[hauptdaunnila]

We've talked about whiteness a lot. I wanted to bring up a discussion more specifically about the definitions of it though. I figured that a good starting point would be to use a definition from those most concerned about it, namely 'White Nationalists' (as they call themselves). Here's the one from Stormfront:

Stormfront:
- So in response to the question, "Who's White?" we answer: "Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions."

(Q: But what about someone who's 1/64 non-white for instance?)

- The answer is that if a person identifies with his non-White part so much that he is concerned about it and feels compelled to tell us about it, then we consider him to be non-White. So basically, you are white if you look white, unless you open your mouth and reveal that you're not. Either way, the definition itself is at least clear; 100% euro or GTFO. Now, on subject of european subraces:

Stormfront:
- White people are the descendants of all historically European peoples. // We are pan-European in our views and stand unconditionally opposed to conflicts between White peoples. Outside forces often exploit one White ethnicity against another.

Tag from a stormfront user in the same spirit:
"Race Traitors Are Those Who:
- Whites Who Condemn and Reject OTHER White Sub-Groups!

- So If You Believe Your White Sub-Group Is Superior To Another White Sub-Group And You Reject Them As A Result, You Are a Race Traitor! http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t579650/

But something always bugged me about these "white = euro" definitions. I wrote down 4 different reasons for it now, but decided to post just 1 in order to avoid TLDRs. My main gripe is the inherent hypocrasy of it.

The thing is: The name "Stormfront", the Celtic Cross, the nordic mythology - The whole culture around 'white nationalism' since day 1 is already built up around a worship of everything germanic. The south of Europe - and even the Roman Empire, is left out in the margin at best (even if the concept of The Third Reich was largely a cultural ripoff of it). The point is: The word "white" by its very nature implies blondeness, a light skintone and so on. As long as the racial ideal is to be Nordic, then there is an inherent conflict in using a definition such as "anyone of european decent". Nordic ideals promoted as primary, automatically means that south-european will be secondary (or even dispised).

On any scale where 'whitness' is the desirable attribute, the opposite attribute 'darkness' naturally must be considered undesirable. You cannot avoid creating an internal hierarchy when such underlying terms and concepts are used.

So? why use the "euro = white" definition in the first place? The easiest thing would have been to simply say that white means "of germanic decent".


My question is: Can a definition of "white" - one which doesn't mean "germanic" yet claims equality between subraces - ever be taken seriously?

Do you see a conflict in it?

[StampNews]

I think so, Race is just social its not concrete.

[steevyjeors]

Not all 'germanic' are nordic and not all nordic are 'germanic', nonsense.

Anyway, most people in Europe are not nordic, not blondes and less than half have blue eyes. Thats why probably skin-heads modified their nordic pseudo-aryan criterias, cause noone would fit them, not even the biggest Nazi heroes, with handsome Rudolfino Hess in the front row.

[Uvgsgssu]

BUMP - (I'm just bumpig this now since I posted it around midnight. This is a european thing mostly so it wasn't an ideal time). Anyways.. I'm just curious about some opinions on the actual subject, so

TLDR;
- The definition (by Stormfront e.g.) "white = euro" - while also emphazising 'no internal hierarchy between subraces' - Can it be taken seriously when the very concept of "whiteness" seems innately connected to Nordicist ideals?


That's what I'm curious about. To me, there's an inherent contradiction in it. (They could have just defined white = germanic) But is there? Or am I missing something.

[Seasmillets]

You must be retarded to take your definition of what it means to be white from a neo-nazi forum like storm front

The real definition of white is a white-skinned Caucasoid. Having 'white' and 'European' be interchangeable is ridiculous.

[elects]

this is white:
XXXX


this is black:
XXXX


this is yellow:
XXXX

this is red:
XXXX

white man=invisible man

[FrassyLap]

You must be retarded to take your definition of what it means to be white from a neo-nazi forum like storm front

The real definition of white is a white-skinned Caucasoid. Having 'white' and 'European' be interchangeable is ridiculous.

Well "me" taking a definition from them wasn't the point. I was questioning the viabilty of their definition.

As far as your "The real definition of white" goes - that's nothing more than an opinion. And it seems designed more to include yourself as an Armenian than anything else. It also sucks. A "white-skinned caucasiod" you say, as if "white skinned" wasn't arbitrary.

