NationStates Jolt Archive

Any one ever listen to the Bryan Suits show on KFI from Los Angeles? I think that Clear Channel rebroadcasts iit in other places too. Any Europeans ever hear about it?
In September he made some interesting comments. Here I'll just try to summarize what he was saying.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was talking about the Russia/Georgia war and he says the primatry reason is that the Russian population is declining and that by 2100 Russia as a country will cease to exist because they are not having enough kids. He says that Georgia and Ukraine have the same problem and that they too will cease to exist by that time. because of this he says that the west should not worry about Russia taking over Ossetia or Abkahzia.

He brought up an interesting question. He noted that the mvoe to admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO was knee jerk response to a fading problem.

The point of NATO is that an attack on one is an attack on all. Mr. Suits wants to know why we would let in two countries that will no longer exist in 30 years because their people are not producing enough chldren to even staff their militaries with. Supposedly, Georgia and Ukraine are shrinking, population wise, faster than almost any other country on the planet. Putting them in NATO means that because they can't defend themselves, the UK, Canada, and the US would be forced to fight Ukraine's wars and Georgia's wars. Because there will be virtually no Ukrainans or Georgians left. I think Mr. Suits makes a good point here. It's a question of fairness.

THe only place on the planet that has a bigger shrinkage than these two is Niue located in the Cook Islands. Moldova is also shrinking. Suits says that in 20 years these countries will not be able to produce soldiers to defend themselves with. If they can't produce their own militaries how does it makes sense to let them into NATO. If France, Germany or the UK were attacked, Georga and Ukraine will not be there to help. I think Mr. Suits is saying that ltting them into the alliance is giving them a free ride.
"IF you are not having babies then you are not having girl babies which means you won't have women to make children with in 20 years." That means no more boys in 20 years to either support the social safety nets or to defend the nation.

Putin is concerned primarily with the continued existience of Russia whose population is also shrinking into extinction. Russia greatest fear, affecting their foreign policy, is that Russia is running out of Russians. Historically, Russian culture has expanded by declaring that other groups are Russian. That is behind their policy of giving passports to the South Ossetians and to a third of the Russians in Eastern Ukraine. Russia is trying to replenish its population, not its land. Mr. Putin has responded to the population crises by giving free Russian passports to anyone who speaks Russian, reads Cyrillic and meets certain other criteria. As a concept Russia has been about overrunning major tribal groups and "Russianizing them." That's PUtin's short term solution. Give free passports to anyone who speaks Russian and who consider themselves Russian. The Russian government is also paying couples to make babies. The more babies you make the more money you get. That is how desperate Russia is to increase their population. The Russian population will be barefly half its present size in just 35 years if Putin doesn't do enough to reverse the slide. (of course that probably means that Eastern Siberia will be open for seizure by either China or North Korea by that time because Russia might not have enough people to defend it. Even Armenia is shrinking.

Suits says that in terms of global strategy, the Russians are playing chess and the Americans are trying to play monopoly. The Russians want either a draw where their population stops declining or they want a win. Not a military win but a positive growth rate. They want to expand their population and their culture. THe question at this point, that Suits was asking is whether there will even be a Russia in 35 years or a even in a hundred years. That can be scary because if Russia ceases to exist, what happens to all those nukes?

THe US is preparing to withdraw not only from Iraq but also from Central Asia. Interesting, because we've also been secretly withdrawing troops from South America since at least 2 yeas before Hugo Chavez seized power in Venezuela He warns that if we are not selective enough in who we admit into NATO it will get us stuck in a major world war cause one of these newcomers will start a war that we (Americans and West Europeans) will be forced to fight on their behalf.

Who else is not creating any more NATO soldiers to help defend the NATO nations? I would not laugh at the Russians if I was in Western Europe. Most of them wont be here either. There will at least still be a Russia in 2050. This is why Putin is so popular in Russia. THe difference between Russia and Ukraine and Georgia is that in 2050 Georgia and Ukraine will have shrunk so much they will no longer exist population.
The major problem with Americans is that the rest of the world is not like them and Americans don't understand this. It's like the dude in South Central Los Angeles. People from that area think the whole planet is South Central Los Angeles. At least America is in a postive gorwth. Americans are making more Americans/. Or so he claims. He says the days when American women didn't want kids anymore have come and gone. American women are again producing children. In fact they are once again having more than 2 children per household. That's enough to grow the population and ensure the surivival of the American economic social safety net. At least in Suit's state of California.

But then he says that the US is the only western nation that is growing in erms of population. The British and Canadians are slowly growing. But the rest of Europe is shrinking.

Germany like Georgia is past the point of no return. Their may not even be a Germany by 2050 because they are not making enough children. Russia is the only declining nation that is trying to dig itself out the hole. This whole situation is the number one factor in Russian foreign policy and advventurism on the world stage. They don't want to go quiety linto the night. This is partly an reason for their new alliance with Venezuela. You can expect Russia to continue their current policy for at least the next decade. The former Soviet Union is going to be definetly reRussianized. There is nothing that can be done to stop it, claims mr. Suits. We can avoid a world conflict and end the 2nd Cold War if the west stops forcing Russians to fight for survival. The Russians don't want to own the planet.

Suites states that what most Americans fail to understand is that most of the countries we fear will cease to exist and we won't have to do anything to make it happen. The Russians are killing themselves off through alcoholism and failure to reproduce.

Suits wants the US to makes a deal with Russia. Call the Russians and tell them that if they draw a line around where the Russian populations are, and they agree not to challenge where NATO goes, NATO will not go the areas with Russian populations. Because most NATO countreis are shrinking too and share Russia's problems.

On the other hand, they won't have enough peopleb to cover the social security payments for their aging populations. Germany and Italy are going to implode because of this. All the socialist democracies of Western Europe are beginning to implode of shrinking population growth. Europeans, since the late 20th century have been promised free cradle to grave support. But what if there is no one left to give it to them? These policies can only be supported if the population was growing. But it doesn't work with shrinking populations. A year ago, the EU admitted Romania. A country which already had more retirees than workers. I think the number is twice as many retirees as workers.


Suits then comes out and says that America's primary interest is to strengthen ties to other English speaking nations. Because there are no dictatorships on the planet where English is the official language. The English countries continue to grow. Canada is growing. New Zealand doesn't really count. Australia was declining but has since stabilized and is currently enjoying positive growth. America is growing. THe United Kingdom is growing in population. That is what seperates them from the rest of Western Europe.
He then points out another English speaking democracy that is already so powerful and growing at a good rate that China fears it......India.


English is the official language in India. America needs to especially get closer to India. It is the world's biggest and most prosperous democracy. China is worried that India will cut into China's economic interests around the world. Suits point however is that there is not a single English speaking non democracy on the planet. People who speak English seem to be genetically predisposed toward Democracy. Every English speaking country also has a free market capitalist economy. The British have controls that Americans and Idians would not allow but they are still a free market nation.
Suits criticizes NATO for having become a social handout program for people too lazy to build their own tanks or even defend their own territories. Without America, NATO ceases to exist. Because America supports and is the primary source of manpower for NATO. Americans have never had to fight for survival of their population.


Then he brings up Iran. He claims Iran has the same problem as Russia. Iran's population is shrinking. During the Iran Iraq war, there were more Iranians than Iraqis. Now there are more Iraqis and than Iranians. So Ahmadinijad has borrowed Putin's policy and has offered to pay Iranians to make more babies. In a 100 years, Iran might no longer exist as a nation. Population shrinkage is playing a visible role in how Iran is acting right now. The Iranians, with their strictures against sex are fundamentalizing themselves into extinction. Many of their women are fleeing and are refusing to return to replenish to population. Mostly because of the nation's harsh fundamentalism. At this point Russia are getting close to Iran and allowing them to acquire nukes because the West refuses to help Russia out of its problems.
There might not be an Israel but Israel, like Russia, will not go away without a fight.


Mr. Suits hates the UN but he says they are good at predicting national population growth rates with a good deal of accuracy. He cites UN.org where they have link for social economic affairs. They have a document on the site titled "World Population Statistics 2006 Revision" released in June of 2007. It is the ultimate authority. It gives birthrates as reported by each of the world's birthrates. The North Koreans are not lying about their own birthrate which just happens to be shrinking.


The UN says the former Soviet nations are shrinking into oblivion. It says the same thing about Germany. German population will be halved in just 30 years according to the UN. The UN is counting only native Germans, it is not counting immigrants to Germany from North African and Islamic countries who could end up taking over Germany and dividing it into Islamist fiefdoms. The UN says Iran is also shrinking into oblivion because they persecuting theiir women into fleeing the nation. The ones that do stay are refusing to have kids. Iraq will be able to conquer Iran in 35 to 40 years. Iran, like Russia, is sees the future and is refusing to go quietly into the night. When women leave the 18 to 35 cohort, they become unable to have kids. In most western states, women don't have kids at 12. In most of the world, women do not have kids when they are 40 or older. That only happens in backwards places like Alaska. He was probably referring to Sarah Palin. He also said it happens in Los Angeles. For all other places it is 18 to 35 and it is hurting the west population wise.


In 30 years, Europe will be non European. Russia is a paper tiger. Iran is also a paper tiger.
Mr Suits then goes into the secret war between Aghanistan and Pakistan over Islamic extremists along the border region.
----------------------------------------------------------

I think Mr. Suits makes some valid points. I don't think American whites should point fingers though. The US census just released a report saying that America's white population is indeed shrinking. The state of California is now ostly hispanic. Especially Southern California and there are signs that the rest of America is now mostly hispanic as well. Or it will be by 2050.

I think his comments about India are interesting. The Chinese do fear India more than they do anyone else. They fear that India is outcompeting them for global resources. Recently India became the first nation in the world to directly attack pirates on the high seas. By doing this, India becomes the only rising nation on the world stage to flex its global geopolitical miltary muscle. This is probably good news for the west that it is India doing this and not China which is a country currently promoting nondemocratic governmental systems. India seems to be the one third world nation most likely to replace the US as the preeminent global economic power. They might end up replacing us miltiarily as well.


Do you think that is good news or bad news. I'd like to know what Europeans think about this. What is Europeans response to the shrinking of their home populations and the apparent invasions of their coutnres by North Africans and Muslims? Is the same as how white Americans reacted to illegal immigration from Latin America ten years back???? What are the thougts of the average European about these trends?


What do Americans think about my suggestion that hispanics currently form the majority of the US population. Wouldn't that mean that when Hugo rants against America, he is ranting against fellow Latinos??? Anyone in the American hemisphere can comment on that. How do this demographic affect US-Latin American relations??????

Does anyone think that Mr. Suits is a crackpot?

This stuff is from his September 21st 2008 show which is available for download on their site: www.Kfi640.com THe download is about 16 mbs. THe portion in question is the first 35 minutes of the program. (out of a 109)

Most of all what does this global trend portend about the world 100 years from now?? Will there still be a US? WIll there still be a NATO????

WHat about Latin America? They seem to be gradually evolving toward one government down there? Perhaps someone with more information can shed some light.

Will Russians and Germans really be extinct by 2100???

Oh and can we please keep the conversation civil?????

err, could we have a summary of your summary? I really don't think I can read all of that without my eyes melting onto my monitor.

Holy wall of text based on crap deductive reasoning. Yes, there's a population decline in Europe. No, it won't make Europe cease to exist, or be invaded by Africans/Evil Muslims. Sorry.

err, could we have a summary of your summary?Preferably separating your paragraphs... :)

Well I was distracted by a giant wall of text... then the ad for Muslim wives in the UK caught my eye... quite a fetching blonde too.

Hmm, it's actually Iranian girls.

first point. it would be alot easier to read if you format your posts this way... or similar.
Any one ever listen to the Bryan Suits show on KFI from Los Angeles? I think that Clear Channel rebroadcasts it in other places too. Any Europeans ever hear about it?

In September he made some interesting comments. Here I'll just try to summarize what he was saying.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was talking about the Russia/Georgia war and he says the primatry reason is that the Russian population is declining and that by 2100 Russia as a country will cease to exist because they are not having enough kids. He says that Georgia and Ukraine have the same problem and that they too will cease to exist by that time. because of this he says that the west should not worry about Russia taking over Ossetia or Abkahzia.

He brought up an interesting question. He noted that the mvoe to admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO was knee jerk response to a fading problem.
The point of NATO is that an attack on one is an attack on all. Mr. Suits wants to know why we would let in two countries that will no longer exist in 30 years because their people are not producing enough chldren to even staff their militaries with. Supposedly, Georgia and Ukraine are shrinking, population wise, faster than almost any other country on the planet. Putting them in NATO means that because they can't defend themselves, the UK, Canada, and the US would be forced to fight Ukraine's wars and Georgia's wars. Because there will be virtually no Ukrainans or Georgians left. I think Mr. Suits makes a good point here. It's a question of fairness.

THe only place on the planet that has a bigger shrinkage than these two is Niue located in the Cook Islands. Moldova is also shrinking. Suits says that in 20 years these countries will not be able to produce soldiers to defend themselves with. If they can't produce their own militaries how does it makes sense to let them into NATO. If France, Germany or the UK were attacked, Georga and Ukraine will not be there to help. I think Mr. Suits is saying that ltting them into the alliance is giving them a free ride.
"IF you are not having babies then you are not having girl babies which means you won't have women to make children with in 20 years." That means no more boys in 20 years to either support the social safety nets or to defend the nation.

and so forth. makes it not so hard on the eyes... or at least mine.

did Mr Suits say why their population is decreasing? sure not enough babies, but if their health system is such where you have a hight mortality rate, then having babies is not the only solution.

