Is it ok for white people....

[J. J.]

Uh, I have no problem with it. But I don't see why I would want to be proud of the fact that I'm white over my nationality.

Hungarian?

[12th Doctor]

Sigh......

Being proud of your race is just stupid.  Doesn't matter if you're white, black, asian, whatever.  It's just stupid.  Should you be proud that you have brown hair?  Should you be proud that you have blue eyes?  No, because it's ridiculous to be proud of a cosmetic genetic trait.

You should be proud of being smart.  You should be proud of being successful.  You should be proud of having and maintaining a free society.  You should NOT be proud of being born with a particular skin color.

So then, I am wrong to be proud of my Irish heritage?

I don't think so.  It is part of who I am.

Am I to asume then that you take the "modernist" stance on nationalism?

[Cashcow]

Uh, I have no problem with it. But I don't see why I would want to be proud of the fact that I'm white over my nationality.

Hungarian?

Yep. Did you know it off-hand or look at the URL?

I like my Hungarian heritage, however, otherwise I agree with KEmperor. One should be most proud of accomplishments.

[KEmperor]

Sigh......

Being proud of your race is just stupid.  Doesn't matter if you're white, black, asian, whatever.  It's just stupid.  Should you be proud that you have brown hair?  Should you be proud that you have blue eyes?  No, because it's ridiculous to be proud of a cosmetic genetic trait.

You should be proud of being smart.  You should be proud of being successful.  You should be proud of having and maintaining a free society.  You should NOT be proud of being born with a particular skin color.

So then, I am wrong to be proud of my Irish heritage?

I don't think so.  It is part of who I am.

Am I to asume then that you take the "modernist" stance on nationalism?

No.  Being proud of your nation is reasonable, if your nation is worthy of being praised.   That's why I included: "You should be proud of having and maintaining a free society."  But do you consider yourself an Irishman or an American?

[12th Doctor]

Sigh......

Being proud of your race is just stupid.  Doesn't matter if you're white, black, asian, whatever.  It's just stupid.  Should you be proud that you have brown hair?  Should you be proud that you have blue eyes?  No, because it's ridiculous to be proud of a cosmetic genetic trait.

You should be proud of being smart.  You should be proud of being successful.  You should be proud of having and maintaining a free society.  You should NOT be proud of being born with a particular skin color.

So then, I am wrong to be proud of my Irish heritage?

I don't think so.  It is part of who I am.

Am I to asume then that you take the "modernist" stance on nationalism?

No.  Being proud of your nation is reasonable, if your nation is worthy of being praised.   That's why I included: "You should be proud of having and maintaining a free society."  But do you consider yourself an Irishman or an American?

An American, though I still identify with the Irish.  If, for some reason, the U.S. and Ireland went to war, I would have split feelings over it.

[King]

Why the  not, all the minorities do it...

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Im proud to be english and welsh, theres nothing wrong with it

[TexasPatriot2024]

It's ok to celebrate thier cultural heritage(ie Welsh, Scots, Bavarians), but not thier racial heritage.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[patrick1]

Sigh......

Being proud of your race is just stupid.  Doesn't matter if you're white, black, asian, whatever.  It's just stupid.  Should you be proud that you have brown hair?  Should you be proud that you have blue eyes?  No, because it's ridiculous to be proud of a cosmetic genetic trait.

You should be proud of being smart.  You should be proud of being successful.  You should be proud of having and maintaining a free society.  You should NOT be proud of being born with a particular skin color.

So then, I am wrong to be proud of my Irish heritage?

I don't think so.  It is part of who I am.

Am I to asume then that you take the "modernist" stance on nationalism?

Erin go bragh, Soult.  I don't identify with being white really because there is no real common culture or shared heritage.  I suppose it is different in the South because most people's lineage is further back and they have lost quite a bit of their European heritage- Therefore, many identify with the more recent events of the Civil War.  In the Northeast  most white people identify with their ancestry strongly and there are often tremendous rivalries and antagonism between the different white ethnic communities. 

