Talk:White separatist/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
David, quit mis-redirecting this article to promote only your own selfish POV verses a neutral and objective Wiki NPOV.
You AND YOUR ILK are the one POV "vandalizing" and "spamming" and reverting the NPOV article on separatism verses the POV one on supremacism.
"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."
I have completely rewritten in an attempt to follow Jimbo's advice on the mailing list -- . I have also preemptively added a note that the neutrality of the article is disputed. Feel free to remove it if you feel it's NPOV enough. I imagine that it will be mercilessly edited in eny event.
Cheers, BCorr ? Брайен 03:41, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Jimbo only reveals his own biased POV and advices a pc-slanted book, accordingly.
"[WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs Jimmy Wales jwales at bomis.com Wed Feb 25 15:05:26 PST 2004
Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs Next message: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I'm a little confused. Why are people so adamant against having an article "White Separatism"? Rather than banging our head against the wall fighting this guy, why not just make a better article?
The junk this guy is inserting is junk. It looks like a quote from someone, and if it is, then it's probably worth treating in a short article on the subject.
There's nothing inherently wrong (that I know of) about having an article on "White Separatism" as distinct from (but related to) "White Supremacy".
Here's a book about it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801865379/102-0949346-1338507?v=glance
My dictionary (American Heritage) has separate entries for "White separatist" and "White supremacy".
The (in my opinion, disgusting) point of view expressed in the quote is of encyclopedic interest because it *is* a point of view held by at least some people who take action in the world, action that should concern us all.
David Gerard wrote:
> See > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Paul_Vogel/188.8.131.52/184.108.40.206/220.127.116.11 > > He's coming in from three IPs and putting the same bit of spam into > a set of articles and their talk pages (and those of anyone who > reverts the spam). > > He intends to continue however possible: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:White_supremacy&diff=2458552&oldid=2458453 > > "WE can revert until the cows come home as long as a NPOV is not being > maintained regarding this strictly Marxist-PC POV propaganda article." > > At what point should an anon user be blocked for spam? Is there a > measure of what's spamming on Wikipedia? > > (And I am following bcorr's example and trying to keep reverts to > no more than three per article.) > > > - d. > > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >
Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs Next message: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list"
However, the article now is more NPOV with the addition of the quote by an actual "white separatist", and whether or not you or JIMBO POV actually agrees with it or not, along with what was re-written. I will not revert it anymore as long as it stays relatively NPOV, which it is with my additions. Thanks for working with me, and Jimbo, on maintaining a wiki NPOV.
Replacing the quote
I replaced the quote and added more attribution to it. I think that NPOVs it enough. Of course it would be much better with an opposing view. --Spikey 21:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- That'll do nicely. Perhaps now it won't be cut'n'pasted everywhere ... It's representative and has an attribution, which is better than it just being spammed across a bunch of articles. Of course, it could do with some deconstruction or an opposing quote or something. - David Gerard 22:27, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
From User talk:Spikey:
- I had hoped that we had come to some sort of consensus (or at least truce) at the white supremacist article. So I'm wondering why you feel that the quote (and one opposing it) is necessary for the article? I won't repeat it here, but there are deeper reasons behind its original inclusion in the article, referred to here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Thanks, BCorr ? Брайен 22:01, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I don't mind the quote's presence with proper attribution and context. Taking this to the talk page ... - David Gerard 22:30, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
I don't feel the reasons behind the quote's inclusion have any bearing on the content's POV. Technically, I put this quote in, currently. I do not hold these views, and would honestly be offendended to be accused of holding them. I am not officially Jewish, but I grew up in a Jewish community, and I am offended by most to all of the content in the referenced article. On the other hand, my spiritual/religious/philosophical beliefs compel me to keep this quote, properly attributed. We should not censor this POV, we should let it be heard, qualified with its source, and let people make up their own minds. That is the essence of NPOV.
The essence of a NPOV is a NPOV, and is NOT whatever POV the leftist-pc editors happen to hold.
