Is white nationalism a form of identity politics?

[wimp]

Merriam-Webster's definition of identity politics:

: politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group

Does white nationalism/supremacy/etc fit this definition? Although it obviously isn't as socially acceptable as identity politics for other races.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The answer to the topic question is:  "Of course it is!"  A "DUH!" for emphasis could be added.

The question to ask is:  "What, exactly, is White Nationalism?"

[Person Man]

The answer to the topic question is:  "Of course it is!"  A "DUH!" for emphasis could be added.

The question to ask is:  "What, exactly, is White Nationalism?"

A form of White identity politics. The same as White Supremacy. I guess I could say that being a racist does not mean you necessarily hate people from the racist you are racist against. There’s a lot of subtlety in understanding all of this. Definitely saying people just aren’t allowed to have certain beliefs doesn’t really work anymore.

[Del Tachi]

The answer to the topic question is:  "Of course it is!"  A "DUH!" for emphasis could be added.

The question to ask is:  "What, exactly, is White Nationalism?"

A form of White identity politics. The same as White Supremacy. I guess I could say that being a racist does not mean you necessarily hate people from the racist you are racist against. There’s a lot of subtlety in understanding all of this. Definitely saying people just aren’t allowed to have certain beliefs doesn’t really work anymore.

There is no subtly around these terms because they just end up getting used as bludgeons to attack conservatives.  The racial left’s definition of “White supremacy” has gotten progressively more encompassing to include more and more manifestations of law and order and market economy, among others.

White identity is not White nationalism.  Simply identifying with a racial group is not a sufficient condition to be a “supremacist” or “nationalist” no matter what color you are

[Hindsight was 2020]

The answer to the topic question is:  "Of course it is!"  A "DUH!" for emphasis could be added.

The question to ask is:  "What, exactly, is White Nationalism?"

A form of White identity politics. The same as White Supremacy. I guess I could say that being a racist does not mean you necessarily hate people from the racist you are racist against. There’s a lot of subtlety in understanding all of this. Definitely saying people just aren’t allowed to have certain beliefs doesn’t really work anymore.

There is no subtly around these terms because they just end up getting used as bludgeons to attack conservatives.  The racial left’s definition of “White supremacy” has gotten progressively more encompassing to include more and more manifestations of law and order and market economy, among others.

White identity is not White nationalism.  Simply identifying with a racial group is not a sufficient condition to be a “supremacist” or “nationalist” no matter what color you are

This is racial equivalent of “it’s not pedophilia it’s ephebophilia”

[Del Tachi]

The answer to the topic question is:  "Of course it is!"  A "DUH!" for emphasis could be added.

The question to ask is:  "What, exactly, is White Nationalism?"

A form of White identity politics. The same as White Supremacy. I guess I could say that being a racist does not mean you necessarily hate people from the racist you are racist against. There’s a lot of subtlety in understanding all of this. Definitely saying people just aren’t allowed to have certain beliefs doesn’t really work anymore.

There is no subtly around these terms because they just end up getting used as bludgeons to attack conservatives.  The racial left’s definition of “White supremacy” has gotten progressively more encompassing to include more and more manifestations of law and order and market economy, among others.

White identity is not White nationalism.  Simply identifying with a racial group is not a sufficient condition to be a “supremacist” or “nationalist” no matter what color you are

This is racial equivalent of “it’s not pedophilia it’s ephebophilia”

This is a low-effort post that only exists to generate some kind of shock value that center left posters can circle jerk to as some kind of imagined “own” lol

Do you actually have anything articulate or impactful to add?

[GP270watch]

 It's the root of all identity politics in The United States because whiteness is an invented concept.

[lookalive]

I would say that definitionally it is, but colloquially, "identity politics" is most often used as a bad-faith attack against the left's interests (though there are times where I believe it's helpful). Talking to people about "identity politics" never leads one to think about white supremacy, for better or for worse.

