If you’re so afraid of caucasians becoming the minority within the US, why don’t ya just do your wives a bit more often and produce some more white kids, instead of complaining and quivering in fear of it on some internet message board?
Well, I can’t find a cite for the Clorox story, so you’ve got me there. I remember reading it on the net, but I tend to think a story as ridiculous as that would be widely reported. Thanks for catching my carelessness.
As for the rest of your reply, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. There is one thing you said that I find interesting.
I’m more concerned about my daughters, nephews and nieces. What sort of a life will they lead when they grow up? What about their children? How will they be treated as minorities in the United States? I’m afraid the conclusions I’m reaching are quite frightening.
Well, tell them to start breeding like rabbits, to hold the nonwhite hordes at bay. It doesn’t matter if they can’t support their many children. They can always, heh-heh, apply for welfare.
I’ll wager that at least some of them will find attractive “foreign” mates, since the idea of maintaining “pure” bloodlines will seem even sillier circa 2030 than it does now. I seriously doubt any of them will be enslaved or disenfranchised or anything like that.
The sort of life they lead will be largely up to them, and who happy or miserable they decide to be. Fretting about race, I’ve observed, offers much more potential for misery than happiness, so I hope they avoid it.
Perhaps starting the trend of being nice to minorities, so that in the future your kids can benefit from it? hehehe. U.S born minority members who speak english just fine are treated decently, for the most part, in a good portion of this country, so I doubt it’d be that bad for your future offsprings IF they even are the minority.
Of course, even if Whites did become a minority, they’d be a large one out of several. Will the Black, Hispanic, and Asian communities really band together against whitey? I doubt it.
And, of course, White folks will still have the money (that’s the thing about illegal immigrants, they’re poor as shit, that’s almost the point, really), and thus the political clout for many years to come.
Then, if the economic sitation becomes more equitable, we still have the consititution to fall back on, as well as the charity of the new non-white dominate classes. Do you really think the rich, content Hispanics of a hundred years hence will be that bloodthirsty against white people? In large enough groups to curtail White folks’ rights?
Me, I’m not worried.
Speaking of the constitution, i can’t find anything in it that says the United States was founded as a white republic, so to answer the OP’s original question, I can’t see how something that might diminish the influence of whites could be construed as treasonous.
You have a right to be as frightened as you want, but you probably shouldn’t expect us to be terribly frightened of your hypothetical situation without a good reason. Remember, Charles A. barged in here declaring that Hispanic immigrants had an intention of “invading” and “destroying” America. When we asked him to back that up with some facts, he bravely turned his tail and fled. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Hispanic immigrants will be in any way hostile to native-born American citizens now or at any time in the future. Don’t millions of immigrants live and work peacefully side by side with citizens right now?
As to the equally hypothetical scenario of Muslims taking over France, same thing. It’s built on the assumption that every person who arrives from any Muslim country must be part of a grand comspiracy to take over and eliminate French culture. But that’s ridiculous. Many of the immigrants left the Arab world precisely because they wanted to get away from Islamic fundamentalist governments. And the greatest number of Muslim immigrants to France come from Turkey and Algeria, the two most Democratic countries in the Muslim world.
And finally, all scenarios of whites becoming a minority by 2050, etc…, come with that tricky modifier “if current trends continue”. Current trends rarely continue.
And I suppose your advice to Tibetans living under Chinese occupation would be: Just accept the destruction of your nation, and then you’ll have fewer problems.
My French scenario does not rely on that assumption. It’s just based on my beliefs that most ethnic groups tend vote for their own interests, and French Culture is worth saving. What if you thought my French scenario was a possibility? What would you do? Is this something you’d support?
I’m trying to make sure that current trends don’t continue.
Wrong about London too. If every single ethnic minority in the UK lived in London at the time of the 2002 census, they’d still only make up about a third of the population. As it is, they make up 6.4% of the UK population. And even then, that’s counting “White - Irish” and “White - Other” as ethnic minorities. Sorry, Charlie, but I call “shenanigans” on your facts.
