al-Khowarizmi wrote an early text on al-jabr, or algebra. The word “algorithm”,meaning a series of steps used to solve a problem, is derived from his name. His work built on earlier mathematics from Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, and Hindu culture.
Andrija Mohorovicic developed much of our understanding of the Earth’s structure and the mechanics of earthquakes.
Albert Einstein - Well, everyone knows who Einstein is, at least I hope everyone does.
Nikola Tesla invented AC power, the Tesla coil, and many other electrical devices. He, not Marconi, invented radio.
Luis Alvarez did inportant research in nuclear physics and radar systems.
Maria Sklodowska, better known as Marie Curie, did early research in radioactive materials. The element Curium (Cm) is named for her.
There are more, but I’m tired. The point is, none of these people have Northern or Western European ancestry, except for Alvarez whose grandfather was Spanish. On the other hand his mother was Irish.
I never claimed any such thing, you are the one(s) who is(are) dishonest.
It is such a transparently shallow tactic — to create a strawman to knock down. A typically leftist tactic.
The construction of a great building requires much labor, but before construction can begin, it requires a design. As for America’s design (founding), it’s building blocks were that of limited government and individualism. It is these concepts that allowed America to become the great nation it did, not the abstract concepts of “multiculturalism” and “diversity”.
Since 1965, the year that America’s immigration policy changed to favor those from the so-called Third-world and restrict the traditional Europeon immigration, America has moved away from it’s founding principles and has embraced the alien concepts of big government and group primacy. And it’s been a downward spiral.
That’s nothing but pseudo-intellectual psycho-babble. The differing groups existed prior to their scientific nomenclature being “invented”, and were easily recognized by the layman through simple observation rather than the science of genetics.
While the genetic diversity of the groups may be minimal, it is through thousands of years of evolution that explains the differences in intelligence, skills and traditions of the different groups.
The orthodoxy of liberalism is really comical. For instance, in the realm of religion, or rather, anti-religion, there is no creation, we evolved.
But, when pointing out differences between the races, groups, sub-species or whatever “invented” category, that can be attributed to evolution, liberals start wailing and stomping their feet, demanding that “we’re all the same.”
That, sir, is where YOUR ignorance and YOUR dishonesty lies.
When I was a young lad, I was taught that “diversity” was a great strength of the United States. Since my teachers drummed this into me on a daily basis, I believed it. My parents disagreed, and they even, occasionally, used racial slurs when discussing minorities. I told one of my teachers about this, and she said that I shouldn’t listen to them.
I still held onto these beliefs when I went off to college. This was my first real exposure to Blacks and Hispanics. In my Sociology classes, I encountered the vicious anti-White attitudes of some minority students. I noticed, with disappointment, that my teachers would seem to encourage this behavior. How was this fair? Doesn’t “diversity” teach that we are all equal? I began to question my beliefs.
In my fourteen years in the business world, I have witnessed more of the same bigotry and double standards. Just the other day a co-worker from China was ranting about Racist Republicans, when asked about diversity in China, this person, with a straight face said, “Why would someone who is not Chinese ever live in China?”
Recently, I read an article that stated that Whites would become a minority in the US in the year 2050, if current trends continue. I believe Europe is slated for the same fate, several decades later. I have come to believe that this is the ultimate goal of Multiculturalists. They advocate genocide with a slick “Madison Avenue” ad campaign.
Charles A Lindbergh, welcome to the DSMB. It’s good to see a White person with the courage to stand up for himself.
No, it doesn’t, or at least it shouldn’t. There is a difference between being equal, and being treated equally. Personally, I think it’s foolish for me to assume that my own beliefs, standards and talents are equal to everyone else’s: I would hope that in many respects, mine were better than the average, and by a considerable margin. However, if I and another person were facing each other in a court of law, I’d want the agents of the government (judges and such) to treat us equally and fairly, while disregarding such irrelevant trivia as the colour of our skin or who our parents were.
You shouldn’t use big words if you don’t know what they mean. Absolutely nothing in a naturally falling birthrate suggests a “genocide”. Frankly, the connection is an idiotic one. If you elect not to have children, have you been murdered by someone who has lots of children?
As a side note, do Hispanics (one of the more rapidly-growing minorities) count as “white” or not? What if an individual Hispanic is wholly descended from Spanish immigrants (i.e. no aboriginal or Negro ancestors)? If such a person doesn’t qualify as “white”, then do the French? France has a large border with Spain, after all. Personally, I’d like to see a good solid definition of “White”, then ask why certain nationalites are included or excluded.
