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.
Uh huh... so back to what I actually wrote... Conservatives don't have a problem w/ Whites vs Everyone Else when they're playing up the demographics in the 2nd half of the 21st Century...
Suddenly America isn't America anymore when Whites don't outnumber the total population of every other racial and ethnic group, right...
It wasn't white vs anyone from the conservative prospective. From a conservative prospective America was going along for almost 400 years and liberals and progressives used identity politics and mass globalized immigration to completely socio-politically alter America in a few decades. The point is no nation especially a democracy is itself if dramatically changed demographically. That's true if Israel became minority Jewish, or Japan, Nigeria etc.
It wasn't white vs anyone from the conservative prospective. From a conservative prospective America was going along for almost 400 years and liberals and progressives used identity politics and mass globalized immigration to completely socio-politically alter America in a few decades. The point is no nation especially a democracy is itself if dramatically changed demographically. That's true if Israel became minority Jewish, or Japan, Nigeria etc.
Interesting... Please tell us more about the Conservative position that America will fundamentally change if there are more non-Whites than White...
i'm "ok" with it because throughout history in this country the white people in charge have purposely dominated and disadvantaged "everyone else." this is not some new modern thing.
Even if that were the case (it's not), do you think non-white people in charge don't dominate and disadvantage "everyone else". Liberals have already been doing that for some time now. Isn't that how it is in "everyone else's" nation? If I move to any one of "everyone else's" nation I would be dominated and disadvantaged.
I don't have a problem with "of color" descriptors. You're free to make up any claims about what it implies, but we both know you're talking out of your b-hole...
But unlike you, I take care to give the reasoning for my claims. Again, "people of color" arbitrarily divides the world into "whites" and "everyone else." It is an irrefutable and self-evident fact that this implies that whites are somehow special and set apart from anyone else.
Contrast that to your posts, which are devoid of any facts, reasoning, quotes, etc. Just puerile, broad-brush assertions, with nothing to back them.
Interesting... Please tell us more about the Conservative position that America will fundamentally change if there are more non-Whites than White...
If liberals believe nothing will change then what's the point of wanting more mass immigration, refugees and keeping the illegals? Don't play dumb. "Everyone else vs whites" identity politics and transforming America are liberal cornerstones. Other than that the visual and auditory impact is obvious in many cities.
Would Michael Jackson have been admitted to a "community of color"?
How about Japanese? They say they are "wheat color".
How about me during the summer? I usually get tanned.
It occurs to me that implicit in this term is a kind of segregationism. Somebody please explain to me how it does not imply a certain favorable cast to segregation to use this term. I also am seeing other related terms sprouting like mushrooms, such as "students of color." I read the best-selling book Shattered about the Hillary Clinton campaign, and there were numerous references to "voters of color" from the campaign.
I have always also wondered what the definition of "of color" is. It appears to divide the world into "white" and "everyone else." In this sense, it seems to me to have a tinge of white supremacy. How else do we explain how, in liberaldom, whites alone are set apart, and everyone else is lumped into one big category?
But "communities of color" seems to me a 'whole nother' linguistic step in the wrong direction. "Communities of color" to me equals nothing other than segregation.
sorry you are simply struggling to find something here to argue over.
the phrase simply replaces another one. it is not new, it is not novel is it just a slightly better way of saying "black neighborhood " or "minority" etc..
it makes sense too. In a few decades minority for a predominantly mixed race neighborhood will not even be correct. Community of color is a perfectly valid way to describe a community. Just as the dozens of other terms used to describe racially distinct areas.
My guess is that most of the poeple taking issue with this are simply annoyed that the "minorities" are defining themselves however they wish and there is not a damn thing you can do to stop them.
But unlike you, I take care to give the reasoning for my claims. Again, "people of color" arbitrarily divides the world into "whites" and "everyone else." It is an irrefutable and self-evident fact that this implies that whites are somehow special and set apart from anyone else.
Contrast that to your posts, which are devoid of any facts, reasoning, quotes, etc. Just puerile, broad-brush assertions, with nothing to back them.
We know that's the argument you're trying to make. We also know that you're lying when you say you have a problem with that distinction. A substantive the Conservative platform is based on peddling that distinction.
That's why you have Conservatives on this forum add in this thread constantly trying sell the threat of America losing its White majority.
i'm "ok" with it because throughout history in this country the white people in charge have purposely dominated and disadvantaged "everyone else." this is not some new modern thing.
Not all 'white people in charge have purposely dominated and disadvantaged" others. I happened to read of Abigail Adams recently. Both John and Abigail were ardently anti-slavery. Unlike other founders, they never owned any slaves. Abigail helped teach a free black young man to read and write, and sent him to a local school that had just opened. There were objections IIRC from other parents or perhaps the school teacher about having a black student. Abigail Adams stood her ground, and the kid remained in the school. Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, 13 February 1797
Alexander Hamilton also was ardently anti-slavery, and believed, contrary to even many anti-slavery advocates of the time, that blacks were not inferior to whites.
You lump together ALL whites. Exactly the kind of thinking that should be avoided.
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.
