The Instigator
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
feverish
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

White Nationalism is not inherently racist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,755 times Debate No: 15819
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

Ore_Ele

Pro

The first round is just going to be for definitions and to accept the debate.

White nationalism - "•White nationalism is a political ideology which advocates a racial definition of national identity for white people." [1] Many definitions claim that white nationalism wants a 100% white state, however this is inaccurate because many white nationalists support a white state which has heavy border controls that allow non-whites in, but limits immigration so that they remain minorities. Therefore, the 100% white state cannot accurately be used as a definition.

Racism - "The treatment or view, that someone is infearior because of their race." This is oppose to simply viewing someone as "different" because of their race.

Inherently - "built-in: existing as an essential constituent or characteristic" [2]

My main arguement in this debate is going to be that extreme wings of white nationalism (namely white supremacism) have corrupted the public view of white nationalism really is, and so people believe that something is racist when only the extremes are.

Thank you,

[1] http://www.google.com...=
[2] http://www.google.com...
feverish

Con

Thanks OreEle for this opportunity to debate, I am happy to accept.

Just a quick word on these definitions.

White nationalism -

While OreEle's definition here does not seem unreasonable, it is worth observing that his linked source does actually include the condition of an all white state. For OreEle's suggestion that "many white nationalists support a white state which has heavy border controls that allow non-whites in" to hold much weight, he should probably provide some kind of external evidence for this, particularly as the source he did provide seems to contradict it.

It is perhaps also worth noting definitions of nationalism in general. http://www.google.com... Princeton wordnet has it as "the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other."

Racism -

There is no source for this definition but I accept Pro's distinction between inferior and different. I'd also like to point out the obvious fact that believing a certain race to be superior qualifies as racism just as much as believing one to be inferior.

Inherently -

Can't really argue with this definition.

Thanks again, on with the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Ore_Ele

Pro

I thank Feverish for accepting this debate.

I would first like to point out that the Princeton dictionary lists 4 different definitions for Nationalism and to fit under a definition, one must only meet a single definition, not all of them. So the one that he listed is not the only definition for Nationalism that would need to be met. The 4 deffinitions are [1]...

•patriotism: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it; "they rode the same wave of popular patriotism"; "British nationalism was in the air and patriotic sentiments ran high"
•the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other
•the aspiration for national independence felt by people under foreign domination
•the doctrine that nations should act independently (rather than collectively) to attain their goals

And we also find other definitions elsewhere. And we can see a simple trend in the definitions. It is a philosophy centered around a desire of national identification (meaning having an independent state) focused on either region, culture, or the current government. Since we are talking about "White Nationalism" this should obviously focus down to culture, since there is no "White" region in the world. And since "white nationalism" is often viewed against "multiculturalism," that only more strongly affirms that WN is focused around cultures.

I would disagree that White Nationalism is exculsively focused around the belief that a white culture is superior to every other culture. We can see from the many definitions, that "superiority" only really pops un in one of the many definitions.

I would like to open arguments by looking at various types of Nationalism in history, to show that "superiority" over others in not inherent to that word. Particularly, Irish nationalism and the American Revolution.

Irish Nationalism [2] - "political and social movements and sentiment inspired by a love for Irish culture, language and history, and a sense of pride in Ireland and the Irish people. Today, the term generally refers to support for a united Ireland." Please note, that none of this involves a sence of superiority or a claim of "we're better than you." In fact, most Irish Nationalist, while many do hold some resentment against Britian (namely because they view Britian as the obsticle in preventing them from having their own nation), they really don't hold anything any view against American culture, or Chinese culture, or really any other culture.

If we go to the American revolution, that was also a large nationalist movement to gain independence from England and to establish their own nation so that they could have their own rights. They did not view that they were superior to everyone else (I'm sure some individuals did, but the movement as a whole did not) [3].

If we expand that understanding of "nationalism" to "white nationalism," we see that white nationalism is really nothing more than the advocacy of a national identity of the white culture (remember, that nationalism is tied to either culture or region).

We then come to having to ask, what is "white culture" and does it even exist? It may sound strange, since, in America, we are very much "multi-cultured," though we can get an idea that white culture does exist by looking at other cultures that we clearly know exist. We can clearly see that there is a hispanic culture, and that there is an african culture, and that there is an asian culture, and that there is a native american culture, so it should be only all too natural that there would be a white culture too. And within each of those larger cultures, there are many subcultures. For example, Chinese culture and Japanese culture, both fall under "asian culture" but are still different. And so we would also expect different subcultures within white culture.