[skydaypat]

white has nothing to do with skin tone or any of that shit. my family is white, i have never really have anyone to dispute this claim. that being said i have family members that are dark complected, darker than some arabs i have met, or atleast on par with them. why then don't i accept these arabs as being white?

because white is a social term, it means "of fully european descent" just as the man on stormfront claims.

lets say you are a 1/16th native american. if you were to not tell anyone about this, we would all assume you were completely white. if you were to tell us you were a 1/16th native american then we would see you as "mostly white*" and for all intents and purposes you would be, but there is always that * there that says "and some indian too". thats not necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is. as i have said in earlier posts, white is a very very exclusionary term, that was how it was designed. to be a term to seperate the elite from those of what were percieved to be "lesser races" etc. it has since broadened to include a whole host of people, including the irish the germans the italians the greeks and the jews, who were all at one time not considered white. (this also puts a hole in your white=germanic theory as germans and irish are germanic people) but they have been accepted as such now. who knows, maybe one day arabs and the like will also be seen as white, until then though they are not. and there isn't much anyone can do about it.


for the record when i say "dark complected" i mean olive skin tone, i don't mean they are like brown or anything.

[BakerBonce]

The thing is: The name "Stormfront", the Celtic Cross, the nordic mythology - The whole culture around 'white nationalism' since day 1 is already built up around a worship of everything germanic. The south of Europe - and even the Roman Empire, is left out in the margin at best (even if the concept of The Third Reich was largely a cultural ripoff of it). The point is: The word "white" by its very nature implies blondeness, a light skintone and so on. As long as the racial ideal is to be Nordic, then there is an inherent conflict in using a definition such as "anyone of european decent". Nordic ideals promoted as primary, automatically means that south-european will be secondary (or even dispised).

Not to mention that Rome was a successful empire for like what 400 + years and maybe even more so if you factor in the sovereign transfer of title to Byzantium but also Holy Roman Empire.

Bottom line: Hitler's third reich lasts just a little over a decade while Rome raged for nearly half a milenium (in its "traditional" incarnate anyway).

Also do germano-nordico whatevers realize they are not really Aryans? Last I checked these guy's were the real Aryans:

Dariusz


Shapur

[Swidemaiskikemu]

white has nothing to do with skin tone or any of that shit. my family is white, i have never really have anyone to dispute this claim. that being said [B]i have family members that are dark complected, darker than some arabs i have met, or atleast on par with them. why then don't i accept these arabs as being white?

Then why use an analogy to the color "white"? Why even call it 'White nationalism' in the first place?

(Also, to say that it has "nothing" to do with skin-color is a bit exaggerated, dont' you think? I don't think you consider a dark person from india 'white' regardless of how european that person's features are, or what culture he/she has.)

because white is a social term, it means "of fully european descent" just as the man on stormfront claims. Give me a fucking break. Just look at the logo; german nazi font in white, Celtic Cross, the name itself, Stormfront (the symbolism of natural elements, such as storms, lightning etc.). You know damn well how much they glorify everything Nordic and Germanic - not to mention whiteness itself; blondeness, fair skin, bright eyes.

lets say you are a 1/16th native american. if you were to not tell anyone about this, we would all assume you were completely white. if you were to tell us you were a 1/16th native american then we would see you as "mostly white*" and for all intents and purposes you would be, No, their definition is 100% euro. Not "mostly white".

but there is always that * there that says "and some indian too". thats not necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is. as i have said in earlier posts, white is a very very exclusionary term, that was how it was designed. to be a term to seperate the elite from those of what were percieved to be "lesser races" etc. it has since broadened to include a whole host of people, including the irish the germans the italians the greeks and the jews, who were all at one time not considered white. (this also puts a hole in your white=germanic theory as germans and irish are germanic people) but they have been accepted as such now. who knows, maybe one day arabs and the like will also be seen as white, until then though they are not. and there isn't much anyone can do about it. ^ I have no problem with all of that that. I just think it's somewhat hypocritical of them to call all europeans "white" when what they really mean is those of germanic origin.

[realnilkless]

Not to mention that Rome was a successful empire for like what 400 + years and maybe even more so if you factor in the sovereign transfer of title to Byzantium but also Holy Roman Empire.

Bottom line: Hitler's third reich lasts just a little over a decade while Rome raged for nearly half a milenium

But the First Reich lasted from 962 to 1806.

[WoCTrt0X]

But the First Reich lasted from 962 to 1806.

