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.
Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
Exactly. That is what is happening in the United States. The systematic destruction of whites. Look at the maps and tell me that you don't see whites being wiped off the map, to the point that in a few decades, the white community will be destroyed in part, even more?
Think about Zimbabwe, where the government, under Robert Mugabe, has sent gangs out onto white-owned farmer's lands and has murdered white men, women, and children, simply because they're white, and then has given the land to blacks who do not know how to farm. It's part of the reason why Zimbabwe went from producing a lot of food to not much food at all, and why they've had bouts of starvation. It also partially explains the rapid inflation and the implosion of their currency.
Quote:
South Africa is not genocide because there is no strong movement to have all Whites in South Africa killed.
Whites are being denied jobs. Whites have been killed. Discrimination is so rampant that twenty percent of the population has MIGRATED to get away from it. This all over the past seventeen years.
Quote:
The situation in Russia is not genocide either,there is no movement to ethnically cleanse Russia of all Blacks. There might be a few neo-nazis who do set to out to scare minorities in their countries,but that alone is not genocide.
Of course it's not genocide. It's a small population that does such. Furthermore, the government is not condoning harmful policies, such as in South Africa, the United States, etc. that brings about harm, economic, cultural, or death to the group, such as is being seen in Zimbabwe (death, economic), South Africa (cultural, economic), and the United States (economic, cultural-with immigration). That said, the black population in Russia is tiny. Most non-whites in Russia are south Asian or middle eastern in nature.
Quote:
You act as if White countries are the only ones who take immigrants.
While most countries do have a population of immigrants, the percentages of most are very tiny, say under one or two percent. Furthermore, most non-white countries admit immigrants that are of the same race, such as Japan allowing only Asians. Europeans are allowed temporarily, but not for permanent status. Most is related to work, such as in a work visa. Even then, the European/white population in Japan is less than half a percent. Japan allows Koreans and some Chinese, and they are mandated to learn the language and assimilate. European/white countries have non-white populations, courtesy of immigration and illegal immigration, approaching ten percent. In France, the non-white population is approaching twenty percent. In the United States, it's over one-third, and the numbers are rapidly rising in Canada and Australia. You also have to take into account that all white countries, by and large, have immigration that favors non-whites, with some by a 90%-10% margin.
Quote:
Do you think The Americas are native to Whites? No they're not,Whites from the Old World came and killed the Native population with disease and war.
When Europeans came to the New World, there have been estimated to have been only a few million "natives" on what is now known as North America. Considering that there are over 300 million today, you can see that this land was basically an unpopulated wilderness.
Consider also that no country was established, and that these "natives" did war with one another, indicating no cohesion, the few times that they did come in contact with one another. Many tribes, particularly in the west, were nomadic in nature, moving from place to place. Furthermore, "native" tribes did not believe in land ownership, for they thought that the land belonged to everyone.
Europeans colonized a virtual wilderness and established the greatest country, in my opinion, that has ever been known to man. The United States would not be here if it weren't for those brave men who set sail on the high seas to risk their lives to come to a new land so that they could worship as they wished.
Regarding disease, not as high a percentage of "natives" died as many anti-western culturalists argue. It's not like those bringing European diseases knew that the "natives" didn't have natural immunity to the diseases. These things are unfortunate. Viruses are often air-born, so one doesn't have to exactly be right beside another in order to catch a disease. Even then, most "natives" were far enough away from the "Colonists" that this wasn't an issue, thus negating the argument that a majority of the Indians died.
Regarding wars, it was generally the Indians who warred with whites, not the other way around. There's accounts that outside the peaceful coexistence of early settlements in Plymouth and Jamestown, eventually the Indians, and particularly those in the west, sought out to attack whites, torching their villages and killing men, women, and children. It's why they were often called "savages", and why peaceful tribes, such as the Cherokee, were called the "civilized tribes", considering that they were far different than most. It plays a role in why the U.S. government decided to set up reservations and remove them. It is unfortunate that many died on this march called the "Trail of Tears".