Third, I'd like to point out that wanting a place of your own (in this case, for your own culture) does not mean that you view others (in this case, other cultures) as infearior. If I want a house just for myself, that does not mean that I want my neighbor to not have a house, or that I think I'm better than him. It simply means that I would like a place of my own, and I can have no problem with him having a place of his own, or, if he would like, he is free to live in a community dwelling (i.e. multiculturalism). We can see this mentality a lot on state levels. Many states have different views on medical marrijuana, or minimum wage, or what have you. And so many of them choose what they want for themselves and they don't go trying to force other states to change. We see this a lot on the national level. We have our "house" (our nation) and we do with it as we please, and we don't try to force every other nation to do what we think is best (minus the occational dictator or two). This shows that we can have a single view for improving ourselves, without trying to force those views on others.

This is what white nationalists want, a national identity for a white culture, whether that is in the US adopting that (most white nationalists), or having a small area break away and form an independent nation (white seperatists). They (for the most part) do not view other cultures as "infearior" but merely as "different" and that the differences should be respected and preserved. After all, we try to preseve our history, our environment, and most minority cultures (like some native american culture on reserves), so why can we not find a place to preserve a "white culture"?

Because stupid Hitler had to go and ruin that idea for everyone.

[1] http://www.google.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.associatedcontent.com...
feverish

Con

Thanks OreEle.

White nationalism

Before the debate began I gave Pro the opportunity to select a definition for white nationalism. The one definition he provided http://www.google.com... clearly contradicts his interpretation by specifying "a separate all-white nation state" contrary to OreEle's insistence that this is not an inherent component of white nationalism.

As he hasn't provided an alternative definition or any evidence that his personal perception of white nationalism is more accurate than the source he linked, I can only assume we're going with the full definition:

"White nationalism is a political ideology which advocates a racial definition of national identity for white people, and a separate all-white nation state. White separatism and white supremacism are subgroups within white nationalism."

Nationalism

OreEle is quite right to point out that there is more than one definition of nationalism, many words can of course have more than one very distinct meaning but only one definition of nationalism really makes sense when you put "white" in front of it.

•patriotism: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it
•the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other
•the aspiration for national independence felt by people under foreign domination
•the doctrine that nations should act independently (rather than collectively) to attain their goals

Nationalism can indeed refer to mere patriotism and love of one's country, but as OreEle acknowledges, "there is no "White" region in the world", no white nation to be patriotic about, so the general definition of national pride is clearly not valid here.

Similarly no white nationalists in the modern world are "under foreign domination" from a non-white external power, so the definition that applies to Irish nationalists and to American sentiment in the build up to the Revolutionary War is equally inappropriate.

The final definition of the four that Pro lists can't apply for the same reasons as the first, so the only suitable definition we are left with here is "the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other". Such a doctrine applied to a race is clearly a racist doctrine.

Exclusion and superiority


We've established that white nationalists don't live in all white nations, rather, they want to create all white nations and on the whole they want the nations they already live in to become purely white nations. How anyone could ask for a clearer example of racism is beyond me.

By defining citizenship on the basis of race and declaring their non-white neighbours to be not merely second class citizens, but not even citizens at all, they are clearly asserting white people to be superior, in terms of the validity of their claim to citizenship if not in other aspects as well.

It is an obvious example of discrimination on the basis of race and a direct statement of superior entitlement for white people.

Culture and race

OreEle make the claim that discussions of white nationalism "should obviously focus down to culture". While this seems to makes total sense from a rational and non racist perspective, we can't ignore the clear fact that white nationalists have an irrational and unscientific racial perspective of whiteness, where not everyone who appears white actually qualifies for their definition of whiteness. I am referring of course to Jews.

Although anti-semitism may no longer be the main rhetorical focus of white nationalist movements, if you scratch the surface of any group of white nationalists you will find a deep seated hatred and lack of acceptance for Jews. This fact is so widely known that I don't feel the need to reference it here, though I will be happy to provide evidence next round if requested.

While there are ethnic and ancestral components of Judaism, it is in fact a culture and religion that encompasses people of all complexions, a great many of whom are as white as any other person of mostly European ancestry. OreEle goes on to refer to subcultures within white culture, Jewish people clearly have a distinct culture but white Jews are regarded by white nationalists as not white or an inferior kind of white.

