mac_bolan00, just what the hell do you mean? You’ve managed to combine dumb and offensive in a spectacularly evil way. Did you think you were making a contribution to the thread? Did you think people would agree with you? Are you trying to commit suicide by mod?
(1) Starting: the US and Europe have always been multi-ethnic. Europe has experienced migration from Asia and Africa since pre-history. Deal with it.
(2) Afro-Asian: What does this mean? The only Afro-Asian country I can think of is Egypt. Do you just mean “not white?” If so, I’ve got news for you, buddy—the vast majority of humanity is not white. White is not special and it’s certainly not better, just different. And here’s a little clue: race isn’t real. Ethnicity; that’s real. “Race” is just a construct which isn’t justifiable genetically at all, and geographically works only if you take the widely separated groups.
(3) Slum: Again, parts of Europe and the US have always been slums. I don’t like it any more than you do, but it’s not like the people who live in them decide to transform Middle-Classia into Slumland.
I was hoping my first pitting of a poster would be more entertaining, but I’ll leave that to others.
for someone who name-calls you ask a lot of questions. the time frames and alleged facts mentioned in items 1-3 are so far from my mind (and my post) i won’t even bother to comment. just this:
that much of the US and europe looks like a third world slum populated by ethnic africans and asians has to qualify as a factual statement. like it or hate it (i hate it.) yes. yes. no.
People bring their culture with them. Sometimes that clashes with the local culture in a bad way (see attacks in Amsterdam and Tower Hamlets on gays). Also, crime increases in UK & French suburbs
The Celts were a group of Asian immigrants. The Moors were African. The Romans claimed to be from Troy. I would have to look up any other groups to be precise about them and I don’t feel like that right now. Basically, every human in Europe is from Africa or Asia; or desended from an African or Asian immigrant. Humans are not native to Europe.
^
“humans are not native to europe.” i think what you mean is all humans are from africa. well the humans from africa who FIRST settled in europe are not the subject of my OP.
There probably aren’t any left. Humans are assholes. Ancient humans morso. Each invading wave of Asians moved in and probaly killed of most if not all of the earlier settlers. There certainly aren’t any non mixed decendents left. The Germanic people were doing it to the Celts before the Romans got involved and the Celts did it to the people before them. Again, I don’t feel like looking it up, but I think the Celts were the fourth major group of immigrants to Europe. The people who stole it from the Neanderthals were long gone by then.
I am not powerful enough to fight your ignorance on the difference between someone’s physical appearance and their ethnicity. Leaving that aside, what I am pitting is your need to include the phrase “populated by ethnic Africans and Asians” at all. There’s nothing wrong with being of African descent, or Asian descent, and I fail to see the difference between a slum full of white people and a slum full of brown people. Please explain.
The Indo-European migrations, which brought all of the modern European languages except Finnish, Estonian, Lapp, Hungarian, and Basque, either originated in Asia or came through Asia, depending on the model followed. Hungarians came from Asia in the historical period, and Finns, Estonians, and Lapps are part of a broader group that probably also originated in Asia, leaving only the Basques.
Phonecians (Asians) settle Carthage (Africa) and colonized Spain from there.
The Roman Empire included coastal North Africa, and many Africans came to Europe.
The Moors invaded Spain and ruled for a few hundred years.
Gypsies came into Europe from Asia.
Etc.
I don’t think that article says what you think it says. Did you read the whole thing, or just the NY Times summary? It validates the continent-based macrogroups, but does NOT say that every human falls within them. Groups like the South Italians or the Ethiopians, being at the borders, fall between the races. If a system is going to hold, it has to hold for all humans. But whole continents, like South America, can’t be classified racially, and it doesn’t work for the Mediterranean. But yeah, if you’ve only got English, Congolese, Tibetans, Cherokee, and Melanesians, the racial system works like a charm.
you’re just citing a corrolary. a slum’s a slum (neutral with regard to race, color, ethnicity, or some genetic coding i don’t know.) there’s nothing wrong with being of african or asian descent, as long as you’re not dirtying your adoptive country. does that answer you?
Well, no but on that basis you could say that Aborigines are not native to Australia, and Native Americans are not native to America! It rather misses the point.
Obviously humans everywhere migrated out of Africa, mated in part with some other archaic groups such as Neanderthals in some cases and Denisovans in others. They then formed different populations.
No, because it’s pig-ignorant to assume that because someone is of African or Asian descent, it’s their “adoptive country.” It might well be their own and only country. Being dark-skinned doesn’t make you a foreigner, especially in the case of the US where your average black person probably doesn’t have a single non-American ancestor in the last 300 years, and is part Native American to boot.
I forgot about the Basques. They have a good argument for being the “true” Europeans. So what mac_bolan00 is obviously saving is that the Basques can dirty up their home, but every one else in Europe has to be on their best behavior, right?