Is This Racist?

[Asclepias]

You n*****rs are all the same.

We just keep on taking your women. I understand the anger.

I don't get mad if some white trash lowers herself to your level.

All the white women I know felt like they were elevated by being with me. Matter of fact every single white women I had a serious relationship with asked me to marry them. The others I just had booty calls with had white boyfriends and husbands. They felt honored to be having sex with me.

So you claim. Now prove it.

don't take the carp bait

ps the poster you are responding to is likely posting from the pen. That is the impression I'm getting

I tend to overwhelm you cave chimps. Its easy to see why you think I am more than one person.

 

[Asclepias]

We just keep on taking your women. I understand the anger.

I don't get mad if some white trash lowers herself to your level.

All the white women I know felt like they were elevated by being with me. Matter of fact every single white women I had a serious relationship with asked me to marry them. The others I just had booty calls with had white boyfriends and husbands. They felt honored to be having sex with me.

So you claim. Now prove it.

Prove what and to who? I dont prove things to white cave chimps. I dont care if they believe me or not. That goes double for cave chimps like you that cant keep their women happy. When you have white girls hunting you down like you are a movie star or something you pretty much know they are telling the truth about little white guys like you.

Your claim about white women thinking so highly of you. No proof, nothing more than an arrogant black boy with wishful thinking.

I wouldnt lower myself to providing you proof. I was just informing you of something you already know little dick

 

[Asclepias]

They're still white trash if they lowered themselves to a black BOY.

You Stormfronters are all the same. Small brains, limited vocabulary of just a few words, mostly childish racial slurs, and likely a little tiny hermit that some woman made fun of.

The worst of the worst of your demographic....

You n*****rs are all the same.

You'd be too much of a pussy to say that to someones face.

Time, date, and location.

What a pussy! Now you are threatening women? Safe on the internet is where you should stay.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Be careful Carla_Danger ...

You're hurt their feelings and one of these big, brave computer cuh-boys just might throw their mouse at you.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Be careful Carla_Danger ...

You're hurt their feelings and one of these big, brave computer cuh-boys just might throw their mouse at you.

I'm shaking in my shoes!

 

[Pogo]

If you're proud of your heritage, you're not racist. If you're proud of your race, you're not racist (weird, but not racist). If you're ethnocentric, you're not racist (just narrow-minded). If you're all of those and think a race or races other than yours are inferior and should be treated in a manner that is less respectful, less dignified, unequally or unfairly, then you're a racist.

This sign, without context, is not racist. Knowing the context, that the KKK is behind it, makes it racist.

This post makes perfect sense and is absolutely accurate.... up until the last line, which conclusion is absurd.

 

[Mertex]

Why are some people racist?

​

• People are racist because they are taught to be.

• Many children are brought up racist by ancestors and they know no other way. Some are just plain ignorant. All racists are not happy unless they have someone or some thing to hate, we should pity them because that's all they have in life.

• Actually some scientists suggest racism is a natural reaction that stems from when we are cavemen. If we compete naturally with people that aren't a part of our "clan" we can ensure more resources for ourselves and our offspring. We distinguish those that aren't in our "clan" by their appearance. One can argue that as humans we are naturally biased against anyone that does not look like us or our children, this tendency just tends to manifest itself more dramatically with skin color.

 

[Mertex]

Why am I not surprised the majority of "no" votes come from Republican/conservatives?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

If you're proud of your heritage, you're not racist. If you're proud of your race, you're not racist (weird, but not racist). If you're ethnocentric, you're not racist (just narrow-minded). If you're all of those and think a race or races other than yours are inferior and should be treated in a manner that is less respectful, less dignified, unequally or unfairly, then you're a racist.

This sign, without context, is not racist. Knowing the context, that the KKK is behind it, makes it racist.

This post makes perfect sense and is absolutely accurate.... up until the last line, which conclusion is absurd.

So the KKK isn't a racist organization?

 

[Taz]

Because black people STILL have a chip on their nt whites.

Maybe SOME do. Just as SOME white people have towards black people.

White folks barely notice blacks. Blacks are still pissed off about slavery.

ROFLMAO!
"White folks barely notice blacks"? About 90% of the posts in this forum are posted by white folks about blacks. And many of the them repeat the same old tired messages, about slavery, Al Sharpton...........etc, etc, etc.

