In the upcoming centuries as the world becomes more and more independent will White supremacy be studied as a weird...

>Americans without a true identity
Yet they claim they are American and not Mexican.

i mean it's just sort of arbitrary
someone living in ireland and someone living in (what is now) estonia 1,000 years ago would not feel much in the way of kinship
only with the rise of racial ideologies in the modern era would they find something (whiteness) that unites them

If the world becomes independent of European Enlightenment ideas, it won't last long. Non-Enlightenment ideologies and nuclear weapons results in total devastation as the basic struggle of civilization turns into unrestricted warfare and then apocalypse. The only thing keeping people from destroying themselves is the European idea that mass murder is not ok.

Related article:

nytimes.com/2017/04/21/opinion/the-crisis-of-western-civ.html

>no lol
Can you explain why or why it won't?
The biggest blowback to it so far as I'm concerned was Britain meekly handing Hong Kong back to China.

that article is pretty dumb lol
your line of thinking sounds very Huntington-esque and that's not a compliment
>the european idea that mass murder is not ok
wow I hope you have no serious interest in history

My brief explanation followed "no lol"
Basically, it is useful to refer to history to understand modern dynamics of power (on the micro and macro scales)
The recent history of western imperialism has made the concept of "white supremacy" useful in understanding how the imperial powers understood their identity in contrast to colonized Other
I'm starting to think I misread your original post though, were you implying that with the rise of the non-West (again) white supremacy as an ideology will be seen as a colonial meme that was more grounded in atlantic-euro interests than empirical fact? if so i mis-judged your post, and you're right lol

You're too informed to be here.

Even for all the fucked up shit European colonists did in their colonial fiefdoms, it's not much compared to what came before. All the tactics King Leopold did in the Congo was first used against Europeans themselves before the Enlightenment made such things forbidden (at least towards white people). If the world rejects those ideas, then warfare becomes more violent as aggressors choose death over diplomacy.

This is very flowerly language, but it can be seen in a more practical sense with ISIS-related conlficts. For example:

youtube.com/watch?v=U2d9cat4FWg

If wars have no rules and all civilians become combatants, the only thing that could result is holocaust after holocaust.

>only with the rise of racial ideologies in the modern era
Yeah sure before the racist indoctrination, they would feel that they have more in common with a black man then with a white (who just speaks a different language, but look at least familiar).

i don't see why you think rules of war are uniquely european. also, this is pedantic, but i take issue with the phrase "colonail fiefdom"- seems at least anachronistic. In what way were all the horrors of colonialism exactly perpetrated against "white people" before the age of exploration? Are you just talking about slave raiding in the caucuses or what

maybe not, but they wouldn't have a concept of shared whiteness- this example becomes more pertinent if the two europeans were, say, a sicilian and a dane

>concept of shared whiteness
It starts when you see the first non white person.
It is kinda instinctual user, you see people who are different then you, and you feel alienated the more different they are (its not only about race). And you feel compelled to associate to thous who are less dissimilar.

Also with time you will develop an us vs them menatality, even unconsiously.

this is a common folk understanding, but it's not academic. a roman wouldn't see a norseman as his brother in whiteness, but he may see a berber as his brother in roman-ness. the idea of european identity and shared whiteness comes along a bit later

>sicilian white
>sicilian european
No, they are arab rape babies.

>see a berber as his brother in roman-ness
Mhh do you think so user?
Or maybe he would see a beber member of a group of people that have been conquered and asimilated (therefore different but submited), and the norsemen as not yet assimilated (but essentially similar people).

Why only White supremacy! And it’s actually the least problem of the world today, many people from other parts of thr world would happily move to most white countries given the chance.

No, if people are studying history it's safe to assume there is a civilisation with some means of classifying the world. If they're privy to the same information we are but with all the dust settled, they would likely be convinced of white supremacy in some form.
Do you think they'd not notice that the Europeans were not like the others? Do you think they'd not wonder why the unassuming island of Great Britain produced more knowledge than most continents?

Is Lion supremacy a weird meme the invaders used to brainwash and control the other big cats?

No. The berber would be seen as a fellow cultured, civilized Roman. The norseman would be seen as a foreign, barbarian savage. Five out of the eleven germanic tribes were literally genocided.

Of course Americans have a sense of identity. Despite what Europeans seem to think, very, very few Americans LARP as [whatever ethnicity their ancestors were] - they see themselves as Americans first and foremost and are well aware that their identity as "Germans" or "Irish" consists mostly of eating a couple (heavily Americanized) ethnic dishes every now and then. The culture of European-descended Americans is pretty uniform, and there's a noticeable divide between European-American and African-Americans - culturally, politically, economically.

Voila. Suddenly "white" and "black" make sense as identities (shorthand for "white American").

What etc is missing is that it's not just Americans - you see the divide anywhere you have people from more than one European nationality coming together to form a new nation. Most white Africans don't see themselves as British, Dutch, German, Portuguese anymore, they see themselves as ... white Africans. Ditto for white Latin Americans. Ditto for Australians (although slightly less so since ethnically they're more uniformly British). You can certainly find plenty of Australians, Brazilians and South Africans blabbering on about >muh white race. "Whiteness" and "white supremacy" aren't really American ideas, they're postcolonial ideas.

And a political movement only really making sense in a certain context (former colonies) doesn't invalidate it. I'm NOT a white supremacist, at all, but saying it's a "meme" because it doesn't make sense for Europeans is a shitty argument against it. Because "white" and "black" are meaningful labels in a big chunk of the world. Just maybe not the chunk you live in.

>i don't see why you think rules of war are uniquely european.

In practice, they are. When decolonialism occurred, most colonial regimes were replaced by non-traditionalist socialist ones which preached victory at all costs and no compromise. Even if traditionalist notions survived, the reality of modern warfare (machine guns, rifles and artillery) prevents tradition from having any relevance on the battlefield.

The only thing keeping the world in check is the idea that people shouldn't kill each other, governments should not subjugate it's citizens and WMDs should not be utilized against civilians. If people turn on these ideas, we're left with constant war and devastation. See North Korea as a real life example.

>In what way were all the horrors of colonialism exactly perpetrated against "white people" before the age of exploration?

Torture methods, notions of slave/servant ownership, sharecropping, etc are all borne from medieval European traditions. Before Europeans enslaved blacks they enslaved each other, a notion which gradually ended thanks to the Enlightenment's ideas proliferating.

>Serbian
>Bosnian
One of them is not an ethnic group you mongoloid retard.

Bosnians = native inhabitants of Bosnia (including Serbs)
Serbs = members of the Serbian ethnic group

Put a Serbian and Bosnian next to each other and they'll start fighting.

see >idiots still think that bosnia = muslims despite christians being the majority

Before race it was religion. An Irish man would think higher of Armenians than Persians because they were Christian.
Nothing ever changes.

yes but in 1945 it was different , you can see by degaul who considered an french have to be white and christian.

some unfortunate outcomes of colonialism were unique to it: the type of slavery employed by europeans on african can’t be seen as the same as euro on euro slavery
it was uniquely racialized, for one (not saying euros didnt use ethnocentric justification for enslaving fellow euros but this is not the same as using racial pseudoscience

Sure but he was all about FRENCH people, FRENCH identity. Nothing to do with 'white', but rather specifically French and descended from other French. De Gaulle equally didn't want anything to do with Germans, didn't see any common ground with them.

Pls, its generic wishy washy troofbomb tier shit that follows the same line of thinking. Using colours to help determine race goes back to early non American anthropologists and ethnographers.