The alt-right in my view is arguing for essentially exactly the same thing that most other ethnical groups take for granted, even in the West. — Judaka

I don't know what that is referring to, though. What is it that they're arguing that most other "ethnic groups" take for granted?

not also directed at ethnic minorities because they treat alt-right differently because it's white. — Judaka

Is the reason that anyone criticizes the alt-right because "it is white"?

I was just quoting your use. You said “many liberals” and I questioned that by saying I thought it could be more due to SOME. I was not referring to any particular geographic location, maybe you were(?), as my point was about how things can be blown up by a few authoritarian types (wherever they lie on the political rainbow on nonsense :)).

I'm not part of the alt-right, actually I'm a hardcore individualist who cares about ideas and principles but I won't ignore the fact that race is important to most people just because I'm white. The alt-right in my view is arguing for essentially exactly the same thing that most other ethnical groups take for granted, even in the West. — Judaka

Here's how Wikipedia describes "Alt-right."

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely connected and somewhat ill-defined[1] grouping of American white supremacists/white nationalists, white separatists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists and other far-right[2] fringe hate groups.[3] The alt-right intersects with, and partially emerged from, the ideas and rhetoric of men's rights activists,[4] many but not all of whom have come to embrace the alt-right's platform.[5]

That doesn't sound like "arguing for essentially exactly the same thing that most other ethnical groups take for granted."

But I've seen the term applied to much more benign groups, e.g. believers in a return to small "r" republican or small town virtues or religious conservatives. Problem is, organizations are typically called Alt-right by people who don't like them.

You've hit me with white blindness, white privilege, white=normal and so on. These are all condescending, ideological assertions which make me really wonder about where your head is. — Judaka

I love how you're the pot calling the kettle black here, Mr. Can'tHaveAConversationWithoutCondescendingRemarks.

More specifically, I'm charging society at large of these things. I have yet to see you show how these aren't true. In fact, I'm pretty sure you can't prove them false.

Are you asking me to be ashamed that we're not perfect? — Judaka

I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm talking about awareness, or rather lack thereof. Shaming is a figment of your (guilty?) imagination.

That isn't entirely racist, there are legitimate reasons to fear white ethnocentricism above other forms but I wanted to discuss whether or not it is the case that the alt-right is worse because they're white. — Judaka

There are perhaps some who'd like white people never to celebrate whiteness. But I'll repeat what I said in my first response: the Alt-Right is not frowned upon for liking whiteness or white culture, it's that they hate all others. Same reason, I might add, people don't like some of what the black power movement under Malcolm X became: anti-white.

I think there's lots of evidence to support the idea that the alt-right is not particularly concerned with culture but the literal whiteness of the West. — Judaka

Then they are not interested in ethnicity, and so a parallel cannot be drawn between them and people who celebrate their ethnicity or culture. Ethnicity is not skin colour, else the ethnic conflicts that plagued Europe since the year dot would not have happened.

Nobody of non-northern European ancestry celebrates their 'brownness', so the claim by the alt-right that pale-skinned people are the only ones that don't celebrate their skin colour is pure nonsense. In fact the alt-right are almost the only ones that do identify it as a source of pride, and rather than celebrate it, they just spew hate on people with different skin tones.

so you think if a 'white' person from the west stood in a crowded market in DRC, or any such country in Africa and stated that there is no such thing as race, and had a placard that said similar, that you'd get general agreement from the people there?

I don't like to talk about ethnicities as being interpretatively relevant but apart from individualists, the only ethnicity by and large that tries to ignore their ethnicity are Anglo-Saxon whites — Judaka

Where will you put Pat Buchanan on your map? He specifically frames the replacement of "our" culture in terms of demographics. "Our" way of life will disappear if too many other kinds of people take part in it. The most casual reader of alt-right language can spot this feature popping up like zits in a bad complexion.

I take your point that rejections of this thesis can be racist in expression and intent. But the lack of celebration of ethnicity you wonder at is entangled in the matter of who gets to be free by default. There have been free blacks and whites since we stole this place from the previous inhabitants. Only the blacks could be slaves. There is no document that made that a matter of law. How did that absence not lead to confusion about fundamental rights? Was the truth as self-evident as the conditions given to us by our Creator?

Do you get your view of “individualism” from Ayn Rand?

so you think if a 'white' person from the west stood in a crowded market in DRC, or any such country in Africa and stated that there is no such thing as race, and had a placard that said similar, that you'd get general agreement from the people there? — wax

I doubt they would be interested in the placard. Why should it matter to them what you think about an abstract, not to mention scientifically unsound, concept such as race that plays no role in their everyday life, since everyone around them is of the same 'race'?

I expect they'd be more interested in satisfying their curiosity as to why you are there, where you are from and would you like to buy something.

why would they be interested in where you are from..?