If so, you’re pretty damn old. London hasn’t been 100% white for a long, long time.
And thank God, I say. Why would I want my children to live in a world where one group feels it has the right to do whatever it wants to another group based solely on race? Horrifying.
As it is, I can talk to people of a variety of races, cultures and backgrounds. Some have lived in London for generations; some for mere weeks. Some come from well-to-do families, while others come in hopes of bettering their situations. Some are unscrupulous criminals; many – even most – are not. Many of them work very hard indeed. I can’t imagine London without its population of recent immigrants (i.e. within the last century). Even just picking on the most obvious stereotypes, who would run the corner shops, which require long hours of work for small profit? What would British food be without the influence of Indian cuisine (I’ll ignore, for the moment, the fact that immigration has also brought London the kebab)? It’d be a pretty damn boring country, I tell you. And given that chicken tikka masala is far and away the most popular food in the UK (and it’s not the Indians ordering it, trust me), I’m not alone in my assessment. And that’s not even touching on the myriad other cultures that have influenced Britain and the uncountable other roles that immigrants and their descendants have played.
Does anyone have their copy of Jingo handy? There’s a great conversation between Fred and Nobby about immigrants that bears repeating here.
Which different groups? Throughout history we can find lots of people referring to their close neighbors in terms of extrme xenophobia (even though–or especially because–those neighbors had recent kinship). On the other hand, we do not have many examples of people identifying others and assigning “qualities” to them based on superficial differences. The Greeks surely knew of dark-skinned Africans (and put the “origin” of their dark-skin into the legend of Phaeton), but they did not make any silly claims about the nature of black people other than noticing their darker skin. Similarly, when the ethnologists began inventing races, Linnaeus came up with four, Blumenbach found five, and later guys decided on three. As the parsing became general (and even sillier) some people eventually got up to sixty races. If races are so “real,” why are they not sufficiently obvious as to have a definite number? “Easily recognized by the layman”? They are not even agreed upon by the very people who were trying to make it a scientific discipline.
Thousands of years certainly give different cultural groups different traditions. However, the notion that the “three” (or “four,” or “five,” or “sixty”) “races” have differing intelligence or skills is just silly, generally promoted by people who have a need to invent differences (always with their own group on the top of their hierarchy). Posting this nonsense as “fact” continues your tradition on this thread, however.
BTW, now you are attempting to have me say something I have not said:
Clearly there are differences among groups. However, the differences are all superficial differences of appearance and they blend so much at the edges of any geographic “group,” (whether three or sixty), that they do not meet the scientific standards to be identified as subspecies.
Razorsharp,
Most of Western Europe supports bigger government than that found anywhere in the US. France, Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, not to mention the Scandinavian countries all have much broader safety nets and more extensive social programs - with higher taxes to pay for them. In spite of recent immigration, all these countries are still very “white”, and support for large scale social programs in these countries began when the non white populations were miniscule. So your “white = anti big government” formula simply doesn’t work.
In the US, some of the whitest states have shown the most support for bigger government - Minnesota being the classic example. The standard explanation for this is that the Germans, Scandinavians and mittelEuropeans that settled the Upper Midwest saw appropriate government regulation and public spending for the common good as crucial to a well ordered society and good quality of life. The largely Scots-Irish frontiersman culture of the South and West , on the other hand, was much more hostile to government of any kind, and particularly opposed to any measure that might benefit blacks Americans or Native Americans. These are over-simplifications of course, but they do point to the fact that there have always been substantial cultural differences between different groups of “whites.”
Howard Dean, the (somewhat) liberal Democratic frontrunner was elected governor by the overwhelmingly white Vermont electorate, as was self-described Socialist congressman Bernie Sanders.
*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.” *
The problem is that most of this racial theorizing is crackpot pseudo-science. Normally, reputable scientists don’t rush to conclusions when the available data are so complex and contradictory. White supremacist organizations like the Pioneer Fund finance these racial theorists. Both the givers and recievers of these funds know what’s expected.
