Talk:White nationalism

Archives

• Talk:White nationalism/Archive 1
• Talk:White nationalism/Archive 2
• Talk:White nationalism/Archive 3

A separate state for whites

I reverted the edits on this issue. Most self-identified white nationalists do not advocate that white people move to a separate state, most of them do not advocate the creation of a separate white homeland in the northwestern US and Western Canada, and so far as I know not even the farthest fringes suggested that all white people should move there. White-homeland proposals do exist, in the US and South Africa, but their advocates are a 'minority within a minority'.Paul111 10:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi paul, that is incorrect. Almost all White Nationalists demand a separate sovereign nation for Whites only. Also, this means that most White nationalists are white separatists too. If you spend any amount of time on Stormfront, which I have, I am an active member on Stormfront, you will find that almost all White Nationalists demand an all-White nation. If you take the word "White Nationalism" and break it down, you will get this:

White Nationalism

White National

White Nation

The main goal of White Nationalism is for a White nation. For documentation of my membership on Stormfront, my username is Osmium14. For further evidence, I point you to the White Nationalist Position Statements here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=223388

Position Statement 1 explicitly states the creation of a White homeland that is free from non-Whites.

Osmium14 19:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And where would they put this 'white' nation, with its approximately one billion inhabitants? Where is the evidence of support for this option?Paul111 19:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We have not determined the location of our future White nation. However, Europe or North America would be good candidates. Evidence for the demand of a separate sovereign nation?

1) The White Nationalist Position Statements that I linked above talks explicitly about an all-White nation.

2) Just go on Stormfront and talk to the other White Nationalists there, most of them will tell you that White Nationalism is about having an all-White nation. Like I said, it is the main goal of White Nationalists. One of the reputable members such as MuadDib, JohnJoyTree, David Duke, Don Black, or others would agree. Osmium14 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The demand that an existing nation should be white, is not the same as a demand that a new white nation be created. That is what the section is trying to explain. Polish nationalism was about creating a Polish nation-state, as national homeland for all Poles. By the same logic "white nationalism" would imply creation of a vast new state, uniting all white people. If that was what it advocated, then this article should say so - but the evidence won't support that description.Paul111 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

White Nationalism does imply the creation of an entirely NEW nation. Although, some WNs wish for an existing nation to be all-White, this is not the main objective. The main goal of White Nationalism is the creation of a new nation for Whites only or the dissolution of an existing nation into smaller entities, each small piece would be an independent nation within itself. Thus, we emphasize the birth of an all-White nation. Osmium14 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I clarified the wording on this issue. There is no evidence that the majority of US white nationalists reject their American identity in this way, or that they want to move to British Columbia, or that any substantial number of white nationalists want to create a white superstate. There is no evidence that white nationalists in other countries reject their national identity either, in fact most are aggressively patriotic and chauvinistic. Wikipedia has criteria of notability and accuracy, and proposals by very small groups, and individual views, merit no more than a mention in an overview article.Paul111 09:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So you basically didn't read the White Nationalist Position Statements. The majority of U.S. Wihte nationalists prefer to create a White superstate separate from the non-Whites. Osmium14 16:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the statements themselves, but judging by the cover letter, it appears that they are the personal ideas of one Stormfront contributor. Based on that document, how can we say what the majority of WNs favor? At most it is what its author and some forum posters agree on. -Will Beback 20:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul111 is confused about White Nationalism. The British nationalists, French nationalists, and German nationalists aren't WHITE nationalists. The BNP (British National Party) promotes a Britain for white Britons though. The BNP disagrees with many issues of White Nationalists in general such as creating a nation for all Whites; the BNP espouses the idea of a nation for the native British people and ONLY for native BRITISH people. White Nationalism, on the other hand, is for the creation of a separate state for Whites only. Here is a FAQ from a very reputable member of the White Nationalist movement, his name is YGGDRASIL, he speaks for many White Nationalists, just read up on him on Stormfront and on his webpage: http://www.whitenationalism.com/wn/wn-06.htm and here's an excerpt of the first question:

1. Q. What is White Nationalism?

A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.

