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * @ 70.50.79.26: Oh no, you've found me out. I'm a neo-Nazi. Seriously, though, it's not as if I tried to conceal my National Socialist leanings; I have my weblog listed on my userpage. However, I am mindful of keeping my opinions out of articles I edit, and I think I've done a fairly good job. I try to counter anti-White-Nationalist bias in an effort for neutrality, as opposed to those who try to pass off anti-White-Nationalist bias as neutrality.


 * Secondly, again, I ask you and any others who subscribe to the idea that David Duke is a white supremacist to show me one actual quotation from him within the past 15 years in which he calls for racial supremacy. I have already linked to a page on his website above in which he states his views on racism and supremacy, demonstrating that he supports neither, so your assertion that he's a white supremacist is unfounded and completely a matter of opinion.


 * "But in terms of Malcolm's relationship to white people, surely you must acknowledge that there's a difference between a black person - a direct victim of white racism - expressing hatred towards a white people, and a white person who has never been victimized by a black person expressing hatred towards that 'race'." &mdash; Again with the double standard. You exhibit apologism for Black Nationalists who openly exhibit racial hatred yet show extreme bias against White Nationalists who only support racial separation. That's a bit, well, racist.


 * Now, before anyone starts levelling allegations that I'm a "racist" or "white supremacist" (both of which would be inaccurate), as I'm sure they will in an attempt to ostracize me from Wikipedia, I ask that you check the content of my edits instead of my beliefs. If you think I'm a "white supremacist", go ahead and say so, but be ready to prove it. However, as for the article edit, I say fair enough. I'm still watching this though and am ready to correct any semblance of bias being passed off as neutrality, as I said above.


 * --Ryodox 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a very typical device of practitioners of organized racism to claim that 'political correctness' victimizes them by mischaracterizing their views as fundamentally racist when in point of fact they're only racist in implication. They claim that racial segregation is different from racial subjugation because it entails a place for everyone and everyone in his place. They then accuse the accuser of some kind of oxymoronic white-reactionary 'racism' for suggesting that the ideology of white people having eminent domain over America and Europe, to the exclusion of all others, is somehow racist. The mind reels. Less so, admittedly, in the case of some punk kid who thinks Nazis are cool.
 * As for David Duke, he's not stupid, and he knows that when he expresses certain of his opinions it gets him in hotter water (legally and otherwise; remember, incitement is a crime) than other opinions. His hatred remains undimmed. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Two things guys: Number 1 What did you do to get the signature line after your post. I haven't figured out do that and I keep forgetting to identify myself. Number two our topic has moved from what the subject of what this article's content should be to various other race/identity political issue. I suggest maybe moving some parts of this discussion that don't directly relate to the article's content to another place. I am just as guilty as anyone. This discussion is getting very LONG. Not that these things don't deserve debate, I'll concede I've jumped off topic too. It's an interesting discussion but we should maybe move it to another forum? Any suggestions? -Iasonis

Maggie, let's stop the stereotyping here. Calling him a "punk kid" is insensitive, not to mention hate speech. If you think about it, you too have an "interest" in national socialism.

Therein is part of what "white pride" is about. That we can acknowledge what racism is and avoid it without having to fall in line like a good little oppressor. That we do not have to accept the LABEL of OPPRESSOR just because our skin is white.

But more importantly, that as whites, we are entitled to DEMAND that others be held to the EXACT SAME STANDARD that we are. Equality should not mean racism camoflaged as anti-racism.


 * White people have a responsibility to realize that being white affords certain benefits that being a member of a visible minority group does not. The same goes for being male and heterosexual. Life is easier for white male heterosexuals than it is for ethnic and sexual minorities. That's why White Pride is different from other, more legitimate forms of Pride. In the west, white men already have an ideological hegemony. Desiring anything more is offensive because it's redundant - indeed a logical impossibility.
 * It's ridiculous to suggest that calling someone a punk kid is 'hate speech'. I enjoy punk rock and was until relatively recently a kid. I reserve the right to condescend to and be contemptuous of Neo-Nazis, especially when they're teenage boys with a self-righteous streak. - Maggie --70.50.79.26 05:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: The signature button is the third from the right on the top of the editbox.

I have to disagree, being white doesn't necessarily afford any benefit. There are people of many races that are much better off. They have better jobs, better housing, better education, and better opportiunity than I was ever given. It is not unreasonable to expect the same treatment. I don't believe white men have an idealogical hegemony. It's just the opposite, minorities fare much better than whites. The majority of the poor are white.

White people have NO such responsibility just because they were born with white skin. Just like any other person, if they can afford to be charitable they are encouraged to do so. That's like imposing mandatory charity. If some have been oppressive, then those people should be punished. You don't inherit criminal guilt by being born with white skin.

I have never oppressed anyone. I have never owned a slave and would never consider it. I did not send people by the millions to their slaughter or belong to a group who supports that. I am not responsible for the crimes of anyone else. I am not guilty of these things, and I refuse to accept punishment for someone else's crime just because I was born with white skin. I do have white skin, though I do belong to two "oppressed" minority groups (Native American and Wiccan)

I am a very generous and caring person who would help anyone in need (Affirmative action should help only one group and that group is the poor and disadvantaged of ANY group, including whites).

I choose to be this way, but don't ever tell me my charity is required as my punishment for having white skin. Racism is Racism, no matter who is doing it and absolutely no reason justifies it. Thanks about the signature. --69.14.29.46 06:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Iasonis


 * I think your first paragraph is really foolish. To wit:
 * I don't believe white men have an idealogical hegemony. It's just the opposite, minorities fare much better than whites. The majority of the poor are white.
 * I don't know what to say to those first two sentences besides the fact that they're alarmingly naive and betray an egregious misunderstanding of the way power is defined and reinforced. As for the third sentence, you're American, right? In America the majority of people are white. Ditto most of Europe and other "white" countries, including parts of Latin America. The point is that a disproportionate percentage of ethnic minorities are poor. It's not that a numeric majority of poor people are ethnic minorities. That would indicate a social problem of unimaginable proportions, whereas the current crisis is merely of barely-imaginable proportions. - Maggie--70.50.79.26 15:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * @ 70.50.79.26: "I reserve the right to condescend to and be contemptuous of Neo-Nazis, especially when they're teenage boys with a self-righteous streak."


 * And likewise I reserve the right to condescend to and be contemptuous of unregistered users who self-identify as ethnic Jews (a clear indication of your bias) and who likewise try to sneakily legitimize their agenda. The difference is that I'm not resorting to name-calling. Get over yourself.


 * @ 69.14.29.46: I agree with you here. Ethnic and racial minorities especially have received preferential treatment. Affirmative action springs to mind, as well as the double-standard that these minorities, are allowed to have their own organizations, schools, and even television stations. In fairness, I wouldn't say they're far better off than White people, though. The inescapable truth is that those who actively support discrimination in this fashion, and who suggest that I'm somehow "guilty" of oppression because of my race, are themselves the racist ones.


 * Another thing, just because European and North American countries constitute most first-world nations doesn't mean those countries have any duty to allow tens of millions of third-world immigrants to enter, just as homeowners don't have any duty to allow every indigent person to come live in their abodes. That's another debate though, one I'm not going to enter on this already enormous page. Motion to create a new heading?

The direction of this discussion page
Most of this three-way chat of ours, between me, Iasonis, and Ryodox, is neither productive nor very pertinent to the content of this article. Besides one amusing instance of Ryodox accusing me of having a "sneak[y] Jew[ish] agenda" on the basis, I guess, of having better things to do than register for a Wikipedia account, there's no progress being made, and frankly until there is I'm not going to bother participating anymore. Ryodox seems to be most interested in defending White Nationalism; and Iasonis and I are content to hair-split on smaller issues. I'm pretty intransigent (because I'm right), Ryodox is some kid, and Iasonis seems to be happy with the article as it stands. So am I. That'll do, boys.