Yeah, but one could say that it was dead long before the 1806 date, cuz' the Reformation and the subsequent wars (Thirty Years War et. al.) effectively killed the Empire. As Voltaire would say on his time "The Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, nor Roman, much less an Empire", or something like that. What Napoleon did was practically to make de jure the existing de facto situation.

[vNGiDaFX]

Yeah, but one could say that it was death long before the 1806 date, cuz' the Reformation and the subsequent wars effectively killed the Empire. As Voltaire would say on his time "The Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, nor Roman, much less an Empire", or something like that.

That was funny as hell.

And true. It was a cheap ripoff of the actual Roman Empire.

[Tactattcahhaw]

That was funny as hell.

And true. It was a cheap ripoff of the actual Roman Empire.

Yeah. An example of this was the way in which the French armies (both during Louis XIV and the Revolution) ravaged the Palatinate at will under the impotent nose of the emperors of the time.

[arcalmanard]

Yeah, but one could say that it was dead long before the 1806 date, cuz' the Reformation and the subsequent wars effectively killed the Empire. As Voltaire would say on his time "The Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, nor Roman, much less and Empire", or something like that. What Napoleon did was practically to make de jure the existing de facto situation.

Yes, I have heard the quote numerous times. The only one that is actually debatable is the Roman part though. Germanics overthrew Rome and the popes crowned the HRE emperors so in a way they were the continuation of Rome. Really though it is just a frickin' name.

---------- Post added 2012-06-06 at 12:00 ----------

That was funny as hell.

And true. It was a cheap ripoff of the actual Roman Empire.

Sure, not as large but it lasted longer.

---------- Post added 2012-06-06 at 12:03 ----------

Yeah. An example of this was the way in which the French armies (both during Louis XIV and the Revolution) ravaged the Palatinate at will under the impotent nose of the emperors of the time.

I am reading a book on European history written by Steve Ozment and my favorite part is when he is quoting Napoleon. Napoleon had some of his officers visit the tomb of Frederick the Great with him and while there he told them something along the lines of "Gentlemen, if this man still lived we would not be standing here today."

[VogsHoock]

Yes, I have heard the quote numerous times. The only one that is actually debatable is the Roman part though. Germanics overthrew Rome and the popes crowned the HRE emperors so in a way they were the continuation of Rome. Really though it is just a frickin' name.

Perhaps if Charles V would have managed to break the backs of the Prince Electors during the first skirmishes of the Reformation it would have managed to last longer, but as soon as these got to reassert their independence, the Empire was practically done for. The only thing a foreign potentate needed to do was to buy out a good chunk of them in order to either get the crown or get concessions. If Louis XIV wouldn't have been so rabidly anti-Protestant, he might have gotten his Dauphin crowned at ease after the Dutch conflict.

[PheliarearY]

Perhaps if Charles V would have managed to break the backs of the Prince Electors during the first skirmishes of the Reformation it would have managed to last longer, but as soon as these got to reassert their independence, the Empire was practically done for. The only thing a foreign potentate needed to do was to buy out a good chunk of them in order to either get the crown or get concessions. If Louis XIV wouldn't have been so rabidly anti-Protestant, he might have gotten his Dauphin crowned at ease after the Dutch conflict.

I think a unified Germany is better than the continuation of the HRE and that would have been impossible without the Reformation.

[Brainpole]

I think a unified Germany is better than the continuation of the HRE and that would have been impossible without the Reformation.

A major faux pas of the 2nd Reich was to not have considered the Austrian annexation until it was very late. Imagine what would have happened if Bismarck would have made the move after the Austro-Prussian war.

[mobbemeatiedy]

Well "me" taking a definition from them wasn't the point. I was questioning the viabilty of their definition.

As far as your "The real definition of white" goes - that's nothing more than an opinion. And it seems designed more to include yourself as an Armenian than anything else. It also sucks. A "white-skinned caucasiod" you say, as if "white skinned" wasn't arbitrary.

It's not designed for anything. 'White' refers to a white skinned person. Not my fault the definition has been perverted throughout history and become very subjective in nature. For example, Ayatollah of Iran is white but not European.

[EmpokemyMok]

A major faux pas of the 2nd Reich was to not have considered the Austrian annexation until it was very late. Imagine what would have happened if Bismarck would have made the move after the Austro-Prussian war.

Hmm, I imagine the events that led to the Great War would still have happened and the outcome would have been the same?