Will Beback, I know JohnJoyTree posted his White Nationalist Position Statements, one by one, on the forum, for everyone to vote on, and thousands of White Nationalists voted on the position statements. You can go to the link I gave above, and look in the 2nd post where he lists the statements. These statements can be considered as what "White Nationalism" is about. It is a folly and inaccuracy to think that "White Nationalism" doesn't imply a nation-state. Paul111 does not know what White Nationalism is, nor is he a White Nationalist himself. I am a White Nationalist and I've been with the movement for over 8 years, since 1998.

To say that White Nationalism is not about creating a nation is like saying you like to go swimming without getting wet. It is stupendously illogical. The whole idea of White Nationalism is about creating a nation for Whites to live in. Wikipedia needs to reflect the truth and this article needs to be edited for accuracy. I have provided abundant evidence for my case. Osmium14 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Picking one statement at random, I see that 169 Stormfront subscribers voted, about 88% agreeing with the proposal. We can certainly say that the majority of Stormfront voters support these proposals, but they are not necessarily a cross-section of Stormfront subscribers much less of the whole international White Nationalism movement. We all know that the validity of polls of this type is very low. -Will Beback 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, that is a baseless accusation without foundation. The polls do represent the general opinion of a majority of White Nationalists. And so does YGGDRASIL's WN FAQ. The majority of White Nationalists in the world do espouse the creation of a nation for Whites only. To mention White Nationalism without affirming the idea of a separate nation is slander and disinformation. If we picked at random any White Nationalist in the world, he or she would agree that this movement is about creating an all-White nation. This is common knowledge to anyone active in the movement. If you believe otherwise, I want to see evidence that the majority of White Nationalists don't espouse the idea of an all-White nation. Osmium14 05:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The accusation is not baseless. I checked and none of the statements polled more than a couple of hundred votes. Please show me where you find "thousands" of responses. Also, since when is Stormfront the only WN forum? The plain fact is that there's no way we'll ever know what the majority of WNs think. -Will Beback 05:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I again clarified the text, pointing out that a segregated whites-only zone is not a nation. The article should stick to standard terminology, and I emphasised the commonalities and differences with other nationalist movements. I also added that is is difficult to judge the degree of support for any option. The only sources are forums and websites, and a 'movement' website might be the work of one individual. But given the amount of patriotic rhetoric, and the emphasis on the heritage of white Americans, I think it is clear that most US white nationalists don't seek to abandon their American national identity in favour of a giant White-o-stan. That helps put them in historical perspective, since there is a long tradition of 'white-America' politics, and comparable traditions in other countries.Paul111 10:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

To have a Wikipedia article on White Nationalism, without stating that WN is about the creation of a White nation is tantamount to talking about swimming without getting wet. This article is a disgrace to White Nationalism and Wikipedia's tradition of accuracy and non-biased factual information. White Nationalism does NOT equate to American nationalism. It has no "American" identity present. The desire to retain an "American" identity is ABSENT. We are not White American nationalists, we are WHITE Nationalists. An American identity would be present in American nationalism, not White Nationalism. Notice when you go to www.stormfront.org, look on the top-left of the window it says "White Pride World Wide" because White Nationalism is a worldwide movement, not an American one. The request for a segregated "Whites-only" zone is not generally present either, most White Nationalists demand the creation of an entirely NEW nation for Whites only. A segregated Whites-only zone would be a logical stepping stone to an eventual White nation though. But it is not the main goal of White Nationalism. Also, White Nationalism is not "White America" politics. Show me evidence of the tradition of "White-America" politics. There may be a historical perspective and comparable traditions, but they do not relate to White Nationalism specifically. They are isolated events that bear no relationship to the current White Nationalist group. Anyone spending even a small amount on Stormfront will immediately realize what I'm saying. I am editing this travesty of an article to reflect accuracy and truth, rather than libel and slanderous disinformation. I encourage Paul111 and everyone else to go to this "Beginners Guide to White Nationalism" and scroll down to the "White Nationalist Solution" part and read the articles listed there. It will explain to you what White Nationalism is about. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=324762 Osmium14 17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'Beginners Guide to White Nationalism' gets a grand total of three Google hits. Like any forum post, it is inherently non-notable unless it attracts support. It is not, in itself, evidence for any political movement. There is no evidence for a widespread total rejection of American identity among US white nationalists. Segregated zones are not a nation, and proposals for segregating the United States are not in themselves a proposal to create a new nation. It is nationalist to seek a new and separate nation-state in the western USA and Canada, but there is no evidence of substantial support for that option. Wikipedia is not a forum, and the purpose of this article is to describe white nationalism, in the context of nationalist ideology in general.Paul111 13:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why you insist on misrepresenting White Nationalism. Where is your evidence that we only demand segregation within the USA? Most White Nationalists, if not all, demand the creation of a NEW nation for Whites only. Spend a few minutes around on Stormfront and you will quickly get the evidence you need. Why do you insist on this inaccurate description of White Nationalism on Wikipedia is beyond me. Can you at least back up your "claims" with some evidence? Why am I the only one providing evidence? Dr. William Pierce and his articles are widely-read by White Nationalists throughout the country. It takes only a minute to understand the White Nationalist movement. The fact that you still haven't understood it is a testament to your stupidity. I already provided ample evidence with the White Nationalist Position Statements which were voted on by hundreds of people PER position, so if we add up the hundreds, we get thousands of votes for the complete position statement. If you don't think thousands of votes is enough evidence, then there is something wrong with you. It is your turn to provide evidence for your claim now. Or I shall submit this case to Wikipedia to be mediated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation Osmium14 21:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

