Hey Lindy, this ought to make you spit up your Cornflakes. I am a 100% Caucasian with Swedish and England ancestors, and guess what? I am currently dating a 100% Latina immigrant from Honduras! I hope to marry her one day and have several beautiful mixed-race babies. Doesn’t that just drive you crazy? I sure hope so.
I’m doing well, thanks. I’m sorry, though, I don’t understand. Regular whats?
In case this hasn’t come up already, the OP posts on the terrible forum Stormfront (which apparently invaded SDMB a while ago). Ugh.
I doubt that anything that has been said so far in this tread will change the mind and views of Charles Lindbergh, but I intend to be the first to manage this feat.
Charles Lindbergh, you are at fault. It’s Johann Wolfgang Goethe, not von, and it is Ludwig van Beethoven, not “von” there either. You can kick and scream all you want, neither Ludwig or Johann have a “von” in their name.
Oh and just for the record, I’m Swedish and most likely at least 40 times as “white” as you (blonde, blue eyes…) and I’d rather be sodomised by Mike Tyson than have you come here. 
Well, isn’t this just the silliest OP we’ve had in a while. I particularly like this gem from more recent posts:
Substituting “white” for “American” is just silly. You start out with “white folks” and then try to compare that to nation states. There is no whitelandia, so the analogy is absurd. The U.S. (stolen from the “red” man and built on the backs of the “black” man and the “yellow” man with substantial help from a lot “white” men who were sneered at and discriminated against for being the wrong type of “white”), has never been the “white only” nation that some fearful people like to pretend it had been.
And I concur with Guinistasia that I’d be really curious to see the definition of “white” person. I strongly suspect that it has no scientific, or even rational, basis.
China 100% Chinese? Well, by definition, just as the U.S. is 100% American. Otherwise, we note that there are at least eleven distinct ethnic groups in China (and the dominant Han, of course, are a mixture of many of the other groups who have conquered or been conquered by that group).
Iran 100% Iranian? Well, by definition, just as the U.S. is 100% American. Otherwise, we find that just over half (51%) of the Iranians are (more or less) “pure” Persian, with the rest divided among Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%. Now, I do note that all the groups listed meet the standard definition of “white,” so perhaps Charles A Lindbergh would be more comfortable living in Iran?
And, of course, to make the silliness complete, we have this claim by Razorsharp (who carefully cuts and pastes only the parts of history that warms the cockles of his fearful heart):
Seems to me that a lot of foreigners from China have been omitted from this list, along with all the “foreigners” who were forcibly imported from what are now the nations of Guinea. Sierra Leone, Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, Congo, and a few others. And it is hilarious to see the arguments that he uses to keep out the “wrong sort” of people while he goes on to include among his “acceptable” people the Irish, Poles, Italians, and Spaniards who were the objects of exactly the same arguments that they would destroy the fabric of American society when they were immigrating.
Let me clue you into something right now. Everyone reading this thread can see the obvious disingenuousness in your rebuttal. As for the White race being “invented”, you move from disingenuous to ridiculous. Just replace “white” with “caucasian” for some introspection into your “observation” of a late 20th century “invention”.
You are, as many others are, deluded by a facade of “tinseltown” constructed with the spending of money that is non-existant, and thus, creating a budget deficit that threatens the social infrastructure of the state. In order to prop up the “facade”, more and more must be demanded from the productive to support the non-productive. As a result, the “productive” are leaving California in droves, unlike forty years ago, when the “productive” were moving to California.
Your assertion of an “open free labor market” would belie the existance of what is referred to as “illegal immigration”.
To do so would require the availability of a choice. How much choice do Americans now have with regards to consumer electronics? Ever search for a pair of shoes without a “made in China” label? Forty years ago, it wasn’t like that. While we may not have had all the shiny trinkets we now have, the standards of everyday life were much higher. That’s my perception anyway.
No, in this context, changing “white” to Caucasian" changes the actual discussion. The “Caucasian” race was invented in the late eighteenth century by early ethnologists attempting to apply Linnaean categories to humanity. It was later used and abused by nineteenth century ethnologists to promote racist programs such as slavery and colonization. However “white race,” although it was used, occasionally by earlier groups in non-scientific applications is, (as a pseudo-scientific construct), as noted by ITR champion, pretty much a late 20th century invention.
Considering that any number of odd people place some or all of Arabs, Persians, (East) Indians, and sometimes even Italians and Greeks, (all of whom are “Caucasian” in the older lists), outside the “white” race, your quoted remark is disingenuous to the point of dishonesty.