Let's keep the wiki factual and objective or it will lose its credibility. Thanks! :D
- Wow, good work Paul. I looked over that edit history, and this is one particularly good example of you trying to improve an article only to be harassed by idealogues. I think the article could stand some improvement, but its sure alot better than the redirect that you found. Thanks for helping out on the cutting edge of NPOV once again Mr. Vogel, I tip my hat. Sam Spade 07:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Sam! Such idealogues of the left or of the right will ALWAYS attack the unbiased and objective and middle-ground NPOV and then falsely accuse you of being the bigoted or biased ENEMY! LOL! :D Thanks again, Sam, for all of your support!!!
this is original 'research'
In practice it is hard to imagine how a separatist society could be organised without being also racist. Either all races must occupy entirely separate areas of land, and interact only only as equals (as two countries sharing a border) or one race must hold supremacy over the others in that it controls those aspects of society that cannot be separated, such as military, land rights or pollution control.
Does anyone have access to the book -"White Power, White Pride!" The White Separatist Movement in the United States- by Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie Shanks-Meile? I believe this text is an examination of the "white separatist" strategy adopted by neo-nazi groups in the US and may be a useful source to draw for the criticism that the "white separtist" argument is a tactical move by racists to try to make their views seem less extreme.AndyL 03:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I think thats an accurate assesment/summary of the concept, I wouldn't even call it a criticism exactly. See if you can fit it into the article while maintaining NPOV. Remember 'racist' is POV. Sam Spade 04:12, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- My uni library has it, I've read it, and you've summarized the argument of the opening chapter well. "White separatist" is a term that certain xenophobic organizations use: it's more precise than "racist", and it describes their proposed solution to the "problem" of People Who Don't Look Like They Do -- groups which prefer this particular label don't want to enslave people who are different (as a white supremacist might) nor annihilate them (as a few neo-Nazi–affiliated groups do); "white separatists" just want to deport everyone who's different. (Now racialist, on the other hand, is a purely propagandistic term: even racist swine realize that racist is a socially unacceptable term.) --18.104.22.168 04:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- You sound a bit oinky yerself [ Sam Spade 04:32, 2 Apr 2004 ]
- Thanks for your commitment to constructive dialogue focused on improving the article—that's a quality all too rare these days. And yes, I'm familiar with the lingo of racists, but that no more makes me a racist than my knowledge of Latin makes me a Roman. --22.214.171.124 08:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- You sound a bit oinky yerself [ Sam Spade 04:32, 2 Apr 2004 ]
-- "Remember 'racist' is POV" You're kidding, right? Next you'll say one can't refer to Hitler as an "anti-Semite". AndyL 05:10, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- If we define racism as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race", then it's no more POV than any other term describing an ideology—like "anti-Semite" or "atheist"—and not really an inherently offensive term. There are, of course, varying degrees, motivations, and approaches within the larger ideology (Dobratz and Shanks-Meile's book explores some of them), so the only real objection I have to the term is that it's insufficiently precise, and it perhaps shouldn't be used if a more accurate word is available. —126.96.36.199 08:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The definition of the term "racist" ONLY APPLIES when BOTH HALVES of the definition above apply, which is DOES NOT in relationship to "separatism" or "racialism", which is only the first part of the definiton of "racist" above, and which has scientific validity.
Deleted POV link.-PV
I've yet to see an example of a "white separatist" who doesn't think his race is better. AndyL 23:17, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Thinking your better is not what racism is about. Racism is thinking something negative about another race, not thinking something good about your own. We should all feel pride for our ancestry and heritage. I think I'm the best, and I prefer my family, my people first and foremost. But I don't say other people are bad, just different. If I was an african, I would be proud or my african heritage, if I were khmer, I would be proud of my khmer heritage. Just because I'm not racist doesn't mean I have to be ashamed of myself, like those P.C. marxists paul is always yelling about want me to be. Theres nothing wrong w being proud of something, its hatred of others which is wrong. I don't see white seperatism as any better or worse than various native tribes who choose to isolate themselves and live iin their traditional way, w their own people. Sam Spade 05:56, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- This is hardly a valid comparison, unless you can pin down the "traditional way" of "white people"—or define "white culture" at all: what quality (except skin color, of course) do all white people have in common, that isn't shared with some non-white group?
A unique White racial and cultural and historical identity and destiny.
