NO. American and Australia were DEFINED by colonization. That is NOT the case for either Japan or Korea. The cases are not comparable.
American and Australia were not merely influenced by colonizers, they found their native populations displaced by the colonizers. It is ridiculous to claim that Japan or Korea offer any kind of reasonable comparison when they were trying to avoid being displaced by colonizers. In fact, Korea failed at this. It took WWII and Japan’s defeat to remove Japanese colonial influence on Korea.
Are you seriously trying to use “Jew” as an ethnicity comparable to being a Swede or German or English? Your main thesis deals with cultural and racial displacement. How does Israel’s policy reflect any sort of attempt to enforce a particular cultural or racial ideal?
Israel, while their immigration policies are distasteful, does not limit to a particular racial group (the Ethiopian Jews being a good example). Further, the cultural makeup of immigrants (though they are all Jews) is pretty vast, spanning several continents.
So even if I show you research that contradicts the dogmas about immigration that you learnt in school, you would still prefer it because of that dancing Kurdish girl? Don’t you have any sympathy with all those refugees who could have been helped, if the costly asylum system in Sweden instead helped in the vicinity of centers of conflict? Thus saving a lot more lives.
Please read this, and consider how the teachings of your school will make future generations of Swedes suffer because of the loss of social capital:
I was never taught that slavery was an all white affair–although, in the U.S., it was legislated and enforced by whites.
“White” was never an issue regarding the Nazis. (That term has only been tacked on by more recent racists who have their own anti-scientific classification of ethnic groups–sort of like claiming that “Northwestern Europeans” have some special status while including South-Central Europeans such as Austrians and excluding Poles with their heavy admixture of Prussian genetic stock.) Rather, the nonsensical racialist theories about “Aryans” was adopted by the Nazis.
I was never taught to “embrace mass immigration” and I am not even sure what “mass immigration” means.
I was never taught that if one opposed immigration then one was a racist or xenophobe. (I do not believe that now, for that matter.) What I do recognize on my own is that if the reason one opposes immigration is that one does not like being near people who are different, then one is a xenophobe (by definition) and that if the reason one opposes immigration is that one has silly beliefs about the superiority or inferiority of people who are of differing ethnicities, one is probably racist, (again, by definition).
I learned about the British Concentration Camps during high school.
So you mean that if a country had a conflict with a colonizer, then they tend NOT to embrace mass immigration? With the exception of the US because its population derived from the colonizing country? But that is just not coherent. It sounds merely as wishful thinking. Norway, for example, was under Danish and later Swedish rule and didn’t get its independence until 1905. Still, Norway indulges in mass immigration almost as much as Sweden.
Yes.
By favoring the ethnic and biological group called Jews:
So, Jewish people can be considered to be an ethnicity by virtue of biology.
Except for the exceptions.
Coming back to this, apparently, “Northern” European-ness is not strictly genetically linked (just as being a Jew is not strictly genetic). Likewise, there’s no racial grouping for Northern European-ness (again, just as being a Jew also isn’t tied to commonly held notions of race). It’s certainly not cultural (again, just as being Jewish is associated more strongly with some cultures, it is not strictly tied to any particular one).
So, do you have a coherent definition of “Northern” European that doesn’t rely on making exceptions all over the place?
Not true. “Race” is a social construct, and to Israelis (and not to them alone), Jews are a “race.” Makes no difference whether they use that word or its Hebrew equivalent, that is how they are thinking.
Granted, but that’s obviously not how RaleighRally is using ‘race’ or ‘ethnicity’, based on his cites. Apparently, there’s supposed to be a genetic (hence shared ancestry) component.
To be fair, I did lead him a bit to using that definition, but he didn’t have to use it if he meant to use a purely social construct. Besides, based on the tenor of his other posts, it’s clear he thinks there’s an innate physical basis for race. Unless he comes back and decides that he wants to use a different definition, which would be rather a flip-flop.
It still doesn’t provide much of an answer on how his definition of “Northern European” is supposed to hang together in any genetic, cultural, or even ethnic sense. Or how it makes any sense in a historical context.
Norway was never colonized by Sweden. The governments (or kings) of the various Scandinavian countries have risen or fallen at different times, with one overpowering another or one casting off the other’s rule, but it is basically the same bunch of folks who have lived in the same regions for a very long time. There has never been a time when one Scandinavian country sent large numbers of settlers to displace the indigenous inhabitants en masse in the way that Athens colonized Sicily, Phoenicia colonized Carthage, or Europeans colonized the Americas and Australia. The only country that has actually been colonized by Scandinavians is Iceland. (Delaware and the U.S. Virgin Islands never really caught on and Minnesota has as many Germans as Scandinavians.)
You are back to moving the goalposts every time you get caught in another fact-free assertion.
I would – and will – consider the evidence, such as it is. (In the meanwhile, can we agree that she was hot? ;))
Nonsense. That’s a false dichotomy. It’s not either-or.
[quote=“RaleighRally, post:364, topic:589427”]
Please read this, and consider how the teachings of your school will make future generations of Swedes suffer because of the loss of social capital:
That article looks awfully odd. Hell, the very first line has a “[citation needed]” tacked on to it! I switched over to the English-language article on the same concept, but that one looked pretty odd too – the capitalization looks positively medieval. But anyways, such quibbles aside, I promise I’ll take a look and then get back to you.
Same here: I promise to take a look and then get back to you.
Of course it’s rational. No one moves to Scandinavia by choice. One six-month winter there, and you’re faced with a simple choice: get out while you still can, or take up alcoholism. Food stamps schmood stamps, Sweden by all rights should hand out booze stamps.
But then the Finns would invade of course. Perkele !
Who drinks more – Swedes, or Russians? (Serious question. One is always hearing about alcoholism in Russia so widespread that few men reach retirement age.)
Well, wiki lists Russians as the heavier drinkers by liters consumed per capita. No breakdown by sex, so it’s still within the realm of possibility that the reverse is true of the men.
Among US states, North Dakota and Alaska have the highest rates of alcoholism. It’s possible some of that is due to genetic factors from the native population, but I’m wondering how much of it is also influenced by the fact they’re both cold, northern states with low population density.
(I was jesting before, if that was not readily apparent - in fact, feel free to assume I’m jesting unless otherwise specified) I believe Russians have the Swedes beat - Swedes are actually not that drunk, in my experience. Finns and Danes are another story - but for some reason, Swedes and Norwegians seem to cope with the bleak, hellishly frigid landscape they inhabit somewhat better, Everclear-wise.
More evidence of their übermenschendom of course, as I’m sure **RaleighRally **will opine.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Strong drink actually lowers your body temperature. But it makes you feel warm.
[/QUOTE]
It’s more that, after the fifth shot, who cares ? HEY HOLD MY GLASS AND WATCH THIS BRO, WOOOO !
