Texas State Newspaper writer fired for racist column

[Straha]

All of those groups were pre-existing inside the state. They were already under jurisdiction to the France/the Netherlands/et al. and then had rights taken away from them that recognized the continuity of both the Government they were under and also recognized that there was a rupture that allowed for the violence to be committed on them. Put more simply: There was no conquest, they were already inside and subject to laws.

Violent as that is I think that's fundamentally different than the arrival of Colonists in the Americas where it was treated as if things had been discovered ex nihilo and where people were subject to control where they had never been subject before.

The expulsion of the Moors from Spain is, perhaps, the most telling here. Moorish rights in Aragon, for instance, were recognized for generations while laws were gradually changed to expel them. That process of recognition, legislation, and expulsion never happened in the Americas because it jumped straight to expulsion.

Then I think you really need to take the part about spanish colonialism out of this argument, because they recognized existing structures and existent nobility. For example, just look up the dukes of moctezuma.

Are we thinking of the same thing? Because it's been years since I studied the Conquest but the Dukes I remember came about a hundred years after the conquest.

[Thanas]

Are we thinking of the same thing? Because it's been years since I studied the Conquest but the Dukes I remember came about a hundred years after the conquest.

The elevation to Duke did, but the son of the dead Aztec emperor was already addressed as nobility and his son was elevated to Count, the grandson of his becoming Duke. There were also intermarriages between Incan nobility and Spanish nobility. While the spanish did not really respect property rights, they did not deny the right of nobility.

[Straha]

In my opinion, a faction can only go so far in the direction of postmodernism before it winds up at the Tower of Babel- unable to coordinate a large project because of mutually unintelligible subfactions.

There's a number of things that make this genuinely hilarious. No part of the discussion here has involved Postmodernism. (With the possible exception of Ziggy advocating for a permeable and productive vision of Whiteness.) Not. One. Thing.

Funnier still is that if you laid that accusation at Wilderson and his cadre they would find it risible. For most Afro-Pessimists, and most of the more ardent Critical Race Theorists, Postmodern is a epithet, at best. They are structuralists, not post-structuralists.

It's also breathtaking to me to see you discard an entire realm of thought as if it were nothing because you do not understand it.

he appears to be cheerfully presenting the opinion of someone else he disagrees with about important things as though it were his own, and cheerfully using those opinions

No, I agree with their analysis, which is what I'm defending here. Let me be blunt: Stylistic objections aside, I agree with everything in the article Rudy Martinez wrote. My objections mainly revolve around questions of scope that are external to this discussion.

I also believe that there have been, historically, small windows where there were chances at real change. Reconstruction offered that for a brief glimmering second. And I think that there were movements like the IWW that offered ways for White people to disavow Whiteness in favor of a mode of class consciousness that breached racial lines. It's why I'm a member of the IWW and why I'm sympathetic to the Afro-Futurist critiques of Wilderson. But, there's a reason why the AFL is still around while the IWW was lynched and I don't think those moments can come again or, at least, they're not likely to. Gun-to-my head if I had to put money down on the future I'd side with the Afro-Pessimists.

to justify yet other opinions that he himself has said are actively torpedoed by the use of a single solitary word within them ("DNA").

Pepsi-challenge: Where has that happened?

Like, not a semi-metaphorical postmodern construction of "race war" where the losing side has a bunch of people unfairly thrown in jail and has to live in the crappy neighborhoods and the police unjustly shoot several thousand people a year. The literal kind of war. where large, organized bodies of armed men round up people by the millions and evict them from the country at the point of the bayonet. The kind where, when predictable resistance to such events arises, blood runs in rivers in the streets.

I'm going to respond to you in full later, I just want to flag that the way you have this written comes across as you minimizing both the carceral state and police shootings of Black Men. At best it's jarring, at worst it's... Beneath you and probably should be, at the least, addressed and revised.

See, the reason I'm "minimizing" it is because while it is objectively terrible and should end literally as soon as possible, a real war of extermination or expulsion between large racial groups is something like 100 times worse.

