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.
BUT, MANY black GI's DID get GI mortgages. I never claimed NONE got them as it appears is what you are claiming.
Nope. Per the article:
"There are lots of reasons that whites have so much more wealth than nonwhites. How the GI Bill played out is one of those reasons. Whites were able to use the government guaranteed housing loans that were a pillar of the bill to buy homes in the fast growing suburbs. Those homes subsequently rose greatly in value in coming decades, creating vast new household wealth for whites during the postwar era.
"But black veterans weren't able to make use of the housing provisions of the GI Bill for the most part. Banks generally wouldn't make loans for mortgages in black neighborhoods, and African-Americans were excluded from the suburbs by a combination of deed covenants and informal racism."
(My emphasis - more @ the article)
The article clip I quoted above doesn't say NONE. I understand for the most part (para 2, line 1 above) to mean the majority.
I'm not claiming @ all, other than to report what the article @ the URL says. If you want to contest the content there, you need to take it up with Demos, where the article appeared.
The only thing I was seeking was the answer to the question. Human Beings are Homo Sapiens of the animal kingdom. All animals migrate. Why are Human Beings excluded from what nature intended? What changed? And why is it wrong?
Try summarizing what you wish us to derive out of an article. No one here is going to attempt to infer your rhetoric from a link.
"All animals" do not migrate into one another's territory. Races of humans have long stayed relatively separate to avoid severe community problems and to avoid social clashes in competition for resources. As we are seeing on a somewhat large scale now. No one in their right mind would call this natural or beneficial.
What you mean to ask is why some groups do not want other groups to join their established communities. The answer is that they perceive more risk and demonstrated loss from that process than they do reward.
Nature did not "intend" for Europeans, Asians, and Africans to all live together en masse. Sorry. If it did, we would have mixed long before this time.
The only thing that "changed" was forced mixing. The long history of most individuals, from most of these groups, is not in a state where we freely migrated toward mixed groups. In fact, our genomes show that this rarely happened in our entire history. The only exceptions are in zones that were once dominated by military invasions (Central Asia, Southern Europe, etc). Most of that mixing came as a result of rape.
All tribalists value ancillary things instead of morals/principles.
All "morality" tends to shaped by self-interest. What you are referring to is Neoliberal morality that is specifically designed to be anti-tribalist. Not everyone agrees that this specific morality defines what is moral. See how that works? You can't self reference your morality as a foundation for an argument. Its inherently subjective.
Don't deny that your so called "morality" (it would have really helped for you to articulate it) isn't shaped by your status as a Black man living in a majority White nation. In other words, by self-interest.
Is there a reason Slavs (Poles, Russians and others) have been regarded as animals throughout much of history?
Its exceedingly difficult to answer a question with such a non-cited and emotional poison pill in the question. Try either citing your claim that Slavs have been specifically regarded as "animals" throughout history or else try to clarify your statement so that it can be responded to. Respectfully.
Though, before you do consider that all groups have tended to devalue their enemies throughout history. Cherry picking groups (either aggressors or victims, and then in the inverse when they switch stations) toward seeking a justification for that process doesn't really tell us any more about them than any other group.
All "morality" tends to shaped by self-interest. What you are referring to is Neoliberal morality that is specifically designed to be anti-tribalist. Not everyone agrees that this specific morality defines what is moral. See how that works? You can't self reference your morality as a foundation for an argument. Its inherently subjective.
Don't deny that your so called "morality" (it would have really helped for you to articulate it) isn't shaped by your status as a Black man living in a majority White nation. In other words, by self-interest.
Since you spoke for me I guess I don't have to respond.
I guess this is the great thing about being in the forced collective. What a time saver.
Taking one 15 year period when we were amped up as a result of being the only industrial nation on the planet not in ruins....doesn't say much.
I read history for a hobby....like tens of thousands of pages a month. I'm just finished a book on the MS. River in the early days. The vast majority of "white guys" were crooks, criminals, con men or murderers. Murder was an everyday thing and nothing at all would happen if you - for example - strung up a bunch of black guys (or even white guys that you suspected of being friendly with free black men)....100's of murders of this fashion occurred when just one fictional pamphlet was published.
You do know that the quality of your chosen books has infinitely more bearing on the value of your hobby than does page volume, correct? No serious history tends to paint such dramatically one sided portraits.
My suggestion is to drop the popular, and almost always politicized, historical paperbacks and instead invest time in any Oxford history series of your choice. If you are going to read "tens of thousands of pages per month" (which is really claim that defies credibility) then my advice is to invest that time an effort into a serious and deep accounting of history. There really is no substitute for the Oxford volumes.
Quote:
If you watch the HBO series "Deadwood", it's really not too far off. Murder, whoring, drunkenness, cons and other assorted deeds WERE THE CULTURE. There was NO OTHER CULTURE....
I've seen it. Give me a break. If an HBO series seems not "too far off" for you, then that should cause you to question your choice of sources.
Quote:
However, the last 40 years have seen a BIG decrease in crime rates, so your claim about diversity somehow making crime sprout is ridiculous. Look up the crime stats.....way down.
That doesn't matter. The murder rate in my large city would from from 400 murders to 1/10th of that or less absent 40% of the population.
To do the math for you: 40% of the population is responsible for 90% of the murders and other violent crime.
Quote:
No doubt the Egyptians created the best economy and civilization the world had ever seen.
Sure, no doubt
Quote:
So did the southern Italians, a group that real White Suprematists have said is not "white".
At the same time periods, the "white' people in what is modern day Russia weren't even slightly civilized.
You're talking out of school.