I've already erased a bunch of out-of-date subheadings, and with the agreement of the other participants I intend to erase some more in the days to come. -Maggie  --70.50.79.26 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * @ 70.50.79.26 Agreed with the direction of the discussion, and of the deletion of obsolete sub-headings. Like I said, though, my goal is to correct instances of anti-White-Nationalist bias masquerading as NPOV. It doesn't matter how loudly or pompously you claim "I'm right" when trying to inject your agenda into an article, it doesn't make it true. I'm not going to nit-pick, though, so I'm content with the article as it is.


 * --Ryodox 19:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, not that our dialog is not interesting. But it's getting off topic of what should be included in this article. I'm content to leave it alone, so long as it includes all points of view of it's meaning. Since there is debate about it's meaning, I think explaining who holds what view and why is the best that can ever be done. It's one of those topics that will never be agreed upon even amongst whites who lay claim to it. With that, I will commend everyone for not simply hacking the thing to bits immediatly without some discussion first. At least we "took the fight outside" so to speak.

The only fair way to is to explain all of the differences in opinion, so I will be watching to see that remains.

On Deleting old headings; I say delete all headings that don't perstain to this latest rewrite, since the last rewrite doesn't exist any more. Also you can delete our tooth and nail fight. That's why I dated it so that others could judge how old it was. --User:Iasonis 23:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuals and Jews
To the anon, find me a source which states that "homosexuals and Jews" are included in the concept of "White Pride." That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If you cannot find a source to back that assertion, you cannot claim that they are "sometimes" included. That is considered a weasle word. Picayune 02:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I watch this pretty well. The original read "though generally not homosexuals and Jews" It's unlikely that anyone can demonstrate that Homosexuals and Jews are specifially included or excluded for that matter. I let it slide because of the word "generally" For nazi types, its redundant, since they don't include anyone but themselves as being white. I've alway used the term white to mean anyone with white skin. When I started here, there was barely a hint of representation for White Pride as a non-racist ideology at all. I voted to  remove it completely since neither absolute inclusion or absolute exclusion could be substantiated. As for weasel words, the whole damn thing is weasel words contributed by everyone involved. No one could prove that white pride is ALWAYS racist and no one could prove that it is NEVER racist. Our compromise was to explain the views of all sides and leave it to the reader. I don't know who changed it but the phrase once included "generally" which is another weasel word that is elastic enough to allow for the case where supremacists don't include homosexuals and jews keeping anti-white pride crusaders appeased. I don't know why it's so important since most of the article focuses on the neo-nazi connotation of the term. It's a  pickle - For neo-nazis exclusion is obvious. For non-racist white pride suporters, it's a damn lie. If you change it or remove it, someone will put it back. It will be a never ending edit war. This is as close to a compromise as we can ever hope to reach. If it leans anymore towards anti-white propaganda I will rewrite it again. If it denies that neo-nazi types use the term I will rewrite it again. That's my particular line in the sand so to speak. Judging by what the other White (this/that/the other thing) pages are discussing, they agree just as often as we do. They are also resorting to weasel words.

-Iasonis --69.14.29.46 04:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact that there are a handful of homosexual white supremacists/white nationalists/white priders (not many, but a few, and generally - there's that word again - there are no gay neo-Nazis - no out gay Neo-Nazis, that is); note that Triumph of the Will is often quite homoerotic. And there are also jews (admittedly racist jews) who oppose black pride and gay pride to the extent of aligning themselves (unwittingly) with the basically racist white pride. -Maggie --70.50.79.26 15:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The White Nationalist American Renaissance group has an inclusive position towards Jews, and the British National Party is known to have had a few homosexual members. Most White Nationalist and/or white supremacist groups don't include Jews in the definition of "White" (which, technically they are not; they're a non-European Caucasian ethnic group; same with Arabs). Typically homosexuals can be said to be White, but 70.50.79.26's statement is correct that most of the abovementioned groups are exclusive of homosexuals.


 * --Ryodox 17:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the joy of dealing with such a hot-button topic. The moment we make a definitive statement about who excludes or includes who, their will be some new political group named the gay-nazi-muslim-hare-krishnas that proves we're wrong. Please don't flame me, I have nothing against gay-nazi-muslim-hare-krishnas, it was a silly joke. But what may seem silly or overly politicially correct to some, it's the very livelyhood of others (some/others/generally). In my particular case my brand of Wicca is geared toward white celts, but doesn't disallow gays or jews. It doesn't take one opinion or the other. I'm wondering if we couldn't get a few more people who have more background in encyclopedic writing to join. Possibly this means someone who has more formal research-writing experience than we do. I mean no offense to those who have contributed, myself inclusive. It's just that though they do use weasel words, they've been better at going into depth to explain them. Look at the talk section to the Michael Moore page. Though he's a love him or hate him topic, they managed to be quite fair and descriptive at the same time. There is also mediation and arbitration available. --69.14.29.46 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

New "pro" information
@ 159.33.10.92: Regarding the reversion of my previous edit, I was using the term "minority" as the news articles used it, and I would appreciate further explanation as to why my addition was reverted. I believe this is pertinent information and that a short summary of why some people support White Pride is necessary.

--Ryodox 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't reverted. It was moved, and qualified. None of your test has been deleted. The place where you put it canted the POV of the introduction. In any event this information probably has more to do with a hypothetical article on the supposed phenomenon of "white minorities" than it does to this one. Just because a news organization uses a term a certain way doesn't mean they're using it the correct way.


 * Back from vacation! Needless to say I agree with 159.33's contributions, and have embroidered them. - Maggie --64.229.64.253 23:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was somehow under the impression that it was reverted. No problems, then.
 * --Ryodox 19:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * After reading all through this talk page, I have have to say I've become a fan of Maggie. She kicked a lot of your white butts in terms of wit, knowledge, debating and rhetorical skills, and style. Some of you boys really need to pull your bootstraps if you expect the rest of us to feel proud of the white race. Bobanny 18:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, actually, that's called "reaching a consensus". :)
 * --Ryodox 00:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, hon! I do what I can! - Maggie --64.229.184.47 15:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You've got a point Ryodox. Maggie's still my favourite, but you all deserve kudos for being constructive despite the weird and slightly disturbing racial politics. congrats. Mind you, all that talk about "reaching consensus" makes you sound like some kind of gushy PC liberal, Ryodox. Keep on this slippery slope and soon you'll be defending affirmative action and the redistribution of wealth. But then, who am I to judge?Bobanny 03:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Maybe it is just me. But this whole article seems to try and push points that whites have nothing to be proud of. That whites have no identity, no right to civil rights or are even deserving of respect from anyone.


 * I'll take up your argument, but let it be known this has nothing (at all) to do with the article and everything to do with an ideology of ignorance towards oppression.
 * * That whites have nothing to be proud of: tosh. White people enjoy a cultural hegemony in the West. With the notable exception of jazz, there's very little in American culture that white people can't claim as their own, if only because hundreds of years of systemic oppression prevented anyone else from doing the same.
 * * That whites have no identity: Genetically speaking, true. A Greek has nothing more in common genetically with an Irishman than he does with a Ghanian. A Pole has nothing more in common genetically with an Italian than he does with a Bengali or Sinhalese or Algerian or New Zealand Aborigine or Swede or Jew or homosexual Bengali Sinhalese Aborigine Jewish Algerian Greek. No 'race' has any empirical 'identity'. As for a cultural identity, well, of course white people have a cultural identity - they're the ones holding the cultural hegemony.
 * * That whites have no right to civil rights: Ludicrous. White people are people and people have rights. Are you suggesting that (for example) the black civil rights movement was racist? What they wanted was rights they didn't have, that white people did. If you mean that white people deserve a civil rights movement, well, that would only make sense if the rights of white people were in some way limited on the basis of race.
 * * That whites are not deserving of respect from anyone: What a fatuous thing to say. - Maggie --70.48.207.60 14:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"That whites have nothing to be proud of: tosh. White people enjoy a cultural hegemony in the West. With the notable exception of jazz, there's very little in American culture that white people can't claim as their own, if only because hundreds of years of systemic oppression prevented anyone else from doing the same."