I also believe NATO is more than a 'you attack me, everyone will attack you.' I believe it can open up trade with other nations that were once closed. possibly also improving conditions to decrease the mortality rate and shore up the population.

and the idea of a small nation joining a group for better protection is not unheard of.

will Russia and those other areas die out due to shrinking population? probably not.

Oh and even a paper tiger can cut you. ;)

Germany like Georgia is past the point of no return. Their may not even be a Germany by 2050 because they are not making enough children.
Oh yea of little investigation:

With over 82 million inhabitants, Germany is the most populous country in the European Union. However, its fertility rate of 1.39 children per mother is one of the lowest in the world, and the federal statistics office estimates the population will shrink to between 69 and 74 million by 2050 (69 million assuming a net migration of +100,000 per year; 74 million assuming a net migration of +200,000 per year).

Source A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Demographics).
Source B (http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Presse/pm/2006/11/PD06__464__12421,templateId=renderPrint.psml).

69,000,000-74,000,000 people is far from ceasing to exist.

EDIT: Moreover, population decreases, which are indeed happening, can be reversed. I believe Scotland's population is now increasing, after years of decrease, thanks to immigration.

I fixed the paragraph spacing. Sorry about that.

he is leaving out population growth rates work in cycles. europe russia etc should see an increase in population growth in the next 10-20 years.

Mr. Suits only went into why Russia and Iran were shrinking. He address the Germans or the others.

Someone posted that Mr. Suits is wrong about Germany shrinking though. It looks like. Has anyone looked at this source? I know we've had a check of wikipedia. anyone seen the UN site????

Its a load of crap really. It's not possible that those countries will loose so much population that they will simply "cease to exist." We can imagine it like the stock market, because if the population gets smaller and smaller that means less money, and less money means people are poorer, and if people get poorer that have more kids.

That could be one deduction. But seriously populations can't disappear because of a -1% growth rate, sooner or later it will have to come around. Doesn't make sense if it doesn't.

Mr. Suits only went into why Russia and Iran were shrinking. He address the Germans or the others.

Someone posted that Mr. Suits is wrong about Germany shrinking though. It looks like. Has anyone looked at this source? I know we've had a check of wikipedia. anyone seen the UN site????

i dont think its shienking per say. but a growth rate leading to an older population.

Holy wall of text based on crap deductive reasoning. Yes, there's a population decline in Europe. No, it won't make Europe cease to exist, or be invaded by Africans/Evil Muslims. Sorry.

I agree with The Mindset. Just as Russia is trying to grow its native Russian population so must Europe try to grow its own native European population. Try and they will succeed.

Good points about the cycles, G&D and Neo-Eurasea. He didn't address the cyclical thing.

Someone posted that Mr. Suits is wrong about Germany shrinking though. It looks like. Has anyone looked at this source? I know we've had a check of wikipedia. anyone seen the UN site????
The source is the Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (German Federal Statistical Office), who directly infrom and advice the German government, and the relevant sentence is the below:

Derzeit hat Deutschland 82,4 Millionen Einwohner. 2050 werden es noch knapp 69 Millionen bis 74 Millionen sein.
Roughly translated, it says "Currently, Germany has 82.4 million citizens. By 2050, this will be between 69 and 74 million."

(Excuse my poor Deutsch.)

*laughs* Wow...I'd be surprised if anyone read the OP the whole way through.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mindset View Post
Holy wall of text based on crap deductive reasoning. Yes, there's a population decline in Europe. No, it won't make Europe cease to exist, or be invaded by Africans/Evil Muslims. Sorry.

I agree with The Mindset. Just as Russia is trying to grow its native Russian population so must Europe try to grow its own native European population. Try and they will succeed.

Yes it will fall, it will rise eventually it will work out.

We all need an individual retirement system.

I listen to KFI and Suits' show on occasion. I think he makes some valid points. Hugh Hewitt's show on KRLA today also had a segment on shrinking populations in Western Europe.

The problem isn't so much that the entire national population of, say, Germany will disappear as it is that the ethnic German population will fail to reproduce itself to such an extent that eventually it becomes a minority in Germany and is outnumbered by alien elements. German culture, and Western European cultures in general, will become endangered. I think this is a serious concern and needs to be addressed. To a large extent, demography is destiny.

I don't think Iran is outnumbered by Iraq, though. Last I heard, Iran had a population of 70+ million, substantially higher than Iraq's.

German culture, and Western European cultures in general, will become endangered.
That'd be the culture of Germany and Europe that has never once been influenced by migrants? Never once been affected by the mixing of peoples? Never once by the constant flux of nationhood?

I and my non-white, Urdu-speaking, Islamic Scottish neighbour are just as Scottish as one another, just as entitled to live and grow in the mixed community we both live in; a community that could not survive and is all the richer for immigration and "alien" influx.

Constructing fairytale 'ethnic cultures', while ignoring the eternal human story of change, migration and cross-influence, only betrays a limited understanding of human culture and a blinkered view on reality.

The source is the Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (German Federal Statistical Office), who directly infrom and advice the German government, and the relevant sentence is the below:


Roughly translated, it says "Currently, Germany has 82.4 million citizens. By 2050, this will be between 69 and 74 million."

(Excuse my poor Deutsch.)

At least you can read it. LOL
It looks like they are saying their country is shrinking but that does not appear to be much of shrinkage to make Germans extinct by 2050 let alone 2100 unless the younger Germans completly stop making babies.

Did someone say something about Germany becoming mostly a senior citizen nation? Wouldn't that accelerate the population decline??????

Did someone say something about Germany becoming mostly a senior citizen nation? Wouldn't that accelerate the population decline??????
I'm not sure, though it will certainly lead to problems. Indeed, this is probably much more of a real problem than population decline is.

I am under the impression (though I have no source but a distantly-remembered BBC report) that there is something like three wage-earners for every one retired person in the EU. By the time I may be watching my grandchildren, around 2050, there will be only one wage-earner for every one retired person.

That's going to put a huge strain on state social services, especially health services and pension funds. The UK government now sends out a letter when you are 18 years old, basically explaining that there won't be any state pension when you are 65, and that you should start saving money privately now.

That'd be the culture of Germany and Europe that has never once been influenced by migrants? Never once been affected by the mixing of peoples? Never once by the constant flux of nationhood?

I and my non-white, Urdu-speaking, Islamic Scottish neighbour are just as Scottish as one another, just as entitled to live and grow in the mixed community we both live in; a community that could not survive and is all the richer for immigration and "alien" influx.

Constructing fairytale 'ethnic cultures', while ignoring the eternal human story of change, migration and cross-influence, only betrays a limited understanding of human culture and a blinkered view on reality.

I'm not sure its a fariy tale. Especially when you consider that until recently, with the rise of first European colonialism and then with the rise of the US, most ethnic groups around the world pretty much stayed to themselves and didn't mix. This was so even in Europe until about the time of the industrial revolution.
What is wrong with not wanting a culture or ethnic group to go extinct? Especailly if it is your own? Does it, necessarily, make one a racist?

There have been mass migrations in the past but nothing like what we are seeing today. Mostly because we didn't have the technology and cultural influences that we have today. In the past, hardly anyone wanted to go to North America or to Europe. The Europeans themselves originally weren't interested in the world, except when they decided it was time for some kind of a religious crusade and for most of its history, America was an isolationist state.
Our modern patterns of immigration are very recent indeed.

For example, a person from Algeria might move to Scotland. Their children, born in Scotland, might be Scottish by nationality but by ethnicity they are not native Scotts.

Another example might Mexican Americans. A lot of Mexican-Americans go around claiming "Proud to be Mexican". Except that Mexican is a nationality, not a race. You can't really be Mexican unless you were born in Mexico, just like you can't be a naturally born American unless you were born in the US. Both Mexico and America contain a large number of diverse ethnic groups whether it white, black, or Native American ethnicities.

Its like, your parents came from Algerian so your ethnicity is Algerian but your nationality is American, or German, or British depending on what country you are born in. Ethnicity says little about nationality in the west and vice versa.

Or take a black man in America. You can't tell his ethnicity from his skin becuase there are so many ethnic groups in Africa. Nor can you tell his nationality from his skin. He could be American, Jamaican, West African, South African, an islander, or he could even be from some South American country like Brazil.

I'm not sure, though it will certainly lead to problems. Indeed, this is probably much more of a real problem than population decline is.

I am under the impression (though I have no source but a distantly-remembered BBC report) that there is something like three wage-earners for every one retired person in the EU. By the time I may be watching my grandchildren, around 2050, there will be only one wage-earner for every one retired person.

That's going to put a huge strain on state social services, especially health services and pension funds. The UK government now sends out a letter when you are 18 years old, basically explaining that there won't be any state pension when you are 65, and that you should start saving money privately now.
That's what the US government has been tellings its young people.

Suits is a moron.

Populations rise and decline, rise and decline, rise and decline.....

I am wondering if he is a supremest with all his babies to save a population logic. He should be talking about cultures. Birth doesn't define a person. Take a German baby and raise him in Tibet. He is German by birth but is he still a German?

He says the death knell is 2100. Much can happen in that time. Even with the statistics of decline; it's still a guess. Populations in the millions are not going to disappear.

Even with all the immigrants; Suits fails to point out that in a couple generations, the people turn more to the culture of the area versus the culture of the immigrant. Traces remain but in all they are not truly the culture of the immigrant anymore.

The biggest thing Suits fails to understand; there is no such thing as a pure race. We have traces of many. Even more so as world grows along with the ability to travel great distances.

There is nothing wrong with a blending of the people. It's part of the process and it will happen.

Oh and English is not the official language of India. It's Hindi.

Finally I did read this.....

I'm not sure its a fariy tale. Especially when you consider that until recently, with the rise of first European colonialism and then with the rise of the US, most ethnic groups around the world pretty much stayed to themselves and didn't mix.
Nonsense.

Sure, Polynesians didn't wander Europe during the Middle Ages, but human history is awash with differing cultures trading, merging and influencing one another.

Migration is a constant in human culture.

Moreover, NM goes further than attempting to refute the truth of the above, he is attempting to posit some imagined 'national ethnicity'. Take his pigswill about Germany 'loosing' it's ethnic culture; he seems apparently ignorant that Germany only became a nation in 1871, and that the notion of being 'ethnically German' is complete nonsense.

It is the same with almost any country; certainly any country in Europe:

For example, a person from Algeria might move to Scotland. Their children, born in Scotland, might be Scottish by nationality but by ethnicity they are not native Scotts.
There are no 'native Scots'. There are people descended from Picts, from Celts, from the Romans, from Anglo-Saxons, from the Norse, from the Normans... the list goes on.

(EDIT: Not to mention all the differing peoples who made up the Picts, Celts, Romans, etc.,and those that made up them, and those that made up them... all the way back to early man in Africa.)

And it only gets more interesting and varied as we get closer to modern times.

That'd be the culture of Germany and Europe that has never once been influenced by migrants? Never once been affected by the mixing of peoples? Never once by the constant flux of nationhood?

I and my non-white, Urdu-speaking, Islamic Scottish neighbour are just as Scottish as one another, just as entitled to live and grow in the mixed community we both live in; a community that could not survive and is all the richer for immigration and "alien" influx.

Constructing fairytale 'ethnic cultures', while ignoring the eternal human story of change, migration and cross-influence, only betrays a limited understanding of human culture and a blinkered view on reality.
^^ This. All of human history and prehistory is just an unending cycle of migrations. There is no human being in the world who is a "pure" anything. We all contain DNA representing multiple races/ethnicities. No human population or culture sprung up like grass out of the ground of any given place, making it more "native" to that place than any other group who might wander in at any time. There is no culture that has not undergone many changes over many generations and is not currently continuing to change, as a result of changing needs and changing people.

This bullshit about ethnic cultures is nothing but the window dressing of racism and xenophobia. It is based on pure fantasy.

I'm not sure its a fariy tale. Especially when you consider that until recently, with the rise of first European colonialism and then with the rise of the US, most ethnic groups around the world pretty much stayed to themselves and didn't mix. This was so even in Europe until about the time of the industrial revolution.

Wrong. See above. See also every single empire that was ever established and broken in the entire span of history. See also the archeological and fossil records of human remains. Reality disagrees with you. Humanity does not work the way you imagine it does.

What is wrong with not wanting a culture or ethnic group to go extinct? Especailly if it is your own? Does it, necessarily, make one a racist?
No, it could also make you a xenophobe. Or it could just make you a person hopelessly out of touch with reality.

There have been mass migrations in the past but nothing like what we are seeing today. Mostly because we didn't have the technology and cultural influences that we have today.
So?

In the past, hardly anyone wanted to go to North America or to Europe. The Europeans themselves originally weren't interested in the world, except when they decided it was time for some kind of a religious crusade and for most of its history, America was an isolationist state.
Our modern patterns of immigration are very recent indeed.
You are a psychic medium? You know the thoughts of the dead of past generations?

For example, a person from Algeria might move to Scotland. Their children, born in Scotland, might be Scottish by nationality but by ethnicity they are not native Scotts.
So?

Another example might Mexican Americans. A lot of Mexican-Americans go around claiming "Proud to be Mexican". Except that Mexican is a nationality, not a race.
No, Mexican for Mexican-Americans is an ethnicity. I am (mildly) proud of my mixed European ethnic ancestry, but European isn't a race either (nor are French, German, Russian, or Italian, my ancestral components). Note that I do not say I am proud to be white or caucasion. I am not proud of my race, just rather not put off by my ethnicity. I suppose it is impossible for you to imagine that Mexican-Americans are similar?