Clearly any attempt to present white nationalism as a celebration of a homogeneous white culture in the same way that parades, history months and the like celebrate the diversity of minority cultures is, at best misguided and at worst fraudulent.

OreEle asks "what is white culture?" and attempts to affirm it's existence by merely pointing out that cultures exist which doesn't really follow logically. The other cultures he lists are mostly tied to continetal heritage. He admits that there are many subcultures within white culture and the fact is that all white people have a distinct culture(s) aside from their racial identity of whiteness. Culture can be defined in ethnic, religious or regional terms. For example I am British and my opponent is American so we are from different cultures yet we are both white. Some white Americans also identify as Italian, Irish, Polish or whatever. White nationalists in France are French, those in Australia are Australian etc.

It is clear that white nationalists define their own whiteness in racial rather than in cultural terms.

Irish and American independence

As touched on briefly above, there is a huge difference between the type of nationalism that consists of freeing your country from the colonial rule of an overseas empire and the type that seeks to evict all your fellow citizens who don't look and think like you do.

White nationalists claim their nations are under invasion from illegal immigrants but this is hardly equivalent to having foreign overlords. White nationalists generally live in countries where the vast majority of their leaders are white, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see a surge in white nationalist sentiment in America just in response to having a non-white president, though it may well be too early to judge.

Houses and nations

OreEle presents a charming example of wanting your own home as an analogy to describe white separatism, unfortunately it is wildly inappropriate.

One's home is one's private domain for oneself and one's family; one's neighbours are external to it. Nations are inherently community dwellings that we share with our fellow citizens.

The analogy of wanting one's own house is only comparable to white nationalism if we imagine a large shared house where everyone has a tenancy agreement but the white majority of tenants conspire with the white landlords to have the non-white minority of residents evicted on account of their race. This would obviously qualify as racism.

Conclusion

White nationalists don't just want to limit immigration, they want to live in an all white nation because they regard other races as inferior.

White nationalism may try to present itself as a benign celebration of some mythical homogeneous white culture but in reality it is mostly built around a non-scientific racial identity of anglo-saxon and nordic heritage that excludes white people from Jewish and other cultural sub groups.

White nationalists are not defending their nations from invasion or occupation by a foreign state, they already live in nations where the dominant culture is predominantly white. They want to exclude what they see as inferior races.

OreEle mentions that most infamous of all racists Hitler, but clearly he is not the only well known racist white nationalist and can't be held individually responsible for negative interpretations of white nationalism. If OreEle would like I can list a whole lot of others next round.

For now I'm out of characters, so back over to OreEle.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
Ore_Ele

Pro

My argument from the beginning has been that White Nationalism has been, at it's core, mis-represented, mis-understood, and mis-labeled. The Dictionary's only further propagate that mis-labeling, so using one mis-labeling to justify the mis-labeling is nothing more than circular reasoning.

A far more accurate understanding of White Nationalists and White Nationalism would be obtained from researching in the bowels of Stormfront [1], the largest white nationalist community. In there, you can see the wide arrays of white nationalists, from the overtly racist white supremecists, to simple white seperatists, to more moderate white nationalists.

My opponent states, "Nationalism can indeed refer to mere patriotism and love of one's country, but as OreEle acknowledges, "there is no "White" region in the world", no white nation to be patriotic about, so the general definition of national pride is clearly not valid here."

This is exactly why there is white nationalism, because there is no "white" nation is why white nationalists are often white seperatists (they want to create a new nation, rather than morph an existing nation). Saying that they cannot really be nationalistic about that, because there currently isn't one, is like saying there is no such thing as Irish Nationalists, because Ireland is not an independent nation, so they can't be nationalists. Or that the colonists couldn't be nationalists, because they weren't independent at the time.

It should be clear from history, that nationalism stems from not being independent and fighting (either physically or metaphorically) for independence.

My opponent also states, "We've established that white nationalists don't live in all white nations, rather, they want to create all white nations and on the whole they want the nations they already live in to become purely white nations."

However, the second portion has not been established, and even has already been argued against. It was already argued, that just like other forms of Nationalism, the focus is around culture, not race. But that will be addressed momentarily.

My opponent states, in regards to white culture, "While this seems to makes total sense from a rational and non racist perspective, we can't ignore the clear fact that white nationalists have an irrational and unscientific racial perspective of whiteness..."

