Are poor white South Africans being left behind? (view, cheap, pros)

[Northernest Southernest C]

Originally Posted by snj90

Again, I'm not debating the merits of race rioting. It's irrelevant to my point. My point remains that blacks are able to organize politically and advocate for their own racial self-interests. It's completely irrelevant to my point whether some of their efforts are counterproductive or not. I don't know why I need to keep saying this.
Everything I say that is contradictory to your point is going to be irrelevant to you. I just see that as a scapegoat.

It just so happens those policies are beneficial to blacks. MLK is not the be all and end all as far as black leaders are concerned. In fact, there are black radicals who think MLK was too passive in his approach. Regardless of any such disagreements, what they share is a common concern for the well-being of blacks. Maybe to some extent they sympathize with other nonwhites, but if their best interests were ever at odds, the Asians, or Hispanics, or whoever, would be on the side of their own people and blacks would still be on their own race's side. Most blacks probably think massive immigration to the US is a good thing because it decreases the percentage of whites. But it can have harmful effects for blacks as well, such as immigrants driving down wages for everyone.
All of the above is just your opinion not fact. If it gives you paranoia that one day America will look vastly different then it does today all I can say is that the world is changing and you just have to deal with it. But don't try to justify your opinions on black people because that's what you believe.

See my comments above. It makes sense for, say, blacks to work with Hispanics because both can derive benefits from things such as the example you provided. It remains a zero-sum game, however, since those gains have to come at another's expense. Usually, this is at the expense of whites.
What are these expenses? That a broad topic. Having more diversity in majority white universities? More diversity in all white suburbs? You tell me what is the bad thing about that?

Affirmative action is just another way that blacks and other minorities advance their own interests. You cannot have a system of racial preference (such as affirmative action) that only confers benefits and doesn't create disadvantages for others. (Whites are the "others," but oftentimes Asians are included in that since they are overrepresented at many universities, for example, and thus excluded from any affirmative action benefits.)
If people did not discriminate, prejudge, etc then there wouldn't be a need to have a system of racial preference? Affirmative action is only given for minorities because they have a history of being oppressed. Something that all races can't claim in the same form or manner as others. What are these disadvantages? Last time I checked everybody still has access to a FASFA, state grants, loans, scholarships. So the continual overrepresentation of whites and Asians at universities as you say seem to be doing just fine to me.

I was referring to (explicitly) white heroes for white people. That's totally verboten.
If you have to ask me that question "white heroes for white people" then that means there was nothing they ever needed saving from and therefore have no civil rights heroes. Yet I'm sure there are white people that have contributed to society as a whole not just one race.

Any historical figures that may be appropriate for this distinction are not allowed to be thought of in this manner, whereas figures such as MLK and Malcolm X can be thought of by black people as explicitly black heroes.
That's because MLK and Malcolm X were not Adolf Hitler, Charles or William Lynch. So you are right some historical figures can not be though of in the same manner.

.

[snj90]

Everything I say that is contradictory to your point is going to be irrelevant to you. I just see that as a scapegoat.

No, since there could be information for you to provide that could be contradictory but still relevant, such as examples of how it's just as acceptable for whites as it is for nonwhites to agitate politically for their own interests. You won't be able to provide that, however, since the double standard is so obviously present, so you rely on arguing that some of the things blacks do are counterproductive, which is a different subject entirely, and therefore irrelevant.

What are these expenses? That a broad topic. Having more diversity in majority white universities?

I thought my statement was obvious enough. Apparently not. If there are only x number of jobs, or x number of students who can be admitted to selective universities, and if affirmative action results in protected minority groups being given more jobs or more offers of admission then they otherwise would have been given, it means a commensurate number of people from non-protected groups (e.g., whites and Asians) will lose the opportunities they otherwise would have had. That's why I called it a zero-sum game.

All of the above is just your opinion not fact. If it gives you paranoia that one day America will look vastly different then it does today all I can say is that the world is changing and you just have to deal with it. But don't try to justify your opinions on black people because that's what you believe.

This is another example of a double standard. Blacks, for example, can complain about whites moving into their neighborhoods ("gentrification"), and can demand "safe spaces" away from whites (it's real - look it up), but whites cannot ask for the same. If a black person wants to be around more fellow black people, that's just fine according to today's standards. But is it ever okay for a white person to want to be around more white people? The answer is never.