Three things:

1. What you wrote comes across as offensive. You dismiss violence and deaths as semi-metaphorical in a tone which I hope you do not mean. It should be revised.

2. Everything you say in this section has been responded to, at some length, in my earlier posts. When you make real arguments against those points I will respond to them.

3. I realize I've made this argument before but I'm going to unpack one argument a little bit more here because you ignore and I want make it crystal clear: Claims for a better future through reform are a cruel optimism.

Explicit in your argument are two claims:
A. That progress can be made for Black people without upsetting civil order.
B. That there is a level of movement that can occur that will not trigger white backlash.

Historically neither of those things are true and the moderating rhetoric has been used against every successive push by Black leaders from Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington through Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall to the present day with groups like BLM.

Every major attempt at moderate reform received, and receives, significant backlash. Busing led to the closing of schools and mass protests that destroyed the movement to integrate schools, and our school system is not desegregated in any meaningful sense of the term. Affirmative Action, designed to deal with this, is incredibly unpopular with the majority of Americans and White Americans fight it tooth and nail. Housing desegregation led immediately to White Flight to suburbs and the abandonment of cities. This has had massive knock-on effects seen through how cities were destoryed once they became majority Black, see what happened to Flint and Detroit Michigan for how White people respond to living next to Black folk. Voting Rights have been the first to be targeted in any number of ingenious and destructive ways. And even Obama led to Trump. Reforms have always been at their core cosmetic and have always been tied with Whitelash that at best mitigates and usually undoes any progress that is made.

As long as that's true then every argument you make around this is irrelevant because there can be no progress as long Whiteness the concept lives.

so you can just post a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ emoji about the consequences and breeze past them.

I have posted the ever lovely ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ about two things. Your demand that we should give a passing thought about the consistency of a College Student's actions, and your critique of how I was using 'discussion' in a way you didn't like. To both of them: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

For everything else I have written quite a bit, you have blown past most of it to keep screaming "RACE WAR!" as if that is where the conversation begins and ends. Which is, funnily enough, the same tactic that has been used against successive Black leaders from Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington through Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall to the present day with groups like BLM.

[Straha]

Are we thinking of the same thing? Because it's been years since I studied the Conquest but the Dukes I remember came about a hundred years after the conquest.

The elevation to Duke did, but the son of the dead Aztec emperor was already addressed as nobility and his son was elevated to Count, the grandson of his becoming Duke. There were also intermarriages between Incan nobility and Spanish nobility. While the spanish did not really respect property rights, they did not deny the right of nobility.

That's a fair response. I think for purposes of the conversation writ large the question of respect for property and of the average Native person is what is important, which involved little to none and mass enslavement (only to be eventually undone in favor of African slavery) respectively. And I think instances of intermarriage don't disprove the systemic analysis being made from a larger perspective.

I would be interested in this conversation, but I don't think this disputes the larger point that's relevant to the thread.

Also, even if they did respect certain conventions with the Aztec, other Islands and nations did not receive anywhere near the same regard.

[Straha]

I don't know.

I don't mean that to duck the question. It's a fair question. I just don't know. I'm reminded of something Ursula Le Guin said: "We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings." I take heart in that.

I just feel like there's a difference between making an academic argument and translating that into an actual successful policy. I'm not sure if Ursula Le Guin's quote about the divine right of kings becoming rejected is a good example. The notion of a divine right is merely replaced by other ideologies that can be equally, if not more brutal.

Policies are very rarely a result of pure principle or morals. They are very much an accommodative process in trying to construct an environment where different groups can meet on some middle ground.

Re: Focusing on policies, I'll quote one of my favorite thinkers at length.