My opponent then goes on to talk about the Jewish people, and how they are not treated as "white" by some white nationalists. It is true that some white nationalists don't treat Jewish fairly, but if we are going to label Jewish people as "white" than any Jewish Nationalism would, by default, be a part of "White Nationalism," and so, also by default, not all white nationalists would feel that way towards jews.

So either we say that the Jewish are not "white" and so the argument fails due to faulty assumptions, or we say that the Jewish are "white" and the argument fails because it is only looking at a portion of white nationalists and broad brushing them across other white nationalists.

My opponent also states, "It is clear that white nationalists define their own whiteness in racial rather than in cultural terms."

This is highly inaccurate because many European nations and America are no longer "white culture" nations, but highly emphasing multiculturalism, which is solidly against the preservation of a culture, such as a white culture. This is part of the reason the many white nationalists (in the US) move to Idaho and the non-coastal north west, where multi-culturalism is minimal.

As stated earlier, with the Irish and Colonists, there were no real foriegn overloads. Since they are not independent nations, their rulers are not foriegn. Of course, in the nationalists' minds, they are foriegn, and so the resistance is justified.

The reason that White Nationalists strongly oppose the illegal immigration, apart from being illegal, is that the american culture (as the white nationalist believe it ought be, and if we accept the Irish Nationalist for acting based on what they think things ought be rather than really are, we have to apply an equal standard to the white nationalist) is not being adapted to. Many white nationalists have no problem with immigrants, so long as they adapt to the new culture that they are moving into, and part of that is to learn the language. Just as if I were to move to China, I would be expected to learn chinese, and learn and adhere to their culture (including holidays and customs), but I would not go to China, not learn the language, request that the government place English (or whatever language I happen to be coming from) everywhere for my convience.

My opponent claims, "The analogy of wanting one's own house is only comparable to white nationalism if we imagine a large shared house where everyone has a tenancy agreement but the white majority of tenants conspire with the white landlords to have the non-white minority of residents evicted on account of their race."

This is highly inaccurate for many white nationalists, as many wish to take only their dwellings and form a seperate shared house, that doesn't involved the eviction of anyone. Many other also wish, not for the eviction of anyone, but the assertion of certain rules to establish a particular cultural habitat that anyone may choose to participate in. And if there are those that do not like the culture of the community living, they are free to leave and go somewhere else.

To say that White Nationalists, as a common trait, want to evict all non-whites is a seriously false statement (again, you can look around Stormfront to see why).

I would like to remind voters that this debate is about White Nationalism at its core, not just the traits of some of its members. We can see that many cats are a solid color, and many cats are calico. Because of this, we cannot say, "Cats are a solid." And if that statement is made, pointing out some cats that are a solid color does not make the argument true, while pointing out some cats that are calico, does, effectively refute it.

The same is true for claiming that White Nationalism is racist. Pointing out some white nationalists that are racist does not make the case true, while pointing out some that are not, does effectively refute it. And to see those, a quick trip through Stormfront will show many that are racist, and many that are not.

Thank you,

[1] http://www.stormfront.org...
feverish

Con

OreEle has a significant burden of proof in this debate as he is contradicting a dictionary definition that he provided himself. He claims that white nationalists don't all seek an all white nation and that the ideology is based on culture rather than race, the weight of evidence including the definition contradicts this entirely.

Nationalism

"White Nationalism has been, at it's core, mis-represented, mis-understood, and mis-labeled. The Dictionary's only further propagate that mis-labeling, so using one mis-labeling to justify the mis-labeling is nothing more than circular reasoning."

I haven't used circular reasoning, I've merely challenged a lack of evidence. In r1, OreEle stated that white nationalists don't necessarily seek an all white state, but the only definition he provided directly contradicted this, I suggested he find evidence to back up his own interpretation but it is not til round three that he attempts to do so. I don't know what the link to the home page of stormfront is meant to establish, so again I'm asking for proof of this and until we have it, I think it is only reasonable to go with the dictionary definition OreEle himself provided.

Pro continues trying to equate racially motivated separatism with Irish republicanism and American independence. In the case of Ireland, it was an independent nation long before British rule, in the case of America, thousands of miles of ocean separated them from their rulers. In both cases the claim for independence was an entirely valid and just one. Wanting to write your own borders onto a map for racial reasons is very different.

Once again, there are no white nationalists in the world "under foreign domination".

OreEle states that white separatists "want to create a new nation, rather than morph an existing nation". Pretty much every part of the world is subject to some claim of national ownership so I don't see how it's possible to create a nation without morphing an existing one. Pro has already acknowledged that "there is no "White" region in the world", and I've never heard of white nationalists wanting to take over an uninhabited region although maybe he has some evidence for this.