Quote:
Then Whites immigrated en mass,and brought millions of African slaves to the United States,Caribbean,South America,etc.
Yes, whites did emigrate to the "new world". There wasn't any country established, nor any claim to the land. Most of it was unpopulated, and the people wanted to live a better life.
What I can't understand is why people cannot wrap their minds around the fact that slavery was a worldwide institution, and that it had existed throughout history. It was very common at the time. This was before an era of many machines. People needed labor/farm workers.
You are also discounting the fact that practically every people group has been enslaved at some point in history. You act like it was white people always doing the enslaving and poor non-whites always being enslaved. However, slavery was common in the far east, the middle east, and virtually most places of the "old world". Simply because whites were the first to end it, and because our country is one of primarily European people, history, and culture, doesn't mean that we're the only ones involved in slavery.
Also consider that by far more slaves were brought to the Caribbean and South America than North America.
Quote:
South Africa is also ~10% White. Are Whites native to S.A.? No! They immigrated there,and treated the native Africans like crap for decades.
When the Dutch emigrated to what was then no country, that part of Africa was very unpopulated. There were a few Bantus in the far northwestern area of what is now South Africa, an area desert-like in nature. There were a few others, but, as in the modern-day U.S., the land was primarily unsettled. Most blacks migrated to South Africa (not officially the name of the nation) after it became economically successful. Thus, it's not true that the "South Africans" treated the "natives" like "crap" for decades. Apartheid began last century, centuries after the first whites arrived. This was done for various reasons: 1) to maintain white control, given the rapidly burgeoning black population, and 2) to protect whites from unrest, thus ensuring living spaces were separate. Whether you agree with the reasons behind apartheid or not, it is true that both whites and blacks have suffered economically since the end of apartheid, and there are blacks, even on Youtube, saying that they wish apartheid was still in place, as the economy was better and they had jobs. Now, whites are discriminated against (an apartheid, mind you), and the economy is so bad that many of the blacks not getting jobs by government favortism are out of work.
Exactly. That is what is happening in the United States. The systematic destruction of whites. Look at the maps and tell me that you don't see whites being wiped off the map, to the point that in a few decades, the white community will be destroyed in part, even more?
Think about Zimbabwe, where the government, under Robert Mugabe, has sent gangs out onto white-owned farmer's lands and has murdered white men, women, and children, simply because they're white, and then has given the land to blacks who do not know how to farm. It's part of the reason why Zimbabwe went from producing a lot of food to not much food at all, and why they've had bouts of starvation. It also partially explains the rapid inflation and the implosion of their currency.
Whites are being denied jobs. Whites have been killed. Discrimination is so rampant that twenty percent of the population has MIGRATED to get away from it. This all over the past seventeen years.
Of course it's not genocide. It's a small population that does such. Furthermore, the government is not condoning harmful policies, such as in South Africa, the United States, etc. that brings about harm, economic, cultural, or death to the group, such as is being seen in Zimbabwe (death, economic), South Africa (cultural, economic), and the United States (economic, cultural-with immigration). That said, the black population in Russia is tiny. Most non-whites in Russia are south Asian or middle eastern in nature.
While most countries do have a population of immigrants, the percentages of most are very tiny, say under one or two percent. Furthermore, most non-white countries admit immigrants that are of the same race, such as Japan allowing only Asians. Europeans are allowed temporarily, but not for permanent status. Most is related to work, such as in a work visa. Even then, the European/white population in Japan is less than half a percent. Japan allows Koreans and some Chinese, and they are mandated to learn the language and assimilate. European/white countries have non-white populations, courtesy of immigration and illegal immigration, approaching ten percent. In France, the non-white population is approaching twenty percent. In the United States, it's over one-third, and the numbers are rapidly rising in Canada and Australia. You also have to take into account that all white countries, by and large, have immigration that favors non-whites, with some by a 90%-10% margin.
When Europeans came to the New World, there have been estimated to have been only a few million "natives" on what is now known as North America. Considering that there are over 300 million today, you can see that this land was basically an unpopulated wilderness.