In the sense that to me, black issues are pretty irrelevant, I see them on TV, but I don't really care whether you all want to stay ignorant and fucked up. Other races and peoples have done well for themselves, it's just blacks IN GENERAL are a messed up culture with screwed up values. I notice it like I notice a cartoon, I laugh and move on.

Tell that to someone who has not been around enough to recognize a duck when they see one. You are part of an uneducated, semi-literate group of individuals here who have accomplished very little personally, therefore you think in collective and monolithic racial terms, because you are not capable of any other way of thinking.

Most individuals of just average intelligence or better, minimize spending any wasted energy on issues that are "irrelevant" to them, and certainly would not be.the least bit of concern over an irrelevant group of any kind having a "chip on their shoulder" towards them.

It was a bit of curiosity, like, are blacks really such ignorant, backwards people? And hearing you guys talk just re-inforces that. I'm a little surprised actually. I was expecting at least some normal blacks who didn't still have the slavery chip (and other stereotypes) on their shoulder. You know what? Slavery didn't happen to you, so get over it already.

 

[Pogo]

If you're proud of your heritage, you're not racist. If you're proud of your race, you're not racist (weird, but not racist). If you're ethnocentric, you're not racist (just narrow-minded). If you're all of those and think a race or races other than yours are inferior and should be treated in a manner that is less respectful, less dignified, unequally or unfairly, then you're a racist.

This sign, without context, is not racist. Knowing the context, that the KKK is behind it, makes it racist.

This post makes perfect sense and is absolutely accurate.... up until the last line, which conclusion is absurd.

So the KKK isn't a racist organization?

I don't see anything about the KKK on the billboard. If it wasn't in the thread I'd never know (and I'm not sure I saw a source). Of course the KKK is a racist org. That isn't the question.

If an organisation is racist and gives a weather report, does that make the weather report "racist"? If an organisation is religious, does that make what comes down "religious rain"?

Run this test: what if you find out tomorrow that you were mistaken and the KKK didn't buy the billboard and some heretofore unknown entity did --- does it somehow become "not racist" even thought it still says exactly the same thing?

What you have here is a Poison the Well fallacy; you've misused the term "context". Context is simply what the billboard reads; it doesn't extend to "who paid for it", let alone "what their reasoning might have been when they bought it". The organisation may be racist; their motive behind it may even be racist. But they know by now they can't get away with overt racism to the general public, so they dance around it; instead of referring to blacks (or Jews or Catholics etc) they take the reverse approach and address whites. Another angle. Overt racism (probably) wouldn't be accepted by an advertising company anyway.

Strangely the top of your post already makes this point; stating a positive doesn't make for racism. For that you need to state a negative. What they have here may well be a lead-in to racism... but they've stopped short.

Test 2: you can make the point on this billboard without it necessarily being a setup for stating the negative about another race. In other words the negative conclusion is not inevitable.

 

[katsteve2012]

You Stormfronters are all the same. Small brains, limited vocabulary of just a few words, mostly childish racial slurs, and likely a little tiny hermit that some woman made fun of.

The worst of the worst of your demographic....

You n*****rs are all the same.

You'd be too much of a pussy to say that to someones face.

Time, date, and location.

None of you anonymous racist pussies talk like this IRL.

Time date and location. I've asked three times and you keep saying I won't. Seems you remain anonymous then blame it on me.

Frankly, you are a punk, to challenge a woman like that. You are likely some stupid, adolescent, jerk off who has been suspended from school, playing on your caretakers computer.

 

[katsteve2012]

Maybe SOME do. Just as SOME white people have towards black people.

White folks barely notice blacks. Blacks are still pissed off about slavery.

ROFLMAO!
"White folks barely notice blacks"? About 90% of the posts in this forum are posted by white folks about blacks. And many of the them repeat the same old tired messages, about slavery, Al Sharpton...........etc, etc, etc.

In the sense that to me, black issues are pretty irrelevant, I see them on TV, but I don't really care whether you all want to stay ignorant and fucked up. Other races and peoples have done well for themselves, it's just blacks IN GENERAL are a messed up culture with screwed up values. I notice it like I notice a cartoon, I laugh and move on.

Tell that to someone who has not been around enough to recognize a duck when they see one. You are part of an uneducated, semi-literate group of individuals here who have accomplished very little personally, therefore you think in collective and monolithic racial terms, because you are not capable of any other way of thinking.