William Pierce described himself as an American. So do most other white nationalists in the USA. There is no evidence that a majority of white nationalists have abandoned their national identity as Americans. The fact that they seek to segregate the United States does not make them a separate nation. In discussing nations, nation-states, and nationalism, this article should use acepted terminology, and also match the usage at those three articles. The fact that a group of white Americans want to live in a whites-only zone does not, in itself, make them a 'white nation'. The section on relationship to nationalism does note, that a fully-segregated state would no longer be a nation-state, since the national unity has disappeared.

Online polls at one forum are not evidence, and the voter totals can not be added up since the same people may be voting in successive polls. Additionally, sources quoted by Osmium14 often contradict the interpretation he gives to them. For instance, the White Nationalist FAQ by 'Yggdrasil' explicitly identifies white nationalists as European-Americans, and proposes the segregation of the United States by Congressional districts. It does not state that whites are non-Americans, and it does not identify a new territorial homeland for them. The suggestion that most US white nationalists have ceased to feel American, and are prepared to withdraw from the United States and leave it to non-whites, is inherently unlikely. With a few exceptions, the reverse seems true: they think whites are the real Americans, and that non-whites don't belong there. I suggest that users who are interested in this issue read the articles on Basque nationalism and Breton nationalism, as examples of what a separatist nationalist movement entails. (The comparison could be added to this article, to help clarify things).Paul111 11:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront is a World Wide forum for White Nationalists everywhere, not just in the USA. If you need further evidence that we demand the creation of a new nation, whether using existing territory from the USA or not does not matter, it is a new nation for Whites only. There is NO EVIDENCE that the majority of White Nationalists demand to live in a "segregated Whites-only" zone within the United States. The author Carol Swain, a black female, has written a book on WN. Her book is called "The New White Nationalism..." and also another book from her is "Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America." These books have quotes from the leading White Nationalists such as Jared Taylor, Don Black, David Duke, and others. The whole point of the movement of White Nationalism is for the creation of a White nation. Your links to Basque nationalism and Breton nationalism are irrelevant! We have a common saying in WN, it is "Our Race is Our Nation," and this means the rejection of any form of "American" identity. 'Yggdrasil' states in his FAQ in the 2nd question and 1st question that WNs intend to create our own nation,

Q. What is White Nationalism?

A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.