[Northernest Southernest C]

Originally Posted by snj90

No, since there could be information for you to provide that could be contradictory but still relevant, such as examples of how it's just as acceptable for whites as it is for nonwhites to agitate politically for their own interests. You won't be able to provide that, however, since the double standard is so obviously present, so you rely on arguing that some of the things blacks do are counterproductive, which is a different subject entirely, and therefore irrelevant.
What you don't understand is why would it make since for whites to agitate politically for their own interest when everything is already in the majority whites favor nonwhites fight for what whites already have access to. They want to at least get a foot in the door not take over the man. You act like its the end of the world if something goes in the minority favor.

I thought my statement was obvious enough. Apparently not. If there are only x number of jobs, or x number of students who can be admitted to selective universities, and if affirmative action results in protected minority groups being given more jobs or more offers of admission then they otherwise would have been given, it means a commensurate number of people from non-protected groups (e.g., whites and Asians) will lose the opportunities they otherwise would have had. That's why I called it a zero-sum game.
I understand what you are saying but to say that admission/competiveness of affirmative action giving minorities more representation in an industry that will still be higher for the non-protected groups as you say doesn't really make any sense. If a person is qualified for a job they might pick 4 of the best minorities and 100 qualified whites. The ratio is still not at all fair by all means but that doesn't mean that the minorities that got hired were not as qualified to perform as whites. At the end of the day more majority races are still getting hired then the 1% of minorities in those "white collar" jobs so there is really nothing to complain about. Unless you are mad because a minority outperformed you in the same job you applied for. Just consider this ratio how many white presidents, vice presidents, Secretary of States do we have out of some 300 years and compare that to minorities/women that held those same positions in office? You can probably count them all on one hand. Thing is we live in a competitive world and its global now so if affirmative action rub you the wrong way then I would hate to hear your views about outsourcing, immigration, foreign exchange students, and such.

This is another example of a double standard. Blacks, for example, can complain about whites moving into their neighborhoods ("gentrification"), and can demand "safe spaces" away from whites (it's real - look it up), but whites cannot ask for the same. If a black person wants to be around more fellow black people, that's just fine according to today's standards. But is it ever okay for a white person to want to be around more white people? The answer is never.
Gentrification is a double standard. First and foremost gentrification doesn't cause minority occupants to demand "safe spaces" away from whites, by all means the area would be a lot safer in terms of crime. What it do cause is inflation of mortgage/rent so that the minority group that live in those gentrifying neighborhoods are eventually priced out and do not leave by choice or racial preference but by financial force in a way. Here's the double standard. If blacks did demand "safe spaces away from whites as you say that would not be called "black fight," but "white flight/gentrification" which is totally different because whites moved to the suburbs after WWII by economic means/choice while at the same time minorities were moving into formally all white city neighborhoods seeking better opportunity during the great migration(look it Up) and as blacks moved in property values, tax revenue, city population, diversity depreciated. Where in Gentrification property values increase exponentially, population growth, increased tax revenue, more diversity, and increased property values. See the difference. Gentrification is a direct result of "white flight" instead this time the grandsons and daughters of white Caucasians that moved to the suburbs are moving back to the cities. Its like "white flight" in reverse. So to answer you question is it ever okay for a white person to want to be around more white people? Answer is it already happened during "white flight" right before and during civil rights movement when integration and all men were truly made equal and whites didn't want to be around blacks in particular. You will never find a source on "black flight" saying blacks wanted to be together just because they are black or want to avoid whites. Black flight is caused by either gentrification or job/economic/schooling opportunities that's it.

.

[snj90]

What you don't understand is why would it make since for whites to agitate politically for their own interest when everything is already in the majority whites favor

Absolute nonsense! Of course, if affirmative action and such isn't enough, what you don't seem to understand is the fact is that due current immigration policies, all reasonable projections point to whites becoming a minority within 20-30 years in this country. And beyond that, if trends are not reversed, it's easy to see the white race being almost completely gone a century or so later. This is happening not only in the USA, but almost all white countries. Whites are being ethnically replaced. The UN definition of genocide encompasses, among other things, the imposition of conditions that can be expected to result in the destruction of an ethnic group in whole or in part. This is exactly what is happening now in white countries: white genocide. In South Africa, white genocide takes on an even more overt form with the rampant killings. (Though with nonwhite-on-white murders being much more common than the reverse--plus other racially-motivated crimes such as the knockout game--the same could be said in this country, albeit not to quite the same extent.)