You can't really be Mexican unless you were born in Mexico, just like you can't be a naturally born American unless you were born in the US. Both Mexico and America contain a large number of diverse ethnic groups whether it white, black, or Native American ethnicities.
Okay, NOW you're talking pure bullshit, because saying you're proud to be Mexican is not claiming to be a Mexican citizen.

Yeah, I'm thinking you're a xenophobe. You know, phobias are dysfunctions.

Its like, your parents came from Algerian so your ethnicity is Algerian but your nationality is American, or German, or British depending on what country you are born in. Ethnicity says little about nationality in the west and vice versa.

Or take a black man in America. You can't tell his ethnicity from his skin becuase there are so many ethnic groups in Africa. Nor can you tell his nationality from his skin. He could be American, Jamaican, West African, South African, an islander, or he could even be from some South American country like Brazil.
And you end with rambling blather. What happened? Did you get confused? Or did something interesting come on the tv while you were typing?

Oh and English is not the official language of India. It's Hindi.

.....

english is also an offical language of India as hindi is only spoken by 40% of the population. And the other 60% throws a fit when the government tries to get rid of English.

english is also an offical language of India as hindi is only spoken by 40% of the population. And the other 60% throws a fit when the government tries to get rid of English.

The Constitution did say English could be an official language but Hindi is still the "official" language.

40% native Hindi speakers. Native English speakers are only about 10-15%.

I know this is the net and believe it or not. I actually know Mr Suites. I met him years back while he worked here in the Seattle area. I have had many conversations with him over the years. He like many radio hosts from the Seattle area have dined in our restuarant on many, many occasions. The wife and I know most of the popular talk show hosts in town. One thing about Bryan that you have to understand is that he is extremely intelligent however I label as a pessimist at times. What he is talking about is worse case scenerios. A nation can turn the corner on population decline by improving political, social conditions to a level that is acceptable. So keep in mind he paints a real but pessimistic view of things. If you listen to him long enough you will hear what I am talking about.

This scenerio may or may not come to pass. I dont think Russia will go quietly into the night. Neither do I think Ukraine will either. I do share his logic on not letting more countries into NATO. That is inviting disaster.

Suits is a moron.

Populations rise and decline, rise and decline, rise and decline.....

I am wondering if he is a supremest with all his babies to save a population logic. He should be talking about cultures. Birth doesn't define a person. Take a German baby and raise him in Tibet. He is German by birth but is he still a German?

He says the death knell is 2100. Much can happen in that time. Even with the statistics of decline; it's still a guess. Populations in the millions are not going to disappear.

Even with all the immigrants; Suits fails to point out that in a couple generations, the people turn more to the culture of the area versus the culture of the immigrant. Traces remain but in all they are not truly the culture of the immigrant anymore.

The biggest thing Suits fails to understand; there is no such thing as a pure race. We have traces of many. Even more so as world grows along with the ability to travel great distances.

There is nothing wrong with a blending of the people. It's part of the process and it will happen.

Oh and English is not the official language of India. It's Hindi.

Finally I did read this.....
I like your comments TBF. You bring up point that was brought up earlier but you went into detail in debunking Mr. Suits.

Nonsense.

Sure, Polynesians didn't wander Europe during the Middle Ages, but human history is awash with differing cultures trading, merging and influencing one another.

Migration is a constant in human culture.

Moreover, NM goes further than attempting to refute the truth of the above, he is attempting to posit some imagined 'national ethnicity'. Take his pigswill about Germany 'loosing' it's ethnic culture; he seems apparently ignorant that Germany only became a nation in 1871, and that the notion of being 'ethnically German' is complete nonsense.

It is the same with almost any country; certainly any country in Europe:


There are no 'native Scots'. There are people descended from Picts, from Celts, from the Romans, from Anglo-Saxons, from the Norse, from the Normans... the list goes on.

(EDIT: Not to mention all the differing peoples who made up the Picts, Celts, Romans, etc.,and those that made up them, and those that made up them... all the way back to early man in Africa.)

And it only gets more interesting and varied as we get closer to modern times.

I like your response. Particularly what you said about Germany being a country only relatively recently and what you said bout Scotland. It is simlar to what I said about the Americans and Mexicans.

There are very few countries in the world today that are centered on a specific culture. And I think they are dissappearing. (the ethnic group that started the country, not the country itself)

^^ This. All of human history and prehistory is just an unending cycle of migrations. There is no human being in the world who is a "pure" anything. We all contain DNA representing multiple races/ethnicities. No human population or culture sprung up like grass out of the ground of any given place, making it more "native" to that place than any other group who might wander in at any time. There is no culture that has not undergone many changes over many generations and is not currently continuing to change, as a result of changing needs and changing people.

This bullshit about ethnic cultures is nothing but the window dressing of racism and xenophobia. It is based on pure fantasy.


Wrong. See above. See also every single empire that was ever established and broken in the entire span of history. See also the archeological and fossil records of human remains. Reality disagrees with you. Humanity does not work the way you imagine it does.


No, it could also make you a xenophobe. Or it could just make you a person hopelessly out of touch with reality.


So?


You are a psychic medium? You know the thoughts of the dead of past generations?


So?


No, Mexican for Mexican-Americans is an ethnicity. I am (mildly) proud of my mixed European ethnic ancestry, but European isn't a race either (nor are French, German, Russian, or Italian, my ancestral components). Note that I do not say I am proud to be white or caucasion. I am not proud of my race, just rather not put off by my ethnicity. I suppose it is impossible for you to imagine that Mexican-Americans are similar?


Okay, NOW you're talking pure bullshit, because saying you're proud to be Mexican is not claiming to be a Mexican citizen.

Yeah, I'm thinking you're a xenophobe. You know, phobias are dysfunctions.


And you end with rambling blather. What happened? Did you get confused? Or did something interesting come on the tv while you were typing?

It is true that all ethnic groups sprung from other ethnic groups. A recent example is when the Commanche ethnicity sprung from the Shoshone ethnicity back in the early 17 to 1800's.

You think it is racism and xenophobia to talk about ethnicities???

Remember we had local migrations. We didn't have southeast asians moving to Europe like we do today. That is what I am talking about. The type of mass, long distance migrations we are seeing in the world today. Not the short distance ones that were common in the past. And even they, as somone else pointed out, usually ended up adopting the host culture. Some immigrants today refuse to adopt the host culture and I guess some would argue that they are trying to create little Islamabad's or litle Mexico's. Historically it has always been you learn the host language and adopt the host culture. Only recently, in the past 10 years, has such an expectation come to be labeled racism.

Mexican Americans only believe what the socialists in the public schools tell them. Mexican is no more an ethnicity than are American or German or even British. French, German, Italian, Russian? Those are not ethnicities either. Mexican-Americans, like most other Americans do not really understand what ethnicity is. Like the majority of Americans they think it is your skin color or what country your parents are from.

I said that to be really Mexican you have to be born in Mexico. To be American you have to be born in America. Those are nationalities, not ethnic groups. You can call them heritages too. But they certainly are not ethnic groups.

An ethnic group is a group of people who have been isolated for a long enough time that they developed their own customs and cultures without interference from any sub groups or outside groups. American does not fit that description nor do Mexicans. In fact, by nationality, Mexican-Americans, are by default, simply Americans just like all other Americans. When you get down to their actual ethnicities they are either Spanish, Aztec, French or someother Native American group. Or they could be combination of any of those. Just like you are combination of the ethnic groups that make up the countries you just named. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your race, ethnicity as long as you don't take it to the level of Neo Nazi skinheadism.

I know this is the net and believe it or not. I actually know Mr Suites. I met him years back while he worked here in the Seattle area. I have had many conversations with him over the years. He like many radio hosts from the Seattle area have dined in our restuarant on many, many occasions. The wife and I know most of the popular talk show hosts in town. One thing about Bryan that you have to understand is that he is extremely intelligent however I label as a pessimist at times. What he is talking about is worse case scenerios. A nation can turn the corner on population decline by improving political, social conditions to a level that is acceptable. So keep in mind he paints a real but pessimistic view of things. If you listen to him long enough you will hear what I am talking about.

This scenerio may or may not come to pass. I dont think Russia will go quietly into the night. Neither do I think Ukraine will either. I do share his logic on not letting more countries into NATO. That is inviting disaster.

I'll bet he didn't expect to be the topic of a nationstate forum thread. LOL

That'd be the culture of Germany and Europe that has never once been influenced by migrants? Never once been affected by the mixing of peoples? Never once by the constant flux of nationhood?

:rolleyes: "Influences" exist. So do distinct national identies and ethnic groupings. And try dealing with the actual issue rather than some straw man.

I and my non-white, Urdu-speaking, Islamic Scottish neighbour are just as Scottish as one another,

Really? What clan does your non-white, Urdu-speaking, Islamic neighbor descend from? Did his family support or oppose Robert the Bruce? How about Bonnie Prince Charlie? (I am assuming you yourself can claim descent from a Scottish clan; if not, replace "I" with "my white, Scots-speaking, Christian Scottish neighbor".)

Your neighbor may be just as much a British subject and resident of Scotland as you, but to suggest that he is "just as Scottish" as you I find hard to take seriously. I would further guess that your neighbor would not consider himself ethnically Scottish either. Ethnic and cultural diffences exist, and no amount of denial will change that fact.

just as entitled to live and grow in the mixed community we both live in; a community that could not survive and is all the richer for immigration and "alien" influx.

Constructing fairytale 'ethnic cultures', while ignoring the eternal human story of change, migration and cross-influence, only betrays a limited understanding of human culture and a blinkered view on reality.

"Entitled" is as may be. "Fairytale" cultures? Hardly. To say that there are no recognizable English, French, German, Italian, Danish, Swedish, Polish etc. cultures is simply absurd.

As for "change, migration and cross-influence", the "change" you are so infatuated with may result in something you will regret in the next 30 years or so, given current demographic trends. That's the point.

Moreover, NM goes further than attempting to refute the truth of the above, he is attempting to posit some imagined 'national ethnicity'. Take his pigswill about Germany 'loosing' it's ethnic culture; he seems apparently ignorant that Germany only became a nation in 1871, and that the notion of being 'ethnically German' is complete nonsense.

Germany became a unified nation in 1871. Ethnic Germans populated numerous states prior to that date. Likewise with Italy in the 1860's.

It's comments like this that lead one to conclude that Europe is already a lost cause, for lack of the will to defend its own cultures or even to acknowlege their existence in the face of others with the contrary attitudes. Sad, really.

NM, I'm not sure I understand correctly. Are you referring to the fact that diversity is going down the tube and everything is becoming to homogenous???

If so, I would tend to agree. We should encourage the base groups to reproduce so that we can continue to have diversity. As long as their is diversity, the whole of the human race will survive quite some time. But if there is too much homogenization, you limit the gene pool and threaten the survival of the race as whole.
Humanity needs variety if it is too survive far into the future.

I wonder if the Arab world or if South America has as many people ashamed of their cultures as there are in America and Europe. Being ashamed of one's ethnic heritage seems to be mostly a white thing.

I wonder how it looks to the rest of the world. I know that some blacks and some native americans use it as the brunt of their white boy jokes.

NM, I'm not sure I understand correctly. Are you referring to the fact that diversity is going down the tube and everything is becoming to homogenous???

If so, I would tend to agree. We should encourage the base groups to reproduce so that we can continue to have diversity. As long as their is diversity, the whole of the human race will survive quite some time. But if there is too much homogenization, you limit the gene pool and threaten the survival of the race as whole.
Humanity needs variety if it is too survive far into the future.

Diversity is all well and good. The problem is that current demographic trends point to Europe being turned from a Western, Christian-based culture into a non-Western, non-Christian based culture, with resultant loss of rights and freedoms that arose from the present Western European cultures and eventual disappearance of those cultures. The problem is compounded by the apparent lack of recognition that there even are Western European cultures and ethnicities and that those cultures and ethnicities need to reproduce their members in order to survive, and by the apparent lack of will to defend those cultures manifested by a large segment of Western Europeans and many on this board.

My own grandparents came from Italy. I want to see Italy remain overwhelmingly ethnically Italian, Italian-speaking, Catholic (at least nominally), and part of Western civilization, and not see Italy overrun by elements who are none of these. I don't want to see Italy, and the rest of Europe, lost to Western civilization. Current trends give me little reason to believe that assimilation will occur, and much reason to believe the contrary.

On the back of American coins there is a phrase, it states "E Pluribus Unum" which means "From many, One." It does not say "From one, one." which is what it would be if whites were an ethnic group or even a single culture.
E Pluribus Unum....From many cultures, many ethnicities, many religions, one nation is founded. Think about the power of that.
E Pluribus Unum might as well be the motto of globalization. From many nations, one world economy.
It doesn't say, erase all ethnic differences it says embrace them for they are what make your country strong.
The variety of ethnic groups that came together to make you are what make you who you are. You should celebrate each of them equally. You should be concerned if any one of them are in danger of extinction.
There is no such thing as a culture that should not be preserved. All cultures and ethnic groups have helped to shape the modern world. Some more so than others. But they are have attained equality.
There has, regretfully, been an American trend to try and homogenize the world and make it more like America. I think this is a great disservice to our common human heritage. Why should Argentines be forced to be more like Americans? Why should Native Americans be forced to live like whites? Why should whites in LA be forced to live like hispanics?
Let us have not only a tolerance for ethnic diversity but let us cherish it. If the Russians or anyone else have it bad, Native Americans have it the worst. Apparently NA culture and ethnicity is not worth preserving. Just as the Russians and the Iranians are trying to preserve their ethnic groups, the West has a burden to save all the ethnic groups native to North America which the Mexicans and the Whites are both guilty of trying to wipe. Unfortunately, this mass genocide has been very successful. Many Native American cultures were wiped out and cannot be brought back. Those cultures were not myths. They actually existed. Many ethnic groups have been exterminated via genocide before the term was even coined. Those ethnic groups cannot be brought back so we will never know what kind of contribution their people could have made to our modern world. So when someone says, good riddance that the Russians are going extinct or good riddance this or that ethnic is going extinct. We ought to look back on how the extinction of Native American ethnic groups has affected the world. It didn't necessarily make a America a better place as we all know.

