YouTuber removed from Yooka-Laylee game for his controversial views on race and immigration

midian182

Posts: 9,632   +120
Staff member

A popular YouTuber who recently caused controversy for his views on immigration and race has been dropped from his voice-acting role in the upcoming Yooka-Laylee game.

Indie developer Playtonic decided to remove JonTron, real name is Jon Jafari, from the game following remarks he made on a Twitch livestream. He suggested that America should be predominately white, that wealthy black people have committed more crimes than poor white people, and Mexican immigrants are attempting to claim parts of the US.

The stream followed a number of tweets from Jafari defending Iowa Representative Steve King’s "We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies" comment. "Wow, how scandalous, Steve King doesn't want his country invaded by people who have contempt for his culture and people! NAZI!!!" tweeted Jafari, who is of Iranian and Hungarian descent.

"We recently became aware of comments made by voice artist JonTron after development on Yooka-Laylee had been completed," UK developer Playtonic told GameIndustry.biz.

"JonTron is a talented video presenter who we were initially, two years ago, happy to include as a voice contributor in our game. However, in light of his recent personal viewpoints we have made the decision to remove JonTron's inclusion in the game via a forthcoming content update.”

Jafari’s YouTube channel, JonTronShow, has lost thousands of subscribers in the wake of his comments, but still has more than 3.1 million followers.

Yooka-Laylee is the spiritual successor to Banjo-Kazooie. As a fan of the original, Jafari was asked by Playtonic to voice one of the minor characters in its game, which launches on April 11. Jafari says he understands the company’s decision.

In the rest of its statement, Playtonic emphasized that in no way did it support Jafari’s views.

“We would like to make absolutely clear that we do not endorse or support JonTron's personal viewpoints and that, as an external fan contributor, he does not represent Playtonic in any capacity. Playtonic is a studio that celebrates diversity in all forms and strives to make games that everyone can enjoy. As such, we deeply regret any implied association that could make players feel anything but 100% comfortable in our game worlds, or distract from the incredible goodwill and love shown by our fans and Kickstarter backers."

Permalink to story.

 
@davislane1 Remember that most of this staff has been working in this field for 20+ years now and unfortunately, due to many of the inequalities of the time and prior it created an imbalance in the diversity of trained and experienced developers for this field. Many of these guys worked together on projects going back to the SNES and unfortunately there were far fewer minorities in the area than there are now. If you look at many younger teams you'll see that the mix is starting to happen, though it's still going to take a while (perhaps after my lifetime) before there is a proper representation based on the population. Socioeconomics has played a big role in this change.

I do agree that generally most people in the US are too soft now, but if I owned or ran a company I wouldn't want anyone who couldn't think far enough to NOT make those sort of statements publicly on my team.
 
I dont know how he remains "popular". I used to like his early stuff, but his recent videos were really poor quality wise, and he hasnt posted things in months.

"washed up" you-tuber might be a better description. "has been" maybe?
America, where you are free to believe anything pre-approved by the Ministry of Truth.

The rather amusing bit is that the company that dropped him for being anti-diversity is, well, whiter than a box of Swedes: http://www.playtonicgames.com/team/

Jafari's response was very professional, though. Points for that.
You are free to say whatever you want, and your company is free to let you go if they think you make them look like a bunch of bell-ends. Freedom of speech doesnt protect you from the consequences of your actions.
 
Last edited:
America, where you are free to believe anything pre-approved by the Ministry of Truth.

The rather amusing bit is that the company that dropped him for being anti-diversity is, well, whiter than a box of Swedes: http://www.playtonicgames.com/team/

Jafari's response was very professional, though. Points for that.

He's allowed to believe whatever he wants to in America. Companies are also free to fire his *** for being a total tool as well. The system is balanced.
 
@davislane1 Remember that most of this staff has been working in this field for 20+ years now and unfortunately, due to many of the inequalities of the time and prior it created an imbalance in the diversity of trained and experienced developers for this field. Many of these guys worked together on projects going back to the SNES and unfortunately there were far fewer minorities in the area than there are now. If you look at many younger teams you'll see that the mix is starting to happen, though it's still going to take a while (perhaps after my lifetime) before there is a proper representation based on the population. Socioeconomics has played a big role in this change.

I know why the team is composed as it is. The Swedes comment was a double-sided rhetorical attack on them and the Swedes.

