The growing trend of “White Guilt” being a positive thing -

ICametoLurk

SCREW YOUR OPTICS, I'M GOING IN
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
We should kill all non-Whites on this planet then afterwards our children will have guilt and try to improve themselves. You know, like how in Star Trek they try to better themselves after pretty much everyone died in literal Eugenics Wars.

I hate how non-Whites try to take advantage of White Guilt for their political reasons. Like in Australia on Australia Day there are Asians talking about MUH ABOOS.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Draza and millais

Draza

Бели месец
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
White Guilt? Too bad i don't have any and neither should anyone else. Why bend over and feel guilt for things that happened years ago before we were even born? Fighting racism by shaming one race is praticially racist, but i guess those morons on Twitter didn't realise that didn't they? Be proud of your race.
 
Last edited:

Anonymous For This

Flying pierogis at vienna.
kiwifarms.net
And getting shipped to Brazil was only better than being shipped to the Middle East in the "you get to keep your dick category"; out of nearly 5 million slaves, I want to say I saw something about a 50% mortality rate on the trip over, and something like a 95% mortality rate on the sugar cane plantations.
I'm not necessarily saying I don't believe those statistics, but I would want to see some sources if you happen to have them. I know from prior research that you are correct and that Brazil was most certainly a shittier place to be a slave than North America, but statistics like 50% mortality rates on slave ships and a 95% mortality rate on cane sugar plantations don't make sense from a business perspective. And the current black population of Brazil doesn't lead me to believe that 95% of them died on plantations in the 1600-1800s.

I'm definitely interested in having my opinion on this changed.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Alec Benson Leary

AnOminous

I'm not mad at anyone, honest.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
I'm not necessarily saying I don't believe those statistics, but I would want to see some sources if you happen to have them. I know from prior research that you are correct and that Brazil was most certainly a shittier place to be a slave than North America, but statistics like 50% mortality rates on slave ships and a 95% mortality rate on cane sugar plantations don't make sense from a business perspective. And the current black population of Brazil doesn't lead me to believe that 95% of them died on plantations in the 1600-1800s.

I'm definitely interested in having my opinion on this changed.
The triangular trade has an oft-cited figure of 33% and the slave trade was profitable enough that, not to be callous, they could afford an alarming amount of "breakage." And that is often considered less awful than the Arab slave trade. Certainly, 95% seems high, but they weren't known to live long, and neither were their children.

The slave trade in America, even being at least marginally less murderous, was still absurdly inefficient and it only made economic sense up until about the invention of the cotton gin, which was going to destroy the utility of chattel slavery eventually with or without the abolition movement.
 

Anonymous For This

Flying pierogis at vienna.
kiwifarms.net
The triangular trade has an oft-cited figure of 33% and the slave trade was profitable enough that, not to be callous, they could afford an alarming amount of "breakage." And that is often considered less awful than the Arab slave trade. Certainly, 95% seems high, but they weren't known to live long, and neither were their children.

The slave trade in America, even being at least marginally less murderous, was still absurdly inefficient and it only made economic sense up until about the invention of the cotton gin, which was going to destroy the utility of chattel slavery eventually with or without the abolition movement.
I've tried looking up my own sources for Brazilian slave mortality rates and I'm unable to find any. I still can't buy the 95% figure, because at the end of slavery that would only leave 200,000 blacks in Brazil after 1850 after ~4,000,000 black slaves had been brought into the country. Blacks are now a majority of the population of ~211,000,000.

I was able to find figures for mortality rates aboard slave ships and the numbers are closer to 15-25%:


Losses were much higher in the 1600s and appear to lower into the 1700 and 1800s, but that has more to do with the advancements in sailing technology than anything else.

Also if anyone told me this morning that I would be playing Devil's Advocate for the African slave trade, I would have told them to fuck off.
 

TerribleIdeas™

Master of Cunt-Puppets
kiwifarms.net
I'm not necessarily saying I don't believe those statistics, but I would want to see some sources if you happen to have them. I know from prior research that you are correct and that Brazil was most certainly a shittier place to be a slave than North America, but statistics like 50% mortality rates on slave ships and a 95% mortality rate on cane sugar plantations don't make sense from a business perspective. And the current black population of Brazil doesn't lead me to believe that 95% of them died on plantations in the 1600-1800s.