- Great! Could you be more specific, please? What, if any, are the racial, cultural, and historical characteristics that are unique to white people? Is there anything besides skin color that all white people have in common? --188.8.131.52
- And which definition of "white" do we use, anyway?
Any non-Jewish and any non-miscegenated, "White", is the actual definition of "white" that most "White Separatists" use.
- It varies wildly from place to place, and even from person to person. —184.108.40.206 06:27, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Not really, at least amongst most "White Separatists", themselves.
- An insightful point. I find "white" to be an offensive racial slur myself, and have never in my life willingly been labled as such. I always check "other", since I am Keltic-Teutonic by blood. Unfortunately many prefer to generalize their heritage, and blur it into white, black, yellow, etc... Sam Spade 06:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"White" is no more any offensive racial slur, as is any general racial or ethnic classification.
- It would be helpful, for purposes of this article, to pin down the definition of "white" that these people use, if indeed they have a coherent definition that rests on anything other than skin color, which I doubt. —220.127.116.11 06:46, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Again, any non-Jewish and any non-miscegenated, "White", is the actual definition of "white" that most "White Separatists" use.
- This is a tautological definition—"A white person is a white person"—and not very helpful. Can you give any specifics, or is it based solely on skin color and non-Jewishness? —18.104.22.168 04:00, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- That's something, I guess, but still not very helpful: it's at most a linguistic term, and it includes people—many Iranians and Indians—who are ethnically and culturally dissimilar to Europeans. Then, too, there are people with white skin who speak non-Indo-European languages: the Finno-Ugric, Caucasian, and Basque languages aren't Indo-European, but the people who speak them would be considered "white" if skin color is the key criterion. —22.214.171.124 04:22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- It's helpful to know what these people consider "white" and on what basis they think the "white race" should be kept separate from others—but if the above discussion is any indication, they have no idea if the term has any meaning beyond "people who look sufficiently like me". —126.96.36.199 04:30, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- By "they" I mean "white separatists", of course, and since I haven't been able to pin down a definition by reading the literature, I thought it might be helpful to ask people who have first-hand knowledge of the ideology—but apparently they know no more than I do. —188.8.131.52 04:36, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Or instead of those obviously biased "sources" how about this definiton of "White" from the National Alliance White Separatist website, itself?
"An Aryan Society
We must have new societies throughout the White world which are based on Aryan values and are compatible with the Aryan nature. We do not need to homogenize the White world: there will be room for Germanic societies, Celtic societies, Slavic societies, Baltic societies, and so on, each with its own roots, traditions, and language. What we must have, however, is a thorough rooting out of Semitic and other non-Aryan values and customs everywhere. We must once again provide the sort of social and spiritual environment in which our own nature can express itself in music, in art and architecture, in literature, in philosophy and scholarship, in the mass media, and in the life-styles of the people.
In specific terms, this means a society in which young men and women gather to revel with polkas or waltzes, reels or jigs, or any other White dances, but never to undulate or jerk to negroid jazz or rock rhythms. It means pop music without Barry Manilow and art galleries without Marc Chagall. It means films in which the appearance of any non-White face on the screen is a sure sign that what's being shown is either archival newsreel footage or a historical drama about the bad, old days. It means neighborhoods, schools, work groups, and universities in which there is a feeling of family and comradeship, of a shared heritage and a shared destiny. It means a sense of rootedness, which in turn engenders a sense of responsibility and energizes a moral compass, so that people once again know instinctively what is wholesome and natural and what is degenerate and alien. It means spiritual feeling coming from the soul and unencumbered by superstition or dogma, soaring free and reaching far above today 's priest-ridden, church-bound spirituality."
I don't have any real "difficulty" figuring out what "White" means, whatsoever.
||This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (March 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
A White separatist is a person who believes that those who are white or Caucasian should have separate institutions or even separate societies and governments from those considered to be of other non-white races. This is one among many forms of separatism.
Many white separatists are also believers in white supremacy, but there are some others who claim that they do not believe in the superiority of their race over others, as "superiority" is relative. Some consider the segregationists of the Southern United States and the advocates of apartheid in South Africa as being white separatists, but both groups also had a concomitant belief in the inherent inferiority of non-whites peoples to properly rule themselves or over other races —an aspect of white supremacy.