This is called "begging the question," Jewess. You Jews love your logical fallacies: appeals to emotion, strawmen, non sequitirs, you name it. If it serves to mislead the goy, you do it. Your posts here are nothing but thinly-veiled anti-White bigotry "supported" by lies and logical fallacies.

Regarding the fallacy that I have quoted here, what you have done is beg the question. How did Whites get the ability to "oppress" and "prevent" other races from discovering and inventing in the first place? Why were Whites ahead of, say, Blacks, BEFORE first contact between those two races? You have conveniently ignored this, and have implied that primitive races CHOSE to remain primitive out of some sort of moral superiority, while Whites CHOSE to make technological advances and oppress the primitive races out of some sort of moral inferiority (and you've made it quite clear that you think that Whites are morally inferior, Ms. "anti-racist"). How absurd.

You're essentially demonizing Whites for being the most successful race. It's analogous to the kid who gets the highest score in the class on a science test being bullied. You are the bigot here, Jewess. You hate Whites for being the most successful group in history, yet don't have the courage to admit it, instead disguising it with self-righteous Marxist drivel about Whites holding everyone else back, all the while ignoring what gave Whites hegemony to begin with.

So answer this: why were Europeans ahead IN THE FIRST PLACE, Jewess?

[Hint: Survival of the fittest. EAT IT.]

69.143.47.181 09:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! "Jewess". You're cute. You misspelled "non sequitor" by the way. ("That's a fag kike spelling! I mo spell it the way I wants to! The white way! White means right!") Begging the question, was I? OK. Here's some examples.


 * In actual fact, the Arab world was leagues 'ahead' of Europe, culturally and scientifically (been to a hospital lately? Thank the A-rabs), up until about the time of the Crusades. This despite very little exposure to the "superior" European intellect. You know what happened during the Crusades, dontcha?
 * Ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh?
 * Ever tried to play Impressions_%28instrumental%29?


 * So. What in American culture prevented, say, Black Americans from 'inventing' anything significant (scientific and otherwise) for about four hundred years? How about excluding them from the universities? Enslaving them and killing the ones who tried to learn how to read? Same goes for women by the way. Notice that when minorities become enfranchised, we get genius after genius after genius? Vis: Muhammad Yunus; Langston Hughes.


 * You're not very bright, are you? Pity. Had you a bit more rhetorical fire, there might have been a place for you in Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. For all your palaver about how "races" such as, I dunno, mine, are "primitive", you sound pretty troglodytic yourself. - Maggie --67.71.123.242 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Who was ahead at a given epoch in history is beside the point under discussion here (though, if you're implying that Europeans are inferior to Semites, I'd point out that the Arab world borrowed knowledge from the Greco-Roman world, and some of the ancient Middle Eastern civilizations had Indo-European languages and were undoubtedly racially White). The point under discussion is your mean-spirited, irrational ridicule of White people for having made discoveries and inventions. It's like making fun of the kid who gets the best grades in a science class. What is your problem?

If Blacks had invented (and this is a far-fetched hypothetical, but I'll consider it for the sake of my argument) firearms and ocean-going vessels before Whites did, they would have colonized and enslaved people too. So your condemnation of Whites as morally inferior is not only idiotic, but it is also logically equivalent to demonizing them for being the most successful race (other races have made inventions and discoveries too, but the race with the highest overall impact on the modern world has clearly been Whites).

Like a typical Jewess, you have ignored my question, and focused on American (e.g., recent) history. I asked you why Blacks were behind Whites prior to first contact between Blacks and Whites. I'll ask you again: WHY WERE BLACKS BEHIND WHITES BEFORE FIRST CONTACT BETWEEN BLACKS AND WHITES? Are you too stupid to understand what I am asking? I don't want to talk about how Whites "oppressed" Blacks AFTER first contact because that is a mere consequence of the fact that Whites were more advanced than Blacks TO BEGIN WITH.

You have tried to attack me with ad hominems. I have an advanced degree in a technical field. Would you care to have a discussion about electromagnetics, or is that too "Eurocentric" for you?

P.S. As for Borat, that is another example of Jewish hypocrisy. Cohen gets to make fun of another culture, but if ANYONE makes fun of Jews, he gets death threats. How typically Jewish. Do you support the apartheid ethno-state of Israel, by the way, "anti-racist" Jewess?

69.143.47.181 18:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See, the problem you have (the main one, at any rate, besides scientific and historical illiteracy) is that you evidentally suffer from some sort of cognitive myopia that prevents you from seeing a situation in terms of anything but binary oppositions. So any defence of B strikes you immediately as an affront A, even when the premise of the defence of B is the inherent equality-of-value of A and B. You seem to be offended by the suggestion that someone with a different ethnic heritage than yours (as you define it) could possibly possess the same inherent faculties as you. I never declared white people "morally inferior"; I merely stated historical facts and their implications. Besides, why would you be hung up on something like "morality" when your position seems to be that black people had slavery coming? You can't have it both ways. Either (for example) slavery was wrong, and white striaght males did unjustly systematically oppress ethnic and sexual minorities - or it wasn't wrong, and white people did it because they could, and so morality doesn't mean anything, and so your argument about my supposed prejudice against white people on any basis let alone morality is hopelessly asinine. As a result, I don't feel the need to dignify your jeremiad against African civilization by pointing out that shotguns and an economy based on exploitation and conquest don't actually strike me as significant advances.


 * As for the Arab world plundering its genius from the Greeks, the relationship was rather more symbiotic (ie, Averroes read Plato; but Homer read Gilgamesh). You're in way over your head, boy-o.


 * The funniest thing to me about American white supremacists (which you are) was that, despite the fact that they're at such pains to underscore their ties to exalted Mother Europe, actual, pur sang Europeans (even Euro Nazis - especially Euro Nazis) generally consider Americans to be neanderthals. Hurts, don't it? -Maggie --67.71.123.242 18:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"See, the problem you have (the main one, at any rate, besides scientific and historical illiteracy)"

Again, would you care to have a discussion about electromagnetics?

"is that you evidentally suffer from some sort of cognitive myopia that prevents you from seeing a situation in terms of anything but binary oppositions."

YOU are the one who has myopia (either real or feigned). You have gone on, and on, and on, in this discussion about how evil Whites are for their world hegemony, but have utterly ignored the obvious: if another race had invented firearms and ocean-going vessels first, they would have colonized the world and enslaved people. Therefore, your conclusion that White people are evil is wrong, since the thing that sets Whites apart is their record of discoveries and inventions, whereas human nature (in terms of greed, etc.) is universal.

Or are you actually maintaining that Whites are inherently immoral, and that non-Whites are inherently moral (female circumcisions and ritual sacrifices notwithstanding)?

"So any defence of B strikes you immediately as an affront A, even when the premise of the defence of B is the inherent equality-of-value of A and B. You seem to be offended by the suggestion that someone with a different ethnic heritage than yours (as you define it) could possibly possess the same inherent faculties as you."

There are geniuses of all races, but average levels of intellect differ between races. Earlier in this discussion, you chastised someone for picking out individual exceptions of rich Blacks, pointing out that, on average, Blacks are poorer than Whites. Well, now you can have a taste of your own medicine:

Yes, there are geniuses of all races, but in terms of average intellect, the races differ greatly.

"I never declared white people "morally inferior"; I merely stated historical facts and their implications."