The glaring poverty of modern practical philosophy, which would really like to produce something sound, above all, a universally binding, rigorously grounded ethics, and cannot for the life of it manage to do so, is, however, nothing other than the poverty of subjective reason as such. The latter finds a foothold in itself only to the extent that it uninterruptedly pursues its activistic fury of "praxis." Modern reason knows itself to be tied to the back of the praxis tiger. As long as the latter runs its course in a predictable way, subjective reason remains in relative balance. But woe betide when it gets caught in one of its notorious crises and becomes frenzied due to resistances or profitable prey. Then it lets its praxis rider know that with ethical tranquilizers alone, a predatory animal of its dimensions cannot be brought under control. Practical philosophy that tries to be respectable thus develops against its will into a seminar for modern tiger management. There it is discussed whether it is possible to talk reasonably with the beast or whether it would be better if a few of the tendentially dispensable riders were sacrificed to the stubborn systemic brute. In these taming conversations of subjective reason with the praxis tiger, cynicism is inevitably in play, which, with the appeal to reason, lets it be known with a wink that it did not mean it so seriously. The superficial view of things, in addition, confirms this stance.

...

"[P]raxis," which we always held to be the most legitimate child of reason, in fact, represents the central myth of modernity. The demythologization of praxis that thereby falls due forces radical corrections in the self-understanding of practical philosophy. The latter must now become clear about the grave extent to which it had been taken in by the myth of activity and how blindly it had given itself over to its alliance with rational activism and constructivism. In this blinding, practical reason could not see that the highest concept of behavior is not "doing" but "letting things be," and that it achieves its utmost not by reconstructing the structures of our doing but by penetrating the relations between doing and desisting.

[Rogue 9]

For everything else I have written quite a bit, you have blown past most of it to keep screaming "RACE WAR!" as if that is where the conversation begins and ends. Which is, funnily enough, the same tactic that has been used against successive Black leaders from Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington through Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall to the present day with groups like BLM.

Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washingon, Dr. King, and Justice Marshall, and I dare say the vast majority of BLM, did not call and in the latter case are not calling for the expulsion of the majority ethnic group from North America. That is the problem with your argument. (The problem with the argument posited in the article referenced by the OP is even worse.) There is a vast gulf between the sort of incremental, moderate, and easily undone reform that Dr. King rightly decried and the mass scale ethnic cleansing that logically follows from the premise that white people shouldn't be on the fucking continent.

[Straha]

For everything else I have written quite a bit, you have blown past most of it to keep screaming "RACE WAR!" as if that is where the conversation begins and ends. Which is, funnily enough, the same tactic that has been used against successive Black leaders from Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington through Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall to the present day with groups like BLM.

Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washingon, Dr. King, and Justice Marshall, and I dare say the vast majority of BLM, did not call and in the latter case are not calling for the expulsion of the majority ethnic group from North America. That is the problem with your argument. (The problem with the argument posited in the article referenced by the OP is even worse.) There is a vast gulf between the sort of incremental, moderate, and easily undone reform that Dr. King rightly decried and the mass scale ethnic cleansing that logically follows from the premise that white people shouldn't be on the fucking continent.

Rogue, frankly, I don't think you understand either the article or my argument.

[Tribble]

@Straha

Well, if you believe that non-violent reform is practically impossible, then three things will likely happen:

Some will give up and accept the status quo

Some will continue to try and reform even though doing so is futile and/or

Some will eventually resort to violence to try and achieve their aims, although as it has been stated earlier said violence is unlikely to work since the majority by definition has the bulk of the power and weapons.

I for one am not that pessimistic, and I do have hope that things can be peacefully resolved without another civil war

[Kane Starkiller]

I'm going to respond to you in full later, I just want to flag that the way you have this written comes across as you minimizing both the carceral state and police shootings of Black Men. At best it's jarring, at worst it's... Beneath you and probably should be, at the least, addressed and revised.

I have never seen a convincing argument that blacks are being shot by the police disproportionately when compared to the percentage of violent crime they are involved in. They commit 50% of homicides while being something like 13% of the population. Isn't that inevitably going to lead to disproportionate interaction with the police which will then result in disproportionate shootings and consequently disproportionate unjustified shootings?