I'm definitely interested in having my opinion on this changed.
It's been a while, and I'm not completely certain I remember where I saw the stat, but I'll see if I can find it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anonymous For This

UngaWunga

Time Vampire
kiwifarms.net
I don't know about all that, but I had a great idea for a skit the other day that's basically like the old trope of "White person takes their black SO to meet their white parents and their parents are super awkward and cringe and white-lib racist" trying to seem cool hip and totally not racist to their kid's bf/gf kind of Get Out scenario, but it's flipped, so it's some black dad trying to tell his daughter's boyfreidn that he has nothing against "you people" and talking about how much he loves the Beach Boys and Steely Dan and Wes Anderson movies.

What chuckles that would be!


Here's a white thing I do thats racist and makes me feel white guilt: whenever I meet a black dude under like...40(?) that he owns a Dragon Ball Z shirt. Probably one of those polyester button downs that's basically a poster on a shirt. You know the ones.)
 

Sprig of Parsley

Damnation dignified
kiwifarms.net
Here's a white thing I do thats racist and makes me feel white guilt: whenever I meet a black dude under like...40(?) that he owns a Dragon Ball Z shirt. Probably one of those polyester button downs that's basically a poster on a shirt. You know the ones.)
You have fun with that.

I don't subscribe to any notions of white privilege or supremacy because collectivism is for fucking speds. Why would I want to chalk up my (few) positive aspects to an immutable condition I had no say in? Why would I want to, as a consequence, take on board every bad thing ever done by everyone else with that same immutable condition? Nah, fuck that shit. I ain't done shit to pee-oh-sees other than just exist (which apparently is BAD ENOUGH) and my traceable ancestors ain't done shit to them either.

I kind of feel bad for people who buy into this utter garbage.
 
I don't even understand the argument for white guilt amongst Europeans or even Americans which in itself is an even more ridiculous concept.

From a European perspective, how many great powers actually had empires?

Not all European countries had access to slave markets or colonization. So not all white Europeans in that regard should have any white guilt at all, as the reason for supposedly needing to have it doesn't exist. Therefore anyone from Ireland, Scandinavia, the Baltic states, Central and Eastern Europe, The Balkans, and Russia by that definition cannot have white guilt, because they weren't a colonial power in that regard.

The worst you could pin on any of these groups is essentially the Russian conquest and control over the stan's,
(A mixture of Tartar, Turkic, Han Chinese, Mongol, Uguyar, Kazahk, Uzbek, and many other Asian minorities.) and trying to exert influence over Afghanistan, Persia, and India during the Great Game period circa 1830 to 1895.

So excluding those who do you have, The Dutch, English, Belgians, Germans, French, Spanish.

All of which during the period of colonial Empire building were working towards what they saw as the duty of their societies as a civilizing force in the world by bringing law and order and Christianity to the dark continent, The New World and Asia, while also exploiting trade deals.

So again how do we judge this metric?

Nevermind the fact that the initial settlement into these areas was essentially missionaries, explorers and trade delegations. And that the actual act of colonialism didn't occur so much through immediate territorial expansion, but rather as was the case with the New World for the Spain, or South Africa and India for the British or the Dutch Indies for Holland, grew out of a necessity to govern partly provide localized services to expatriots in those countries, in the terms of infrastructure and government, but also to reign in on the companies that worked under royal charters, to make sure that they worked in the national interests and didn't become a liability. (IE The East India Company conquered India, because it became more economic and easier to trade, than having to deal with the Mughal's. The British government took over administrative controls in turn.)

As a result of this new rule of law and beginnings of new institutions, as well as the repression of local customs that were considered by the colonists as barbaric. (The Indian practice of Suti, or the decimation of the Thugee cults, or the repression of inter tribal killing in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, to be Indo-centric.) So with that understanding, we can justly say that colonialism while selfish in the terms of who is was meant to serve, ended up serving all.

