Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Its also called racial pandering.

Politicians pandering to voting blocs? Why, that is unheard of!

I know! Shocking isn't it? Its almost like disparate groups have disparate interests!*



*I can't type "disparate" correctly to save my life.

 Frazzled wrote:

I know! Shocking isn't it? Its almost like disparate groups have disparate interests!

I like how poor conservatives seem to have the same interests as rich conservatives, and how poor liberals seem to have the same interests as rich liberals. And, more importantly, how "disparate groups" aren't really groups aside from voting tendencies.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I know! Shocking isn't it? Its almost like disparate groups have disparate interests!

I like how poor conservatives seem to have the same interests as rich conservatives, and how poor liberals seem to have the same interests as rich liberals. And, more importantly, how "disparate groups" aren't really groups aside from voting tendencies.

Wait what? Are you disagreeing with yourself on the voting bloc front? Frazzled now confused.

 Frazzled wrote:

Wait what? Are you disagreeing with yourself on the voting bloc front? Frazzled now confused.

No, I'm playing off the idea of interests. Voting blocs aren't organized around interests, they're organized around preference. People often vote against their interests. At least where "interest" is material and "preference" is political or emotional.

 dogma wrote:
[

No, I'm playing off the idea of interests. Voting blocs aren't organized around interests, they're organized around preference. People often vote against their interests. At least where "interest" is material and "preference" is political or emotional.

That was very astute Dogma and well said.

Yes, I forgot how the Germans bred chows, akitas, and huskeys.

Ah, that was a miscomunication on my part. I meant when you go and look at dog shows/show dogs I don't really see a lot of minorities competing.

Celebrating or studying a single culture within Europe is fine, and perfectly normal. Studying various European cultures but then stopping when you reach countries where the skin gets a little darker is more than a little weird.

Not really as we all have quite a few similarities in our history. Mainly what kind of effect the rise and fall of rome had on our respective nations, the viking age, the crusades, the wars of religion, reformation, plato, socrates, nitszche, descartes, the colonial age, WW1, WW2, the French revolution, pre christian religions, language groups, and the early and mid history of Christianity are all shared or heavily influential things cultually that are somewaht exclusive to Europe and north africa. (but we generally ignore North Africa post Islamic Expansionism aside from crusades/trading and such.)

I don't think anything annoys me quite as much as people who've never been to Scotland or Ireland in their lives suddenly wearing a kilt for their wedding.

Really? As long they are actually of Scottish blood and receive permission from the Clan head to wear that tartan I have no issue whatsoever as to if they've been to Scotland or not.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Not really as we all have quite a few similarities in our history. Mainly what kind of effect the rise and fall of rome had on our respective nations, the viking age, the crusades, the wars of religion, reformation, plato, socrates, nitszche, descartes, the colonial age, WW1, WW2, the French revolution, pre christian religions, language groups, and the early and mid history of Christianity are all shared or heavily influential things cultually that are somewaht exclusive to Europe and north africa. (but we generally ignore North Africa post Islamic Expansionism aside from crusades/trading and such.)

I think once you start lumping the viking age and socrates into the same vague idea of culture you're in very strange territory.

Really? As long they are actually of Scottish blood and receive permission from the Clan head to wear that tartan I have no issue whatsoever as to if they've been to Scotland or not.

It's special snowflake syndrome, wanting to be something different from the norm, without actually being any different in any genuine way.

I think once you start lumping the viking age and socrates into the same vague idea of culture you're in very strange territory.

While yes, I was stretching more for shared cultural history. Both of those subjects are taught when you begin to look at Western Culture and History. Which is pretty much the history and culture of White People.

It's special snowflake syndrome, wanting to be something different from the norm, without actually being any different in any genuine way.

I don't really understand this, you're getting angry because someone wants to express their individuality in a way appropriate with their genetic/ethnic/cultural heritage?

At what is for all intents and purposes a very private communal event?

The Fox News Obama junk is just race-baiting dog whistle stuff. Not getting enough traction, I guess, with what they feel are policy criticisms, so better stir up their viewers who are afraid of black people. Daily Show nailed that one tonight.