Every major attempt at moderate reform received, and receives, significant backlash. Busing led to the closing of schools and mass protests that destroyed the movement to integrate schools, and our school system is not desegregated in any meaningful sense of the term. Affirmative Action, designed to deal with this, is incredibly unpopular with the majority of Americans and White Americans fight it tooth and nail. Housing desegregation led immediately to White Flight to suburbs and the abandonment of cities. This has had massive knock-on effects seen through how cities were destoryed once they became majority Black, see what happened to Flint and Detroit Michigan for how White people respond to living next to Black folk. Voting Rights have been the first to be targeted in any number of ingenious and destructive ways. And even Obama led to Trump. Reforms have always been at their core cosmetic and have always been tied with Whitelash that at best mitigates and usually undoes any progress that is made.

Cities were destroyed once they were black majority? By whom? The remaining black citizens or outside forces?

[Straha]

Every major attempt at moderate reform received, and receives, significant backlash. Busing led to the closing of schools and mass protests that destroyed the movement to integrate schools, and our school system is not desegregated in any meaningful sense of the term. Affirmative Action, designed to deal with this, is incredibly unpopular with the majority of Americans and White Americans fight it tooth and nail. Housing desegregation led immediately to White Flight to suburbs and the abandonment of cities. This has had massive knock-on effects seen through how cities were destoryed once they became majority Black, see what happened to Flint and Detroit Michigan for how White people respond to living next to Black folk. Voting Rights have been the first to be targeted in any number of ingenious and destructive ways. And even Obama led to Trump. Reforms have always been at their core cosmetic and have always been tied with Whitelash that at best mitigates and usually undoes any progress that is made.

Cities were destroyed once they were black majority? By whom? The remaining black citizens or outside forces?

Being stuck with the bills to maintain cities that were designed to have far more citizens, and especially middle class citizens. White Flight led to collapsed housing values across urban areas meaning that property no longer offered a stable tax base, loss of businesses and jobs led to economic collapse and because of segregationist housing practices and a lack of capital Black people couldn't get out of the city.

Painting with broad strokes this meant that services necessary for the functioning of a city had to be cut which hurt people economically and thus hurt the city. Which led to vicious cycles that still haunt significant parts of the country.

[Rogue 9]

For everything else I have written quite a bit, you have blown past most of it to keep screaming "RACE WAR!" as if that is where the conversation begins and ends. Which is, funnily enough, the same tactic that has been used against successive Black leaders from Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington through Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall to the present day with groups like BLM.

Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washingon, Dr. King, and Justice Marshall, and I dare say the vast majority of BLM, did not call and in the latter case are not calling for the expulsion of the majority ethnic group from North America. That is the problem with your argument. (The problem with the argument posited in the article referenced by the OP is even worse.) There is a vast gulf between the sort of incremental, moderate, and easily undone reform that Dr. King rightly decried and the mass scale ethnic cleansing that logically follows from the premise that white people shouldn't be on the fucking continent.

Rogue, frankly, I don't think you understand either the article or my argument.

Oh? If white people shouldn't be on the continent, as you have repeatedly asserted, what is to be done about it apart from getting them off the continent?

[Simon_Jester]

Having trouble digging intelligible points out of the mass of noise, but...

The reason I keep using the words "race war" is because the philosophy Straha is espousing has two choices.

One is to be an exercise in meaningless disruptive grousing. Like Aesop's dog in the manger, it can't actually do anything worthwhile with the time, resources, and spaces it takes up, but it can intimidate and menace and harass anyone else who tries to use those spaces and resources and time. Given that among the prospective users of the spaces and resources are other members of the harmed minority communities, this is grossly stupid.

The other is, well... the abolition of "race peace." If the ongoing sporadic violence and policy neglect suffered by racial minorities 'proves' that there can never be a peaceful and equal relationship among the races, and if the majority race "shouldn't be here," what logical conclusion exists except to try and kill or expel the majority race by force? By definition, if there can be no race peace, there can only be race war. Again, by this I mean the real kind of war, the raw and terrible kind that kills millions, not thousands. And does so very deliberately as cold-blooded intentional slaughter, rather than as a callous side-effect of arrogant and exploitative policies.

