Is Highland Park racist? (Dallas, Plano: lawyer, to buy, construction)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But toleration is not approval. And the people of the Park Cities have found ways in the past, and will find ways in the future - all kinds of subtle, underground, passive-aggressive ways, to defend their community.
May they enjoy success and good fortune in this endeavor.
And that, my friends (and others), is what Highland Park is all about.
Toleration is not approval. I like that. It also has one fatal assumption, that the minorities (and that term has a rapidly approaching expiration date on it) here are looking for outside acceptance...that's a game for adults.
When the subtle, passive-aggressive way rears it head for the children, that's an issue.
But what is assimilation? Hobbes and Locke, man is basically good? Don't we all want a decent life and decent upbringing for our children? What you seem to think is assimilation, others consider to be just getting ahead in life and moving up.
So consider that someone shares your values, works hard, takes pride in their neighborhood and raising their children right, they do all the right things yet you still don't care for them because of the color of their skin- then you are racist. It's a personal choice, just like facial hair.
Dubeaux speaks a truth that few are brave enough to mouth. Like it or loathe it, his words help me plan my day.
I've always found protectionism to be steeped in fear in most instances.
Toleration is not approval. I like that. It also has one fatal assumption, that the minorities (and that term has a rapidly approaching expiration date on it) here are looking for outside acceptance...that's a game for adults.
Your reference to the approaching minority status of whites is a bit off. Non-whites, collectively, will be a majority. But the only single non-white ethnic group (itself an extremely "diverse" collection of smaller groups) which might achieve majority status in the next century are hispanics. Until then (if "then" ever happens) whites will be the largest single group, and by far the most powerful in every way.)
There is a hope among some that minority groups will cooperate to "put the [white] man in his place." We shall see. But if the white man begins to push back, even a little, the "game for adults" will probably not be a successful one - for the minorities.
As far as looking for outside acceptance - that is precisely how the minorities which have "made it" did it. Jews and Asians all out-hustled, out-competed, and out-worked the native born gentile population until they gained a measure of respect, and power, but while doing so adopted the cultural norms of the British white protestant ethos that, as historian David Hackett Fischer demonstrates in Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways inAmerica, has always been the dominant culture of this country.
Of course, in the case of both, their small numbers also played a role, making it easier for them to fit in.
Which is why I oppose mass non-white immigration, because it makes assimilation impossible, and I reject the concept of the multi-cultural nation because multi-cultural nations don't work.
If whites decide to preserve their country as a real nation and not a multi-cultural hodge-podge, the only "fatal assumption" will be made by minorities who decide they don't have to assimilate to "make it."
"When the subtle, passive-aggressive way rears it head for the children, that's an issue."
It's a war out there. A culture war and a race war. In this war whites see themselves (for now) with few if any means to resist. Passive-aggressive is a legitimate tactic, and anyone can be a target.
"But what is assimilation? Hobbes and Locke, man is basically good? Don't we all want a decent life and decent upbringing for our children? What you seem to think is assimilation, others consider to be just getting ahead in life and moving up."
Assimilation (see above) is possible if the numbers to be assimilated are not too high and the ethnic / racial differences not too great. If racial differences are too great, as between blacks and just about every other group I can think of, then true assimilation is impossible. That's what the old Jim Crow segregation system, for all its cruelties and injustices, recognized better than our post Civil Rights era system today.
"So consider that someone shares your values, works hard, takes pride in their neighborhood and raising their children right, they do all the right things yet you still don't care for them because of the color of their skin- then you are racist. It's a personal choice, just like facial hair."
"Still don't care for them..." Huh? In a free country we get to like or dislike anyone for any reason. We don't have to justify ourselves to any person or government. It's basic human nature to prefer those who are like you. That doesn't mean I want to harm blacks or limit their chances to be successful. It does mean I want to live in a white neighborhood, send my children to white schools, and have friends who (for the most part) are white.
"Dubeaux speaks a truth that few are brave enough to mouth."
That's because (as stated above), white people can be destroyed for speaking the truth.
"Like it or loathe it, his words help me plan my day.I've always found protectionism to be steeped in fear in most instances."
I disagree about protectionism. I find protectionism in many cases to be based on painful lessons learned from experience, and on healthy native caution.
Your reference to the approaching minority status of whites is a bit off. Non-whites, collectively, will be a majority. But the only single non-white ethnic group (itself an extremely "diverse" collection of smaller groups) which might achieve majority status in the next century are hispanics. Until then (if "then" ever happens) whites will be the largest single group, and by far the most powerful in every way.)
There is a hope among some that minority groups will cooperate to "put the [white] man in his place." We shall see. But if the white man begins to push back, even a little, the "game for adults" will probably not be a successful one - for the minorities.
As far as looking for outside acceptance - that is precisely how the minorities which have "made it" did it. Jews and Asians all out-hustled, out-competed, and out-worked the native born gentile population until they gained a measure of respect, and power, but while doing so adopted the cultural norms of the British white protestant ethos that, as historian David Hackett Fischer demonstrates in Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways inAmerica, has always been the dominant culture of this country.
Of course, in the case of both, their small numbers also played a role, making it easier for them to fit in.
Which is why I oppose mass non-white immigration, because it makes assimilation impossible, and I reject the concept of the multi-cultural nation because multi-cultural nations don't work.
If whites decide to preserve their country as a real nation and not a multi-cultural hodge-podge, the only "fatal assumption" will be made by minorities who decide they don't have to assimilate to "make it."
"When the subtle, passive-aggressive way rears it head for the children, that's an issue."