Anyway, blaming the media (or “Madison Avenue”) is such an easy, brainless, knee-jerk thing to do, I’m surprised anyone considers it a valid point any more. The only way it has any bearing on this at all is the underlying assumption that “Whites” are in jeopardy of being overrun, but they’ve been fooled by advertising into not acting. Well, if “whites” can be tricked that easily, then how superior could they possibly be? Honestly, it makes them sound like a bunch of rubes.
Heck, I’m a white person who stands up for himself (though as a Jewish person, it’s entirely possible your definition of “white” and mine vary). Lindbergh isn’t really standing up for himself at all; he’s proclaiming tribal ignorance and calling it self-defense.
One hundred years ago, the Irish immigrants to America of whom our recent newcomers are so proud were considered somewhat worse than Hispanic immigrants are today. There was concern that they would take over this country and one could argue that those fears were justified in 1960 and again in 1980. Eastern Europeans, as in Slovaks, Poles, Russians, etc. were also seen as an alien race and a threat to civilized society.
Mr. Lindbergh, I fit your credentials for a member of a superior race; on the other hand, I am both an immigrant and an emigrant and, as such, the policies you promote disgust me. I know what it’s like to grow up in an almost all-white town (we had several oriental families, but no black families). What I saw in that town convinced me that, with few or no minorities to turn against, people will find some other reason to turn against people. A year studying in a far more homogenous society furthered that belief. I am glad my adopted country is a crazy-quilt of races and ethnicities and that my Christmas Eve service opened with Once in Royal David’s City and closed with Go Tell It On the Mountain. As for Hispanics taking over America, I rather hope they do, the same way the Irish did! (OK, maybe not exactly the way – they were both rather overrated.)
gen·o·cide:
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
I guess I do know what the word genocide means. You see, Bryan, extermination can take many forms, murder being just one of them. Here’s an example to help you out. China is currently “ethnically cleansing” Tibet. They’re not murdering all Tibetans. They’re just repopulating Tibet with Chinese people. They also push Chinese history, language and culture in schools. Now, let’s say one hundred years from now there aren’t anymore Tibetans in the world. Did China commit genocide? Now consider the drive to ban Christian symbols in schools or the Confederate flag. What about the flight of Whites from Southern California? Have you ever heard of the term “Mexiformia”? It seems like the beginning of genocide to me.
If I took your advice about only using words that I knew the meaning of then I would never post on the SDMB, and that would be a crime.
How about if you and another person were facing each other before the board of admissions to a major university?(And yes, the university accepts state funding.)
Perhaps Millen would have been better served by using the term “eugenics” rather than “genocide”. When the “powers-that-be” advocate lifestyle choices of convienence, that are not conducive to procreation for one group, and facilitate those “choices” through, not natural, but synthetic, methods to achieve a falling birthrate, while, simultaneously constructing social programs that encourages childbirth for different groups, then the connection is not “idiotic”, but logical.
See, here’s the problem. The definition includes the word “plan.” Judging from your username (88 = HH = Heil Hitler), this would come from the Elders of Zion, right? :rolleyes:
My original username was Millen. Shortly after joining the SDMB, I noticed a prominent poster named Miller. Several posters commented how confusing this was. Out of respect for Miller, I decided to change my name to Millen88. In college I played football, my number was eighty-eight. It seemed like a good fit.
“Heil Hitler”, don’t make me laugh: I support Israel.
As for a plan, have you ever heard of the Reconquista?
And you’re still wrong, or at the very least, you’re stretching the words “genocide” and “exterminate” to such extremes that they lose all meaning. The Chinese are not just moving into Tibet, they’re also committing numerous human-rights abuses against the native population. If you feel that being tossed into solitary confinement without charge, subjected to torture and secret tribunals and such is in any way comparable to having to withstand the shame of seeing the black Barbie on sale at Wal-Mart, well, your politics are really screwed up.
Oh, no! That black traffic cop wrote you a parking ticket! He’s trying to genocide you!
Trying to be funny? Try harder.
It may surprise you, but I actually agree that Affirmative Action programs have overstayed their welcome. Personally, I’d like to see all race-based factors dropped in university admissions and merit alone being the deciding factor.