Why do I oppose white genocide? The answer should be obvious enough for anyone to answer, white or nonwhite. Every ethnic group wants more of their own people around. Only whites must be forced to accept unlimited ethnic replacement. The fact is, a white minority becomes more vulnerable: we see this in South Africa (the very point of this thread). Why should whites not want to oppose that? The reason I brought up minority "safe spaces" in my last post was to show how nonwhites demonstrate a desire to be around their own race or ethnic group. They are applauded for that. Why not recognize that (many) whites want the same thing? Is rampant "white flight" not enough evidence that whites prefer the company of other whites?

[Northernest Southernest C]

Originally Posted by snj90

[/color]Absolute nonsense! Of course, if affirmative action and such isn't enough, what you don't seem to understand is the fact is that due current immigration policies, all reasonable projections point to whites becoming a minority within 20-30 years in this country. And beyond that, if trends are not reversed, it's easy to see the white race being almost completely gone a century or so later. This is happening not only in the USA, but almost all white countries. Whites are being ethnically replaced.
Just like whites did the Native Americans then?^^^. I thought I said "I would hate to hear your views about outsourcing, immigration, foreign exchange students, and such." That didn't mean I wanted to hear all your fluff and paranoia. Funny thing is I agree with stricter laws on foreign immigration, outsourcing, etc but for the minorities whose ancestors have been in the continental US for the same amount of time as whites 300+ years they have every right to be entitled to certain opportunistic policies as well. With that it goes to say that whites are still in control, have been for a very long time, and comfortable where they have traditionally been.
The UN definition of genocide encompasses, among other things, the imposition of conditions that can be expected to result in the destruction of an ethnic group in whole or in part. This is exactly what is happening now in white countries: white genocide.
Its sounds like you want some pure blooded race/nation. Sorry to break it to you but nearly everybody who can trace there origins back in America for 100+ years are most likely to have some kind of mixture in there blood even if they look all white or black. A lot of white Caucasians have native American ancestors as well as blacks. Blacks also have white ancestors and whites can even have some black ancestors. Both of my great grandfathers were mixed black/white but society can look at me and physically associate myself with one race.
In South Africa, white genocide takes on an even more overt form with the rampant killings. (Though with nonwhite-on-white murders being much more common than the reverse--plus other racially-motivated crimes such as the knockout game--the same could be said in this country, albeit not to quite the same extent.)
^^^^I'm not in South Africa so I cant speak for their situations that is irrelevant to me even though this is a thread in the Africa forum. However, I can speak on Baltimore's and the U.S. behalf which was brought up inaccurately by you first. And you dare to compare whites genocide in South Africa to suggest white Americans are getting killed violently/non-violently by blacks/minorities in America. Never in US history has that happened the other way around maybe. Same extent or not that comparison is on a scale of apples to oranges.
Why do I oppose white genocide? The answer should be obvious enough for anyone to answer, white or nonwhite. Every ethnic group wants more of their own people around. Only whites must be forced to accept unlimited ethnic replacement. The fact is, a white minority becomes more vulnerable: we see this in South Africa (the very point of this thread). Why should whites not want to oppose that?
I don't care about you trying to change subjects and divert back to South Africa you made this about America. I oppose genocide to but to say I wish more minorities of my race would migrate in one place for the long term is ridiculous. I would get tired if I was only around my race 24/7. I can barely stand HBCU's and I'm only there for the short term for education. I would rather vacation in Africa, Latin America, Europe if I want to explore my rooted heritage. What I do wish is that some people would stop thinking as if the favored are entitled to or should own everything just because of their skin color who get upset when a little more favor is given to minorities the un-favored.
The reason I brought up minority "safe spaces" in my last post was to show how nonwhites demonstrate a desire to be around their own race or ethnic group.
Well either way you put it I just gave you detailed description in my last post on how nonwhites view their so called "safe spaces" and how it is destructive for minorities.
They are applauded for that. By whose definition yours? Why not recognize that (many) whites want the same thing? Is rampant "white flight" not enough evidence that whites prefer the company of other whites?
You are so in another world. Last time I checked I brought up "white flight" to justify a point and I've already answered that question. You just repeated what I said and the contrast of "white flight/safe spaces" vs "black flight/safe spaces" are not the same. Also, my points that you seem not to debate in my previous posts is just a confirmation to me and readers that you just got schooled. Even if you wont admit or recognize it. Obviously you cant debate/inform someone stuck in their ways, bubble, box that does not want to learn. I can find a common ground in all this, but you come off as passive.

