TatteredAngel
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Posted: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:35:33 +0000
I was doing some research the other day online, and found a website with an excellent source- some writings from Tacitus on my subject. Intrigued, I took a look at the link back to the rest of the website. It said "Back to Our Heritage". On the "Our Heritage" page, a found a large variety of Indo-European history and texts. It was an expansive, impressive list. Then I went to the main site, and found that the theme of the site was "White Racialism". Other texts on the site focused on keeping White "culture" pure, and tirades over how white children are only taught the bad things about their ancestors, as opposed to children of all other races, who are taught in American schools to be proud of their people and celebrate their ethnic culture.
It wasn't a shock, I've seen these things before. But it made me think about what I see as discrepancies in the very logic they are building. If it is about a culture, and not a skin color, then a black family who can trace their heritage back to the Moors who moved to England in the Elizabethan period should logically be able to celebrate that culture. Yet, in the white racialist viewpoint, blacks should deal with "black culture" and whites should deal with "white culture". Yet that produces another problem. Jews, in these writings, are never included in any amount of their idea of "White". Yet I've met Jews that are pastier than I am, and I'm almost entirely British Isles genetic stock. The idea confuses me to say the least. If it's about culture, then skin color needn't play a part. And if it's about skin color, then culture becomes undefined. Is it honestly the idea that anyone with white skin may celebrate Indo-European ancestry, excluding all Indo-European groups that were not originally white?
The other problem that arises from the idea of white Indo-European origins is the idea of the Aryan race. Aryan is a term rarely heard any more outside of a racist context. Yet we get it from the Indo-Aryans, one of the major proto-Indo-European groups that moved out of India. There is evidence of these Indo-Aryans in such places as India, of course, but also Pakistan and Ceylon. These are not "white" places, and most likely, they never were. So where is the cutoff for ancestry? Where is the line drawn?
I would contend that a diaphanous "culture" based only on skin color is a gross mistake in any group. What is supposed to constitute "White culture"? Using the term frequently brands a person as a racist, whereas the no better defined term "Black Culture" is used consistently and not seen as a racist statement. What makes one worse than the other? If you are defining culture by racial ancestry rather than by country, do you think you're selling yourself short?
Lastly, how should heritage be celebrated? If you wish to be proud of your ancestry, what keeps that pride from turning into something exclusionary? Or should ancestral pride, by nature be exclusive?
It wasn't a shock, I've seen these things before. But it made me think about what I see as discrepancies in the very logic they are building. If it is about a culture, and not a skin color, then a black family who can trace their heritage back to the Moors who moved to England in the Elizabethan period should logically be able to celebrate that culture. Yet, in the white racialist viewpoint, blacks should deal with "black culture" and whites should deal with "white culture". Yet that produces another problem. Jews, in these writings, are never included in any amount of their idea of "White". Yet I've met Jews that are pastier than I am, and I'm almost entirely British Isles genetic stock. The idea confuses me to say the least. If it's about culture, then skin color needn't play a part. And if it's about skin color, then culture becomes undefined. Is it honestly the idea that anyone with white skin may celebrate Indo-European ancestry, excluding all Indo-European groups that were not originally white?
The other problem that arises from the idea of white Indo-European origins is the idea of the Aryan race. Aryan is a term rarely heard any more outside of a racist context. Yet we get it from the Indo-Aryans, one of the major proto-Indo-European groups that moved out of India. There is evidence of these Indo-Aryans in such places as India, of course, but also Pakistan and Ceylon. These are not "white" places, and most likely, they never were. So where is the cutoff for ancestry? Where is the line drawn?
I would contend that a diaphanous "culture" based only on skin color is a gross mistake in any group. What is supposed to constitute "White culture"? Using the term frequently brands a person as a racist, whereas the no better defined term "Black Culture" is used consistently and not seen as a racist statement. What makes one worse than the other? If you are defining culture by racial ancestry rather than by country, do you think you're selling yourself short?
Lastly, how should heritage be celebrated? If you wish to be proud of your ancestry, what keeps that pride from turning into something exclusionary? Or should ancestral pride, by nature be exclusive?