So either Straha is wasting everyone's time and defending the right of others to do the same...

Or he's promoting an ideology that really does lead to race war, in a way that NO prominent, successful, and relevant civil rights activist in America has done.

[TheFeniX]

Having trouble digging intelligible points out of the mass of noise, but...

At the least, it's an interesting thought experiment. For me, that is.

If you go with the idea that natives are the only people with the right to the land they were historically on, you kind of jump off into into a water slide. Yes, African-Americans were mainly brought to the Americas against their will, but what right do they have to be here? Asians who immigrated over the centuries?

What does any of that mean to Native Americans? They don't owe any other race/culture anything. So, those races should go as well. Then you start into certain concepts of ownership. I recall more than a few North American natives didn't have the same concept of land ownership that white settlers did. So, any deals/trades made for said land weren't about ownership, but usage/sharing of the land. What about those areas of the massive continents the Natives didn't use? Or had abandoned for X years due to migration?

At what point does a human clan gain ownership? The Russians landed an unmanned ship on the moon. They own the thing? Or does the U.S. as the first manned landing? Do we/they own the whole thing? A set area?

Then you have to deal with the idea of about 3 million people, about the population of Houston, now having ownership of the entirety of North America. What are they going to do with it? Could they hold it? Would they want to essentially abandon access to 1st world luxuries rather than be accepted as equals by the other occupants rather than deal with the continuing racism their people face?

Because in a better world, I can see the later happening. Being able to celebrate your history while still dealing with the 21st century without people mocking and keeping you down for it.

[Kane Starkiller]

Being stuck with the bills to maintain cities that were designed to have far more citizens, and especially middle class citizens. White Flight led to collapsed housing values across urban areas meaning that property no longer offered a stable tax base, loss of businesses and jobs led to economic collapse and because of segregationist housing practices and a lack of capital Black people couldn't get out of the city.

Painting with broad strokes this meant that services necessary for the functioning of a city had to be cut which hurt people economically and thus hurt the city. Which led to vicious cycles that still haunt significant parts of the country.

Wait a second. Detroit was 80%-90% white up until 1950s. So Detroit and it's infrastructure was built and paid for primarily by white people and then when they started leaving it's not like they cut up the roads and taken the asphalt with them. They left all the infrastructure behind them and it was up to remaining citizens to rationalise its use to account for the declining population.

So the struggle against systemic white oppression is demanding police shooting parity with whites even as blacks commit disproportionate amount of crime and demanding that white people continue to take care of the infrastructure in cities they built but no longer live in?

[Simon_Jester]

What does any of that mean to Native Americans? They don't owe any other race/culture anything. So, those races should go as well. Then you start into certain concepts of ownership. I recall more than a few North American natives didn't have the same concept of land ownership that white settlers did. So, any deals/trades made for said land weren't about ownership, but usage/sharing of the land. What about those areas of the massive continents the Natives didn't use? Or had abandoned for X years due to migration?

These questions aren't as good as the rest of the piece. Basically, in 1491, North America had long since reached carrying capacity for Neolithic societies. The parts that "weren't being used" were generally the most undesirable land, and even there you'd find nomads trying to scrape out a living.

It was the massive outbreaks of European diseases that depopulated the continent and created large areas of 'wasteland' that were not actively being used. European settlers thought they were discovering terra nullius, but in truth they were walking into a post-apocalyptic wasteland and mistaking it for new land.

[loomer]

Not Straha, but isn't the general takeaway not 'kill all white people'/'mass exodus anyone who doesn't meet the reverse paper bag test' but rather 'Whiteness is the problem, White people have no place here; therefore we must eliminate the concept of Whiteness and its influence (not white people themselves)'?

Not taking a specific stance on it since I feel it's a largely unhelpful and divisive metric (then again, I'm pretty goddamn White so that might be expected), but that's my understanding of what's usually the (poorly worded) actual intention of that stance.