I do agree that generally most people in the US are too soft now, but if I owned or ran a company I wouldn't want anyone who couldn't think far enough to NOT make those sort of statements publicly on my team.

People shouldn't have to strategically voice their opinions. He didn't come out and make any threats or go out of his way to harm anyone. They should have defended his right to hold those positions. Yes, it would have upset the social justice left and they would demand boycotts, but the company would have won a huge PR victory amid a changing political climate that's moving from the left to the right.

They gained nothing by dropping him, and the outrage brigade will not reward them for compliance. In fact, they will continue to exercise malice towards the company for hiring him in the first place (check out twitter to see for yourself).

This move was textbook (see: amateur) PR strategy. Nothing more.
 
He's allowed to believe whatever he wants to in America. Companies are also free to fire his *** for being a total tool as well. The system is balanced.

They have a word for this. It starts with an F.
 
First of all, Dave, this is a UK company! It's not an American company, and they don't have a Free Speech Amendment! Secondly, you seem to be a little coy about what you actually think of the statements. I have to think you agree with them. If Jafari say that wealthy black people commit more crimes than poor whites, he'd better have some stats to back that up. That's not an "opinion", that's a statement of falsifiable fact. My experience with Mexican immigrants is that they have much too many other worries to have any ideas about "taking back the US". They're not too pleased with the way the Mexican gov't is run, crimelords, violence, etc. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE NO LONGER IN MEXICO! Finally, I think his "professional" response has a lot more to do with damage control and not losing further money, than anything else. He just doesn't want to lose out on further opportunities, especially if his channel is tanking. I don't know, I've never watched the S.O.B.
 
@davislane1 Remember that most of this staff has been working in this field for 20+ years now and unfortunately, due to many of the inequalities of the time and prior it created an imbalance in the diversity of trained and experienced developers for this field. Many of these guys worked together on projects going back to the SNES and unfortunately there were far fewer minorities in the area than there are now. If you look at many younger teams you'll see that the mix is starting to happen, though it's still going to take a while (perhaps after my lifetime) before there is a proper representation based on the population. Socioeconomics has played a big role in this change.

I know why the team is composed as it is. The Swedes comment was a double-sided rhetorical attack on them and the Swedes.

I do agree that generally most people in the US are too soft now, but if I owned or ran a company I wouldn't want anyone who couldn't think far enough to NOT make those sort of statements publicly on my team.

People shouldn't have to strategically voice their opinions. He didn't come out and make any threats or go out of his way to harm anyone. They should have defended his right to hold those positions. Yes, it would have upset the social justice left and they would demand boycotts, but the company would have won a huge PR victory amid a changing political climate that's moving from the left to the right.

They gained nothing by dropping him, and the outrage brigade will not reward them for compliance. In fact, they will continue to exercise malice towards the company for hiring him in the first place (check out twitter to see for yourself).

This move was textbook (see: amateur) PR strategy. Nothing more.


Ok, lets knock down a few things you are wrong about:

"They should have defended his right to hold those positions."
Why? If these "positions" are antithetical to their worldview why should they have to defend them? As a black man I will defend the right of the Klan to speak, and hold a march, but I would in no way have them part of any product I am shipping. You are commingling two things that do NOT belong together.

"Yes, it would have upset the social justice left"
There is really no such thing as the "social justice left", but even if, in your worldview, there is, what the hell is the matter with people fighting for "social justice"? I mean do you actually take the time to deconstruct what you are saying? Social justice=bad? What, why? This country was founded by people looking for social justice and freedom. If the fact that there are people still fighting this fight bothers you perhaps you don't really understand the founding principles of this republic.

"won a huge PR victory amid a changing political climate that's moving from the left to the right."
No, they would have suffered a huge PR loss in a political climate that is moving from right to left. Trump LOST, LOST, LOST the popular vote by a large margin. LOOOOOST. The country is >not< getting more conservative.
LGBT rights -> Country adopting the more liberal viewpoint. (Remember all the HORRIBLE stuff conservatives said would happen if we allowed "them" to serve openly in the military? Notice any of that happening? At all?)
Marijuana -> Country adopting the more liberal viewpoint. (States legalizing)
Environment -> Country adopting the more liberal viewpoint. (Climate change happening, debate about who is responsible, but a decade ago people were saying it was not even happening)
Renewable energy -> Country adopting the more liberal viewpoint. (Take a look at solar installs over the last decade)

We as a society are becoming more liberal, more diverse.