I honestly don’t know what you felt compelled to add that little (sic) to my comment. Perhaps instead of ‘naturally’, I could have said ‘voluntarily’, since that is certainly what is happening in the affluent western nations. People (mostly “white” people, though the term “white” remains largely undefined in any way that I find to be meaningful) are choosing to have fewer children, so what’s all this “synthetic” bullshit? Do you think any amount of advocacy from the “powers-that-be” (whatever that means) could talk people into a “lifestyle choice” that they found unpleasant? Could it be that affluent women are having fewer children because they prefer it that way? And what social programs are you talking about that encourage childbirth for different (I’m assuming you mean non-white) groups? Aside from religious organizations like the Catholic Church, with their historical antipathy for birth control and abortion, what are you talking about?
Can I assume you have in mind the stereotype of a so-called “welfare queen”, typically a black woman who cranks out many illegitimate children while expecting government assistance in supporting them? I’m not sure how common such people were in Ronald Reagan’s day, let alone now. Cough up some statistics or clarify your position. Frankly, I get the impression you’re using euphamism and jargon when you’d really prefer epithets.
And I stand by my assessment of “idiotic”, though now I’d like to add “paranoid” and “desperate”.
Heck, in Chinese culture “88” is a lucky number. So don’t think of Millen as embracing Hitler; think of him embracing the inscrutable charm of the Far East.
As such, you can give him the nickname “Egg”. You know, white on the outside…
“Handwaving” on your part doesn’t constitute a valid rebuttal.
Interesting - so it’s just a matter of observing with our own eyes what “race” people actually belong to? Yet, today geneticists tell us that this simple observation is erroneous. So, what to do?
Interesting - do you have any citations or evidence to back up that above claim? I think you may be conflating “biological” evolution with “cultural/social” evolution. The two work on completely different time-scales.
Again with the “handwaving”…
Not in the realm of religion, but in the realm of science regarding the evolution of homo sapiens as a living entity (a species).
Biologically speaking, as a species, we are the same. If being scientitificaly sound is can be equated with being a liberal, then I take it you wouldn’t object to the equating of your position/ideology being scientifically unsound, hmm? Again, I think you’re conflating “biological” with “cultural/social” evolution - two different things.
I would hardly consider tomndebb neither ignorant not dishonest. I suggest you take a different approach in rebutting his and others’ arguments if you want to be taken seriously.
Either I’m confused or you are. There are only 281 million people in the US now, and we’re not being pushed around by anyone. I don’t think removing 81 million people would have much impact, since the US wasn’t pushed around before the population got this large. Are you implying the likelihood of a population explosion in Asian countries or something?
I just read tomndebb’s post carefully, and I didn’t find anything relating to psychology in it. Could you offer a fuller explanation of how it qualifies as psycho-babble?
As mentioned before, sixty years ago everyone knew that “Italian”, etc… were all separate races. If “the layman” can easily observe the differences between races, why did yesterday’s layman observe something entirely different from today’s layman?
But what explains the fact that you’re consistently unable to provide any evidence that such differences exist? Also, aren’t you aware that thousands of years is too short to see any significant evolutionary effects for a species that takes twenty years per generation.
So is this true or not? You just cited evolution in the previous paragraph. Is that too far back for you to remember?
If you ever decide to point out any difference, I’ll be happy to listen. You keep insisting that differences exist, but failing to provide any examples of them. Also, I’d be interested in knowing whether you can provide any examples of what you call “wailing” and “stomping our feet”.
I don’t understand this statement. To prove someone dishonest, you have to provide an example of him saying something which he knows not to be true. For instance, when you first claimed that only Europeans contributed to founding the United States and then announced that you had never made any such thing, that was an example of dishonesty. When you claimed that Kiri Jewell’s testimony before Congress was a lie, you were being dishonest. You haven’t shown any example of dishonesty on tom’s part.
I honestly don’t know what you felt compelled to add that little (sic) to my comment. Perhaps instead of ‘naturally’, I could have said ‘voluntarily’, since that is certainly what is happening in the affluent western nations. People (mostly “white” people, though the term “white” remains largely undefined in any way that I find to be meaningful) are choosing to have fewer children, so what’s all this “synthetic” bullshit? Do you think any amount of advocacy from the “powers-that-be” (whatever that means) could talk people into a “lifestyle choice” that they found unpleasant? Could it be that affluent women are having fewer children because they prefer it that way? And what social programs are you talking about that encourage childbirth for different (I’m assuming you mean non-white) groups? Aside from religious organizations like the Catholic Church, with their historical antipathy for birth control and abortion, what are you talking about?