I think that we’re not looking at this right. It’s our duty to help our friends at Stormfront come to logical conclusions about their premises.
So, this thread has drifted too far. Let’s try again from the top.
Is George Bush a traitor to the US, for announcing a blanket amnesty for twelve million illegal immigrants who are an army who seek to conquer the United States?
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1221immigration21.html
Clearly, George Bush is against an amnesty, from this link Mr. Lindbergh has supplied. Furthermore, Mr. Ridge only stated that it would make sense to give them some sort of legal status. The government is not required to make sense.
Therefore, the current stand of the administration is against blanket amnesty.
Secondly, we await the proof that these people are, in toto, an army, twelve million strong, organized and attempting a conquest of these united states.
Any further questions or discussion should take place in another debate, more suitable for them.
Actually, limiting as much paranoia, ignorance, illogic, racism, fear-mongering, and hatred to as few threads as possible seems a good idea to me.
Moderator’s Note: Paradoxical, do not call other posters “idiots” in Great Debates. Don’t do that again–everyone in this thread has already received ample warning about this.
The choice is available, only at a higher, corporate level. The company my mother works at is run by caucasians (well, Jews, so maybe not white in your definition). They are a big supplier who supply major stores, such as Wal-Mart and Pep Boys with car covers. The difference between car covers made in american factories and factories located in china is huge. The american stuff is significantly worse in quality, as well as cost 5-10 times more than the chinese stuff, depends on which factories you are using for the comparison. They chose to import from china, an obvious choice.
If they are somehow forced to only buy from american factories, the quality of the car covers available in the US market would go down drastically, while the price of them would go up a hell lot higher. Same situation would happen for other products, such as electronic items or shoes, if their respective suppliers are forced to stick to only made-in-the-US stuff. So if your ideas of Higher Standards of Living involves having everything at a shittier quality and much higher price, then yeah, the Standards of Living were much better in the old days. You don’t see a lot of american made products in certain industries, because the american crap simply don’t compete.
Indeed? Judging by the other comments in this thread, it seems that everyone except you views my response as a valid one. You initially claimed that all immigrants to the United States prior to 1965 came from Eurpoean countries. I (and others) pointed out that millions actually came from African, Asian, and Latin American countries, and called on you to admit being wrong. You failed to admit to lying, but instead launched a personal insult at me. I’d love to hear you explain how my response was dishonest.
Buddy, let me clue you in to something. I live in southern Califnoria. I shop in southern California. I see what is actually happening in southern California everyday. I know what’s happening in this place far better than you do. What you know about southern California clearly comes from reading one or two biased articles. True we have a deficit, but others states have deficits too. California and all the other states will recover from this one just as we’ve recovered in the past. Now, since you refused to actually answer my questions the first time, let me ask them again. Is Southern California more or less prosperous now than forty years ago? Is the average standard of living higher or lower? What about for the entire country?
Agriculture, electric batteries, wheel, maps, alphabet, law, windmills … Iraq
Gunpowder, printing press, paper, paper money, compass … China
base 10, buttons … India
monotheism, bricks, ice cream … Persia
loom, ink, beer … Eygypt
ground coffee … Ethiopia
zipper… Sweden!
Not to mention that the cradle of civilization is found near the Tigris and the Euphratis, not Western Europe.
It’s worth pointing out that the OP hasn’t posted to this or any other thread in over 36 hours. It’s possible he’s caught up in holiday cheer, but I suspect he’s just run back to his buddies at the other board, where they know how to treat “real” Americans right.
That’s easy, I said:
See, I clearly did NOT say that ALL immigrants came from Europeon countries. There is your dishonesty.
Funny how some grasp at exceptions to the rule, in a desperate attempt to disprove the rule.
Razorsharp, what’s your point, here? I fail to see how this has anything to do with the OP.
And you clearly did imply such. But it’s okay, we understand how you want to overlook such things as the transcontinental railroad. I mean, clearly, that’s not important. No matter how many chinese died for it.
The assigning of a scientific nomenclature for the identification of a genus is not an act of “inventing”. That is as absurd as claiming that botanists invented the Oak tree, which is just about as absurd as claiming that immigrants from “Sierra Leone, Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, Congo, and a few others” contributed to the founding of American society as those from England and Germany.
Yeah, I’m terrible. You know what else? On a transcontinental flight, I give more credit to the pilot than I do the flight attendant.
I guess I need to be sent to a re-education camp.