I hear the people condemning the ‘alt right’, usually on a particulate tv channel, or newspaper or magazine. Who exactly are they? They claim to feel ashamed of their white culture — Brett

I have never heard anybody say they are ashamed of white culture, and can't see why anybody would.
What's to be ashamed of in classical music, the canon of Western literature, yuletide festivities and Yorkshire pudding?

Because they would not get many white people coming through a village in the Congo, and would be curious about the novelty. When I travelled in remote parts of Asia three decades ago I attracted great interest from locals who were interested in why a white person was there.

I have never heard anybody say they are ashamed of white culture, and can't see why anybody would.
What's to be ashamed of in classical music, the canon of Western literature, yuletide festivities and Yorkshire pudding? — andrewk

No, of course no one would be ashamed of those things, especially Yorkshire pudding. The shame was directed at the history and the things they focused on like slavery, war, Hiroshima, male patriarchy, things they feel are endemic to Western culture alone. I’m not sure what other term for ‘white culture’ should be used. It’s not helpful and as usual the whole conversation gets bogged down in meanings. I lean towards this definition:

“Most historians agree that the concept of Western culture emerged with the Ancient Greeks. The Greeks were the first to build what has come to be called Western civilization. They developed democracy, and made critical advances in science, philosophy, and architecture.” https://study.com/academy/lesson/modern-western-culture-social-life.html

Very simplistic, I know, but this is where I become reluctant to get into terms like ‘white’. And I have used it which I regret.

Are you being antagonistic? I am basically saying that all humans are humans. There are not subspecies. The term “race” is commonly used out of it’s scientific context. That is all I was saying.

There is no such thing as “white” or “black” culture. It is like saying I’m ashamed or proud or ashamed of people under six feet tall, or people with short fingers.

I think you could say there is such a thing as black culture, and blacks would claim that as well. But I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same thing when we say culture.

“Prior to his pilgrimage to Mecca, Malcolm X believed that African Americans must develop their own society and ethical values,” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism

“African cultures, slavery, slave rebellions, and the civil rights movement have shaped African-American religious, familial, political, and economic behaviors.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_culture

It’s interesting that a culture may not necessarily develop from positive experiences, but also negative.

So let’s assume black culture has evolved from the above experiences into some Phoenix like experience, the same could be said about the evolution of “Western ” society, including all its negatives, into something positive.

I imagine you’re referring to ONE specific cultural identity of people in a particular geographical location? If you visit Africa you’d find a whole array of different cultural attitudes, ans most of the people there would be referred to as “black,” and I find it kind of silly to refer to a very large and dispersed proportion of the human race as having a homogeneous culture. If we actually look into the science of things the meaning is reduced further as there is a greater (and we’re talking miniscule to be clear here) genetic difference within any given group than there is between groups - scientifically varified fact.

Culture is certainly a loaded term. Generally speaking culture includes arts, tradition, history, and religion. The most telling factor in culture is language. More than anything language gives is a cultural identity because it has all of the previous items embedded within it.

The conflation of the two difference uses of “race” is an ongoing political problem. I think it’ll become less and less significant over this century but we’ll no doubt find some other arbitrary difference to focus on instead.

Are you being antagonistic? I am basically saying that all humans are humans. There are not subspecies. The term “race” is commonly used out of it’s scientific context. That is all I was saying. — I like sushi

I think a term can have a scientific context as well as a cultural one, like the word 'theory'; science doesn't own that word, or related use.
I asked the question about the DRC, because it is my feeling that the people there really would think of you as belonging to a different race, away from all the western discussion about whether there is such a thing as race.

I imagine you’re referring to ONE specific cultural identity of people in a particular geographical location? If you visit Africa you’d find a whole array of different cultural attitudes, ans most of the people there would be referred to as “black,” and I find it kind of silly to refer to a very large and dispersed proportion of the human race as having a homogeneous culture. — I like sushi

Then I’m not sure how to refer to “Western Civilisation”. If I’m allowed to refer to it at all?

I find it kind of silly to refer to a very large and dispersed proportion of the human race as having a homogeneous culture. — I like sushi

Maybe this is the problem we all have, with the meaning of culture.

Well, that’s much more easier given that it’s based on a European tradition generally extending from ancient Greek and Roman rule. Europe grew from a judeo-christian foundation extended from ancient Greece and Rome. Religious or not all Europeans, and colonies thereafter, are further extensions of this political landscape.

Of course there is always some crossover. Perhaps the biggest global influence was the Mongol Empire I expect. Literally changed the face of the planet and somehow Europe was left relativley untouched by the largest ever single-bodied empire to have existed. And there is certainly a degree of absorption regarding how traditions spread through history.

Again, the most telling delineation is in language. “Western culture” in this sense can be roughly shown to include the romance and germanic languages, with a bit of slavic thrown in. This also translates a little into differences within Europe regarding history and art. Europe is tiny though.

Feels like you’re trying to trip me up? What exactly is your concern?

No, it’s okay, I’m not trying to trip you up. I’m just following a train of thought and letting others contribute.

