1450 words
Introduction
In recent years the concept of “whiteness” has been talked about more and more. With the rise of whiteness studies, this has gotten into the lens of the alt-right, and seem to take offense at the phrase “Abolish whiteness”, taking it to mean that they must mean they want to abolish whites. But this is a confusion based on what whiteness means and it’s relationship to white people. Contrary to these misconceptions, abolishing whiteness doesn’t entail abolishing white people. It, instead, seeks to deconstruct the social constructs and privileges which are tied to the concept whiteness. So by exploring a thought experiment, I will show why abolishing whiteness doesn’t entail abolishing white people. It’s quite clear that, once the concept of whiteness is understood and how it is distinct from white people themselves, this is just based on a scare-tactic.
Why abolishing whiteness doesn’t entail abolishing white people
I’ve seen what is obviously a fake quote from Noel Ignatiev going around a lot recently, which states:
If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive to the world!
I searched for any reference I could but I couldn’t find it… Weird, almost as if it’s fabricated. Nonetheless, Ignatiev was a co-founder of the magazine Race Traitor, and it’s tagline was “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Bernstine Singley, in his book When Race Becomes Real: Black and White Writers Confront Their Personal Histories, writes:
The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.
Whoa, case closed, right? Not at all. Because the next paragraph is explicit by what is meant by “Abolish whiteness”:
Our standard response is to draw an analogy with anti-royalism: to oppose monarchy does not mean killing the king; it means getting rid of crowns, thrones, royal titles, etc….
That makes more sense. Because “Abolishing whiteness” doesn’t entail “Abolishing whites.” The two passages taken in context entails that the goal is abolishing the concept and privileges associated with the white race, not the abolishing of white people.
Monarchy symbolizes hierarchical power structures, and so to does whiteness—it represents a system of privilege that confers advantages to certain groups while marginalizing others. Clearly, the comparison with anti-royalism, where opposition of the monarch doesn’t entail the murder of individuals, but it refers to dismantling the structures and symbols associated with it. Therefore, in the context of race, it suggests challenging the social constructs and systems which perpetuate racial hierarchies, rather than targeting individuals and genociding a group. So it’s about challenging and abolishing systems of oppression.
Now white privilege is an apt concept to talk about here, but we need to be specific and talk about white class privilege. So by acknowledging this concept, it shifts the focus to encompass broader systems of inequality. White privilege refers to the unearned advantages and benefits that white people experience in virtue of their racial identity. White privilege intersects with other forms of privilege to shape an individual’s experiences and opportunities within a society. So recognizing white privilege is imperative in abolishing the concept of whiteness.
A simple thought experiment will explain why abolishing whiteness doesn’t entail abolishing white people.
Imagine a world where skin color and other racial traits are randomly assigned at birth, effectively eliminating the color/racial distinction for racial designations. So everyone, regardless of their family or ancestral background, can be born with any combination of racial traits, including skin color hair texture, facial features, and other physical characteristics traditionally associated with racial groups. This will show that abolishing the concept of whiteness would lose its social and historical significance.
In this society, racial identity is entirely arbitrary, and it has no correlation with one’s ancestry or generic heritage. People may be born with traits traditionally thought of as “white”, “black” “Asian”, “Native American”, or “Pacific Islander” traits, or any combination of them, irregardless of their actual family background. So in this society, “whiteness” completely loses its traditional meaning since there is no longer a fixed group of people who possess exclusively “white” racial traits. Instead, anyone from any background can potentially possess these traits, which then blurs the line between racial categories.
But despite reassigning and shuffling racial traits, the existence of people with “white” traits remains unchanged. These people may have fair skin, certain facial features, or other physical characteristics traditionally associated with the white racial group, even though these traits are now randomly assigned to individuals.
But what significantly changes is the social and cultural significance given to those traits. In a society where racial traits are randomly assigned, no longer would there be a hierarchy or system of privilege based on racial identity. Thus, the concept of whiteness no longer carries the same weight or privilege it used to because racial traits aren’t correlated with superiority or inferiority.
Therefore, abolishing whiteness in this thought experiment doesn’t entail abolishing white people. It instead involves dismantling the social constructs and structures which have historically been associated with the concept of whiteness. It’s about challenging the inequities perpetuated by racial hierarchies rather than targeting or eliminating individuals on the basis of their racial identity. So abolishing whiteness doesn’t entail abolishing white people.
