Serious question from someone in the UK. Is America really that racist or is it exaggerated on the internet? We do have racist pricks but I’ve never seen anything close to a ‘white supremacist’ here, unless I’m just lucky.
Much of the support for Israel is around it being a white ethnostate, not a Jewish haven; and this is the place that banned even verbal support for Palestine Action. You can tell me if you think that’s out of empathic protection of Jewish communities, or racist radicalism.
growing up in the 80s and 90s in the uk, I never heard the end of how the (slur for Pakistani people, applied to all people from South Asian countries) are ruining everything, then the Kosovans/Bosnians, Romani people, Muslims… I saw less black/African racism but I didn’t see none.
However, in my home town - which has a cathedral and a mosque - racial tensions got so high there were murders in the streets.
Having lived in the UK as a (white) foreigner… You are not a whole lot better over there. “White supremacy” is a bit of a loaded term with a few different meanings. By your question, I guess you mean people who dress up in nazi cosplay? Those guys are still fairly uncommon everywhere, but the thing is that there is a porous border between your average racist prick and one of those guys. As they feel safer to express their true beliefs, they do so more often, and they want to wear the symbols of their movement. They’re very safe in the USA right now so you see more of them. But in my opinion, “white supremacy” is better used to refer to a culture which values white people more or thinks of them as higher on some kind of natural hierarchy. That is, after all, what the words literally mean. Although it’s a broader definition, I think it’s clearer, because it removes the confusion when the average racist pricks start dressing up in fash drag when someone who lets them gets into power. Explicit racists (as opposed to your normal somewhat prejudiced person who still doesn’t believe racism is good) often talk about “hiding their power level”, i.e. not letting on. What I’m saying is, the UK is similar to the US, just a bit shyer.
It can be in pockets, and the problem is when they get organized, they get emboldened enough to make their thoughts known. Especially in rural areas, people will have latent racists tendencies and go their whole lives without acting on it or mentioning it other than with other racist assholes. You can spend your whole life with Uncle Ricky around, and then one day when you’re 30, you find out Uncle Ricky has stored every racist idea ever put online in his head as “facts,” and is 100% in agreement with it all. But he would likely never go the extra step and join a KKK rally or get a swastika tattoo unless a small group of peers really pushed him to do that. White supremacist ideology doesn’t require you to have joined your local KKK chapter or biker gang unless you’re already predisposed to being an active asshole in life already, and that’s the specific way you decide to spend your time. Some people simply do crossfit.
A lot of it is simply tribalism in action, prodded along by fear and polarizing stuff online, and a lack of exposure to external ideas during formative years.
I’ve never met a white supremacist who was tribalist. All the white supremacists I know are civilisationalists. And by that I mean, they uncritically accept the western idea of civilisation as consisting of domination and exploitation of the natural world and one’s fellow human beings. Everyone I know who subscribes to tribal knowledge systems is very anti-racist, so I have a very positive view of tribalism.
Yes, but “civilizationist” is a form of tribalism, isn’t it? It’s about ethnically similar people promoting or only tolerating their narrow definition of culture. Sure, once you add the cultural history of slavery and Jim Crow, then you get historical context they lean on to say “see? it worked, didn’t it?!” My racist family member would fall into this category, and while he thinks he knows what “Western Civilization” means, it’s his delusional imagined version.
Honest question, is this a subjective dividing line between us that is opinion? Or is there research or something that defines the two in a way where it’s a clear differentiation? If there is, I’m happy to be educated on the nuance and not keep being wrong.
I’m being a bit sneaky and defining tribalism differently than you without telling you. See, we live in a very racist society with some very negative views of tribes. Many people think tribes are primitive and warlike, and that’s where the definition of tribalism you’re using comes from. I think using that definition is thoughtlessly callous, because I have a positive view of tribes, so I’m defining tribalism much more positively, as the view that tribes are a better way to organise a society than western civilisation. Hence My above point that white supremacists are very unlikely to be tribalists under My definition. White supremacists are only tribalists when we use white supremacist language.
Many people think tribes are primitive and warlike, and that’s where the definition of tribalism you’re using comes from.
Maybe for you as an individual.