And I agree with vvvv

Originally Posted by Irene-cd

SNJ sounds like those New jersey people that have NEVER left his state!!

so much prejudice, preconceived notions, stereotypes, racial labeling!!

I think poor people in general are being left behind!

[snj90]

Originally Posted by Northernest Southernest C

Just like whites did the Native Americans then?^^^.

Like I said earlier in this thread, Europeans made victims of others to the extent that they were able to. The rest of the world would not be gathered around signing Kumbaya if only those evil Europeans never existed. Slavery was widespread. It's the way of the world. Either you can survive in this world or not.

Speaking of Native Americans, if you really want to get into who's native to this continent, you can go back even further to the Solutreans (Stone Age Europeans), who were wiped out by the various people we now know as "Native Americans."

Stone-age Europeans 'were the first to set foot on North America' - Telegraph

It's also funny how collective guilt is always imposed on Europeans, but hardly ever any collective praise. Your computer, cell phone, the internet, radio, the automobile, etc., etc. The entire history of Western civilization from ancient Greece onward. European contributions to the world are almost too extensive and profound to even summarize. But the narrative is only ever the one of the evil European.

Do you dispute the projections that whites will become a minority? It's simply not disputable. And obviously, if trends continue, whites will become even more marginalized. "Fluff and paranoia"? It's an undeniable reality.

Sorry to break it to you but nearly everybody who can trace there origins back in America for 100+ years are most likely to have some kind of mixture in there blood even if they look all white or black. A lot of white Caucasians have native American ancestors

I sure don't. That would be quite impossible. As for white Americans whose families have been here much longer than mine, the "Cherokee princess" tales are usually unsubstantiated. Actual admixture is probably quite low.

And you dare to compare whites genocide in South Africa to suggest white Americans are getting killed violently/non-violently by blacks/minorities in America.

Are you kidding? It happens far more often than the other way around. The media tends to downplay the racial angle when it's black-on-white and emphasize the racial angle when it's white-on-black. Total double standard.

Also, my points that you seem not to debate in my previous posts is just a confirmation to me and readers that you just got schooled.

Actually, you obviously didn't look up "safe spaces" because I brought that up as a distinct topic from gentrification. Gentrification is only one example. Many simply don't want to see their neighborhoods change, though obviously there are many factors at play. It would be dishonest to pretend that race is never a factor for nonwhites. Of course, for some, economic or other considerations ultimately win out. But I've seen many, many examples of black people, for example, just wanting to be with other black people, or at least not somewhere where there are hardly any other black people. Look around this very forum and you'll find many inquiries from black people, for example, about the black demographics of certain locations of interest. But if you're white, you probably won't ask about the white demographics because it's politically incorrect. That information is still available, though, and widely sought out.

[Northernest Southernest C]

Originally Posted by snj90

Like I said earlier in this thread, Europeans made victims of others to the extent that they were able to. The rest of the world would not be gathered around signing Kumbaya if only those evil Europeans never existed. Slavery was widespread. It's the way of the world. Either you can survive in this world or not.
Speaking of Native Americans, if you really want to get into who's native to this continent, you can go back even further to the Solutreans (Stone Age Europeans), who were wiped out by the various people we now know as "Native Americans."
Stone-age Europeans 'were the first to set foot on North America' - Telegraph
So your saying its not really bad for native americans because the ones who did it to them were from the same origin as them? I don't get that.

It's also funny how collective guilt is always imposed on Europeans, but hardly ever any collective praise. Your computer, cell phone, the internet, radio, the automobile, etc., etc. The entire history of Western civilization from ancient Greece onward. European contributions to the world are almost too extensive and profound to even summarize. But the narrative is only ever the one of the evil European.
My goal is not to bash Europeans, whites, or their ancestors as I have said earlier I'm sure there are white people that have contributed to society as a whole not just one race. It was a response to your prejudice views on race.

Do you dispute the projections that whites will become a minority? It's simply not disputable. And obviously, if trends continue, whites will become even more marginalized. "Fluff and paranoia"? It's an undeniable reality.
If its an undeniable reality than it is what it is. But that change is not happening by domestic means natural reproduction, but by external factors such as immigration. My question is if immigrants were coming from Canada or Europe instead of Latin America would that make you feel better? If so you show a double standard.
I sure don't. That would be quite impossible. As for white Americans whose families have been here much longer than mine, the "Cherokee princess" tales are usually unsubstantiated. Actual admixture is probably quite low.
Nonetheless you acknowledge that it is possible

Are you kidding? It happens far more often than the other way around. The media tends to downplay the racial angle when it's black-on-white and emphasize the racial angle when it's white-on-black. Total double standard.
The media might downplay racial angles but not the audience themselves no matter which way it goes.

