U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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)
 
Old 03-22-2011, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,133 posts, read 4,317,272 times
Reputation: 2637

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Sure, those fortunate enough to be white or otherwise privileged have no problem speaking of patience till some day in the distant future unfair treatment due to race goes away naturally (which I don't think it ever would have)...
It is basically a certainty that racial tensions will go away in the distant future. As long as the nations of the world trade and interact, it will happen, and it is economically beneficial for people to trade and interact. The only protection from it is if we all went "North Korea".

But the truth is, it matters not whether racism exists if people of varying races don't live amongst each other under the same government. It matters not if one nation is white and another is black, as long as they aren't going to war with each other.

The question you have to ask is whether or not everyone has the right to travel to, or to move to any country they desire. The question is whether or not every person should be allowed to go anywhere in the world they desire. The people moving into Europe from non-white countries are simply moving there for economic gain. Many are refugees from 3rd-world countries. Most of them are really just a drain on their new country, they can only live there because the government gives them priviledges and handouts. Without the government they could not stay. The government is an artificial institution that enables them to stay, and that is why you see much of the backlash towards immigration in Europe. If those immigrants came in and contributed, and were not propped up by artificial means, you would see far less backlash towards them. The same can be said here of Mexican immigrants. The primary issues on immigration all comes from economics, especially in regards to money spent on welfare, healthcare, and education. Without government, the vast majority of the people simply wouldn't care if illegal immigrants were here or not, because they wouldn't cost anyone anything. They would only be here if they could "make it" here. So they would be providing benefits to the country.

Quote:
What your ideas would result in is a country of the unfree, with restricted movement, controlled borders etc.

What for? If you only want to be around whites, you can easily do so in most rural and semi-rural regions of the US... Go and move to Nebraska or Idaho

This isn't really about being around white people or black people or asians, etc. This is about freedom, and about happiness.

I would agree that under my system there would be more controlled borders, many people would be less likely to travel into and through certain states. It would be much more like the European Union rather than the United States of America. But I think it would be a good trade-off.

You would gain a lot more political stability, and the perception of more freedom and regional diversity, and much less militarism. But you might lose a slight amount of ease of travel, and possibly border fences/patrols between places like Arizona and California. But I can guarantee, people would be much happier. Because they would feel more in control of their lives. They wouldn't feel like people in Washington were passing laws that go against their basic culture and values. There would just be less to argue and be upset about.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 03-22-2011 at 01:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-22-2011, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,133 posts, read 4,317,272 times
Reputation: 2637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
The size of a population does not matter much, if anything population density does, which is higher in the Netherlands than in Japan.
Japan like many East Asian countries is relatively unhappy because because of the social focus, the individual is not as free as in the West, lots of restraints and hierarchy.

The economy is also important as a low level of poverty prevents envy and crime. Germany is relatively egalitarian.
Just recently I read an interesting study on the amount of time people laugh per day. Within Germany there is a considerable gradient. People in urban regions (which even in Germany means 20 to 30% minorities) such as Hamburg, Cologne, Bonn, Munich, or Stuttgart laugh up to twice as much as people in Eastern Germany,which is almost exclusively white.
It is mostly an economic and cultural thing.

Stop, your examples really make no sense. You said population density is what matters? Do you mean high population density is harmful to happiness or good for happiness? Because, that doesn't seem to be the trend I have seen. There are some countries which tend to be very happy and are very dense(Belgium, Netherlands), there are some countries that are very happy and are not dense at all(Sweden, Norway, Ireland, etc). The happiest countries really only share two characteristics, they are small and homogeneous. There are no high population happy countries, regardless of population density. The happiest high population country is actually the United States, and its quite a ways down the list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2011, 01:42 PM
 
44,564 posts, read 43,103,689 times
Reputation: 14375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
The size of a population does not matter much, if anything population density does, which is higher in the Netherlands than in Japan.
Japan like many East Asian countries is relatively unhappy because because of the social focus, the individual is not as free as in the West, lots of restraints and hierarchy.

The economy is also important as a low level of poverty prevents envy and crime. Germany is relatively egalitarian.
Just recently I read an interesting study on the amount of time people laugh per day. Within Germany there is a considerable gradient. People in urban regions (which even in Germany means 20 to 30% minorities) such as Hamburg, Cologne, Bonn, Munich, or Stuttgart laugh up to twice as much as people in Eastern Germany,which is almost exclusively white.
It is mostly an economic and cultural thing.
And even more, it is about what you are looking for in your life as well. Maybe persons who are happy have what they are looking for in their life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2011, 01:43 PM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
19,865 posts, read 18,312,135 times
Reputation: 7955
I don't think racism will go away because of trade and interaction. It will eventually only go away when people actually have to do with each other and mix. It is only those who do not like that who will do anything to stop it.