Meanwhile, on Earth:
I’ve spent most of my career in Sub-Saharan Africa, and use of the term “tribe” and related descriptors is commonly used in regular news headlines for things like tribal leaders (also called traditional leaders when they’re less tied to a specific ethnic group) and tribal conflicts - what academics would call “inter-ethnic conflicts” as well. Tribe literally means a distinct ethnic group with distinct cultural components. Example 1, example 2, example 3. It’s in common use today meaning the thing it always meant. It’s not archaic or disused or so loaded with racist baggage that is’ unusable any more than other alt-right abused terms like how “Globalist” actually means “Jews” to them, or “Traditional” meaning anti-LGBTQI+.
Another term, “tribal lands,” is more common term in the US to describe Native American lands (typically reservations, which are jails without walls for individual ethnic groups IMO). Not only perfectly valid, but it’s a term Native Americans use to describe themselves, as they are isolated and organized in their forced apartheid system by ethnic groups.
I had a colleague object to the word “indigenous” for similar reasons as you’re objecting to “tribe.” But for her it was personal. She felt it was pejorative as it was used as such by colonial oppressors, as opposed to “local.” I get that, but that’s also a widely used term. That was personal preference and how she thought everyone should speak more positively about themselves, as she had noticed little use of the term in the UK to describe, for example, locally made cheddar. But she was also conservative AF, so who knows how that will hit for you.
A lot of America is truly that racist. Sometimes overt, but often subtle (e.g. "I don’t hate black people, but crime rates don’t lie).
There are pockets that are generally decent, but these are increasingly imperiled by growing external threats from the national government and bigots that feel empowered to act on its behalf.
It’s pretty racist (especially the government), but the US is a big place so the answer to your question may vary greatly, even from people living in the same state.
I’ve met some WS who weren’t outspoken about their beliefs, they were “smart” enough to not talk about their views when there would be obivous consequence, i.e work, family, partner, etc. Insidious blighters!
Now, quite frankly, I don’t know exactly how the UK or the rest of the world sees the US, so answering that is difficult…
Serious question from someone in the UK. Is America really that racist or is it exaggerated on the internet? We do have racist pricks but I’ve never seen anything close to a ‘white supremacist’ here, unless I’m just lucky.
the US is really racist. other countries also have racism, ask any European about Roma people. but Americans made racism their national identity
I mean, even the UK just masks it.
Much of the support for Israel is around it being a white ethnostate, not a Jewish haven; and this is the place that banned even verbal support for Palestine Action. You can tell me if you think that’s out of empathic protection of Jewish communities, or racist radicalism.
growing up in the 80s and 90s in the uk, I never heard the end of how the (slur for Pakistani people, applied to all people from South Asian countries) are ruining everything, then the Kosovans/Bosnians, Romani people, Muslims… I saw less black/African racism but I didn’t see none.
However, in my home town - which has a cathedral and a mosque - racial tensions got so high there were murders in the streets.
Different brands of racism, really. Legacy of slavery vs colonialism.
Having lived in the UK as a (white) foreigner… You are not a whole lot better over there. “White supremacy” is a bit of a loaded term with a few different meanings. By your question, I guess you mean people who dress up in nazi cosplay? Those guys are still fairly uncommon everywhere, but the thing is that there is a porous border between your average racist prick and one of those guys. As they feel safer to express their true beliefs, they do so more often, and they want to wear the symbols of their movement. They’re very safe in the USA right now so you see more of them. But in my opinion, “white supremacy” is better used to refer to a culture which values white people more or thinks of them as higher on some kind of natural hierarchy. That is, after all, what the words literally mean. Although it’s a broader definition, I think it’s clearer, because it removes the confusion when the average racist pricks start dressing up in fash drag when someone who lets them gets into power. Explicit racists (as opposed to your normal somewhat prejudiced person who still doesn’t believe racism is good) often talk about “hiding their power level”, i.e. not letting on. What I’m saying is, the UK is similar to the US, just a bit shyer.
It can be in pockets, and the problem is when they get organized, they get emboldened enough to make their thoughts known. Especially in rural areas, people will have latent racists tendencies and go their whole lives without acting on it or mentioning it other than with other racist assholes. You can spend your whole life with Uncle Ricky around, and then one day when you’re 30, you find out Uncle Ricky has stored every racist idea ever put online in his head as “facts,” and is 100% in agreement with it all. But he would likely never go the extra step and join a KKK rally or get a swastika tattoo unless a small group of peers really pushed him to do that. White supremacist ideology doesn’t require you to have joined your local KKK chapter or biker gang unless you’re already predisposed to being an active asshole in life already, and that’s the specific way you decide to spend your time. Some people simply do crossfit.