Same with the Boer's of South Africa, (not entirely Dutch, though they were the ethnic majority of Europeans) these are a people who effectively aren't even colonialist, as they were outflow from their home countries that after massive treks, attacks and oppositions from native Africans, and betrayal at the hands of some of the locals, settled mainly in the land that had originally be Khaosian, who had in turn been decimated by the Bantu and Zulu's who effectively had through famine and genocide, destroyed the Khaosian majority and then sold the land through contract to the Boer's who then had their states absorbed by the British after a war to prevent it. (Mind you they had apartheid, but that's a different debate for a different time.)


Do you measure it by the metrics of sheer brutality?

Then the Spanish and The Belgians should have the most white guilt. The Spanish for the appalling and systematic causalities visited on the Indian peoples of South America in their quests for Catholicism, gold and silver, in some cases wiping out 95% of the native born populations. (Dominican Republics native Indian's who Columbus originally came into contact with, were essentially worked to death, only 0.2 % of the population share ancestry with these original inhabitants.) Or the Belgian's who under the command of Leopold the II as his private personal company exploited the natural resources of the Congo and set up such a brutal system of treatment for the natives, that the methods of abuse used by the rebel fighters in the Congo (chopping of limbs with machetes) is an actual left over of the practice the Belgian introduced to the region.

Does the counter actions of the British trying to end the Atlantic Slave Trade and then further efforts to finish the Arab Slave Trade counteract the effects that white guilt should incur, or should one feel white guilt still regardless of this?

This of course in not including the African nations that enabled the free movements of their enslaved countrymen, captives of inter-tribal war or over population, to essentially be sold in kind to the Europeans for weaponry and trade goods, because without them supporting the global slave trade, the trade of African slaves would have collapsed, or the Arabs, who contributed the most to that global slave trade, by being the biggest buyers, sellers, and transporters of slaves in global history, white or black, and are tied to the history of Europe.

Especially the Turks who through their barbarity and cunning brutally repressed not only the Greeks, Balkans, and Armenian Christians, but also equally mistreated their Muslim brethren in Africa and the Arab world as a great colonial power.

And with all of that being said, the current generation of people in Europe have lived in a world without the institutions of slavery and in most cases the institutions of colonialism. The same cannot be said for parts of Africa, Asia, or the Arab world.

Anyone born post 1960 owes nothing to the argument for European white guilt, as if they ever did in the first place.

Then there is America.

Simply put, should one feel guilty because a group of pioneers rejected religious persecution in their home countries for the chance to settle in a new land that was not occupied by any competing European power, or in their own minds a civilized nation, and were only able to do so because the technological advancement of their firearms, as well as the will of local native powers to use the influence of the newcomers and their gunpowder to win local wars, is something all American's should feel guilty for?

Or the fact that the even though it's now been almost expunged from their general history syllabus, the split in support of the the English as citizens of the crown, and of the new revolutionary American's is what destroyed the dominion of the Haudenosaune or Iroquois Federation. The most powerful first nation in the thirteen colonies, and the largest single political entity outside of the colonist, and British in America at that time, effectively destroyed themselves from within by splitting their allegiances in order to court favor with the parties they thought were going to be the winner, and support for waging war on their enemies?

Or the ravages of smallpox and other European diseases which unknowingly brought over by settlers set to work on unexposed population in the same way that the Europeans unknowingly brought the bubonic plague from China and decimated their own peoples? (Again the Spanish are technically more guilty of this, as they were the first to expose American native populations to European diseases. The West Indian's gave European's syphilis in return so the exchange wasn't one sided.)

Or the fact that the varying groups of warring native bands, almost all of which in terms of the plains Indians were nomadic hunter gatherers, were unable to outmaneuver the incoming white settlers who had the technological advantages, common languages, agriculture, and later the railroads, in order to settle the west through the manifest destiny period and westward expansion?

There is an evil part of history there in the treatment of native peoples.

The aggressive expansion of the US government into lands that had been designated by previous administrations to be free Indian lands, into the small reservation systems that had been set up and then forcibly interned in through an ongoing series of Indian War circa 1800 - 1915.

The betrayal of the civilized tribes, those Indians in the South and North East who had effectively assimilated to agrarian farming, adopted the English language and religion, and customs, being forced off of their traditional lands which fell under the law of rightful property ownership, and were actually seized and sold.