Actually, you obviously didn't look up "safe spaces" because I brought that up as a distinct topic from gentrification. Gentrification is only one example. Many simply don't want to see their neighborhoods change, though obviously there are many factors at play. It would be dishonest to pretend that race is never a factor for nonwhites. Of course, for some, economic or other considerations ultimately win out. But I've seen many, many examples of black people, for example, just wanting to be with other black people, or at least not somewhere where there are hardly any other black people. Look around this very forum and you'll find many inquiries from black people, for example, about the black demographics of certain locations of interest. But if you're white, you probably won't ask about the white demographics because it's politically incorrect. That information is still available, though, and widely sought out.
I didn't have to look up "safe spaces" the way you described and compare "safe spaces" were inaccurate. People want a significant amount of their race for cultural aspects not to rule out other races by excluding yourself. I know there are many threads and such where people politically incorrect or not ask the best cities for a certain race and frankly those places were more diverse then uniform.

.

[snj90]

Originally Posted by Northernest Southernest C

So your saying its not really bad for native americans because the ones who did it to them were from the same origin as them? I don't get that.

Human history is full of different peoples replacing each other. If the European Soultreans were the original Native Americans, however, the point is is kind of throws a wrench into the whole anti-white narrative of the singularly evil European. For one, it semantically challenges the term "Native American" and with it any absolute moral claim over the land. It also add substance to my original point that humans are constantly displacing one another. The corollary to that is it's also uniquely human to fight to prevent your own displacement.

If its an undeniable reality than it is what it is. But that change is not happening by domestic means natural reproduction, but by external factors such as immigration. My question is if immigrants were coming from Canada or Europe instead of Latin America would that make you feel better? If so you show a double standard.

It is a double standard, but not for the reason you think it is. It's a double standard because practically the entire world, except for white countries, is not expected to massively import foreigners and looks forward to the day they become minorities in their own lands. Do the Japanese do it? Certainly not. They have a fully modern country that's very homogenous. So it's no natural course of action or a natural consequence of globalization or anything like that, but a deliberate ploy. (Mostly a product of 20th century cultural Marxist ideological inroads. Also, the biggest corporations largely benefit from massive Third World immigration due to an overabundance of workers who will work for meager wages. These folks at the top couldn't care less about the average person; they're financially benefiting from all this.)

A mere 50 years ago, Ted Kennedy had to lie to the American people and say that the new immigration policies wouldn't radically change America's makeup. It was a complete lie that he and his ilk never had to answer for because today's politically correct environment demands nothing short of acquiescence to this disastrous policy. And it's a double standard that the rest of the world can keep their homogeneity, while whites are expected to say nothing to even hint that they're opposed to giving it all away. Even a country like Liberia can mandate that to become a citizen, one must be black. Where's the media outrage?

Nonetheless you acknowledge that it is possible

Perhaps even likely. But it's also a straw man because I never claimed all whites were completely free of nonwhite admixture. Notice, however, I still used the word "whites" in my last sentence, since the whites we're speaking of are still white. Presumably, you intended to get into a "we're all mixed anyway" sort of argument, which is total bogus. If pretty much all of a person's bloodline is European and that person looks white, they are white.

The media might downplay racial angles but not the audience themselves no matter which way it goes.

You completely gloss over how influential the media is in creating the narrative.

I didn't have to look up "safe spaces" the way you described and compare "safe spaces" were inaccurate. People want a significant amount of their race for cultural aspects not to rule out other races by excluding yourself.

Actually, the whole purpose of "safe spaces" is to exclude whites.

