Should we prevent people from self-segregating? Should we not permit seperate proms, dormatories or graduation ceremonies? Things that minorities demand for themselves. Of course, we all know that all white proms, dormatories or graduation ceremonies are not socially accepted. There’s that double-standard again.
Whites might look at them with a raised eyebrow, but they would receive the harshest condemnation from their own racial kindred. See, that’s one of the biggest problems. Minorities are condemned for “acting white” for no other reason than comporting themselves in a manner conducive to success in America.
Never had a problem with skin, however I do have problems with behavior.
Can you give me any examples of this? I have pointed out that FBI crime statistics lump Hispanics in with whites, but ask the average Hispanic if he or she considers themselves white, and they will respond indignantly, “Hell no!!”.
If there were advantages?? What do you mean, “if”?
One could say that would be “just desserts”. How would I feel? No different, why should anyone get preferiental treatment based on race?
How would you feel? Would you feel that the white, who claimed to be black, cheated?
I agree. As I have said, several times in this discussion, the genetic differences between the races are minimal. It is cultural differences that are sometimes in conflict with traditional American society. Some on this board are just compelled to make “race” the issue. See, if they can manipulate someone into making a generalization about race, then they can point a crooked finger and howl “racist”.
No, I am not changing my position, I never said that race was an important “matter”, and you were wrong, in every sense of the word, when you said that the races were “invented”. Just as botanists did not “invent” the Oak tree, anthropologists did not “invent” the races. You, sir, are the one wrangling in this adolescent shell-game you seem to find so clever.
OK, you made the claim, back it up with some substance instead of your typical tactic of innuendo.
Doggone it, that reading comprehension problem raises it’s ugly head again to expose you for the pseudo-intellectual that you are. And dishonest on top of that.
See, from the list provided, I said that Nordic and Germanic would be most associated with being “white”. I didn’t say that whites were Nordic and Germanic. Furthermore, the terms Nordic and Germanic speak of ancestry, while “France, Ireland, Switzerland, Poland, Russia,…” speak of nationalities. See the difference? There, I’ve educated you again.
Whoa! Back up a sec. So what is the determning factor in racial dividing lines? Behavior or physical traits? Are “Nordic” and “Germanic” descriptiors of behavioral patterns? How can you claim Nordic and Germanic would be “most associated with being white” if there is a behavioral component? If two brothers, of Nordic descent, had different behavioral patterns, would one one of them be “white” and one be “black”? What behaviors belong to what races?
There was no “race” prior to Linnaeus. You cannot even find the word race used in the sense that it is now used to divide humanity prior to that time. There is no text prior to the 1750s that describes Nubians and Ethiopians as belonging to one group and Angles and Saxons as members of one other group. Linnaeus used an older word with a different meaning to invent a label for groups that he perceived. But people who came after Linnaeus used the word to describe the same people, but put them in different groups–because there is no clear division as you wish to pretend.
You’ve provided more evasive nonsense. You have, for example, given no reason why Irish or Scots are “less associated with being white” than “Germanic” peoples. (If you claim that Irish does not refer to ancestry, you will be lying.) You simply made an absurd declaration from which you are now trying to weasel away. Are the French Germanic or Nordic? Are the Scots and Irish Germanic or Nordic? Are the Italians Germanic or Nordic? If you claim that they are, you are using a meaning of “Germanic” and “Nordic” that no one else in the world uses. If they are not, then what do you call them if not “white”? Even in the days of the ethnologists, no one would have claimed that the Irish and Scots were not white, so how can you make a claim for Germanic and Nordic people that excludes the Irish? As to your weaseling about the rest of the peoples I named, I clearly identified “the peoples” who currently live in those countries. Are the inhabitants white or not? If not, why not? (Try not to wriggle too hard.)
What you actually said was:
Your claim in the first paragraph is simply wrong, historically, scientifically, and practically. As I just noted, above, we did not even have a name for the divisions you claim prior to around 1750. Beyond that, as I have also pointed out, previously, we cannot even get people to agree on who belongs in which group, so how can you make the absurd claim that they are “recognized by the layman”? You, yourself, have failed to identify even one of those groups except to appeal to some vague Aryan association that excludes millions of people that others would put into the same group.
However, as I already pointed out, there are no differences in intelligence and skills among the peoples of the world, and the traditions cannot be described in any “racial” manner that makes sense. I have asked you for evidence of this absurd claim, but as with all your sweeping errors, you have simply replied with diatribes against “liberals.”
Oh boy, here we go again, having to deal with the liberal tactic of taking things out of context in a limp attempt to score a point. Look, my mentioning “Nordic” and “Germanic” was in response to a question posed to me and has nothing to do with the question you asked of me. As for your stupid analogy of the Nordic brothers, a difference in behavior would not change either’s race, but it would change the way that each are accepted as members of society. Here, I guess I had better explain it to you, because you have certainly indicated that you are somewhat deficeint in analytical skill. As for your Nordic brothers, one supports himself by going to work everyday, is law-abiding, and contributes to society by paying his “fair share” of taxes.