[Alferd Packer]

Not Straha, but isn't the general takeaway not 'kill all white people'/'mass exodus anyone who doesn't meet the reverse paper bag test' but rather 'Whiteness is the problem, White people have no place here; therefore we must eliminate the concept of Whiteness and its influence (not white people themselves)'?

Yeah, that's what I thought, as well. Whiteness needs to die an ontological death, wherein the culture we white people have created must be destroyed, so that it can be replaced with something better that doesn't result in systemic abuse, murder, and disenfranchisement of ethnic minorities. But beyond advocating that White people admit to and agree with the above, no one has really advocated a particular course that leads us to any sort of solution, or gives us an idea of what possible culture replaces Whiteness. I wonder if there are any extant nations whose majority/minority relationship can be used to offer even an idea of a practical implementation of "post-Whiteness" culture.

[Kane Starkiller]

Well it would be nice if someone could actually produce a shred of evidence that white people in modern US are systematically abusing, murdering and disenfranchising ethnic minorities.

[Alkaloid]

It is interesting that you bring up Antifa, because they are a fantastic example of how the opposition can disingenuously label them falsely. They are not a violent group, but they have certainly been played up as being as such in the media which does furthers your point that the left cannot allow their movements to be distorted, but in the end, they are whether they tip toe or not. This has already been done with BLM as well and why we have Blue Lives Matter.

I'd argue that knowing certain groups like antifa are going to be targets for this sort of distortion, it becomes much more important to be careful in what is said about them. I'd even go so far as to say that the statement "they are not a violent group" is potentially damaging, because while not all of what they do is violent and violence is not their goal, some of what they do is inherently violent. It would be very easy to present "they aren't violent" with an image of antifa engaged in violent activities, and then hare off into "lying leftists lying about antifa being pacifists to trick you". That can then be used to discredit antifa and anything else you say now that you've been successfully branded a liar.

There are certainly other people who would be better suited than I to discuss Australian Indegenous culture and the way colonization has effected it. I think there is something about the... rootlessness, perhaps, of Black culture in America that makes it appeal to listless teenagers across cultures...

I'm not trying to paint it as a specifically American issue, more questioning whether it's useful to paint "White American/British/Australian/New Zealand" etc cultures as the same White culture, rather than related but distinct ones. Particularly in the less populous Anglosphere nations where the feeling of being culturally under siege is potentially a very useful tool for changing mindsets around the issue.

I think Soontir dealt with this pretty well, I'm going to use this to elaborate a little on an argument he made about how the structure of race means that protests are read as fundamentally destabilizing but anti-black violence isn't. You call on the Left to disavow Anti-Fa and other violent groups. Okay. Will you call on Liberals, Centrists, and the Right to disavow the Police, Criminal Justice System, and Prisons?

I don't call for that at all. That's very close to being the opposite of what I said.

I accept and acknowledge the usefulness and sometimes necessity of potentially violent protestors. That comes with the caveat that random violence for the purpose of intimidation isn't productive, but supporting, organising and protecting non violent protesters, organisers and personalities is.

People the left need to disavow are the stupid and immature 'allies' who damage their cause while trying to help. Pointless vandalism while dressed as the black bloc needs to stop, and if it can't be stopped it needs to de as far as possible dissociated from legitimate and targeted protest. 'Socialists' (tankies of all stripes really) who sing the praises of North Korea need to be disavowed by the mainstream left. And articles that contain inaccessible field specific jargon that allows them to be easily reframed and used as propaganda by people who oppose their message need to stop, and if that can't happen, be disavowed.

This thread is a perfect example. It started because of an article, that, by your read is technically correct and inoffensive to someone who understands the terminology and context it's being used in. S_J is usually a pretty reasonable guy, but right now he's feeling unsettled and attacked by it, and we're five pages into a thread with you trying to explain it to him. If he were a kid on the campus where it was published, and you were more interested in nudging S_J toward the alt right than you were in engaging him you could barely have created a better tool for the job, not because the article is incorrect but because it is far to easy to reframe for your purpose. Doing that would be dishonest bullshit, sure, but it would work.

