Posted by Englander on Sun, 27 May 2007 19:15 | #

“Displacement” is a pretty good word for it. “White displacement”. Personally I have no problem with any term which implies weakness on our part. We live in an age when being a victim carries with it power. Some of us might have no problem openly displaying our displeasure with the situation, but most people are most certainly frightened of doing so, and I think it’s good to be open about what position we as whites are in. Use that fear. Grasp from it pity or anger, or any motivating force.
“White flight”, for me, is imperfect as a term because it doesn’t communicate any notion of one pushing out the other. It is often implied that whites move for economic reasons alone and therefore used to uphold the myth of white privilege.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 May 2007 19:26 | #

The word I have used to describe the situation in the English cities is “dispossession”, which is stronger than “displacement”, if perhaps slightly removed from the notion of a specifically geographic loss. 

Nonetheless, “White Dispossession” is my suggestion.

Posted by Bo Sears on Sun, 27 May 2007 20:48 | #

Of course, a big problem with “white flight” is that it draws a left-wing racialist mental picture (a caricature) that attempts to show that “white racism” is the reason. 

Our local newspaper even spelled that out: departure of white Americans from California is called “white flight” and viewed as racist flight from Mexicans, but departure of Latino Americans from California is called a “Latino diaspora.” Even Mexican movement away from Mexico is never called “Mexican flight.” We’re the only ones who get blamed for being victimized.

Use of “pushed away” or “ethnic cleansing” or “vectorized racial targeting” or “white displacement” or “white dispossession” are each better terms than “white flight.” They each reflect the truth that the white American peoples are acted upon in a negative way.

In our syllabus, we define white flight as “a hate caricature masking the true nature of the pushing away or ethnic cleansing of European American residents, students, or employees; an attempt to smother European American diversity.”

http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/slurs9.htm

Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 21:01 | #

White flight is cowardly.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 27 May 2007 22:21 | #

I like “white displacement”.

Posted by Viridovix on Sun, 27 May 2007 22:55 | #

We live in an age when being a victim carries with it power.

That will not work for European Americans or Britons because as the politically correct narrative instructs us, European Americans or Britons are all by default collectively economically empowered. To the liberal modernist, lack of money entails victimhood; literally having been victimized by white privilege.

It is often implied that whites move for economic reasons alone and therefore used to uphold the myth of white privilege.

Victimhood is almost impossible for any member of the white privilege oppressor class. Worse, victimhood pity accompanied by consessions is a method of liberalism. Is the goal consessions or to be rid of a systemic catastrophe?

Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 23:08 | #

The feminization of white men is a major part of the problem. It always produces degeneracy which brings on civilization collapse. I don’t see how more coddling solves anything. I suspect it will only accelerate our demise. We can’t speak frankly and honestly about anything today. Instead of making excuses for white men, we should rub their faces in their dishonor. T.R. understood this better than anyone.

Posted by Bo Sears on Sun, 27 May 2007 23:43 | #

The idea that the power of being a victim of name-calling or hate caricatures can ever benefit Americans of European origins is an interesting concept, but has two flaws.

First, many white European men and white American men dislike engaging in what they see as whining or passive-aggressive behavior.

Second, our adversaries (the backbone of the dominant media culture and the corporate entertainment culture) would never recognize equivalency in harm done, even to children.

The cure for both problems can be found in our theory of slurs which turns the question on its head. Instead of complaining to the outside world about being victims of slurs, we use the fact of the slur as an aggressive way of interrogating the mind of the slanderer.

This frees us from the disagreeable matter of claiming victimhood, and allows us to adopt a really vicious method of counterattack. You can see it here at:

http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/g48.htm

Briefly we have assembled various kinds of charges to level at the slurrer: your naming us shows that you are making a supremacist claim when you claim the right to name us; your naming us an insect, animal, food, negative, or classist name betrays your bigotry; your label for us is disgusting; your label for us is divisive; and your label for us smothers our diversity.

Some of those counter-attacks are deemed unworthy by some of our co-demographics, but somewhere in that list of types of charges any good debater should find ways to construct a serious rant at the slurrer. We do it all the time.

Of course we are engaged in a much larger fight that mere slurs, but our children deserve at least this much from us.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 May 2007 08:56 | #

At the risk of sounding repetitive, I have just come across a phrase that rings all the bells for me ... one of those moments when you think, “Hell, how come I never used that?”

I was checking out VNN’s thread on the Linder arrest to see what lessons were being drawn from it, and came across a comment by the interesting “New America”:

We have become the Dispossessed Majority in what WAS our Homeland.

The Dispossessed Majority ... majority dispossession.

Posted by Daedalus on Mon, 28 May 2007 10:04 | #

An obvious reference to Robinson’s The Dispossessed Majority.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Mon, 28 May 2007 13:10 | #

Of course, lefties like George Galloway MP spit feathers and indulge their precious consciences about the ‘poor Palestinians’ who have been ‘ethnically cleansed’ out of ‘their own land and own homes’ by ‘ruthless detemined, brutal invaders’ who ‘couldn’t give a damn about the “rights” of “indigenous peoples”.
An element of truth in their of course.
But youe will never, ever here Galloway and his ilk in the SWP and elsewhere describe the plight of White English working-class Londoners being dispossessed of their ‘ancestral birthright home’ in the same way.
Curiously in this particular case all of his precious sympathy and hot-air is with inexorable iron-heel racial hegemony of profoundly alien invaders.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 29 May 2007 02:04 | #

“Majority dispossession” isn’t as pithy as “white flight” but has the virtues of being descriptive and of respecting Wilmot Robertson’s well deserved priority.