Hacker News Reader

Comment by jazzyjackson | 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?

View on HN

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”).

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?

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.

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.

> 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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com