I don't think its dumb. OP can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is saying:
Celtic, Norman, Slavic, etc are all 'ethnic groups' that happen to be White. But a collection of "Whites" while all being of the same "race", they can be different ethnicity.
So there is no "White ethnic group", as within the White Grouping there are a multitude of ethnicity.
He's partially correct, but it's still a bad take, since he's just pushing his own narrative, as always. There are plenty of worse mistakes made here than talking about "ethnic whites," and yet this is what he feels the need to jump in on. I think that's what people get tired of.
It's also not the full story, and context is always important. You could argue that, in the American context, for example, "White" is an ethnicity. It's made up of subgroups, sure, but there's still a common language, nation, and generally birthplace.
But it's more his behavior than his argument that people are objecting to, I believe. I'm not saying he said this, but it does share some similarities to the tried and true "White people aren't real" nonsense. Call them whatever you want, but Hwites clearly are real, and there are clearly plenty of people who hate them. I'm suspicious of people who continually go out of their way to deflect from that, when it's clearly observable.
"Whites aren't an ethnic group, it's a racial group." No matter how you feel about that statement, or its accuracy...what's the motivation of saying it?
I don't follow users enough to know who has which leanings, which is good/bad. Bad, that I will always give the poster the benefit of the doubt, but good that I always take the post as just the post - and nothing more real or imagined.
FWIW, I come from a time when it was just accepted that this is the internet. There are no race, ethnic, religion, etc - Only ideas. That the idea, not the person, needs to be looked at, examined and discussed. If the idea is sound, then what difference does it make who is making the idea?
Now, having said that I don't follow people so he could be good, bad or worse but what he said is logically sound(IMO), and I say that as a pro-White person. Also, didn't he make the case that he feels the same way about black people, and that there can be no black ethnic state, for precisely the same reason. So it didn't sound (at least to me) that he was being unfair in his application of logic.
You are also correct in that whatever people feel about it, there are plenty of people that are showing their open hatred towards Whites, but that is pure jealousy and envy.
White, Black, Red, and Yellow are simply not ethnicities. It also fundamentally undermines the concept of a "white ethno-state". You can't have one. You have to have an ethnicity to focus on, even if that is an emergent ethnicity like "Boer", "Rhodesian", or "American". It's no different from saying, "I want an Asian ethno-state". That's not a thing.
I accept that argument to a degree. Appalachian isn't even descendent from the English, but Scotch-Irish or Ulster Scotts (Ulstermen / People of Ulster in Britain).
Even during the revolution one could argue that each state was effectively it's own ethnicity.
And to be clear, there seems to be much more self-identification by the people of the United States with America rather than with each state. Sure you get proud Texans, but not so many people show Texas loyalty to Wyoming.
The difference from our founding to where we are now is that we have a much more interconnected and homogenous American culture and value set based on the Civic National identity that we cultivated. There is unquestionably and an American Nation (in the same way a person is British), but the issue is whether or not you can call that an ethnos. I tend to lean that the American ethos is still developing (no thanks to mass migration), but there will inevitably be one, and after time it won't make sense to say that an American can really trace his lineage to anywhere back but the US, because of the integration of populations and peoples within it.
It'll take a thousand years for Americans' DNA to get so thoroughly mixed that it's a single ethnicity, and it will only happen if society doesn't collapse back into the stone age. Without modern transportation, a Minnesotan would almost never meet a Texan, and over a thousand years their language would diverge.
I don't think its dumb. OP can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is saying:
Celtic, Norman, Slavic, etc are all 'ethnic groups' that happen to be White. But a collection of "Whites" while all being of the same "race", they can be different ethnicity.
So there is no "White ethnic group", as within the White Grouping there are a multitude of ethnicity.
He's partially correct, but it's still a bad take, since he's just pushing his own narrative, as always. There are plenty of worse mistakes made here than talking about "ethnic whites," and yet this is what he feels the need to jump in on. I think that's what people get tired of.
It's also not the full story, and context is always important. You could argue that, in the American context, for example, "White" is an ethnicity. It's made up of subgroups, sure, but there's still a common language, nation, and generally birthplace.
But it's more his behavior than his argument that people are objecting to, I believe. I'm not saying he said this, but it does share some similarities to the tried and true "White people aren't real" nonsense. Call them whatever you want, but Hwites clearly are real, and there are clearly plenty of people who hate them. I'm suspicious of people who continually go out of their way to deflect from that, when it's clearly observable.
"Whites aren't an ethnic group, it's a racial group." No matter how you feel about that statement, or its accuracy...what's the motivation of saying it?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I don't follow users enough to know who has which leanings, which is good/bad. Bad, that I will always give the poster the benefit of the doubt, but good that I always take the post as just the post - and nothing more real or imagined.
FWIW, I come from a time when it was just accepted that this is the internet. There are no race, ethnic, religion, etc - Only ideas. That the idea, not the person, needs to be looked at, examined and discussed. If the idea is sound, then what difference does it make who is making the idea?
Now, having said that I don't follow people so he could be good, bad or worse but what he said is logically sound(IMO), and I say that as a pro-White person. Also, didn't he make the case that he feels the same way about black people, and that there can be no black ethnic state, for precisely the same reason. So it didn't sound (at least to me) that he was being unfair in his application of logic.
You are also correct in that whatever people feel about it, there are plenty of people that are showing their open hatred towards Whites, but that is pure jealousy and envy.
You're correct, they just don't like it.
White, Black, Red, and Yellow are simply not ethnicities. It also fundamentally undermines the concept of a "white ethno-state". You can't have one. You have to have an ethnicity to focus on, even if that is an emergent ethnicity like "Boer", "Rhodesian", or "American". It's no different from saying, "I want an Asian ethno-state". That's not a thing.
America is too big to have a single ethnicity. New Englander and Appalachian are separate ethnicities, for example.
I accept that argument to a degree. Appalachian isn't even descendent from the English, but Scotch-Irish or Ulster Scotts (Ulstermen / People of Ulster in Britain).
Even during the revolution one could argue that each state was effectively it's own ethnicity.
And to be clear, there seems to be much more self-identification by the people of the United States with America rather than with each state. Sure you get proud Texans, but not so many people show Texas loyalty to Wyoming.
The difference from our founding to where we are now is that we have a much more interconnected and homogenous American culture and value set based on the Civic National identity that we cultivated. There is unquestionably and an American Nation (in the same way a person is British), but the issue is whether or not you can call that an ethnos. I tend to lean that the American ethos is still developing (no thanks to mass migration), but there will inevitably be one, and after time it won't make sense to say that an American can really trace his lineage to anywhere back but the US, because of the integration of populations and peoples within it.
It'll take a thousand years for Americans' DNA to get so thoroughly mixed that it's a single ethnicity, and it will only happen if society doesn't collapse back into the stone age. Without modern transportation, a Minnesotan would almost never meet a Texan, and over a thousand years their language would diverge.