Most individuals of just average intelligence or better, minimize spending any wasted energy on issues that are "irrelevant" to them, and certainly would not be.the least bit of concern over an irrelevant group of any kind having a "chip on their shoulder" towards them.

It was a bit of curiosity, like, are blacks really such ignorant, backwards people? And hearing you guys talk just re-inforces that. I'm a little surprised actually. I was expecting at least some normal blacks who didn't still have the slavery chip (and other stereotypes) on their shoulder. You know what? Slavery didn't happen to you, so get over it already.

Where did slavery get introduced into this thread? This started out about about the KKK, and you and your silly cartoon pals took it in a different direction.

All that I did was to accurately define you as part of illiterate, uneducated contingent of posters here, who all sound the same, which is your problem.

Not mine.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You n*****rs are all the same.

You'd be too much of a pussy to say that to someones face.

Time, date, and location.

None of you anonymous racist pussies talk like this IRL.

Time date and location. I've asked three times and you keep saying I won't. Seems you remain anonymous then blame it on me.

Frankly, you are a punk, to challenge a woman like that. You are likely some stupid, adolescent, jerk off who has been suspended from school, playing on your caretakers computer.

I could whip him with one hand tied behind my back. LOL!

 

[Carla_Danger]

If you're proud of your heritage, you're not racist. If you're proud of your race, you're not racist (weird, but not racist). If you're ethnocentric, you're not racist (just narrow-minded). If you're all of those and think a race or races other than yours are inferior and should be treated in a manner that is less respectful, less dignified, unequally or unfairly, then you're a racist.

This sign, without context, is not racist. Knowing the context, that the KKK is behind it, makes it racist.

This post makes perfect sense and is absolutely accurate.... up until the last line, which conclusion is absurd.

So the KKK isn't a racist organization?

I don't see anything about the KKK on the billboard. If it wasn't in the thread I'd never know (and I'm not sure I saw a source). Of course the KKK is a racist org. That isn't the question.

If an organisation is racist and gives a weather report, does that make the weather report "racist"? If an organisation is religious, does that make what comes down "religious rain"?

Run this test: what if you find out tomorrow that you were mistaken and the KKK didn't buy the billboard and some heretofore unknown entity did --- does it somehow become "not racist" even thought it still says exactly the same thing?

What you have here is a Poison the Well fallacy; you've misused the term "context". Context is simply what the billboard reads; it doesn't extend to "who paid for it", let alone "what their reasoning might have been when they bought it". The organisation may be racist; their motive behind it may even be racist. But they know by now they can't get away with overt racism to the general public, so they dance around it; instead of referring to blacks (or Jews or Catholics etc) they take the reverse approach and address whites. Another angle. Overt racism (probably) wouldn't be accepted by an advertising company anyway.

Strangely the top of your post already makes this point; stating a positive doesn't make for racism. For that you need to state a negative. What they have here may well be a lead-in to racism... but they've stopped short.

Test 2: you can make the point on this billboard without it necessarily being a setup for stating the negative about another race. In other words the negative conclusion is not inevitable.

Test 3: Anything that begins with "It isn't racist" or "I am not a racist....but" is prolly racist.

 

[Asclepias]

If you're proud of your heritage, you're not racist. If you're proud of your race, you're not racist (weird, but not racist). If you're ethnocentric, you're not racist (just narrow-minded). If you're all of those and think a race or races other than yours are inferior and should be treated in a manner that is less respectful, less dignified, unequally or unfairly, then you're a racist.

This sign, without context, is not racist. Knowing the context, that the KKK is behind it, makes it racist.

This post makes perfect sense and is absolutely accurate.... up until the last line, which conclusion is absurd.

So the KKK isn't a racist organization?

I don't see anything about the KKK on the billboard. If it wasn't in the thread I'd never know (and I'm not sure I saw a source). Of course the KKK is a racist org. That isn't the question.

If an organisation is racist and gives a weather report, does that make the weather report "racist"? If an organisation is religious, does that make what comes down "religious rain"?

Run this test: what if you find out tomorrow that you were mistaken and the KKK didn't buy the billboard and some heretofore unknown entity did --- does it somehow become "not racist" even thought it still says exactly the same thing?

