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.
First of all, for a European country to be below 95% white is impressive, so I call that diverse! Honestly...
Im using White Non-Hispanic as most do not classify Mestizos as purely European... I dont really know what percent of Latin Americans are purely European so I just stick to White-Non Hispanic.
In 1990 America was 73% White, then 67% White in 2000, and now 63% White... so projections by UN put America at 59% White by 2020 and 55% White by 2030... whites will further drop to 51% by 2040, and 47% by 2050...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
OK, this makes sense if you're counting most of the immigration from Latin America as non-White. But this isn't news. This demographic change has been predicted for a couple of decades now, in the US.
Ruth, colinhar doesn't "really know what percent of Latin Americans are purely European so "he just stick(s) to White-None Hispanic".
Quote:
Originally Posted by kronan123
good? it's horrible. the end of the western civilization most definetly.
Western civilization will go along just as it has in the past...newcomers, invaders, all of them mixing with the 'local populace' and creating a miniature America, "the melting pot". It will be just fine, first we balk and rage and roar and as each new successive wave of children, grandchildren are born we loosen our knickers and relax.
Because in the end...what are you gonna' do about it? It's not the end but rather a brand new beginning, it's like infinity.
Well it depends. If you have ALgerians and Moroccans coming over and causing trouble.. then its horrible, but with skilled forces from Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceanic islands means good.
Yeah, those don't exist in any form. And that's not what came. And you seem to be celebrating political dispossession. We already have an Africa. What's the use in reproducing it where we once had Europe?
Not saying Islamization is that bad, but you can't expect technological, military or political progress from western europe/america given the never ending rise of the Left in these countries. Meanwhile...95% of China are atheists, the" shocker" that Chinese economy is growing...
This statement shows a tragic misunderstanding of history. Did you know that Central Asia and Anatolia were once not Arab and Turk but full of what you would call Europeans?
The Arab and Turk invasions ethnically cleansed and Islamisized those regions, leaving what is there today and pushing the original populations to settle through what you now know as Europe. Now you are stating that similar invasions in Europe are "not that bad". That's a bizarre take on a historically observable and clear cut instance of cause and effect.
People from Pakistan, India and eastern Arabian countries are very good in technology. After all, they invented Algebra and Chemestry.
You're conflating the Arabs and Turks, which invaded those regions at a much later date, with the people who invented those things.
With your version of history, in another 2,000 years people will be claiming that it was the African, Mestizo, and Arab "historical Americans" who they then currently see as the primary inhabitants of the North American Landmass who invented the airplane and then later went to the moon.
So, you are outright claiming that black people lack the intellectual capability to sustain a western-style democracy, even though one of the world's best examples is currently led by a man who is black, and is, presumably, very well educated?
So, you are attributing Western civilization to Obama? That's hilarious.
Quote:
African nations are in the situation they are because they are run by corrupt politicians who have no interest in providing their people with a good quality of life, and only want to line their own pockets.
Excuses and pointing out frequent behavior.
Quote:
Do you think a black politician in England is going to have the same attitude as the president of Zimbabwe, especially if he was born and raised in England? Be honest now.
They often do in United States cities. So, often, yes. There's your honesty. Now try to make a cogent point in return that doesn't rely on a hollow over-emotional response.
Quote:
Do you have the same objection to White immigrants from eastern Europe, or are they the exception?
They aren't an exception. The historical geographic line between R1b and R1a populations is both clear and there for a reason.
The City of Detroit collapsed because industry there collapsed. It has nothing to do with Black leadership. San Francisco had a Black mayor for 8 years, and is thriving.
You just tried to make a racial point about a "thriving city" based on the race of one man. Just to point that out to you. San Francisco is one of the least Black cities on in the United States. Did you mean to make that point?
Quote:
Zimbabwe fell apart not because Blacks there lack leadership ability and education, but because the wrong guy got into power, and has maintained his hold on it ruthlessly, ever since.
Excuses, and rinse and repeat everywhere.
Quote:
The jury is still out on South Africa. It got off to a good start, considering the mess the previous regime left behind.
Lol...the only reason South Africa has any civilization at all is because it was brought by the previous regime and is sustained through mining and trade activities that were, again, developed by the previous regime. Due to high level international attention and leaving behind a first world society, the current rulers are (barely) keeping it going.