Exclusion and superiority


OreEle has dropped these arguments I made last round. Until he can provide evidence that justifies disregarding the dictionary definition he provided, these points appear to be conceded and I believe they completely negate the resolution.

Culture and race

"It was already argued, that just like other forms of Nationalism, the focus is around culture, not race"

A list of nationalists defined by their nation hardly proves white nationalism is focused on culture. "White" is not a cultural term, it is a complexion denoting an unscientific classification of race. Any kind of nationalism defined by race is inherently racist.

For a genuine example of circular reasoning within this debate, one need look no further than OreEle's contention that "if we are going to label Jewish people as "white" than any Jewish Nationalism would, by default, be a part of "White Nationalism," and so, also by default, not all white nationalists would feel that way towards jews."

Jewish nationalism or Zionism is self-defined in terms of culture and religion, not all Jewish people are white as I stated previously and a Jewish state already exists so Zionism is obviously not part of white nationalism.

The idea that anyone who is white and nationalist is "a white nationalist" is clearly erroneous and mere semantic shenanigans, a white person who is patriotic about their multi-cultural nation clearly doesn't fit into the definition of white nationalism we began the debate with.

White nationalism is self-defined in terms of race and excludes Jews and others. I find the implication that white nationalists represent the culture and interests of all white people preposterous and somewhat insulting. I have a mixed race child so obviously I don't find the idea of an all white nation appealing on a personal level, even if I am happy and even (sometimes) proud to be English.

Pro respond to my argument that white nationalism is defined by race rather than culture with an observation about multiculturalism that seems entirely irrelevant to the statement he disputes. He points out himself that "many European nations and America are no longer "white culture" nations" and has provided nothing to indicate that the mythical homogeneous white culture that white nationalists promote has any validity in reality.

Independence


As covered above, revolutionary Irish and American nationalists did indeed have foreign overloads in a geographical and in a historically accurate sense, not just "in the nationalists' minds" as OreEle quite aptly describes the case of race based nationalism.

He then in a seemingly unrelated point attempts to characterise white nationalism as welcoming immigrants who attempt to adapt to the culture and language of their new nation, which once again is in stark contrast to his opening definition.

Houses and nations


Pro continues to paint a benign image of white nationalism that is at odds with reality, claiming that white nationalists don't want to make anyone leave their proposed white nation, people are merely "free to leave" if they don't follow "the rules". The problem is that the rules of a white nation inherently involve being white, which is of course racist.

As for many of his other assertions, OreEle's evidence seems to consist of "check out stormfront". He hasn't sited any specific examples but very well, let's consider stormfront and what evidence it could possibly offer to establish the resolution or any of my opponent's points.

Set up by former KKK grand wizards David Duke and Don Black, Stormfront has been described by many as the "first hate site" on the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org...(website)

Stormfront is a forum which anyone can go on to so not everyone who goes on it may necessarily be a white nationalist, indeed a large proportion of the forums consist of members accusing each other of being Jewish, being gay or being a spy. Also it's worth considering that people can portray a benign exterior yet conceal darker motives. Video footage demonstrates BNP leader Nick Griffin at a meeting with US white supremacists discussing new vocabulary guidelines for less overtly racist political sloganeering. http://www.youtube.com...

OreEle: " Pointing out some white nationalists that are racist does not make the case true, while pointing out some that are not, does effectively refute it"

With this comment Pro seems to be seeking to shift the burden of proof entirely from the terms of the debate. It's also worth considering that we are discussing whether racism is an inherent part of the ideology, not the opinions of a few fringe moderates.

Finding a handful of people on stormfront who don't exhibit explicit racism certainly isn't enough to prove the resolution here, as OreEle says: "this debate is about White Nationalism at its core, not just the traits of some of its members".

If he could provide evidence of a significant number of self-confessed white nationalists (preferably with connections to relatively mainstream or well known parties or organisations) actively speaking out against racism, not just in public rhetoric and media interviews, but in meaningful terms amongst their peers, perhaps then OreEle would have some evidence to back up the resolution.

Until then, we are approaching the last round and still waiting for evidence that the dictionary Pro referenced is wrong, for a rebuttal of how seeking a white nation and excluding people on the basis of race is explicitly racist, and that white nationalism is based on culture rather than race.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
Ore_Ele

Pro

I am a little troubled in the focus on the semantics of the definition of "white nationalist." In the PM that we shared prior to actually debating, it appeared that a definition was agreed upon.