@Ratbarf-
You're retroactively defining Western Civilization as the history of white people. For most of that history (in fact up until quite recently), many white people would exclude other people you are now calling white (such as the Italians and Greeks, foundational though they are to Western Civ) and consider them a distinctly different ethnicity. Even among decidedly pale people, the Irish were specifically looked down upon by other groups as different times. Signs saying "No blacks, no Irish" in store windows were a real thing a hundred or so years ago.

As he said, you're blurring a bunch of different cultures oversimplification of ethnicity and culture into just skin color. It's not meaningful or accurate.

You're retroactively defining Western Civilization as the history of white people. For most of that history (in fact up until quite recently), many white people would exclude other people you are now calling white (such as the Italians and Greeks, foundational though they are to Western Civ) and consider them a distinctly different ethnicity. Even among decidedly pale people, the Irish were specifically looked down upon by other groups as different times. Signs saying "No blacks, no Irish" in store windows were a real thing a hundred or so years ago.

As he said, you're blurring a bunch of different cultures oversimplification of ethnicity and culture into just skin color. It's not meaningful or accurate.

And how is it different from the Umbrella that Black culture puts out? Especially when for much of the history of black civilisation white people considered East Indians and many Arabs to fall under the same distinction? Especially in America.

Also the no Irish was something of a phenomena that only appeared in British culture and it's subsidiaries.

And even if one was to exclude the Italians and Greeks and say that white is a Northern European culture many of the examples I put forward still apply.

I've lost track of what you're arguing.

If we're talking historically, the point is that no one (outside the KKK or its ilk) would talk about white culture or history. Irish, Swedish, English, Italian, Greek, etc. all had distinct cultures and would certainly not lump themselves together the way you seem to be doing.

If you're comparing modern American "black culture" to "white culture", one factor I have to point out is that black people are still a small fraction of the American populace. Only around 12.6%. So it's not such a large number of people and groups being falsely conflated.

I'll certainly agree that it's silly to confuse/lump together African-Americans descended from slaves with more recent African immigrants, Jamaicans, Haitians, and other folks who really are of a different cultural background. But that's more a product of marketing, and of people being lazy and lumping people together based on skin color.

 Ratbarf wrote:
While yes, I was stretching more for shared cultural history. Both of those subjects are taught when you begin to look at Western Culture and History. Which is pretty much the history and culture of White People.

But who is, and who isn't white people is something we've been making up as we go along, adding in groups as they've become rich enough to join the club. As a collective history it's a complete nonsense. I mean, what in the hell does Plato have to do with viking raids, seriously? The only connection is that both groups, at different times and for different reasons, came to achieve the socio-economic minimums needed to start being seen as white people.

I don't really understand this, you're getting angry because someone wants to express their individuality in a way appropriate with their genetic/ethnic/cultural heritage?

I said I was annoyed by it. That means the same thing as seeing a Carpe Diem tattoo, or over revs their car at traffic lights, or when someone talks at the movies. You roll your eyes, turn to the person you're with, make a joke or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
And how is it different from the Umbrella that Black culture puts out? Especially when for much of the history of black civilisation white people considered East Indians and many Arabs to fall under the same distinction? Especially in America.

That 'black culture' thing you're describing is the culture of being a black person living in America. It doesn't make any pretence that all those black people were part of a common cultural heritage before coming to America. I mean, think about what food is black culture - people don't start listing a range of regional dishes from parts of Africa, they start talking about soul food - food that is a unique American creation.

Also the no Irish was something of a phenomena that only appeared in British culture and it's subsidiaries.

Well, yeah. Because that's where the Irish migrated to. Why would a German colony put up a 'No Irish' poster when the Irish weren't migrating there?

Meanwhile, the Germans thought of the Poles and the Slavs as different, lower races.

None of them thought of those other groups as part of a greater white culture, because there was no such thing.

Well, yeah. Because that's where the Irish migrated to. Why would a German colony put up a 'No Irish' poster when the Irish weren't migrating there?

