[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?