The other brother is a white-trash skinhead. He has a criminal record. He is unemployed because, as a result of his past record, the only jobs available to him, he considers beneath his “dignity”, and therefore, chooses to be subsidized by government assistance programs. He occasionally likes to hit the crack pipe.
Now, which one would you choose to befriend?
At last, a chance to get back to the original OP. Liberals and neoconservatives alike promote an insane open-borders policy with such bromides as, “Diversity is America’s greatest strength” or “Multiculturalism is the beautiful mosiac that is America”.
Freedom and liberty are America’s greatest strengths. Multiculturalism brings to America cultures that engage in such practices as female genital mutilation. (there’s your answer)
I often chuckle at the metaphor of “a beautiful mosiac” to describe multiculturalism. A mosiac’s beauty is only appreciated when viewed from a distance. Up close, it aint all that pretty.
No, you are the one that is wrong, and you don’t even have the character to admit it.
I’ll say it again, “so what”?? The different races existed long before Linnaeus drew his first breath. I notice that you are “weaseling” by now speaking of inventing a “label” and calling that inventing a “race”. Sorry, that don’t flush.
Again, “so what”?? I have never said there were “clear divisions”, however I do say that there are divisions. It’s really pathetic when you have to put words in other people’s mouth to bolster you own opinion.
There are lots of hoops that I refuse to jump through.
I never made that claim, did I? Something I don’t understand about you. Why is it that you are obsessed with calling someone a liar. That really is quite adolescent. Do you not realize that someone can simply misspeak without it being a lie? Not that I mispoke, I just said that of those listed, probably Germanic and Nordic were mostly identified as white. Yes, the Irish are also identified as white, as well as the French, although one could probably provide exceptions to the rule being that Irish and French could also denote someone whose ancestors came from Ireland or France. “So what”?
Man, you need to take your medication.
It matters not one whit if there were names or not. Your statement concerning the invention of race is as absurd as saying that Galileo invented Saturn’s rings.
Then how is it that there seems to be little difficulty with the concept of race specific dormatories, proms, beauty contests, bonus points for university admissions or the BET network?
There have been studies that contradict your proclaimation, but rather than belabor myself with “cites”, I’ll rely on the theory of evolution that liberals are so fond of. Do you think that a child of parents with low IQs, has the same probability of having an IQ of 100, as a child of parents who have an above the means IQ?
How about the “tradition” of having sex with a virgin as a cure for AIDS, and let’s not forget, female genital mutilation.
And with good reason. Liberalism is a scourge that is dependent on the facist principle of big government, the antithesis of America’s founding.
Herein lies your problem, though. You admit that some “whites” (still undefined) are law abiding and some are not but you’re unable or unwilling to extend the same evaluation to the 12 million illegals. Clearly, some are criminals, but I’ll wager that most aren’t, and they just want to live productive lives in security for themselves and their children with a promise of wealth and success. That might be the same motivation as, say, your own immigrant ancestors had when stumbling down a crowded gangplank. You simply have no justification to broadly claim, as you did earlier, that illegal immigrants are seeking to “waddle accross the border, squat down and squirt out a democrat”, among other comments.
I have not called anyone a liar. I have pointed out specific lies that you have posted. I make no general observation about your character. Certainly, my pointing out specific lies that you have told can be no less adolescent than your falling back to whine “that is liberal talk” every time you are caught in a falsehood.
If you choose to weasel around the issues, that is simply your problem.
As to your insistence that “race” existed before 1750, you will need to provide evidence. As I already pointed out, there was no use in language that gave a common name to Ethiopians and Nubians as disctinct from Angles and Saxons prior to that date. The word “race” was used to indicate all the people descended from some legendary ancestor, but not to divide peoples by color. Linnaeus borrowed the term when he applied names to imagined groups, thus inventing the concept. Your repeating your error like a mantra when the evidence is against you does not make it true, but it does violate the spirit of the Straight Dope which is to fight ignorance.
There is no problem understanding this: the people who are placed in various racial categories in the U.S. come from a limited number of locations which initially gave them much more distinct appearances. (Had the people coming to the U.S. initially come from a wider number of locations, it would have been more difficult to set up the artificial “balck/white” dichotomy.)
It is not that difficult to construct imaginary races from a limited pool of people, because there are some superficial differences in appearance between groups with widely differing origins. Once we have invented such categories, it is not that difficult to sort people into them (especially when we use such nonsense as the “one drop” rule that causes anyone with an indeterminate background to be lumped into the less socially advantageous group).