[Northernest Southernest C]

Originally Posted by snj90

Human history is full of different peoples replacing each other. If the European Soultreans were the original Native Americans, however, the point is is kind of throws a wrench into the whole anti-white narrative of the singularly evil European. For one, it semantically challenges the term "Native American" and with it any absolute moral claim over the land. It also add substance to my original point that humans are constantly displacing one another. The corollary to that is it's also uniquely human to fight to prevent your own displacement.
It also add substance to my original point that humans are constantly displacing one another, which is exactly my point when I said "it is what it is" some things you just can not change and it just might be inevitable like you said that is something not worth debating so if that was your real original point we would not be having this argument. Either way you put it when colonization of the New World started the native Americans we know of to fit the anti-white narrative and to make connection with the first Europeans were not Stone-Age Europeans. By all means native Americans were just that to historians and the European explorers who first made contact with them. Native Americans made their mark more wide spread and developed over a longer period of time then European Soultreans. So I don't really see how that throws a wrench into the events of documented history between native Americans or Europeans. You can even argue that your so called European Soultreans did not even make it to the east coast, islands, central or south America before the real native Americans colonized those parts of the world. There are even no fossil records of Europeans Soultreans in the east coast of the united states, islands, or Latin America. But there are many ancient native American burial grounds in these geographic areas.

If you want to get technical all Europeans knew prior to exploration was to find a quicker route to the spice land of India. Unknowingly to discover a whole new world and people while still believing they were in the Indian Ocean referencing native Americans as "Indians" suggest that Europeans saw favorable features of real Indians in Native Americans. Such as fair to dark skin, long straight dark braided hair, brown eyes. Just a reminder Asia and India specifically was not a foreign place to Europeans as trade between Eurasian countries were ongoing for many years. Christopher Columbus even made an accurate assumption that native Americans were Indians that he witnessed on the Caribbean Islands which could have easily passed for the Philippines or Sri Lanka for all they knew. He specifically said they were "not black like Ethiopians."

Anti-white/Pro-white narratives/civilization is also translated to anti-pro-religious(Christianity), values, culture, and language barriers not just the color of skin. Even before events such as the Trail of Tears like in Christopher Columbus letter on his first voyage to America he did not say anything in an aryan way pertaining to the color of their skin. He gave a brief description of the native Arawaks (whom he called "Indians"), emphasizing their docility and amenability, and above all the prospects of their mass conversion to Catholic Christianity. He noticed they were without any sort of government or modern defense technologies thus suitable for future colonization. In the earliest form of interaction between Europeans and Native Americans religion would be the biggest anti-white trial. Columbus makes particular note that the natives lack organized religion and give gifts "so that they might be made Christians and incline full of love and service towards Our Highnesses and all the Castilian nation," which eventually turns into force.

[/color]It is a double standard, but not for the reason you think it is. It's a double standard because practically the entire world, except for white countries, is not expected to massively import foreigners and looks forward to the day they become minorities in their own lands. Do the Japanese do it? Certainly not. They have a fully modern country that's very homogenous. So it's no natural course of action or a natural consequence of globalization or anything like that, but a deliberate ploy. (Mostly a product of 20th century cultural Marxist ideological inroads. Also, the biggest corporations largely benefit from massive Third World immigration due to an overabundance of workers who will work for meager wages. These folks at the top couldn't care less about the average person; they're financially benefiting from all this.)

A mere 50 years ago, Ted Kennedy had to lie to the American people and say that the new immigration policies wouldn't radically change America's makeup. It was a complete lie that he and his ilk never had to answer for because today's politically correct environment demands nothing short of acquiescence to this disastrous policy. And it's a double standard that the rest of the world can keep their homogeneity, while whites are expected to say nothing to even hint that they're opposed to giving it all away. Even a country like Liberia can mandate that to become a citizen, one must be black. Where's the media outrage?
I think you are just a double standard all together. First you say my original point that humans are constantly displacing one another. Then you go to say It is a double standard, but not for the reason you think it is, which is a double standard in itself. I don't know how you live in the United States one of the most diverse nations on the planet it must be pretty miserable for you which is sad. People should have a choice if they want to be around others of there own kind whites included. Its politically incorrect because of the violent/selfish way whites kept their homogeneity in the past that if it happens now some may think of it as a plot of unfolding history. However, the approach, wording and/or presentation on sensitive subjects usually go wrong when white people ask for racial liberty because of the way it can come off as being a douchebag. As for the US as a young country I think no one race even if whites have been more influential have ownership in this country. America is so much bigger than "white,black,purple America." Everybody contributes to society as a whole even if your the garbage man.
You forget who was here first. You forget the vast parts of this country like the west that have more deep rooted history built on Hispanic Mexican culture and people than non-Hispanic whites. You forget it wasn't until 1848 we gotCalifornia, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, about half of New Mexico, about a quarter of Colorado, and a small section of Wyoming in the Mexican Cession. Prior to independence from Mexico there was the Republic of Texas, before that was the Republic of Mexico now the present day state of Texas. You forget that the first indentured blacks arrived in Jamestown in 1619. On a global scale how much influence do Liberia have on the world. How many people are looking to go to flock to Liberia white or black in the US. Answer is NONE maybe that's why there is no outrage. People want to live in a prosperous country not the contrary.
Do the Japanese do it?
Even if they did nowhere in Asian countries where you have to limit the amount of children you can have because its so overpopulated could compare with a majority-minority race in the way America can. That's not even considering the language, cultural, geographic barrier. So bad comparison.