What you have here is a Poison the Well fallacy; you've misused the term "context". Context is simply what the billboard reads; it doesn't extend to "who paid for it", let alone "what their reasoning might have been when they bought it". The organisation may be racist; their motive behind it may even be racist. But they know by now they can't get away with overt racism to the general public, so they dance around it; instead of referring to blacks (or Jews or Catholics etc) they take the reverse approach and address whites. Another angle. Overt racism (probably) wouldn't be accepted by an advertising company anyway.

Strangely the top of your post already makes this point; stating a positive doesn't make for racism. For that you need to state a negative. What they have here may well be a lead-in to racism... but they've stopped short.

Test 2: you can make the point on this billboard without it necessarily being a setup for stating the negative about another race. In other words the negative conclusion is not inevitable.

White pride is inherently a racist concept. A 14 yr old put it to me basically this way, "What have whites done other than start white supremacy"? I honestly couldnt give her an answer.

 

[Pogo]

If you're proud of your heritage, you're not racist. If you're proud of your race, you're not racist (weird, but not racist). If you're ethnocentric, you're not racist (just narrow-minded). If you're all of those and think a race or races other than yours are inferior and should be treated in a manner that is less respectful, less dignified, unequally or unfairly, then you're a racist.

This sign, without context, is not racist. Knowing the context, that the KKK is behind it, makes it racist.

This post makes perfect sense and is absolutely accurate.... up until the last line, which conclusion is absurd.

So the KKK isn't a racist organization?

I don't see anything about the KKK on the billboard. If it wasn't in the thread I'd never know (and I'm not sure I saw a source). Of course the KKK is a racist org. That isn't the question.

If an organisation is racist and gives a weather report, does that make the weather report "racist"? If an organisation is religious, does that make what comes down "religious rain"?

Run this test: what if you find out tomorrow that you were mistaken and the KKK didn't buy the billboard and some heretofore unknown entity did --- does it somehow become "not racist" even thought it still says exactly the same thing?

What you have here is a Poison the Well fallacy; you've misused the term "context". Context is simply what the billboard reads; it doesn't extend to "who paid for it", let alone "what their reasoning might have been when they bought it". The organisation may be racist; their motive behind it may even be racist. But they know by now they can't get away with overt racism to the general public, so they dance around it; instead of referring to blacks (or Jews or Catholics etc) they take the reverse approach and address whites. Another angle. Overt racism (probably) wouldn't be accepted by an advertising company anyway.

Strangely the top of your post already makes this point; stating a positive doesn't make for racism. For that you need to state a negative. What they have here may well be a lead-in to racism... but they've stopped short.

Test 2: you can make the point on this billboard without it necessarily being a setup for stating the negative about another race. In other words the negative conclusion is not inevitable.

White pride is inherently a racist concept. A 14 yr old put it to me basically this way, "What have whites done other than start white supremacy"? I honestly couldnt give her an answer.

No actually it isn't. No more than black pride is racist, no more than woman pride is sexist, no more than, say AARP is ageist. It may be a setup to racism/sexism/ageism -- any of them -- but until that step is taken we don't have racism.

When activists (rightly) stirred up the spirit of black pride and "black is beautiful" to empower and counter a legacy of denigration, was that "racist"? Hardly. Racism requires a negative comparison -- that race X is inferior to race Y. Absent that negative, racism isn't present.

A positive statement by definition cannot be racist. St. Patrick's Day, Italian Heritage Night at the ballpark, the Odunde Festival, these are simple celebrations of ethnic heritage. In themselves they aren't denigrating some other race or ethnicity, they're simply celebrating their own.

We've got wags running around here who seem to think the mere mention of a race equates to racism. It doesn't. One guy actually tried to tell me the demographic study that showed that the viewing audience of a TV channel is mostly white people was "racist". No conclusion as to its meaning, just the demographic all by itself. That's insane. We've gotta get a grip before our words have no meaning at all. We can't just throw them around like confetti; words have meanings.

 

[Asclepias]

If you're proud of your heritage, you're not racist. If you're proud of your race, you're not racist (weird, but not racist). If you're ethnocentric, you're not racist (just narrow-minded). If you're all of those and think a race or races other than yours are inferior and should be treated in a manner that is less respectful, less dignified, unequally or unfairly, then you're a racist.