Conclusion
As can be seen from this discussion, abolishing whiteness doesn’t entail abolishing white people. Such delusions comes from white nationalists and reading into “Abolish whiteness” and inferring that it must mean “Abolishing white people.” This then can be likened with the so-called “great replacement theory“, where abolishing whiteness is being carried out through, great replacement. So the phrase “Abolish whiteness”, along with the fabricated Ignatiev quote and fears of an intentional great replacement, serves to radicalize white people to hating Jews (becoming anti-Semites). Some may see the fabricated quote and say something like “Oh of course a Jew is saying that about Whites.” But this fails to understand race in America, since Jews are white (along with MENA people).
All in all, this stems from the paranoia of being intentionally replaced by migrants with higher TFRs, and implicating Jews and other elites into the plan to eradicate whiteness. But as I’ve shown here, there is no entailment that abolishing whiteness means abolishing white people. It’s the same with the so-called great replacement—there’s no entailment from the 2 accepted premises to the conclusion.
Nonetheless, by actually reading what people write and the surrounding context without quote-mining, you’ll be able to see the argument they’re making and be able to understand the argument being made. That’s a novel concept I know, but some need to hear this.
I don’t even think such an endeavor is achievable and possible since race is so engrained in the fabric of American life. No matter where we go, we see race, we hear about race, and it’s observed through one’s phenotype due to the social construction. But my goal here was to show that when one says they want to abolish whiteness it doesn’t entail that they want to abolish white people.
3/12/24 Addendum: “RR, what about abolishing blackness, Jewishness, Italianess and other ‘nesses’? Doesn’t that entail X, Y, Z?” There is one key difference here: As I argued, whiteness has been socially constructed to confer power, privilege, and superiority in the West. This construction has been used to justify countless acts of systemic oppression. Consequently, these other groups lack the power to confer such systemic oppression. Whiteness is deeply intertwined with systems of privilege, but abolishing the aforementioned identifies doesn’t have the same implications for systemic inequalities. Whiteness is a social construct based on racial identity, whereas the aforementioned “nesses” have distinct cultural, identifies with their own languages, cultures, and traditions. So saying that accepting the argument I made here entails the abolishing of the aforementioned identities entails erasing or suppressing those identities which is fundamentally different from arguing to abolish the concept of whiteness. Finally, trying to argue that accepting the argument I made entails that we should also abolish the aforementioned identities infringes on one’s right to religious/cultural freedom and self-determination while also eventually leading toward cultural erasure. Therefore, since abolishing whiteness doesn’t entail abolishing whites as I argued—only abolishing systems of oppression—then abolishing whiteness doesn’t entail abolishing the identities of the aforementioned groups (who are also white themselves).
(P1) If advocating for the abolition of whiteness means advocating harm against white people, then abolishing whiteness entails abolishing white people.
(P2) Abolishing whiteness doesn’t entail abolishing white people.
(C) Thus, advocating for the abolition of whiteness doesn’t entail advocating abolishing white people.
NotPoliticallyCorrect 
To infer that so-called white privilege is some unearned benefit given to people simply based on racial appearance is silly and works to undermine white achievement. These benefits, each and every one has been earned through the work and behaviors of white ancestors who created this Western Civilization which is under attack by people trying to relabel it as “whiteness”. It really is simple as that.
In order to destroy the greatest civilization mankind has ever erected, they have flooded it with people who either through inability or a lack of desire, do not build the same high-trust societies and communities that contribute to what they call “whiteness”, though they are coming to enjoy it’s benefits. THOSE are the real privileged. They come to enjoy the high-trust, the achievements, the safety and the high living standards, while at the same time diluting and destroying it by their unwillingness or inability to live by the very same rules that are necessary to achieve such communities. So in a multi-racial society, they call those standard “whiteness”, aim to abolish it, without the slightest hint of what comes next, or any examples that they can point to of a better system for a humanity with varying abilities and desires.
Abolishing “whiteness” is the abolition of white people, because over our entire history, we see it is white people who have desired, dreamed, and striven to elevate humanity to higher standards of life and liberty. As proven by white achievement and the gift of this civilization we all enjoy today. Something that, without pause, they criticize at every turn, but offer nothing better other than the redistribution of white created wealth. So, what happens when that runs dry?
LikeLike
straight white (gentile) men are the most discriminated against group in the US.
BY FAR!
rr’s lies aren’t just false.
they’re the inversion of reality. the exact opposite of the truth.
LikeLike
when black pipo are discriminate against rr assumes it must be because racism n shit.
it’s 100% class.
straight white men are the most discriminated against group in the US.
