Talk:White separatism

Redirecting and reverting

STOP POV MIS-DIRECTING and REVERTING this ARTICLE:

"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races -- since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs.

A supremacist, in contrast, demands a multiracial society, since it is the supremacist's express wish that he dominate or rule over other races in such a society, such rule often being justified by a doctrine of racial superiority."

Thanks! :D

--User:65.125.10.66, 17:50, 24 Feb 2004

STOP POV MIS-DIRECTING and POV REVERTING that Wiki NPOV ARTICLE.

PS--The only ones SPAMMING are the ones MIS-REDIRECTING the NPOV article to a Marxist-PC POV one!

--User:24.45.99.191, 18:28, 25 Feb 2004

Separatism --User:66.2.156.38 04:29, 26 Feb 2004

Individuals

Has Frank Salter identified himself as a white separatist? The external link goes to an Amazon book listing, but there's nothing there that uses the term "white separatist". Unless someone self-identifies, their inclusion on the list needs to be well-supported. (For instance, Abernethy has given interviews in which she calls herself a white separatist). Thanks, -Willmcw 23:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Salter's book has basically two parts. In the first part he comes up with a new theory of ethnic nepotism -- its fairly hard science and neutral. The second part is where he makes the case for ethnostate formation reconstructing something resembling the Ancestral environment or Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA) for those individuals who can still be so classified (recognizing there are large populations that are sufficiently panmictic that they would need what I might call cosmostates). I don't have the book but I have conversed with Salter and am confident I can come up with the reference. I'll ask him for it. Jim Bowery 00:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, since the info is hard to find I'm going to comment-out the Salter reference until we can find material to properly label him. It'll still be there for when we've got it. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:31, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I got a response back from Salter and he asked that he not be referred to as a white separatist since, in his opinion, it implies a primary orientation toward political activism. Jim Bowery 09:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that additional research. If no independent source identifies Salter as a white supremacist, and if he does not self -identify that way either, then there is no basis for that term in the article. If such a source were ever found then it would have to be cited, of course. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:41, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

---

I remove the following because it's clearly complete rubbish.

Discussions of white separatism are generally difficult due to a conflict between two points of view, each accusing the other of supremacist hypocrisy:

1. Those opposing white separatism generally claim there are few if any white separatists -- only white supremacists claiming to be white separatists.
2. The white separatist general counter-claim is that by denying self-determination to whites, their opponents are supremacist hypocrites.

While the first point is covered elsewhere. The second is obvious rubbish, because opponents of white separatism generally believe in all races being treated equally in an integrated society. No-one could reasonably accuse such people of being supremacist. You can't even accuse them of denying whites their rightful place of superiority (remember, you're a separatist, not a supremacist). All you can accuse your opponents of in general is believing that the races should be integrated rather than separated, and that's not supremacist. DJ Clayworth 20:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, whether it is garbage or not is not to the point. It is a fact that self-proclaimed separatists accuse those who oppose white separatism of being multicultural supremacists and therefore hypocrites. Moreover, supremacist ideology needn't be racially based. One can, for example, be a Christian supremacist -- believing in the supreme authority of Christianity which should be universally recognized by all humanity. The belief that people should live in racially integrated societies is a belief like Christianity. It can be turned into a supremacist belief by the simple expedient of proclaiming it to be universally enforceable due to its moral superiority. The items remain. Jim Bowery 09:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

_____

No mention of white separatism outside the USA and South Africa. Doesn't Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National in France fall under the white separatist category? Or the British National Party?

I don't believe that the BNP is a separatist party within the meaning discussed here. The BNP would, at the very least, discriminate between ethnicities when it comes to immigration to the UK. That makes them racist rather than separatist, since they would discriminate on the basis of race.

In fact I wanted to ask a question? Does anyone have a reference from a white separatist describing how a white separatist (but not supremacist) society would actually work? I have yet to find anything resembling an explanation. Here are some particular questions:

1. It would seem from the article that white (non-supremacist) separatist would admit that the apartheit system was racist, and therefore that system would not be acceptable. That would seem to pretty much eliminate any form of racial 'separateness' where the races occupied by the same geographical area but had separate social institutions. Some institutions (like the army and the police) Don't really admit of separateness.
2. Does it therefore follow that all white separatists are really proposing that whites and non-whites live in different places?
3. Alternatively haven't any white separatists thought this through to this extent?