By the way, I wonder how long that they are going to sit on the fissionable material that was left behind because, in their words, "blacks can do nuclear weapons grade material too and insulting that you suggest otherwise". Very mature. They're going to force a military invasion just to remove it from their possession and reduce the world nuclear threat from someone else who will eventually take it from them.
Quote:
SA's problem hasn't been the Blacks who have ruled it. SA's biggest problem is the burden of its history of apartheid under Whites. Get a clue.
This is a high level and hilarious level of delusion. No where in the world is your perspective corroborated, and everywhere in the world your perspective is contradicted.
Your perspective wouldn't be so contemptuous if it contained an inkling of humility, but its so egotistical in its extreme delusion that contempt is exactly what it deserves.
Quote:
Your entire argument is too ridiculous to spend much time and energy on refuting.
Your examples don't have a leg to stand on. See my earlier post. All your examples prove is that you have a massive bias against people of color and in favor of Europeans and their descendants. There's a word for that....
Show us where this so called bias is not corroborated by reality. For your perspective, all that you offer are endless specious excuses as to why it your perspective isn't observable.
The only country that survived black leadership in Africa is South Africa so go figure
Incorrect (though it's good to know where somebody's loyalties lie ). Botswana is doing well under Black leadership. Ghana is doing very well. Tanzania was doing well for 10 years, reforming its economy, until shenanigans in the US investment and banking sector caused a global economic crisis. Even so, its economy has been growing at 4%/year since then.
We'll never know how some of the African countries would have done without the US interfering in the democratic process, Congo/Zaire being one case in point. It's the US who installed a corrupt president, not the country's voters.
Well, it sounds like African migrants could go to Botswana and Ghana and be fine. If those nations are indeed doing "well". Why, instead, go to Europe?
What an incredibly ignorant rant this is. The part that frightens me is that you truly believe it. I will attempt to educate you even though I pretty much know my efforts will be futile.
African nations are in the condition they are in due to having been colonial and the boundaries drawn with no regard for the natural cultural boundaries that already existed. Combine this with the power vacuums which were created when the colonial powers granted independence which in many cases, they simply walked away. This created an environment perfect for corruption and abuse and once in place, it's hard to get rid of.
For your perspective to have any intellectual credibility, you'd have to show that those regions had any form of appreciable low-violence civilization before colonization. They didn't. It was dirt floor huts and crude tribal warfare all the same. Boundaries may have been more stable, but you can't credibly bandy an excuse about a lack of civilization, due to the presence of those who had a more advanced civilization, where one has never existed.
Quote:
Haiti (I think that's what you meant) was also colonial and a lot of the Caribbean still shows signs of colonialism due to some areas still being ruled by outsider nations. The only people who can ruin a society are those with the money which means they have the power.
Detroit is very far from being the only example. For a more current example, take Philadelphia: most of which is uninhabitable in terms of appreciable and respectable civilization. The economy of Philly somehow works around that vast dead zones. You can't lay claim to any economic abandonment in Philadelphia to make an excuse for its horrendous condition.
I'm curious as to how long there will be a parry between the excuse of colonization and whatever excuse that is arrived at for regions that are long past any believable colonization effect.
Quote:
Also, when outside forces come in and carve out artificial boundaries, sooner or later, there will be conflict. An example within Europe was Yugoslavia. A nation put together under the belief that the south Slavs should be in one country and it fell apart not once but twice having been in two different incarnations.
True. which is what makes the current illicit ass immigration wave to Europe insane.
Quote:
Also, western Europes stability is a relatively recent thing. Prior to 1945 I wouldn't call the previous 1000 years stable. the difference with Europe is that they have controlled their own destiny for the most part.
True. which is what makes the current illicit ass immigration wave to Europe insane.
But we aren't merely talking about political "stability", are we? We're also talking about the civilization that exists in spite of war. Europe managed to massacre 8 million people in he 30 years war and it still managed to keep the Renaissance going to completion and beyond during that time. So, you can see where in a historical context your tribal conflict excuses fall flat.
So, you are attributing Western civilization to Obama? That's hilarious.
If you are suggesting that Obama's actions and rule did not reflect the history, mores, and values of Western civilization, your credibility is nil.
If anything, he is more Western, in a conservative sense, than most contemporary European leaders whose grounding in Western values can best be described as post-modern.
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.
). Botswana is doing well under Black leadership. Ghana is doing very well. Tanzania was doing well for 10 years, reforming its economy, until shenanigans in the US investment and banking sector caused a global economic crisis. Even so, its economy has been growing at 4%/year since then. 