[Cassandra]

Yes it is. Another example of nationalism being bad.

[Hindsight was 2020]

The answer to the topic question is:  "Of course it is!"  A "DUH!" for emphasis could be added.

The question to ask is:  "What, exactly, is White Nationalism?"

A form of White identity politics. The same as White Supremacy. I guess I could say that being a racist does not mean you necessarily hate people from the racist you are racist against. There’s a lot of subtlety in understanding all of this. Definitely saying people just aren’t allowed to have certain beliefs doesn’t really work anymore.

There is no subtly around these terms because they just end up getting used as bludgeons to attack conservatives.  The racial left’s definition of “White supremacy” has gotten progressively more encompassing to include more and more manifestations of law and order and market economy, among others.

White identity is not White nationalism.  Simply identifying with a racial group is not a sufficient condition to be a “supremacist” or “nationalist” no matter what color you are

This is racial equivalent of “it’s not pedophilia it’s ephebophilia”

This is a low-effort post that only exists to generate some kind of shock value that center left posters can circle jerk to as some kind of imagined “own” lol

Do you actually have anything articulate or impactful to add?

I’m sorry but “white identity politics is not the same as white nationalism” is just demanding two separate names for the same tasting garbage

[Big Abraham]

The answer to the topic question is:  "Of course it is!"  A "DUH!" for emphasis could be added.

The question to ask is:  "What, exactly, is White Nationalism?"

A form of White identity politics. The same as White Supremacy. I guess I could say that being a racist does not mean you necessarily hate people from the racist you are racist against. There’s a lot of subtlety in understanding all of this. Definitely saying people just aren’t allowed to have certain beliefs doesn’t really work anymore.

There is no subtly around these terms because they just end up getting used as bludgeons to attack conservatives.  The racial left’s definition of “White supremacy” has gotten progressively more encompassing to include more and more manifestations of law and order and market economy, among others.

White identity is not White nationalism.  Simply identifying with a racial group is not a sufficient condition to be a “supremacist” or “nationalist” no matter what color you are

This is racial equivalent of “it’s not pedophilia it’s ephebophilia”

This is a low-effort post that only exists to generate some kind of shock value that center left posters can circle jerk to as some kind of imagined “own” lol

Do you actually have anything articulate or impactful to add?

I’m sorry but “white identity politics is not the same as white nationalism” is just demanding two separate names for the same tasting garbage

So is black identity the same as black nationalism?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I have never really grasped what on earth "white identity" (especially in the United States) is supposed to mean, other than as a dog-whistle for racism and other forms of bigotry, usually alongside an unhealthy distaste for democracy in general. Is it explicitly identifying with our founding druglords and religious fanatics? Because while I'm happy to make use of good ideas that emerged from early America (such as equality and functioning representative government), I have zero desire to imitate their xenophobia, intolerance, and use of skin color as a means of keeping a wealthy elite in power.

[Red Velvet]

Obviously.

Any politics that is for the benefit of ONE specific identity group of people instead of the whole population is identity politics.

Identity politics can be good when the politics in question has the goal of favoring one group interests in order to make them more equal to others. But it can be bad when the goal is to put one group interests above everyone else no matter what.

[Person Man]

The answer to the topic question is:  "Of course it is!"  A "DUH!" for emphasis could be added.

The question to ask is:  "What, exactly, is White Nationalism?"

A form of White identity politics. The same as White Supremacy. I guess I could say that being a racist does not mean you necessarily hate people from the racist you are racist against. There’s a lot of subtlety in understanding all of this. Definitely saying people just aren’t allowed to have certain beliefs doesn’t really work anymore.

There is no subtly around these terms because they just end up getting used as bludgeons to attack conservatives.  The racial left’s definition of “White supremacy” has gotten progressively more encompassing to include more and more manifestations of law and order and market economy, among others.

