I’m coming into this thread for the first time, with some of my own ideas, but of course you guys are already voicing ideas very similar (perhaps only wording is different), so instead I’d like to say what I like about what’s being said before adding anything new (at risk of just repeating everything already said anyway.) And just so you can feel a little better where I’m trying to go with this, I’m presenting possibilities rather than judgments, and also avoiding just repeating all the good points already made. (a little challenge for me, as blurting out sudden thoughts is my tendency, lol).
I don't think it's a logical result of any of this to say that civilization is defined by white males, nor is it definitive to it. Nor does having light skin and being of European descent necessarily make you take part in Whiteness. But Western culture has had the concept of Whiteness as one of its major driving forces for some time, even if it is also something that is constantly changing.
Thanks for that point, explaining that this is more about the concept than the physical trait.
Exactly! Similarly, Western culture has had the concept of "maleness" (patriarchy) at its core pretty much since its conception. But as Dan says above, having a male body and/or light skin does NOT mean that one identifies with or expresses that "maleness" or "whiteness". So I definitely do NOT think that having a male body or light skin makes one inherently civilized, or that rewilding should be off limits to anyone because of physical traits out of their control. I guess the difference lies between one's personal traits and the characteristics (the "-ness", so to speak) of a culture. One does not at all equate with the other.
And a great response (actually this is really really close to my own response to Dan, lol). I’d like to add that it may also lie in one’s choice to follow what is learned from those around them living by the concept of ‘whiteness’, especially when it leads to sociopathic/psychopathic behavior, or their choice to strive for something different, perhaps more life affirming. Also, there are some who may grow up in a community displaying pathological behavior (non-life affirming?) but upon learning from something outside of that culture’s norms, can then be led to make that different choice.
The Nazi's did much to justify their actions with the idea that they were "superior beings", that others were inferior by the imagined "natural" barriers of race. but those who resisted them definitely didn't refer to them as "superior beings" because they knew it was complete BS to begin with. Why should we call Civilization a culture of the "White Man" if we agree that it is hardly definitive of either of these traits (the first one being totally contrived anyway)?
First I’d like to say, I love that you are questioning this common reference, suggesting that it’s too easy or too simple to just blame it all on the "White Man. To attempt to answer this question you raise, (not in effort to support, just understanding the reasoning leading up to it.) Is that many of the people speaking out against the ‘white man’ are perhaps doing so because their original culture and ancestors were oppressed and taken advantage of by people coming from European civlizations (who were white men). Maybe… by calling them the “White Man,” a person is referring to these folks who regard themselves as ‘superior’, not to agree with them, but to draw attention to just how deluded, self absorbed, and narcissistic they are, and showing how those views of oneself can lead to sociopathology as they have been known to. Maybe “white man” refers to the type of person who usurps all the privilege, and then denies that privilege, as opposed to simply all humans who are only physically white and male.
is it necessary for Rewilders to use this label for themselves as individuals who are attempting to throw off the ideological shackles of civilization?
Just to clarify, are you asking about labeling oneself as a rewilder to represent this effort to break away from the dominant culture's ideals? Just wasn't sure if you were referring to the 'white man' label or not.
Is it necessary for Rewilders to use racial concepts to define themselves if they reject and oppose the culture that is built on those faulty concepts? I'm personally fine with being described as a Euro-American or whatever, but I'm finding that there's just too much baggage that comes with the term "white" (regardless of whether you capitalize it or not).
Personally, I don't see it as being necessary, unless one wants others to know the story of where you came from before rewilding. I don't think we need to define ourselves based on racial concepts. as a rewilder I don't see it necessary to define myself as anything other than a human who wants to reach deeper and remember that universal human need, or rather that force which drives all life, the need our bodies tell us when we really ask and listen, to what is really necessary for true survival on our planet (talking about long term survival of everyone, all humans and non-humans, because really, it doesn't make sense to separate our survival from the survival of those we depend on and form relationships with.). I am also Euro-American, by descent. And that can inform the story of my personal journey. But then again, every race, if you go back far enough, has had ancestors who understood that in order for that true survival of everyone, to form those relationships. And even if there is reason to believe otherwise, that should not stop an individual from choosing to seek that.
If you're going to be honest about race and racial privilege in this society, then you need to understand it. You don't need to identify with it, but at the same time pretending you don't take part it in because you dislike it is dishonest and itself a part of white privilege in Western, particularly American, society.
