Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo
That's because it usually IS racists who rally under the all inclusive banner of "white heritage". If you were to ask most non racist white people what they thought their heritage as being, most would probably list a specific European country, or even a number of different European countries as being their cultural heritage. This is a much more plausible way to address white Heritage than to act like it was all inclusive. Does it really make sense for someone from a Greek family to act like they share the cultural heritage of someone from Germany?
It doesn't make all that much sense to talk about unified white heritage. Any sort of unified identity that developed in America wasn't based on whiteness, but rather being American, unless you happen to be trying to use it as a way to distinguish white people from people of other races. That's the reason many people find it suspect.
That's a pretty weak justification compared to African Americans, who can make a more plausible claim to having a unified cultural heritage. Even though their ancestors came from all over Africa, they ALL got indiscriminately tossed into slave ships and sent to America. Where as White immigrants got to form ethnic neighborhoods to retain their ethnic identity, African slaves all got jumbled together into the same social category of dark skinned slave. It's why most African American's identify as black, as opposed to a specific region in Africa.
|
This, pretty much.
"white identity" reeks of racial motivations, while similar black organization can be an African heritage identity. I mean, really, culturally and historically, white nations don't exactly identify each other as one common root or identity.