Q. Do White Nationalists feel they are superior to other races?

A. No. The desire of White Nationalists to form their own nation has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority.

http://www.stormfront.org/whitenat.htm

I do not agree with some parts of his FAQ (such as a new nation for Whites and a segregated zone for Asians within the "White nation), and this FAQ is old, from 1994 I presume from what I can remember. The White Nationalist Position Statements are better suited as the almost near-perfect opinion of White Nationalists everywhere. I have private messaged Don Black, David Duke, and others about the WN position statements. Also, 'Yggdrasil' posted in the thread for the original position statements. There is abundant evidence that we WNs do want to create a new nation for ourselves only, not living in a segregated Whites-only zone within the USA. YOU NEED TO PROVIDE ME WITH DIRECT EVIDENCE of White Nationalism promoting YOUR IDEA. For the meantime, I am submitting this to be mediated by Wikipedia. Osmium14 16:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any white nationalist ideas, and therefore nothing for white nationalists to promote. The purpose of this article is to describe white nationalism, and not primarily for white nationalists, but for others. The appropriate theoretical perspective is the theory of nationalism, and comparisons with other nationalist movements. That will go some way toward neutrality, and prevent it being used as a propganda vehicle. Wikipedia is not a forum where white nationalists talk to each other, about what they think is the true version.

If the majority of US white nationalists turn their back on the United States, in the way that Timothy McVeigh did, then that would be a very significant development, and would deserve a prominent place in this article. But there is no evidence of this, and in the absence of reliable surveys of white nationalist majority opinion, Occam's razor suggests that the least unlikely view be attributed to them. The section can be re-arranged to start with the minority who do want to fully secede from the USA, and that will clarify the position of those who consider themsleves 'white' but still American.Paul111 18:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The comparisons with other nationalist movements are warranted, however, they must be used in perspective. Since this is not American nationalism, we do not have any affiliation with an American identity, or a "White American" one. This article is simply erroneous. Your refusal to submit to your errors is appalling. The majority of White nationalists (NOT JUST US White Nationalists) do not care about the United States or America. There is evidence in the WN position statements, WN FAQ, and with the opinion of the major leaders of White Nationalism. This section needs to reflect reality: the MAJORITY of White Nationalists do want to fully secede from the USA, to create their own nation either using the existing territory of the USA or completely new territory somewhere else. Osmium14 19:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The sections have been re-arranged, rewritten, and the 'race' section combined with the 'definition' section. Criticism and response were moved to the criticism section. The article now says explicitly, that there are no reliable sources for how many white nationalist support which version.Paul111 11:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I current have sources in the form of literature that I can cite in this article. One book is Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America by Carol M. Swain & Russ Nieli. The book is published by Cambridge University Press in 2003. Here is the Amazon link and Cambridge link. However, I don't know how to cite using Wikipedia yet, and don't have time to learn it. I will be adding in new material some time in the future. -Osmium14 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

US census

hello. i wanted to explain my deletion about the revert i made dealing with hispanics in the US. first, most 'hispanics' are not from spain, so that was one problem. second, white nationalism is not a US invention, so i really think the entire part about the census is irrelevant. census and prison population statistics are often a source of confusion. the census takes into account 'hispanic, not of white origin.' however, prison data usually adheres to the older tradition of seeing hispanics and whites as one part of the puzzle. that being said, i really dont think that a self-proclaimed white nationalist uses either population count to justify nor explain his/her position, besides the POV that becomes apparent with related statements. i suppose thats why i feel that the US census data, as a whole, should be removed. this isnt just a US issue. The undertow 07:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but we can later add a passage which is corrected. Perhaps you are right on the US centric definition here, but many Hispanics have Spanish ancestry, as they are either unmixed white or mestizos (=half-white). I think, for white nationalists, being white implies exclusively European ancestry, without any admixture at all, which disqualifies mestizos for their definition. 87.165.117.87 09:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

im somewhat in accordance. hispanic has such a broad definition, like latino, that it really has no practical use. im assuming that hispanic refers to those from hispaniola and spanish refers to those from spain. latino baffles me, unless its implicit that a latino comes from latin america. i am not trying to pigeonhole anyone, as african-american can refer to anyone of black heritage, but should be applicable to those who actually derive from africa at some point. mexicans are a derivation, for the most part, of spanish and what we refer to as native americans. although spanish would be 'white,' the natives are not. i like your idea of adding a section pertaining to white nationalism in the US, with proper citation. with that, we could incorporate census data. im not entirely unopposed to any one idea. wn as it pertains to europe, esp croatia, germany, etc and the US would be a great passage as to show that white nationalism is not consistent, across the board. good call. The undertow 10:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not American myself, but I'm quite interested in the topic through some of my American friends. According to the census data, some 48 % of Hispanics see themselves as white and an equal amount as some other race, though this mostly stems from racial perceptions in their home country. Mexicans are actually a mix of native American and European ancestry, the average Mexican as far as I know has around 60 % European and 40 percent native American ancestry. My idea was simply adding that European ancestry alone does not make you white in the strange definitions of white nationalists, it needs to be unmixed white for them - even if mixed whites are undistinguishable from unmixed ones (see Johnny Depp, Mariah Carey). 87.165.117.87 11:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