The destruction of the buffalo herds of the great plains in order to meet the demands of the growing US economy, and meat market. In order to make room for domesticated cattle, and deprive the hunter gatherer societies of the Indians of their main means of food security.

The crimes of those who involved in the bureaucracies of the reservation systems, withheld or stole government aid and food meant for the tribes forced to live on the reservations. For the same systems that developed schools that attempted to forcibly strip their culture and language from them, while exposing many children to sexual abuse.

Or the evils of the introduction of alcohol into their societies, and the subsequent social damage it caused to their communities. (Though they gave Europeans and thereby the globe smoking tobacco, so it's even really.)

Though even when all of this was done, it was essentially over by 1920, and in the cases of the mission schools 1970.

Or Mexico?

A country that America fought a war over to secure the rights of American citizens who had settled in the Northern most territories of what the Mexican government considered it's territory, but had already achieved independence from the Mexican government. Tejas and Californio's Mexican had invited American settlement into the areas to protect them from Indian attacks (our poor old defenseless native friends) and also to bolster support for their independence movements, (California actually wanted to become a British Colony,) from a bureaucratic dictator who had seized power from the rightful government and as a result declared their independence, and then were later absorbed or ceded to America as territory compensation at the end of the war.

So a group of peoples in a fringe territory wanting independence from a repressive central authority declared independence, and then a bigger ally supported that right to secession by declaring war on the nation that sought to suppress those independence movements. As a result, two separate countries that were no longer Mexico at that point, ended up being absorbed into the US, and the rest was taken as territory and paid for with compensation to that government to the tune of eighteen million dollars in 1840's gold standard currency.

America owes Mexico nothing.

Then of course there is the slave trade in the America's.

Aside from the fact that most early slavery was essentially criminal deportation from England, Scotland or Irish through indentured servitude in the Caribbean, many of which did not survive, but those that did married other white or African slaves. (The term yellow, is a slur for mixed race, and this admixture is the reason why so many Jamaican's have Scottish last names.)

And aside from the fact that only 20% of African slaves actually were destined for the North American market, and were instead used to replace the indigenous populations in South America where Spanish rule, disease, and death camp style work in Spanish silver mines decimated the native populations. The Cuban's as the main slavery sales hub in the Carribean effectively was to blame for keeping the American slave trade going, long after the British had all but stopped direct shipment out of Africa.

So then who do you blame for America specifically?

The American most responsible for the institution of slavery into America where the founding fathers (slave and non-slave owners) who had done so much to found the nation in the first place. Even then they acknowledge the fact that with the replacements over time and technology slavery was a doomed institution, and so did not act to curtail it's expansion, but left it to future administrations. But they were all long dead before slavery actually became a major issue in American political life, and does their tacit support of the institution sweep away the massive achievements that many of them accomplished, like being the 2nd great country to institute a functional republican system. (Swiss beat them to it. France not so much because of Napoleon.) Or does that not matter in the pursuit of white guilt?

Or fast forward through time to when the country tore itself apart in a fight to preserve federalism, and ultimately due to the pressure of radical abolitionist and changes in attitude from the population an end to slavery.

Even though the most pessimistic of observers stated, that the South unable to assuage time and technology, would have had to end the practice of slavery by the 1880's or 1890's at the most conservative estimates.

Considering the fact that out of the majority of combatants on the side of the South relatively few of the actually owned slaves, let alone most who did having enough to be given the designation of a planter, and of those who did own large scale plantations were actually excused from any military service by the government to continue to grow cotton. (A useless item during their war time economy when the blockade came into full effect.)

Can we then not justify the cost of no white guilt by the fact that considering the destruction of the Southern economy at that time, the societal degradation and near collapse of Southern culture as a whole, or the fact that nearly a 500,000 men died and countless more were wounded from a population estimated to have only equaled around 9 million at the time of it's founding, and of which 3 million were slaves, while only 315,000 were slave holders.

Never mind the cost the North is terms of men and material, and also the exceptionalism of the economic expansion in the whole of the country, which some parts of the South have not properly recovered.

