"The History of White People": What it means to be white

[ngeso]

Hey I dont know you personally , that is correct, I can only judge you by your actions. Everyone must judge for themselves. But I 'd be lying if I said I BELIEVE the LOUSIEST thing you have heard about nonwhites is that they are taking over the soap operas. It's up to EACH individual to make that decision for themselves.
...

I disagree, me having "predisposed" notions of what (you) should have said.." (and I didn't) is NOT racism white Supremacy. Me not liking you because you are white is not racism whitesupremacy. Me being suspicious of you because you are white is LOGICAL. Deesko I suspect you already now this.

Deesko why did think the lousiest thing you have heard said about nonwhites, is that they are taking over the soap opera's, why do you think saying that made your grandma a "vehement racist"?

Will you stop with this bullshit already?

...

[DeesKo]

Actually, never mind man...

In your mind I'm white, therefore I'm racist. End of story. That isn't going to change.

You've got your opinion & absolutely nothing will come about from going in circles with you.

Peace

[Armento]

In your mind I'm white, therefore I'm racist. End of story. That isn't going

man.. that's bad.. you should work on that

[DeesKo]

man.. that's bad.. you should work on that

shut up white boy!


wait, was it decided you were or weren't white, I couldn't keep up

[Armento]

wasn't rhodey RodneyX's son??? pontiac crew outfornow

[rhodey]

Actually, never mind man...

In your mind I'm white, therefore I'm racist. End of story. That isn't going to change.

Nope no sir not all whites are racist white supremacist. Now can you please answer the questions I asked you? Thanks.

[jimmymack-2000]

that is NOT a source. A source is a reputable place, other than your anus, that uses the words and figures: "90%" "resources" "10%" "population"

Can you please just admit that you were dishonest and made up these figures then presented them as facts? Then, i'll quit harassing you about this question.

Are you willing to concede that, had rhodey simply stated "The population of the 'white' quadrasphere exerts control over the planet's wealth, out of proportion with its share of the planet's population," you wouldn't be arguing with him?

[Nay Sayer]

SAY WHAT FOOL?!?!

Who can deny the wisdom that comes from the conquering Viking Dave Chappelle?!?

All hail Dave!

[rhodey]

Are you willing to concede that, had rhodey simply stated "The population of the 'white' quadrasphere exerts control over the planet's wealth, out of proportion with its share of the planet's population," you wouldn't be arguing with him?

Good point my mistake Jimmmack.

[rhodey]

I'm extremely curious in regards to your use of Brazil, refined racism and codifying the practice of racism under the umbrella of state sponsorship.

Are you proposing that racism in Brazil is more refined, meaning less obvious/more subtle/harder to pinpoint/less ingrained in the way the state operates than say here in the US?

As someone who has spent multiple, decent lengths of time in Brasil, I can assure you modern day racism in Brasil is more rampant, more in your face, more state sponsored, has a much longer reach and is far more destructive to a person's health & life than anything anyone is dealing with here in modern America.

I truly can not fathom how you would come to the conclusion that the future face of an advanced form of racism is found in Brasil. People can't even get running water in their houses, live surrounded by open air sewage & entire swaths of the city are systematically and COMPLETELY ignored by the state government until such time that they decide to raid a flavela and kill a bunch of their own citizens.



.

Hey Deesko I'm in the process of reading a book entitled:
Racism in a Racial Democracy - The Maintenance of White Supremacy in Brazil.

The author interviews hundreds of people asking them hundreds of questions about:

(1) What is racism?
(2) Is there racism in Brazil?
(3) Asking people to point to racism.
(4) Etc.

This is an interesting book because, at least for me, it points to the utility of counter-racist language. The author is a non-white female, Francis Winddance Twine who is an associate professor of sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara and a research associate at the Centre for Urban Community Research at Goldsmith's College, University of London.

Here is an excerpt from the book that if you use counter-racist language and follow counter-racist logic you will not be confused. Counter-Racist Language and Counter-Racist Logic states racism (white supremacy) is a SYSTEM, meaning people who are classified as non-white are mistreated on the basis of that classification in all areas of people activity including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex, and War, in all places and at all times.