Consider also that no country was established, and that these "natives" did war with one another, indicating no cohesion, the few times that they did come in contact with one another. Many tribes, particularly in the west, were nomadic in nature, moving from place to place. Furthermore, "native" tribes did not believe in land ownership, for they thought that the land belonged to everyone.
Europeans colonized a virtual wilderness and established the greatest country, in my opinion, that has ever been known to man. The United States would not be here if it weren't for those brave men who set sail on the high seas to risk their lives to come to a new land so that they could worship as they wished.
Regarding disease, not as high a percentage of "natives" died as many anti-western culturalists argue. It's not like those bringing European diseases knew that the "natives" didn't have natural immunity to the diseases. These things are unfortunate. Viruses are often air-born, so one doesn't have to exactly be right beside another in order to catch a disease. Even then, most "natives" were far enough away from the "Colonists" that this wasn't an issue, thus negating the argument that a majority of the Indians died.
Regarding wars, it was generally the Indians who warred with whites, not the other way around. There's accounts that outside the peaceful coexistence of early settlements in Plymouth and Jamestown, eventually the Indians, and particularly those in the west, sought out to attack whites, torching their villages and killing men, women, and children. It's why they were often called "savages", and why peaceful tribes, such as the Cherokee, were called the "civilized tribes", considering that they were far different than most. It plays a role in why the U.S. government decided to set up reservations and remove them. It is unfortunate that many died on this march called the "Trail of Tears".
Yes, whites did emigrate to the "new world". There wasn't any country established, nor any claim to the land. Most of it was unpopulated, and the people wanted to live a better life.
What I can't understand is why people cannot wrap their minds around the fact that slavery was a worldwide institution, and that it had existed throughout history. It was very common at the time. This was before an era of many machines. People needed labor/farm workers.
You are also discounting the fact that practically every people group has been enslaved at some point in history. You act like it was white people always doing the enslaving and poor non-whites always being enslaved. However, slavery was common in the far east, the middle east, and virtually most places of the "old world". Simply because whites were the first to end it, and because our country is one of primarily European people, history, and culture, doesn't mean that we're the only ones involved in slavery.
Also consider that by far more slaves were brought to the Caribbean and South America than North America.
When the Dutch emigrated to what was then no country, that part of Africa was very unpopulated. There were a few Bantus in the far northwestern area of what is now South Africa, an area desert-like in nature. There were a few others, but, as in the modern-day U.S., the land was primarily unsettled. Most blacks migrated to South Africa (not officially the name of the nation) after it became economically successful. Thus, it's not true that the "South Africans" treated the "natives" like "crap" for decades. Apartheid began last century, centuries after the first whites arrived. This was done for various reasons: 1) to maintain white control, given the rapidly burgeoning black population, and 2) to protect whites from unrest, thus ensuring living spaces were separate. Whether you agree with the reasons behind apartheid or not, it is true that both whites and blacks have suffered economically since the end of apartheid, and there are blacks, even on Youtube, saying that they wish apartheid was still in place, as the economy was better and they had jobs. Now, whites are discriminated against (an apartheid, mind you), and the economy is so bad that many of the blacks not getting jobs by government favortism are out of work.
There is no genocide in The United States. Whites are still a majority,and hold most government seats. Yes,the White population is declining fast,but that has NOTHING to do with a so-called "genocide". The reason is that Whites have a much lower birth rate than African-Americans and Latinos. The other reason is that there is little immigration from Europe to the U.S.,so as the Whites decline in population,minorities take their place. If Whites are being denied jobs because of their race,that is called "discrimination",and I am no supporter of that.
America was not uninhabited. There were millions of indigenous before the arrival of Europeans. They were FORCED on reservations,they were not given a choice.
The Spaniards often forced some Native Tribes into extinction,like the TaÃno people,in the Caribbean.
As for South Africa,I'm pretty sure there were Blacks living there before the arrival of the Europeans. Either way,Apartheid is in no way justified. Why should the White minority be in control of everything? Are they somehow superior and more fit to run the country? Why should Blacks not be allowed to hold Government offices? They do make up a majority,after all.
