Fishbone Jones said:
I accept that some individuals may think I'm labeling myself, but it's quite the opposite. I don't accept that label, so it is not me.
I define white nationalism differently, is all. I define it as the original form of the word. I don't need to say 'white' nationalist, but I'm afraid without the colour designation, we might get lost in all the other opposite nationalists using the term correctly. People can be lazy and rely on dictionary definitions, but not one person, outside of canned definitions and narratives has been able to explain why white nationalism is different than black nationalism, except it was co-opted by dinks and liars, who shouldn't count. Same amount of letters, same word, different colour. If you wish those same dinks and liars to define you, that's is certainly your prerogative. However, that doesn't work with, or for, me.
I simply see this discussion as a way to shake people up and say we don't need to listen to this crap. We don't need to be defined by racist phrases and guilt because of our colour or when some uneducated cretin wishes to try perpetuate the falsehood. We can change that, but some would rather shoot the messenger than collectively looking at a way to solve it. It would also take work and time, something many won't want to do.
I don't care how anyone defines me, so long as it's honest. But if you attack me and call me something I'm not, try to put words in my mouth, intersperse your comments with innuendo, instead of reasoned discussion, you get it all back.
To the discussion.
So, the phrase white nationalist was been co-opted by supremacists and the ignorant left and turned to crap. Do we leave it? Do we accept this wrong label that defines us until it becomes cemented in literature and usage against us? Remember the old, "When they came for them, it wasn't me, so I said nothing......"
Or do we refuse to concede to their hypocritical usage. We've become afraid of a challenge and would rather let them get away with it and, well, we'll just use another word like, oh I don't know, patriot. What is your argument going to be when that word becomes a pejorative by the quacks. Look for another word to define yourself, or tell them to frig off and quit playing with the language.
Or do we forcefully take it back with education and stamina? To where the original meaning falls in line with everyone else in civilization and not as a pejorative against a single group.
I will use the term, when challenged, I'll try educate. I don't accept the moniker as modern language. That is really, quite simply, my whole point. The current use of the term is wrong and needs to be taken back to it's original phraseology, before it was stolen for an agenda.
I think that should, as a 'white' nationalist, make my stance pretty clear.
No, see this is where you continue to try to deceive people. Calling it an 'alt-definition', claiming it has been 'co-opted', first by white supremacists, and otherwise by 'ne'er-do-wells', 'liars', etc. You talk about 'originally phraseology' as if there were such a thing for 'white nationalism', but there isn't. You are being disingenuous about that, and now that definitions from the very same dictionary you earlier relied upon no longer suit your narrative, you're rejecting that too. You are trying to create your own definition out of thin air. That doesn't make it a real thing and it doesn't negate the common and actual meaning. You're trying to suggest and to lead others to believe that there has ever been some other definition. That is factually incorrect and you know it to be. It is dishonest.
"White nationalism" doesn't have some original meaning different from what is not in use. It has never meant what you're trying to make it mean. "White nationalist" has never meant "I happen to be white. And also, separately, coincidentally, and unconnected to my whiteness, I am a nationalist for the geopolitical entity whose borders I reside in". That's not a thing no matter how much you desperately want to make it. "White nationalism" has always meant 'whiteness' as the defining identity for a nation of people - nation being a word that has several nuanced meanings, and is not solely restricted tot he narrow usage you're trying to force as a constraint here. "White nationalism" has not been co-opted into the definition you don't like, because it never had another meaning. It's not an 'alt-definition', because it's not a newly introduced alternative to something else, older, and also legitimate. That something else doens't exist and never had.
What is happening here is that you are offended by what a term means and you're trying to change it, but quite simply that's your own fiction. You can say you don't 'accept' the moniker, but if you want to reject the English language as it is actually used, if you want to reject terms as they are actually defined and commonly understood purely because you don't like it, that's just you being petulant about it.
You cannot take "White nationalism", hive off the "nationalist" part of the term and pretend that the specific definition of that word on its own can suddenly apply to the whole thing and neutralize any uglier elements that adding the ethnic identity to the term means.
I am at least reassured that you identifying as a "white nationalist" is merely your own conceited don quixote moment, and not you actually saying you believe in the advancement of the white race at the expense of others. It's still singularly unimpressive, but at least is merely sad rather than frightening.
Fishbone Jones said:
So, what is the difference with a black nationalist? And don't say it's the opposite because wiki or webster says so. Tell me why you say it's right. White nationalist is pejorative to you because you submit to the alt-definition without question. I don't.
Why should we allow, according to an article here, approx 10,000 imbecile white separatists to use the words and define a race?
The word nationalist existed long before it was co-opted by socialists, just because they used the word in a different context doesn't mean we have to ascribe to it. Nor does anyone else.
I challenge you to find one person here who has said 'Black nationalism' is 'right', or 'good'. I do recall that earlier I myself stated quite clearly "There’s also a difference between group identities, and an exclusionary nationalism based on those identities. The latter is in my opinion morally wrong in all cases, whether it’s white nationalism in the west or similar but opposite manifestations in places like Zimbabwe." So while I did not specifically say 'Black nationalism', I made it damned clear that any ethno-nationalism is bad in my books. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say otherwise. It seems pretty universally agreed that advancement of one race over and above, and contrary to the interests of another, is a bad thing. So what you have done is tried to get us to argue a red herring.
Your continued unwillingness to grasp that 'Nationalism' and 'White nationalism' are very different and distinct from each other, and that the latter has its own definite, widely used, and well understood meaning is not doing you any favours.
Target Up said:
Here’s a little kero for the campfire; how can a member of the CF not describe themselves as a nationalist? It’s in your job description to put Canada’s interests first. Anyone not doing that is drawing the Queen’s Shilling under false pretences.
Very easily. What distinguishes nationalism from patriotism is that nationalism extends to the point of not just being
for one's own country, or nation, or group of people with a national identity, but actively
against the interests of other countries, or nations, or groups of people with a national identity. One can easily be a patriot but not an outright nationalist. Many of us are, and we faithfully fulfill our oaths and duties to our country in the course of our service. One needn't be actively
against other groups to generally believe in promoting the interests of ones own. So long as we are faithful to our oath/affirmation, follow the law, and carry out our duties as lawfully ordered, how can we be 'taking the queen's shilling under false pretences'? When Canada says "Go, do", as long as it's not manifestly illegal, we go and we do. Frankly it's not to you to say that we aren't faithfully serving our country merely because of how you interpret a word.
Now, of course, to firmly grip this and keep it in context: we are talking about "
white nationalism[/i]", not just "nationalism". That has been the term in play. White nationalism bases its national identity - a nation as a group of like people - based purely on whiteness. Where a national identity is based on skin colour, that's a big damned problem. It's not nationalism where your nation is based on being Canadian, or whatever country or geo-political entity. It's a nation made of one group of people segregated on racial lines to the detriment of others. In practice it is difficult to find much divide between "white nationalism" and "white supremacy"; the latter is just a still-bolder manifestation of the same crap just even further on the spectrum.
A "White nationalist" is not merely a "nationalist" who happens to be "white" any more than a "Cheeseburger" is a burger made entirely of cheese.