I agree it's wise to be honest about where you come from, and who is privileged. if you come from a background of people who have dominated others, and perpetuated their culture with notions of self-entitlement, and you don't want to continue that culture yourself, it's essential to understand them, and that you yourself, despite your best intentions, can still have the potential to become that way yourself. It's an example of what we don't want to be, and additionally what needs to be stopped if we want truly lasting, sustainable survival.
It's easy to think that everyone else experiences the same thing as us - which explains why so many white people take their white privilege for granted, and don't even recognize it as such (thinking they achieved what they have purely by their own hard work, for example).
Thank you! I think this a great observation, and something we all need to keep in mind! I think it relates to why we need to understand people with tendencies to dominate, even if we don’t want to identify with them. Understanding that everyone’s experiences are different leads us to want to learn from others’ experiences, and perhaps those lessons can bring to light lessons from our own experiences we didn’t see before.
[quote=“Joe, post:14, topic:1525”]Wow, you guys went deep on this. Far deeper than I ever thought of the topic of the “white man.” I felt it was purely a semantic issue. I’ll illustrate what mean by telling a true story of my life.
Whiel I was living in Hawaii, I made some good friends that were local. (Part Hawaiian. Full blood Hawaiians are extremely rare.) But they were local. They had a word for caucasian people. It was “haole”. “Ha” means breath or soul and “ole” means without. (There’s a lot if interesting history behind that word but I’ll save that for a different time.)
One evenign we were all chilling and chatting and one of the guys there was joking about some stupid haole being a jerk to him. Jokingly I said. “Hey, I’m haole too.”
His response was “We got locals here more haole than you. You’re not nearly has haole as you think.”
Haole has two meaning to these people. One is a caucasian person. Being as white as white can be I was definitely haole and there was nothign I can do about that.
However, there is another meaning. This is a type of person. This person personifies a arrogant American. Therefore, I am a non haole haole to my friends over there.
I feel the same way about the words “white man.” I am a white man. I am both male and and caucasian. However, most people would not really put me in the “white man” category in that I am relatively open to other cultures and I like to learn as much as possible before making a judgemet and even then I do my best to not personify the traits in the civilized culture that I dislike.[/quote]
And wow, just as we start talking about experience, you share a great one! though it’s a short story it has a lot for us to learn from, and is a tangible example of what we’ve been trying to explore through concept. Everything you’ve said here is great. 
[quote=“incendiary_dan, post:15, topic:1525”]thunder thighs,
I apologizing for being a bit curt, and not giving explanation. What I meant was that I did not feel you are adequately reading and recognizing my contributions to this discussion, but rather have basically repeated the same points throughout. Perhaps I haven’t been as clear as I thought, but looking back I still don’t think that’s the case. Sometimes I’ve been using certain words and language in a non-typical way for so long I’ve forgotten the “normal” meaning.[/quote]
I’m thinking in this situation it’s best to ask how this could be said differently. Sometimes it takes lots of effort for us to interpret each other, and we may not always ‘get it right’. I think it’s fine to use language non-typically, I just mentioned to someone yesterday as it occurred to me, that when we combine our understandings from various sources, we might begin to form our own personal terms, and that can indicate real learning and internalizing is taking place! However, instead of wondering if it really is the case whether you feel you were clear or not, to be inviting for fair communication, perhaps ask a person what they had a hard time interpreting, and ask yourself if there are other ways to present your concepts or ideas. I admit that I am just as capable as anyone of forgetting that asking questions as opposed just telling each other, can lead to better, more mutual understandings. Just wanted to offer a reminder here.
So far, I think everyone here has shared really good insights. It’s possible to see how they contrast, but I’ve been noticing that even if they do, when considered evenly, and combined together, they offer a better balance. To repeat what bereal said about not everyone having the same experience, we’re also not going to develop the same ideas, and we’re not going to have the same ways of perceiving or learning from those ideas and experiences. But remember that humans evolved to be social, with different talents and skills with different fluency. There’s a reason we need community. With our different skills, and ways of experiencing the world (some being more feeling oriented, some more thought, some more sensing oriented) we need each other, to learn from our different experiences, and to share our skills. I know you all know this, not assuming anybody doesn’t already think this or understand this, but it’s a good reminder for why we need to consider everything, don’t just stop at a few things and set fundamentals. After all, though we’re basing a lot of this on old ways and old ideas because they’re so great, we need to be open to how we will adapt them to our current world, or even base new ways on them.