Diversity is all well and good. The problem is that current demographic trends point to Europe being turned from a Western, Christian-based culture into a non-Western, non-Christian based culture, with resultant loss of rights and freedoms that arose from the present Western European cultures and eventual disappearance of those cultures. The problem is compounded by the apparent lack of recognition that there even are Western European cultures and ethnicities and that those cultures and ethnicities need to reproduce their members in order to survive, and by the apparent lack of will to defend those cultures manifested by a large segment of Western Europeans and many on this board.

My own grandparents came from Italy. I want to see Italy remain overwhelmingly ethnically Italian, Italian-speaking, Catholic (at least nominally), and part of Western civilization, and not see Italy overrun by elements who are none of these. I don't want to see Italy, and the rest of Europe, lost to Western civilization. Current trends give me little reason to believe that assimilation will occur, and much reason to believe the contrary.

The problem seems to be that west Europeans and whties in general are adverse to sex whereas the rest of the world is not. To have babies, you have to have the mindset that sex is not only good, but necessary for the survival of your ethnic group, culture.
For centuries, sex has been a duty of the citizens of every ethnic group and country. The reason being they needed children to replenish the population. No sex, no children.
In America, its not that white women are not putting out. Nor is the problem that they are hooking with blacks or Mexicans. It's that many refuse to have children period and they think it is They tend to look down on women who do have children whether they be white, black or any other skin color or ethnic background.
It's probably the same in Europe. If Italians are really worried about being taken over by the immigrants, they should fight fire with fire. Have more sex, have more children. That is how the immigrants are able to take over. They have no qualms about shacking up and having kids. White families tend to have only 1 child if any. Most of the time, they are busy aborting children. Immigrants, whether North Africans or Latin Americans, tend to cherish children and as such it is common to see up to 12 children in a single household. That is part of what I like about nonwhite ethnic groups. They don't see children as a burden. They don't see them as "undesirable". They might not plan for them, but they love them from the day they are concieved, In the third world, a child is a person from the moment of conception. In the west, a child can only be a person once it is born, in some cases they are still considered nonpersons. Is it any surprise that the ethnic groups that love children are spreading while those who think of children as undesirable are in decline???

This works not ony ethnicities but for countries. If the Cherokee had no children, there would be no Cherokee. IF the UK stops producing children, there can be no UK. The UK would cease to exist and the land now occupied by it, would be settled by immigrants would then proceed to set up their own government based on their traditions and their cultures. Many of which, as you noted, are nondemoractic. But it is the West's own fault for demonizing parenthood as being undesirable.

He was talking about the Russia/Georgia war and he says the primatry reason is that the Russian population is declining
No it wasn't. It was Saakashvili trying to make his governments massive military spending campaign look like a good idea to quell peoples' disappointment in his regime, only to get absolutely battered when the Russians counter-attacked.

The way I see it, the declining birthrates will be more than balanced by immigration.
No need to fret, so.

The problem seems to be that west Europeans and whties in general are adverse to sex whereas the rest of the world is not. To have babies, you have to have the mindset that sex is not only good, but necessary for the survival of your ethnic group, culture.
For centuries, sex has been a duty of the citizens of every ethnic group and country. The reason being they needed children to replenish the population. No sex, no children.
In America, its not that white women are not putting out. Nor is the problem that they are hooking with blacks or Mexicans. It's that many refuse to have children period and they think it is They tend to look down on women who do have children whether they be white, black or any other skin color or ethnic background.
It's probably the same in Europe. If Italians are really worried about being taken over by the immigrants, they should fight fire with fire. Have more sex, have more children. That is how the immigrants are able to take over. They have no qualms about shacking up and having kids. White families tend to have only 1 child if any. Most of the time, they are busy aborting children. Immigrants, whether North Africans or Latin Americans, tend to cherish children and as such it is common to see up to 12 children in a single household. That is part of what I like about nonwhite ethnic groups. They don't see children as a burden. They don't see them as "undesirable". They might not plan for them, but they love them from the day they are concieved, In the third world, a child is a person from the moment of conception. In the west, a child can only be a person once it is born, in some cases they are still considered nonpersons. Is it any surprise that the ethnic groups that love children are spreading while those who think of children as undesirable are in decline???

This works not ony ethnicities but for countries. If the Cherokee had no children, there would be no Cherokee. IF the UK stops producing children, there can be no UK. The UK would cease to exist and the land now occupied by it, would be settled by immigrants would then proceed to set up their own government based on their traditions and their cultures. Many of which, as you noted, are nondemoractic. But it is the West's own fault for demonizing parenthood as being undesirable.

Thank god for contraception is all I can say to this. :rolleyes:

Strangely we don't get Mr Suit's radio show in the UK. Probably because we have laws meaning broadcasters have to get their facts right.

He was talking about the Russia/Georgia war and he says the primatry reason is that the Russian population is declining


Will Russians and Germans really be extinct by 2100???




If by August war, he means WWII... We lost less then 75 soldiers in Georgia, most of which were the Peacekeepers in Tskhinvali when it started or Vostok Chechens who got there before the rest of the force.


As for Russia and Germany not existing in 2100, populations rise and fall so there really isn't any telling as of yet. If anything, Russians will be part Chinese and Germans will be part Turk or whoever migrates there the most.

meh we will get the credit card out to pay for the baby boomers and then continue on our merry way reducing overpopulation...

the worlds boring like that :)

The way I see it, the declining birthrates will be more than balanced by immigration.
No need to fret, so.

unless your Polish

Thank god for contraception is all I can say to this. :rolleyes:

your just saying that so you can have kinky sex with minorities!!1

As for Russia and Germany not existing in 2100, populations rise and fall so there really isn't any telling as of yet. If anything, Russians will be part Chinese and Germans will be part Turk or whoever migrates there the most.

dammit why do we get stuck with the Turkish women? :mad:

dammit why do we get stuck with the turkish women? :mad:

E.U. :p

dammit why do we get stuck with the Turkish women?
I dunno, some of them are pretty fit.

unless your Polish

*looks around*

Why? They seem happy enough here?



your just saying that so you can have kinky sex with minorities!!1

Isn't that what it's all about, anyway? :)

dammit why do we get stuck with the Turkish women? :mad:

You can't have seen many, otherwise you wouldn't complain...

E.U. :p

well we still have the commonwealth I mean there must be some talent in there...right?

*sets trap for Canadians*

I dunno, some of them are pretty fit.

those are Greeks or maybe Israeli >.>

Why? They seem happy enough here?

yeah but I have worries about the supply in Poland I mean its not like they have factories making them :tongue:

Isn't that what it's all about, anyway? :)

no the immigration debate seems to be some kind of chauvinist domination fantasy :wink:

You can't have seen many, otherwise you wouldn't complain...

*rests case*

yeah but I have worries about the supply in Poland I mean its not like they have factories making them :tongue:

Well, they ARE Catholic, you know? ;)


no the immigration debate seems to be some kind of chauvinist domination fantasy :wink:


They're free to pop out as many brats as they can feed, but going around telling people to behave like rabbits is a bit irresponsible I think.
Why bother producing future unemployed by the truckload?

Well, they ARE Catholic, you know? ;)

so thats why Polish men are legging it out of the country :p

Why bother producing future unemployed by the truckload?

so there can be future generations of racist skinheads silly

so there can be future generations of racist skinheads silly

But... do we really NEED them? I mean, what with the credit crunch an economic downturn and all that, isn't financing these idiots a luxury we should cut down on?

But... do we really NEED them?
Gives us liberal white people something easy to hate.

Gives us liberal white people something easy to hate.

*looks around*

Oh, there's plenty left... I mean, just look at the religious fanatics, they have been mushrooming in the last decade or so...

Oh, there's plenty left... I mean, just look at the religious fanatics, they have been mushrooming in the last decade or so...

yeah but that doesn't have the same class war feeling :(

Oh, there's plenty left... I mean, just look at the religious fanatics, they have been mushrooming in the last decade or so...
Aye but they're often not white enough to complain about without getting moaned at by the holier-than-thou kind of MC person.

yeah but that doesn't have the same class war feeling :(

Seeing as both want to be able to tell me who to have sex with and how many brats to pop out, the only difference I see between thost two groups is that the religious folks tend to actually work and feed themselves...

Aye but they're often not white enough to complain about without getting moaned at by the holier-than-thou kind of MC person.

Hmm... true about the Muslims, not so true about the Christians...

Hmm... true about the Muslims, not so true about the Christians...
Aye but outside of the Levant and Africa, Christians are pretty toothless. "Homosexuals are bad" isn't quite the same as "Infidels ought to die".

the UK, Canada, and the US would be forced to fight Ukraine's wars and Georgia's wars.

Minus Canada, they fight everyone's wars already, that's not big news.

The British and Canadians are slowly growing. But the rest of Europe is shrinking.

Canada's in Europe?

Germany like Georgia is past the point of no return. Their may not even be a Germany by 2050 because they are not making enough children.

A lot changes in 42 years.
New Zealand doesn't really count. Why not?
THe United Kingdom is growing in population.
That's because we're getting a lot of immigrants. Take away the immigrants, the population'll start shrinking.


People who speak English seem to be genetically predisposed toward Democracy.

Like Zimbabwe?

Every English speaking country also has a free market capitalist economy.
Nope.

Without America, NATO ceases to exist. Bullshit.


who could end up taking over Germany and dividing it into Islamist fiefdoms.

Hilarious.

leave the 18 to 35 cohort, they become unable to have kids. No they don't, that's a lie.

there are signs that the rest of America is now mostly hispanic as well.
How d'you work that one out?

Recently India became the first nation in the world to directly attack pirates on the high seas. No they did not.
India seems to be the one third world nation most likely to replace the US as the preeminent global economic power. They might end up replacing us miltiarily as well.
Not any time soon.

Do you think that is good news or bad news.
I think it's rubbish news.

What is Europeans response to the shrinking of their home populations and the apparent invasions of their coutnres by North Africans and Muslims?

We're not being invaded.

Does anyone think that Mr. Suits is a crackpot?
Everyone over the age of 4.


Will Russians and Germans really be extinct by 2100???
No.

Really? What clan does your non-white, Urdu-speaking, Islamic neighbor descend from? Did his family support or oppose Robert the Bruce? How about Bonnie Prince Charlie? (I am assuming you yourself can claim descent from a Scottish clan; if not, replace "I" with "my white, Scots-speaking, Christian Scottish neighbor".)

Your neighbor may be just as much a British subject and resident of Scotland as you, but to suggest that he is "just as Scottish" as you I find hard to take seriously. I would further guess that your neighbor would not consider himself ethnically Scottish either. Ethnic and cultural diffences exist, and no amount of denial will change that fact.

Can't speak on behalf of Chumbly here, but the majority of people in Scotland who proclaim themselve's "ethnically Scottish" are skinhead idiots. There hasn't been a Scottish ethnicity for centuries. Hell, the first "Scots" were immigrants from Ireland.

So no, I don't think that the non-white, Hindi-speaking girl in my year considers herself any less Scottish than me. We've both got Scottish citizenship=we're both Scottish. I'd be a raging dickhead if I tried to tell her she's not a real Scotsman because she can't trace back her lineage to the Wars of Independence or the Jacobite uprisings.

(And to be honest, I don't think many people in Scotland could, given how much immigration and emigration has taken place over the last two hundred fucking years.)

I'd be a raging dickhead if I tried to tell her she's not a real Scotsman

No you wouldn't.

Really? What clan does your non-white, Urdu-speaking, Islamic neighbor descend from? Did his family support or oppose Robert the Bruce? How about Bonnie Prince Charlie? (I am assuming you yourself can claim descent from a Scottish clan; if not, replace "I" with "my white, Scots-speaking, Christian Scottish neighbor".)

Why does it matter what your ancestors did or who they supported?
Mine supported Hitler, does that make me a Nazi?


Your neighbor may be just as much a British subject and resident of Scotland as you, but to suggest that he is "just as Scottish" as you I find hard to take seriously. I would further guess that your neighbor would not consider himself ethnically Scottish either. Ethnic and cultural diffences exist, and no amount of denial will change that fact.

"Entitled" is as may be. "Fairytale" cultures? Hardly. To say that there are no recognizable English, French, German, Italian, Danish, Swedish, Polish etc. cultures is simply absurd.


Is "ethnic" the word that replaced "race" for modern-day xenophobes?

Define German culture, if it's so obvious and easy. Go on, give it a try. Define the culture that all Germans share.

Is "ethnic" the word that replaced "race" for modern-day xenophobes?

Why is using the words ethnic and race xenophobic?

Define the culture that all Germans share.
An irrational love of David Hasselhoff.

Define the culture that all Germans share.

*Makes weak sausages joke*

An irrational love of David Hasselhoff.

Who is he? The guy who was in Knight Rider? :confused:

*Makes weak sausages joke*
That's the wurst response I've ever seen.

