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.
I stated a fact. Most people of every race prefer to live around their people. They prefer to be led by one of their own. They go to church and other functions with mostly people of their own race. Most marry within their own race. Those aren’t my sweeping generalizations. They are simply facts. That shouldn’t bother you just as it shouldn’t bother them that some people don’t prefer to be mostly around those of their own race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220
Interracial relationships and marriages are on the rise, blows a hole through one of your points. I'm in an interracial relationship myself
Both statements are true. Interracial relationships are indeed on the rise, but most people still prefer to share their most intimate relationships with people of the same race.
Quote:
The number of interracial marriages has steadily continued to increase since the 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, but also continues to represent an absolute minority among the total number of wed couples. According to the United States Census Bureau, the number of interracially married couples has increased from 310,000 in 1970 to 651,000 in 1980, to 964,000 in 1990, to 1,464,000 in 2000 and to 2,340,000 in 2008; accounting for 0.7%, 1.3%, 1.8%, 2.6% and 3.9% of the total number of married couples in those years, respectively.
Both statements are true. Interracial relationships are indeed on the rise, but most people still prefer to share their most intimate relationships with people of the same race.
People do not read every post before responding to an individual post. Your post was in regards to the bigoted Democrat Thurmond. I responded to what I saw in front of me.
We are constantly being told that diversity is a good thing in and of itself. It isn't, for far more reasons that the one mentioned in this study (loss of trust in the safety of the community). Europe recently showed us just how the generous citizens of their nations are repaid for bankrolling huge numbers of refugees.
What happens when the generous, tolerant societies of places like Sweden open their doors to large numbers of immigrants that belong to extremely intolerant identity groups (like Muslims)? Violent crimes skyrocket, taxes increase, and the new residents fail to fill the open jobs that were used to justify the massive expense. Women's rights don't exist in these Muslim settlements. And even though they've learned their lesson and ousted the traitorous leaders who sold them out, the citizens of these nations now must deal with huge settlements of expensive and dangerous non-contributors.
It is no surprise that the primarily-Muslim refugees and immigrants refused to assimilate into the culture of their new home. Instead, they used the resources of the host nations to establish their own insular Muslim communities, where the new residents enjoy a high quality of life without the burden of working for a living - quite unlike the citizens of the nation who paid the taxes to support them. The newcomers quickly consume the resources of the "Safety Net" programs, which meant that the citizens who paid for these programs found them unavailable when they themselves needed help. The exact same thing happened in places like Lewiston, Maine, where generous welfare programs attracted huge numbers of African refugees that quickly swamped the programs intended as a safety net for hard-working residents. But the newcomers don't use the Safety Net as a temporary leg up; it instead funds the newcomers lifestyles permanently, at a level far beyond what a native-born resident could hope to get for a short time.
In Europe, these refugee areas are termed "No-Go" zones, where citizens of the host nation, the police, and journalists are violently attacked if they entered. YouTube has many examples of journalists who tried to do interviews in places like Malvo, Sweden but were immediately accosted by "enforcers" who attacked them and tried to take their equipment. For that matter, check out how the African refugees "thank" the residents of Lewiston Maine for bankrolling their importation and new lifestyle, by taking over local parks and attacking the children of their benefactors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAVQO-UPKFQ
For that matter, check out how the African refugees "thank" the residents of Lewiston Maine for bankrolling their importation and new lifestyle, by taking over local parks and attacking the children of their benefactors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAVQO-UPKFQ
That kind of violence has ALWAYS been America. Black on White violence is a relatively recent phenomenon in U.S. history. Meanwhile, White on Black (and on other non-White groups), as well as White ethnic on White ethnic violence has taken place alot throughout American history. A simple U.S. history lesson shows how pervasive racial and ethnic violence has been in the USA.
Yet the most Diverse country in the World is also the most powerful.
How does that escape everyone who agrees with the article? Perhaps there is jealously among our European counterparts and you guys are falling into a trap. I guarantee if England invented R&B or Blues that they would never let you forget it. Heck they stole Rock from us which was invented by Blacks in the south.
Show me a monolithic country with no diversity and no cultural influence from the outside and I will show you a third world country. Even Japan learned that they had to open their doors to outside influence and diversity in order to expand their economy.
Yet the most Diverse country in the World is also the most powerful.
How does that escape everyone who agrees with the article? Perhaps there is jealously among our European counterparts and you guys are falling into a trap. I guarantee if England invented R&B or Blues that they would never let you forget it. Heck they stole Rock from us which was invented by Blacks in the south.
Show me a monolithic country with no diversity and no cultural influence from the outside and I will show you a third world country. Even Japan learned that they had to open their doors to outside influence and diversity in order to expand their economy.
I don't think it really escapes some people. One thing to understand is that some people have a very segregationist mindset.
England came out with its own style of music. Ska is basically a mix of English and Jamaican working class culture. It's also rumored that there are more curry restaurants in the UK than in India. England might have gotten rock from the USA, but it has its own style of music, a product of Black and White working class roots in the UK.
There are alot of 3rd world countries regardless of being homogeneous or diverse. Singapore is a succesful country, and it's diverse. Indonesia is diverse and it has so many problems. Haiti is a very homogeneous country, and it's the poorest in the Western Hemisphere, and a very unstable country politically.
Yet the most Diverse country in the World is also the most powerful.
How does that escape everyone who agrees with the article? Perhaps there is jealously among our European counterparts and you guys are falling into a trap. I guarantee if England invented R&B or Blues that they would never let you forget it. Heck they stole Rock from us which was invented by Blacks in the south.
Show me a monolithic country with no diversity and no cultural influence from the outside and I will show you a third world country. Even Japan learned that they had to open their doors to outside influence and diversity in order to expand their economy.
Japan and South Korea are both racially monolithic (or nearly so) and are both prosperous First World countries. Both of them also had the experience of having been devastated by wars and yet still managed to rebuild themselves from the ashes.
Japan and South Korea are both racially monolithic (or nearly so) and are both prosperous First World countries. Both of them also had the experience of having been devastated by wars and yet still managed to rebuild themselves from the ashes.
Haiti is a racially monolithic country. It's one of the worst places in the world to live. Poorest country in the Western Hemisphere (several sub-Saharan African countries are in better shape than Haiti). A history rife with political instability, issues with malnutrition, environmental degradation.
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.