At some point people need to start asking themselves what their goals are, and if the action they're about to perform helps them achieve it. If it doesn't, you need to stop doing it. If someone in your circle is repeatedly doing things which harm the ability of your circle to achieve its long term goals it might be time to ask them to find a new circle.

[loomer]

Well it would be nice if someone could actually produce a shred of evidence that white people in modern US are systematically abusing, murdering and disenfranchising ethnic minorities.

White people or White people?

[Kane Starkiller]

White people or White people?

I assume that was a typo?

[loomer]

White people or White people?

I assume that was a typo?

More the correct rules of grammar. White people or 'White people', if that helps?

[Kane Starkiller]

As in (1) Whites-the people from Europe/sufficient percentage of European ancestry to be phenotypically white OR (2) Whites-onthologically defined group of people that might not look anything like a European or have any European ancestry?
Is anyone using the second definition when talking about "whites shouldn't exist in North America" ,"white the slave owners","white supremacy","whites that elected Trump" etc.?

How would you estimate the number of people that belong to group (2) but not (1)? Maybe Koreans and Japanese would be that group of people?

In any case is there any evidence that either or both of those subsets of US population are systematically oppressing groups on the outside?

[loomer]

As in (1) Whites-the people from Europe/sufficient percentage of European ancestry to be phenotypically white OR (2) Whites-onthologically defined group of people that might not look anything like a European or have any European ancestry?

As in the second. These discussions usually - except with morons like the author of the original article - use capitalized forms to refer to the cultural and power structures, not the ethnicity. Hence, White people and white people in the same sentence, or Black people and black people.

Is anyone using the second definition when talking about "whites shouldn't exist in North America" ,"white the slave owners","white supremacy","whites that elected Trump" etc.?

You're conflating multiple things together, but the answer is a very strong yes, partly but not solely because the two are closely related in politics and culture.

How would you estimate the number of people that belong to group (2) but not (1)? Maybe Koreans and Japanese would be that group of people?

Welcome to the hellish questions that haunt discussions around critical race theory.

In any case is there any evidence that either or both of those subsets of US population are systematically oppressing groups on the outside?

No clue! My stake there was just to bring to your attention that there is a distinction in this topic between White people and white people, because failure to identify that distinction leads to hella confusion. I won't venture further than to say that the criminal justice system, voter ID laws, and police system are broadly identified as all being part of exclusionary White power structures by both fringe and mainstream CRTs, and you may thus read into that as you will.

[Kane Starkiller]

As in the second. These discussions usually - except with morons like the author of the original article - use capitalized forms to refer to the cultural and power structures, not the ethnicity. Hence, White people and white people in the same sentence, or Black people and black people.

I have no doubt that the author intentionally wanted to generate controversy for the clicks. But this all seems like an evasion by the people using the term "white" to begin with. Whites this, whites that...and then when you call them out on it it's "oooh but it's not WHITE white, not the skin color but the systems and structures and onthology and stuff". OK, then why bring the word white in it to begin with?
It's like saying bLaCkS are lazy but you know it's not racist because I capitalized every other word so it's not the biological definition but my personal bullshit wink-wink, nudge-nudge definition.

You're conflating multiple things together, but the answer is a very strong yes, partly but not solely because the two are closely related in politics and culture.

Really? Talking about "white supremacy", "whitelash" and "white privilege" includes people outside European ancestry? Was there ever a discussion involving, say, two Japanese guys and one says to another "well as a white male I don't expect you to understand the..."?

Welcome to the hellish questions that haunt discussions around critical race theory.

It's hellish because extreme left ideologues are trying to somehow maintain discreete categories of races in US even trying to maintain the binary of Whites on one hand and "people of color" on the other even as there has been a massive influx of Hispanics that are on a spectrum of purely European to purely Native and every mix in between. Plus the immigration of Asians and growing intermarriage rates between whites, hispanics(already significantly European) and Asians.
Good luck "intersecting" that champs.