Why is using the words ethnic and race xenophobic?

It isn't as such... but I've noticed how people who, in decades past, would have gone on about race and how it needs to be kept protected and pure, tend to use the word "ethnic" instead now.

That's the wurst response I've ever seen.

*Dies*

Jesus, that was bad.

It isn't as such... but I've noticed how people who, in decades past, would have gone on about race and how it needs to be kept protected and pure, tend to use the word "ethnic" instead now.

Tell that to the BNP.

That's the wurst response I've ever seen.

*lol
So there are no sausages in the UK, or in France, or in Hungary, or in Spain, then? ;)

Who is he? The guy who was in Knight Rider? :confused:
Jawohl. His song about re-unification was in the charts for 8 years or something.

So there are no sausages in the UK, or in France, or in Hungary, or in Spain, then? ;)

No, only Germany eats sausages. It's a well known fact. I saw it in a documentary.

Tell that to the BNP.

Well, there's always some die-hard traditionalist, even in linguistics ;)

*lol
So there are no sausages in the UK, or in France, or in Hungary, or in Spain, then? ;)
Aye but it's less easy to make puns with those.

Jawohl. His song about re-unification was in the charts for 8 years or something.

Which one was that, then?

Which one was that, then?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_for_Freedom

Well, there's always some die-hard traditionalist, even in linguistics ;)

Indeed. One of them tried to tell me how they wanted to keep the British race pure. I spent about 5 minutes explaining how there is no British race and the Welsh, English and Scottish races are hardly pure themselves, and unless they tracked everyone's family trees back about 5,000 years then races would end up mixing. He was stumped, but then said, "Yes, but they weren't immigrants." I walked away.

Aye but it's less easy to make puns with those.

Ah, you're just mortadellaly scared of exploring new areas...

Ah, you're just mortadellaly scared of exploring new areas...

Mortadellaly?

Ah, you're just mortadellaly scared of exploring new areas...
As májas I'd love to continue this discussion, it's running into véres snags. As an asado, chả puns are surprisingly good :)

I keep thinking it is sundae.

I keep thinking it is sundae.
Me and Cabra cornet the market for puns a while back :tongue:

SNIP

enough with your no true Scotsman fallacy's :mad:

PHALLUS-ies. I made a play on words!

USofA, all those demographic figures are in the Mark Steyn book entitled "America Alone". There is much more information and sources in the book which are very interesting.

It isn't as such... but I've noticed how people who, in decades past, would have gone on about race and how it needs to be kept protected and pure, tend to use the word "ethnic" instead now.

I'll repost something I posted on the forums a little bit ago:

It's the new brand of racism. It's not about skin color any more. It's not about genetics, or eugenics, or belief that someone is inferior based on the appearance of their parents.

No, this new bigotry isn't about color, it's about "culture". No, they don't look you in the face and tell you how much blacks are inferior anymore. Now they take the softer approach, they speak not of people, but of nations. They use words that are hard to object to, like "community", "togetherness", "common bonds". But in the end the new dance is the same as the old dance. Not inferior races anymore, just inferior cultures. But just as it used to be "we don't want the mud people here anymore" it's become "we don't want their culture infecting our culture". the "we don't think you're bad PEOPLE, we just think your BELIEFS are bad, and your PRACTICES are bad, and your FAITH is bad, but we're not racist, we don't discriminate, just as long as you abandon every element that makes you you"

And in the end, just as the old racists believed that some races were superior, and it just happened to be theirs, the new bigots talk about superior and inferior cultures, and the superior ones are, of course, the ones they belong to.

All the while refusing to acknowledge that culture, just like race, is nothing more than a mish mash of other things, all rolled together to create what it is today, malleable, changeable, and, fundamentally, arbitrary.

of course, the new bigots like to disguise it one step further sometimes. They might not even take the superior/inferior dichotomy. They might try to pretend that it's now how they think. They might talk in lofty terms and high goals, they might say to you "you like to be proud of your culture right? Well, I like to be proud of mine, don't you think I should be proud of mine, just like you're proud of yours? No, your culture isn't BAD, and you should KEEP your culture, so why don't you go over there, with other people like you, and I'll stay over here, with people like me, and that way MY culture doesn't get infec...I mean, changed by yours, and YOUR culture, which I totally respect, by the way, can also remain pure, just the way it is...over there, in your own country. Away from me"

An irrational love of David Hasselhoff.

There's no such thing. There's only true love of the Hoff!

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/hasselhofflove7qq.jpg

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/hasselhofflove7qq.jpg

My eyes just melted.

I like your response. Particularly what you said about Germany being a country only relatively recently and what you said bout Scotland. It is simlar to what I said about the Americans and Mexicans.

There are very few countries in the world today that are centered on a specific culture. And I think they are dissappearing. (the ethnic group that started the country, not the country itself)
So, after agreeing with the point Chumbly made, you are still going to insist on the point he was debunking? I'm sorry, but what he said does not support what you said and cannot be made to do so.

It is true that all ethnic groups sprung from other ethnic groups. A recent example is when the Commanche ethnicity sprung from the Shoshone ethnicity back in the early 17 to 1800's.
Your examples are meaningless and irrelevant because you take them out of their historical context. All you are doing is what you did, above, with Chumbly's post, trying to take the argument against you and magically make it support you instead.

You think it is racism and xenophobia to talk about ethnicities???
No, as I clearly stated, I think the argument that "native" European ethnicities are going to become extinct because they are being outbred by immigrant groups and this is a tragic and lamentable thing is an argument created by racists and xenophobes. And as I stated clearly, I think it is based on pure fantasy in that (a) that is not how cultural shifts happen, (b) European "ethnicities" are not what the supporters of this argument say they are, (c) no European culture is in any danger of becoming extinct, and (d) the kinds of population shifts the argument decries are and always have been the normal and natural operating procedure for human beings.

Any further misreadings of my argument will be a reposting of the above paragraph.

Remember we had local migrations. We didn't have southeast asians moving to Europe like we do today. That is what I am talking about. The type of mass, long distance migrations we are seeing in the world today. Not the short distance ones that were common in the past. And even they, as somone else pointed out, usually ended up adopting the host culture. Some immigrants today refuse to adopt the host culture and I guess some would argue that they are trying to create little Islamabad's or litle Mexico's. Historically it has always been you learn the host language and adopt the host culture. Only recently, in the past 10 years, has such an expectation come to be labeled racism.
The above paragraph is:

> Non-responsive to what I said. You are ignoring my posts in order to continue repeating your original point. But your point has been debunked. Repeating a wrong argument will not make it right.

> Ignoring history (the history that was pointed out to you) in the same way you are ignoring me, and with the same results. You clearly know nothing about human history. I suggest you learn something about it, unless you enjoy being wrong. Mass migrations across continents have been a constant throughout human history. Just ask the archeologists.

> Nothing more than an anti-immigrant mini-rant.

> Another example of you misusing a term. Tell me, do you not know the difference between "racist" and "xenophobe", or do you deliberately mix them up so that, whatever criticism you get, you can claim it's not accurate? The word for what you describe in that paragraph is "xenophobe", not "racist".

> Just because people only recently got tired of hearing such Know-Nothing crap does not mean it was not crap before.

Mexican Americans only believe what the socialists in the public schools tell them.
Oh, so your psychic powers extend to reading the minds of the living as well as communicating with the dead?

Mexican is no more an ethnicity than are American or German or even British. French, German, Italian, Russian? Those are not ethnicities either.
Then why are you complaining about them being lost as ethnicities? You have contradicted yourself here, friend, but good. This entire thread, you've been arguing that the ethnicities that founded such countries are becoming extinct. Now you say they never existed in the first place on account of they're not ethnicities -- unless by whatever magical concept of "ethnicity" you've dreamed up for yourself, you think Russians are significantly different from Germans -- or even from Poles or Czechs or Slovaks, none of whom are on the OP endangered species list.

If you're trying that trick of changing the definitions of words on the fly, so that "ethnicity" means what you want it to but only when you want it to, you will fail in this debate.

Mexican-Americans, like most other Americans do not really understand what ethnicity is. Like the majority of Americans they think it is your skin color or what country your parents are from.
Projecting much? Just because YOU might be obsessed with skin color and national origin and just because YOU don't know what an ethnicity is, that doesn't mean nobody else does. I will thank you to quit presuming to speak for the majority of Americans. And I'll take the liberty of asking on behalf of Mexicans that you cut out making claims about what they know or don't know, too.

When you talk about what other people think, you only demonstrate how comfortable you are arguing from a position of ignorance.

I said that to be really Mexican you have to be born in Mexico. To be American you have to be born in America. Those are nationalities, not ethnic groups. You can call them heritages too. But they certainly are not ethnic groups.

An ethnic group is a group of people who have been isolated for a long enough time that they developed their own customs and cultures without interference from any sub groups or outside groups.
Bullshit. There is no such group. If you think there are, name them.

American does not fit that description nor do Mexicans. In fact, by nationality, Mexican-Americans, are by default, simply Americans just like all other Americans. When you get down to their actual ethnicities they are either Spanish, Aztec, French or someother Native American group. Or they could be combination of any of those. Just like you are combination of the ethnic groups that make up the countries you just named. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your race, ethnicity as long as you don't take it to the level of Neo Nazi skinheadism.
Do you end all your posts with a pointless ramble of extra words?

Strangely we don't get Mr Suit's radio show in the UK. Probably because we have laws meaning broadcasters have to get their facts right.
I think the US used to have laws wiht a similar effect, but they were repealed, or just now unenforced, as being discriminatory -- against liars, apparently.

I think the US used to have laws wiht a similar effect, but they were repealed, or just now unenforced, as being discriminatory -- against liars, apparently.
I blame the popularity of Art Bell for this -_-

Bullshit. There is no such group. If you think there are, name them.

The Sentinelese. They've been there for 60,000 years.

German culture, and Western European cultures in general, will become endangered. I think this is a serious concern and needs to be addressed.

Since "culture" is a static and never-changing thing...

My eyes just melted.

You're welcome :fluffle:

It isn't as such... but I've noticed how people who, in decades past, would have gone on about race and how it needs to be kept protected and pure, tend to use the word "ethnic" instead now.
Yeah, I've noticed that, too. I guess after WW2 in Europe and that big Civil Rights Movement thing in the US, it just got too hard to use the old jargon, so they've gussied up some new labels for the same old crap.

EDIT: Also, what Neo Art said.

You're welcome :fluffle:

It's not a good thing. There's pus all over my keyboard.

There's no such thing. There's only true love of the Hoff!

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/hasselhofflove7qq.jpg

cannot unsee.

The Sentinelese. They've been there for 60,000 years.
All by themselves?

Nope, sorry. Their islands get plenty of traffic from surrounding tribal cultures and are fully aware of the waves of European colonization, and influxes of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity in their region. In fact, the entire Pacific region has a long, long history of inter-island travel, trade and cultural exchange. The Sentinalese are not significantly different from any other "native" culture in the area.

One hint that they are not all that isolated is the fact that, you know, we know they exist.

You know like when the Christmas tsunami hit that region, and aid workers from the surrounding larger islands sent helicopters over to see what help they needed, and television crews went over to interview them about the disaster, and the Sentinalese didn't freak out at the sight of helicopters, and didn't ask who all these strange people were, and were perfectly comfortable being interviewed on camera in their t-shirts and cargo shorts.

EDIT: So, tell us again how an ethnicity has to arise in isolation, and don't forget to show precisely how the Sentinalese had no influences from any of the tribal cultures around them for 60,000 years until, presumably, until the Europeans showed up and taught them about pants and television (and then went away again, to preserve the purity of essence of their ethnicity, only now with pants on).

cannot unsee.
Neither can I, as long as you loons keep quoting that foul, demonic thing. It's bad enough to have one in the thread. Now there are three!!

All by themselves?

Nope, sorry. Their islands get plenty of traffice from surrounding tribal cultures and are fully aware of the waves of European colonization, and influxes of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity in their region.

That's how, you know, we know they exist.

You know like when the Christmas tsunami hit that region, and aid workers from the surrounding larger islands sent helicopters over to see what help they needed, and television crews went over to interview them about the disaster, and the Sentinalese didn't freak out at the sight of helicopters, and didn't ask who all these strange people were, and were perfectly comfortable being interviewed on camera in their t-shirts and cargo shorts.

I suppose, but they're one of the more isolated tribes in the world. How about those Brazilians on the news a couple of months ago? They were completely isolated.

I suppose, but they're one of the more isolated tribes in the world. How about those Brazilians on the news a couple of months ago? They were completely isolated.
If you really, really want to jump in and defend his bad argument, okay, it's your funeral:

You know what else gets called "really isolated"? The islands of Hawaii. Likewise, Bermuda, which I recently had occasion to look up some info about, described by some gang of geographers as one of the most isolated islands in the Atlantic. And yet, only 90 minutes from Boston by plane. But at least they maintained enough ethnic isolation to develop a whole style of shorts unique to them.

And apparently, "those Brazilians" (whose name you can't be bothered to look up even to defend the argument you decided to horn in on) were not all that isolated, since they got found by the media.

It seems as if some people's prejudice in favor of their own culture group is so strong that they assume that, if they never saw them on tv before, that means they were existing in pure ethnic isolation and, thus, are proof of the xenophobic views of the argument under contention. But you're wrong.

And my objections remain unanswered. Here, I'll lay them out for you. In order to cite such examples as proof against my argument, you would have to:

1) Show me the information that proves that the Sentinalese and "those Brazilians" had no contact with ANYONE before they were outed by the media and the local government, or other date certain in relatively recent history.