Part of what I’m thinking is that the extreme alt-right is concerned with colour as their reference, not really knowing anything of culture in the sense I mean, so of course it’s going to lead to disaster. But those who refer to Western Civilsation in terms of culture, are not necessarily doing it in a racist way.

That is where many appear to have been duped. Due to the conflation of terms (“race” used by those stoking hatred in a non-compatible dualist manner - as “cultural” and “biological”) the less astute and investigative individual can easily fall prey to a misconception where one “race” is deemed superior to another. This problem seems embedded in the English language though so I don’t think there is a great deal we can do about it at the moment. Given that government surveys and censuses have a bix to tick for “race” doesn’t really help the matter - yet this is also in place to monitor possible inequalities imposed due to prejudices over someone’s mere biological appearance (and therein lies another porblem involving the misuse of stats to supposedly “prove” this or that side of some given argument/agenda).

There is also a sense of western guilt being play upon. Somehow people feel responsible for their “tribe”; both dead and living! Then there is this abhorrent political use of “privilege” as some kind of smear. I think I expressed this clearly enough elsewhere on this forum and don’t think I can improve upon that point any better here - no one, if I remember correctly, repsonded to what I wrote so not quite sure if there was any particular disagreement with it, but I’m aware there are aspects and individual instances that can be looked at more closely.

On the plus side humanity has plenty to keep itself occupied! :D

r. I think I expressed this clearly enough elsewhere on this forum and don’t think I can improve upon that point any better here - no one, if I remember correctly, repsonded to what I wrote so not quite sure if there was any particular disagreement with it, — I like sushi

I find posters, generally, only respond when they disagree. Agreement doesn’t seem to be so much fun.

I guess this will inevitiably lead to the question of what “culture” is deemed the “superior” ... which I would regard as a false question for several reasons - including the idea that any existing culture is a “failure” ... if it exists it must have something to it, or be soon for the dustbin of history, and even maybe it’ll arise in a future time where human society at large is better equipped to implement it?

Do doubt some baby has been lost with the bathwater along the way. We appear to be muddling through okay at the moment though. The massive change we’re going through is certainly making everyone a little nervous though (at least anyone who can slightly appreciate the gigantic steps humanity has taken over the past few dozen decades!).

I disagree! ;)

Of course, thank you.

Alt-right speakers I've listened to talk about the sanctity of white cultures, of white people having indispensable value, of white people banding together and thinking collectively. They want to secure the survival of their whites and the lands traditionally owned by whites. They want to be proud to be white, for their governments to prioritise whites over other ethnicities as the main citizens of the land. They feel the alternative is to reduce them to statistics in their performances economically, educationally and how they contribute to society.

My main challenge to people is to ask, not whether this is a good way to think or not but to discuss the prevalence of this way of thinking among ethnic groups outside of the Anglo-Saxon white citizens of Western nations. I would argue that the vast, vast majority of nations outside the West have cultures that can be characterised by alt-right thinking. Secondly, I would argue that outside of Anglo-Saxon whites in the West, all ethnic groups think like the alt-right, sometimes less extremely and sometimes more.

I am asking if this is really consistent from a philosophical perspective or whether the alt-right are being subjected to higher standards or greater suspicion and fear, primarily because of their white skin. My objective isn't to then go easier on the alt-right, it's to be more critical of all individuals who find race/ethnicity to be interpretatively important in the same ways the alt-right do.


I'm not completely against talking about the alt-right as those things and I know that some of the alt-right contains some of those things but I think it's overblown due to the media and the left trying to use the alt-right as a tag to destroy moderates and right-wing speakers. I'm dealing with a different understanding of the alt-right than this definition you've given, if I accepted the wiki page as my understanding of the alt-right then I would agree that other ethnicities are not doing similar things to what has been listed.

Here's a video along the lines of what I'm talking about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3MvOSyE0ow


As I've said earlier in this thread, it seems to me that there are some problems that exist which will lead to those fears of a culture being dissolved by a higher proportion of different ethnicities to be accurate. The big one you're being extremely guilty of and that's ethnic histories, whereby because you're white and because someone else is black, there's a three-hundred-year-old story for the both of us that paints us as enemies. Can a black-skinned American think back to the origins of Western culture and associate with it despite the difference in ethnic heritage? If the answer is no, that's a serious problem. Black-skinned Americans in my view, should be taking responsibility for slavery just as much as a white person should, why? Because ostensibly they're both Americans and they're both living in the extension of the culture that practised slavery.

Provided people who come to the west, irrespective of their ethnic origins, cannot relate with western origins or western history but rather relate to their own ethnic histories then how can we think the west will not change by having the current ethnic "white" history with the other ethnic histories? There are more problems than just this but I think we we have to be realistic also. African-Americans don't resemble any African culture, they are assimilated and only a few problems remain.

Personally, if Australia, where I live, became inhabited by mostly those of Asian descent in X hundred years then I would have no problem with this provided I could relate with their Australianness. Let enslavery based on ethnicity, or anything based on ethnicity, become a thing of the past. That's what I want.