The Double Standard Regarding In-Group Preferences
In American politics there has for a long time been a part of everyday life that black Americans have their own representative in different settings and situations. Martin Luther King is perhaps the best example of what many think of as a good representative for Afro-Americans. On the other hand, Louis Farrakhan might be seen as the an example of a bad representative.
What is worth noticing is that there are ways of advocating for black interests in what is seen as a good way and what is seen as a bad way. Both options are seen as possible. Just as when one is representing a sports team, one can do a good figure or a bad figure.
If we look at other groups such as Latin-Americans or Native-Americans we can see the same pattern. If we can not remember the names of a representative for those groups we can at least easily conceive that there can be a good way of advocating for both of those groups interest as well as a bad way of doing it.
So why would I go to such a length to explain that representing a group or advocating for its interest can be done in both a good and bad way?
The reason is that when it comes to the group whites, Europeans etc. there is no way one can advocate for that group in a way that society at large would consider it to be positive. Every other group can have good and bad representatives and society would recognize it.
Even when it comes to Islam and despite all the terror attacks the media and others are very careful to point out that there is a difference between the good representatives and the bad ones. And they are careful to point that out and not to mix it up.
But for whites there is no way to do it in a way that is seen as good.
Is the word “white” triggering?
From time to time I hear people say that the word white should not be used because it is triggering or gives off a negative association.
While that can be true, I think what the left is considering to be triggering is not a word but an idea. That idea is the idea of a “white man with an in-group preference”.
A year or so ago in Norway, one member of the government party made a suggestion to have a policy to maintain the number of ethnic Norwegians (meaning white Norwegians). This caused an outrage and his suggestion was compared to old “race policies” from the 1930s. He did not use the word white, but he was a white person advocating for his groups interests. And his group meant other white people.
Our society seems to not have a framework for viewing a white person advocating for some kind of white interest in a positive light.
Research papers and the like
When researchers are going to classify organizations, individuals, webpages and so on, they will be operating under the confusion described above. How are they for example going to describe an organization such as Generation Identity? Well, since there is no positive way to describe it the organization will be put in the same racist or fascist category and put somewhere on that scale.
The scale that often is used seems to have nazism as a point of reference and comparison. And whatever similarities the researchers claim to find, one will be close or not so close to the point of reference. However, if your organization is compared to nazism or fascism it is kind of impossible to come out of that in a good way.
Categorizing Muslims on a scale
What impression could one easily create if one chose to use the same method to categorize Muslims?
Just as it is impossible to represent whites in a positive way let us assume we had the same standard for Muslims. Researchers could start with that assumption and go on creating the point of reference to be Al-Qaida and ISIS. Perhaps they also could blend in the Ottomans earlier invasions of Europe just to get some historical context.
That could then be a point of reference and a ground for comparison. All the mosques and Muslim organizations would then be put on a scale relative to ISIS and Al-Qaida and compared with that.
During interviews or general research one could look for similarities. For example:
Researcher: Okay, I see. Your organization do not agree with the violence of ISIS to promote Islam. You rather use conversion to spread the word. But if you want to convert people would you not like everyone in Europe to convert and thus creating a Muslim Europe?
If the person answer yes, then the researcher could make a conclusion. ISIS want to use violence to take over Europe and this person wants to use peaceful means. So this individual agrees with the goal of ISIS and the Ottomans but disagrees with the method at hand. The researcher could also include that both this individual and ISIS get a lot of inspiration from the Quran.
If you happen to be a Muslim and the point of reference is Al-Queda and you are compared to that, it is hard to come out of that in a good way.
Research on immigration sceptics
If the point of reference is nazism and fascism, or a self declared neo-nazi group, then the tone and the mental framework of the paper is set. And if one cannot imagine that a white person advocating for his nation can be a good thing, the framework of the paper is even more restricted.
I assume most people reading this know that a white person advocating for his nation can be a good guy. However, if this is not the case try to imagine what that would look like.
If it can be done for other groups, what is stopping you from seeing the potential for the group “whites” or “Europeans”?