2) Show me how the cultures of the Sentinalese and "those Brazilians" are unique and different from the cultures of all the surrounding tribal cultures in their region, indicating that they rose up in isolation.

3) Show me how that makes the Sentinalese and "those Brazilians" examples of what the poster is claming -- that ethnicity arises out of a population in isolation and, due to their isolation (which by now you/he should also have been able to demonstrate), the Sentinalese and "those Brazilians" are of a different ethnicity than any other Pacific or Amazonian tribe.

If you really, really want to jump in and defend his bad argument, okay, it's your funeral:

You know what else gets called "really isolated"? The islands of Hawaii. Likewise, Bermuda, which I recently had occasion to look up some info about, described by some gang of geographers as one of the most isolated islands in the Atlantic. And yet, only 90 minutes from Boston by plane. But at least they maintained enough ethnic isolation to develop a whole style of shorts unique to them.

And apparently, "those Brazilians" (whose name you can't be bothered to look up even to defend the argument you decided to horn in on) were not all that isolated, since they got found by the media.

It seems as if some people's prejudice in favor of their own culture group is so strong that they assume that, if they never saw them on tv before, that means they were existing in pure ethnic isolation and, thus, are proof of the xenophobic views of the argument under contention. But you're wrong.

And my objections are not answered. Here, I'll lay them out for you. In order to cite such examples as proof against my argument, you would have to:

1) Show me the information that proves that the Sentinalese and "those Brazilians" had no contact with ANYONE before they were outed by the media and the Brazilian government.

2) Show me how the cultures of the Sentinalese and "those Brazilians" are unique and different from the cultures of all the surrounding tribal cultures in their region, indicating that they rose up in isolation.

3) Show me how that makes the Sentinalese and "those Brazilians" examples of what the poster is claming -- that ethnicity arises out of a population in isolation and, due to their isolation (which by now you/he should also have been able to demonstrate), the Sentinalese and "those Brazilians" are of a different ethnicity than any other Pacific or Amazonian tribe.

I give up, you're right. But just because a plane flew over (was it even a media plane? I doubt it) doesn't mean they're not isolated.

I give up, you're right. But just because a plane flew over (was it even a media plane? I doubt it) doesn't mean they're not isolated.
Planes didn't just fly over. This is the age of 24/7 news cycles. They went in with mobile crews and got interviews with the Sentinalese, for example, and if the Brazilian government didn't have a new "stay off the neighbors' lawn" policy, we'd have "those Brazilians" on tv ,too. Give it time, they will be.

And my point about the illusion of isolation is that, just as a plane flying over doesn't mean they're not isolated, it also doesn't mean they are isolated. Isolated from us =/= isolated because, you know, we're not the only other people in the world.

They went in with mobile crews and got interviews.

No they didn't did they? I just thought they flew over and took pictures. I doubt they could've landed seeing as the tribesmen were pointing bows at them.

No they didn't did they? I just thought they flew over and took pictures. I doubt they could've landed seeing as the tribesmen were pointing bows at them.
I edited that post because I realized I was, in my haste to put an end to the other guy's nonsense, mixing the two cases together.

I edited that post because I realized I was, in my haste to put an end to the other guy's nonsense, mixing the two cases together.

I'm not sure why I even defended the argument now. I might have gotten away with it too, if you hadn't been here. With paragraph upon paragraph of proof.

I'm not sure why I even defended the argument now. I might have gotten away with it too, if you hadn't been here. With paragraph upon paragraph of proof.
Sorry. :D

Anyway, I didn't really provide proof. What that was was paragraph upon paragraph of demands for proof, demonstrating the lack of foundation for the other guy's argument. It's my preferred method, and very efficient. After all, we don't have to provide our own worldview to show the fatal flaws in his worldview.

Sorry. :D

Anyway, I didn't provide proof. What that was was paragraph upon paragraph of demands for proof, demonstrating the lack of foundation for the other guy's argument. It's my preferred method, and very efficient. After all, we don't have to provide a counter argument to show the fatal flaws in his argument.

You're doing it now.

Germany became a unified nation in 1871. Ethnic Germans populated numerous states prior to that date. Likewise with Italy in the 1860's.
That makes no sense. 'Germany' is a construct that only existed after 1871. One cannot be 'ethnically' part of a non-existent nation. You can attempt to claim a national culture, and in doing so would have to acknowledge the necessity that migration has made to any country, but to claim some ethnic monism is a patently ridiculous notion.

I can imagine, back in the 1st century BC, some grumpy old sod complaining about how all these bloody Gauls and Celts will 'infect' his tribe with 'alien' influences.

It's comments like this that lead one to conclude that Europe is already a lost cause, for lack of the will to defend its own cultures or even to acknowlege their existence in the face of others with the contrary attitudes. Sad, really.
What's sad is a person refusing to believe his neighbour can help him, refusing to see the history of the entirety of humanity as a wonderful example of mixing culture, of immigration and emmigration.

Really? What clan does your non-white, Urdu-speaking, Islamic neighbor descend from? Did his family support or oppose Robert the Bruce? How about Bonnie Prince Charlie? (I am assuming you yourself can claim descent from a Scottish clan; if not, replace "I" with "my white, Scots-speaking, Christian Scottish neighbor".)
So is my Scottish friend whose family moved here during the 1800s somehow less Scottish than I am? Shall I refuse to call those descended from the Normans as English? The history of not just Scotland, but of the British Isles is that of migration and mixing of cultures. There has never been a single ethnic group that can be pointed to as more Scottish than anybody else.

I mean, if you can't accept my non-white neighbour as Scottish, I suppose you're against all those those uppity n*****s trying to call themselves American?

"Fairytale" cultures? Hardly. To say that there are no recognizable English, French, German, Italian, Danish, Swedish, Polish etc. cultures is simply absurd.
Quite, and it is also absurd to suggest that any of these cultures are completely ethnically/culturally monist, completely ethnically/culturally distinct.

As for "change, migration and cross-influence", the "change" you are so infatuated with may result in something you will regret in the next 30 years or so, given current demographic trends. That's the point.
The only people regretting the inclusion of more people into a culture which, for the entirety of its history, has assimilated and welcomed differing peoples, are blinkered individuals like yourself. I rather enjoy living in a society with a non-declining population, enjoy living in a country with an influx of doctors, teachers, and low-skilled labourers so that my life is better, enjoy the fact that I can pop up the road to the Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Afro-Caribbean, Indonesian, Polish, French, Italian or whatever shop, and be greeted with a Glaswegian accent; no matter where the person's ancestors lived.

So is my Scottish friend whose family moved here during the 1800s somehow less Scottish than I am?

Depends on how assimilated he is. If his family has been there since the 1800's, they're probably fully assimilated by now, probably have intermarried with other Scots and self-identify as Scots.

Shall I refuse to call those descended from the Normans as English?

Similar argument as above.

I mean, if you can't accept my non-white neighbour as Scottish, I suppose you're against all those those uppity n*****s trying to call themselves American?

America is a nation of immigrants and was founded as a nation of immigrants. "American" is a national identity but not an ethnic group. And you can dispense with the race-baiting, please. Black Americans are Americans.

The only people regretting the inclusion of more people into a culture which, for the entirety of its history, has assimilated and welcomed differing peoples, are blinkered individuals like yourself.

You are now begging the very question at the heart of this issue: assimilation. Western Europe is "welcoming" a huge number of "differing peoples" a large percentage of whom are not "assimilating." Not only are Europeans failing to maintain their own numbers, but they are more and more often abandoning their own cultures so as not to "offend" the aliens. In other words, Europeans are all too often "assimilating" themselves to the aliens. Just one recent example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/3545246/School-cancels-Christmas-nativity-in-favour-of-Muslim-Eid-celebrations.html

Europeans are running the risk of becoming minorities in their own nations and allowing their cultures to be dominated by aliens who show little indication of similar "tolerance" should they become the majority and seize power in the countries they have been allowed into.

I rather enjoy living in a society with a non-declining population, enjoy living in a country with an influx of doctors, teachers, and low-skilled labourers so that my life is better, enjoy the fact that I can pop up the road to the Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Afro-Caribbean, Indonesian, Polish, French, Italian or whatever shop, and be greeted with a Glaswegian accent; no matter where the person's ancestors lived.

All well and good. I like a variety of restaurants too. As long as those restaurants' proprietors, who have come to my country, assimilate to my culture, rather than achieving a position from which to insist that I accommodate them.

And with that, I will now go off to celebrate Christmas, celebrations of which have not been cancelled or postponed in SoCal.

Oh and can we please keep the conversation civil?????

No.

This kind of shite talk was quite popular at the end of the 19th century. It was shite then, its shite now.

If thats all you have to offer, maybe an hispanic majority would do a better job.

Ah, where to start.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was talking about the Russia/Georgia war and he says the primatry reason is that the Russian population is declining and that by 2100 Russia as a country will cease to exist because they are not having enough kids.

The war was about Russia trying to build, recapture or maintain Empire. They don't have the Soviets. Georgia didn't agree with this goal.

Shit, you really think any politician plans ahead for 2100? When they will guaranteed be dead and gone? What, because governments are known for their foresight and long-term planning? Hah. Yeah that must be why so many governments are taking huge measures to address global climate change.

Or not. Because they don't give a shit about a hundred fucking years from now.

He says that Georgia and Ukraine have the same problem and that they too will cease to exist by that time. because of this he says that the west should not worry about Russia taking over Ossetia or Abkahzia.

"Russia won't exist in 82 years, so we don't need to worry about them anymore."

Jesus. Head-in-the-sand, much?

He brought up an interesting question. He noted that the mvoe to admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO was knee jerk response to a fading problem.

The point of NATO is that an attack on one is an attack on all. Mr. Suits wants to know why we would let in two countries that will no longer exist in 30 years because their people are not producing enough chldren to even staff their militaries with. Supposedly, Georgia and Ukraine are shrinking, population wise, faster than almost any other country on the planet. Putting them in NATO means that because they can't defend themselves, the UK, Canada, and the US would be forced to fight Ukraine's wars and Georgia's wars. Because there will be virtually no Ukrainans or Georgians left. I think Mr. Suits makes a good point here. It's a question of fairness.

I think Mr Suits is an idiot and a racist. Changing demographics doesn't mean the nation will magically cease to exist. He's just tying in the "ZOMG POPULATION CHANGE OVER TIME! HELP ITS THE BROWN PEOPLE ZERGING US!" xenophobic call to battle to everything. His One Theory To Explain The Universe.

THe only place on the planet that has a bigger shrinkage than these two is Niue located in the Cook Islands. Moldova is also shrinking. Suits says that in 20 years these countries will not be able to produce soldiers to defend themselves with. If they can't produce their own militaries how does it makes sense to let them into NATO.

So NATO can have more baes. So NATO can actually help these places out. The fact that Moldova can't defend thte United States militarily is irrelevant - the same is true for many nations in NATO currently.

If France, Germany or the UK were attacked, Georga and Ukraine will not be there to help. I think Mr. Suits is saying that ltting them into the alliance is giving them a free ride.

He's also basing this on the stupid assumptions previously addressed, so he's wrong.

Even if he wasn't already wrong ethically and morally.


"IF you are not having babies then you are not having girl babies which means you won't have women to make children with in 20 years." That means no more boys in 20 years to either support the social safety nets or to defend the nation.

Stupid nonsense. "OHNOES TEH WHITE PEOPLE ARE NOT HAVING AS MUCH BABIES! Child Production is down! We need an economic bailout, to make sure that more women be baby factories to support the White Race or else THE WORLD WILL EXPLODE! Down with women having careers and contributing to society and shit, WE NEED BABIES."

Putin is concerned primarily with the continued existience of Russia whose population is also shrinking into extinction. Russia greatest fear, affecting their foreign policy, is that Russia is running out of Russians.

That might be why when Russia invaded Germany at the end of WWII, their soldiers raped tens of thousands of women in Berlin alone. But they were just defending their nation from extinction I guess.

Historically, Russian culture has expanded by declaring that other groups are Russian. That is behind their policy of giving passports to the South Ossetians and to a third of the Russians in Eastern Ukraine. Russia is trying to replenish its population, not its land. Mr. Putin has responded to the population crises by giving free Russian passports to anyone who speaks Russian, reads Cyrillic and meets certain other criteria.

HOLY SHIT! It's it's it's.... PASSPORTS. Clearly the end is near when you can get a passport if you know the country.

As a concept Russia has been about overrunning major tribal groups and "Russianizing them." That's PUtin's short term solution. Give free passports to anyone who speaks Russian and who consider themselves Russian. The Russian government is also paying couples to make babies. The more babies you make the more money you get. That is how desperate Russia is to increase their population. The Russian population will be barefly half its present size in just 35 years if Putin doesn't do enough to reverse the slide. (of course that probably means that Eastern Siberia will be open for seizure by either China or North Korea by that time because Russia might not have enough people to defend it. Even Armenia is shrinking.

Yet more of the "changing demographics = NATION IS DYING" nonsense.

Laughable.

Suits says that in terms of global strategy, the Russians are playing chess and the Americans are trying to play monopoly. The Russians want either a draw where their population stops declining or they want a win. Not a military win but a positive growth rate. They want to expand their population and their culture. THe question at this point, that Suits was asking is whether there will even be a Russia in 35 years or a even in a hundred years. That can be scary because if Russia ceases to exist, what happens to all those nukes?

Yet more of the same nonsense.

Yeah it'll be terrible, ghost towns with no one there, but nukes everywhere. All places and no people. Magic!

