White Supremacy: A Discussion. What is it, and how to identify it.

As you imply, I would say white supremacy is actually a misnomer. White supremacy is certainly tied in with the notion that whites are better, but it is also tied in with homophobia (including against whites) and misogyny (including against white women).

In reality, it is white conservative Christian supremacy - but that is too long.

White conservative Christians believe that blacks are descendants of Canaan, Ham's son who was cursed to serve Ham's brothers because Ham saw his father naked. (Never mind the cultural connotations of cursing a son for his father's actions, etc.)

White conservative Christians believe gays should be killed, because the Bible says so.

White conservative Christians believe women are no more than helpmates to men, because the Bible says so.

The nation they want is built on 19th century conservative Christian interpretations of the Bible, not white supremacy.

edit: and I neglected to mention their hatred of Jewish people -regardless of their skin color.

 

To be fair other religions are not big fans of gays.

You also have lots of homophobia is non white majority countries.

The US is not the whole world. I know that is hard to admit for us 'mericans.

 

It's pretty much the Abrahamic faiths. The others are usually ok with it. Tibetan Buddhism is an outlier among Buddhist faiths.

But those non-white countries are usually homophobic directly because of Christian missionaries and Western colonization. Prior to colonization, those non-white countries were more often than not totally ok with non-heteronormative gender and sexuality. The British in particular spread homophobic attitudes and laws throughout their Empire.

We have documented evidence of culturally accepted same-sex relationships and marriages throughout Africa, South America, North America, Asia and the Pacific. The change occurred when Christian missionaries arrived. I can speak much more about this topic if needed - including how New Testament verses were altered in indigenous languages to condemn homosexuality in passages that don't even remotely touch on the subject in the original Greek. I have knowledge of this and have communicated directly with the Bible translators and have it in direct correspondence in their own words that they did not base their translations on the original Greek.

 

Not in North Africa, but that was another Abrahimic faith. Same for say Malaysia and Indonesia.

India has a more dividend history, some texts are ok with it, some are not.

Upper classes were ok with homosexual relationships, specifically among the ruling classes, but lower classes could face punishment from it.

Obviously is complicated with thousands of years of history.


You probably do see similar stories in China and Japan, examples of homosexual relationships being tolerated at times specially among ruling classes, with periods of intolerance. But I do not know.

Emperor Xi, does not seem to be a fan of it

 

The Bugis of Indonesia would disagree with you. The Bugis recognized 5 genders and allowed marriage between 4 of them. Only the bissu, people born intersex, were prohibited from marrying because they were already complete. Members of the other 4 genders could marry anyone from one of the other four genders. Same-sex marriages were totally ok. Marriages in most places in the world were usually heterogender, not hetersexual. But the heterogender marriages were a direct result of the sexual (gender) division of labor - a household couldn't function unless individuals performing the roles of the different genders were represented, regardless of what their sex was.

In other words, it wasn't homosexuality that was the problem, but issues related to class (or, more specifically, caste).

I'll also add there is archaeological evidence of a same-sex relationship in ancient Egypt dating to the Old Kingdom, over 4,000 years ago - ancient Egypt being in North Africa prior to Islam.

 

Homophobia took off even more in Africa in the 1970's and later as more white American fundamentalist missionaries increasingly went there.

 

Well documented in "Missionaries of Hate":

 

But it also arguably does not exist among non-Christian whites, thereby making Christian a relevant adjective. It's very much white (conservative) Christians, as opposed to whites in general or Christians in general.

 

White Supremacy = American History.

But simplistic but not wrong either.

 

Don't disagree that religion plays a larger part. However, I think that race/color and economics play a factor in supremacy in general (whether white, Japanese or other). I believe there is an attribute of "foreigners" coming to take what is ours that plays into it.

Now the hatred and looking at other demographics as being below them. Pure religion (and Christians have done the best/worst).

One of the best things to happen to me was having parents who were Atheists' and taught me to respect all people.

 

Hard to argue against the above statement with slavery and the treatment of Native Americans and Hawaiians. So I won't...

 

See America, 1619 - present

And nothing pisses of Whitelandia more than the feeling that the cards are not always going to be dealt in their favor. My family's been here for about a century and I'm a beneficiary of it as are many millions of others. Maybe not born on 3rd. But at a minimum 1st compared to almost every POC.

 

If there are pedant issues, just change the title to American White Supremacy.

 

Ancestry.com had to pull this ad a few years back. Maybe they were going for the romantic angle? Beats the hell out of me. But I watch the Finding Your Roots show on PBS and most AAs have some % of white in them. And it didn't get there fleeing the south for a life together.

 

All white supremacists are probably homophobic but not all homophobs are white supremacists.

 

I don't think the thread title is an issue, at least not for me.

The question in the thread title asks what white supremacy is and that's what I'm addressing. As the CNN article articulates, it's more than about race, given they tend to also be homophobic, anti-Semite and you can throw in misogynistic as well. Thus, the term "white supremacy" isn't adequate because that term focuses solely on race and White supremacists would exclude other white people from their "supremacy" because they aren't straight Christians.

For me the answer to the question is important for my academic work - in the past I've struggled coming up with an appropriate "label" that adequately represents their worldview. While "19th century biblicists" seems to nail the century they seem to live in based on their attitudes, it's not very catchy.

 

You know that scene in Die Hard 3 where Zeus is so sure McClain is going to call him the N word? And John gets offended and says he wasn't?

Yeah...this conversation is a lot like that and I think John nailed in on the head. They're simply a*******.

Sorry for the sidebar. This whole thing just made me think of it.

 

There was a Die Hard 3?

 

This is really easy for this forum:

 

It's the only other one in the series worth watching. Sam Jack and Bruce in a great buddy cop movie.