U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should the US deport illegal immigrants and better prevent their arrival?
Yes. 47 74.60%
No. 16 25.40%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
Old 07-20-2011, 10:39 AM
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,118,021 times
Reputation: 4051


Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
What's wrong with saying "white nation". Do you not like white people? Do you not believe that whites, like all people groups, deserve their own countries?
When a country is known as the "land of opportunity", and describes itself as "land of the free", then no. I think it's proposterous to suggest the US was meant to be a white-only country.

At the beginning of the country, the population was mainly English. So by your account, shouldn't all Irish, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Polish, and Dutch not be allowed into the country too?

And why would I hate white people? Little defensive, are we?

Of course it was intended to be European. What do you think "to our posterity" in the Declaration of Independence refers to.
I wasn't familiar with the term "posterity", so I looked it up. Since it appears to mean "future generations", I would say it was referring to the future of our country, not the color of the citizens' skin.

Furthermore, haven't you read Thomas Jefferson's opinion on blacks? He did not believe that both whites and blacks could be part of the same country.
It's interesting that TJ would say that...especially since he both owned slaves and was infected with the strongest case of Jungle Fever in the history of the world. He may have said certain things, but it's quite obvious he felt a different way. Actions certainly speak louder than words.

It was called slavery. They weren't citizens, but rather property. Political leaders did not consider them equal, and many leaders wanted them removed, including Jefferson, Lincoln, and numerous others.
I already addressed the Jefferson thing, but I wasn't aware Lincoln wanted blacks to be taken out of the country...only that he was against slavery and wanted to end the spread of it to newer territories in the nation.

We already know your stance on hispanics, but what about blacks? Would they be shipped to Africa in your world, or simply reverted back to their position as slaves?

This is completely in error. Spain controlled the area that is now the southwestern U.S. for over one hundred years. In that time, very few Spaniards lived there. We're talking less than fifty thousand. Even fewer Mexicans lived in the area, considering it was the northern frontier of Mexico which had a population concentrated much farther to the south. Furthermore, Mexico only held the land for less than twenty years before the U.S. defeated Mexico in battle and signed a treaty to turn the land over to the United States. Some of the cities of the southwest were trading posts created by the Spaniards, hence the Spanish name. However, many southwestern cities were named for a nearby body of water named by the Spanish, or were simply given a Spanish name by American citizens. The general area was not Latin, as most of the area was uninhabited wilderness.
Regardless, it was not inherently "white". It was taken from others who weren't white, and made our own. The number of people may have been far less, but I don't think that matters.

The midwest is the whitest primary region of the United States, with subregions of the intermountain west and New England also being relatively high in white population.
I did forget about the Midwest, my bad. Though New England is extremely white @ 85%.

That said, prior to the 1970s, practically the entire country was homogeneously white outside the South, New Mexico, Indian reservations, and a few non-white ghettos in some large cities.
Do you have any stats to support that? That's quite the claim. I would be surprised if California didn't have a large hispanic and Asian population. Also, I believe New York had a historically large Asian population.

No actual genocide took place. Some Indians died from European diseases, while other Indians were later forcibly removed due to their attacks on American citizens. The number of Indians was never as high as many people like to claim.
Lol, that's quite the way of wording it. Yes, many died from European diseases (I don't think this was done intentionally) ...but many, many of them were killed through violence. And no, it wasn't because they attacked Americans...it was due to the fact that the Americans felt it was their destiny to expand to the West Coast.

I'm not going to get into the semantics of rights/wrongs of the Indian Wars, but the fact of the matter is this wasn't always white people's land...and I don't think this was meant to be a white people's country.

White nations have increasingly been the wealthiest given the high mean IQ relative to most other groups, as well as an innovative spirit. If you don't believe me, consider that over ninety percent of all inventions are the result of white men.
I'm definitely not going to get into a "Master Race" discussion. Sorry buddy, but that ship sailed ~65-75 years ago.

That's the thing, we're no longer a "land of opportunity" due to out of control spending, regulations on business, run-away inflation, de-industrialization, job exportation, as well as an increasing third world alien population that undercuts the citizenry of the United States.
Just like I'm not going to discuss the "master race", I'm not going to get into a political discussion. I agree with some points, like spending...but your overall message is way off base.

As I've already said, when the United States gained territories, the land, for all intensive purposes, was wilderness. No governments occupied the land, and very few people even lived there.
That doesn't matter. What matters is it wasn't ours.

The relatively small population of Indians were often nomadic
That wasn't the case when they were in the East. They had their own territories throughout the area which became the original 13 Colonies prior to European arrival. They were forced to become a nomadic people due to the fact that Europeans were constantly pushing them West. They had no choice but to keep moving if they wanted to live.

that often warred with one another.
No way! Opposing tribes often warred with one another? Good thing the peace-loving white Europeans came along to enlighten them! Get real.