[Hitchabrut]

Not in the conventional sense.

[dazzleman]

Erin go bragh, Soult.  I don't identify with being white really because there is no real common culture or shared heritage.  I suppose it is different in the South because most people's lineage is further back and they have lost quite a bit of their European heritage- Therefore, many identify with the more recent events of the Civil War.  In the Northeast  most white people identify with their ancestry strongly and there are often tremendous rivalries and antagonism between the different white ethnic communities. 

The antagonisms between different white ethnic communities are found mostly in the lower middle class, and tend to go away as people move up the economic ladder.

I think there is a difference between healthy and unhealthy ethnic identification.  I believe that much of the ethnocentrism is being encouraged by politically correct forces today is unhealthy.  Things like the St. Patrick's Day Parade are perfectly healthy.  They celebrate the past in a harmless way (as long as you don't get too hammered at the parade) without limiting or restricting the way a person lives his life in the present or future.

But when ethnic identification forms the core of your identity, alters the way you look at the world, sets you apart from the rest of society, and limits the way in which you live your life, then it is unhealthy.  Politically correct ethnocentrism meets all this criteria, while old-fashioned celebrations of St. Patrick's Day, or the rivalry with St. Joseph's Day, as an example, really do not.

I think that overemphasis on minority status, or even on the results of the civil war, are not healthy because they keep people mired in the conflicts of the past.

I have noticed that there are two types of Irish.  The first kind is still consumed with distaste and hatred for all things English, and can recite the exact dates and times of every 200-300 year old atrocity committed against them by the English.  The other kind, which is more prevalent, has simply dismissed all this as if it never happened, while still retaining the positive parts of the heritage.  Most of my family is in the latter camp, though there were a few of the older generation who were in the first camp.  I think the behavior of those in the latter camp is healthier, and should be emulated by other ethnic groups.  The focus on the past is what helps keep many of these groups in figurative chains, and the sad part is that in part (but not fully, see next paragraph) they are doing it to themselves.

I would also add that those who say that their ethnic heritage within the caucasian race (i.e., Irish, Italian) affects their life more than being white are mistaken.  Being white, as opposed to something else, affects everything, so much so that we often don't realize it.  As an example, when I was looking for a place to live, I didn't have to worry that I wouldn't be wanted in certain desirable neighborhoods because of who I am.  And yet this is a central concern for blacks.  Blacks who are successful, and don't want to live in high-crime ghetto neighborhoods, particularly face this problem, because there are so few higher class neighborhoods with access to good schools that have a significant black presence.  In my general area, I can't think of a single one.  So blacks are forced to choose in many cases to (a) live in an area that offers a lower quality of life, and lower quality of education, than an area where a white person of similar economic status would live, or (b) risk going into an area where they may not be comfortable or accepted.  True, I would not be accepted in a black neighborhood.  But I have a very wide range of choices of nice places to live without even considering a black neighborhood.  Blacks, for the most part, do not have those choices.

This is why I believe in the de-emphasis of ethnic identification, and the judging of people by their behavior instead.  I am not a liberal, but it is not liberal to want to throw away false distinctions among people.  That doesn't mean I am open to anybody living in my neighborhood; if they behave like trash, I don't want them there, and that goes for blacks, whites or anybody else.  But nobody should be considered trash simply because of their color.

[angus]

Erin go bragh, Soult.  I don't identify with being white really because there is no real common culture or shared heritage.  I suppose it is different in the South because most people's lineage is further back and they have lost quite a bit of their European heritage- Therefore, many identify with the more recent events of the Civil War.  In the Northeast  most white people identify with their ancestry strongly and there are often tremendous rivalries and antagonism between the different white ethnic communities. 

The antagonisms between different white ethnic communities are found mostly in the lower middle class, and tend to go away as people move up the economic ladder.

I think there is a difference between healthy and unhealthy ethnic identification.  I believe that much of the ethnocentrism is being encouraged by politically correct forces today is unhealthy.  Things like the St. Patrick's Day Parade are perfectly healthy.  They celebrate the past in a harmless way (as long as you don't get too hammered at the parade) without limiting or restricting the way a person lives his life in the present or future.

