Kenneth Quinnell, writing at Open Source Politics, is considering white identity. An impetus for the entry is Joe Taylor's naive (I'm being generous) attack on Earl Dunovant for saying he is proud of his African-American ancestry recently. Quinnell sees much of what Taylor is blind to.
Most commonly, it's conservative white guys who don't get it, but from time to time, even liberal white guys, like Joe Taylor don't get it. They can't understand how it is that non-white male groups are allowed to organize and express their pride and it is considered to be acceptable while at the same time it is not considered to be acceptable for white men to do the same. The answer, of course, revolves around the idea of racial identity and the reality of who has power and who does not.
There is no legitimate "white identity" in the United States. Whites are the majority and always have been. Whites are in control of most, if not all, of the power centers in the U.S. and always have been. Beyond that, though, white in America have little in common. The group is diverse in ethnicity, religion, national origin, ideology, etc., much moreso than other groups. One might argue that the same could be said of African-Americans, for instance, but the argument would fail. The key reason, of course, is common experience, or, in the case of white males, the lack of common experience. White males do not have a common past — they didn't live through slavery, Jim Crowe, patriarchal oppression, homophobia, etc. Beyond that, white males have no common interest. What is the common interest between Ralph Nader and George W. Bush? One might maintain that the common interest is to maintain control and power, but there are many, many white males who do not have control or power and are subject to the whims of the same white male power structure that everyone else is subject to.
As readers of Silver Rights know, I have been following the neo-Confederate movement for years. I first encountered it as a reporter in the South. 'Jack,' a colleague, became inebriated, not an unusual state for him, at a keg party after work one Friday. He ranted about how he deserved respect as a full-blooded white man descended from Southern aristocrats, including a Confederate general or two. The tirade ended with him throwing a chair at me, the sole non-white journalist at the paper. I dodged the chair. A friend, the only person willing to stand with me when I reported the incident to management, told me Jack was a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the local successor to the White Citizens Council. I've been collecting information about the neo-Confederate movement since. I believe history can shed light on the topic Quinnell is probing.







Article comments
1 - RJ Elliott
The tirade ended with him throwing a chair at me, the soul non-white journalist at the paper.
I think you mean "sole" here, but the irony is delicious... ;-P
2 - RJ Elliott
"In fact, soume states, including Virgina"
That would be "some" and "Virginia"...
3 - Mac Diva
A couple of typos that can easily be fixed.
However, Blogcritics' publication of 'entries' that consist of nothing but material stolen from the press with RJ Elliott's name attached to them, a pattern, is the kind of illegality that could get the site succesfully sued. There is no fair use defense because the misuse is the only use.
And, how about those 'impressive' one-line blog entries?
4 - bhw
Oh, come on, MD.
"Virgina" is a funny typo!
5 - bhw
I think we can add it to the dictionary as a new word blend of "virgin" and "vagina." So, women who haven't had sex can refer to their hoo-hoos as virginas.
6 - JR
Virgina is for lovers.
7 - bhw
Or maybe it's not....
8 - Harald
Those copy-paste entries look really funny under that 'superior bloggers' line.
9 - Mac Diva
(Scratching head.) Do you know a better way to cite material being discussed, Harald?