- "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." 
Sociologists Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie Shanks-Meile contend that terms such as "white separatism" and "white nationalism" are euphemisms that have been adopted by what they refer to as neo-nazi and racist groups as a tactical move in order to make their views seem less extreme.
The anti-racist group Turn it Down, which campaigns against White Power music, defines the term "white separatist" thusly:
- "white separatist: a euphemism for white supremacist. The label has been adopted by individuals and organizations to obscure or present a more benevolent facade for the beliefs in racial segregation and/or neo-Nazism." 
The counter-point to these Jewish social marxist critics above to all such "white separatism" is continued by Strom:
"Jewish behavior has traditionally been supremacist: Until recent decades, Jews lived exclusively in other people's societies and that is still the dominant mode of Jewish life today. Jews have a long tradition -- both secular and religious -- of belief in the unique, superior, and 'chosen' nature of Jews when compared to all other peoples.
Jews also have a long-established behavior-pattern of suppressing the racial defense mechanisms of their host peoples, defenses which they denounce today as 'racism' -- while at the same time hypocritically practicing racial exclusivity among themselves -- cherishing Jewish ancestry as the very definition of Jewishness, protecting themselves from assimilation and intermarriage, promoting exclusively Jewish schools, defining any opposition to them as a special and sometimes criminal act ('anti-Semitism'), et cetera.
The height of Jewish hypocrisy is reached when they condemn White people who believe in the White separatist ideals of, say, Thomas Jefferson or the National Alliance, as 'White supremacists' -- when the Jews themselves are the most thoroughgoing racial supremacists the world has ever seen." 
- I have removed this quote, and as requested here is the explanation. It's not about White Separatism. Keep the article on subject. It is irrelevant to the article whether Jews are supremacist or not. If some people use 'Jewish supremacy' as an excuse for white supremacy (or separatism) then say so: "Some separatists believe that White Separatism is necessary to counter a perceived 'Jewish Supremacy' movement". DJ Clayworth 15:38, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It is irrelevant to the article whether Jews are supremacist or not. or
((rv #2) 'kay, this speech isn't a counterpoint to the arguments raised, but a rant about Jews. it has nothing to do with this topic)
That is only your own POV opinion.
Such "lying hypocrisy" by these two Jews is actually very relevant to the article.
I find it typical and amusing that Strom's pointing out Betty and Stephanie's "lying hypocrisy" is considered to be "anti-semitism".
Why is it not considered "anti-Aryanism" for these two social marxist Jews to slander "White Separatism" by falsely calling it "White Supremacy"? -PV
Because they don't condemn all Aryans for the actions of a few. Unlike some... DJ Clayworth 16:12, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Strom is not condemning all Jews for the actions of a few. He is just pointing out the "lying hypocrisy" of those two specific social marxist Jews, Betty and Stephanie, for their biased slandering of "White separatism" by their falsely calling it "White supremacy".-PV
In what way are they hypocrites? And why is it relevant that they are Jewish? DJ Clayworth 18:44, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In this way are they hypocrites and this is why it is relevant that these critics all "just happen" to be Jewish: 
- Dobratz, Betty A. and Shanks-Meile, Stephanie L, White Power, White Pride!: The White Separatist Movement in the United States, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001, 384 pages, ISBN: 0801865379.
A thought: more specifics would be helpful here. The article should identify which racist groups prefer to call themselves "separatist" and how each one uses the term.
Even better, which groups actually are "White separatist" groups and which groups are "White racist" groups. The National Alliance calls itself a "White separatist" group and not a "White racist" group.-PV
Self-identified white separatists aren't a monolithic movement, and not all of them follow the National Alliance party line. —184.108.40.206 15:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, and not all "White separatists" are Cosmotheists and not all Cosmotheists are "White separatists", either.
Some fools here just can't seem to understand the actual difference between the religion of Cosmotheism or Classical Pantheism and ones own politics, and which are not always either the same nor even correctly related to any "White separatism", whatsoever.-PV
Moved from the article namespace
- "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."  (220.127.116.11)