this is an interesting topic and i applaud you for using the talk page. hispanics do not exist as an absolute. in fact, a good reference would be my puerto rican friends, who refer to women a 'spanish gals.' it has no reference as to their heritage, as they are from New York and consider J Lo to be a spanish gal. spanish denotes that one is from Spain. there is no argument there.
if i implied that you were american, i apologize. i will be so brazen as to add that stats will not work here. if a mexican finds him/herself .0001 percent native, they do not fall within the realm of white. the ambiguity may begin here. blacks, who are a 'hybrid' of 2 races, can claim either race. however, this article is about WN and WN has no tolerance for any mix, unless it is a white, european mix. jews are not white according to WN. and half-bred (lack of a better term) is not white.
simply, WNs want to preserve a white race. any mix dissolves that ideal. according to your own data, i have never heard a hispanic term themselves as white. that is new to me. i do agree that being of euro descent does not classify one as white. turkey, for example, is under huge scrutiny. im going to regret this, but it is probably best to ask a WN, in america, to expand upon these feelings. as for myself, i am white, and have only euro ancestory. i suppose that makes it easy. but nationalism deals with a regional construct, and that is where it seems this article falls apart. not to mention, that i feel this article is FAR too long for such a trivial subject. any and all ideas are appreciated. i am all about NPOV. i would still like to work together for a npov section on US WN, and include other citations as wellThe undertow 12:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My point was the usual social perceptions of race vs. the WN perceptions. In usual perception, a mix with one race being dominant and "passing" as a certain race makes someone a member of this race. However, WNs don't accept this, and want 'racial purity'. Turkey is not really a part of Europe nor a European people. Also, (Ashkenazi) Jews aren't white for them, even if their Semitic ancestry is very distant. I think we mostly agree, however, you seem to misunderstand my point. Sorry if my English isn't perfect.. 87.165.117.87 13:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

White Supremacist & Neo Nazi

Be them white supremacist, neo nazis,or by any other name, they are the same. Being that fact that there is no white nation the term white nationalist is incorrect. White nationalist, well first to have a white nation, one would have to get rid of people not considered white. However the fact that these people don't even know the first thing about terms could be a problem. If you are educated you would know "white,black,asian,and hispanic are not way to place race into sections. Hispanic is not a race!! Nor are colors!! The article dares to explain what white as a race is, however last I recall in america the term is in constant flux lacking any formal foundation. However terms that can be changed to included and exclude people at a drop of a hat for particular agendas is what some enjoy. Point being this article like may other is bias. --Margrave1206 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Look this is disgraceful, White nationalism is fine, just as is blacks being patriotic, and it's been made to look like anyone who says "WHITE POWER" is a neo- nazi, untrue, he loves his people above others, and who doesn't?

This thing needs a cleanup.

82.2.51.162 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that "my people" doesn't mean "people whose skin is more or less the same shade as mine" to everybody; for some of us, it can mean "people with similar goals, ideals, morals, and vision". Gzuckier 15:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when people think race is just skin color. Race is more than just skin color. If you look at albino Africans (Africans with White skin and blonde hair), they look weird and disgusting because their facial features and skull shape don't match Europeans'. Check this out: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15317

If you take a African person and make his skin white, would he look like a White person? No. The same goes for Orientals, there are some Orientals with lighter skin than most Whites, but due to their slanted eyes and facial bone structure, they'll never look "White." Race is more than just skin, it combines skull shape, bone structure, height, hair color, eye color, behavior, temperament, brain size, intelligence, and much more. It's in your DNA.