As for immigration,I believe you'll find many non-White countries with many immigrants.
The United States for one is 99% immigrants.
Bottom line,
YES,Whites have been killed,yes,Whites have been denied jobs.
That does not equate to genocide. Even if 90% of America became non-White,it wouldn't be the end of the World. You seem to have an irrational fear of minorities.
Stars&StripesForever;20919035]
When Europeans came to the New World, there have been estimated to have been only a few million "natives" on what is now known as North America. Considering that there are over 300 million today, you can see that this land was basically an unpopulated wilderness.
More like 60 million and I think that estimation is just the USA alone. Even till this day there are millions of them left, the bulk of them are in Latin America. Mexico is somewhere between 15-30% Amerindian alone(identify as mostly NA in ancestry). Peru and Bolivia both have a Amerindian plurality-majority, 45% and 55% perspectively, and with at least one official language that is indigenous along side with Spanish.
More like 60 million and I think that estimation is just the USA alone. Even till this day there are millions of them left, the bulk of them are in Latin America. Mexico is somewhere between 15-30% Amerindian alone(identify as mostly NA in ancestry). Peru and Bolivia both have a Amerindian plurality-majority, 45% and 55% perspectively, and with at least one official language that is indigenous along side with Spanish.
Oh yes, 60 million. How patently absurd and false, it's ridiculous to even make such an assumption. The United States had only 3.9 million people in 1790, granted this number is likely off perhaps a million, accounting for slaves and those uncounted. Do you honestly think that there were over fifteen times more Indians than Americans in 1790, or years previously? That's quite a statement that's obviously designed to deceive people of the truth.
The Indian populations were higher in central and South America. Although I didn't make that point, what does this have to do with North America, including the U.S. There weren't sixty million. As stated, most reasonable estimates put the number at a two to three million.
Mexico does have a 30% Indian population. Again, areas from the southern areas of modern-day Mexico down to central areas of South America had much higher numbers. Most Mexicans have "native american" ancestry because the Spanish, unlike the English who brought their wives to the new world, came for the riches of the new world and subsequently took native women. Thus, a majority ended up mixed in those areas where high numbers of "natives" lived. Regarding Bolivia, they received much less European colonization, and the same as of Peru and Ecuador. Most Europeans to South America went to the countries or areas of modern day Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Venezuela.
There is no genocide in The United States. Whites are still a majority,and hold most government seats.
But for how much longer? The U.S. was 89% white in 1960. Today, it's only 62% white. Given the rate of exponential growth, I can assure you that if trends don't change, by way of the U.S. growing a spine to change the law or doing something about illegals, then it will not take fifty years for another twenty-seven percent to be shaved off. It will likely take half that time. Thus, by 2035, whites will only account for 35% Of America's population, or less. This is the genocide we're talking about. The intentional bringing about destruction of the community in part. This doesn't take into account the Baby Boomer cohort which will be dying off around that time, and they're the largest white age group.
Quote:
Yes,the White population is declining fast,but that has NOTHING to do with a so-called "genocide".
Immigration that favors non-whites over whites, the group destined this nation, as in the phrase "to ourselves and our posterity", is leading the genocide. You act like it's all about low birth rates, but as I've said, whites in the United States have one of the highest birth rates among whites of any white nation. Thus, whites would not be displaced as a percentage of the overall population, or out of their living spaces, if immigration did not favor non-whites over whites, or if the U.S. government did its job to properly to defend our borders. You can have the highest birth rates known to man, but if you allow other groups to settle in your land, your group's percentage of the total is going to lower.
Quote:
The reason is that Whites have a much lower birth rate than African-Americans and Latinos.