Sonia: Here is Vasalia, there is no racism.
JW: There isn't any?
Sonia: Nothing that I've observed.
JW: Then why are the majority of the people of color poor?
Sonia: Poor? In Vasalia?
JW: in Vasalia. In Brazil.
Sonia: In Brazil, the majority of the Brazilian population is poor. The minority has the power.
JW: But there are whites who are not poor.
Sonia: There are whites who are not poor and there are blacks who aren't poor. Pele, for example.
JW: How many black landowners do you know?
Sonia: That's a good question because I don't know a single one [anxious laughter].


If you don't understand racism (white supremacy) what it is and how it works everything else that you understand will only confuse you. ..Neely Fuller Jr.

One of the first things that jumped out at me when reading this was that the "poor"/"rich" angle ain't gonna work when talking about racism (white supremacy). White people are going to blur that line big time. Non-white people are always talking about "racism is about economics" and the white people who practice racism (white supremacy) are raising the level of confusion for those non-white people who think racism (white supremacy) is about economics by giving more non-white people more money and more access to things that the racists (white supremacists) produce.

The result will be that the non-white people running around here saying racism (white supremacy) is about economics will start saying...just like Sonia..."There is no racism". Even though there are "black" people who are not poor in Brazil the "black" people who are not poor still don't own any land. But according to Sonia there is no racism. Racism = White Supremacy. The practice of the mistreatment on the basis of color (racism) produces a product of white power over non-white powerlessness (white supremacy).

Another thing that jumps right out at me is the use of the word "black" in reference to people. I strongly suggest using only the word "non-white" when making reference to people who are not white and here's why. The white people who practice racism (white supremacy) run the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) with a criteria of white people and non-white people and they also understand that some white people will not be as smart as other white people and may not yet be able to practice racism (white supremacy) so those are just white people who will benefit from what the smarter and more powerful white people say and do.

The majority of the non-white people will always have less than the majority of white people...less power, less food, less money, less non-color (whatever that means), less ability to do more things, etc. The business of racism (white supremacy) works off percentages. If the majority of white people have more than the majority of non-white people then the business of racism (white supremacy) is successful to a racists (white supremacists).

When non-white people accept that this is the case...not accepting that it is correct but accepting that this is the way the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is run and also accept that this is incorrect behavior for the people of this universe...and say that is the way it is run and say things that counter the way it is run...and do things to counter the way it is run...only then will we be in the process of taking apart the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy).

What do you think DeesKo?

[Moksha]

Are you willing to concede that, had rhodey simply stated "The population of the 'white' quadrasphere exerts control over the planet's wealth, out of proportion with its share of the planet's population," you wouldn't be arguing with him?

Indeed.

In fact, after being called out on his fictitious figures, I would have been happy had he just raised his hands hands and said "I'm talking out of my ass, but ya'll get the point." That would have been fine.

But instead, he refused to answer the question (meanwhile complaining that others weren't answering his questions), attacked the questioners and provided irrelevant answers.

It's impossible to have a conversation about something as complicated and contentious as "race", when the other person lies with ease and continuously breaks every rhetorical rule.

[the crackhouse]

Nope no sir not all whites are racist white supremacist. Now can you please answer the questions I asked you? Thanks.

Sorry, we don't respond to nonwhites questions here.

Idance

[BrazenMuse]

Indeed.

In fact, after being called out on his fictitious figures, I would have been happy had he just raised his hands hands and said "I'm talking out of my ass, but ya'll get the point." That would have been fine.

But instead, he refused to answer the question (meanwhile complaining that others weren't answering his questions), attacked the questioners and provided irrelevant answers.

It's impossible to have a conversation about something as complicated and contentious as "race", when the other person lies with ease and continuously breaks every rhetorical rule.

[ngeso]

You, rhodey: explain "non-white" again. Include something about self-identification - that should be real interesting.


...

[DeesKo]

Hey Deesko I'm in the process of reading a book entitled:
Racism in a Racial Democracy - The Maintenance of White Supremacy in Brazil.
[snip]

Here is an excerpt from the book that if you use counter-racist language and follow counter-racist logic you will not be confused. Counter-Racist Language and Counter-Racist Logic states racism (white supremacy) is a SYSTEM, meaning people who are classified as non-white are mistreated on the basis of that classification in all areas of people activity including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex, and War, in all places and at all times.