If “race” was an objective reality, rather than a social construct, we would be able to categorize and name the races. Given that the people who believed in races could not agree whether there were three or four or five or sixty races, it is clear that the constructions are so vague as to not have an objective reality. Even you, when asked to identify the “white” race could only post a generality about the mythical Aryans, omitting all the other white people, and could not provide a definition for identifying “white.”
Enabling The Mass Invasion & Permanent Occupation
of America by Invaders Is Treason At The Top
George Bush is such a complete idiot that he appears to believe himself to be the President of Mexico.
After all, the Shamnesty for 13 million illegals just for starters, is in the interest of the Mexican people and against the interest of White Americans.
An encouraging update is the news that the 4,000 attendees at the 2004 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Arlington, Virginia last week were a decidedly glum group of disoriented conservatives as thery reeled in shell-shock from el presidente’s bombshell announcement of his Open Borders Policy.
The little things told the story as well as the big things. The “Bush for President” baseball caps that were selling in the booths of the 18-story Crystal Gateway Marriott site of CPAC for $15 on Thursday when the most important conservative gathering of the year openend were marked down to $3 by the last day of CPAC! And they still weren’t selling. The fact that no one was willing to wear any Bush paraphernalia was noticeable to all.
The audience of betrayed Republican true-believers was so sullen that Vice President Dick Cheney began his speech this way after the initial applause as he was introduced at the podium: “Well, now that we’ve reached the high point of my speech perhaps I should end right here.”
He wasn’t really joking. And everyone in the room knew it.
Again with the “white” Americans schtick? (And why are youi capitalizing “white” since it is merely a descriptive adjective and cannot be applied to a group with clear definition or otherwise earn a place as a proper noun. (Note that it was never capitalized even in the South at the height of Jim Crow, so it seems silly to start capitalizing an amorphous adjective at this point.)
Charles. I apologize for my remarks. The convention was a big one.
But I think the bulk of the conservatives were concerned, not with aliens, but rather his out-of-control spending. He might as well be a Democrat. http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110004605
Thanks samclem (Samuel Clemens?). You certainly are right that the Republican Party might as well be the Democratic Party, and that the 4,000 conservative faithful were greatly demoralized at CPAC by a Republican President who has not yet vetoed a single spending bill.
In many ways el presidente Jorge Boosh is very much like Lyndon Baines Johnson. He relies on war hysteria to manipulate the public. He spends tax money like water. And he has some sort of fanatical missionary vision of himself as chosen by God to “help” some other race. For LBJ it was the Blacks. For Boosh it’s the Mexicans.
My own assessment of the CPAC gloom remains however that it was primarily due to Boosh’s Open Borders Policy. Or, as some call it, the Shamnesty. Taxes and spending are annual events that last for only one year per budget. The non-White Mexican invasion will be forever unless it is reversed.
And sending those millions of invaders back will get harder and harder every year. America has sent invaders back in previous eras. Millions of Mexicans were sent back in the 30s and millions were sent back it the 50s. Under Eisenhower the return of Mexicans to Mexico was actually officially named “Operation Wetback”. That may seem a little hard to believe for younger people who have been totally brainwashed by their MTV and politically-correct schools. But that was the actual federal name for the program.
It can be done again. But the Republican faithful at Arlington know that their party is digging America’s racial hole deeper every year that it is in power. It’s hard to be an enthusiastic activist in a party that is working against everything you believe in.
This last question will come up again at the Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden in the fall of 2004. There will be a huge overlap between the 4,000 demoralized conservatives that filled the Crystal Gateway Marriott at CPAC 2 weeks ago and the thousands of delegates who will fill Madison Square Garden in 7 months.
I hope that I’ll be out in the street outside Madison Square Garden participating in some public demonstrations denouncing the Bush/Neocon treason at the top of the Republican Party.
I’d like to see a tabulation of the total number of immigrant invaders and their offspring that will have entered the United States during el presidente Jorge Boosh’s treasonous presidency.
I say “treasonous” because he has betrayed his oath of office and first duty as president, which is to defend the American people against foreign attack and invasion.
Go back and read the thread. The claims of “attack” and “invasion” have already been demonstrated to be so much pumped up rhetoric without a factual basis.
Wow, the US government would gave a program an insensitive name in the 50s. Shocking. What exactly is the point of the last two sentences of this fragment? That it’s a bad thing some of us recognize “wetback” as a disgusting slur?
Very simple, we are not at war. The USA has not been at war since 1945. There have been countless illegal military adventures, but no war. If you want to get rid of Bush, demand impeachment for overstepping his boundaries as Commander in Chief without a proper declaration of war.
Heh. Having heard several accusations from the other side of the fence that the Democrats are becoming the Republicans, this amuses me. Maybe the two parties will switch sides and we can all vote Independent next time around.
What exactly is the point of the last two sentences of this fragment? That it’s a bad thing some of us recognize “wetback” as a disgusting slur?