But when ethnic identification forms the core of your identity, alters the way you look at the world, sets you apart from the rest of society, and limits the way in which you live your life, then it is unhealthy.  Politically correct ethnocentrism meets all this criteria, while old-fashioned celebrations of St. Patrick's Day, or the rivalry with St. Joseph's Day, as an example, really do not.

I think that overemphasis on minority status, or even on the results of the civil war, are not healthy because they keep people mired in the conflicts of the past.

I have noticed that there are two types of Irish.  The first kind is still consumed with distaste and hatred for all things English, and can recite the exact dates and times of every 200-300 year old atrocity committed against them by the English.  The other kind, which is more prevalent, has simply dismissed all this as if it never happened, while still retaining the positive parts of the heritage.  Most of my family is in the latter camp, though there were a few of the older generation who were in the first camp.  I think the behavior of those in the latter camp is healthier, and should be emulated by other ethnic groups.  The focus on the past is what helps keep many of these groups in figurative chains, and the sad part is that in part (but not fully, see next paragraph) they are doing it to themselves.

I would also add that those who say that their ethnic heritage within the caucasian race (i.e., Irish, Italian) affects their life more than being white are mistaken.  Being white, as opposed to something else, affects everything, so much so that we often don't realize it.  As an example, when I was looking for a place to live, I didn't have to worry that I wouldn't be wanted in certain desirable neighborhoods because of who I am.  And yet this is a central concern for blacks.  Blacks who are successful, and don't want to live in high-crime ghetto neighborhoods, particularly face this problem, because there are so few higher class neighborhoods with access to good schools that have a significant black presence.  In my general area, I can't think of a single one.  So blacks are forced to choose in many cases to (a) live in an area that offers a lower quality of life, and lower quality of education, than an area where a white person of similar economic status would live, or (b) risk going into an area where they may not be comfortable or accepted.  True, I would not be accepted in a black neighborhood.  But I have a very wide range of choices of nice places to live without even considering a black neighborhood.  Blacks, for the most part, do not have those choices.

This is why I believe in the de-emphasis of ethnic identification, and the judging of people by their behavior instead.  I am not a liberal, but it is not liberal to want to throw away false distinctions among people.  That doesn't mean I am open to anybody living in my behavior; if they behave like trash, I don't want them there, and that goes for blacks, whites or anybody else.  But nobody should be considered trash because of their color.

profound.  yes, I'm a big fan of the US idea of the "melting pot" rather than the canadian ideal of the "cultural mosaic"  That said, the USA hasn't achieved the melting pot any more than the canadians have achieved its melting pot.  This is often a subject of discussion between myself and my Canadian microbiologist neighbor on our kayaking expeditions in the many streams, rivers, and bayous of the Deep South.  One thing is for sure, balkanization of the US populace has more disadvantages than advantages.  I recognize only one ethnicity in the family of my parents and siblings:  USA.  And when my wife becomes a US citizen, we shall have one ethnicity in my own family:  USA.  Sure, we'll continue to eat salty pork dishes with two sticks, but our ethnicity will be the melted one that is this great nation.

[nclib]

I suppose it's "okay", but it's not appropriate nor analogous to other groups celebrating their heritage.

Most minority groups' celebration of their own heritage have to do with overcoming oppression.

That said, cultural pride (Irish, Italian, Jewish) is fine.

[Governor PiT]

Yes, all people's have a right to honor their heritage, no more so than others.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

What exactly is white people's "History and heritage"?

[??????????]

What exactly is white people's "History and heritage"?

Our founding of civilization perhaps?

[Governor PiT]

includes many cultures but I would say the heritage of western civilization which is being eroded in schools.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

What exactly is white people's "History and heritage"?

Our founding of civilization perhaps?

Well according to the latest archaelogical evidence the first civilisations (Define Civilisation for a start? Here I'm referring just to settled towns) were based around South America and were probably ethnically Mextico.