Racists usually don't care about whether someone can make it or not. I don't remember who it was, but someone said that the only thing whites dislike more than poor blacks are successful blacks.

Legal immigration already works that way. Only people who bring something desirable with them are allowed in, be it in the US, in Europe or wherever.
Nobody has the right to travel or move anywhere they like.

Immigration to Europe? Italy is making a fuss about a few thousand refugees yes. It has had a right-wing president for years now, who is brainwashing the population with his state-controlled media. The EU has 500 million people, does anyone with half a brain really think a few thousand more will be much of a problem? The problem are those frequent elections, which make politicans from the right address the most primitive instincts of humans just to win votes.

Since you seem to be fond of the EU concept, we have been gradually doing away with those internal borders because they cause more problems than they solve. I guess the US and the EU are similar in that people distrust federal institutions, but that does not mean that they don't want the federal unity.

As far as racism is concerned, let's be honest, in the US and most traditionally white places it usually involves black people, not so much Asians. I don't know why that is, maybe simply because of the more obvious color difference. Most white people don't have problems with East Asians. At the same time it is black people, who along with Native Americans have been the oldest minority in the US and thus of course have to have the same rights to travel and move anywhere they like.

No matter how you put it, it always seems to me that you just try to justify your idea of a segregated US. Whether people like it or not, the US is one country, one people. All those ethnic groups won't go away, they are there to stay, so everybody might as well learn to live with that fact and make the best of it.

I believe in culture. Just look at some regions such as the Caucasus or those countries ending in -stan. People there are often impossible to distinguish were it not for clothes, religion, or language. Still many of them dislike each other. They are mentally stuck in the middle ages and one should not accept that as a reason to demand separation.


Regarding your second post (142), what I am saying is that populations size is no indicator of happiness, nor is the percentage of minorities.
Brazil for instance is a huge country with about 200 million people and a very mixed population, still they are as happy as little Belgium. There are small, homogeneous countries that are not overly happy, and big mixed ones that are quite happy. One has to look at each country to determine why people are happy or not. There is no simple rule the way you seem to think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2011, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,004,420 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
It is basically a certainty that racial tensions will go away in the distant future. As long as the nations of the world trade and interact, it will happen, and it is economically beneficial for people to trade and interact. The only protection from it is if we all went "North Korea".
And North Korea is perfect example of a homogeneous populace. The certainty over time is surely that globalization will result in more racial mixing, a society that is more homogeneous in the sense of a society than in sense of a "race". And at the same time, ignorance will prevail with populace focusing on specific race as "the one".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2011, 02:18 PM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
19,865 posts, read 18,312,135 times
Reputation: 7955
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
And North Korea is perfect example of a homogeneous populace. The certainty over time is surely that globalization will result in more racial mixing, a society that is more homogeneous in the sense of a society than in sense of a "race". And at the same time, ignorance will prevail with populace focusing on specific race as "the one".
People can trade all the time, but that doesn't mean they appreciate or respect others. It is easy to be tolerant from a distance. And why would it even matter if racism disappears if people don't mix anyway? I don't care if the Chinese dislike me as long as they live in China.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2011, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Crown Heights, Brooklyn
1,050 posts, read 1,427,689 times
Reputation: 370
racism was born from economics
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2011, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,133 posts, read 4,317,272 times
Reputation: 2637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
I don't think racism will go away because of trade and interaction. It will eventually only go away when people actually have to do with each other and mix. It is only those who do not like that who will do anything to stop it.
Racism will only go away when there are no more races on earth. It is a natural condition of humanity to identify with what he sees around him. Xenophobia is another human condition, where you want to protect your "way of life" from encroachment and corruption by others. As a parent, you are constantly trying to limit the exposure of your children to contradictory ideas. To sort of shelter them from what you see as the "bad of the world".

There will always be disagreements and division, the only thing that makes us peaceful is the apparent need for each other, and that can only exist because of economics, through trade. Anything else is basically artificial compulsion of people together, which is BAD.

Because society is so mobile, and because trade for resources so important. Eventually this economic need will chisel away at the divisions we have with each other. But this has to be done naturally, otherwise you just cause problems.

Quote:
Racists usually don't care about whether someone can make it or not. I don't remember who it was, but someone said that the only thing whites dislike more than poor blacks are successful blacks.
My basis for this argument is actually from "Thomas Sowell", he argued that before you had government intervention, the blacks of high social status were perceived to have "earned it". That they were far more likely to be seen with respect because of this. The people around them knew they must be intelligent and hard working to have gained such a high position. But with affirmative-action and other government interventions, its difficult to tell the deserving blacks from the undeserving blacks, people tend to equate all blacks of high position as attaining such a position only by way of an unfair system, and so they don't believe they actually deserve it. And this helps fuel the hatred of successful blacks.