THe US is preparing to withdraw not only from Iraq but also from Central Asia. Interesting, because we've also been secretly withdrawing troops from South America since at least 2 yeas before Hugo Chavez seized power in Venezuela He warns that if we are not selective enough in who we admit into NATO it will get us stuck in a major world war cause one of these newcomers will start a war that we (Americans and West Europeans) will be forced to fight on their behalf.

I want to hear the Moldava-causes-WWIII scenario.

Who else is not creating any more NATO soldiers to help defend the NATO nations?

Oh, I like how you phrased this. There's not enough "soldiers" being "created." PLANT PRODUCTION LEVELS DOWN!


THe difference between Russia and Ukraine and Georgia is that in 2050 Georgia and Ukraine will have shrunk so much they will no longer exist population.

Only Georgia and Ukraine have the magically disappearing cities I guess.


The major problem with Americans is that the rest of the world is not like them and Americans don't understand this. It's like the dude in South Central Los Angeles. People from that area think the whole planet is South Central Los Angeles. At least America is in a postive gorwth. Americans are making more Americans/. Or so he claims.

He claims, but obviously Real Americans aren't producing more Real Americans, so Real America just yet may disappear just like in The Langoliers!

Think of it. Think of it. A world where S. Palin is the only woman left.

Germany like Georgia is past the point of no return. Their may not even be a Germany by 2050 because they are not making enough children.

My god, how long are you going to espouse this retarded argument?

Suites states that what most Americans fail to understand is that most of the countries we fear will cease to exist and we won't have to do anything to make it happen.

Suites fails to understand that "most Americans" understand his stupid-ass argument just fine.

The Russians are killing themselves off through alcoholism and failure to reproduce.

...wow. Now stereotype are arguments!

On the other hand, they won't have enough peopleb to cover the social security payments for their aging populations. Germany and Italy are going to implode because of this.

"Implode" huh? I thought they were going to "cease to exist." Which is it?

All the socialist democracies of Western Europe are beginning to implode of shrinking population growth.

My brain is beginning to implode from trying to think of new ways to say that 1+1 does not, in fact, equal "yellow."

Suits then comes out and says that America's primary interest is to strengthen ties to other English speaking nations. Because there are no dictatorships on the planet where English is the official language. The English countries continue to grow. Canada is growing. New Zealand doesn't really count.

lol. Yeah Moldava counts when [you think] it supports your argument, but let's just pretend New Zealand doesn't exist because it doesn't.

Classic.


Suits criticizes NATO for having become a social handout program for people too lazy to build their own tanks or even defend their own territories.

Suites is a racist douche.


The Iranians, with their strictures against sex are fundamentalizing themselves into extinction.

Dude, stupid stereotypes aren't arguments. Next you'll be saying that those potato-eating Irish are killing Ireland by eating so much potatoes and getting so drunk all the time while talking like the Lucky Charms cereal leprechaun and bombing the British.


Mr. Suits hates the UN but he says they are good at predicting national population growth rates with a good deal of accuracy. He cites UN.org where they have link for social economic affairs. They have a document on the site titled "World Population Statistics 2006 Revision" released in June of 2007. It is the ultimate authority. It gives birthrates as reported by each of the world's birthrates. The North Koreans are not lying about their own birthrate which just happens to be shrinking.


North Korea is not "ceasing to exist" just because of that. Nor are any of the countries you've mentioned.

The UN says the former Soviet nations are shrinking into oblivion. It says the same thing about Germany.

No, it doesn't.

German population will be halved in just 30 years according to the UN.

That's not the same thing as "shrinking into oblivion."

The UN is counting only native Germans, it is not counting immigrants to Germany from North African and Islamic countries who could end up taking over Germany and dividing it into Islamist fiefdoms.

Oh, I was hoping there'd be the Muslim scaremongering mixed in at some point.

The UN says Iran is also shrinking into oblivion

No, it doesn't.

In 30 years, Europe will be non European.

EUROPE WILL CEASE TO EXIST!

Oh, you just mean it won't have as many white people. So all this time you've been talking about countries disappearing, you've really just been talking about the Non Whites.

I think Mr. Suits makes some valid points. I don't think American whites should point fingers though. The US census just released a report saying that America's white population is indeed shrinking.

And now you just come right out and say it. Apparently it's the United State of White Peopleica in your, and Suits, and other racist views.

Sorry pal. That's not the case.

The state of California is now ostly hispanic.

And yet, the state of California continues to exist. Imagine that.

Especially Southern California and there are signs that the rest of America is now mostly hispanic as well. Or it will be by 2050.

Fine by me. I'm not a racist.

Recently India became the first nation in the world to directly attack pirates on the high seas.

lol whut?

By doing this, India becomes the only rising nation on the world stage to flex its global geopolitical miltary muscle.

erm.

Do you think that is good news or bad news. I'd like to know what Europeans think about this. What is Europeans response to the shrinking of their home populations and the apparent invasions of their coutnres by North Africans and Muslims?

The racist Europeans see this with as much alarmism and extreme paranoia as you apparently are.

The normal ones do not.

Is the same as how white Americans reacted to illegal immigration from Latin America ten years back????

Well it certainly seems like the same exact argument you're making. For that matter, the same argument was made about Jews. In, you know, Germany. Last century some time.

What do Americans think about my suggestion that hispanics currently form the majority of the US population.

You're just plain wrong.

Wouldn't that mean that when Hugo rants against America, he is ranting against fellow Latinos???

No. But so what if he was? You think Latinos must all be part of the racist hive mind just because you've bought into one of your own?

Most of all what does this global trend portend about the world 100 years from now?? Will there still be a US? WIll there still be a NATO????

If I were to buy into this argument, I would be forced to conclude that by 2200, the world will cease to exist because white people are not a majority ethnicity.


Oh and can we please keep the conversation civil?????

Your referral to "invasions" of non-white people, the string of generalizations and fallacy and the ultimate message you're peddling to us is not a civil one.

This thread will kill Europe and Iran.

Diversity is all well and good.

You do not believe this, so don't even pretend to.

The problem is that current demographic trends point to Europe being turned from a Western, Christian-based culture into a non-Western, non-Christian based culture

The problem is with xenophobic people trying to pass their insecurity and paranoia off as valid reasons for anything.

, with resultant loss of rights and freedoms that arose from the present Western European cultures and eventual disappearance of those cultures.

Paranoia.

The problem is compounded by the apparent lack of recognition that there even are Western European cultures and ethnicities and that those cultures and ethnicities need to reproduce their members in order to survive

"We must be the majority, or else WE WILL DISAPPEAR."

It's so amusing to me that you think being an ethnic majority is essential to cultural survival. As a Jew, I guess I must *not actually exist*.

My own grandparents came from Italy. I want to see Italy remain overwhelmingly ethnically Italian, Italian-speaking, Catholic (at least nominally), and part of Western civilization, and not see Italy overrun by elements who are none of these.

Yawn. The same old "dirty foreign peoples invading the fatherland and slowly poisoning the purity of our national essence from within, quick, to the bat-gas chamber!" bullshit.


Current trends give me little reason to believe that assimilation will occur

Didn't take you long to contradict your "diversity is all well and good" bullshit, eh?

America is a nation of immigrants and was founded as a nation of immigrants. "American" is a national identity but not an ethnic group. And you can dispense with the race-baiting, please. Black Americans are Americans.

Yeah, America is better at integration than Europe, as everyone knows. The American Muslim population is markedly non-extremist.

You are now begging the very question at the heart of this issue: assimilation. Western Europe is "welcoming" a huge number of "differing peoples" a large percentage of whom are not "assimilating." Not only are Europeans failing to maintain their own numbers, but they are more and more often abandoning their own cultures so as not to "offend" the aliens. In other words, Europeans are all too often "assimilating" themselves to the aliens.

Basic logical flaw in this argument: How can anything incorporate anything else in any kind of way without changing itself?

There are philosophers who believe that you can't even study something without changing your subject matter. So how can you culturally integrate without changing yourself?

And there's also a flaw in this argument just in terms of human morality, and that flaw lies in the fact that the whole world isn't waiting on you, and you can't stop what's coming (globalization).

What you're expressing here is pride. And vanity.

Europeans are running the risk of becoming minorities in their own nations and allowing their cultures to be dominated by aliens who show little indication of similar "tolerance" should they become the majority and seize power in the countries they have been allowed into.

Doesn't that depend on your definition of European? What if the definition of European was closer to what most people mean when they say an "American"?

That's what's happening, if you haven't noticed. It's called the EU.

How many wars have France and Germany gotten into? How many wars have England and France fought against one another? Do you deny that those conflicts were entirely sans cultural conflicts? Take a look at Hitler. He thought other cultures threatened his own just like you do. Now they're all allies. How did that happen? Hint: It wasn't because of arguments like yours.

And I just have to ask: When in modern history has a democratic nation in the West been overrun by a first-minority-then-majority ethnicity? Yeah, it hasn't ever happened.

Stopped reading after the first paragraph, that was the dumbest thing ive ever heard.

And I just have to ask: When in modern history has a democratic nation in the West been overrun by a first-minority-then-majority ethnicity? Yeah, it hasn't ever happened.

Well that will happen soon. In America the white population is in decline due to low birth rates. (I guess when we know we can't support a child we don't have one, too bad we are the only ones in general) Hispanic people on the other hand are breeding like rabbits (prolly a reason why they tend to be poorer) Soon enough they will be the new majority.

Well that will happen soon. In America the white population is in decline due to low birth rates .... Soon enough they will be the new majority.

When will you learn? "White population is in decline due to lower birth rates" does not translate to:


When in modern history has a democratic nation in the West been overrun by a first-minority-then-majority ethnicity? Yeah, it hasn't ever happened.

Nor is it an "invasion" or any of that crap either.

Not a single person is losing a single thing due to birth rates.

He was talking about the Russia/Georgia war and he says the primatry reason is that the Russian population is declining and that by 2100 Russia as a country will cease to exist because they are not having enough kids.

What an idiocy. Immigration exists. Even Italy, with a natality of 1.1 kids per woman, has an increasing population (we reached 60M last week) thank to immigration.


The point of NATO is that an attack on one is an attack on all.

Ambiguous. Read article 5 of the NATO treaty (www.nato.org), it states that NATO members are bound to help the attacked member, IN THE MEASURE AND IN THE MANNER EACH COUNTRY WANTS. So, each NATO country could just make lend-lease acts in favour of the attacked, or promote a motion at the UN, or send a shipment of food.
The WEU (www.weu.org), on the other hand, specifies that any military attack on a member country will trigger the MILITARY response of all other members.


Putin is concerned primarily with the continued existience of Russia whose population is also shrinking into extinction. Russia greatest fear, affecting their foreign policy, is that Russia is running out of Russians. Historically, Russian culture has expanded by declaring that other groups are Russian. hat is behind their policy of giving passports to the South Ossetians and to a third of the Russians in Eastern Ukraine. Russia is trying to replenish its population, not its land.

BS. How many are the South Ossetians? Compare with the population of Russia and with its territory.
Russia is simply trying to say: "I'm a superpower, and, I won't tolerate enemies in my backyard, since in the last 300 years we got regularily invaded by all European countries, and even by the USA." (see Russian civil war and Allied anti-soviet intervention)


Give free passports to anyone who speaks Russian and who consider themselves Russian. The Russian government is also paying couples to make babies. The more babies you make the more money you get. That is how desperate Russia is to increase their population. The Russian population will be barefly half its present size in just 35 years if Putin doesn't do enough to reverse the slide. (of course that probably means that Eastern Siberia will be open for seizure by either China or North Korea by that time because Russia might not have enough people to defend it.

1.If someone speaks french at a reasonable level of fluency and considers himself french, well, there are good chanches he's french. Same goes for being russian
2.Every sensible government gives some kind of aid to couples with babies. It's called social welfare.
3.In the age of jet bombers and ICBMs, you don't need many people to defend your territory. China attacks Russia, China's factories and powerplants don't last 3 days.


the Russians are playing chess and the Americans are trying to play monopoly.
And, in other news, water is wet.


He warns that if we are not selective enough in who we admit into NATO it will get us stuck in a major world war cause one of these newcomers will start a war that we (Americans and West Europeans) will be forced to fight on their behalf.
Again, see NATO treaty, art.5 .

I would not laugh at the Russians if I was in Western Europe.
I don't. I already speak Russian, too. Generally, it's the USians who underestimate Russia.


The major problem with Americans is that the rest of the world is not like them and Americans don't understand this. It's like the dude in South Central Los Angeles. People from that area think the whole planet is South Central Los Angeles. At least America is in a postive gorwth. Americans are making more Americans.
America is in positive growth because also of immigration. Just like EU.
About the major problem with Americans, one could translate that in "most Americans are undereducated".


But then he says that the US is the only western nation that is growing in erms of population. The British and Canadians are slowly growing. But the rest of Europe is shrinking.
False. Italy, France, Spain are on the rise. France has a natality of 2 kids per woman, plus immigration.


Germany like Georgia is past the point of no return. Their may not even be a Germany by 2050 because they are not making enough children.
False.



They don't want to go quiety linto the night. ... We can avoid a world conflict and end the 2nd Cold War if the west stops forcing Russians to fight for survival. The Russians don't want to own the planet.
Translation: "The russians aren't suicidal power-hungry imperialists, just don't fuss them too much and they won't fuss you back." So, again... in other news, water is wet.


Suites states that what most Americans fail to understand is that most of the countries we fear will cease to exist and we won't have to do anything to make it happen. The Russians are killing themselves off through alcoholism and failure to reproduce.