There exist races that have distinct physical and genetic characteristics. I prefer to use the terms: Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid as the three dominant races. There are other smaller races, which might be the Aboriginals/Australoids. --Osmium14 06:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to randomly jump in on this, but I have a small point I just wanted to make (just to provoke thought). You make the example that a person with "black" features but white skin as a result of albinism would not be necessarily seen as truly "white" by most people. This claim may have some ground. Perhaps some physical features outside of skin color could preclude a non-white person from being seen as white. But what about a white being person being seen as a non-white? Hypothetically, what if there was a "white" person ("white" meaning physcial features save skin color) with black or very dark skin? I think there is no doubt such a person would be viewed as black, regardless of skull shape, bone structure, intelligence, behavior, etc. In fact, I personally know a few people who are biracial (black-white) and have very dark skin yet their other physical features (at least facial structures) are more like their white parent. These people, at least in the view of most, are black . . . no one ever sees them as white in any way, shape, or form (no pun intended). I have my own reasons for believing why this is the case, but I won't go into them here! That would be another debate.

Just to better show of my point, let's take Halle Berry. She is described by many as an "African-American" actress. In fact, she is biracial, half white and half African-American. I think (let me stress the I THINK as this is in no way scientific!) her physical features, outside of skin color, could be described as mostly "white". But because her skin color is darker and because she is known to be biracial, people label her as African-American.

Also, I don't know if the albinism photos are completely fair. The skin color caused by the disorder is extreme; most white people do not have skin nearly so light (myself included). Niether, in the same way, is the hair color of albinos common amongst white people. Therefore, at least in part, these abnormalities of course cause albinos to look "weird".

Just food for thought! Please respond . . . JeffreyN 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If Caucasians have dark skin they are likely to be rejected by white nationalists. Skin color and facial bone structure are the main visual cues. Family history is another requirement but that is not always looked into. Some WN's prefer not to 'scratch too deep' Pendragon39 07:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cites

"In these ways, by the 1830s the Declaration of Independence was read to mean white independence and American nationalism to be essentially white nationalism. Taken as a whole, these nationalist arguments reiterated the allegiance to whiteness, valorized the segregationist social solidarity through which whiteness was constructed, and reconciled the violence of slavery as its legitimate expression. For the vast majority of white Americans, white freedom, white supremacy, and the concept of a "white nation" were all one idea, one national ethos.

"This national ethos would inhabit the most banal of social pronouncements. For instance, in arguing against abolition in 1836, Senator Leigh of Virginia mentioned white mob riots against the black communities of Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and New York, and asked what worse social disorder would have erupted bad there been general emancipation (Horsman, 1981: 209). There was no thought of charging the white mobs with criminal behavior, or bringing their instigators to justice. In his view, the white mobs were simply demonstrating the Anglo-Saxon propensity to dominate and enslave other races. Whites who argued for emancipation were the real outlaws and traitors for advocating what would have fomented even greater mob violence. In short, for Leigh, black people should be enslaved for their own good, so that good civilized white folks would be spared the necessity of mob barbarity.

"This "nationalist ethos" even infected the antislavery arguments of the several antislavery parties in the North and Midwest (those that would later coalesce into the Republican Party). Though they argued that slavery was morally wrong, it was because it produced inequality among whites, not because it was inhuman toward blacks. Slave owners had a decided social and political advantage over non-owners, by wealth and the votes they controlled. In addition, white workers were at a disadvantage where slave labor could be employed in the same jobs more cheaply, thereby reducing overall labor conditions. These parties managed to get slavery gradually abolished in the North, after which they contented themselves with obstructing slavery's extension to the new territories. Nevertheless, they ultimately supported black disenfranchisement in both areas. In effect, antislavery was predicated on white supremacy rather than on human dignity and human rights. Only the radical abolitionists considered the humanity of the bond-laborers--which sometimes meant calling nationalism itself in question. For instance, against white nationalism, William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879) proposed his "disunion" thesis, and attempted to articulate the construction of a different form of nation altogether..."

The cultural roots of interventionism in the U.S. Social Justice March 22, 2003 Yakuman (数え役満) 09:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -Will Beback · † · 17:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

FAC?

Damn; this is an unusually well-cited article. With just a little work, this could be a FAC. 16:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)