Perhaps even likely. But it's also a straw man because I never claimed all whites were completely free of nonwhite admixture. Notice, however, I still used the word "whites" in my last sentence, since the whites we're speaking of are still white. Presumably, you intended to get into a "we're all mixed anyway" sort of argument, which is total bogus. If pretty much all of a person's bloodline is European and that person looks white, they are white.
Yeah so just go on and repeat what I said again your good at that. I did say society will group you with one race in America. As far a genes go you'll never know unless you get a genetic ancestral DNA test.


[/color]You completely gloss over how influential the media is in creating the narrative.
That still doesn't mean you have to believe everything you hear or see on television just because its persuasive

[/color]Actually, the whole purpose of "safe spaces" is to exclude whites.
Again by your definition

.

[snj90]

Originally Posted by snj90
Human history is full of different peoples replacing each other. If the European Soultreans were the original Native Americans, however, the point is is kind of throws a wrench into the whole anti-white narrative of the singularly evil European. For one, it semantically challenges the term "Native American" and with it any absolute moral claim over the land. It also add substance to my original point that humans are constantly displacing one another. The corollary to that is it's also uniquely human to fight to prevent your own displacement.
It also add substance to my original point that humans are constantly displacing one another, which is exactly my point when I said "it is what it is" some things you just can not change and it just might be inevitable like you said that is something not worth debating so if that was your real original point we would not be having this argument.

You kind of ignored my last sentence, which was the most relevant one in this case. I said the corollary is that it’s normal for humans to have to fight for their own survival on both an individual and a collective level. Humans have never adhered to universalism in the past (and we don’t do it today either, despite what the leftists would prefer to have happen), so it was always a matter of one faction of humans competing against another ultimately for survival. The way you seem to interpret this historical observation is that it doesn’t matter in the end whether your people die out. That’s akin to nihilism. It’s like saying it doesn’t matter whether you live to see the end of today, or the end of this month, since we all die anyway. Part of what makes us human is to endeavor as humans always have—again, both individually and collectively—to survive and to prosper. But to accept the demise of your people because of convenience… I can’t even imagine adopting such a defeatist, submissive attitude. It can be changed. The question is whether or not we will collectively decide to change it.

Either way you put it when colonization of the New World started the native Americans we know of to fit the anti-white narrative and to make connection with the first Europeans were not Stone-Age Europeans. By all means native Americans were just that to historians and the European explorers who first made contact with them. Native Americans made their mark more wide spread and developed over a longer period of time then European Soultreans. So I don't really see how that throws a wrench into the events of documented history between native Americans or Europeans. You can even argue that your so called European Soultreans did not even make it to the east coast, islands, central or south America before the real native Americans colonized those parts of the world. There are even no fossil records of Europeans Soultreans in the east coast of the united states, islands, or Latin America. But there are many ancient native American burial grounds in these geographic areas.

I’m not making much of a claim about the history of the Solutreans since what we know about them is limited. If the theory is correct that they were the first settlers of Americas, it can be inferred that they were wiped out by subsequent migrations of today’s Amerindians, who probably came via the Bering Strait.

Anti-white/Pro-white narratives/civilization is also translated to anti-pro-religious(Christianity), values, culture, and language barriers not just the color of skin. Even before events such as the Trail of Tears like in Christopher Columbus letter on his first voyageto America he did not say anything in an aryan way pertaining to the color of their skin. Hegave a brief description of the native Arawaks (whom he called "Indians"), emphasizing their docility and amenability, and above all the prospects of their mass conversion to Catholic Christianity. He noticed they were without any sort of government or modern defense technologies thus suitable for future colonization. In the earliest form of interaction between Europeans and Native Americans religion would be the biggest anti-white trial. Columbus makes particular note that the natives lack organized religion and give gifts "so that they might be made Christians and incline full of love and service towards Our Highnesses and all the Castilian nation," which eventually turns into force.