White identity is not White nationalism.  Simply identifying with a racial group is not a sufficient condition to be a “supremacist” or “nationalist” no matter what color you are

I’m not disagreeing with you. There are various levels and degrees of identity an racism. Not every one who is left-of-center on class and fiscal issues is a socialist and not every one who is against Civil Rights actually hates any one. The point of my post is to simply acknowledge that people are allowed to have viewpoints that are outside the Overton window and perhaps not fully compatible with American democracy or values.

[It’s so Joever]

The answer to the topic question is:  "Of course it is!"  A "DUH!" for emphasis could be added.

The question to ask is:  "What, exactly, is White Nationalism?"

A form of White identity politics. The same as White Supremacy. I guess I could say that being a racist does not mean you necessarily hate people from the racist you are racist against. There’s a lot of subtlety in understanding all of this. Definitely saying people just aren’t allowed to have certain beliefs doesn’t really work anymore.

There is no subtly around these terms because they just end up getting used as bludgeons to attack conservatives.  The racial left’s definition of “White supremacy” has gotten progressively more encompassing to include more and more manifestations of law and order and market economy, among others.

White identity is not White nationalism.  Simply identifying with a racial group is not a sufficient condition to be a “supremacist” or “nationalist” no matter what color you are

This is racial equivalent of “it’s not pedophilia it’s ephebophilia”

This is a low-effort post that only exists to generate some kind of shock value that center left posters can circle jerk to as some kind of imagined “own” lol

Do you actually have anything articulate or impactful to add?

I’m sorry but “white identity politics is not the same as white nationalism” is just demanding two separate names for the same tasting garbage

So is black identity the same as black nationalism?

In a country where whites were historically a minority and developed in a way that they were forced to share a similar culture, your comparison makes sense.
By American standards, lol.
Black indentity is similar to Irish identity or German Identity. It’s a cultural group. White identity is a reactionary movement built specifically against other groups. Of course you know this and just want brownie points from cultural conservatives.

[Big Abraham]

The answer to the topic question is:  "Of course it is!"  A "DUH!" for emphasis could be added.

The question to ask is:  "What, exactly, is White Nationalism?"

A form of White identity politics. The same as White Supremacy. I guess I could say that being a racist does not mean you necessarily hate people from the racist you are racist against. There’s a lot of subtlety in understanding all of this. Definitely saying people just aren’t allowed to have certain beliefs doesn’t really work anymore.

There is no subtly around these terms because they just end up getting used as bludgeons to attack conservatives.  The racial left’s definition of “White supremacy” has gotten progressively more encompassing to include more and more manifestations of law and order and market economy, among others.

White identity is not White nationalism.  Simply identifying with a racial group is not a sufficient condition to be a “supremacist” or “nationalist” no matter what color you are

This is racial equivalent of “it’s not pedophilia it’s ephebophilia”

This is a low-effort post that only exists to generate some kind of shock value that center left posters can circle jerk to as some kind of imagined “own” lol

Do you actually have anything articulate or impactful to add?

I’m sorry but “white identity politics is not the same as white nationalism” is just demanding two separate names for the same tasting garbage

So is black identity the same as black nationalism?

In a country where whites were historically a minority and developed in a way that they were forced to share a similar culture, your comparison makes sense.
By American standards, lol.
Black indentity is similar to Irish identity or German Identity. It’s a cultural group. White identity is a reactionary movement built specifically against other groups. Of course you know this and just want brownie points from cultural conservatives.

First of all, there are separate "identities" even within American black people. There is a cultural divide between blacks descendants of recent African immigrant status, West Indian, or colonial-era slaves. Also, there is a massive gap in culture between blacks who are concentrated in high-crime urban ghettos, versus blacks who live in predominantly low-density rural areas, versus blacks who live in middle-class suburbs, etc. There may be a good deal of overlap, but to ignore the widening class division there is ridiculous. A black person living in poverty has far more in common with a "white trash" poor person than he does with a high-ranking business executive of his own race.