I don't think such a system would completely eliminate racism, but I do believe it would help to break down the justification for racism, especially in regards to successful blacks. And I know it would because I have seen this attitude first-hand.

Quote:
Legal immigration already works that way. Only people who bring something desirable with them are allowed in, be it in the US, in Europe or wherever.
Nobody has the right to travel or move anywhere they like.
Legal immigration is completely controlled by the federal government. If you want to come to America you have to apply for a VISA with the US consulate, and you need federal government approval to come here. When you get the approval then you can go anywhere in the United States you want to go. But what I am saying is, in the old days you did not need the federal governments approval to move to Georgia, you only needed Georgia's approval to move to Georgia, but once you got to Georgia you could not go to other states, because you were not a citizen of Georgia(and thus not a citizen of the several states), and could not become a citizen of Georgia without approval by Congress(the federal government). This would allow a state like Florida to let as many Cuban refugees into it as they want. They could bring over the entire country of Haiti if they want. They just can't make them citizens, so they can't go anywhere other than Florida. And without the illegal 14th amendments birthright citizenship, we wouldn't have to worry about future generations becoming citizens either, unless the Congress(the entire country) authorized it.

Quote:
Immigration to Europe? Italy is making a fuss about a few thousand refugees yes. It has had a right-wing president for years now, who is brainwashing the population with his state-controlled media. The EU has 500 million people, does anyone with half a brain really think a few thousand more will be much of a problem? The problem are those frequent elections, which make politicans from the right address the most primitive instincts of humans just to win votes.
The refugee problem is a serious problem. The refugees are not educated, they speak another language, they have no money, no prospects. If they came to Italy they would basically become wards of the state(which is what is happening with muslim refugees all over Europe). On top of that, they tend to have huge quantities of children, and have no desire to assimilate. If you don't understand the problems with that, maybe you should go read about France's no-go zones.

Secondly, if you start letting in Refugees, it starts a process where it expands and expands where everyone wants to come to Europe "as a refugee". But you cannot have socialism and free immigration. If those immigrants came to Italy and got absolutely nothing from the state, then they could only stay if they were productive. Prior to the 1900's in this country, about 1/3rd of all immigrants to this country went back to Europe because they couldn't make it here.

Quote:
Since you seem to be fond of the EU concept, we have been gradually doing away with those internal borders because they cause more problems than they solve. I guess the US and the EU are similar in that people distrust federal institutions, but that does not mean that they don't want the federal unity.
The EU is breaking down the national borders, but it is far from uniting under one government, and will not be in any of our lifetimes. There is a certain amount of sovereignty being forteited by the states to help with economic development of "the zone". But the EU is not even close to the 1789 United States constitution in regards to a united structure. The only things that are on par with the original US Constitution is that being a citizen of any EU country allows you to travel to other EU countries(which is article IV of our constitution), and they share the same currency(which is in article 1 section 8 of our constitution). They understand the importance of those clauses, and I agree. But they want to maintain as much sovereignty as possible.

Quote:
As fas racism is concerned, let's be honest, in the US and most traditionally white places it usually involves black people, not so much Asians. I don't know why that is, maybe simply because of the more obvious color difference. Most white people don't have problems with East Asians. At the same time it is black people, who along with Native Americans have been the oldest minority in the US and thus of course have to have the same rights to travel and move anywhere they like.
Americans at one time did not care much for East Asians, for many years in the late 1800's, Asians were not allowed to own land(blacks owned tons of land at that point). On top of that, you had the Chinese exclusion act. And then you had the Japanese being locked away in internment camps in WWII. To pretend that there were never any issues with Asians, you are mistaken.

The reason whites don't have problems with Asians is a perception. Whites don't perceive Asians to be getting special treatment. They see them as hard working, and deserving of their social status. And thus, white people have no problems with Asians. On the other hand, they see blacks and American-Indians as being basically lazy, unintelligent, and leechers. Who only received their economic positions by means of reparations or government intervention through things like affirmative-action.

If whites perceived blacks as being hard working and intelligent, and not drains on society that expects the government to hand them everything at the behest of whites. Then white/black racism would be effectively like white/asian racism, which is almost non-existent.

Quote:
No matter how you put it, it always seems to me that you just try to justify your idea of a segregated US. Whether people like it or not, the US is one country, one people. All those ethnic groups won't go away, they are there to stay, so everybody might as well learn to live with that fact and make the best of it.
The United States is not one people, I don't know what you are smoking. Think of it this way, the people in Seattle, Washington are more culturally and ethnically similar to the people living in Vancouver, BC, Canada, than the people of Seattle are with the people living in Atlanta. They are also more politically aligned with the people of Vancouver than the people of Atlanta. To believe that we are some one united people just by way of living in the same territory is nonsense.

