Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 11/20/2025 6:12:42 PM PST by Angelino97
Is it wrong for white Christian men to have a sense of identity?
Ben Shapiro seems to think so. During a recent interview with Dana Loesch, the Daily Wire host lamented the rise in white identity among young conservatives. “I think we can start with what’s driving this in the first place,” Shapiro said. “For a decade or more, there was an attempt by the left to target Christian white men.”
Continuing, he explained:
"In saying that over and over and over, they started to create a feeling in a lot of young white men, that as a targeted group, they actually were an identity group of their own, and that now as an identity group of their own, they must rise up and lay low anyone who is not a member of that group."
Shapiro’s two assertions are correct: the left promulgates anti-white identity politics, and many younger conservatives have developed a sense of white identity in response to it.
But his read of the situation is simplistic. White people can have a positive sense of identity without needing to “rise up and lay low” people from other backgrounds.
It is reasonable not only for white conservatives but also for conservatives of any racial background to object to demographic change, race preferences, and the demonization of European contributions to world civilization. One could certainly oppose these things on colorblind grounds, as conservative activist Chris Rufo has done, since it appears to be the most effective way to build a broad coalition capable of winning elections and changing laws.
But just as Asians may oppose woke policies on the grounds that they feel personally targeted, so, too, do many white people oppose them because they feel targeted. It is entirely reasonable to oppose a policy that directly targets you because of your race, while supporting a colorblind approach to undoing those policies.
In other words, it would be entirely sensible for a white American to object to becoming a minority in a country where discrimination against and demonization of whites is not only legal but widely celebrated. I fail to see why a self-respecting person of any race would support such discriminatory treatment of their own group. Does this qualify as white identity politics?
Clearly, it would be a grievous mistake to look at our current situation and conclude that the solution is to hate all non-white people, expel all blacks from America, advocate for violence, or become as loud and annoying about one’s white identity as the woke activists are about theirs. Those who espouse this hardline white identity politics are often crude and disagreeable, and I’m convinced most on the right who categorically reject any form of white identity are responding to them.
Yet those who seek to quash any sense of white self-identification among younger generations misunderstand the phenomenon and are doomed to fail. Life experiences for young Americans differ dramatically from those of their elders.
For one thing, many young white people grew up in raucous minority-majority schools, where to be white may be to stick out like a sore thumb. Spend a little time on X and you are bound to see videos of black mob violence against white teenagers in high schools across the country. It doesn’t help that in class these students are taught to feel ashamed of their ancestors’ real or perceived sins, a narrative that is also promoted by political elites, entertainers, and the mainstream media.
It’s a sorry situation. But one thing’s clear: telling young white Americans that these problems don’t exist is the surest way to lose credibility in their eyes.
Like it or not, many young white people are being forced to confront the realities of race. To ensure they avoid overreacting, it is important to eschew the finger-wagging and moral denunciations that brought us here.
Those who point to antiwhite discrimination are now so accustomed to scolding that they’ve become immune to it. Instead, what is needed is to calmly and rationally acknowledge the injustice they see while explaining why things shouldn’t be taken too far.
What does such an explanation look like?
In the first place, it’s important to stress that hardline white identity politics is a dead end for the right. If ending anti-white racism and mass immigration are the goals, then the right must build a coalition capable of winning elections and changing laws.
Appealing only to white people is unlikely to make that happen. In fact, Trump campaigned on mass deportations and opposition to anti-white DEI policies, yet he won by increasing his share of minority voters at the same time he supported these policies. Had he adopted a hard white identity politics approach, not only would he have alienated non-white voters, but he also would have alienated many whites.
Second, hardline white identity politics doesn’t offer a path to individual or national flourishing. Look at the white nationalist movement to see what happens to those who subscribe to and get caught up in this ideology. It always ends badly. They find themselves cut off from polite society—not only because of the risk of doxing, but also because the demand for an ever-ratcheting ideological purity puts one at odds with most people, even white conservatives, who do not share their views.