"an ideaology that supports having a nation be known as a "white" nation. Much like Isreal is known as a Jewish nation (nation and state can be used interchangably), even though it is not 100% Jewish and being non-Jewish is not a crime."

Of which you responded, "Sounds good man." This should show that to be a "white" nation, 100% white population is not needed, merely recognition and policies to maintain that recognition (part of which is cultural identity, as has been argued).

To clarify, my link to stormfront was because there are so many threads in there which show that many white nationalists are not racist and do focus on their white culture.

"The main purpose of these threads is to be educative, to spread a positive outlook on these places and cultures, so effectively countering anti-White bias that often present White cultures in a negative light." [1]

There are plenty more threads that provide all the info that you need. [2][3][4]

"There is a race war against whites. But our people - my white brothers and sisters - will stay committed to a non-violent resolution. That resolution must consist of solidarity in white communities around the world. The hatred for our children and their future is growing and is being fueled every single day. Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers." [5]

The KKK has actually been spending most of its resources on moving past its extremely ugly past and attempt to distance itself from other openly hateful groups [6][7].

And we can find more cases of typical white nationalism that does not espouse white superiority. [8]

We can also go to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group which is known worldwide for being anti-racist and anti-hate for pretty much all kinds, to see that in their definition of "white nationalist," that racism is not a requirement. "White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of non-whites...These groups range from those that use racial slurs and issue calls for violence to others that present themselves as serious, non-violent organizations and employ the language of academia." [9] Meaning that white nationalists are often racists, but they do not have to be in order to be white nationalists. Kind of like saying, "men are often attracted to women" (statistically accurate), but you don't have to be in order to be a man, that is not one of the core principles.

Of course, you can find plenty of cases of obvious racism from them as well, but the point is, that racism is an option, not a root trait.

As for prominent people that are "white nationalists" Lydia Chassaniol from Mississippi is a more recent one (member of the CCC, a white nationalist organization) and Charles Bishop. Both were political leaders in state governments.

Moving on from the real world examples and getting back into the philosophical debate that this was meant to be (though is likely too late to correct, now that we are in the final round).

"Pro continues to paint a benign image of white nationalism that is at odds with reality, claiming that white nationalists don't want to make anyone leave their proposed white nation, people are merely "free to leave" if they don't follow "the rules". The problem is that the rules of a white nation inherently involve being white, which is of course racist".

While limiting the rules to being white is a possible option for white nationalism, it is not needed. White nationalism can support immigration restrictions, which are not racist, but viewed as important restraints to protect the native culture and economy. One of which is to adapt and embrace the new culture rather than to bring their old culture with them (in other words, anti-multiculturalism).

This is common with White Separatists that want to have portions of Idaho and eastern Washington (like Spokane) to become an independent nation (after all, are they not being ruled by a federal government, thousands of miles away?). They already have a vast majority of a white population, so no attack on current individuals would be needed (as opposed to something trying to form in New Mexico or somewhere).

This completely fits with the "Let me have my house and you can have your house" approach. Of which my opponent has only been able to argue that it is racist if it "evicts" people because of race (though no "eviction" is taking place).

Under the culture and race section of my opponent's, he is missing one simple thing in the comparison. He says "the idea that anyone who is white and nationalist is "a white nationalist" is clearly erroneous and mere semantic shenanigans, a white person who is patriotic about their multi-cultural nation clearly doesn't fit into the definition of white nationalism we began the debate with."

I never made that claim. Just like someone who is Jewish and a nationalist is not a "jewish nationalist" by default. We are only addressing those that are already prescribing their nationalism to their culture and/or race. So still, if jewish can count as "white" (which it doesn't in the sense of culture, but can in the sense of white race and jewish religion), than jewish nationalism can count as white nationalism.

Going back to the superiority and exclusion section, that doesn't really apply under the definitions. The claim that they want, at their core, to live in a purely white nation is unfounded. If anything, it could be claimed as "culturist" (that some cultures are better than others), however, that still doesn't apply due to the "my house, your house" argument. White separatists have no problem with other nations having whatever culture they want. But, even those that do, the resolution is about racism, not culturalism.

For Culture and Race, my opponent say, ""White" is not a cultural term, it is a complexion denoting an unscientific classification of race." However, just like "Asian" and "Mexican" it is actually both. "White" can refer to either a culture or a race, it is not just limited to race.