BY FAR!
when class is controlled for.
rr is a useful idiot enemy of the people.
he belongs in the GULAG.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpvq3hmCKCs
LikeLike
Who is “they”? Do you think abolishing whiteness entails abolishing white people or “nesses” of white ethnic groups? Did you even read the article?
LikeLike
“abolishing jewishness doesn’t entail the holocaust.” — rr
LikeLike
rr is now approving comments then deleting them. haz and hinkle aren’t genocidal racists like you.
“abolishing jewishness doesn’t require another holocaust.” — rr
LikeLike
so let’s abolish blackness, mexicanness, asianness, italiannness…
rr: no. that would be racisss!
LikeLike
I added an Addendum for you.
LikeLike
Wow, RR denies that Whites have their own culture that can largely be described as “White”, yet somehow blacks or Latin Americans do.
Source: “Trust me bro!” or maybe “Jewish scholars said so!”
It’s funny because his whole argument actually hinges on Whiteness representing some sort “supremacist culture”. But of course, it’s only a negative culture (because that’s what was decided by people who hate Whites), so it’s OK to abolish.
It’s actually hilarious how ridiculous it is, if there weren’t young scholars still practicing the knockout game because of their totally positive, prosocial culture.
LikeLike
Does abolishing whiteness entail abolishing white people? I think my addendum sums up the issue.
LikeLike
and i posted 2 sources that wyprivilege is the exact opposite of reality!
but you deleted them because you are DISHONEST!
LikeLike
I think my addendum sums up the issue.
WRONG!
YOUR addendum is CRAP!
i think, i’m pretty sure, you have an extra chromosome! you’re a high function mongoloid.
LikeLike
The addendum definitely sums up the issue.
LikeLike
Noel Ignatiev (/ɪɡˈnætiɛv/, born Noel Saul Ignatin; December 27, 1940 – November 9, 2019) was an American author and historian, as well as a self-avowed anti-white racist.[3] He was best known for his theories on race and for his call to abolish “whiteness“.
wikipedia gets it right for once.
LikeLike
And replace it with what? Crickets. Because they don’t want to admit to replacing the greatest, freest civilization ever created with their centralized, authoritarian communism. Which is the only other choice.
The proof that they don’t care about the people, just revolution and destruction by any means is shown clearly by how quickly they tossed aside the proletariat once they realized that cultural Marxism was the way forward. Suddenly those working class voices didn’t matter. Just like their “oppressed” minorities don’t matter. Only destruction matters to these scumbags. By now it is too obvious to ignore and anybody seriously advocating for any of it is bought and paid for or completely blind and stupid.
LikeLike
blacks still suffer from the effects of PAST discrimination via CONTEMPORARY CLASS discrimination.
JUST LIKE EVERYONE!
there’s is more recent. but it’s still in the PAST.
ACTUAL discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation etc is OVERWHELMINGLY against one group: straight white males.
LikeLike
ignatiev is also a LIAR.
there’re plenty of part black wypipo in the US. and part native american wypipo.
brazil makes a distinction between black, pardo, and white. does that mean brazil is less racisss than the US? the exact opposite of reality again!
the irish were ALWAYS white.
rr: disagreeing with a jew is antisemitism.
LikeLike
Mike, what do you think the argument I made was?
Sadly, what you’re saying isn’t wrong but there are also past racial effects like that of slavery which has led to epigenetic effects.
LikeLike
Imagine being such a rube you advocate to give the wealth and power your ancestors worked to give YOU, away to random migrants and former conquered, enslaved and defeated people who would love nothing more than to crack the whip on you. The gift of the Abrahamic faith and its worship of weakness and a submissive jew just might be the death of us. “Educated” atheists are more committed to the submissive jew’s ideology than the christians themselves.
LikeLike
no one reads anything you say here or at pp’s except to make fun of it.
if you weren’t a pathological narcissist you’d get the joke.
LikeLike
How is that an entailment of the argument?
LikeLike
when there are no poor people there will also be no poor people of color.
LikeLike
show us your face from the front sans beard rr.
you HATE wypipo because you’re NOT white.
you’re addendum DOES NOT! address what you claim it does.
it’s chock-a-block with bad reasoning. but what’s the point of going through it in detail when my comment won’t be posted because you’re EVIL! thus your hair.
LikeLike
show us your face from the front sans beard rr.
you HATE wypipo because you’re NOT white.
your addendum DOES NOT! address what you claim it does.
it’s chock-a-block with bad reasoning. but what’s the point of going through it in detail when my comment won’t be posted because you’re EVIL! thus your hair.
LikeLike
rr is FILLED with HATE for wypipo.