Actually the Irish lived somewhat extensively in Austria Germany and France due to the English persecution of them in Ireland. The Flight of the Wild Geese for instance, is a classic case. The French actually had Irish regiments because of this influx of Irish Catholics fleeing persecution in their native Ireland.

If we're talking historically, the point is that no one (outside the KKK or its ilk) would talk about white culture or history. Irish, Swedish, English, Italian, Greek, etc. all had distinct cultures and would certainly not lump themselves together the way you seem to be doing.

Actually the Germanic peoples for instance do have a shared cultural history and quite a bit of cultural and lingquistic commonality. And that group contains the English, German, French, and Scandinavian peoples.

But who is, and who isn't white people is something we've been making up as we go along, adding in groups as they've become rich enough to join the club. As a collective history it's a complete nonsense. I mean, what in the hell does Plato have to do with viking raids, seriously? The only connection is that both groups, at different times and for different reasons, came to achieve the socio-economic minimums needed to start being seen as white people.

The same with the "Black Culture" except they've been excluding people that used to be included as time has progressed.

I've lost track of what you're arguing.

To be honest so have I to some extent, but I think that the strongest point in favour of a shared White Culture is actually the pervasiveness and influence of the Medieval Christian Church. All of the groups now considered white, with the exception of jews of course, have that as a central part of their culture for roughly a thousand years. Pretty much all cultured learning from that period until about the 1500's and later was done through that church in either the Catholic or the splinter faction of Eastern Orthodoxy. With the Catholic church in the West and the Orthodox church in the East having, to a varying extent, a monopoly on books learning and the academic class. They are, for instance, the reason that until the 20th century everyone who was considered cultured, and indeed was a central pillar of the education of the academic world, could read and write latin. <(I don't really like how that flows, but I'll fix it when I'm less tired.) It was essentially a universal language and it provided a conduit for the transmission of culture and learning throughout Europe.

I've somewhat become muddled because of tiredness so I'll finish/refine this argument tommorow when I'm able to think clearly. I think I have the foundations of a good argument, I just can't seem to take it to it's conclusion at the moment.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Actually the Irish lived somewhat extensively in Austria Germany and France due to the English persecution of them in Ireland. The Flight of the Wild Geese for instance, is a classic case. The French actually had Irish regiments because of this influx of Irish Catholics fleeing persecution in their native Ireland.

I knew of the French Irish regiments, didn't know of migration to Austria and Germany. Thanks for that titbit.

But it still sits in the obscure titbits of history section, and doesn't really compare to Irish numbers that migrated to the colonies.

The same with the "Black Culture" except they've been excluding people that used to be included as time has progressed.

So what?

To be honest so have I to some extent, but I think that the strongest point in favour of a shared White Culture is actually the pervasiveness and influence of the Medieval Christian Church. All of the groups now considered white, with the exception of jews of course, have that as a central part of their culture for roughly a thousand years. Pretty much all cultured learning from that period until about the 1500's and later was done through that church in either the Catholic or the splinter faction of Eastern Orthodoxy. With the Catholic church in the West and the Orthodox church in the East having, to a varying extent, a monopoly on books learning and the academic class. They are, for instance, the reason that until the 20th century everyone who was considered cultured, and indeed was a central pillar of the education of the academic world, could read and write latin. <(I don't really like how that flows, but I'll fix it when I'm less tired.) It was essentially a universal language and it provided a conduit for the transmission of culture and learning throughout Europe.

That shows that Christianity came to dominate Europe, which then splintered, and after a time splintered again. If that's what Europe has in common, then do we include or exclude the Christian populations of Africa? What about groups that have been Christian for a really, really long time, like the Coptics?

And where does that leave, say, Brazil? Because that country was colonised and populated by the Spanish, which is a Christian country on the European mainland. So is Brazil white?

And where does that leave, say, Brazil? Because that country was colonised and populated by the Spanish, which is a Christian country on the European mainland. So is Brazil white?

Certainly parts of it is, I've actually met a few of the ones who have kept a pretty pure Spanish bloodline down through the generations.