It's a war out there. A culture war and a race war. In this war whites see themselves (for now) with few if any means to resist. Passive-aggressive is a legitimate tactic, and anyone can be a target.
"But what is assimilation? Hobbes and Locke, man is basically good? Don't we all want a decent life and decent upbringing for our children? What you seem to think is assimilation, others consider to be just getting ahead in life and moving up."
Assimilation (see above) is possible if the numbers to be assimilated are not too high and the ethnic / racial differences not too great. If racial differences are too great, as between blacks and just about every other group I can think of, then true assimilation is impossible. That's what the old Jim Crow segregation system, for all its cruelties and injustices, recognized better than our post Civil Rights era system today.
"So consider that someone shares your values, works hard, takes pride in their neighborhood and raising their children right, they do all the right things yet you still don't care for them because of the color of their skin- then you are racist. It's a personal choice, just like facial hair."
"Still don't care for them..." Huh? In a free country we get to like or dislike anyone for any reason. We don't have to justify ourselves to any person or government. It's basic human nature to prefer those who are like you. That doesn't mean I want to harm blacks or limit their chances to be successful. It does mean I want to live in a white neighborhood, send my children to white schools, and have friends who (for the most part) are white.
"Dubeaux speaks a truth that few are brave enough to mouth."
That's because (as stated above), white people can be destroyed for speaking the truth.
"Like it or loathe it, his words help me plan my day.I've always found protectionism to be steeped in fear in most instances."
I disagree about protectionism. I find protectionism in many cases to be based on painful lessons learned from experience, and on healthy native caution.
We won't agree on alot of things. I'll go forth in my beliefs and you'll go forth in yours. I respect your passion for your beliefs. I do however think most Americans have more things in common than they do apart.
I'm much too old to try to change anyone's mind. I'll keep my grass green, you keep yours green and that'll be that.
Which is why I oppose mass non-white immigration, because it makes assimilation impossible, and I reject the concept of the multi-cultural nation because multi-cultural nations don't work.
Absolutely, an thus since then end of slavery America's power among nations has decreased steadily, truly nose diving since civil rights, which by the end of the 1960's left a broken America, non-functional, a pitiable powerless decrepit shell among the nations of the world....... oh except wait, it didn't. The exact opposite happened, American power continued to grow, the quality of life continued to grow, with more people free to support themselves the tax burden was reduced sharply from the level pre civil rights rate of 91% to the modern rate of 40%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubeaux
"When the subtle, passive-aggressive way rears it head for the children, that's an issue."
It's a war out there. A culture war and a race war. In this war whites see themselves (for now) with few if any means to resist. Passive-aggressive is a legitimate tactic, and anyone can be a target.
Okay so we've gone from you claiming in earlier threads not to be racist, or white supremacist, to... It is a war and everyone, even children of the other races, is a legitimate target. This rises to the level of terrifying. This is the kind of thing said by guys who have paramilitary organizations. You like to talk about the term Racist not being correctly applied. I think that if the term cannot be applied to someone who: claims their own race is superior to others, that they have a right and a duty to preserve as much of the country as whites only or white majority as they can, and finds everyone else a possible "target," it cannot be applied to anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubeaux
"Still don't care for them..." Huh? In a free country we get to like or dislike anyone for any reason. We don't have to justify ourselves to any person or government. It's basic human nature to prefer those who are like you. That doesn't mean I want to harm blacks or limit their chances to be successful. It does mean I want to live in a white neighborhood, send my children to white schools, and have friends who (for the most part) are white.
Nope being a racist is protected, but favoring one race over another by legislation is not. You wish to impart MORE rights to one group than another. You believe Whites have a right to ban non whites from entering the country. You have argued int the past that you have a right to have public schools that ban non-whites. I would argue that placing legal limits on only some races is the definition of limiting their chances to be successful.
If you believe in the Supremacy of the white race, why don't you come out and say so. You cannot get away with explaining why whites are the better race, and entitled to more rights, and then claim not to be a racist, or white supremacist.
We won't agree on alot of things. I'll go forth in my beliefs and you'll go forth in yours. I respect your passion for your beliefs. I do however think most Americans have more things in common than they do apart. I'm much too old to try to change anyone's mind. I'll keep my grass green, you keep yours green and that'll be that.
I respect your's as well. I acknowledge that you have been one of the very few to have made thoughtful and moderate responses to my posts.
Well in this country that would be the 14'th amendment. Certainly wasn't always enforced but the language is pretty clear.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Again not arguing that any one group can't refuse to have whites, or blacks, or people with green eyes for that matter in their private club, but when it comes to legal matters - for example segregated schools which this poster has previously explicitly claimed a right to have the government provide - the law is crystal clear.
Again not arguing that any one group can't refuse to have whites, or blacks, or people with green eyes for that matter in their private club, but when it comes to legal matters - for example segregated schools which this poster has previously explicitly claimed a right to have the government provide - the law is crystal clear.
I might have misunderstood what you were saying..Anyway, I think schools that don't accept taxpayer dollars could do this, e.g. Private Schools.
I might have misunderstood what you were saying..Anyway, I think schools that don't accept taxpayer dollars could do this, e.g. Private Schools.
I agree completely. I think we may well have been at cross purposes - as you said.
My point was that one if free to be a racist, and I believe even to discriminate in private life - despicable as I hold those actions to be. A private school would be a part of private life.
This poster though wishes laws restricting immigration.... but only on non whites, separate public schools for whites, etc. That is a different kettle of fish.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