At any rate, I would argue any movement built around "identity," be it a racial group such as blacks and whites, or an ethnic group like Irishmen or Italians, is reactionary. Both are extolling a largely meaningless set of phenotypic traits as a primary aspect of how a person perceives themselves at the expense of individual character traits or accomplishments, and subjects the individual to the mob, which has proven dangerous. Of course, you see the media lavishly throwing praises on  amorphous "blackness" and a robust sense of "black identity," while completely denigrating the concept of "whiteness" or anything similar. I am sure this does not contribute to radicalizing white people, and in no way is the propaganda arm of the media attempting so sew the seeds of racial discord to further divide the working-class, who have a common cause to be won!

[It’s so Joever]

The answer to the topic question is:  "Of course it is!"  A "DUH!" for emphasis could be added.

The question to ask is:  "What, exactly, is White Nationalism?"

A form of White identity politics. The same as White Supremacy. I guess I could say that being a racist does not mean you necessarily hate people from the racist you are racist against. There’s a lot of subtlety in understanding all of this. Definitely saying people just aren’t allowed to have certain beliefs doesn’t really work anymore.

There is no subtly around these terms because they just end up getting used as bludgeons to attack conservatives.  The racial left’s definition of “White supremacy” has gotten progressively more encompassing to include more and more manifestations of law and order and market economy, among others.

White identity is not White nationalism.  Simply identifying with a racial group is not a sufficient condition to be a “supremacist” or “nationalist” no matter what color you are

This is racial equivalent of “it’s not pedophilia it’s ephebophilia”

This is a low-effort post that only exists to generate some kind of shock value that center left posters can circle jerk to as some kind of imagined “own” lol

Do you actually have anything articulate or impactful to add?

I’m sorry but “white identity politics is not the same as white nationalism” is just demanding two separate names for the same tasting garbage

So is black identity the same as black nationalism?

In a country where whites were historically a minority and developed in a way that they were forced to share a similar culture, your comparison makes sense.
By American standards, lol.
Black indentity is similar to Irish identity or German Identity. It’s a cultural group. White identity is a reactionary movement built specifically against other groups. Of course you know this and just want brownie points from cultural conservatives.

First of all, there are separate "identities" even within American black people. There is a cultural divide between blacks descendants of recent African immigrant status, West Indian, or colonial-era slaves. Also, there is a massive gap in culture between blacks who are concentrated in high-crime urban ghettos, versus blacks who live in predominantly low-density rural areas, versus blacks who live in middle-class suburbs, etc. There may be a good deal of overlap, but to ignore the widening class division there is ridiculous. A black person living in poverty has far more in common with a "white trash" poor person than he does with a high-ranking business executive of his own race.

At any rate, I would argue any movement built around "identity," be it a racial group such as blacks and whites, or an ethnic group like Irishmen or Italians, is reactionary. Both are extolling a largely meaningless set of phenotypic traits as a primary aspect of how a person perceives themselves at the expense of individual character traits or accomplishments, and subjects the individual to the mob, which has proven dangerous. Of course, you see the media lavishly throwing praises on  amorphous "blackness" and a robust sense of "black identity," while completely denigrating the concept of "whiteness" or anything similar. I am sure this does not contribute to radicalizing white people, and in no way is the propaganda arm of the media attempting so sew the seeds of racial discord to further divide the working-class, who have a common cause to be won!

Okay, so firstly I would have hoped you understood that black in this context quite clearly refers to descendants of slaves in the US. The “forced to share a similar culture” part of that was meant to emphasize, but I guess that wasn’t enough.

And again I dispute the idea of this being based around phenotypes. Culture is a set of values/practices that a group shares, they oftentimes do share similar physical traits but it’s not a mandatory thing.

And yes, deviations within the group exist, but they are small compared to the vast number of shared values and experiences from their common group identity. That is what makes a cultural group a cultural group.