Whites have slightly lower birth rates to blacks, but they're not much lower. In fact, whites percentage as majority is not threatened by blacks, as their percentage has remained roughly equal at about twelve or thirteen percent over time. The Mestizo/Indian "Latinos", also sometimes mislabeled as "Hispanics", accounts for why whites are losing ground. Most is due to illegal immigration, but a lot is also of legal immigration, from not only meso-american "latinos", but also from Asians. In terms of birth rates, "latinos" have a very high birth rate, and many are purposefully having children for the purpose of trying to make themselves the majority population. After all, when a government opens the doors to them, gives them free handouts, and makes them a protected class, and nothing is done to stop them, then all it takes is making more of themselves to ensure that the nation will eventually fall in their hands. Countless statements have been made that this is their intent. Of course, for many, they simply are following their "machismo" bravado, found in Mexico in central America, that equates man-hood with impregnating women, regardless if one can financially provide for the offspring.
Quote:
The other reason is that there is little immigration from Europe to the U.S.,so as the Whites decline in population,minorities take their place.
Ask yourself this, why would a European-derived country not ensure that their people remain the majority population? Why would it favor non-Europeans over Europeans? After all, the people make the culture, and they define the nation. Why would any sane people of a country seek to make themselves a minority in their own lands?
The reason there is so little immigration from Europe is two-fold. 1) U.S. immigration policy operates on a quota system, and its goal is to be "fair", trying to make immigration policy reflect the world-wide population, despite the fact that the U.S. isn't a country of Chinese or Indians, but has historically been a country of Europeans. Yet, Europeans are only allowed around 10-14% of all immigrants, coinciding with their population of the world. Thus, it is harder for a European to immigrate to the U.S. than it is from someone from the third world. 2) Europeans live in a first world society. Thus, they have less reason to come to the U.S. to seek out a better life.
That said, what is happening to the U.S. and other white countries is not a natural phenomena, but rather a dereliction of duty, and one that has been done by evil people in positions of power and influence.
Quote:
If Whites are being denied jobs because of their race,that is called "discrimination",and I am no supporter of that.
I'm glad that you can agree with that.
Quote:
America was not uninhabited. There were millions of indigenous before the arrival of Europeans. They were FORCED on reservations,they were not given a choice.
There were a few million. However, that's why I said virtually uninhabited, as three million on a continent this size ensured that you hardly ever saw a person. It was generally a wilderness.
The Indians were forced onto reservations AFTER the U.S. had enough of Americans being attacked, homes burned, and people killed. That's why they were known as "savages".
Quote:
The Spaniards often forced some Native Tribes into extinction,like the TaÃno people,in the Caribbean.
The Spaniards were more about the sword, and this doesn't play as much a role in North American history, which includes the United States, even considering the Spanish-controlled areas of Florida and the southwest which were some of the most unsettled areas occupied by Spain.
That said, the Spaniards had to deal with the Aztecs, who were sacrificial savages.
Quote:
As for South Africa,I'm pretty sure there were Blacks living there before the arrival of the Europeans.
I didn't say that there weren't any blacks, it's that they were very few in number, and in many areas of what is today South Africa, it was uninhabited.
Quote:
Either way,Apartheid is in no way justified. Why should the White minority be in control of everything? Are they somehow superior and more fit to run the country? Why should Blacks not be allowed to hold Government offices? They do make up a majority,after all.
The ended up making a majority because the migrated in and took over, after the wealth had been created by whites. Apartheid, whether you agree with it or not, ensured safe living spaces for whites, and ensured a strong economy for both whites and blacks. Today, South Africa's economic situation is abysmal, and the black-controlled government has set about an apartheid of their own that benefits no one.
Quote:
As for immigration,I believe you'll find many non-White countries with many immigrants.
The United States for one is 99% immigrants.
The United States is still a majority white country, and it historically is a white country. As said, as recently as 1960, the population was 89% white. Outside of the South, it was about 98% white.
The only non-white countries taking in a lot of immigrants are Singapore (a city state), Brunei, and the United Arab Emirates. Of these, most of the population that emigrates to such places are of the same race, which is not seen in the United States and other white countries.
Quote:
Bottom line,
YES,Whites have been killed,yes,Whites have been denied jobs.