It would make sense to add some of the answers to this to the article. DJ Clayworth 20:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Slaves toiled

The reason why Negroes are around "white (people)" is that Negroes toiled in the fields when "white (people)" would not toil. That is the only reason why "white (people)" keep Negroes nearby to them. Superslum 14:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

History

The history section is simply two American presidents saying that the races should stay separate. But those quotations have nothing to do with the history of the white separatist movement. Rather they appear to be in the article as justifications. Unless anyone can find a source that tie Jefferson and Lincoln as the founders of white seperatism, then I htink we should omit the long quotations. -Will Beback 19:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that white separatist beliefs were being espoused by these presidents. The fact that this might be taken as "justification" for white separatism is a red herring. Jim Bowery 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's clear according to whom? We need either a self-identified white separatist, or a reputable research on the movement, connecting these quotations to the movement. There are quotations from Leviticus that we could add too, but those would not be relevant or help our article either. -Will Beback 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

POV Creep

Once again this article is veering off into being a one-sided POV essay extolling White racism. Why is the criticism of this movement buried? Why is so much of the entry uncited blogging or unchallenged statements by well-known racist bigots?--Cberlet 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly POV creep in that the "criticism" section is replicated throughout the article in statements that question the honesty of white separatists. Jim Bowery 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is also weasel wording that promotes the views of white separatists. It should all be cleaned up. Claims for and against need to be backed up by reliable sources. Spylab 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing the lead

added two sources to the lead. one from stormfront which, while not really a 'reliable' site as far as facts are usually concerned, is used only to cite the opinions of white separatists. the second is an excerpt from the journal of political and military sociology citing the anti-racist rebuttal. -- frymaster 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite Silly Indeed

The entire concept founding a homeland for whites is silly. There happens to already be a homeland for whites. It's called Europe.

Maybe you should take a trip to this "homeland for whites" called Europe. Its time to wake up, because you don't understand the world you're living in.--172.131.84.47 07:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This Article Needs to be Reviewed

This entire article is POV misdirection. Half of the article is dressing up "White Separatism" in nice words to disguise its real goals. If you want an all-white nation, go to Poland

Telling whites to take flight to Poland, hah, what is YOUR real goal? And come to think of it, how bitingly ironic - almost sardonic - that it was the prospect of Poland being absorbed into a guaranteed "white" empire that led to the Second World War; now Poland is the only white homeland that ISN'T in danger of having its white demographic overrun.

Views on Jews?

What are the White Separatism views on Jewish people? --Topk (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone tried a lot to make this concept not sound racist

But it is according to simple logical deduction: Why separate people that have white skin and not people that are ..tall for example? It is the only logical conclusion that people that believe in such doctrines are intolerant of other races (being in their group). According to them, people may speak the same language, have the same culture, have lived the same lives, and still be disallowed to be part of their clique. This is pure old racism, without the violence. Just because you don't want the extermination of other races and don't outright hate, or even don't think a race is superior it doesn't mean you can't be racist. The concept is racist because it simply proposes social separatism based on race. --Leladax (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the article's present unsupported discussion of the purported distinction between Segregation and Separatism is typical of the problem here. It would appear to me that differentiation of these two "concepts" is entirely dependent upon linguistics. Interestingly, "Segregation" is defined by the act of "Separation" and thereafter, "Separation" or "Separatism" or "separately" is defined by "self-determination" characterized by peace and harmony. The "distinction" ultimately reduces to a linguistic POV and OR argument that segregation is the means to peace and harmony. It is not at all clear that the philosophy of homeland separatism can be expressed except by the action of segregation, and distinguishing the action (which cannot be undertaken except through some form of social or political compulsion or enforcement) from the philosophical motivation for such action does not define two different philosophies.71.197.93.206 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)