Sonia: Here is Vasalia, there is no racism.
JW: There isn't any?
Sonia: Nothing that I've observed.
JW: Then why are the majority of the people of color poor?
Sonia: Poor? In Vasalia?
JW: in Vasalia. In Brazil.
Sonia: In Brazil, the majority of the Brazilian population is poor. The minority has the power.
JW: But there are whites who are not poor.
Sonia: There are whites who are not poor and there are blacks who aren't poor. Pele, for example.
JW: How many black landowners do you know?
Sonia: That's a good question because I don't know a single one [anxious laughter].


[snip]

The result will be that the non-white people running around here saying racism (white supremacy) is about economics will start saying...just like Sonia..."There is no racism". Even though there are "black" people who are not poor in Brazil the "black" people who are not poor still don't own any land. But according to Sonia there is no racism. Racism = White Supremacy. The practice of the mistreatment on the basis of color (racism) produces a product of white power over non-white powerlessness (white supremacy).

I think you are stating that the maintenance of white supremecy in Brasil has become so advanced that it has convinced those living in Brasil that there is not racism in play.

However, even going back to 1995 (I could have the year wrong here, but it was in the mid-late 1990's) the paper Folha de S. Paulo conducted a poll that stated 89% of Brazilians thought that prejudice against afrodescendentes (african descendants) existed in Brazil.

This poll backs up my personal experiences there in which almost everyone knew there were elements of racism involved in day to day life in Brasil.

Another thing that jumps right out at me is the use of the word "black" in reference to people. I strongly suggest using only the word "non-white" when making reference to people who are not white and here's why. The white people who practice racism (white supremacy) run the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) with a criteria of white people and non-white people and they also understand that some white people will not be as smart as other white people and may not yet be able to practice racism (white supremacy) so those are just white people who will benefit from what the smarter and more powerful white people say and do.

The only problem with your white/non-white columns in regards to Brasil is that in Brasil, there is one group of people who have been systematically disenfranchised for generations, the afrodescendentes.

This is critical in the sense that Brasil literally has every single shade of skin represented within the context of their nationalized citizenry. In other words, you have natural born pale white brasilians, natural born latino-hued brasilians & natural born dark skinned brasilians and you have the afrodescendentes.

This is where my comment earlier about curliness of the hair comes into play because it was not functional enough for the racism in Brasil to be based strictly off skin color, they had to extend the working definition to curliness of the hair to ensure only a very, very specific group of people were the subject of their racism... afrodescendentes, african descendants, black people.

A very dark skinned brasilian person with straight hair isn't identified as black, they are identified as Brasilian. A very dark skinned Brasilian with curly hair would most likely be identified as afrodescendentes.

As such, the white/non-white delimiter doesn't work quite as well in Brasil as it does in the US or some other countries because "white" in the racist construct would actually include the vast majority of "non-white" as well.

Take it a step further and move to a lot of asian cultures (south-east asian to be specific) and again, the darker the skin color, the less favorable the opinion. Taken into the global context, neither one of them is "white" either but the effects of racism are still enacted on one of the two groups based on skin color.

This is why I find the white/non-white construct difficult to maintain anywhere but in the US. In my experience, the US is the only place where this kind of simplistic differentiation is plausible. It just doesn't seem to hold up globally to me unless you start expanding the definition of "white" to include anyone who exerts power and influence over someone else based on skin color.

From a word association standpoint, at what point do you expand the sample group of "white" to the point that the most accurate term is no longer white and should be something different, as well as to the point that the use of the term is disingenous.

How accurate is it too call a group "white" when the majority of the members do not present the physical trait of actually being "white" ?

How self-imposing is it as an American to insist that everyone else in the world be placed into social constructs that are only really viable in our country?

The majority of the non-white people will always have less than the majority of white people...less power, less food, less money, less non-color (whatever that means), less ability to do more things, etc. The business of racism (white supremacy) works off percentages. If the majority of white people have more than the majority of non-white people then the business of racism (white supremacy) is successful to a racists (white supremacists).

When non-white people accept that this is the case...not accepting that it is correct but accepting that this is the way the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) is run and also accept that this is incorrect behavior for the people of this universe...and say that is the way it is run and say things that counter the way it is run...and do things to counter the way it is run...only then will we be in the process of taking apart the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy).