That shows that Christianity came to dominate Europe, which then splintered, and after a time splintered again. If that's what Europe has in common, then do we include or exclude the Christian populations of Africa? What about groups that have been Christian for a really, really long time, like the Coptics?

The difference would be that the coptics and african churches either came about later on account of european missionaries, in the case of the Africans, or were never under the influence of the Bishop of Rome, in the case of the Coptics. Both the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox religions are offshoots or splinters from the Church of St. Peter. And as I also said earlier, that it is the shared history of the early and middle church that unites all of europe. Missions to African and the Americas didn't start until around the time of of the Reformation or later, and therefore it can be seen as a uniquely european, or in other words white, shared cultural history. Especially as the Pope and Catholic church shaped or influenced large parts of the culture and traditions of every european nation and populace that it came into contact with. That that contact was heavily limited to the geographical areas where whites are from it can be seen as a good foundation for white, and later western, culture.

For instance, the reason that both Plato and the Viking invasions have been seen as such important events even before modern or victorian sholars got their hands on them was because of the influence and effect they both had upon the Catholic church, which was then spread throughout Europe.

By the by, when I say Catholic I am usually also intending the inclusion of Greek and Russian Orthodoxy as well, as ideas were shared between those church and the Roman Catholic and later Reformed Churches.

 Ratbarf wrote:

And where does that leave, say, Brazil? Because that country was colonised and populated by the Spanish, which is a Christian country on the European mainland. So is Brazil white?

Certainly parts of it is, I've actually met a few of the ones who have kept a pretty pure Spanish bloodline down through the generations.

Wait, don't you chaps mean Portuguese?

Yes I guess we do, but it also applies to quite a bit of the Americas of both Spanish and Portugese origin.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Certainly parts of it is, I've actually met a few of the ones who have kept a pretty pure Spanish bloodline down through the generations.

Hang on, so white culture is a thing because there's common European culture... but then your ancestors can move to another continent, immerse themselves a very different culture, but if they keep the Spanish bloodline is preserved then you're still white?

Are you getting how messy your thinking on this issue is, yet?

The difference would be that the coptics and african churches either came about later on account of european missionaries, in the case of the Africans, or were never under the influence of the Bishop of Rome, in the case of the Coptics.

What? There's been Christians in Egypt longer than there's been Christians in England. So why isn't Egypt, or at least the Coptics, part of this shared Christian faith of Europe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
Wait, don't you chaps mean Portuguese?

I certainly would mean that, if my knowledge of Brazil wasn't utterly terrible

Hang on, so white culture is a thing because there's common European culture... but then your ancestors can move to another continent, immerse themselves a very different culture, but if they keep the Spanish bloodline is preserved then you're still white?

Would you call the Boers Zulu? How about Uighers asian? Just because you're immersed in a separate nation with a culture and population different than yours does not mean that you lose your cultural identity.

What? There's been Christians in Egypt longer than there's been Christians in England. So why isn't Egypt, or at least the Coptics, part of this shared Christian faith of Europe?

So? That wasn't my point. The coptic Church isn't derived from St Peter like the Roman Catholic and the Greek and Russian Orthodoxies, but from Saint Mark. This split happened in the 5th century, and thus the Egyptian Coptics went their own way culturally. They were actually terrorised at different periods by both the Byzantines and Roman Catholics who viewed them as Heretics, worthy of stake burning.

A good example of a culture that is similar in being an umbrella culture would be arabic culture. Arabic culture includes many different sub cultures who all still appeal to pan arabianism, and we don't bat an eyelash at it. Even though that culture contains many different ethnicities within the overarching one.

For example, there is a huge difference between Saudi culture and Bedouin culture, yet they're still both considered part of arab culture.

White culture can be taken in the same kind of overarching sense.

Are you getting how messy your thinking on this issue is, yet?

Indeed I am, which is why I'm enjoying it. This conversation is making me collate arguments and thoughts that I don't normally get to discuss with anyone of decent intelligence, as most of the people I know who would agree with me are stupid, and those who wouldn't agree with me usually do so vehemently and without any other argument than, "That's Racist"

 Ratbarf wrote:
Would you call the Boers Zulu? How about Uighers asian? Just because you're immersed in a separate nation with a culture and population different than yours does not mean that you lose your cultural identity.