I'd also suggest some reading in population genetics and haplotype movements. Try o figure out which y-DNA haploytpe subclades align with each tribe. There are three major historical divisions in "Germany" alone that account for most of the major European conflicts, and you better had bet that they don't all reside solely in Germany. Their power centers are outside of it. Then try to decipher which groups in the early Northern European migration were farming groups vs herding groups. How does that align with your focus on Slavs, and who is included? After all of this, you'll be compelled to drop the "White" neologism (at least in terms of its modern meaning) when speaking in regard to historical views. There is no cogent historical view that can possibly use the term "white" to describe anything. You have to get much more specific.
What is your view of "slightly" civilized and what part of "Russia" are you speaking about? What time period are you speaking about? Before the European migration or after? Before the Mongol invasion or after? Before the Turk invasions or after? Are you speaking about Turkish groups in Central Asia or the groups that were there prior? Are you speaking about R1a Eastern European Slavs or someone else?
Quote:
Things change. As we speak right now, the "yellow" people are making the best civilization that the world will ever see.
Just, LOL. We're good. You obviously aren't that familiar with Asia. Though, I will hand it to the Japanese. They're very German-like and I do enjoy their cities. Tokyo is like NYC X3 without our social problems stemming from multiculturalism. Their cities are very pleasant places to be.
And all of those great civilization builders are welcome to rely almost exclusively on our technology: from electrical systems, to plumbing, to architecture and building methods, to computers, to weapons, to, well, almost everything. Everything that is foundational to what they do comes from us. Even the Japanese are forced merely to do our cities very well.
Quote:
I'd bet they have lower crime rates too. Yet the same Whites in this country actually created laws against them coming here...because they were bad, bad, bad and would pollute the gene pool.
We're good with our own crime rates.
How about Asians in Asia? Any concern over their insistence on almost complete homogeneity?
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,591,221 times
Reputation: 2576
why such opposition to natural migration ... ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
Try summarizing what you wish us to derive out of an article. No one here is going to attempt to infer your rhetoric from a link.
"All animals" do not migrate into one another's territory. Races of humans have long stayed relatively separate to avoid severe community problems and to avoid social clashes in competition for resources. As we are seeing on a somewhat large scale now. No one in their right mind would call this natural or beneficial.
What you mean to ask is why some groups do not want other groups to join their established communities. The answer is that they perceive more risk and demonstrated loss from that process than they do reward.
Nature did not "intend" for Europeans, Asians, and Africans to all live together en masse. Sorry. If it did, we would have mixed long before this time.
The only thing that "changed" was forced mixing. The long history of most individuals, from most of these groups, is not in a state where we freely migrated toward mixed groups. In fact, our genomes show that this rarely happened in our entire history. The only exceptions are in zones that were once dominated by military invasions (Central Asia, Southern Europe, etc). Most of that mixing came as a result of rape.
Quote:
Try summarizing what you wish us to derive out of an article
Homo Sapiens have been migrating from continent to continent since time began.
Quote:
"All animals" do not migrate into one another's territory.
Birds do it. Fish do it. Mammals, insects and reptiles do it. Migrate, that is. Migration is nearly universal within the animal kingdom; in fact, even sponge and jellyfish larvae make use of that defining animal trait, mobility, to adapt to imperfect habitats. Animals across the globe fly, swim, walk or drift in their effort to find food, a more hospitable climate or places to breed.
These primal drives lead to arduous and often treacherous treks, some spanning thousands of miles.
Quote:
Races of humans have long stayed relatively separate to avoid severe community problems and to avoid social clashes in competition for resources. As we are seeing on a somewhat large scale now. No one in their right mind would call this natural or beneficial.
When the study of human origins intensified in the 20th century, two main theories emerged to explain the archaeological and fossil record: one, known as the multi-regional hypothesis, suggested that a species of human ancestor dispersed throughout the globe, and modern humans evolved from this predecessor in several different locations. The other, out-of-Africa theory, held that modern humans evolved in Africa for many thousands of years before they spread throughout the rest of the world.
Quote:
Nature did not "intend" for Europeans, Asians, and Africans to all live together en masse. Sorry. If it did, we would have mixed long before this time.
These migrants may be responsible for the expansion of Indo-European languages, which make up the majority of spoken tongues in Europe today.
It is natural for people to migrate from one place to another. Just as it is natural in the u.s. to migrate from one state to the next. Some even migrate to chit hole countries, imagine that. Also, men and women have been falling in love and having babies since time began and I don't think they said wait, what's your politics? before the proposal. There is logic backed by decades of scientific research on the animal kingdom, that's why people who do not understand 'nature', is well, perhaps people were never interested in it enough to take a look at it.
Genomes document ancient mass migration to Europe
It is natural for people to migrate from one place to another. Just as it is natural in the u.s. to migrate from one state to the next. Some even migrate to chit hole countries, imagine that. Also, men and women have been falling in love and having babies since time began and I don't think they said wait, what's your politics? before the proposal. There is logic backed by decades of scientific research on the animal kingdom, that's why people who do not understand 'nature', is well, perhaps people were never interested in it enough to take a look at it.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,591,221 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
Good links.
But don't expect a reasonable discussion about this.
ty ... (+1, got to spread it around) I most enjoyed reading the articles and no, I have no expectations ... I find it's best not to at times like these.
There was a research paper I found roughly 10 years ago on the gnome sequencing that disproved the 'all out of Africa' theory, published on Science Journal I think. That was amazing. The math was way over my head but the idea of how many times it took them to get it right without contamination of the neanderthal gnome, imo, they were lucky to have any left to finish the testing.
Any way, it is what it is ...
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.
why such opposition to natural migration ... ?