As if that wasn't enough, the final systematic destruction of the Jim Crow laws, a set of laws that had been introduced by the same plantation owning democrats families who'd pushed for secession and the civil war, and founded the first and second iteration of the Klu Klux Klan, by the Kennedy administration and the help and support of white communities and a political establishment that decried the mistreatment of blacks as second class citizens. Not to mention work of the FBI in destroying the KKK and other white supremacist groups from the inside.

This despite the fact that since then, from what was a community of freed men, political figures, business owners, and honest but uneducated sharecroppers, has retrograded now, so that the lowest common denominators in their own communities are essentially a poverty and violence ridden welfare underclass, that is used as a political cudgel by their own people for false political end, and those who want to exploit their vote, despite the fact that money is spent in attempts to prevent, educate, and try to pull black people up through poverty.

This is spite of the fact, that the prevailing attitude from inside these ghettos is one of hatred of others black, white or brown, some for merely their existence, resentment of others in their own communities because they actually attempt to better their situation, and entitlement without any form of responsibility.

Even if there was any reason that an apology was owed, by who? Anyone born post 1960's shares no collective guilt of the civil rights, no one born post 1860's shared any collective guilt of the institution of slavery.

I hate victim narratives regardless of color. I hate those who use injustices from the long past as some sort of ply in order to either excuse inexcusable behavior, or to try and gain some sort of advantage or sympathy that they haven't deserved. And if I see an actual injustice, I will be one who speaks out against it
I was raised to judge people by their actions, by what they do, not where they are from or what color, or culture they are. I respect those who do right by themselves.

Things change, and people change, but our history is what makes us, it's what informs us, so we can try to avoid the same mistakes in the future, whatever they are.

I feel no guilt for what people did in the past, no one ever should. I'm not my grandfather's generation, as much as he wasn't his.





[Edit: Was to clarify some of the more rambling bits, and to add some context to others, as well as a short section on America/Mexican relations. Just to be thorough.]
 
Last edited:

Basil II

National Opthalmologist of Bulgaria
kiwifarms.net
I don't even understand the argument for white guilt amongst Europeans or even Americans which in itself is an even more ridiculous concept.

From a European perspective, how many great powers actually had empires?

Not all European countries had access to slave markets or colonization. So not all white Europeans in that regard should have any white guilt at all, as the reason for supposedly needing to have it doesn't exist. Therefore anyone from Ireland, Scandinavia, the Baltic states, Central and Eastern Europe, The Balkans, and Russia by that definition cannot have white guilt, because they weren't a colonial power in that regard.

The worst you could pin on any of these groups is essentially the Russian conquest and control over the stan's,
(A mixture of Tartar, Turkic, Han Chinese, Mongol, Uguyar, Kazahk, Uzbek, and many other Asian minorities.) and trying to exert influence over Afghanistan, Persia, and India during the Great Game period circa 1830 to 1895.

So excluding those who do you have, The Dutch, English, Belgians, Germans, French, Spanish.

All of which during the period of colonial Empire building were working towards what they saw as the duty of their societies as a civilizing force in the world by bringing law and order and Christianity to the dark continent, The New World and Asia, while also exploiting trade deals.

So again how do we judge this metric?

Nevermind the fact that the initial settlement into these areas was essentially missionaries, explorers and trade delegations. And that the actual act of colonialism didn't occur so much through immediate territorial expansion, but rather as was the case with the New World for the Spain, or South Africa and India for the British or the Dutch Indies for Holland, grew out of a necessity to govern partly provide localized services to expatriots in those countries, in the terms of infrastructure and government, but also to reign in on the companies that worked under royal charters, to make sure that they worked in the national interests and didn't become a liability. (IE The East India Company conquered India, because it became more economic and easier to trade, than having to deal with the Mughal's. The British government took over administrative controls in turn.)

As a result of this new rule of law and beginnings of new institutions, as well as the repression of local customs that were considered by the colonists as barbaric. (The Indian practice of Suti, or the decimation of the Thugee cults, or the repression of inter tribal killing in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, to be Indo-centric.) So with that understanding, we can justly say that colonialism while selfish in the terms of who is was meant to serve, ended up serving all.