Uh, comparing the Boers and their apartheid that kept them culturally and familially seperate from the local population, and assuming the same existed anywhere a person is just goofy.

So? That wasn't my point. The coptic Church isn't derived from St Peter like the Roman Catholic and the Greek and Russian Orthodoxies, but from Saint Mark. This split happened in the 5th century, and thus the Egyptian Coptics went their own way culturally. They were actually terrorised at different periods by both the Byzantines and Roman Catholics who viewed them as Heretics, worthy of stake burning.

I don't think obscure points of religion like which prophet a faith derived from two thousand years ago really impacts on a meaningful level, to be honest.

Coptic faith drifted apart because it was in a seperate country, just a Christian faith has evolved in response to every culture its been a part of. As Egypt isn't part of Europe despite the Coptics, I think it is equally reasonable to state that Europe as a whole cannot be considered as a single culture, despite having a single faith.

A good example of a culture that is similar in being an umbrella culture would be arabic culture. Arabic culture includes many different sub cultures who all still appeal to pan arabianism, and we don't bat an eyelash at it. Even though that culture contains many different ethnicities within the overarching one.

For example, there is a huge difference between Saudi culture and Bedouin culture, yet they're still both considered part of arab culture.

I remember studying exactly what made Arabs arabic back in my uni days. Most of the pan-arabic claims fell flat, as any time you saw a similarity it'd have a bunch of exceptions. Ultimately, the only thing you can really claim makes a person arabic is that they speak the language, outside of that the region is just too diverse for the idea of it being a single culture to be all that useful.

White culture can be taken in the same kind of overarching sense.

I think the idea of a pan-Arabian culture is weak, and at least they share a common tongue.

Indeed I am, which is why I'm enjoying it. This conversation is making me collate arguments and thoughts that I don't normally get to discuss with anyone of decent intelligence, as most of the people I know who would agree with me are stupid, and those who wouldn't agree with me usually do so vehemently and without any other argument than, "That's Racist"

This is one of those issues that is all too prone to reactive political grandstanding, that's true. I'm just as grateful I haven't to be told I'm just being PC.

I don't think obscure points of religion like which prophet a faith derived from two thousand years ago really impacts on a meaningful level, to be honest.

They simply were the greatest and likely most well known example of a culture maintaining itself regardless of differences between it and the local population. I could also say those white who lived in Hong Kong, India, Singapore. They all were completely surrounded by a different culture and ethinicity yet still managed to keep their cultural identity. You could, again, say that this was due to an unbalanced system of government, but the same can be said of those South American nations prior to there revolutions in which the Spanish or Portugese overlords were overthrown or driven out. Yet some still stayed, not unlike those of British Descent who stayed in India or Hong Kong.

However a somewhat better argument could be made from those of Indian descent who were transported to Africa to work as labourers and have still managed to retain their culture and ethnic characteristics, despite being on the wrong side of political advantage.

I don't think obscure points of religion like which prophet a faith derived from two thousand years ago really impacts on a meaningful level, to be honest.

Coptic faith drifted apart because it was in a seperate country, just a Christian faith has evolved in response to every culture its been a part of. As Egypt isn't part of Europe despite the Coptics, I think it is equally reasonable to state that Europe as a whole cannot be considered as a single culture, despite having a single faith

Actually it makes/made a world of difference to Christians and especially to the early Catholic Church, who later decreed that the Coptics were heretics, something which has since been rescinded, and they suffered a great deal from both their muslim masters and any european crusaders or christian kingdoms that they came across. Calvinists viewed them as little better than Arianists, and far worse than followers of the various Orthodoxies.

I think it is equally reasonable to state that Europe as a whole cannot be considered as a single culture, despite having a single faith

I would say that it provides a good argument for it, in the same manner that the middle east could be called an area of on culture due to the cultural similarities that have come about due to Islam. (This is of course ignoring for the moment the split between Arab, Persian, Turkish ethnicities and Sunni and Shia Islam.)