What do you think DeesKo?

Again, at what point do we acknowledge that the majority of the rest of the globe doesn't adhere to such a uniquely American construct as white/non-white?

I am not arguing that prejudice and racism do not exist. I am not arguing that injustice has vanished from the world. All I'm saying is that you can not force the rest of the world into this false construct of white/non-white with a definition that changes as needed.

"This group has a white-ish skin tone, so they're white. "
"But wait, they're victims of injustice based on their skin tone, so ok they're non-white."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This group does not have a white skin tone so they must be non-white"
"But wait, they're perpetrators of oppressing other people based on skin tone, so ok, they're white"



BTW, Thanks for the info on the book, I'll have to pick it up and give it a read sometime.

Peace

[djmarbll]

Only a White person could go through that list and decide whether it's relevant or not, no? IMO it's way too absolute.
For example:

"I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group."

- Perhaps Peggy McIntosh is never asked, but trust me, it happens and in more places than just DHP....

"I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race."

- Yet the topic being discussed is "White Privilege", so no one is assuming one got the job because of that privilege?

Please note, there are some issues in that list I agree with....."I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children's magazines featuring people of my race."

- Very true.

Good point. I guess I was looking at it from a person of color's point of view.

[rhodey]

You, rhodey: explain "non-white" again. Include something about self-identification - that should be real interesting.


...

Non-White people are people who have been classified as "Non-White", and/or who generally function as "Non-White" in their relationships with each other, and with people classified as "White", in all of the nine major areas of activity including economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war. I personally have been to referred to as an "African American" or a "Black Man" or a "person of color".

[rhodey]

I think you are stating that the maintenance of white supremecy in Brasil has become so advanced that it has convinced those living in Brasil that there is not racism in play.

However, even going back to 1995 (I could have the year wrong here, but it was in the mid-late 1990's) the paper Folha de S. Paulo conducted a poll that stated 89% of Brazilians thought that prejudice against afrodescendentes (african descendants) existed in Brazil.

One has to wonder how they define "prejudice". People pre-judge things all the time. However Prejudice and racism white supremacy are two different things - in my opinion.

This poll backs up my personal experiences there in which almost everyone knew there were elements of racism involved in day to day life in Brasil.


The only problem with your white/non-white columns in regards to Brasil is that in Brasil, there is one group of people who have been systematically disenfranchised for generations, the afrodescendentes.

This is critical in the sense that Brasil literally has every single shade of skin represented within the context of their nationalized citizenry. In other words, you have natural born pale white brasilians, natural born latino-hued brasilians & natural born dark skinned brasilians and you have the afrodescendentes.

This is where my comment earlier about curliness of the hair comes into play because it was not functional enough for the racism in Brasil to be based strictly off skin color, they had to extend the working definition to curliness of the hair to ensure only a very, very specific group of people were the subject of their racism... afrodescendentes, african descendants, black people.

A very dark skinned brasilian person with straight hair isn't identified as black, they are identified as Brasilian. A very dark skinned Brasilian with curly hair would most likely be identified as afrodescendentes.

As such, the white/non-white delimiter doesn't work quite as well in Brasil as it does in the US or some other countries because "white" in the racist construct would actually include the vast majority of "non-white" as well.

Take it a step further and move to a lot of asian cultures (south-east asian to be specific) and again, the darker the skin color, the less favorable the opinion. Taken into the global context, neither one of them is "white" either but the effects of racism are still enacted on one of the two groups based on skin color.

This is why I find the white/non-white construct difficult to maintain anywhere but in the US. In my experience, the US is the only place where this kind of simplistic differentiation is plausible. It just doesn't seem to hold up globally to me unless you start expanding the definition of "white" to include anyone who exerts power and influence over someone else based on skin color.

From a word association standpoint, at what point do you expand the sample group of "white" to the point that the most accurate term is no longer white and should be something different, as well as to the point that the use of the term is disingenous.

How accurate is it too call a group "white" when the majority of the members do not present the physical trait of actually being "white" ?

How self-imposing is it as an American to insist that everyone else in the world be placed into social constructs that are only really viable in our country?

Now you are correct, under racism white supremacy there is indeed a hierarchy introduced by the racists white supremacists themselves generally speaking the lighter the better, the straighter the better e.t.c...