They didn't believe in ownership of the land. People could go days without seeing an Indian. Those territories acquired from Spain and later Mexico were basically culture-less, considering so few people and no direct (localized) government control of the land.
Errrmmmm...wrong. The natives certainly weren't a united culture, but they did have plenty of local government control. It just wasn't a Westernized one.

Thus, no cultures were taken over, for all intensive purposes.
No they weren't taken over, they were erased.

In fact, the number of Americans living in these lands far exceeded the number of Spaniards and Mexicans. The culture, realistically, was notably American.
It was made that way, but wasn't the case originally.

As pointed out before, there was no genocide,
As pointed out before, you are wrong.

given the small population which didn't occupy much of any land.
Killing is killing. Just because you consider it a "small" population doesn't make it ok.

As it currently stands, white countries, and white countries only, are being inundated with peoples of other races. The same is not the case in non-white countries, such as Japan, South Korea, China, or Nigeria.
But that's because they advertise themselves as such. America has always publicised itself as the land of opportunity, regardless of race or religion.

Japan and other Eastern countries have never marketed themselves as an open-bordered country. They're quite racist countries, but they've at least stayed consistent. The US and other European countries have spread themselves into other cultures through things such as Imperialism, which has resulted in an intermingling of cultures. Even back in the time of the East India Company, Indians were moving into the UK. This is not a recent phenomenon.

During the booming growth of the US, English, French, Irish, German, Italian, Polish, etc. were all very different cultures. They shared a skin tone, but they were quite different and treated as such...so as I suggested before, maybe we need to make this "white" thing more detailed? Perhaps WASPs only?

Oh and by the way, solid example in Nigeria. Ugh, with all the people clawing at the door to get in there it's very, very surprising their country isn't such a melting pot. Sweet Jesus.

Diversity is dangerous, for it breeds division. By its very nature, that is what it does. Thus, you better believe that I advocate a position of less diversity. The less the better and a more peaceful time will be had.
By your nature, perhaps...but not everyone's. New York City is the most diverse city in our entire country and also the safest...so apparently your theory doesn't always hold true.

Most feel this way. They may not inherently say it, due to decades of culturally Marxist propaganda, but their actions always reveal what they believe.
To a degree, you may be right. Not everyone wants to live among other cultures. I personally do, which is why I live in a neighborhood which is heavily white, Brasilian, Korean, Chinese, Mediterranean, and Indian, among others.

In the long-run, it does. In the least, a weakened state by every possible indicator.
It really doesn't. Crime is part of any society, whether diverse or homogenous. The only societies which don't experience crimes are those which are totalitarian.

The Rio Grande Valley of South Texas is over 90% non-white, most Mexican. LA County is 70% non-white. There are many cities in the Los Angeles area that are over 90% Mexican.
Point taken. However I was mainly referring to major cities. And according to your reasoning, this particalar area shouldn't matter, since it is desolate and has a relatively small population.

Many rural counties in the south are majority black.
This isn't a result of the "takeover" that you're referring to though. This was the fault of slave-owners. If you don't want black people, don't bring black slaves to your country.

The fact is no such scenerio in this country was ever the traditional demographic, given that a white population with such Asian and mestizo or Indian "hispanic" (a term coined in the 60s) percentages existed prior to sometime in the 1980s, and then only in parts of California.

Secondly, few Asians wish to live in the same area with "hispanics". Even in southern California, you find majority Asian neighborhoods and majority "hispanic" neighborhoods, but most do not live in the same general vicinity. Blacks and hispanics don't like living around one another. The city of Azusa, California paints a truthful picture about hostilities between blacks and "hispanics", in which "hispanics" have pushed blacks out, just as they have in parts of south-central LA County, and declared such "their turf".
Ok...this is nothing new. In major cities of the Northeast whites are divided too. There are traditional areas which are Italian, Irish, etc...many of which have just started being able to accept other whites within the past twenty or so years. (My father many problems parking in Little Italy back in the 70s).

However, to directly answer your scenerio, if possible, this is what would happen.

Either Asians or hispanics would leave:

If Asians stay, the least likely scenerio, half of the white population would leave, while the rest would stay. Over time, however, fewer whites will locate to the area, while greater and greater percentages of Asians would flock to the area.

40% Asian--> 60% Asian
40% Hispanic -->30% Hispanic
20% white--> 10% white

However, what is likely, is that given an unmitigated flow from Mexico, the "hispanic" population would increase, while the Asian population would decrease. Almost all whites would leave the area.