That does not equate to genocide. Even if 90% of America became non-White,it wouldn't be the end of the World. You seem to have an irrational fear of minorities.
Why do you conveniently dismiss what has happened to the white population, along with laws that discriminate against whites, and how it lines up with the definition of genocide, and then claim it not genocide? If the same were happening to non-whites, you'd likely call it genocide.
In my opinion, if America ever becomes 90% non-white, you'll definitely see it be a third world country, similar to the countries from which those people fled. There's a reason that white countries are first world, while most non-white countries are third world.
Stars&Stripes you would've fit in very well 100 years ago when lamenting how the immigration of Italians, Irish, Jews & Chinese was set to destroy the fabric of the country. This country is built on immigration...you only seem to have a problem with it now because it's the non-white folks moving in?
Quote:
There's a reason that white countries are first world, while most non-white countries are third world.
Yeah, it's called colonization and genocide. The United States was majorically red before it became white. These so-called "white" countries you mention were built and still are being built off the backs and resources of the so-called Third World.
Stars&StripesForever;20935840]Oh yes, 60 million. How patently absurd and false, it's ridiculous to even make such an assumption. The United States had only 3.9 million people in 1790, granted this number is likely off perhaps a million, accounting for slaves and those uncounted. Do you honestly think that there were over fifteen times more Indians than Americans in 1790, or years previously? That's quite a statement that's obviously designed to deceive people of the truth.
Woah! 1790 is a long way off from many many decades prior to that year, which is what I'm trying to get at. What you're missing is the United States was no more than one-third in land area compare to now in 1790, and Native Americans were likely wiped off on the East Coast by then anyway. Another problem is the census was pretty exclusive in who they wanted to count and there were only 2-3 options to choose from back then. For an Amerindian to be counted, they had to be living in white/black settlements and they were either counted as white or black/colored. Indian, as a category, wasn't included in the census until 70 years later, and even then, it was only the ones who paid taxes. By 1890 or 1900 all Amerindians(regardless of status) were counted, but only until 1924 were Amerindians on the reservations were considered citizens of the US.
Last edited by Chicagoland60426; 09-18-2011 at 07:21 PM..
But for how much longer? The U.S. was 89% white in 1960. Today, it's only 62% white. Given the rate of exponential growth, I can assure you that if trends don't change, by way of the U.S. growing a spine to change the law or doing something about illegals, then it will not take fifty years for another twenty-seven percent to be shaved off. It will likely take half that time. Thus, by 2035, whites will only account for 35% Of America's population, or less. This is the genocide we're talking about. The intentional bringing about destruction of the community in part. This doesn't take into account the Baby Boomer cohort which will be dying off around that time, and they're the largest white age group.
Immigration that favors non-whites over whites, the group destined this nation, as in the phrase "to ourselves and our posterity", is leading the genocide. You act like it's all about low birth rates, but as I've said, whites in the United States have one of the highest birth rates among whites of any white nation. Thus, whites would not be displaced as a percentage of the overall population, or out of their living spaces, if immigration did not favor non-whites over whites, or if the U.S. government did its job to properly to defend our borders. You can have the highest birth rates known to man, but if you allow other groups to settle in your land, your group's percentage of the total is going to lower.
Whites have slightly lower birth rates to blacks, but they're not much lower. In fact, whites percentage as majority is not threatened by blacks, as their percentage has remained roughly equal at about twelve or thirteen percent over time. The Mestizo/Indian "Latinos", also sometimes mislabeled as "Hispanics", accounts for why whites are losing ground. Most is due to illegal immigration, but a lot is also of legal immigration, from not only meso-american "latinos", but also from Asians. In terms of birth rates, "latinos" have a very high birth rate, and many are purposefully having children for the purpose of trying to make themselves the majority population. After all, when a government opens the doors to them, gives them free handouts, and makes them a protected class, and nothing is done to stop them, then all it takes is making more of themselves to ensure that the nation will eventually fall in their hands. Countless statements have been made that this is their intent. Of course, for many, they simply are following their "machismo" bravado, found in Mexico in central America, that equates man-hood with impregnating women, regardless if one can financially provide for the offspring.