A lot of it is simply tribalism in action, prodded along by fear and polarizing stuff online, and a lack of exposure to external ideas during formative years.
I’ve never met a white supremacist who was tribalist. All the white supremacists I know are civilisationalists. And by that I mean, they uncritically accept the western idea of civilisation as consisting of domination and exploitation of the natural world and one’s fellow human beings. Everyone I know who subscribes to tribal knowledge systems is very anti-racist, so I have a very positive view of tribalism.
Yes, but “civilizationist” is a form of tribalism, isn’t it? It’s about ethnically similar people promoting or only tolerating their narrow definition of culture. Sure, once you add the cultural history of slavery and Jim Crow, then you get historical context they lean on to say “see? it worked, didn’t it?!” My racist family member would fall into this category, and while he thinks he knows what “Western Civilization” means, it’s his delusional imagined version.
Honest question, is this a subjective dividing line between us that is opinion? Or is there research or something that defines the two in a way where it’s a clear differentiation? If there is, I’m happy to be educated on the nuance and not keep being wrong.
I’m being a bit sneaky and defining tribalism differently than you without telling you. See, we live in a very racist society with some very negative views of tribes. Many people think tribes are primitive and warlike, and that’s where the definition of tribalism you’re using comes from. I think using that definition is thoughtlessly callous, because I have a positive view of tribes, so I’m defining tribalism much more positively, as the view that tribes are a better way to organise a society than western civilisation. Hence My above point that white supremacists are very unlikely to be tribalists under My definition. White supremacists are only tribalists when we use white supremacist language.
Maybe for you as an individual.
Meanwhile, on Earth:
I’ve spent most of my career in Sub-Saharan Africa, and use of the term “tribe” and related descriptors is commonly used in regular news headlines for things like tribal leaders (also called traditional leaders when they’re less tied to a specific ethnic group) and tribal conflicts - what academics would call “inter-ethnic conflicts” as well. Tribe literally means a distinct ethnic group with distinct cultural components. Example 1, example 2, example 3. It’s in common use today meaning the thing it always meant. It’s not archaic or disused or so loaded with racist baggage that is’ unusable any more than other alt-right abused terms like how “Globalist” actually means “Jews” to them, or “Traditional” meaning anti-LGBTQI+.
Another term, “tribal lands,” is more common term in the US to describe Native American lands (typically reservations, which are jails without walls for individual ethnic groups IMO). Not only perfectly valid, but it’s a term Native Americans use to describe themselves, as they are isolated and organized in their forced apartheid system by ethnic groups.
I had a colleague object to the word “indigenous” for similar reasons as you’re objecting to “tribe.” But for her it was personal. She felt it was pejorative as it was used as such by colonial oppressors, as opposed to “local.” I get that, but that’s also a widely used term. That was personal preference and how she thought everyone should speak more positively about themselves, as she had noticed little use of the term in the UK to describe, for example, locally made cheddar. But she was also conservative AF, so who knows how that will hit for you.
So, I will say sorry that a word you don’t understand or use correctly gives you feels that may have nothing to do with you. But also, the word “tribalism” is a valid, modern word that is perfectly acceptable even in academia. Tribalism isn’t even fully negative, but simply describes a loyalty to ethnic or ethno-cultural ties. Which is exactly how I used it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism
I think tribes are good and tribalism is good. I’m a tribalist. We have some great tribes here in Australia and I respect their ancient practices.
American here. Please don’t visit.
I say that out of love and care for you, not hate. It’s bad here. We’re a dumpster fire.
So sad to hear
A lot of America is truly that racist. Sometimes overt, but often subtle (e.g. "I don’t hate black people, but crime rates don’t lie).
There are pockets that are generally decent, but these are increasingly imperiled by growing external threats from the national government and bigots that feel empowered to act on its behalf.
It’s pretty racist (especially the government), but the US is a big place so the answer to your question may vary greatly, even from people living in the same state.
I’ve met some WS who weren’t outspoken about their beliefs, they were “smart” enough to not talk about their views when there would be obivous consequence, i.e work, family, partner, etc. Insidious blighters!
Now, quite frankly, I don’t know exactly how the UK or the rest of the world sees the US, so answering that is difficult…