The last point is Independence. Where my opponent says the acceptance of immigrants who adapt to the new culture is in stark contrast to the opening definition. But if we look at the opening definition again, or if we look at the definition that my opponent and I agreed on in the PM before starting this debate, it does not go against either or them at all.

All in all, given the definitions that were first provided and agreed upon before the debate. It has only been shown that racism is very common in white nationalism, but it has also been shown that it is not an inherent to white nationalism. I'd like voters to remember that inherent =/= common or the majority.

Now I'm out of space, sorry if anything didn't get fully answered.

[1] http://www.stormfront.org...
[2] http://www.stormfront.org...
[3] http://www.stormfront.org...
[4] http://www.stormfront.org...
[5] http://www.kkk.com...
[6] http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com...
[7] http://i.imgur.com...
[8] http://www.whitenationalism.com...
[9] http://www.splcenter.org...
feverish

Con

I'd like to apologise to OreEle if he believes I've attempted to shift the goalposts regarding the definition of white nationalism. It's true that he presented a definition that seemed reasonable in PM. However obviously one can't just invent a definition without evidence. If I was to debate that apples = oranges, the fact that the consensus of definitions contradict this would mean I'd need some pretty strong evidence to support it.

Once again it was OreEle himself who provided the link to a definition of white nationalism that emphasised the requirement of an all white state, contrary to his interpretation. I think it was entirely reasonable of me to ask for some kind of evidence for his assertion. I did this in round 1 and the logical place for OreEle to provide it was round 2. Since he chose not to do so, that seemed to concede the issue that wanting an all white state was an inherent component of white nationalism.

It's also worth noting that the definitions discussed in PM were entirely different to the definitions OreEle posted in the debate anyway. For example, in PM he defined "inherently" as "naturally, at its roots" but when it came to the debate he presented the definition of "existing as an essential constituent or characteristic". Obviously the other definition would have been easier for me to argue, but since OreEle provided a solid reference for the definition he chose in round 1, I had no problem accepting it.

In this final round Pro has attempted to show some evidence for his claim, but on examination it makes a very poor job of supporting his argument. All the sources I reference here are those posted by OreEle this round.

As I noted previously, many racist individuals and organisations may try to present themselves as not racist while they promote an implicitly racist agenda. OreEle has not commented on the video of Nick Griffin coaching American white supremacists on "selling" fascism. The marketing blurb from Stormfront [1] saying they exist to counter anti-white prejudice establishes nothing, nor does having official rules against racial epithets [3].

A Stormfront member sums it up perfectly in OreEle's [3] "This site is for those of us who want to make a impact politically and take a serious professional approach to White Nationalism. However there is a time and a place for everything but that time isn't now and the place isn't Stormfront." In other words, the user will use racist slurs in private or in other settings but use alternative language to express their racist ideas on stormfront.

I don't know what the purpose of [2] is intended to be, it is a glossary of terms often used on Stormfront and while I can't see anything anti-racist about it, a few interesting points are worth noting from it.

Firstly it defines white nationalism as "The political doctrine demanding White only living space administrated solely by a White people only government" which contradicts OreEle's interpretation and supports the official definition given.

They also make it quite clear that some white people aren't white enough: "if the individual practices non-white culture/religion of any form, as a way of life/form of code/practice of procedure they have forfeit their claim to the title of White, and thus simply known as Non-White. These same individuals are known also as "Race traitors". This also forfeits their right to a place in a White people only nation that White Nationalists work towards."

All in all the Stormfront links clearly provide more evidence for my arguments than for those of my opponent.

I don't really see the significance of the fact that the KKK have recently toned down the violent aspects of their racist agenda, or that they claim to be defending white Christian people from perceived persecution. As OreEle's [6] points out this is historically a terrorist organisation that has somehow been allowed to continue existing and the fact that they no longer behead and lynch black people does not make them any less racist.

[8] is a link that while it denies that white nationalism is about superiority or inferiority, clearly confirms it as seeking an all white state (although Asian-Americans may be permitted). How can this not be racist? OreEle has still not provided any evidence of white nationalists who want racially inclusive white nations.

The definition of white nationalism provided by SPLC, [9] omits the detail of an all white state but does not contradict it. It specifically. It mentions "inferiority of non-whites" which is racism, and pointing out that some "use the language of academia" doesn't disqualify them from racism either.