You've repeatedly condemned Whites, and made non-Whites out to be saints.

Do you admit that, if in possession of the means, another race would have colonized the world first?

"Besides, why would you be hung up on something like "morality" when your position seems to be that black people had slavery coming? You can't have it both ways. Either (for example) slavery was wrong, and white striaght males did unjustly systematically oppress ethnic and sexual minorities - or it wasn't wrong, and white people did it because they could, and so morality doesn't mean anything, and so your argument about my supposed prejudice against white people on any basis let alone morality is hopelessly asinine."

I believe in the principle of survival of the fittest. It applies to other species, so why shouldn't it apply to us?

The issue of morality is important insofar as Jews like you use it as a red herring to make Whites feel guilty about themselves. I am here to show that for the rubbish that it is, by pointing out that any other race, had they been in possession of firearms and ocean-going vessels first, would have colonized the world and enslaved people.

By the way, what is your opinion of the extremely pervasive Sephardic Jewish involvement in the Black slave trade?

"As a result, I don't feel the need to dignify your jeremiad against African civilization by pointing out that shotguns and an economy based on exploitation and conquest don't actually strike me as significant advances."

I love it when Egalitarians trash talk White technological advances, via the INTERNET.

": As for the Arab world plundering its genius from the Greeks, the relationship was rather more symbiotic (ie, Averroes read Plato; but Homer read Gilgamesh). You're in way over your head, boy-o."

Many Middle Eastern civilizations were racially White when they were founded, Jewess. Prove that the interchange of ideas between Greece and the Middle East actually involved racial Semites, and then I will concede this very minor point (since, once again, I admit that other races have made contributions, but that, overall, Whites have done much more than anyone else).

": The funniest thing to me about American white supremacists (which you are) was that, despite the fact that they're at such pains to underscore their ties to exalted Mother Europe, actual, pur sang Europeans (even Euro Nazis - especially Euro Nazis) generally consider Americans to be neanderthals. Hurts, don't it?"

I believe that Whites are superior, in a net sense, to other races. The definition of supremacy that I use is "the desire to rule over others". One, the notion of superiority, is *descriptive*, while the other, the notion that one race SHOULD rule over other races, is *prescriptive*. A more accurate term for what I am would be "White superiorist".

Yes, I was born and raised in the U.S. I also have suspected that Whites in the U.S. are not as intelligent as Whites in Europe, on average (many White Americans love Bush Jr., enjoy insipid television programming, etc.), because the Europeans who came to North America were a very religious NON-random sample of the European population.

But no, it does not hurt, because I clearly am not part of the White American mainstream. In elementary, middle, and high school, I was the "nerd" for studying hard, getting good grades, and having esoteric interests. I do not enjoy football and other spectator sports, nor do I watch television. I am about as far outside of the White American mainstream as one could imagine. My European White Nationalist friends recognize me as being a very atypical White American.

69.143.47.181 19:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See, this is what I mean by myopia. Never have I said that white people are in any way inherently morally inferior, or inferior in any other way, to anyone else. You would very much like me to have said that, or thought that, because it would entitle you to accuse me of hypocrisy - the last rhetorical refuge of the white supremacist, who's constantly looking to buttress his own narcissistic victim narrative. If I had said that anybody (or rather, any "race") was inferior to anyone else, then I would certainly be as guilty of essentialism as you are. The fact that white people (and jews - and some Africans) enslaved and exploited black people doesn't make white people inherently bad or immoral - but it is a fact, a fact that makes the celebration of "white pride" distasteful, because having "pride" in one's white heritage is to take pride in an economy and history that has been built on the exploitation of others. That's just history. It's true that any other group, in the same situation - primarily it was an economic situation - would probably have behaved the same way. The Egyptians - whom you ludicrously seem to claim were white on the basis of their technological savoir-faire - kept slaves, for example. But the point is that white people - white males, generally - happened to be (and continue to be) the primary perpetrators of this particular enormity. And it's something that mustn't be forgotten. It doesn't make white people inferior, but it does throw a significant flaw to the glittering facade of "civilized", "western" culture.


 * For someone who brought up the straw man fallacy first thing, you don't seem to understand it. The only basis upon which you can criticize my exquisite argument is something I haven't said and couldn't reasonably say. But you say I said it anyway!


 * Look, pal. So you've got a head full of harebrained sub-Rushton Social Darwinism. Fine. That's your right. You have the right to be wrong, and the right to come off as a fool when you're amongst intelligent people, like myself. That doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with you, or genetically or inherently inferior. It just means you've been exposed to pernicious influences. And they appealed to you, because, I dunno, you had trouble finding work when you got out of college, or the kids picked on you in high school, or you angrily left the church when you were a boy and now need to cling onto some other metanarrative. It's got nothing to do with what country your great-great-great-great grandparents were from. Remember, go back enough generations and we're all amoebas. If other "races" aren't "fit" to "survive", how come their birth rates are so much higher than ours? How come their cultures are so much older?


 * Incidentally, as you'll no doubt realize, there's a great deal more genetic variation within "races" than there is between them. But if you think the ancient Sumerians (or for that matter Attic Greeks) were white, you've got a couple cans short of a six-pack.

-Maggie --64.229.64.232 23:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfairness in linkage
I believe that the linkage in this article places undue emphasis on racism, neo-Nazis, and white supremacy groups, as there are a total of 9 links to various other articles in the see also category which are directly related to the topics above, while in the 'Black Pride' article only links to White, Asian, and Gay pride, with no references to the black militant groups such as the Black panthers or any of their afflitiates.


 * There is considerable evidence (provided in the article) that the White Pride and White Nationalist "movements" often (if not always) conceal, or serve to legitimate (using the language of civil rights) white supremacism, neo-nazism, and other nastiness and stupidity. Hence the links, which are all relevant because they are almost all mentioned in the article. - Maggie --67.71.120.250 14:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

changing from "Concept of white minorities" to "White Minorities".
I failed the document the first time I encountered an inappropriate titling on this article but this is the second time I edited the title of the "White Minorities" segment, formly titled "Concept of white minorities". The first edit wen't from "White Minorities" with quotations to "White Minorities" without. I choose to make this edit because it is incorrect to suggest that a White Minority doesn't exist, by introducing it as merely a concept. "White Minority" is not just an idea. There most definantly are White Minorities in many places in the World, including the United States and Europe. There already have been wikipedians generous enough to point this out already and included outside references. Are we not satisified with the ammount of validated references we have? Are we going to see a continuous title change? --Schweinkenstein 01:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with your idea is that (as the article notes) numerical minority is not a valid way of deciding "minority status". If it were, white people would have been the "minority group" in South Africa under Apartheid, even though they were obviously the oppressive body. -Maggie --67.71.121.83 15:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read this entire talk page... Maggie, I can understand you want to put your personal opinions about white pride on the article, but it's VERY obvious that you personally have a heavy bias on the subject. Clearly it's more productive if we let those with a more neutral perspective write pages like this, no? Let's stick to editting pages about subjects that we don't hold so closely. Maybe good practice to write in a truly neutral fashion, then perhaps someday we can neutrally rewrite some of these horribly slanted entries and commercials that fill this 'could be' invaluable resource. Tellthetruthplease 05:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do have a bias against racism, yes. But I don't hold this article 'so closely'; I just happen to be the only person present with any knowledge, credentials, or eloquence on the subject. - Maggie --70.50.78.75 15:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that's not true. You obviously aren't the only person with knowledge on the subject, but you are also one of the people with a distinct bias on the subject. As I said it's seriously best if you leave off of editting this page. Practice on a page you can feel neutrally about to begin with. Monitor this page, and if you feel it goes too far, set up a npov flag. If it happens to be taken down somehow anyway. For myself, I feel like I could rewrite this in a neutral point of view myself, but I am not going to attempt it because I do have strong feelings myself on the subject. The goal is a neutrral point of view after all, isn't it? Tellthetruthplease 23:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