This sign, without context, is not racist. Knowing the context, that the KKK is behind it, makes it racist.

This post makes perfect sense and is absolutely accurate.... up until the last line, which conclusion is absurd.

So the KKK isn't a racist organization?

I don't see anything about the KKK on the billboard. If it wasn't in the thread I'd never know (and I'm not sure I saw a source). Of course the KKK is a racist org. That isn't the question.

If an organisation is racist and gives a weather report, does that make the weather report "racist"? If an organisation is religious, does that make what comes down "religious rain"?

Run this test: what if you find out tomorrow that you were mistaken and the KKK didn't buy the billboard and some heretofore unknown entity did --- does it somehow become "not racist" even thought it still says exactly the same thing?

What you have here is a Poison the Well fallacy; you've misused the term "context". Context is simply what the billboard reads; it doesn't extend to "who paid for it", let alone "what their reasoning might have been when they bought it". The organisation may be racist; their motive behind it may even be racist. But they know by now they can't get away with overt racism to the general public, so they dance around it; instead of referring to blacks (or Jews or Catholics etc) they take the reverse approach and address whites. Another angle. Overt racism (probably) wouldn't be accepted by an advertising company anyway.

Strangely the top of your post already makes this point; stating a positive doesn't make for racism. For that you need to state a negative. What they have here may well be a lead-in to racism... but they've stopped short.

Test 2: you can make the point on this billboard without it necessarily being a setup for stating the negative about another race. In other words the negative conclusion is not inevitable.

White pride is inherently a racist concept. A 14 yr old put it to me basically this way, "What have whites done other than start white supremacy"? I honestly couldnt give her an answer.

No actually it isn't. No more than black pride is racist, no more than woman pride is sexist, no more than, say AARP is ageist. It may be a setup to racism/sexism/ageism -- any of them -- but until that step is taken we don't have racism.

When activists (rightly) stirred up the spirit of black pride and "black is beautiful" to empower and counter a legacy of denigration, was that "racist"? Hardly. Racism requires a negative comparison -- that race X is inferior to race Y. Absent that negative, racism isn't present.

We've got wags running around here who seem to think the mere mention of a race equates to racism. It doesn't. One guy actually tried to tell me the demographic study that showed that the viewing audience of a TV channel is mostly white people was "racist". No conclusion as to its meaning, just the demographic all by itself. That's insane. We've gotta get a grip before our words have no meaning at all. We can't just throw them around like confetti; words have meanings.

I disagree. Black people have overcome hardships directly attributed to being Black. Black people having pride in that ability to overcome and survive despite the odds is not racist. Whites having pride in stealing land/resources, slavery, and killing is rooted in the rationale of white supremacy which by definition is racist.

 

[Pogo]

This post makes perfect sense and is absolutely accurate.... up until the last line, which conclusion is absurd.

So the KKK isn't a racist organization?

I don't see anything about the KKK on the billboard. If it wasn't in the thread I'd never know (and I'm not sure I saw a source). Of course the KKK is a racist org. That isn't the question.

If an organisation is racist and gives a weather report, does that make the weather report "racist"? If an organisation is religious, does that make what comes down "religious rain"?

Run this test: what if you find out tomorrow that you were mistaken and the KKK didn't buy the billboard and some heretofore unknown entity did --- does it somehow become "not racist" even thought it still says exactly the same thing?

What you have here is a Poison the Well fallacy; you've misused the term "context". Context is simply what the billboard reads; it doesn't extend to "who paid for it", let alone "what their reasoning might have been when they bought it". The organisation may be racist; their motive behind it may even be racist. But they know by now they can't get away with overt racism to the general public, so they dance around it; instead of referring to blacks (or Jews or Catholics etc) they take the reverse approach and address whites. Another angle. Overt racism (probably) wouldn't be accepted by an advertising company anyway.

Strangely the top of your post already makes this point; stating a positive doesn't make for racism. For that you need to state a negative. What they have here may well be a lead-in to racism... but they've stopped short.

Test 2: you can make the point on this billboard without it necessarily being a setup for stating the negative about another race. In other words the negative conclusion is not inevitable.

White pride is inherently a racist concept. A 14 yr old put it to me basically this way, "What have whites done other than start white supremacy"? I honestly couldnt give her an answer.