40% Asian -->15% Asian
40% Hispanic-->83% Hispanic
20% white--> 2% white
Ok, I guess I could see this happening...maybe. I still don't get the problem though. If they're legal, they've got just as much of a right to live there as you.

Again, this is natural. The longer this diversity continues, the fewer areas will be available for whites to escape to. It also means non-white groups will also become more competitive for an ever-decreasing social welfare state as revenues dwindle. In the end, it means conflict.
Two things:
1. Not all whites are trying to "escape" to this perfect white oasis which you're referring to. I think most don't really care all that much. Not to say they're going to want to live in a 95% hispanic neighborhood (who would want to be that overwhelmed?), but I think most people are tolerant of one another.

2. According to you, all immigrants are just here to live off welfare, which is absolutely hilarious.

You're not thinking about differences in birth rates between the white population, close to replacement in most areas of the U.S. (northeast and west coast excluded) and non-white populations. You're also not considering possible amnesty, as well as immigration laws that allow for family reunification. This also doesn't take into account the millions of people from such countries who have yet to come. Just look how quickly things have already changed. From 89% white in 1960 to about 62% today, in only fifty years. In another fifty years, at the same raw number decrease, that's a 35% white population in a country that was nearly ninety percent white just one hundred years previously. Yet, this is a very conservative decrease, given the law of exponential growth. Thus, you can half the time, twenty-five years, before the white population drops another twenty-seven percent to 35% by the year 2037.
I truly believe this will slow down a bit. This is sort of like saying cities like Houston and Dallas are going to be 20,000,000 people strong in a few years due to their current growth rates. Extreme growth doesn't last forever.

This is true genocide.
No, this is growth. You're acting like whites are being bred out. Totally untrue.

All of these countries were well over 95% white, most closer to 99% white, as recently as the 1980s. Given the differing birthrates and the law of exponential growth, consider that within three decades, much of Europe and its people will be lost forever, unless things are reversed now.
And not they're all slightly more diverse (with the exception of France and Netherlands, which experienced considerably growth of non-whites).

By the way, the aborigines in Australia never totaled more than one hundred thousand, rather far below it.
Again, who cares. It wasn't a white country. That's what matters. Rationalizing its invasion with "well there weren't many of them" is immaterial.

This country is in the process of being destroyed, and it is now only accelerating. Anyone who can look at trends and the effects to the social, cultural, and economic factors of this country can see it. Those of us who have studied it and are knowledgeable about changes in societies see what many of the pc indoctrinated people refuse to see,
I don't think anyone will claim that what we have is perfect harmony. There is always going to be racial, religious, and cultural strife...however we can function at a high-level and create a country which can offer something for everyone. Attempting to erase all other non-white cultures, as you appear to be suggesting, is what will ultimately create the downfall that you and others like you are so afraid of. Though they still hold onto their cultures, most immigrants have become productive members of society. This isn't always true with illegals, but largely they do their part (though obviously it's a touchy subject and I agree there are tons of negatives to having them here...perhaps enough to outweigh the positives).

I also don't believe people are being brainwashed, seeing as there is plenty of anti-immigration propaganda...they simply have a different viewpoint as you, which you can't accept.

many of whom are too young to even know what society was like ten years ago.
I never thought of this...

I know you're from Georgia, which has traditionally been a black and white state, but what age group are you? I never considered the thought that you may be from a past generation and are currently stuck in a world which may be moving too quickly for you. Maybe you're young, and simply have a different viewpoint.

I think the younger generations will evolve with society and cultural strife will become less pronounced as time goes on.

What's nutty? Can you prove me wrong? Of course not. Since you disagree with my points of view, all based on empirical research, study, and accounts of history, you want to call me a "nut". This is a tactic of the left designed to silence opposition to their agenda, or the way they want society to be recreated to their own desires. By calling a person a nut, you're attempting to de-legitimize the arguments made by the person. Common textbook propaganda techniques in the information wars.
If you look back at my post, you'll see I quoted "pollster"...you know, the guy that said we should shoot illegals on site, along with their babies if they were born in the United States.

I don't agree with your views whatsoever, but you're civil, so I'm trying to respond to you in a respectful manner.

P.S. This is an absurdly long post, so if there are random sentences which don't make sense, please excuse me. There were times where I went back and inserted an additional sentence or two, so they may appear out of context.

Last edited by tmac9wr; 07-20-2011 at 10:48 AM..

Old 07-20-2011, 10:49 AM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
Location: Ohio
16,415 posts, read 32,221,338 times
Reputation: 12709
There is a dedicated Illegal Immigration forum at City-Data. That forum is the ONLY place on this entire message board that this topic can be discussed. Not here.
Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top