According counter-racism logic, the warden of a prison runs the entire prison. All the prisoners in a prison are subject to the warden of the prison.

I believe All non-white people are subject to the white people who practice racism (white supremacy). Under the SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy) non-white people are prisoners in the prison SYSTEM of racism (white supremacy). Not all prisoners in a prison are mistreated and/or abused to the same degree. Some prisoners in a prison are given, or allowed to have, many things by the warden of the prison, while the other prisoners in the prison are left to fend for themselves at the cost of the lives of each other.

Again, at what point do we acknowledge that the majority of the rest of the globe doesn't adhere to such a uniquely American construct as white/non-white?

I am not arguing that prejudice and racism do not exist. I am not arguing that injustice has vanished from the world. All I'm saying is that you can not force the rest of the world into this false construct of white/non-white with a definition that changes as needed.

Saying that the rest of the world does not adhere to such a uniquely American construct as "white/non-white" in terms of LABELING is true but in terms of FUNCTION (which is how I define things) I believe White/Nonwhite still does apply. Remember all non whites are subjected to be mistreated under racism whitesupremacy. To varying degrees yup thats true.

So the racist white supremacists in "North America" chose to lump everyone together while the racist white supremacists In South America choose to describe each distinguished phenotypical trait. Different LABELING but in the END same result. Why? Well who still really RUNS shit?!

"This group has a white-ish skin tone, so they're white. "
"But wait, they're victims of injustice based on their skin tone, so ok they're non-white."

When did I say whit-ish skin tone makes you white? I said the white Supremacist determine who is white.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This group does not have a white skin tone so they must be non-white"
"But wait, they're perpetrators of oppressing other people based on skin tone, so ok, they're white"

Observed Phenomenon:

A person that says they are a white person also says they have "white skin".

Hypothesis:

There is no such thing as a person with "White Skin". I suspect that when a person who says they are white refers to having "white skin" they are referring to two things:

(1) The person who says they are white are talking about a process by which they give code to a person who has the choice and ability to either accept or reject the code to function as a white person.

(2) The person who says they are white are talking about a process by which their choice and ability to function as white person, by being given the code and ability to do so, may be taken from them by another white person.

These two suspicions are primarily the reason white people will never completely eliminate the term white in reference to themselves. Since there is no person with the same color skin as a white crayon, and, the SYSTEM of white supremacy (racism) preceds the ability of people who say they are white to modify DNA, hence not primarily "genetically" related, we will seek to find out what a white person means when they say they have "white skin".

Experiment for nonwhites who would like to counter racism whiteSupremcy:

Questions to ask are as follows:

Are you a white person?

How do you know you are a white person?

Is your skin the same color as a white crayon?

Since your skin is not the same color as a white crayon what do you mean when you say you have white skin?

What do you mean when you say "white skin" since "white skin" is not the color white?

Who decides if a person is a white person, a POWERFUL person or a POWERLESS person?

Results:

The results of this experiment are that no person on this planet has white skin, meaning the same color skin as a white crayon and the color of a white crayon is the only color white. Any other color that is said to be white, such as "off white", are in fact not the color white.

No person "looks white". Racism (White Supremacy) is behavior not a look. Behavior is functional. If you want to find out if someone functions as a white person you'll have to ask them the first question in the Experiment phase (Are you a white person?).

THE LOGIC states that there are 3 identifiers of a white person in the SYSTEM of white supremacy (racism) and they are as follows. If you try to substitute any other words for any of these words the result of your experiment will be tainted:

(1) Classifies themselves as white and have been classified as white
(2) Accepted as white by other people classified as white
(3) Functions as white in all places and at all times.

A white person has all three of these behaviors, not one or two but all three, and you will not know this by "looking" at them.

Scientific Theory:

There is no such thing as "White Skin". Skin does not practice white supremacy (racism), people do. Skin is what skin does.

[Nay Sayer]

Non-White people are people who have been classified as "Non-White", and/or who generally function as "Non-White" in their relationships with each other, and with people classified as "White", in all of the nine major areas of activity including economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war.

I'm sorry but this does not make a lick of sence. Not an ounce...

[AK]

wasn't rhodey RodneyX's son??? pontiac crew outfornow

deep visions baby

[AMc]

Good point. I guess I was looking at it from a person of color's point of view.