It is perhaps no surprise that when one looks at the numerous high-profile white nationalists who have disavowed the movement—from Derek Black to Jeff Schoep—one notes how easily, once leaving, they became leftists. If this kind of intellectual instability isn’t a wise idea at the individual level, it certainly isn’t going to be at the national level.
The third and last reason is that the form of white identity advocated by hardline proponents is not, as they assert, historically accurate. It’s true that white identity has played a role in American history. British colonists recognized themselves as distinct from Indians and black slaves and understood that those racial differences were greater than whatever ethnic and religious divides separated them from other Europeans.
But modern proponents of hardline white identity politics, who reduce everything to race, ignore the realities of ethnicity, culture, and religion. Putting your racial identity above all else is a sign of deracination, not a return to tradition.
Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that race is an inconsequential factor in society. We can support racially neutral laws while at the same time opposing the third-world demographic transformation of the West.
Recognizing and celebrating the unique achievements of Europeans need not entail supremacism. We can acknowledge that group differences exist without resorting to hatred. And there’s simply no reason why white Christian men should be uniquely denied a sense of identity.
Some, like Ben Shapiro, might disagree on that last point. But the onus is ultimately on them to demonstrate that their position is not rooted in an anti-white double standard.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
If you try pulling the “White European Christian” tagline in Russia or Ukraine...or even speaking Russian instead of Ukrainian in parts of Ukraine right now or vice versa - it won’t be pretty.
French people are not the same as Germans,
Irish do not wish to be lumped with Scots or Brits.
Albanians are not Serbs. And the list goes on.
So instead of “White European Christian” just say “white-skinned American born” to be specific. It wasn’t that long ago that even being Catholic barred you from most elite echelons of US society.
Preach it!
A97: That can't happen until all races, ethnicities and religions put America First.
Actually it can. It doesn't matter if EFVERYONE agrees with it. I can and will embrace my identity as an American regardless of others doing it or not because that identity still exists in many places.
In any group you have subgroups that compete.
Those groups you mention, today they all call themselves whites, and therefore the war against whites includes all of them.
It doesn’t matter if you’re Irish, English, French, italian, Russian, etc. They all fall under the group, “white”, and they have common interests that they must defend and promote or else as a group they’ll be made second and third class citizens.
Even if you were to be fluent in German or French or Finnish, Serbian, or what have you -— the natives of those respective countries would NEVER see you as their own. Swedes and Danes don’t just “blend.” And of course Ukrainians and Russians are at war.
In terms of US culture: there’s very little cross-over. Sure those countries have fast food and other globalized things like Hollywood movies as frames of reference — but there are next to no Walmarts, and other fixtures of American life for example. And a lot of the music like Jazz & Blues they credit to black American culture.
They don’t sing Star Spangled Banner, or Pledge Allegiance to American flag. And of course all their recent World War lore is varied...though there is shared strings with certain allies.
All this to say, “white” is not some globally agreed upon shared identity. So better to just say “white-skinned American born.”
1. So what? Some whites identify as white, some don't. Everyone can identify as they wish. It's not "wrong" to identify as white even if not all whites do.
2. "White" as an identify doesn't necessarily refer to melanin.
3. As anti-white discrimination increases, I expect more whites, even in Europe, will identify as white. At least it will form a part of their identity. When you're attacked for the same reason, you begin to feel a sense of camaraderie.
Good luck telling them that and getting them to sing your national anthem while you’re at it.
CP: So instead of “White European Christian” just say “white-skinned American born” to be specific. It wasn’t that long ago that even being Catholic barred you from most elite echelons of US society.
Which has NOTHING to do with the point aquila48 was making. Besides, Catholics should be the last ones to gripe about being excluded from stuff considering Catholic church history.
aquila48 is correct. White European Christians are responsible for a large part of the culture we have today. All that didn't just come into existence when the US was established.
Matter of fact, without that White European Christian foundation established through hundreds of years, the USA would not exist as the concepts that enabled this country to be founded on are the fruit of that thinking and culture that so many people now despise.
You’re projecting your sense of an American existence onto countries with histories, cultures, languages, and rivalries that stretch millennia.