I guess you can call it reactionary if it really makes you happy, truth be told you seem more interested in arguing over semantics to score some imaginary internet points.

And I have no clue what you are on about the media. I swear to goodness cultural conservatives really want to feel like victims here, but nobody is attacking you for your skin color. Nobody attacks Polish, Italian, French, Irish heritage movements in the US, and that’s because those make sense. The modern day white pride movement on the other hand, almost always is formed solely to attack another movement. Intent is the key here, and again you know all of this, you’re a smart guy, so this is more for the rest of Atlas and people who don’t understand than you.

[Big Abraham]

Okay, so firstly I would have hoped you understood that black in this context quite clearly refers to descendants of slaves in the US. The “forced to share a similar culture” part of that was meant to emphasize, but I guess that wasn’t enough.

Well, not all black people are the descendants of colonial-era slaves, are they? "Black identity" refers to black people collectively, just as it does for white people. Or do you think "white identity" means only those who were among the nation's progenitors by sailing to the New World in the seventeenth century to escape religious persecution in Europe? Because I think most "white identitarian" types would strongly dispute that notion.

And again I dispute the idea of this being based around phenotypes. Culture is a set of values/practices that a group shares, they oftentimes do share similar physical traits but it’s not a mandatory thing.

"Being black" is not a cultural thing. Neither is being any particular nationality, even. It has to do entirely with your ancestry which, yes, is determined by your heredity, i.e. nothing you have control over and therefore should not take pride in. You can identify with a particular culture if you like, based on common kinship or affinity or whatever, but that is not the same thing as race-based idenitarianism. Do you believe that white people can be "culturally black"?

And yes, deviations within the group exist, but they are small compared to the vast number of shared values and experiences from their common group identity. That is what makes a cultural group a cultural group.

Shared values may be part of the common group identity, but once again I would argue this has to do more with class than with race, which I notice was conveniently the one thing from my post that you failed to respond to at all, despite it being my main point. Downtrodden or "marginalized" (to use a word proponents of race theory are a fan of) persons regardless of race or ancestry have much more in common and are more likely to have these "shared experiences" that you speak of. Therefore, any form of racial pride is this respect is essentially reactionary, as it distracts from the main issue.

I guess you can call it reactionary if it really makes you happy, truth be told you seem more interested in arguing over semantics to score some imaginary internet points.

The only one arguing over semantics here is you. Like I said, you were either completely oblivious to, or deliberately ignored, the main point of my response.

And I have no clue what you are on about the media. I swear to goodness cultural conservatives really want to feel like victims here, but nobody is attacking you for your skin color. Nobody attacks Polish, Italian, French, Irish heritage movements in the US, and that’s because those make sense. The modern day white pride movement on the other hand, almost always is formed solely to attack another movement. Intent is the key here, and again you know all of this, you’re a smart guy, so this is more for the rest of Atlas and people who don’t understand than you.

You don't think the black pride movement was formed in large part to combat "whiteness"? Either way, it's pretty obvious what the media is on about. Do a cursory search of any of the large, established media sources (The L.A. Times, The Washington Post, etc., literally take your pick), and in short order you can see why, even if you don't feel like their narratives are personally racist towards white people, it can cause white people do feel neglected, distrusted, or outright hated by media. Compare that to all of the positive, sympathetic portrayals of "blackness" in the media as well. It's part of the same corporate phenomenon that enables big business to tweet things about Black History Month, or "trans rights," or whatever, in an effort to appear "woke." If you do a study of the New York Times and other major newspapers' articles and op-eds since Occupy Wall Street, they have gone from discussing class issues with some regularity to now almost exclusively focusing on race and other idpol stuff. And the numbers have gone up massively. I wonder why that is? Hmm... beats me why a giant corporation bequeathed by monied interests would possibly ever want to distract from the issue of class.

[Agafin]

If anything, it is the purest form of identity politics (note: "pure" here is not used as a compliment).