Overall, it’s a new version of the southern divide and conquer strategy. Convince whites that non whites are alien and inferior, and trick whites into opposing any reform that might also benefit nonwhites.
I’ve got a question for Millen88 and Razorsharp. Two days ago, despite having lived in America for many, many years, my family celebrated Boxing Day by having a party at which we had, among other thing, sausage rolls, trifle, and cream-filled meringues. Do you see this as an attempt to take over America’s culture? If so, why? If not, how does this differ from similar things done by Hispanics?
Your repeated references to Tibet are taking on an air of desperation. It’s as if we were having a thread discussing recipes and you kept bringing up Jeffrey Dahmer.
What Mexico and other nations are doing to the U.S. is completely trivial compared to what China is doing to Tibet. By insisting that up is down and black is white (heh-heh) you undermine any other logic in your position.
Do whites (and the term is still undefined) have a “nation”, distinct and seperate from non-white American citizens? If you analogy to Tibet is to have any meaning at all, exactly what “destruction” is taking place?
It was nothing more than a rambling smokescreen to trumpet the liberal party-line of multiculturalism and diversity. But, wait a minute… wouldn’t multiculturalism and diversity belie the liberal party-line that “we are all the same”? Hmmm… Orwellian “double-think” comes to mind. And speaking of multiculturalism and diversity, isn’t it just wonderful that, thanks to the changes of immigration policy, we now have communities that have brought us such cultural diversity as female genital mutilation?
So, how does it qualify as psycho-babble? Well, you got to be psychotic if you think that’s good.
You’re confusing “race” and “ethnicity” to make a silly point. It is not so much “race” as it is “culture” that is sometimes an anathema to traditional American society. It’s just that certain cultures reside within certain races. ie. Female genital mutilation.
Well, being that all I can do to at this venue is type, my ability to provide evidence is somewhat limited. So, as a manner of providing evidence, let me ask you (and all others that say that “race” is an artificial construct). With regards to the recent Supreme Court ruling, what criteria does the University of Michigan use when deciding what applicants receive “bonus points” for being a “minority”?
“We are all the same” should translate to “We should all be treated equal by the ‘system’” not “everyone is identical”. But I’m guessing you knew that and you’re just being rethoric. 
Exactly, and that should extend to being treated equally by any university’s board of admissions, right?
Hey, if you want to discuss affirmiative action and similar programs, that’s one thing. If you want to use that as evidence that whites (still undefined) are under mass attack, then I call “bullshit!” on you.
They use the social construct of race. I do not particularly agree with the UoM policy, but you are confusing two separate uses of the word race (of the three or four available definitions).
Clearly, the people who invented the various races used physical characteristics to identify the people who would be placed in each “racial” category. No one denies that some features can be used to distinguish people by appearance. The problem has been that some people (you, apparently among them) have gone beyond just the separation of appearances to believing (based on no evidence and a simple desire to exalt your own opinion of your own group) that the physical features demonstrate underlying realities such as intelligence and skill. You also claim that those features can be used to identify all the people who have the traits (such as intelligence and skill).
The reality is that neither the layman nor the scientist has been able to come up with a genuine definition of who belongs to what race (or even how many races exist) and no one has been able to provide evidence of different skills held by the three or four or five or sixty groups.
In the U.S., where the majority of people have come from three distinct regions of the world, we can make gross judgements, based on appearance, to sort people by race in the U.S.. Had the U.S. been settled earlier by people from a wider variety of regions in the world, it would be clearer that the “races” are artificial. (Even with the few regions we have, there are people making crazy claims that Italians and Greeks are not “white.”)
The white supremacists get stuck because they really want to divide the world into “white” and “other” and they have to throw in one or two groups on the “other” list in order to pretend that there is a reality behind their manufactured prejudices. Given that they cannot even agree on who is white (just as you have fled from identifying which people are white and Charles A. Lindbergh has been afraid to provide a definition of who is white), it is pretty clear that the doublespeak is not on the side of the people who are pointing out how artificial race is as a construct.