Same with the Boer's of South Africa, (not entirely Dutch, though they were the ethnic majority of Europeans) these are a people who effectively aren't even colonialist, as they were outflow from their home countries that after massive treks, attacks and oppositions from native Africans, and betrayal at the hands of some of the locals, settled mainly in the land that had originally be Khaosian, who had in turn been decimated by the Bantu and Zulu's who effectively had through famine and genocide, destroyed the Khaosian majority and then sold the land through contract to the Boer's who then had their states absorbed by the British after a war to prevent it. (Mind you they had apartheid, but that's a different debate for a different time.)

Do you measure it by the metrics of sheer brutality? Then the Spanish and The Belgians should have the most white guilt. The Spanish for the appalling and systematic causalities visited on the Indian peoples of South America in their quests for Catholicism, gold and silver, in some cases wiping out 95% of the native born populations. (Dominican Republics native Indian's who Columbus originally came into contact with, were essentially worked to death, only 0.2 % of the population share ancestry with these original inhabitants.) Or the Belgian's who under the command of Leopold the II as his private personal company exploited the natural resources of the Congo and set up such a brutal system of treatment for the natives, that the methods of abuse used by the rebel fighters in the Congo (chopping of limbs with machetes) is an actual left over of Belgian atrocities.

Does the counter actions of the British trying to end the Atlantic Slave Trade and then further efforts to finish the Arab Slave Trade counteract the effects that white guilt should incur, or should one feel white guilt still regardless of this?

This of course in not including the Arabs, who contributed the most to the global slave trade, and are tied to the history of Europe, and especially the Turks who through their barbarity and cunning brutally repressed not only the Greeks, Balkans, and Armenian Christians, but also equally mistreated their Muslim brethren in Africa and the Arab world as a great colonial power.

And with all of that being said, the current generation of people have lived in a world without the institutions of slavery and in most cases the institutions of colonialism. Anyone born post 1960 owes nothing to the argument for European white guilt, as if they did in the first place.

Then there is America.

Simply put, should one feel guilt because a group of pioneers, rejected religious persecution for the chance to settle in a new country, and were able to do so because the technological advancement of their firearms, as well as the will of local native powers to use the influence of the newcomers and their gunpowder to win local wars, something that they should feel guilty for. Or the fact that the even though it's now been almost expunged from their history, the support of the revolutionary new Americans is what destroyed the dominions of the Haudenosaune or Iroquois Federation, and essentially diminished their power with the founding on the new country. Or the fact that it was only through a mass of localized tribal wars, and the great conflict of the American Revolution that the powers of the Eastern and North Eastern Indians was destroyed.

Or the ravages of smallpox and other European diseases which unknowingly brought over by settlers set to work on unexposed population in the same way that the Europeans unknowingly brought the bubonic plague from China and decimated their own peoples. (West Indian's gave European's syphilis so it wasn't one sided.)

Or the fact that the varying groups of warring natives, almost all of which in terms of the plains Indians were nomadic hunter gatherers, were unable to outmaneuver the incoming white settlers who had the technological advantages, common languages, and agriculture in order to settle the west through the manifest destiny period and westward expansion.

Sure there are evils there, the aggressive movements of tribes to the reservations, the betrayal of the Cherokee's and other civilized tribes, and the systematic destruction of the buffalo for economic reasons, and as a means to cause submission, the cleansing of languages and cultures in the mission schools, and the evils of alcohol. (Though I'd argue that they gave whites tobacco, so that's an even really.) But even then the vast majority of that happened when no current US citizen was alive, and most of it was driven by government policy for the period.

Then of course there is the black slave trade. Facts aside that the Cuban's effectively kept the American slave trade going, long after the British had all but stopped direct shipment out of Africa.

Or the fact that had the articles of secession not been followed through civil war not taken place, slavery would have ended in the southern states of the US at the latest in the 1890's. All of that aside if the price paid in Yankee or Southern blood over economics and a disagreement over state rights which then was turned by the maneuvering the radical abolitionist and government policy of guaranteeing freedom to all ex-slaves at the end of the wasn't enough.