[It’s so Joever]

Okay, so firstly I would have hoped you understood that black in this context quite clearly refers to descendants of slaves in the US. The “forced to share a similar culture” part of that was meant to emphasize, but I guess that wasn’t enough.

Well, not all black people are the descendants of colonial-era slaves, are they? "Black identity" refers to black people collectively, just as it does for white people. Or do you think "white identity" means only those who were among the nation's progenitors by sailing to the New World in the seventeenth century to escape religious persecution in Europe? Because I think most "white identitarian" types would strongly dispute that notion.

And again I dispute the idea of this being based around phenotypes. Culture is a set of values/practices that a group shares, they oftentimes do share similar physical traits but it’s not a mandatory thing.

"Being black" is not a cultural thing. Neither is being any particular nationality, even. It has to do entirely with your ancestry which, yes, is determined by your heredity, i.e. nothing you have control over and therefore should not take pride in. You can identify with a particular culture if you like, based on common kinship or affinity or whatever, but that is not the same thing as race-based idenitarianism. Do you believe that white people can be "culturally black"?

Typical Atlas conservative/tankie playbook, completely ignore the part when I explained why you should have understood what I meant in the first place. Not even going to deal with this pathetic diversion.

Although I will say that yes, I would agree a white person could be culturally black if he/she for instance were adopted by a black cultural household at a young age. Culture isn’t defined by melanin.

And yes, deviations within the group exist, but they are small compared to the vast number of shared values and experiences from their common group identity. That is what makes a cultural group a cultural group.

Shared values may be part of the common group identity, but once again I would argue this has to do more with class than with race, which I notice was conveniently the one thing from my post that you failed to respond to at all, despite it being my main point. Downtrodden or "marginalized" (to use a word proponents of race theory are a fan of) persons regardless of race or ancestry have much more in common and are more likely to have these "shared experiences" that you speak of. Therefore, any form of racial pride is this respect is essentially reactionary, as it distracts from the main issue.
[/quote]

Okay, you seem to have trouble understanding the word “deviation”, so I will be happy to help.

Deviation-Noun:the action of departing from an established course or accepted standard.

In this case, the accepted standard is the aggregate, that can easily apply to wealth and the only reason I didn’t specifically say wealth was because then you would of course say “okay but what about religion, what about geography, etc” in some never ending spiral.

I guess you can call it reactionary if it really makes you happy, truth be told you seem more interested in arguing over semantics to score some imaginary internet points.

The only one arguing over semantics here is you. Like I said, you were either completely oblivious to, or deliberately ignored, the main point of my response.
[/quote]
The main point of your response is to equivocate two completely different things.

And I have no clue what you are on about the media. I swear to goodness cultural conservatives really want to feel like victims here, but nobody is attacking you for your skin color. Nobody attacks Polish, Italian, French, Irish heritage movements in the US, and that’s because those make sense. The modern day white pride movement on the other hand, almost always is formed solely to attack another movement. Intent is the key here, and again you know all of this, you’re a smart guy, so this is more for the rest of Atlas and people who don’t understand than you.

You don't think the black pride movement was formed in large part to combat "whiteness"? Either way, it's pretty obvious what the media is on about. Do a cursory search of any of the large, established media sources (The L.A. Times, The Washington Post, etc., literally take your pick), and in short order you can see why, even if you don't feel like their narratives are personally racist towards white people, it can cause white people do feel neglected, distrusted, or outright hated by media. Compare that to all of the positive, sympathetic portrayals of "blackness" in the media as well. It's part of the same corporate phenomenon that enables big business to tweet things about Black History Month, or "trans rights," or whatever, in an effort to appear "woke." If you do a study of the New York Times and other major newspapers' articles and op-eds since Occupy Wall Street, they have gone from discussing class issues with some regularity to now almost exclusively focusing on race and other idpol stuff. And the numbers have gone up massively. I wonder why that is? Hmm... beats me why a giant corporation bequeathed by monied interests would possibly ever want to distract from the issue of class.
[/quote]

Okay lol. Firstly the black identity was created because of literal f**king slavery. Guess what genius, when you enslave large groups of people and completely destroy/erase their old culture intentionally but keep the people together, a new culture/identity will form. Was some of it built off the resistance to literal slavery/Jim Crow? Sure, but the difference is that those were true inhibitors enforced by the law.