One discrepancy, at the start... about white pride excluding gays and jews... if you only look at white supremacists usage of the phrase 'white pride' then I agree, the would most likely try to exclude gays and jews form using the phrase. However, it's not a phrase that can only be used by white supremacists. A white gay man can't be proud of being white? What you mean is a white gay man can't be a nazi, or join the kkk unless he deceives these organizations. However, he certainly CAN be proud to be white, and some gay white men are. Proud to be white, AND gay. I've never met a jewish person who mentioned being proud of being white, but it's within the realms of possibility. If you watch Sarah Silvermans 'Jesus is magic' routine she alludes to being proud of being white, although she also makes several severely racist statements. Doesn't mean some non-racist jews can't be proud of being white. Anyway, there are already white supremacist and white power entries, so I feel that this entry should focus on a general white pride entry first off, with possible sub-entries for the racist connotation. I'm not going to touch it though. In my opinion anyoen who looks up 'white pride' on wikipedia most likely already has an opinion pretty solidly formed. Would be nice to maintain neutrality though. Tellthetruthplease 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is, no matter how much the WN/WS/Neo-Nazi community may attempt to mainstream a reactionary sentiment like White Pride, and no matter how many individuals loath to conceive of themselves as racist would like the idea of white pride to be uncontroversial - it is the WN and WS communities that _introduced_ the slogan 'white pride' (and its extension, 'white pride world wide') into the vocabulary, and so its usage is inextricable from a racist context. If you think I'm wrong, kindly find a reference. Everything in the article is supported by a strong reference, with the exception of a throwaway line about Elvis. Your reference, by the way, has to be stronger than to an obviously ironic comedy routine. And just because it's hypothetically possible for a white individual to be proud of his heritage, and to also be homosexual and jewish, that doesn't mean that's how this particular slogan (and that's what it is - 'white pride' is not an idea or an ideology, but a slogan - a slogan that was introduced in the WN and WS community as a reaction primarily to gay pride and black pride) is used or generally understood. - Maggie --70.50.78.75 00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Your evident association with the white nationalist/white supremacist/neo-nazi community Stormfront gives me the liberty of dismissing your supposedly even-keeled comments out of hand. - Maggie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Umm... npov please? Please?Tellthetruthplease 02:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. your apparent association with 'black pride' and 'gay pride' makes me dismiss your accounts of absence of race as an issue. Aren't 'black' people only black because of how frequently they mate with only people close to them who also happen to carry black genes? How is that something to be proud of? You are far from neutral and you are thoroughly dismissable, I simply want to illustrate that you may want to try for more neutrality if you intend to edit articles that are intended to be presented in a neutral light. Whatever association you may feel I have with whatever association, I'd be interested in hearing. I am associated with neutrality. This isn't 'Maggiepedia' no matter how strongly you desire to control the internet collective thoughts. Tellthetruthplease 02:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously PRACTICE on an issue you actually feel neutrally about. This is good advice. Honestly. There are all kinds of links on the help page if you just can't understand the concept of a neutral point of view. Just tryign to help. Tellthetruthplease 02:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a 'what if' analogy, to illustrate your point of view. 'I am deleting the part where you said jesus died for your sins. Come up with a reliable source, not including the bible, that says jesus died for your sins.' Obviously, a LOT of people worldwide believe that jesus did in fact die for you sins. That belief is based on one source, which you arbitrarily denounced. I can find other sources, that cite the bible. Does that make christians wrong? No. They might be wrong, but this instance doesn't make them wrong, or unreliable. It makes them opposed to your obvious bias. Your supposed 'npov' bias. You are the wrong person to edit articles you have strong feelings about. It's that simple. Tellthetruthplease 02:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your analogy is so fatuous that it really doesn't warrant a response, but I suppose for the sake of enlightening a benighted Stormfronter I should point out that the article on Jesus Christ does not have a section declaring that Jesus died for the world's sins. On the contrary, it declares that nearly one-third of the population of the world believes that Jesus died for the world's sins. There is a difference between stating a fact and stating a belief as a fact. Similarly, this article presents the perspectives of both advocates of white pride and anti-racists like myself. That's what makes it neutral. - Maggie --70.50.78.75 14:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you for being so civil with me, but you kinda missed the point of my jesus analogy. I haven't read the jesus entry, and I'm not so interested in it really, but I know the bible is a 'notable' source for those who believe that jesus died for their sins. The point I was getting at was that for those people, that's notable enough for their beliefs, no matter what 'non christians' may disagree with that, and the bible. I'm not suggesting that you denied the bible as a source for anything, or that 'jesus dying for your sins' is relevant to anything other than... If you arbitrarily deny the bible as a reliable source of information and then declare to christians they need a notable, reliable source for jesus dying for their sins, You have just censored a large portion of the population based on a bias. (And no, I'm not suggesting you have this bias. This is an analogy. Nothing more. I chose jesus because I though you mentioned earlier that you were a 'non-christian' so I figured it would be a topic you wouldn't be offended by. If I misread that, and you think I'm being blasphemous, sorry.) Anyways, again, I am only suggesting that you might stick to articles that you actually feel neutral about. Just based on reading this entire talk page. I'm going to do the same, so whether this warrants another response, you will not be enlightening me, but maybe some other wayward sheep, so blast away. Tellthetruthplease 22:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your analogy is still incoherent. If your point is that the article as it stands is ignoring 'reliable sources' by refusing to cite (for example) posts on Stormfront, despite the fact that there are, in fact, people who believe that stuff as firmly as devout Christians believe in the Bible, then you're being a relativist with regards to the truth. And in my experience, poststructuralist thought tends to either go over the head of, or get on the nerves of, white dudes like yourself who are mad because you think (e.g.) black lesbians get all the breaks in life. Are you suggesting that an article on the historicity of Jesus should cite the Bible as factually correct, excluding all other sources? An article on the historicity of Jesus should be written by historians. And an article on a sociological phenomenon like the "White Pride movement" should be written by sociologists. Like me. - Maggie --70.48.207.213 01:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

wikiproject discrimination
i have removed the tagging for wikiproject discrimination based on this rationale:

white pride is not inherently racist, nor is black, brown, gay or purple pride.

however, if i was to give the leniency to reach as far as white pride was racist then it is just that, racist.
 * racism does not equal discrimination.

save the wikiproject for those that actively discriminate, those who advocate sitting in the back of the bus, and those who adhere to affirmative action. discrimination is an ACTIVE aggression. racism is not. it is entirely plausible to adhere to the doctrine that one would be racist, without ever discriminating. in business, certain managers may be inherently racist, but will promote those who suit the greater need of the company, regardless of beliefs. most people harbor prejudices, and most people do not act on them. and this is even under the assumption that white pride is a racist belief. i have been told that the inclusion in this project is because white pride, unlike black pride, implies racism. then the fallacy is not the belief, but in the article itself.

if we are to assume that pride=racism=discrimination then we are far-reaching. i take pride in my blue eyes, but i could give a shit about the pigmentation of others. in this case, the article needs purging, not inclusion.