___________

"White nationalism can support immigration restrictions"
that doesn't mean white nationalism = merely supporting immigration restrictions. That is a common feature of most conservative ideologies.

OreEle claims that by making certain portions of the US with "vast majority of a white population" into independent white nations "no attack on current individuals would be needed" So these areas really have no non-whites at all? No Jews even? This seems unlikely unless the nations really did just consist of individual houses, which clearly isn't the case.

"if jewish can count as "white" (which it doesn't in the sense of culture, but can in the sense of white race and jewish religion), than jewish nationalism can count as white nationalism."


Jewish doesn't "count as white" at all but some Jews are white. Jewish nationalism is Zionism focussed around Israel so it is very different from white nationalism which almost universally condemns Jews.

"The claim that they want, at their core, to live in a purely white nation is unfounded"


It's not unfounded, it is founded on reality and is confirmed by most of OreEle's own sources.

Culturism is not a word and culturalism does not mean what Pro implies. As I said before "white" is not a cultural term, it is a complexion denoting an unscientific classification of race.

"just like "Asian" and "Mexican" it is actually both. "White" can refer to either a culture or a race, it is not just limited to race."


The difference between terms like white and black and terms like Asian and Mexican should be obvious. Asia and Mexico are places, a continent and a nation respectively. European nationalism or American nationalism are not inherently racist but white nationalism is.

White and black are clearly racial terms that apply regardless of culture. Eminem is still white although he is immersed in a culture that is mostly associated with black people.

"my opponent says the acceptance of immigrants who adapt to the new culture is in stark contrast to the opening definition. But if we look at the opening definition again, or if we look at the definition that my opponent and I agreed on in the PM before starting this debate, it does not go against either or them at all."


The definition Pro posted in the debate was accompanied by a link, which clearly states "White nationalism is a political ideology which advocates a racial definition of national identity for white people, and a separate all-white nation state" http://www.google.co.uk... Pro used different definitions than those discussed in PM anyway.

I'd like to thank OreEle for the debate and I hope I've given him the opportunity to consider the inherent racism of nationalist movements that focus on racial differences. I'm pretty sure he's not a white nationalist himself but he seems to have got the idea that there is a cute, cuddly form of white nationalism out there. I think it's obvious that once you scratch the surface of such facades, the same familiar racist agenda lies beneath.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
There should be a way to report RFD's, those two vote bombs are absurd.
Posted by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
@OreEle: Thanks again for the debate man was interesting stuff and I wouldn't mind discussing these issues with you more, perhaps over PM. 8000 characters is often not enough for me too..

@Ximen: Yeah, I think it's disappointing that Aaron and Extremely voted according to their preconceptions rather than the debate itself too.

@Cliff: I know you contribute greatly to the site by voting on so many debates and your rfds always seem fair and reasonable. I'm slightly perturbed here though as you seem to think I should have accepted OreEle's contradictory interpretation of his linked definition without question. If a definition is entirely inconsistent, is it not reasonable to challenge it at the outset of the debate?
Posted by XimenBao 5 years ago
XimenBao
"I know white nationalists who aren't racists" seems a piss-poor RFD for deciding which person debated better regarding white nationalism.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Maybe 8,000 is too little.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
I should mention, that last sentence was a bit of a joke.
Posted by Extremely-Far-Right 5 years ago
Extremely-Far-Right
Lol, I have half expected the Con would be feverish.

:D
Posted by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
Easy mate, had a busy few days and i know you said you're not on much at weekends, so i'll accept this on monday.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
Ore_ElefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Dylan did not put an RFD even though it was required to vote.
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 5 years ago
DylanAsdale
Ore_ElefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by brokenboy 5 years ago
brokenboy
Ore_ElefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: if it was not racism then they would be fine with interacial countries or being the minority
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Ore_ElefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Given the OP and definition, the resolution is pretty much a tautology . If Con wanted to challenge the definition then that is another debate.
Vote Placed by Extremely-Far-Right 5 years ago
Extremely-Far-Right
Ore_ElefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Same reason for what Aaronroy said.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
Ore_ElefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Very close, but I'll give it to pro. I know a lot of guys who take pride in white nationalism, but they aren't racist by any means.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 5 years ago
XimenBao
Ore_ElefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The sources for the definitions of white nationalism used by pro in rounds 1 and 4 both support con's position, and con's round one nationalism definition of superiority combined with the racial adjective white was never successfully rebutted as the other defnitions of nationalism weren't applicable.