If you, like this person,Yooka-Laylee, lament the country not being a white-people-party-club I pity you.
 
First of all, Dave, this is a UK company! It's not an American company, and they don't have a Free Speech Amendment!

Jafari made the statements in America. Whether the company is based in the UK or on the moon has little to do with the intent of my statement. If you think otherwise, go read up on the origins of free speech. You might learn something.

Secondly, you seem to be a little coy about what you actually think of the statements. I have to think you agree with them.

Regarding his first statement, that America should remain predominantly white: I agree with this.

Regarding his second statement, that wealthy blacks have committed more crimes than poor whites: I lack the necessary information off hand to support or refute this position. It is not something I have studied. Therefore, I have no thoughts on it whatsoever.

Regarding his third statement, that Mexicans want to reclaim parts of the United States: I agree with this simply because they have demonstrated as much.

That's not an "opinion", that's a statement of falsifiable fact.

That's gonna be a swing and a miss. From an English dictionary (emphasis mine):
Opinion - (noun) a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

My experience with Mexican immigrants is that they have much too many other worries to have any ideas about "taking back the US". They're not too pleased with the way the Mexican gov't is run, crimelords, violence, etc. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE NO LONGER IN MEXICO!

A couple of points.

First off, anecdotal experiences have nothing to do with immigration policy. I've had nothing but good experience with the immigrants I've interacted with for extended periods of time. This does not mean the growth of MS13, a Hispanic street gang, in my city has "unhappened." Immigration policy and demographics are about larger trends, not one person's individual experiences.

Second, why would we them here when they don't solve their problems at home? The U.S. government has abundant corruption problems. Our cities have huge crime problems with street gangs connected to some of the very cartels they are supposed to be fleeing. Why on earth should we welcome them into our country when they demonstrably don't fight against those things? This premise is more full of holes than a Bolivian gangbanger three days after defaulting on a loan.

Ok, lets knock down a few things you are wrong about:

"They should have defended his right to hold those positions."
Why? If these "positions" are antithetical to their worldview why should they have to defend them? As a black man I will defend the right of the Klan to speak, and hold a march, but I would in no way have them part of any product I am shipping. You are commingling two things that do NOT belong together.

"If you believe things I don't like, you can't work for me." This was my entire point.

"Yes, it would have upset the social justice left"
There is really no such thing as the "social justice left", but even if, in your worldview, there is, what the hell is the matter with people fighting for "social justice"? I mean do you actually take the time to deconstruct what you are saying? Social justice=bad? What, why? This country was founded by people looking for social justice and freedom. If the fact that there are people still fighting this fight bothers you perhaps you don't really understand the founding principles of this republic.

This is historically wrong. The United States was founded based upon principles developed during the Enlightenment. Both of these events (Enlightenment and American Independence) preceded the founding intellectual work of modern social justice and progressivism, which began at the tail end of the 1800s and became a serious school of thought in the early 1900s.

As a point of fact, the fundamental structural problem of social justice was a topic of much discussion in the early and mid-1900s because it was recognized that dissimilar interests between societal groups and the ever-changing political landscape created an unsolvable problem: you can't form a coherent system of justice when everybody wants different things at different times.

Moreover, to adopt social justice as a right and proper system of justice requires that objective morality and ethics be thrown to the wind in favor of subjectivism (I.e. justice being whatever a chosen group believes it to be at the time). This creates the rather absurd scenario of something like Nazism being "okay" so long as a sufficiently large portion of the population finds gassing Jews to be acceptable. After all, in such a scenario, it is what society would demand.

To answer the question more directly, I think that social justice is a fatally flawed philosophy that is not simply bad but a cancer and blight on society.

Here's a pro tip, to avoid being blown out of the water again: I don't form positions about things I haven't been thoroughly educated on. The next time you feel the urge to comment at me, "Did you take the time to..." the answer is almost always going to be 'yes.'

"won a huge PR victory amid a changing political climate that's moving from the left to the right."
No, they would have suffered a huge PR loss in a political climate that is moving from right to left.

Explain that to Duck Dynasty, Chick-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, and, most recently, Based Stick Man. Or POTUS. Or the UK. Hell, they even had to invalidate a majority vote against gay marriage in California a few years ago.

You're so plugged into the Matrix you can't even see the scoreboard, let alone the writing on the all. Sad.

We as a society are becoming more liberal, more diverse.

If you, like this person,Yooka-Laylee, lament the country not being a white-people-party-club I pity you.

So here's the deal. In one comment, you've demonstrated gross historical ignorance, denial of observed reality, and concluded it with a misrepresentation of my views ("white people party club"). Further comments re: politics, history, or economics will be ignored because you are too short to play the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@davislane1 Remember that most of this staff has been working in this field for 20+ years now and unfortunately, due to many of the inequalities of the time and prior it created an imbalance in the diversity of trained and experienced developers for this field. Many of these guys worked together on projects going back to the SNES and unfortunately there were far fewer minorities in the area than there are now. If you look at many younger teams you'll see that the mix is starting to happen, though it's still going to take a while (perhaps after my lifetime) before there is a proper representation based on the population. Socioeconomics has played a big role in this change.

I know why the team is composed as it is. The Swedes comment was a double-sided rhetorical attack on them and the Swedes.

I do agree that generally most people in the US are too soft now, but if I owned or ran a company I wouldn't want anyone who couldn't think far enough to NOT make those sort of statements publicly on my team.

People shouldn't have to strategically voice their opinions. He didn't come out and make any threats or go out of his way to harm anyone. They should have defended his right to hold those positions. Yes, it would have upset the social justice left and they would demand boycotts, but the company would have won a huge PR victory amid a changing political climate that's moving from the left to the right.

They gained nothing by dropping him, and the outrage brigade will not reward them for compliance. In fact, they will continue to exercise malice towards the company for hiring him in the first place (check out twitter to see for yourself).

This move was textbook (see: amateur) PR strategy. Nothing more.

So the company should shoulder the PR damage for sheltering a white nationalist's racist rants?

You can say what you want in this country, just don't expect to be protected from the consequences.

Cool, another game company that I won't be giving any money to. I tell ya, the SJW smacktards are saving me a ton of money!

I sincerely doubt you would have heard of this game otherwise so it is literally no skin off their bones. Just remember that for every person like you, there is someone on the other side of the fence saying the opposite.
 
So the company should shoulder the PR damage for sheltering a white nationalist's racist rants?

You can say what you want in this country, just don't expect to be protected from the consequences.

"If you say something disagreeable there are going to be consequences."
 
I was looking forward to reading Dave's response, but he lost me at...

"Regarding his first statement, that America should remain predominantly white: I agree with this."

WTF mate

I have expressed this before. There is not a nation on this planet, black, white, or purple that should have an immigration policy that upsets its demographic balance. Nations aren't lines on a map, nations are the people who control them. Change the people, change the nation.
 
I was looking forward to reading Dave's response, but he lost me at...

"Regarding his first statement, that America should remain predominantly white: I agree with this."

WTF mate

I have expressed this before. There is not a nation on this planet, black, white, or purple that should have an immigration policy that upsets its demographic balance. Nations aren't lines on a map, nations are the people who control them. Change the people, change the nation.



I was looking forward to reading Dave's response, but he lost me at...

"Regarding his first statement, that America should remain predominantly white: I agree with this."

WTF mate

I have expressed this before. There is not a nation on this planet, black, white, or purple that should have an immigration policy that upsets its demographic balance. Nations aren't lines on a map, nations are the people who control them. Change the people, change the nation.

There's some contradiction in that statement. America like many many countries were a product of colonization. European countries coming in, taking control and say this land is theirs now. Now your initial line would suggest that immigration shouldn't upset the natural balance of the population but as we've seen with America, India and South Africa for example, the balance was more then upset when it came to the native people living in these countries/lands. Now your last line says nations are the people who control them, which was the excuse for a group of people to take control of land away from the native people and put it in the hands of those immigrants (South Africa).
 
There's some contradiction in that statement. America like many many countries were a product of colonization. European countries coming in, taking control and say this land is theirs now. Now your initial line would suggest that immigration shouldn't upset the natural balance of the population but as we've seen with America, India and South Africa for example, the balance was more then upset when it came to the native people living in these countries/lands. Now your last line says nations are the people who control them, which was the excuse for a group of people to take control of land away from the native people and put it in the hands of those immigrants (South Africa).

You almost had my point. Here's the thought, expanded:

If we were to take the population of Japan and transport them to Indonesia and in turn take the Indonesian people and transport them to Japan, would the Japanese govern themselves politically and culturally as the Indonesians (I.e. become characteristically Indonesian) and would the Indonesian people suddenly become Japanese in culture and government all by virtue of occupying the physical land formerly occupied by the other?

The answer to this question is 'no,' because dirt doesn't magically turn people into something other than who they are. What would happen is the territory known as Indonesia would become culturally and politically Japanese. Likewise, the territory known as Japan would become culturally and politically Indonesian. This is because the people are the nation, not the dirt they reside on.

We've seen this with every conquest in human history. Group A invades and captures the territory occupied by Group B and the cultural and legal systems that govern that territory change to reflect their dominant group preferences.

This isn't limited to "colonizing Europeans." It is the behavior of every population group in the history of mankind and for every species on the planet. This is why tribes, civilizations and everything in between all have histories of war and conflict. There's not a single one that has ever been "peaceful" to outsiders because the non-peaceful ones simply kill or out produce (births) them all.

If you have an immigration policy in place that does not preserve the demographic balance of a territory, that territory will eventually cease to be defined by its existing characteristics (both good and bad). Instead, it will be defined by the new group of people who hold sufficient numbers to exert control over the rest of the population.

Therefore, if nations want to continue to exist, they cannot adopt a territorial immigration policy that undermines their position within that territory.

Getting back to the topic at hand: This means that for America to remain America with respect to its social norms, legal system, cultural values, economy, technology and so forth, it must remain "majority white." If you get rid of white people or reduce them to a non-majority, you will get exactly the type of nation you see persisting in the regions that the replacement populations originate from.

This is why I believe the following:

1. No immigration policy should upset the pre-existing demographic balance of the host nation.
2. No would-be migrant should ever be permitted residence or political representation unless they both (1) reject their pre-existing cultural values and (2) adopt the host's values and norms as right and just.

To do anything less is to ensure that whatever nation exists is brought down from "within." The failure to understand or properly weigh this is what killed the Roman Empire and what doomed the United States in 1965 (when the US removed balancing measures from its immigration policy).

Ergo, I agree with Jafari that America should remain majority white (as should every other European nation). The alternative is for it to become fundamentally not American.

None of this is contradictory.
 
Davislane1 thinks orcs are overrunning the borders of the US and that the US needs to be kept safe from those very same orcs. He probably sees those orcs everywhere he looks, and thus he lives in his own personal hell. He claims to be knowledgeable about history yet fails to see that America is defined by its constitution, not its populace. Taking anything he says seriously is impossible.

Oh look davislane1 another orc
Another-Orc-by-phew_album.jpg

Run and hide!
:eek:
 
JonTron was right: Black criminality is a serious issue. FBI stats show that Black people comprise 13% of the population and 52% of murderers, 56% of robbers, 33% of agg. assault offenders, 30% of burglars, 35% of gang members, and 44% of cop killers. No one should lose a position like this for speaking the truth.
 
I dont know how he remains "popular". I used to like his early stuff, but his recent videos were really poor quality wise, and he hasnt posted things in months.

"washed up" you-tuber might be a better description. "has been" maybe?
America, where you are free to believe anything pre-approved by the Ministry of Truth.

The rather amusing bit is that the company that dropped him for being anti-diversity is, well, whiter than a box of Swedes: http://www.playtonicgames.com/team/

Jafari's response was very professional, though. Points for that.
You are free to say whatever you want, and your company is free to let you go if they think you make them look like a bunch of bell-ends. Freedom of speech doesnt protect you from the consequences of your actions.
Exactly, and I believe SCOTUS has ruled that freedom of speech does not give anyone in the US the right to slander. I bet that this guy cannot back up his claim that rich blacks commit more crimes than poor whites; he probably heard it on Rush Limburger's radio show and repeated it without checking the facts.

The new hero of the right attacks anything and anyone he can in an effort to deflect the fact that his presidency is falling flat on its face, and has threatened to sue anyone for defamation. In fact, he has his dogs chasing a 17-year old girl for much the same kind of thing, but if the minister of truth does something like this, there is nothing wrong with it since it is their hero that is doing it.

SCOTUS on slander -
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise constitutional problems." The Court in Chaplinsky held that defamatory speech is not essential to the exposition of ideas and that it can be regulated without raising constitutional concerns. This reasoning was confirmed in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 72 S. Ct. 725, 96 L. Ed. 919 (1952), where the Court again held that libelous speech is not protected by the Constitution.
Source

But perhaps if we magically transplant a bunch of Russians into the US, the Constitution and the laws will be changed so that free speech is defined to include slanderous and libelous speech.

JonTron was right: Black criminality is a serious issue. FBI stats show that Black people comprise 13% of the population and 52% of murderers, 56% of robbers, 33% of agg. assault offenders, 30% of burglars, 35% of gang members, and 44% of cop killers. No one should lose a position like this for speaking the truth.
This in no way supports Jafari. Link your statistics and show us where those criminal blacks are rich. Better yet, learn to think for yourself.
 
Last edited:
JonTron was right: Black criminality is a serious issue. FBI stats show that Black people comprise 13% of the population and 52% of murderers, 56% of robbers, 33% of agg. assault offenders, 30% of burglars, 35% of gang members, and 44% of cop killers. No one should lose a position like this for speaking the truth.

That's probably because of institutionalized racism and a revolving privatized prison door system that turns minorities into profit.
 
You almost had my point. Here's the thought, expanded:

If we were to take the population of Japan and transport them to Indonesia and in turn take the Indonesian people and transport them to Japan, would the Japanese govern themselves politically and culturally as the Indonesians (I.e. become characteristically Indonesian) and would the Indonesian people suddenly become Japanese in culture and government all by virtue of occupying the physical land formerly occupied by the other?

The answer to this question is 'no,' because dirt doesn't magically turn people into something other than who they are. What would happen is the territory known as Indonesia would become culturally and politically Japanese. Likewise, the territory known as Japan would become culturally and politically Indonesian. This is because the people are the nation, not the dirt they reside on.

We've seen this with every conquest in human history. Group A invades and captures the territory occupied by Group B and the cultural and legal systems that govern that territory change to reflect their dominant group preferences.

This isn't limited to "colonizing Europeans." It is the behavior of every population group in the history of mankind and for every species on the planet. This is why tribes, civilizations and everything in between all have histories of war and conflict. There's not a single one that has ever been "peaceful" to outsiders because the non-peaceful ones simply kill or out produce (births) them all.

If you have an immigration policy in place that does not preserve the demographic balance of a territory, that territory will eventually cease to be defined by its existing characteristics (both good and bad). Instead, it will be defined by the new group of people who hold sufficient numbers to exert control over the rest of the population.

Therefore, if nations want to continue to exist, they cannot adopt a territorial immigration policy that undermines their position within that territory.

Getting back to the topic at hand: This means that for America to remain America with respect to its social norms, legal system, cultural values, economy, technology and so forth, it must remain "majority white." If you get rid of white people or reduce them to a non-majority, you will get exactly the type of nation you see persisting in the regions that the replacement populations originate from.

This is why I believe the following:

1. No immigration policy should upset the pre-existing demographic balance of the host nation.
2. No would-be migrant should ever be permitted residence or political representation unless they both (1) reject their pre-existing cultural values and (2) adopt the host's values and norms as right and just.

To do anything less is to ensure that whatever nation exists is brought down from "within." The failure to understand or properly weigh this is what killed the Roman Empire and what doomed the United States in 1965 (when the US removed balancing measures from its immigration policy).

Ergo, I agree with Jafari that America should remain majority white (as should every other European nation). The alternative is for it to become fundamentally not American.

None of this is contradictory.

I see where you're coming from but that kind of thinking is stuck in the past and too late. The people (I'm talking legally) are already here from all kinds of nations and cultures. They are the "people" of nation and as so the nation must reflect all of their views, on top of that the arguement is broken by one question: what is the "white" cultural identity in America? Is it the catholic conservative? Is it the liberal hippie? Is it the moderate middle class? And what is the culture that is unifying for all the different white people? And when do they not over lap with other sub cultures like Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc? America invted Rock, Jazz, Blues, which were influenced by music from other cultures. Pizza is very American, but is based on Italian culture. The Matrix, a great American "white" film, takes heavy influences from East Asian martial art films. It's too late, conversion is happening and instead of trying to stick your head in the sand, why not be a part of it?
 
Back