how ironic that wikiproject discrimination is quoted as such: '''White pride is a term generally used to imply racism, while black pride usuaully does not imply racism. ''' That, in itself, is discriminatory. in fact, it's quite sad that those who consider themselves quite adept at this project assert 'generally' and 'imply' as facts. they are weasel words. 14 words should be read over, and over, and over, until it is understood that it is not racist - but it is racial. there is a huge difference. the_undertow talk  07:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The fourteen words aren't racist? Even though they're the slogan of The_Order_%28group%29? A white supremacist terrorist organization? Or are you suggesting that white supremacism in and of itself is not racism? Fiddlesticks. - Maggie --70.48.207.213 14:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * i never mentioned white supremacy. adopting the 14 words does not make them inherently racist. the swastika is still in full use India, regardless of the connotation. So no. People do what they will with slogans and icons. Attribution is irrelevant. the_undertow talk  10:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Balderdash. Signifiers acquire meaning only by consensus. And in the Western world, at the moment, the general consensus is that the swastika represents something other an ancient Asian sign of the sun or good luck. I've said this to others on this talk page, but I'll say it again: you're in way over your head. - Maggie --70.48.207.44 15:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what that comment means but it was hardly civil. I'll also try and keep a straight face when you have used both 'fiddlesticks' and 'balderdash.' Regardless, there is nothing here that would allow me to get in over my head. The issue is that the article was adopted by one project, and I removed the article from the said project. You are really missing the big picture: Pride, any pride, is not inherent discrimination. That's it. It's not a matter of philosophical ideology. It's a matter of policy. the_undertow talk  19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're in over your head because you started skirt semiotics and poststructuralist theory (doubtless not knowingly) in appealing to me about the 'true' meaning of a swastika in order to substantiate your absurd (fiddlesticks! balderdash!) claim that the 14 Words aren't racist. That's why I said you're in over your head. Because I'm smarter than you. - Maggie --67.71.123.103 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I really hate to feed trolls, but I will refer you to the above where you freely associated the 14 words with the Order. I only followed your lead. I didn't need to use the swastika, as I could have simply said that if the Black Panthers adopted the pound sign as their logo, it doesn't make the pound sign inherently racist. I will absolutely admit that I have no knowledge of semiotics nor poststructuralism, but I hardly see that as a reflection of my intelligence. I do admit that I find it amusing that you have boiled down the discussion to who is smarter. If you want to trade personal attacks, take it off this discussion page and throw it onto mine. This page is about the article and nothing more. So as smart as you are, you still need a better grasp on policy. the_undertow talk  03:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

BC White Pride
I reverted edits that attribute any information to this source. This is not a reliable source. It needs to be a tertiary source and this is not, as it is part of the subject and not a commentary on the article's subject. Secondarily, using one white pride group as an example of how 'white pride' is defined is not in keeping with NPOV. the_undertow talk  00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

White pride is a slogan used primarily in the United States (although its usage has spread internationally) to promote the glorification of the heritage of persons of white European racial identity - though generally to the exclusion of homosexuals and Jews, as well as certain other individuals and groups .?
 * Maggie, since you are bent on the inclusion of certain material, please tell me where the reference you provided says this:

I don't see that the website mentions 'generally to the exclusion of homosexuals and Jews," do you? That is just an inference from the article and you don't attribute citations based on inference - you cite things that actually exist in context. Second, in order for the source to be used you must specifically attribute this version of white pride to the BC group. They are not talking on behalf of all white pride, nor are they a reliable, 3rd party source. Please see WP:RS. the_undertow talk  00:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Am quite busy at the moment Undertow, but since there's now significantly less disconnect in the lead between the notion of white pride and its proponents in the white supremacist movement, I think the article as it stands is OK, and good for you for sticking to your guns. - Maggie --76.67.73.139 15:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Skinhead quote
http://www.psu.edu/ur/diversity/Hategroups.html

The full quote reads

The Center for Democratic Renewal also estimates that there are about 4,000 Skinheads nationwide. Skinheads are radical racists that carry with them a message of "white pride" and "white makes right," while advocating extreme violence to fulfill their dream of an all-white continent.

Thus it should be mentioned in the article.  Yahel  Guhan  22:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Does not need to be in the article. The article is about the term and the meaning behind the term. Yahel simply loves to remove racist categories from all minority articles and add anything about white supremacy to all other articles. If we start inserting references to every person who uses the term then we have forked the article. All people who follow a dogma of white pride do not need to be included into the article, which should explain the term and not who prints it on their t-shirts. the_undertow   talk  20:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:White supremacy
The category is very relevant to the topic, and several of the sources in the article mention it.  Yahel  Guhan  04:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletions
A large part of the article, including neutral, sourced material, was deleted repeated today. The edit summary was "you are mixing up white pride with white supremacy", but the sources appear to cover the comparison of th topics. Could the editor explain why the material was deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are mixing up white pride and white supremacy. White pride is the idea that you can be proud for being white. Same thing as gay pride or black pride, where you are proud for being gay or being black. White supremacy is the idea that white people "supreme" over other races. The sources added where talking about white supremacy, not white pride. White pride is not racist. If you want to say that is it, then I will add that black pride is racist and gay pride is discrimination against heterosexuals. You are pulling double standards. It is  pride. It is being proud for being . The word pride doesn't change definition by changing the word in front of it. Mønobi  02:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not mixing up anything. Among the material you deleted was this assertion:
 * Several anti-racist organizations have argued that ideas such as white pride and white nationalism exist merely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy.
 * Moriz, Justin J. "Case 45: 'White Pride' vs. U.S. Patents and Trademarks Office". Adversity.net for Victims of Reverse Discrimination. 2005. accessed September 10, 2006.
 * There appear to be a number of sources that compare and contrast white pride and wite supremacy. It's not for us to decide what white pride is or isn't - that'd be original research. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like the editor has again deleted the material without any further discussion. I'm going to revert that. I ask the editor to please use this page to seek consensus on the matter. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of the lead
The flag of Europe (which is not entirely white) is wholly inappropriate. The movement has three main premises: that people should be proud of their national identity, that ethinicity[sic] is a gift, and that they are inherent and cannot be intentionally altered. - this statement is entirely original research, changes the tone of the article, and needs serious citations. Symbols of white pride include the European flag, or individual flags such as the Irish or German flag. - Again, flags of countries are not accurate symbols of white pride - I don't really want to piss off entire citizens because the article uses their flag as a symbol of white pride. No offense to the editor, but WP:OR really applies here. the_undertow  talk  01:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

From AN/I
Copying comments by User:Bigtimepeace from this diff:

''Regarding Relata refero's point about editing the related articles, the white pride article actually does a fairly decent job describing the different views of it. White folks who support white pride feel it is unfair because other groups are allowed to have "pride" while it's considered unacceptable when "whites" (whatever that means, considering it does not mean the same thing everywhere) want to do the same. The opposite view (which I very much hold) is expressed with "Opponents of the white pride movement argue that movements such as black pride differ from white pride in that black pride is a defensive strategy aimed at rectifying a negative stereotype. They argue that racial categories that have an illegitimate origin can serve a legitimate political purpose when affirmed in a positive way by subaltern groups. This does not apply to dominant racial categories such as white people; rather it serves to mask white privilege." The article also makes clear, without stating it directly, that there is significant overlap between white pride and white supremacy, which is pretty much unarguable. Obviously the article could be improved, but compared to this discussion, it's an exemplar of reasoned discourse.''


 * In response, my concerns are basically
 * the level of sourcing isn't really very good for each of those points
 * the question of "crypto-racism" that El_C raised isn't really addressed.
 * the political aims of this "movement", if any, aren't really addressed.-- Relata refero (disp.) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree this could still clearly use some work, particularly with respect to sourcing the points in question. The intro does a decent job summarizing the main views of this phenomenon, but much more detail and better sources are needed. I did a quick search on JSTOR and found very little but will try to look at this in a bit more depth when I get a chance. I'm 99% certain that virtually all of the academic reaction to "white pride" will be rather negative, though based on my cursory search this phenomenon seems less explored than white supremacy and the groups associated with it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

White pride and music?
It seems appropriate for this article to discuss connections between white pride and music, particularly heavy metal, punk, etc. A couple of examples come to mind off hand. Pantera was well known for pushing a white pride agenda as demonstrated by this video of Phil Anselmo. We might also make reference to the Black Flag song "White Minority" (lyrics, including lines like "White pride / You're an american / White pride / Anywhere I can") which might come off as a pro-white pride and even racist song but is in fact almost certainly precisely the opposite (the lead singer at the time, Chavo Pederast/Ron Reyes, is Puerto Rican).

I'm not an expert on these issues, but it seems likely that music has been one of the primary - if not the primary - means for spreading ideas about "white pride" and that would be worthy of coverage in this article so long as we have sources for it. The ADL has a brief article on "white power music" but I think what we would be talking about here is a bit different although there's a great deal of overlap. It's also possible that a section along these lines would be even more appropriate for the white supremacy article.

Any thoughts? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely we can factor in Minor Threat's song "Guilty of Being White" in here. I have no idea where to find sources about this, but I think that Bigtimepeace has a good idea here. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Key terms in Ingram
Because we're writing for a general audience, I feel it's important that we highlight key terms that may be unfamiliar.

One such term would be identity politics, because it describes the general category of "black pride", "gay pride", etc., and is especially associated with the positive idea of group identity in progressive politics. And it is a concept that is key to Ingram, if you read the paragraph-and-a-half preceding the "black pride vs. white pride" discussion (as well as being in the title of his book); this is clearly an argument that the author would apply equally to "male pride" or "heterosexual pride", as to "white pride".

Also, I think it is worthwhile linking to white privilege in the quote, because, although wiki-linking in quotes is discouraged generally, in this case a potentially unfamiliar term is being introduced which is not discussed outside of the quote.--Pharos (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm glad some people are taking some interest in this article.  My problems with your particular  points above are:
 * that your edits added identity politics to the article un-necessarily; equally given that we're writing for a general audience, why introduce a category that then immediately has to be explained?
 * while there's some overlap between identity politics and (say) black or gay pride, they are far from coterminous; introducing the term merely adds confusion
 * yes, Ingram's book as a whole is framed in terms of debates around identity politics, but that chapter is specifically about ethnicity and race
 * as I understand or interpret the advice against wikilinking within quotations, it's an encouragement to discuss the specific terms (here, "white privilege") elsewhere in the article
 * in any case (and I recognize that this is contingent, but no more so than the fact that this article can and should be much expanded and improved), the white privilege article is as horrendous as this one, if not more so, and as such a wikilink at present is hardly much help to the reader
 * But again, the more important thing, I think, is simply to add more and better information to this article, as well as to check out the current sources (which is how, for instance, I found that the article previously was plagiarizing Ingram quite egregiously). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead / History section
I've twice tried to create a "History" section, and twice now been reverted, with the same edit summary; this is the most recent occasion.

Rather than reverting back, let me explain further my thinking: 1) as per WP:LEAD, the lead should present an overview of the article, not suck up information that belongs elsewhere; 2) a history of the term is important, and deserves its own section, which should be expanded rather than merged with the lead.

I'd appreciate other editors' thoughts. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The entire History section was just one paragraph expressing the views of two people. That does not even come close to living up to the title "History."Spylab (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. But as I say, the answer to that is to expand the section, rather than to break WP:LEAD or to undo the article structure.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I note other changes that you've reverted. Here's my thinking: Again, other editors' thoughts would be appreciated. And again, what this article needs is thorough expansion and better sourcing, rather than reorganization (let alone deletion) of the little that's present already. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Paragraphing serves a purpose, and where possible each paragraph should cover a distinct point, with a topic sentence. Merging short paragraphs produces confusion and choppy prose.  The solution, rather, is (again) expansion rather than merging.
 * You removed most (all?) of the uses of the phrase "for instance." I think that, especially with a controversial topic such as this, it is important to be specific, to cite instances rather than to make general claims.


 * The phrase "for instance" is basicly useless in this context and adds nothing to the article. Readers understand that examples are examples, without being told "for instance."Spylab (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources available to address content
I understand the article is experiencing some conflict. I was directed to the article from its ANI thread. If the lack of reputable sources is a problem, please take the following suggestions. I have never edited the article, so I donn't feel familiar enough with it to make these edits. But I found the following sources:

"It is interesting to see that a number of "white ethnic" or "white pride" groups have emerged of late and these movements are all formed by a deepseated racism: the most notably racist of these being the Skinheads. Whereas the discource of ethnicity developed by the minority groups a common human vision, the neo-Nazi and neo-KKK expressions of ethnicity express a deep-seated paranoia. These movements project a fear of white vulnerability that has no objective correlative in actual history. White pride of this sort is at odds with other ethnicities and it demands that white be back at the center or that the very identity of the USA be seen in a relationship of one to one correspondence with "being white"."
 * Culture as Common Ground: Ethnicity and beyond

R. Radhakrishnan

MELUS, Vol. 14, No. 2, Theory, Culture and Criticism (Summer, 1987), pp. 5-19

Published by: The Society for the Study of the Multi-Ethnic Literature of the United States (MELUS)

"The significant gains and increased visibility of some racial and ethnic minorities have given impetus to a development of white pride and a resurgence of ethnic feeling. In response, national, state, and provincial governments in North America have been funding ethnic heritage projects, folk culture research activities and ethnic studies centers."
 * A Critique of "The New Ethnicity"

G. James Patterson

American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Mar., 1979), pp. 103-105

Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association

I suggest reading and using portions of this article. If you can't get it, I can email it to you:
 * The Role of Religion in the Collective Identity of the White Racialist Movement

Betty A. Dobratz

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Jun., 2001), pp. 287-301

Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion

An interesting article that recounts anecdotes of white pride contrasting with black pride on university campuses:
 * The Impact of Economic, Political, and Social Factors on Recent Overt Black/White Racial Conflict in Higher Education in the United States

Evonne Parker Jones

The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Autumn, 1991), pp. 524-537

Published by: Journal of Negro Education

The entire article, offer to email stands. Mitch Berbrier
 * "Half the Battle": Cultural Resonance, Framing Processes, and Ethnic Affectations in Contemporary White Separatist Rhetoric

Social Problems, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), pp. 431-450

Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems

Ditto:
 * Free Spaces, Collective Identity, and the Persistence of U.S. White Power Activism

Robert Futrell and Pete Simi

Social Problems, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Feb., 2004), pp. 16-42

Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems

And:
 * The Importance of Racial-Ethnic Identity and Social Setting for Blacks, Whites, and Multiracials

Charles Jaret and Donald C. Reitzes

Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Winter, 1999), pp. 711-737

Published by: University of California Press

Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the following statement: "White power activists claim that white pride is equivalent to "black pride" and similar terms that express no more than ethnic self-affirmation."

I do not feel that "white power activists" are an authority on "white pride". The statement is indicated as "needing reference", but I propose that the sentence be edited or deleted. White power activists have LIMITED perspective on the diverse and widespread occurance of "white pride". White power activism is only a small and extreme representation white pride. Perhaps any person who is white may feel appropriate "white pride", however only a limited few of these people are "white power activists".

Consider a logic example: All dogs are mammals. So, are all mammals dogs? NO.

All "white power activists" have "white pride". So, are all people with "white pride" also "white power acitvists"? NO.

In an article about dogs, we would not discuss the diverse characteristics and behaviors of mammals in general at the introduction to dogs.

Therefore, white power activists are not a citable authority on white pride, especially in the opening section of the article. The information about white power activists is important to this topic and should not be deleted, but simply reorganized. The opinions of white power activists are best kept in their own section which has already been established in this article, and not as a key component of the main definition of the idea.

I am proud that I have done good things with my life. I am proud that my father did so also, like his father before him. I am proud that many of my ancestors did good things with a culture that is unique to my heritage. I am proud of my family and I hope that every person on earth has the chance to be proud of his or her family too. That is "white pride", and it has no significant correlation to "white power activism".

Barkleylee (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, it was said, "Therefore, white power activists are not a citable authority on white pride, especially in the opening section of the article." NO. That isn't how it works. Since many reliable sources mention the connection, these sources are a citable authority on white pride and therefore what they say, which is that the phrase is used mainly by white power activists, should be mentioned in the lead. YahelGuhan ( talk ) 05:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The rewrite of this article is horrible. It was written to read that anyone who claims that white pride is not inherently racist is a white power activist. That's ridiculous.  Lara  ❤  Love  17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Lara. In fact, it was written to follow the published sources.  Do you have any other sources to add? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems fairly neutral to me, just could use some expansion (no rush there) but the souring looks quite good actually (Moni3 has gathered some interesting looking sources as well). I don't pick up anything that remotely suggests that this "was written to read that anyone who claims that white pride is not inherently racist is a white power activist." It is simply a fact that white pride is often associated with white power or white supremacist movements and that scholars have regularly discussed it in those terms. We can hardly ignore that. It would be more helpful if Lara pointed out specific problems as she sees it or proposed alternative material for inclusion. This article could be improved by presenting the views of "white pride" advocates who disassociate themselves from white power or white supremacist movements, but we need reliable sources for that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sourcing is fine, and it does need expanding to improve the NPOV, but indeed there is a need to find RS for that. However, what I was speaking of specifically was the lead, which I don't believe is adequately written. (By the way, I apologize for the snippy tone of my previous post, and for not being more specific.) The reason you don't pick up anything that suggests what I stated is because I fixed it. It did read (emphasis mine) "White power activists claim that white pride is equivalent to "black pride" and similar terms that express no more than ethnic self-affirmation." I changed power to pride. Otherwise, it reads like anyone who claims that white pride is not inherently racist is a white power activist.  Lara  ❤  Love  17:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did notice that change, though it's possible that both versions are problematic. Is there really such a thing as a "white pride activist," and do we have sources with white pride activists saying it's basically the same thing as black pride? I'm not an expert on these matters, but my impression is that those who express some measure of "white pride" but who distance themselves from white supremacists and their rhetoric are usually not "activists" organized into a group but just people who say "yeah, I have white pride." It is undoubtedly true that white supremacist/white power folks will claim that white pride = black pride. The original statement was not at all incorrect, it perhaps only excluded the views of non-white supremacist "white pride" groups (assuming there are any such groups of any significance). Your general concern as I read it Lara is that "white pride" can be and sometimes is distinct from the white supremacist/white power movement. If that is the case we need sources that establish that. My own impressionistic sense is that while individuals may express white pride without white supremacist connotations (something for which, to be frank and fully disclose my view, I personally have little or no patience, but which is different from outright white supremacy), organized "white pride" groups are nearly always associated with ideas about white superiority. I could be wrong about that, but these are the kind of issues we need to parse in this article. As we get this figured out we'll probably have to change the lead accordingly.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation problems?
What were the citation problems? The only problem I see is that one person's rant in American Renaissance is not a reliable source for what "Some defenders of white pride" think. Such a statement would require a meta-source, while the current source is an example of what one person thinks. I know we are often sloppy with this distinction, but when the source is American Renaissance we should be extra careful. Merzul (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Urban demographics
I reverted an addition that primarily listed a bunch of white-minority cities in the US and Britain. I felt it was unnecessary to get the point across that "white priders" have an issue with becoming demographic minorities, which the article already states using state-level statistics. Further demographic detail at the urban level is irrelevant to "white pride" as an ideology. Amerique dialectics 17:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not Rascist
Why is being proud of Being a European White or American White different than being proud of Being African or Latino? Yes white pride is sometimes jumbled into hate groups (the Black Panthers do the exact same thing) but at its core it is simply being proud of ones heritage. Im not rascist but Im proud of my european ancestry--Lord Haw Haw29 (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the article and the sources it cites. There has in fact been some effort to seek out sources that echo the position you hold.  If you have alternative sources, please add them. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I almost agreed with you until I noticed you are using the screen name "Lord HawHaw." I know who Lord Haw Haw was and it betrays what you REALLY think. - a user not logged in his name on purpose for good reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.160.51 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This article needs to be clean.White pride is not racist term or group but represent European ancestry.Don't compare it with KKK or white supremacy or other racist groups.If blacks are proud to be black,(see black pride) Latinos to be brown,Asian's to be yellow and orange, why when white people are proud te be white is racist? Then let's label all the other groups to racist too.Taulant23 (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Black pride came as a response to racism and a racist society that treated them as worthless subhumans only good for slavery. White pride seems to be used to reinforce what they think is their superiority over other races. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falastine fee Qalby (talk • contribs)

Image
The image contains a banner reading "White Pride Worldwide". It appears to be directly related to the topic of this article. Why is it being deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The picture of the neo nazi's is not representative of the article,therefore, the article photo is a violation of NPV.--Taulant23 (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "According to the Aryan Guard, the organization is a non-violent group that wants to protect white interests and promote white pride. " If you want to assert that white pride groups and neo-nazi groups are totally separate it would help if there were a source that said so. What's your basis for making that statement?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said before,white pride is not a racist term.If we use pictures of neo-nazi's and racist groups than the term becomes racist as well.If blacks are proud to be black,(see black pride) Latinos to be brown,Asian's to be yellow and orange,than the question is why white pride is a racist term? why it need's to be compared with nazi groups? The first picture to be in this article is a Aryan Guard or the neo nazi's,Why?? White pride represent European-American roots as the black pride represent African-Americans roots.--Taulant23 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "White pride" is a slogan used by groups like Aryan Guard. While some folks may wish that they didn't, they still do. What other groups use the term? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * White Aryan Resistance merchandise
 * "Two major civil rights organizations have filed suit in Federal court in Portland, Ore., charging that a California white supremacist group called the White Aryan Resistance incited two Oregon skinheads to beat an Ethiopian immigrant to death in Portland last November. ... Tom Metzger, 50 years old, a television repairman, is founder and president of the White Aryan Resistance, or WAR. John Metzger, 21, is president of its youth recruitment arm, the White Student Union, also known as the Aryan Youth movement, WAR Youth and the WAR Skins. ... Also named in the civil suit are two members of a Portland skinhead group called East Side White Pride, Kenneth Murray Mieske, a performer of hate metal rock music who used the name Ken Death, and Kyle Hayden Brewster. ... The suit says that in October 1988, about a month before the attack on Mr. Seraw, John Metzger contacted defendant Kenneth Mieske and East Side White Pride in Portland, as part of a skinhead organizing effort. Skinheads are neo-Nazis characterized by closely cropped hair or shaved heads. Members of such groups have been linked to racially motivated murders and assaults around the United States."
 * "Black, 45, is a former Ku Klux Klan leader who learned how to use computers while serving time in a federal prison in Texas for planning the military overthrow of the tiny Caribbean island of Dominica. He created Stormfront, which preaches White Pride World Wide, in March 1995. "
 * See also the sources already in the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Skinheads or neo-nazi's can use wtever they want as a slogan, but it does not mean that white pride is used only to refer to them.White pride when someone is proud of having white skin and having european heritage, often mistaken as racism, although it is just like black pride/asian pride.White supremicy is racist. --Taulant23 (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC) p.s.both of my grandpas fought the German and Italians
 * Do you have sources for your assertions? Most of the sources I've seen connect the slogan to neo-nazis, skinheads, etc. Also, please don't change sourced material to say the opposite of what the source says. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What does this source have to do with this topic:
 * Definition of a White person in US and UK
 * I couldn't find the word "pride" in it anywhere. Likewise this source:
 * Seidman, S. (2004). Critical Race Theory. In Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today (pp. 231 - 243). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
 * On which page is the term "white pride" discussed? I couldn't find it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)