I hear ya.

I just don't believe McIntosh's experiences equally relate to mine or others regarded as White. I will note that many of her points are valid and make for great discourse, but the absolute factor she represents regarding some of those issues isn't helping anyone IMO.

[Moksha]

Observed Phenomenon:

A person that says they are a white person also says they have "white skin".

Hypothesis:

There is no such thing as a person with "White Skin". I suspect that when a person who says they are white refers to having "white skin" they are referring to two things:

(1) The person who says they are white are talking about a process by which they give code to a person who has the choice and ability to either accept or reject the code to function as a white person.

(2) The person who says they are white are talking about a process by which their choice and ability to function as white person, by being given the code and ability to do so, may be taken from them by another white person.

These two suspicions are primarily the reason white people will never completely eliminate the term white in reference to themselves. Since there is no person with the same color skin as a white crayon, and, the SYSTEM of white supremacy (racism) preceds the ability of people who say they are white to modify DNA, hence not primarily "genetically" related, we will seek to find out what a white person means when they say they have "white skin".

Experiment for nonwhites who would like to counter racism whiteSupremcy:

Questions to ask are as follows:

Are you a white person?

How do you know you are a white person?

Is your skin the same color as a white crayon?

Since your skin is not the same color as a white crayon what do you mean when you say you have white skin?

What do you mean when you say "white skin" since "white skin" is not the color white?

Who decides if a person is a white person, a POWERFUL person or a POWERLESS person?

Results:

The results of this experiment are that no person on this planet has white skin, meaning the same color skin as a white crayon and the color of a white crayon is the only color white. Any other color that is said to be white, such as "off white", are in fact not the color white.

No person "looks white". Racism (White Supremacy) is behavior not a look. Behavior is functional. If you want to find out if someone functions as a white person you'll have to ask them the first question in the Experiment phase (Are you a white person?).

THE LOGIC states that there are 3 identifiers of a white person in the SYSTEM of white supremacy (racism) and they are as follows. If you try to substitute any other words for any of these words the result of your experiment will be tainted:

(1) Classifies themselves as white and have been classified as white
(2) Accepted as white by other people classified as white
(3) Functions as white in all places and at all times.

A white person has all three of these behaviors, not one or two but all three, and you will not know this by "looking" at them.

Scientific Theory:

There is no such thing as "White Skin". Skin does not practice white supremacy (racism), people do. Skin is what skin does.

Way to copy and paste and take credit for somebody else's words. Yet again, you prove what a dishonest participant you are in this conversation.

http://www.counter-racism.com/cgi-bi...opic.php?t=394

[Moksha]

What is a white person without a system of racism white supremacy to give value to the classification?

Asking a white person to give up the value of FUNCTIONING as a white person is like asking a home owner to give up the equity in his house.

Thanks to the system of racism white supremacy, each and every white person is BORN into and instant equity position.

If you are nonwhite, you really don't know what you are asking a white person to give up, because you have NEVER experienced it.

Either plagiarism or posting the same diatribe in two discussions (which, even if it's the same person, is dishonest).

Edit: there are other posts from rhodey in this thread identical to those on this other board.

[Moksha]

No surprise here - all his "replace white supremacy with a system of justice" stuff is parrtoed (and plagiarized) from other sources.

Even the "racism (white supremacy)" construction is ripped off.

I could post a bunch of links, but y'all can Google and find most of his posts elsewhere. Start here: http://vowsa.com/ and here: http://cree7.wordpress.com/page/2/

[DeesKo]

When did I say whit-ish skin tone makes you white? I said the white Supremacist determine who is white.

So what you're saying is that when someone states they are white, they are not refering to the color of their skin via the commonly accepted process of identifying the color of their skin, but are actually and purposely admitting to their participation in white supremecy and that vice versa, if they were NOT practicing white supremecy they should/would refer to themselves as non-white?

In other words, I'm a pasty, irish, red headed, sun reflecting, pale skinned guy, but I'm not a white supremist.

So when you ask me if I'm white, I should have said "no, I'm non-white", correct?

OR

If I've been lying all along and am actually a dreadlocked, dark-complected Afro-Cuban, but I still participate in the system white supremecy, I should say I'm white.

Correct?