And should go without that "civilization" has not exactly been without it's bad aspects (how people are now dead in the name of "civilization"?)

[??????????]

What exactly is white people's "History and heritage"?

Our founding of civilization perhaps?

Well according to the latest archaelogical evidence the first civilisations (Define Civilisation for a start? Here I'm referring just to settled towns) were based around South America and were probably ethnically Mextico.

And should go without that "civilization" has not exactly been without it's bad aspects (how people are now dead in the name of "civilization"?)

How many people are dead in the name of tribal identity? I personally consider any group that doesn't have well defined political borders and no centralized cities as uncivilized.

[ilikeverin]

What exactly is white people's "History and heritage"?

Our founding of civilization perhaps?

Well according to the latest archaelogical evidence the first civilisations (Define Civilisation for a start? Here I'm referring just to settled towns) were based around South America and were probably ethnically Mextico.

And should go without that "civilization" has not exactly been without it's bad aspects (how people are now dead in the name of "civilization"?)

How many people are dead in the name of tribal identity? I personally consider any group that doesn't have well defined political borders and no centralized cities as uncivilized.

So civilization started somewhere around the 1400s-1500s?

[??????????]

What exactly is white people's "History and heritage"?

Our founding of civilization perhaps?

Well according to the latest archaelogical evidence the first civilisations (Define Civilisation for a start? Here I'm referring just to settled towns) were based around South America and were probably ethnically Mextico.

And should go without that "civilization" has not exactly been without it's bad aspects (how people are now dead in the name of "civilization"?)

How many people are dead in the name of tribal identity? I personally consider any group that doesn't have well defined political borders and no centralized cities as uncivilized.

So civilization started somewhere around the 1400s-1500s?

The Romans had cities. You fail, try again.

[Gabu]

I personally consider any group that doesn't have well defined political borders and no centralized cities as uncivilized.

How in the world do arbitrary lines on a map make the people within them civilized?

[??????????]

I personally consider any group that doesn't have well defined political borders and no centralized cities as uncivilized.

How in the world do arbitrary lines on a map make the people within them civilized?

Which society do you think has more chances of advancing humanity? One society who is relatively settled and stable or a society that is sheltered from its' neighbors and is constantly at war?

Easier still, which society had a better chance of advancing humanity ; Native Americans isolated in North America or Europe/Asia?

[opebo]

What exactly is white people's "History and heritage"?

Our founding of civilization perhaps?

Well according to the latest archaelogical evidence the first civilisations (Define Civilisation for a start? Here I'm referring just to settled towns) were based around South America and were probably ethnically Mextico.

And should go without that "civilization" has not exactly been without it's bad aspects (how people are now dead in the name of "civilization"?)

How many people are dead in the name of tribal identity? I personally consider any group that doesn't have well defined political borders and no centralized cities as uncivilized.

Of course civilization was not founded by any 'white people'.  Secondly, the history of white people is the successful slaughter and enslavement of both other white people, and particularly non-white people.  Lastly, what business is it of yours to judge whether a group is 'civilized' or not?  Of course what is defined as civilized is in fact he who wins, and thus he who is a better killer and enslaver. 

As in all intellectual efforts we have failed to place enough emphasis on power and violence in our examination of 'civilization'.

[ilikeverin]

What exactly is white people's "History and heritage"?

Our founding of civilization perhaps?

Well according to the latest archaelogical evidence the first civilisations (Define Civilisation for a start? Here I'm referring just to settled towns) were based around South America and were probably ethnically Mextico.

And should go without that "civilization" has not exactly been without it's bad aspects (how people are now dead in the name of "civilization"?)

How many people are dead in the name of tribal identity? I personally consider any group that doesn't have well defined political borders and no centralized cities as uncivilized.

So civilization started somewhere around the 1400s-1500s?

The Romans had cities. You fail, try again.

The Babylonians had cities.  You fail, say something germane to the discussion (of "centralized cities").