FACT!
but at the same time he HATES non-white people. he LIES about his own ethnicity.
rr is a HATE-factory.
LikeLike
as usual rr gets it EXACTLY opposite.
what’s NEEDED is the UNIVERSILIZATION of his whiteness.
EVERYONE becomes white! even rr!
but rr is an EVIL RACIST! so he’s against that most obvious…
Endlösung der Identitätspolitischen Frage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOnSh3QlpbQ
LikeLike
I am white my picture is right there.
LikeLike
rr’s next article should be a summary of all the BLACK people who think he’s a retarded racist whom he dismisses as “know nothing grifters”.
THERE’S A LONG LIST!
JOHN HOLMES LEVEL LONG!
LONG DONG SILVER LEVEL LONG!
LikeLike
You’re wrong. Calls to “Abolish Whiteness “ are inherently calls to commit genocide. People who say that may not realize that, or mean that, but their ignorance doesn’t change the meaning of words or the content of concepts. The concept,“Whiteness” ;the condition of being White,which when referring to people , means people of European ancestry and phenotype. That’s it. It means nothing else. Europeanness in ancestry and phenotype are the only essential traits of “Whiteness”. They alone are necessary and sufficient for “Whiteness” to exist. “Whiteness”exist as long as they exist. To abolish “Whiteness” is to abolish people with those traits. Period. Your thought experiment is flawed because in it you make racial phenotypes accidental traits. No more relevant to humaness than the paint job on a car is to carness. However in the real world racial phenotypes are essential traits that are inherent in human beings. The phenotype of our parents puts limits on our possible phenotypes. While the color of a car isn’t intrinsic to its’ make or model. Your ancestry and the traits you obtained from them or part of the essence of you. Abolishing them means abolishing the person. Furthermore, “ Whiteness “ doesn’t mean a particular set of beliefs, values, ideas, attitudes, opinions , or other psychological phenomena. Because those things are not part of the meaning of “Whiteness” neither are any social or political ideas based on them. So changing attitudes, opinions, beliefs,etc. claimed to be held by Whites,or changing the social structure of Western societies,based on those ideas, isn’t abolishing “Whiteness” since White people would continue to exist through those changes. To “abolish Whiteness “ White people would have to be abolished. People who argue otherwise are ignorant or malicious.
LikeLike
“Whiteness” also entails societal advantages social inequities and structural biases which perpetuate racial hierarchies. As I argued, when people say to “Abolish whiteness”, it doesn’t mean to eradicate a group of people—it’s not calling for genocide to a group of people. It’s merely challenging systems of privilege and oppression associated with the construct of whiteness.
The thought experiment shows that racial identity isn’t inherent to individuals, shaking that it can be reimagined without erasing individual people. “Whiteness” encompasses social norms which privilege white people. So we can challenge and deconstruct these privileges without eradicating people.
I think I was clear with the argument I mounted and how saying that whiteness should be abolished doesn’t entail abolishing groups of people.
LikeLike
We must separate the essential/necessary traits of a concept from those which are accidental/contingent. The non-biological ideas associated with “Whiteness” are accidental attributes that in some people’s minds, in some societies,during a particular period of history , are affixed to “Whiteness “. They are not part of “ Whiteness “, anymore than being yellow or having the word “yield” inside it are parts of “Triangleness”. They are contingent on a particular social environment which is a product of a particular history. Minus that history they wouldn’t exist;yet “Whiteness” would exist. We know someone is White solely because of their physical appearance, which indicates they are of European descent. We don’t need to know anything about their personality, beliefs, ideas, or values, because they are irrelevant to being “White”. To call for Abolishing “Whiteness” is to call for abolishing the essential traits. Those traits are biological. There’s no getting around that. Now biological traits can be simply destroyed by wiping out the genes that produce them ( straight up genocide), or by preventing their being spread by reproduction, or destroying the unity of the suite of traits which are inherited together by forcing admixture with other populations which lack the targeted traits, ie. forced amalgamation. If I’m not mistaken the last two are also considered genocidal in intent. To the extent a group of people are defined by biological traits; calling for their abolition is inherently genocidal because unlike cultural traits which can be abandoned or changed, biological traits can’t be. However even if I believed you were correct in your argument on this topic. I would not defend calling for “Abolishing Whiteness”since in periods of social conflict many, probably most people aren’t likely to remember they’re not acting against people but an intangible set of ideas and institutions. It’s irresponsible to use such language. Now I am not saying you, personally,are calling for or desirous of that. I’m only saying that the phrase “Abolishing Whiteness” does entail genocide of some sort against White people.
LikeLike