STRATEGY OF WHITE SEPARATISM*, THE

Journal of Political and Military Sociology, Summer 2006 by Dobratz, Betty A, Shanks-Meile, Stephanie L

Although we are concerned that our use of the term white separatistism may be viewed as "taking sides " by some, we hope that the term will be seen as a social scientific concept useful in analyzing the current movement.

Dobratz and Shanks-Meile 1997:11

Our decision to call the contemporary movement separatist should not be construed to mean that we don't believe that most, if not all, whites in this movement feel they are superior to blacks.

Dobratz and Shanks-Meile 1997:124

The various labels of a movement we have called white separatist include organized racism, white power, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, white nationalist and white racialist movement. In this article we continue to examine the issue related to naming and defining the white separatist movement. This was initially discussed in our co-authored book entitled "White Power, White Pride!" The White Separatist Movement in the U.S. There are numerous implications for doing research on highly stigmatized groups, especially when the researchers strive to be relatively objective, conduct face to face interviewing and attend their events. Naming a particular movement is especially problematic when social scientists and organizations outside the movement challenge the labels of movement members themselves and there is also disagreement within the movement regarding appropriate labels. We explore a selected few of the myriad issues related to defining and explaining this movement.

In collecting data for our co-authored book entitled "White Power, White Pride!" The White Separatist Movement in the U.S., we studied the white separatist movement (WSM) or the white power movement (WPM) including attending several public and private events of white separatists and engaging in numerous interviews with participants, many of them face-to-face. One of the major issues that a researcher of a highly stigmatized movement faces is the labeling of the movement. Movement members, watchdog groups, social scientists, the media, and outsiders all seem to have their own views. Indeed it is also clear that not everyone within the movement agrees with any particular label either. We argue here that separatism represents a valid sociological concept and should be considered an applicable label even though there are concerns expressed by certain claimsmaker or watchdog organizations and social scientists.

The introduction of the idea of a separate nation-state of whites only as a major goal of this movement marks the recognition of dramatic changes that have occurred in American society, especially since the 1960s civil rights era. Although segregation may still exist in American society, the massive overarching legal structure of segregation is no longer in place. The renown historian C. Vann Woodard (1966:191) put it this way: "The year 1965 ... did not mark the solution of a problem, but it did mark the end of a period-the period of legally sanctioned segregation of races. As a legal entity Jim Crow could at last be pronounced virtually a thing of the past. If Jim Crow was dead, however, his ghost still haunted a troubled people."

Omi and Winant in their book Racial Formation in the U.S. (1996) point out that the right wing of the 1990s is not simply demanding a return to segregation and that indeed the racial upheavals of the 1960s made such a return unlikely. They also maintain that:

The far right was attempting to develop a new white identity, to reassert the very meaning of whiteness, which had been rendered unstable and unclear by the minority challenges of the 1960s. Nor was it clear what "rights" white people had in the wake of challenges to their formerly privileged status. (Omi and Winant 1996:120)

Influenced by the civil rights movement (see McAdam 1982), advocates of white power (WP) searched for "a new white identity" in the multi-cultural U.S. Much of the movement modified its ideology and strategy to adjust to current realities (as they viewed them). This is what sociologists sometimes refer to as movement organizations reframing their position. It appears that the old style white supremacy advocated in the 1960s was not successful so movement supporters have corne to advocate separatism to "save the white race" and develop their distinct cultural identity. The degree of separation espoused by movement members is not always the same, but mainly it involved a strictly white homeland and white government. This could be the entire U.S. or a segment of it. The changes in mainstream values and behavior that tended to be associated with the civil rights period are mainly repugnant to white separatists who have come to feel the best hope for the continuance of the white race is to withdraw from a society that is so morally reprehensible to them.

First, we discuss the stigma of the movement and then the issue of naming the movement, followed by considering the meaning and value of the concept of separatism. Finally, we analyze the responses of selected movement members concerning their interpretations of the controversial concepts of white separatism and white supremacy.