Hacker News Reader

I am not claiming this is the case, only pointing out a subtle difference between “maintain a standard of living…make a better life for your kids” and “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children”

The former is self-concern, the latter is dividing the world into whites and non-whites. similar to japanese people making a distinction between japanese and non-japanese, it is not automatically supremacist, but being concerned for the survival of your race (or preferring politics that keeps your nation and your race aligned) does seem awfully close to thinking that it’s better to keep your race in charge.

so to me, i would need someone to explain how being white nationalist is distinct from white supremacy. is a nationalist just concerned with whites becoming a minority? why, if not the assumption of superiority?

Maybe it's along the lines of "Races should be ruled by members of their race" versus "<Specific Race> should rule everyone". Then the first would be race nationalism, while the second is race supremacy.

The next question though is when someone claims race nationalism, are they being sincere or just trying trying to make their race supremacy more marketable?

Religions do seem to get a pass, though - I’ve never seen accusations of people being “Jewish nationalist” or “Christian nationalist” or “Muslim nationalist” for expressing wishes their kids will marry within the religious “nations”.

There is a difference here - one can convert and change their religion (not so for genetic origin…) but it’s too similar in my opinion and shouldn’t get the “acceptable” pass that it does.

>I’ve never seen accusations of people being “Jewish nationalist” or “Christian nationalist” or “Muslim nationalist” for expressing wishes their kids will marry within the religious “nations”.

Oh, it absolutely happens. We have whole flame-wars about it.

Not just flame wars; wars.

'Hindu nationalism' has been a very hot topic of conversation in India in recent years.

This sounds like your internal biases are coming into play.

If we reversed your statement to "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for black children.", a reasonable reader would assume the speaker thought said group was being persecuted, not that they desired supremacy.

Its entirely reasonable for someone who holds that belief to be concerned about racial persecution without the desire for racial supremacy.

This is what makes the thirteen words such effective radicalizing propaganda in the current moment. Neither articulation is reasonable, both are vaguely supremacist and overtly racialist.

>a reasonable reader would assume the speaker thought said group was being persecuted

That's only reasonable because of a common understanding that black people have been persecuted because of their race. No such reasonable, common understanding exists for white people in America; it is at best an unreasonable and niche understanding espoused by people who believe they're being persecuted by Jews and Asians (whether "Tiger Family" or "H1-B”).

> is a nationalist just concerned with whites becoming a minority? why, if not the assumption of superiority?

So you think minorities tend to be treated fairly, and complaints about racism and prejudice are mostly without merit? Not just in the US, but globally, e.g. in India [1], China [2], or the Middle East [3].

Or do you think that whites will be the exception? While other minorities were maligned preceding their persecution, whites are showered with universal praise, so there is no resentment or animus they should fear from any group, now or in the future.

[1] Human rights activists said that the moves to change Kashmir’s status were only the first steps in a broader plan to erode Kashmir’s core rights and seed the area with non-Kashmiris, altering the demographics and eventually destroying its character. Previous laws barred outsiders from owning property. - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/world/asia/india-pakistan...

[2] Decline of Cantonese in younger generations [..] In elementary and secondary schools, the medium of instruction is mandated by law to be Mandarin. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangzhou_Television_Cantonese...

[3] the Treaty of Lausanne set the boundaries of modern Turkey and made no such provision, leaving Kurds with minority status in all of the new countries. Recent history of the Kurds includes numerous genocides and rebellions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds

To be clear I haven't seen anything about the pursuit of achievement or high standards of living being racist or in the context of "a future for white children", or any other specific race for that matter, other than it seems to be coming from the same general direction as "Black Lives Matter".

It's all very peculiar to me but I've only been around for a third of a century.

Your comment is confusing to me - the article is quite clear that when they say "white supremacist", they mean "a white person who committed a hate crime against Jews".

> Patton pled guilty to involvement in a 1990 shooting attack on a synagogue in Tennessee

Doesn't seem very ambiguous to me.

Are Jews white? I'm one and I don't know. Until about 1980 Jewish was separate category from Caucasian on my school forms. I've been told by a KKK member that I'm not white. We appear to be designated as white for purposes of accounting for privilege. To some people it depends on whether we are Ashkenazi or Sephardic. So a hate crime against Jews might or might not be about whiteness.

Regardless of where you personally draw the distinction, it's clear what the article means when they say it. That other guy acting like it's a mystery where the accusations of white supremacy are coming from is really reaching.

The answer was about to be a plain-and-simple NO when the Census would separate "White" for European from MENA. And then they cancelled that because people decided Trump couldn't be trusted with knowing some people weren't of European descent.

From a distance, seems that "white" more often than not means actually "wasp".

What do you think the "W" in WASP stands for?

A ⊆ B does not imply A = B.

> some people got exposed as promoting white nationalism but then they were called white supremacists in all the reporting

Is the difference enough to warrant a distinction? Merriam Webster doesn’t bother to make one.

The definition of white supremacist is quite clear:

> “supporting the belief that white people constitute a superior race, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups.”

There’s nothing that necessitates actively claiming the belief. After all, Jim Crow laws were enforced under the guise of separate but equal, but nobody would say they weren’t white supremacist.

It's the very first paragraph.

>In April 2020, news broke that Banjo CEO Damien Patton ... pled guilty to involvement in a 1990 shooting attack on a synagogue in Tennessee.

> In my town there was a local scandal of sorts where some people got exposed as promoting white nationalism but then they were called white supremacists in all the reporting.

White nationalism is a particular expression of white supremacism.

"Patton pled guilty to involvement in a 1990 shooting attack on a synagogue in Tennessee."

I'm having trouble seeing how you can look at that and claim well maybe it's not really white supremacy.

The article said that the ceo was involved in shooting up a synagog... soooo.... kind of hard to defend as 'striving to do better'

1. Nationalism is fascism. At least in Europe we don't really distinguish between the two given our history.

2. Yes Japan is very racist. Other countries can be racist too.

3. You are making up straw man arguments:

>I’ve even seen people lately claim that striving to always do better and improve your life or maintain a high standard of living or make a better life for your kids is actually racist!

Source?

4. If you find yourself spending a lot of time trying to argue you are a not racist...

> Nationalism is fascism.

So, Gandhi was fascist?