America is about to turn 250 - a mere infant by in comparison.
And those countries are not based around Constitutions or Declarations of Independence. Those countries ARE ethnocentric. Immigrants can’t just take an oath and be seen as “one of them.”
And depending on colonial and other dynamics...of course there are African-French, African-Brits, etc...but even with the trade(s), they didn’t have the same pronounced North/South context as here...so even their racial dynamics don’t translate exactly the same.
The migrant crisis is not making people question their sense of French or German or Italian identities — it’s purely territorial.
What does the national anthem have to do with what we’re talking about?
Race identity goes well beyond national borders. It doesn’t matter what nationality they are, for those who hate whites they’re all the same.
Same with Nigerians, or Ugandans, or Liberians, etc - they’re all seen as blacks, even though they might speak a different language and don’t especially like each other.
Nigeria alone probably has hundreds of languages and tribes that are at each other’s throat.
- Well firstly, if the person of Jesus were to come speaking his native Aramaic, it’d be interesting to know how some here would react.
- Secondly if the issue is... that, so long as black women can go on and on obsessing about race, then white people should too...then do so. Stoop down to that woke level but in reverse.
- It’s ignorant to lump all Europeans together. Not only is Europe made up of multitude of cultures, histories, languages — but altogether: they don’t sing your anthem, they don’t wave your flag, and they don’t shop at Walmart.
- And many most certainly won’t join you in YOUR version of church.
While It’s true that contemporary American-Evangelical styles of worship have become trendy in some places, you’re dealing with cultures of Christians who are following thousand plus year old traditions, in thousand plus year old buildings, with thousand plus year old hymns and chants and devotions to boot...
I’m saying that...Ukrainians currently fighting with Russia, are not going to buy into some “pan-white” identity based melanin levels. Saying “Kyiv vs. Kiev” can be a matter of life or death. Do you realize that?
Repeating here but: Germans are not French. Irish are not Brits. Finns are not Danes...Greeks are not Serbs, or Italian. Spaniards and Portuguese border each other but ARE NOT “united” racially or otherwise from THEIR perspective...That’s not how THEY view identity.
Just go to South America and see how distinct Brazilians are from Argentineans etc...They value those differences.
Brazil is more like the US in terms of its melting pot makeup however...so I suppose there you will find that “white (Portuguese) leaning looking Brazilians” vs. “mixed with Native” vs. “Afro-Brazilians” etc...And yet it’s the country that produces the most Supermodels. Maybe God is onto something with mixture...
based on*
Nobody is trying to "get them" to do anything. They'll do as they please.
In time, they might see themselves as white. If not, then not. If yes, then yes.
It's all good, either way.
The point is, if whites want to identify as white, it's okay. It's not racist. It's not evil. It's okay.
Oh noes.. now it’s limited to pizza, baklava and macarons... no croissant, because it’s associated with victory over Muslims...
Catholics aren't griping about anything.
Some people merely want to cause division among white Christians by raising a non-issue.
I'm not projecting anything.
As I keep saying, Europeans are free to identify however they please.
As anti-white violence increases, I think Europeans will feel a greater sense of camaraderie with fellow whites. But either way, it's up to them. And it's all good, whatever they decide.
I think people will react just fine.
Although in Acts 2, everyone heard God's message in their own language.
I disagree with Shapiro that that means "laying low" everybody else. Loving your own does not imply hating others. Of course, Shapiro doesn't hesitate to identify with his group (ie Jews) and advocate for their interests. Well Ben, kindly afford us the same right you freely exercise for your group and which everybody else exercises for theirs.
As a teenage rock and roller I wanted to live like a rock star. Your best friends were your band, all caught up in the same post-Vietnam funk, but we were just being good little fans; buying up the albums & tapes, concert tickets, stereo systems, cars, T-shirts & posters, weed & “chemicals”, getting laid, etc. We weren’t old enough to have served in that war and we still didn’t know much about how it all got started, but we had been watching from an early age what was happening over there and here at home. I don’t think we ever thought about what identity we should have other than just being a part of that scene.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.