You’re right about the fact that the Europeans had the mass Christianization of the natives in mind. I’m not sure what bearing that has on this discussion, but I think Christianity will continue to decline in the West. Christianity is not a European religion, but a Middle Eastern one, as are all the Abrahamic religions. It is alien to Europeans and was forced on Europeans, replacing the native folk religions the Europeans followed (which were divergent but ultimately from the same source). The thing about European paganism is that it is a clannish way of life, whereas Christianity is universalistic in its outlook and ultimately seeks the conversion of nonbelievers. I hope that European neopaganism continues to blossom.

I think you are just a double standard all together. First you say my original point that humans are constantly displacing one another. Then you go to say It is a double standard, but not for the reason you think it is, which is a double standard in itself.

Already addressed this point. See above.

I don't know how you live in the United States one of the most diverse nations on the planet it must be pretty miserable for you which is sad.

Not as much as you think it is. It is a double edged sword in a way, because I hate what’s happening to my country and the Western world in general. However, I am a very proud person and my overall mood has been strengthened by developing a greater awareness of and concern for my people and the issues that we face. My views are not a matter of choice, since I always found I was inclined toward this disposition. That link I posted earlier showing the association between racial identity and happiness certainly seems to have a lot of truth in it. Even if it was intended to apply to African Americans, it’s a very obvious double standard if you would like whites to jettison their racial identity and miss out on that same sense of belonging and purpose that other races can enjoy unreservedly if they so choose.

People should have a choice if they want to be around others of there own kind whites included.

Problem is, we don’t. Massive immigration and government-sponsored relocation programs change the makeup of neighborhoods and not everyone can afford to just move. This really goes back to the biggest proponents of immigration, the multinational corporations, and how these people can afford to live in their own exclusive gated communities, while the folks without means cannot. You say you believe this (though to be perfectly honest, I doubt you do), but it’s obvious the anti-whites who have set up our immigration policies don’t. It’s obvious the people in government who instituted policies of forced busing decades ago didn’t believe it. Again, these tend to be the kind of people who won’t have any problems escaping to wealthy, homogenous areas.

Its politically incorrect because of the violent/selfish way whites kept their homogeneity in the past that if it happens now some may think of it as a plot of unfolding history. However, the approach, wording and/or presentation on sensitive subjects usually go wrong when white people ask for racial liberty because of the way it can come off as being a douchebag.

I don’t care what happened in the past. I’m concerned about the present and future.

You forget the vast parts of this country like the west that have more deep rooted history built on Hispanic Mexican culture and people than non-Hispanic whites.

”Hispanic Mexican” heritage is typically a hybrid of Amerindian and European heritage. In some cases, it is all European. There is an appreciable segment of Mexicans who are white. And what language do Mexicans speak? Spanish—a European language. “Non-Hispanic white” is an American concept.

On a global scale how much influence do Liberia have on the world. How many people are looking to go to flock to Liberia white or black in the US. Answer is NONE maybe that's why there is no outrage.

How about Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Poland, Greece, and such countries? Are they particularly relevant? NO, yet they are told they must cease to be what they were due to the EU’s anti-white policies.

People want to live in a prosperous country not the contrary.

And no one has a right to live in any country except the one of which he is a citizen. Europe and North America cannot possibly accommodate all the people in the world who’d like to live here. Why should some get to live here and others not? I say we should accept none of them. That’s only fair, is it not? All the migrants who are flooding into Europe as we speak would not be risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean if they were categorically not accepted. The globalists don’t care one bit how many migrants die or about the fact that these open border policies are to blame for migrant deaths.

Do the Japanese do it?
Even if they did nowhere in Asian countries where you have to limit the amount of children you can have because its so overpopulated could compare with a majority-minority race in the way America can. That's not even considering the language, cultural, geographic barrier. So bad comparison.

It’s not a bad comparison. So what? It might to harder to learn Japanese, but not impossible by any stretch, especially with full language immersion. And all those people you mentioned who’d like to live in the West because of our prosperity would probably feel the same way about living in Japan. Yet they cannot because Japan still favors their own people.

[/color]Actually, the whole purpose of "safe spaces" is to exclude whites.
Again by your definition

Again, you obviously didn’t look up “safe spaces.” I’m referring to a specific thing here, not some personal interpretation of the values of homogenous nonwhite communities.