Can I assume you have in mind the stereotype of a so-called “welfare queen”, typically a black woman who cranks out many illegitimate children while expecting government assistance in supporting them? I’m not sure how common such people were in Ronald Reagan’s day, let alone now. Cough up some statistics or clarify your position. Frankly, I get the impression you’re using euphamism and jargon when you’d really prefer epithets.
And I stand by my assessment of “idiotic”, though now I’d like to add “paranoid” and “desperate”. **
[/QUOTE]
So your point is as long as the Chinese don’t commit human rights abuses while completely repopulating Tibet they’re not committing genocide? Perhaps I value different cultures more than you do.
You’re also focusing too much on the method of genocide, because it’s really the end result that counts.
A hundred years from now, if Tibetans do not exist as an ethnic group, it doesn’t matter if the Chinese government shot them all, build a huge slingshot and shot them all into the sun or enacted laws to discourage them from having children, while simultaneously repopulating Tibet with Chinese. The end result is they once lived in Tibet, and they don’t anymore. In my view that’s genocide.
A Black Barbie doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Why did you think it would? Such pettiness is usually at home with the Multiculturalists and their allies. Have you heard of the NAACP’s calls to remove the phrase “for whites only” from bottles of Clorox Bleach? Now that’s funny.
Here’s another one for you: I understand that a sizable minority of the French population is now Muslim. Let’s also say that through illegal immigration and the higher birth rate of Muslims, they constitute 80% of France by the year 2100. France becomes indistinguishable from most of the Middle East. Islam becomes the official religion of France, all women must be covered from head to toe when outside their home, and Islamic prayers can be heard over loudspeakers during the day. We now have an Islamic Middle East and an Islamic France. French Culture disappears from the world. How is that diversity? How is that multicultural?
No, but I think your point is an attempt at a reversal, following these lines:
You: Situation A is genocidal.
Me: No, it isn’t.
You: It’s just like Situation B, which is genocidal.
Me: Situation B is genocidal, but it bears only trivial similarity to Situation A.
You: So if Situation B was more similar to Situation A, it wouldn’t be genocidal? Perhaps I value different cultures more than you do.
The last statement is a complete non-sequitor (and in fact, it’s completely contrary to your expressed concerns about “Mexifornia” and similar rhetoric, which suggests you don’t value different cultures at all, let alone more than me). What Mexico is doing to the U.S. is trivial compared to what China is doing to Tibet. You can’t put me on the defensive if your attack makes no sense.
Preposterous. By that logic, the crime of murder is meaningless, because everyone dies eventually, anyway.
And you’re actually right. The actions you describe are genocidal. However, none of those actions are being used or contemplated for American whites, so what’s the relevance? You brought up the issue of Tibet, I’ll just keep pointing out that using Tibet as an analgoy to what is happening to American whites is ridiculous.
You’ve given me more than ample ammunition to suggest that you feel threatened by non-white cultural icons of any kind (although, again, I haven’t yet seen a working definition of “white” on this thread).
Is that supposed to offend me, or something? If I may clarify my own position, I’m not in favour of aggressively promoting multiple cultures (i.e. with government funding), but I have no problem whatsoever with immigrants bringing their cultures with them (provided they conform to the existing laws of Canada, i.e. no human sacrifices). If a family manages to keep and promote their culture and influence their neighbors by introducing them to new foods and rituals, fine. If instead the family thoroughly assimilates and become “Canadian”, also fine. I like a laissez-faire attitude toward culture, with elements dropping away if they are no longer needed or wanted. I feel absolutely no compulsion to “preserve” a culture for its own sake. Either the culture serves its citizens and they keep it, or it doesn’t and they change it.
Well, there all all kinds of silly stories and legends bouncing around. Snopes doesn’t have an entry for this particular one, though. In fact, the only cite I can find from a quick google search is this joke newsletter (pdf file) from Carnegie Mellon. It wouldn’t surprise me if people passed this on as fact, especially if they already had a beef with the NAACP.
Well, I’ll likely be dead by 2100 so it’s hard for me to get worked up about this. You’ll likely be dead, too, so “we” won’t really have anything, being dead and all. In any case, I find any prediction about the year 2100 to be pure speculation, though I’ll give it a shots. I doubt a successful religious attempt to curtail civil rights will happen in a western nation, barring World War III or a similar mass collapse. By 2100, I predict atheism and agnosticism to be so widespread that enforced religious rules will seem silly.
And even if it does happen, secular America will have military technology so advanced, they can push a few buttons and individual persons 5000 miles away will simply explode. The world will hate them for their interference, but what else is new?