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.
It's not cultural diversity that causes conflicts.
It's paranoid, narrow-minded, uneducated idiots who place too much value on one's self that cause conflicts.
It's not about one's self. It's about wanting to retai our nation's cultural identity and national language and not losing it via too much immigration both legal and illegal from one ethnic/cultural group.
It's not about one's self. It's about wanting to retai our nation's cultural identity and national language and not losing it via too much immigration both legal and illegal from one ethnic/cultural group.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,385,461 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
I would say "cultural" is the bigger issue that racial. There are parts of Chicago, that are literally homogeneous racially, but have all kinds of violence, poverty, and instability.
Missouri City, TX, on the other hand, has a majority-minority population, and has a low crime rate. It is also an upper-income area. Maybe the issue is about culture than it is race.
Sugar coat it all you want, green_mariner. Of course I've met cats that are way shady that are the same ethnicity as me but there are far more that aren't. (At least in all my dealings literally every day in the Twin Cities for 30 years).
We've had this discussion before. Just calling a spade a spade. 30 years ago Ray Widstrand NEVER would have been beaten to a vegetable down off Arcade and Minnehaha for being white if it wasn't for a certain group over there.
It's bull**** what happened to him and it's stuff like that gets me riled up.
lol at Redshadowz acting like he knows the East Side and what my (and many others') grievances are.
We used to stress a melting pot but since the 1970's the Liberals have wanted to divide the nation and break people up into small groups. Pit one group against another to gain votes.
What do you think you know about it? What is your point about it being diverse? What does that tell you about me if I'm still here?
Look, if you live in a diverse area and hate diversity. Then there is only one of two reasons. Either one, you have nowhere else to go. Or two, you think your complaining on the internet is going to run the diverse people out.
The first one makes me assume you either live with your parents or have a crappy job. The second one makes me assume you're either naive or stupid.
Either way, I think you are looking for simple solutions to complex problems. If you think you are going to run the non-whites out of St. Paul, you're supremely delusional. It would basically require a war, or something reminiscent of war. And I'm not convinced that your nuts are large enough for that. If they were, you wouldn't be living in East St. Paul. You would be putting actual plans in motion.
Without American slavery there is no America. Who do think is going to do all that back breaking work?
Enslaved africans were specifically chosen because slave masters needed a group of people who had no rights. That's why they got rid of white indentured servants. Those people had rights under the law.
I hate to sound like a dick, but you're just wrong on every single point.
There would be an America with or without slavery(probably a better one). Most of the United States didn't have slavery. Canada didn't have slavery. To some extent it is true that certain parts of America did benefit from African slavery. But the real beneficiaries of African slavery were almost universally a small number of large plantation owners. Go read about Abraham Lincoln's vice president(Andrew Johnson), who was eager to get rid of slavery, because he knew it was creating a virtual "aristocracy" in the south.
The "best days" of America(at least economically) came after slavery was abolished. The "Gilded age". Or really, the age of industrialization. This industrialization and the ample natural resources of the United States is what powered America as the world power. Then the destruction of Europe in two World Wars is what finally propelled America to the relative greatness it is today.
The Spanish and Portugese had far more slaves in their colonies than the British. Yet, in pretty much every area of the world where slaves were imported in the greatest numbers, they are worse off economically. The southern United States is significantly poorer than the Northern states, and has always been that way.
There is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between the existence of slavery and the actual wealth of any country, or any region of the world. The opposite is true.
In fact, the United States is basically the only wealthy nation that has actually had slavery. And the richest countries in Europe were never involved in slavery, and most never even had colonies(IE Scandinavia).
The assumption that America is wealthy because of slavery, or even because of indentured servitude, is without any substance whatsoever.
The reason why most immigrants didn't go to the southern states was because slavery drives down wages. Basically, if you didn't own slaves, you couldn't make it. Thomas Jefferson used to remark that the average "free laborer" in the south was actually worse off than a slave. He was paid little more than what it cost to house and feed a slave, and he had to actually go out and find work. If he didn't find work, he could starve.
Which is why most immigrants, as well as "free blacks", went to the Northern states. Pennsylvania was called the "best poor man's colony".
In a sort of twist of irony, the only real beneficiaries of slavery in America, are actually the descendants of slaves. Had slavery never come to America, black people by and large wouldn't have come to America. Without slavery, the United States would look more like Canada. In fact, Canada would probably be significantly whiter than it is today had it not been for slavery coming to the United States.
- socially, culturally, etc. - it was more ethnically homogeneous?
Basically my ancestors adopted the basic standards of society where they immigrated to. You go to Japan as they say and have to adapt. But then the forefather realized that in a country this large with many cultures coming from many foreign lands that the local; region and even states would adopt differences in cultures. Core beliefs rarely change in people. Its one reason the granted all power they did give to federal governments to the states and states granting them to local in their own coping of this principal. It prevents conflicts between cultures and core beliefs. Cultures have always had conflict when they clash and largely even in same city lived separate cultural existences.
I would say "cultural" is the bigger issue that racial. There are parts of Chicago, that are literally homogeneous racially, but have all kinds of violence, poverty, and instability.
Missouri City, TX, on the other hand, has a majority-minority population, and has a low crime rate. It is also an upper-income area. Maybe the issue is about culture than it is race.
Agreed and HOW! The Lace Curtain Irish have MORE in common with Black people taking care of business than those "Irish" do with the Shanty Irish.
Without American slavery there is no America. Who do think is going to do all that back breaking work?
Enslaved africans were specifically chosen because slave masters needed a group of people who had no rights. That's why they got rid of white indentured servants. Those people had rights under the law.
After the end of slavery there is another 100 plus years of forcing black people to be an incredibly low wage work force barred from most jobs and housing,
There doesn't exist the nation that Europeans were allowed to immigrate to in the 1900's of which most white Americans trace their American roots.
So what we have in threads like these are posters whose families just got here bemoaning the diversity of America, about people who can usually trace their American lineage far further back.
It'd be like going to France and asking wouldn't this nation have less social and cultural turmoil without the French?
There is a certain kind of white privilege in saying that in America
Uh; slavery was pretty much GONE outside of the "South" 200 years ago. Too; there weren't that many Black people up North then and; I doubt that many of them were of slave family if their ancestors started out in the North. Hell; "free people of color" had a BETTER rep than us "Irish" then.
By 1860 the North had pretty much EVERY advantage over the South and it's many Black slaves. Despite the South fighting on its own "turf" and having better generals, they still lost and lost bad.
The US def did NOT need any kind of slave to do jack, even 200 years ago. It was the SAME attitude back then that the illegal alien lovers have in 2014 about wanting amnesty: it's called paying people less or NO money and cutting out everyone else.
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.