And then the systematic destruction of the Jim Crow laws, which had been created by Southern Democrats, and effectively ended by JFK in the 60's and essentially defanged any serious white nationalist groups by the mid 1980's, or the fact that in America today more is done to help a community that has retrograded from the days of uneducated but honest share croppers in the south, to essentially at the lowest common denominator being a poor violent welfare ridden underclass in modern America, despite the fact that money is thrown left right and center to prevent, educate, and try to pull black people up through poverty, though the prevailing attitude from inside the majority of these communities is one of entitlement and real racial hatred towards white people, and other people of color for merely existing and doing better than them.

I feel no guilt, no one should. I'm not my grandfather's generation, as much as he wasn't his. I respect those who do right by themselves. I hate victim narratives, and I hate the people who will try to use that as either an excuse for their own inability to actually face the challenges in their life, or those who are undeservedly looking for a handout.
Fucking outstanding, couldn't have said it better myself.
 

Midlife Sperglord

Sperging over console gaming.
kiwifarms.net
This is why we ended up with Trump as President. Earlier this week, I heard a relative admitted to firing one of her workers because this worker was homeless for several years, but she did not wallow in white guilt when her boss told her that her life was ridiculously privileged. She admitted to firing this woman just because “she just did not get it.” And she saw nothing wrong with that at all.

I get that there are times when white privilege is applicable, but give me a fucking break.
Well, I have to update this. That was not the reason the woman was fired. The terminated woman was a meth head. If the relative explained that, the story of her losing her job would have been considerably less horrifying.
 

Drunk and Pour

kiwifarms.net
I think there are two aspects of white guilt. White people who are jealous of other white people. They looked at the accomplishments of centuries of white people that came before them, see how inadequate they really are, and decided it's all bad because white people raped and murdered to achieve all of that. Basically all the SJWs covered on this site. These are the true believers. The second aspect are the successful white people. They really don't care, they just say it because it's the "right" thing to say in order to keep their success. These are the politicians and business people who go apologizing for their whiteness. They'll say whatever in order to keep their positions of power. Of course they've got a symbiotic with minority activists. So they feed off each other. Oh, I guess the third aspect would be the white people that just doesn't want to seem controversial. They don't really believe it, but they don't want an online dog pile.

If what ever "culture war" we live in ever gets heated, I think the people making "white guilt" a positive thing are going to be severely disappointed.
Well, I have to update this. That was not the reason the woman was fired. The terminated woman was a meth head. If the relative explained that, the story of her losing her job would have been considerably less horrifying.
To be fair, it's pretty fucked up to think someone who is homeless for several years because they are addicted to meth has white privilege.
 

Mr Snek

kiwifarms.net
White guilt comes from a couple of sources, but a lot of it comes from the schooling in the 2000s when every class would at one point study the slave trade and other bad things that white people did to black people, and the whole thing was effectively several months of hearing that white people from then were some of the most evil people imaginable and white people today still benefit from this. I know that sounds exaggerated, but in my experience it's an accurate description. After hearing that, it's pretty easy to feel bad about being white.
 

Trilby

Sorry, but not sorry!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
White guilt comes from a couple of sources, but a lot of it comes from the schooling in the 2000s when every class would at one point study the slave trade and other bad things that white people did to black people, and the whole thing was effectively several months of hearing that white people from then were some of the most evil people imaginable and white people today still benefit from this. I know that sounds exaggerated, but in my experience it's an accurate description. After hearing that, it's pretty easy to feel bad about being white.
Damn, glad I didn't have to go through schools in the 2000's.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: TerribleIdeas™

Sprig of Parsley

Damnation dignified
kiwifarms.net
Right, so, when are we going to add the enormity of the Arabic peoples' pursuits to the atrocity pile? When are we going to point out that the Bantu people basically conquered and murder-raped their way up and down Africa? When are we going to poke at that hornet's nest of "holy shit what the fuck is wrong with you" that is China's history? When are we going to be equal-opportunity about pointing out that people are capable of being horrid regardless of color or creed and that honestly in the grand scheme of things whitey doesn't even shake out as being the absolute worst?

I mean, if you really insist on going beyond learning from history into straight-up dwelling on the past, fine, but at least do it FAIRLY.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino