Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Okay, here you go: a couple of bona fide whites-only organizations still active at least within the past few years.
My actual argument is that whites-only private clubs are exactly as legal as black-only, Indian-only, Latino-only, etc., private clubs. They are practically non-existent for reasons of social censure, not due to legal threats (if you can find recent examples of truly private whites-only or white male-only clubs that integrated or disbanded due to a court decision, I’d welcome such examples). Additionally, truly black-only clubs are also fairly rare on the ground, albeit more common than whites-only clubs, as most clubs and organizations that seem at first blush to be black-only are technically open to others as well (and in fact many do have non-black members). They face less social scrutiny, but they operate under the exact same legal framework that a whites-only club would operate under.
Finally, though this hasn’t come up because I don’t think it’s in dispute, it’s worth noting that plenty of all-white, all-black, all-Indian, etc., organizations still exist, even though they don’t have any explicit racial rules around joining. I can think of several gun clubs, Lions Heritage groups, scouting organizations, lodges, American Legion posts, churches, and a few other non-profits in my area (some of which I’ve been a part of) that have exclusively white membership, even in areas that are not exclusively white. For that matter, I know of a number of small businesses that have only white male employees.
are you claiming a golf club in 2026, 36 years after 1990, wouldn't face legal threats after being "famously" whites-only?
What sort of evidence would prove to you that whites-only men's clubs are not treated under the same "legal framework," whatever that means? Lawsuits? Investigations? Raids? Infiltration? SCOTUS decisions specifically putting racial discrimination against whites into law? Audits? Government grants and subsidized scholarships? Government-connected organizations like banks and universities endorsing special places for non-whites specifically?
Recent meaning what? Governments at the local, state, and federal level engaged in a top-down government persecution and destruction of whites-only clubs over decades, when those clubs were not social pariahs and held a fair amount of influence. Do you not think this happened or do you just not think this is relevant to the "legal framework," now?
What laws and legal framework has changed from the time the government did this? If you can't come up with any, what's the difference between then in now?
Having experience in these sorts of clubs with their average age of 75, I find it pretty odd that you're mentioning them in a discussion about "whites only men's clubs."
If some black person accidentally stumbled into these organizations' front door looking for directions, they would be inundated by boomers telling them about the club to get them to join.
to be frank, attempting to pass off non-white racial groups as merely "facing less social scrutiny," when one set of groups get government endorsement, special access, fortune 500 companies advertise them to investors, special rules for contracting from Virginia to California, and more, compared to the other groups which is career ending social suicide is just completely ridiculous and I think you know which makes me wonder why you would attempt that description
do you disagree there is anti-white discrimination at the government or social level or you agree there is anti-white discrimination but claim this isn't relevant to a discussion about exclusive racial clubs?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link