Unless you want to truly compare some woke guy on MSNBC saying stupid s**t to literal slavery...you don’t have the point you think you do.

As for the whole corporations thing, you’re half right. You’re right in that corporations do try and increase these divides, you seem to ignore the fact that corporations also support the conservative reactionary movements as well behind the scenes. Someone is donating to GOP candidates and FOX after all.
You seem to want to attack corporations when they support one side to increase division for cynical gain (as you should), but ignore the other half of it.

[͘]

If you think about it hard enough, anything can be a form of identity politics; one particular quality that separates anyone from everyone else. It doesn't have to involve politics in anyway, but it could be something like a disease, a cult, a hobby, a fetish. But when these people feel persecuted in any way, they bring their problems to the public sphere. White Nationalism is a part of a psychological problem where people think that they are losing value because their whiteness has lost social status in American society. White Nationalism is a feeling that being white has lost it's social status and will pry to take it's special status back.

[Big Abraham]

Although I will say that yes, I would agree a white person could be culturally black if he/she for instance were adopted by a black cultural household at a young age. Culture isn’t defined by melanin.

So such a person could have "black identity," etc.? If so, then the term is meaningless. Of course culture isn't defined by melanin, as I said in the post you responded to, but "being black" is. Does a black person who participates in mainstream "white culture" more than "black culture" (whatever those terms are supposed to mean) no longer count as such?

Okay lol. Firstly the black identity was created because of literal f**king slavery. Guess what genius, when you enslave large groups of people and completely destroy/erase their old culture intentionally but keep the people together, a new culture/identity will form. Was some of it built off the resistance to literal slavery/Jim Crow? Sure, but the difference is that those were true inhibitors enforced by the law.

As I mentioned, not all black people are the descendants of colonial-era slaves. And according to you, even some white people can be "culturally black." Are black people in Africa, who are not descended from slaves, allowed to be part of "black culture"? If they are, then slavery isn't the linchpin you think it is. If they aren't, then how the hell could you possibly restrict "black identity" to only the American descendants of slaves (or those who are part of their "culture," which is, once again, a nebulous and ill-defined term) ?

Unless you want to truly compare some woke guy on MSNBC saying stupid s**t to literal slavery...you don’t have the point you think you do.

I was responding to your claim that "nobody in the media is attacking you" (i.e. white people) "for your skin color." I wasn't referring to slavery at all. Rather, I was pointing out that there is such race-baiting coming from large swaths of the established media, and commenting upon its divisive nature, which even you don't seem to disagree with.

As for the whole corporations thing, you’re half right. You’re right in that corporations do try and increase these divides, you seem to ignore the fact that corporations also support the conservative reactionary movements as well behind the scenes. Someone is donating to GOP candidates and FOX after all.
You seem to want to attack corporations when they support one side to increase division for cynical gain (as you should), but ignore the other half of it.

My point was that the race-identitarian stuff (black pride, etc.) is always the one being championed by the corporations and their media marionettes. I don't see too much outright pro-white supremacy rhetoric coming from even mainstream right-wing media outlets (now, far-right media outlets are another story, but such are not usually the favorites of corporate advertisers.)

[DINGO Joe]

Of course, stupid.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes and it's silly because without females there isn't a Dem party and Evangelicals don't consider that their own females are Dems, since they face Discrimination in the workplace

[pbrower2a]

The emptiest assertion of ethnic identity in America is often one of the most fervent.

More specifically it is often "Aryan" identity, as white racists typically reject the idea that Jews of any kind are truly 'white'.