That same rational basis can be applied to many different regions of this country, which tend to be more politically and culturally aligned with foreign countries than to the other states. The problem is, no one wants to give anything up, they don't want to lose the "freedom" to travel from one part of the country to another. But the original United States provided that possibility of freedom to travel, but also the freedom for parts of the country to be free of control by other states who know nothing about them. Our system was sort of based off the Swiss alliance. Which separates the country into practically autonomous "Cantons", with a very weak central government. In Switzerland there are four different languages spoken in the different regions of the country(German, French, Italian, and Romanian). That was sort of the basis of this country, but it has been hijacked by big-government and special interests who want to mold the entire country through their own ideology. They want to enforce conformity, and destroy freedom and diversity.

Yes, my plan would create a large amount of seggregation at first. But I think in the long run it would be a happier, more free, and more prosperous.

Quote:
I believe in culture. Just look at some regions such as the Caucasus or those countries ending in -stan. People there are often impossible to distinguish were it not for clothes, religion, or language. Still many of them dislike each other. They are mentally stuck in the middle ages and one should not accept that as a reason to demand separation.
You pronounce "mentally stuck in the middle-ages" in such a way that it seems to be a negative. The truth is, the people in those countries want to protect their culture and values. They do not want outsiders trying to tell them what to do. They don't want to be ruled by a majority who doesn't have the same beliefs, and is not looking out for their interests. There is no reason to believe that that is a bad thing. That is exactly what Americans do when they complain about muslims coming to this country, about cultural assimilation, and about forcing people to speak English. The only difference is, the minority are generally not a large enough and condensed enough group to combat the government in any real way. Nor do they have the regional political will to attempt to secede. I could guarantee you that if there were a bunch of muslims in Oklahoma when they passed that law making Sharia Law illegal, that they would probably be threatening to secede.

Quote:
Regarding your second post (142), what I am saying is that populations size is no indicator of happiness, nor is the percentage of minorities.
Brazil for instance is a huge country with about 200 million people and a very mixed population, still they are as happy as little Belgium. There are small, homogeneous countries that are not overly happy, and big mixed ones that are quite happy. One has to look at each country to determine why people are happy or not. There is no simple rule the way you seem to think.
Is Brazil happy? I have never seen anything saying that it is. It has some of the highest crime rates in the world(other than South Africa). The only one I have found with Brazil on it is this one, and it must have pretty flawed methodology.

The world happiest countries

It is ranked so highly because of a factor called "percent thriving" vs the "percent struggling" or the percent "suffering". I don't know exactly how they came to these numbers, but it was most likely an economic basis. Such as low unemployment, and economic equality. Secondly, you have daily experience, which shows Israel at 6.4(from the terrorism there), the United States at 7.3, Belgium at 7.3, and Brazil at 7.5.

I can only conclude that the whole happiness scale is heavily flawed.

This is a study done on reported "subjective well-being". Which is basically asking people two questions, how happy are you? And how satisfied are you with your life? Which is probably a more accurate assessment, rather than basing it almost entirely on economics.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/newsmedia/pr111725/pr111725.pdf

It ranks Brazil below Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Mexico.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
And North Korea is perfect example of a homogeneous populace. The certainty over time is surely that globalization will result in more racial mixing, a society that is more homogeneous in the sense of a society than in sense of a "race". And at the same time, ignorance will prevail with populace focusing on specific race as "the one".
Well, I also said that a country needed to be prosperous as well being small and homogeneous. There are plenty of countries in Africa that are small and homogeneous that are extremely unhappy. There is not a single low-population, homogeneous, at least of average wealth that doesn't rank right at the top in happiness.


Last edited by Redshadowz; 03-22-2011 at 04:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2011, 04:17 PM
 
316 posts, read 236,730 times
Reputation: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
As far as racism is concerned, let's be honest, in the US and most traditionally white places it usually involves black people, not so much Asians. I don't know why that is, maybe simply because of the more obvious color difference. Most white people don't have problems with East Asians.
Yes, you do. And it has nothing to do with the color of their skin.

Many Whites have problems with Black people because many are loud, aggressive and violent.

How often do you turn on the news and see an Asian-American shooting up a liquor store? Beating a woman for 'disrespect'? Randomly committing some act of senseless violence?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2011, 04:18 PM
 
316 posts, read 236,730 times
Reputation: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
And North Korea is perfect example of a homogeneous populace. The certainty over time is surely that globalization will result in more racial mixing, a society that is more homogeneous in the sense of a society than in sense of a "race". And at the same time, ignorance will prevail with populace focusing on specific race as "the one".
This isn't true. The only countries of the world diluting their predominate ethnic group are White ones.

Countries in Africa and Asia are having more children than ever and hordes of White people aren't flooding in. If anything, the world will become less diverse with a much larger population. The only 'diversity' you see shoved down people's throats is White people doing it to themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
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