Yes, whiteness is a social construct. There, I said it! In fact, for most of human history, race, as we understand it today, was rarely the PRIMARY unifying force of various distinct peoples or historically documented cultures. Yet, I’m a white nationalist and I also identify as a Southern nationalist. But why?
Some of those involved in dissident right wing circles use this truth about the historic nature (or lack thereof) of whiteness as a blunt instrument against aspects of the movement that they find disagreeable. This is, in my informed opinion, disingenuous and we must rebut it at every turn. Disagree with whatever you wish, but if you muddle the current paradigm of race realism based on a lack of racial consciousness in the past, you have nobody but yourself to blame when the yoke of white guilt is forced upon you and you no longer have a choice in the matter.
But let me back up for a moment. I want to note that I’m not going to get bogged down with a lot of specific dates, or cite a ton of specific examples, to make my case. I’m going to speak in generalities, because I’m in full agreement that the concept of being “white” is a fairly new one, a concept that most white people are still reluctant to accept. This is not because being a white person isn’t a real thing. It’s because most current notions of whiteness have been defined by the outsider, people who have an ideological or socioeconomic reason to lump whites into a category and label us their “enemy.” In fact, this is the nature of group labels in general and historically. Often it is the outsider who defines who we are, and in the case of those that whites consider the “other,” it is us who have defined THEM.
So to answer my question, why am I a white and Southern nationalist? It is a complicated question deserving of many and various answers, but in the context of this essay, I have ACCEPTED the burden of white and Southern nationalism because my ideological enemies have created that identity for me. They have wrestled institutional power away from those people that they have identified as “white,” and they have set the rules of engagement. I do not have a choice in this matter if I do not wish to be a slave and live in an anti-liberty dystopia where my right to self determination is taken from me.
Let’s examine the truthful, yet obfuscating, premise that whiteness is a recent social construct. This pivots on the idea that up to a certain arbitrary point in history, and I’ll acknowledge that this wasn’t all that long ago, that nobody referred to themselves as “white.” For the sake of discussion we’ll say that prior to The Enlightenment, Europeans did not identify as such. Prior to the Enlightenment, most people weren’t very literate and could never have envisioned smart phones or the internet either. This doesn’t preclude the existence of such things today or the reality of widespread literacy. They do exist, and we must deal with the consequences of their existence, much the same way that the label “white” has been invented, and as such, we must either accept it and collectivize for our own survival, or we must accept the metaphorical (or potentially literal) bondage that is the consequence of inaction.
So why did genetically European people gradually start identifying as white, and why did the ideological enemies of whiteness embrace the label and declare war on us? How did people identify before all of this? This is a very complex subject but it deserves a pithy answer.
People have always embraced some kind of cohesive identity, but in simpler, more antiquated times, there was not necessarily a need to name that identity. Nomadic clans were probably the first iteration of something resembling an ethnicity or tribalism. Even there, the point of creating an identity had more to do with characterizing “the other” than it had to do with characterizing one’s self and one’s place in the clan to which you belonged.
For instance, on the Mongolian steppe during the 13th century, there existed several competing clans, including the Merkits, Keraites and Tatars. As these clans competed for scarce grazing land and resources, it was necessary to identify and label the enemies of your own clan. But as Genghis Khan conquered and unified these clans, it became the more distant and culturally foreign outsiders to which the Mongolian people contrasted themselves (or rather, it was those foreign peoples who would eventually be invaded that found it necessary to identify and label the Mongols).
With that, you can easily understand that white identity is an artifact of these same ancient phenomena in the global zeitgeist that we currently exist in. Yet, it is even more paramount than it ever was. The Mongolian steppe nomads or, as another example, the various Germanic clans that warred with the Romans, each had more cultural and racial similarity with their immediate neighbors than they did with the more distant “others” that they eventually clashed with.
Another aspect of this problem is that with technological advancements came more effective means of moving large groups of people around. This has culminated in the modern age with the invention of steam engines, internal combustion and jet powered flight. Awareness and conflict with the “other” is now literally as close as your next door neighbor. And this, I would argue, is the pivotal development that has led to “whiteness” becoming a very real thing, despite identity being historically tied to more immediate cultural and genetic kinship.
This is why our ideological enemies have embraced white identity as a bogeyman to wage war with. The broader European race, despite being a mishmash of competing ethnic nationalities since the fall of the Roman Empire, has been identified as a unified race of colonizers, imperialists and oppressors. It is not by my choice as an Anglo-German American that I am lumped with Spaniards, Slavs and Italians. But, I accept this and am more than willing to collectivize with these others in the pursuit of my own interests.
As a Southern nationalist, not only has my white identity been fully articulated for me, so has my Southern identity. Cosmopolitan J-leftists and Yankees in the media have created Southern caricatures and stereotypes since Reconstruction. I’m not even going to disagree with half of them, because I have embraced Southern culture and feel no shame in most aspects of it, despite the purpose of those stereotypes being to shame me. Again, this is largely a case of my enemy setting the rules of engagement. Since the power dynamic is at an imbalance, that doesn’t favor me, I’ll fight by those rules and fight them back with the same vigor that they fight me. That is, until the day comes that I get to set the rules.
The 20th century has been the defining epoch of whiteness. It was a century shaped by the fallout of an American civil war. It was a century shaped by global wars where the concept of nationality was fouled and made profane. It saw an egalitarian ethos rise from these conflicts.
I’m going to wrap this up by citing a contrarian argument to whiteness and a rebuttal that I think strikes at the heart of the issue. Recently, when discussing these points with a fellow Southern identitarian, he made the truthful observation that up until the 1920’s (or so), that Mexicans were considered “white.” But, this is a disingenuous argument, because for one, it fails to recognize the caste distinction between pure European-Spaniard descended Mexicans, who would have been (and to some degree still are) the ruling class of Mexico and the Castizo and Mestizo classes, who, much like African slaves, as well as, Native “Indians” in America, achieved legal, if not more or less gradual, social parity with Europeans due to the same egalitarian pressures that reshaped America.
The reality is that those same European-Spaniard descendants in Mexico are still considered white by people who understand the dynamics at play. People understand the racial difference between them and the 5’4″ legacy Aztec guy who jumps the border to come roof houses in the United States. Even still, back when the average American still considered Mexicans white by my friend’s contextualization, the convention was that Mexicans were, indeed, the ruling Spanish class, and that Mestizos were not even fully human, and would have been treated in the same way as bare-breasted sub-Saharan African women in the pages of National Geographic.
In closing, the degree to which whiteness is real in the modern paradigm is the same degree to which all differences have ever been real and materialized in historical events. Our enemies do not care about our internal pseudo-intellectual arguments about social constructs. They will not afford you your perceived social class when they acquire full power and they are stripping us all of our property rights because “property is a white thing.”
It’s past time to fight back.
-By Dixie Anon
Oh, I'm a good old Rebel, now that's just what I am; For this "Fair Land of Freedom" I do not give a damn! I'm glad I fit against it, I only wish we'd won, And I don't want no pardon for anything I done.