No actually it isn't. No more than black pride is racist, no more than woman pride is sexist, no more than, say AARP is ageist. It may be a setup to racism/sexism/ageism -- any of them -- but until that step is taken we don't have racism.

When activists (rightly) stirred up the spirit of black pride and "black is beautiful" to empower and counter a legacy of denigration, was that "racist"? Hardly. Racism requires a negative comparison -- that race X is inferior to race Y. Absent that negative, racism isn't present.

We've got wags running around here who seem to think the mere mention of a race equates to racism. It doesn't. One guy actually tried to tell me the demographic study that showed that the viewing audience of a TV channel is mostly white people was "racist". No conclusion as to its meaning, just the demographic all by itself. That's insane. We've gotta get a grip before our words have no meaning at all. We can't just throw them around like confetti; words have meanings.

I disagree. Black people have overcome hardships directly attributed to being Black. Black people having pride in that ability to overcome and survive despite the odds is not racist. Whites having pride in stealing land/resources, slavery, and killing is rooted in the rationale of white supremacy which by definition is racist.

Then all you're citing is a relativity of history. But the statement itself says nothing racist. They're two different things. There's the definition of what it's saying, which is the question here, and there's your (or anyone's) opinion of how valid or meaningful it is ---- which is not the question.

And your last sentence is a strawman anyway.

 

[Asclepias]

So the KKK isn't a racist organization?

I don't see anything about the KKK on the billboard. If it wasn't in the thread I'd never know (and I'm not sure I saw a source). Of course the KKK is a racist org. That isn't the question.

If an organisation is racist and gives a weather report, does that make the weather report "racist"? If an organisation is religious, does that make what comes down "religious rain"?

Run this test: what if you find out tomorrow that you were mistaken and the KKK didn't buy the billboard and some heretofore unknown entity did --- does it somehow become "not racist" even thought it still says exactly the same thing?

What you have here is a Poison the Well fallacy; you've misused the term "context". Context is simply what the billboard reads; it doesn't extend to "who paid for it", let alone "what their reasoning might have been when they bought it". The organisation may be racist; their motive behind it may even be racist. But they know by now they can't get away with overt racism to the general public, so they dance around it; instead of referring to blacks (or Jews or Catholics etc) they take the reverse approach and address whites. Another angle. Overt racism (probably) wouldn't be accepted by an advertising company anyway.

Strangely the top of your post already makes this point; stating a positive doesn't make for racism. For that you need to state a negative. What they have here may well be a lead-in to racism... but they've stopped short.

Test 2: you can make the point on this billboard without it necessarily being a setup for stating the negative about another race. In other words the negative conclusion is not inevitable.

White pride is inherently a racist concept. A 14 yr old put it to me basically this way, "What have whites done other than start white supremacy"? I honestly couldnt give her an answer.

No actually it isn't. No more than black pride is racist, no more than woman pride is sexist, no more than, say AARP is ageist. It may be a setup to racism/sexism/ageism -- any of them -- but until that step is taken we don't have racism.

When activists (rightly) stirred up the spirit of black pride and "black is beautiful" to empower and counter a legacy of denigration, was that "racist"? Hardly. Racism requires a negative comparison -- that race X is inferior to race Y. Absent that negative, racism isn't present.

We've got wags running around here who seem to think the mere mention of a race equates to racism. It doesn't. One guy actually tried to tell me the demographic study that showed that the viewing audience of a TV channel is mostly white people was "racist". No conclusion as to its meaning, just the demographic all by itself. That's insane. We've gotta get a grip before our words have no meaning at all. We can't just throw them around like confetti; words have meanings.

I disagree. Black people have overcome hardships directly attributed to being Black. Black people having pride in that ability to overcome and survive despite the odds is not racist. Whites having pride in stealing land/resources, slavery, and killing is rooted in the rationale of white supremacy which by definition is racist.

Then all you're citing is a relativity of history. But the statement itself says nothing racist. They're two different things. There's the definition of what it's saying, which is the question here, and there's your (or anyone's) opinion of how valid or meaningful it is ---- which is not the question.

And your last sentence is a strawman anyway.

Its not just history. It still occurs to this day. The statement is inherently racist. The concept of "white pride" either needs to be reworded or dealt with for what it is. What does white pride mean if not something rooted in white supremacy? Can you define what it means?