Ask yourself this, why would a European-derived country not ensure that their people remain the majority population? Why would it favor non-Europeans over Europeans? After all, the people make the culture, and they define the nation. Why would any sane people of a country seek to make themselves a minority in their own lands?
The reason there is so little immigration from Europe is two-fold. 1) U.S. immigration policy operates on a quota system, and its goal is to be "fair", trying to make immigration policy reflect the world-wide population, despite the fact that the U.S. isn't a country of Chinese or Indians, but has historically been a country of Europeans. Yet, Europeans are only allowed around 10-14% of all immigrants, coinciding with their population of the world. Thus, it is harder for a European to immigrate to the U.S. than it is from someone from the third world. 2) Europeans live in a first world society. Thus, they have less reason to come to the U.S. to seek out a better life.
That said, what is happening to the U.S. and other white countries is not a natural phenomena, but rather a dereliction of duty, and one that has been done by evil people in positions of power and influence.
I'm glad that you can agree with that.
There were a few million. However, that's why I said virtually uninhabited, as three million on a continent this size ensured that you hardly ever saw a person. It was generally a wilderness.
The Indians were forced onto reservations AFTER the U.S. had enough of Americans being attacked, homes burned, and people killed. That's why they were known as "savages".
The Spaniards were more about the sword, and this doesn't play as much a role in North American history, which includes the United States, even considering the Spanish-controlled areas of Florida and the southwest which were some of the most unsettled areas occupied by Spain.
That said, the Spaniards had to deal with the Aztecs, who were sacrificial savages.
I didn't say that there weren't any blacks, it's that they were very few in number, and in many areas of what is today South Africa, it was uninhabited.
The ended up making a majority because the migrated in and took over, after the wealth had been created by whites. Apartheid, whether you agree with it or not, ensured safe living spaces for whites, and ensured a strong economy for both whites and blacks. Today, South Africa's economic situation is abysmal, and the black-controlled government has set about an apartheid of their own that benefits no one.
The United States is still a majority white country, and it historically is a white country. As said, as recently as 1960, the population was 89% white. Outside of the South, it was about 98% white.
The only non-white countries taking in a lot of immigrants are Singapore (a city state), Brunei, and the United Arab Emirates. Of these, most of the population that emigrates to such places are of the same race, which is not seen in the United States and other white countries.
Why do you conveniently dismiss what has happened to the white population, along with laws that discriminate against whites, and how it lines up with the definition of genocide, and then claim it not genocide? If the same were happening to non-whites, you'd likely call it genocide.
In my opinion, if America ever becomes 90% non-white, you'll definitely see it be a third world country, similar to the countries from which those people fled. There's a reason that white countries are first world, while most non-white countries are third world.
I am gonna try and keep this short. The main reason that immigration from Europe has declined is that there is less of a reason for Europeans to immigrate to America. 100 years ago,people in Europe were extremely poor,and saw opportunity in America,which is why they immigrated here in huge numbers. Now that Europe is more developed,they really don't need to come here as much. I can also assure that 100 years ago,most of Europe was "3rd world",and that many countries in Europe,particularly in Eastern Europe, are still underdeveloped.
The United States as a country,has had non-whites from the beginning. If Whites were to get preferential treatment in immigration,then so should blacks. They have been here just as long as Whites,and have just as much to do with the building of this country. Why is it okay for Whites to move to other lands and massacre/enslave the native populations,but it is not okay for non-Whites to go to "White" countries to simply work for a better living?
You're right about one thing,there is a reason why most non-Euro nations are poor. It's because of REAL genocides,and Europe's exploitation of Africa,Asia,and The Americas for centuries.
Does anybody else think it's strange that when someone asks for advice on a CD forum and someone answers with a (IMO harmless) link to another forum site, the link will get deleted because it violates CD's terms of service, yet crap like this thread is allowed to go on? People claiming there's white genocide are pathetic and dangerous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 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.