HAHAHAHA! He wishes. By the same standards, USians are killing themselves off through gunfights.


Suits wants the US to makes a deal with Russia. Call the Russians and tell them that if they draw a line around where the Russian populations are, and they agree not to challenge where NATO goes, NATO will not go the areas with Russian populations. Because most NATO countreis are shrinking too and share Russia's problems.
Idiocy. What if Russia declares "Ukraine is Russia"? Or "Georgia is Russia"? Or "Kazakhstan is Russia" (remember, 30% of Kazakhs are ethnically russian). And then the Russians should sit in a prison they've helped to define... while NATO can go around making world policies. Seesh. Like they're going to accept that.


On the other hand, they won't have enough peopleb to cover the social security payments for their aging populations. Germany and Italy are going to implode because of this. All the socialist democracies of Western Europe are beginning to implode of shrinking population growth.

1.There is no shrinking population growth, see data.
2.Socialist democracies of Western Europe? What, Finland and what else?


Suits then comes out and says that America's primary interest is to strengthen ties to other English speaking nations. Because there are no dictatorships on the planet where English is the official language.

Oh well, that's just a second-hand edition of Churchill and the Commonwealth.

Oh, wait, what is the official language of Zimbabwe? What was (one of) the official language(s) of South Africa?


The English countries continue to grow. Canada is growing. New Zealand doesn't really count. Australia was declining but has since stabilized and is currently enjoying positive growth. America is growing. THe United Kingdom is growing in population
So, NZ isn't growing, and Australia wasn't. The UK grows through immigration and cannot survive without EU - they're even switching ideas about the Euro.


That is what seperates them from the rest of Western Europe.
Funny. I thought it was the ocean.


English is the official language in India.

False. It's hindi.



....


Really, this mr.Suites is wrong on oh-so-many grounds, that I'm beginning to feel that I'm wasting my time.

Buon Natale!

You are now begging the very question at the heart of this issue: assimilation. Western Europe is "welcoming" a huge number of "differing peoples" a large percentage of whom are not "assimilating." Not only are Europeans failing to maintain their own numbers, but they are more and more often abandoning their own cultures so as not to "offend" the aliens. In other words, Europeans are all too often "assimilating" themselves to the aliens. Just one recent example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/3545246/School-cancels-Christmas-nativity-in-favour-of-Muslim-Eid-celebrations.html

Europeans are running the risk of becoming minorities in their own nations and allowing their cultures to be dominated by aliens who show little indication of similar "tolerance" should they become the majority and seize power in the countries they have been allowed into.


Again, I'd love for you to point out what this omnipresent "European" culture you've been banging on about. Seems to me that the only people who're concerned about it are people who don't actually love here; I'm pretty sure the common definition of "European" is "Someone who resides within Europe".

End of. Citizenship begins and ends with having a valid passport for a country. Trying to force anything else into it is just thinly veiled racism. But you've already ignored Neo Art's summary of this position.

You are now begging the very question at the heart of this issue: assimilation. Western Europe is "welcoming" a huge number of "differing peoples" a large percentage of whom are not "assimilating." Not only are Europeans failing to maintain their own numbers, but they are more and more often abandoning their own cultures so as not to "offend" the aliens. In other words, Europeans are all too often "assimilating" themselves to the aliens. Just one recent example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/3545246/School-cancels-Christmas-nativity-in-favour-of-Muslim-Eid-celebrations.html

Europeans are running the risk of becoming minorities in their own nations and allowing their cultures to be dominated by aliens who show little indication of similar "tolerance" should they become the majority and seize power in the countries they have been allowed into.

I'm gonna take a wild guess here and say that you actually haven't read the article yourself, you either just liked the headline or found it through some xenophobic blog that liked the headline. Because the article does not say what you seem to think that it says.

Note especially:Yesterday, a statement issued by Greenwood Junior, said: "We would like to apologise for any confusion caused as a result of [the original] letter we sent out and would like to reassure parents and the community that Christmas has not been cancelled at Greenwood Junior School.

"For very practical reasons we have taken the difficult decision to re-arrange some significant events on the school calendar to ensure maximum pupil and staff attendance.”

End of. Citizenship begins and ends with having a valid passport for a country.

...actually, you can have citizenship without having a passport, but I'm just nitpicking :p

Stopped reading after the first paragraph, that was the dumbest thing ive ever heard.

Well that will happen soon. In America the white population is in decline due to low birth rates. (I guess when we know we can't support a child we don't have one, too bad we are the only ones in general) Hispanic people on the other hand are breeding like rabbits (prolly a reason why they tend to be poorer) Soon enough they will be the new majority.
So, the problem with the OP was that it was too long? Excellent summary; he should have run his concept past you before starting the thread. ;) :D

Really? What clan does your non-white, Urdu-speaking, Islamic neighbor descend from? Did his family support or oppose Robert the Bruce? How about Bonnie Prince Charlie? (I am assuming you yourself can claim descent from a Scottish clan; if not, replace "I" with "my white, Scots-speaking, Christian Scottish neighbor".)
I doubt my family could tell whether their ancestors supported Robert the Bruce, Bonnie Prince Charlie or the Act of Union, and if they did, wouldn't care anything over and above normal historical interest. Your're trying to define being Scottish on an racial (which is what we mean by ethnic here) framework that the vast majority of nations do not use, let alone Scots. Given that most people, including myself, come from a large mix of ethnic backgrounds, it would be quite silly to do so.

Your neighbor may be just as much a British subject and resident of Scotland as you, but to suggest that he is "just as Scottish" as you I find hard to take seriously. I would further guess that your neighbor would not consider himself ethnically Scottish either. Ethnic and cultural diffences exist, and no amount of denial will change that fact.
In which case, are African Americans, naturalised US citizens and born and bred Japanese Americans any less 'American'?

Depends on how assimilated he is.
50% assimilated means 50% Scottish?

The whole 'assimilation' nonsense is yet another example of the idiotic mono-cultural position you hold. For example:

If his family has been there since the 1800's, they're probably fully assimilated by now, probably have intermarried with other Scots and self-identify as Scots.
Culture changes, is changing, all the time. One is part of a culture if they have married or have had sexual intercourse with another member of said culture. The people who migrate to Scotland are a part of Scottish culture. Creating some imaginary static group that one can only be a part of if one follows the exact beliefs, shares religion, has the same skin colour etc., is just that: imaginary nonsense.

America is a nation of immigrants and was founded as a nation of immigrants. "American" is a national identity but not an ethnic group. And you can dispense with the race-baiting, please. Black Americans are Americans.
Then why have a problem with black or brown Scots? I'm not baiting you; you hold such a position, and must face it.

Scotland is a nation of immigrants. Japan is a nation of immigrants. Etc. Etc. Etc. All nations are nations of immigrants, whether they migrated yesterday or thousands of years ago.

This is the problem with your whole position; you're creating a fantasy-land where cultures are static and completely non-malleable. These imaginary cultures are nigh-on impossible to join, for one must behave in ways exactly the same as current 'members' of a culture to be 'part' of that culture, and they seem completely oblivious to massive sections of society... what I'd call other sections of culture.

I ignore your talk of aliens taking over European civilisation for the paranoid nonsense it is. If you do wish to discuss such idiotic foolery, there's plenty of people on Stormfront who'd be happy to oblige.

America is a nation of immigrants and was founded as a nation of immigrants. "American" is a national identity but not an ethnic group. And you can dispense with the race-baiting, please. Black Americans are Americans.


Oh really now? Even the ones who voted for The Dark Dark Dark Lord? I thought your contention was that the election heralds civil war between Real Americans (you) and Not-Real Americans (everyone else).

Europeans are running the risk of becoming minorities in their own nations

Why can't you just get with the other racists on this thread who have been arguing the same racist point and say what you mean - White Europeans run the risk of becoming minorities.

All well and good. I like a variety of restaurants too. As long as those restaurants' proprietors, who have come to my country, assimilate to my culture, rather than achieving a position from which to insist that I accommodate them.

lol yes I only go to eating establishments if I know the owner enjoys the same music, art and literature I do.

Does it get lonely for you, too?

IF talking about ethnicity is racism then I guess over 3/4 of the world's population are all evil racists. LOL

Indeed. One of them tried to tell me how they wanted to keep the British race pure. I spent about 5 minutes explaining how there is no British race and the Welsh, English and Scottish races are hardly pure themselves, and unless they tracked everyone's family trees back about 5,000 years then races would end up mixing. He was stumped, but then said, "Yes, but they weren't immigrants." I walked away.

I was gonna say that I was not aware that the British constituted a race. Does no one know the difference between race, ethnicity and nationality anymore? If an ethnic group goes extinct, the nationaity and the race will likely continue on without them. At least in some cases it will.

Any one ever listen to the Bryan Suits...

I have never listened to this 'Bryan Suits', and based on the rubbish that he peddles (if your representation of his material is accurate), that is neither a bad thing, nor a habit I intend to rectify.

The population of a nation dropping to 50%, for example - even if TRUE - does not equate to that nation ceasing to exist, nor to being able to field an army.

This is quickly and easily provable, not through math, but through history.

When the population of the US was half of what it is now, did it 'exist'? Could it 'field an army'?

Countries will not suddenly cease to exist, nor cease to defend their borders, just because their populations drop.

So, after agreeing with the point Chumbly made, you are still going to insist on the point he was debunking? I'm sorry, but what he said does not support what you said and cannot be made to do so.


Your examples are meaningless and irrelevant because you take them out of their historical context. All you are doing is what you did, above, with Chumbly's post, trying to take the argument against you and magically make it support you instead.


No, as I clearly stated, I think the argument that "native" European ethnicities are going to become extinct because they are being outbred by immigrant groups and this is a tragic and lamentable thing is an argument created by racists and xenophobes. And as I stated clearly, I think it is based on pure fantasy in that (a) that is not how cultural shifts happen, (b) European "ethnicities" are not what the supporters of this argument say they are, (c) no European culture is in any danger of becoming extinct, and (d) the kinds of population shifts the argument decries are and always have been the normal and natural operating procedure for human beings.

Any further misreadings of my argument will be a reposting of the above paragraph.


The above paragraph is:

> Non-responsive to what I said. You are ignoring my posts in order to continue repeating your original point. But your point has been debunked. Repeating a wrong argument will not make it right.

> Ignoring history (the history that was pointed out to you) in the same way you are ignoring me, and with the same results. You clearly know nothing about human history. I suggest you learn something about it, unless you enjoy being wrong. Mass migrations across continents have been a constant throughout human history. Just ask the archeologists.

> Nothing more than an anti-immigrant mini-rant.

> Another example of you misusing a term. Tell me, do you not know the difference between "racist" and "xenophobe", or do you deliberately mix them up so that, whatever criticism you get, you can claim it's not accurate? The word for what you describe in that paragraph is "xenophobe", not "racist".

> Just because people only recently got tired of hearing such Know-Nothing crap does not mean it was not crap before.


Oh, so your psychic powers extend to reading the minds of the living as well as communicating with the dead?


Then why are you complaining about them being lost as ethnicities? You have contradicted yourself here, friend, but good. This entire thread, you've been arguing that the ethnicities that founded such countries are becoming extinct. Now you say they never existed in the first place on account of they're not ethnicities -- unless by whatever magical concept of "ethnicity" you've dreamed up for yourself, you think Russians are significantly different from Germans -- or even from Poles or Czechs or Slovaks, none of whom are on the OP endangered species list.

If you're trying that trick of changing the definitions of words on the fly, so that "ethnicity" means what you want it to but only when you want it to, you will fail in this debate.


Projecting much? Just because YOU might be obsessed with skin color and national origin and just because YOU don't know what an ethnicity is, that doesn't mean nobody else does. I will thank you to quit presuming to speak for the majority of Americans. And I'll take the liberty of asking on behalf of Mexicans that you cut out making claims about what they know or don't know, too.

When you talk about what other people think, you only demonstrate how comfortable you are arguing from a position of ignorance.


Bullshit. There is no such group. If you think there are, name them.


Do you end all your posts with a pointless ramble of extra words?

Hmmm. I beginning to think you are the real racist. You won't listen to reality. lol

Funny that you claim to speak for all the Mexicans. Because, being from Southern California, most of my friends are of Mexican heritiage and they happen to agree with me. Even Mexicans I meet on the street tend to agree with me. It's only the racists who insist that I'm wrong. You know, that ones who claim that all of North America belongs to Mexico, etc. After all, the motto "La Raza" is nothing more than the Mexican version of Hitler's rants about saving Germany for the "pure" German race.

Are you telling me that my Mexican heritage friends are wrong?

You are wrong about the history of mass transcontinental migrations. You are certainly reading the history of the world wrong. We didn't get mass transit until relatively recently in terms of the whole of human history.

Unlike you, I don't claim to speak on behalf of an entire nationality, I can only speak for myself and for my friends.

People who insist on homogeneity tend to be racist and xenophobic. There is no reason why different cultures can exist in the same country. No where did I say the contrary.

So you wish all the white ethnicities to die because they are all inherently evil. Hmmm. And that doesn't sound racist?

You object to people wanting to preserve any ethnic group, even if its not their own? You must be because you said it is racist and xenophobic to bring up the fact that white populations are declining due to lack of children while other races are succeeding because they are having children. I simplly state the facts as they are. If breeding is the determination of what makes a master race, then I'd have to say that people who are immigrants are the master race. Now doesn't that sound pretty racist?????

Was there a point to the rest of your post??????
It sounded like useless dribble.

THe only person I see talking about master races and superiority stuff is you.

I think the US used to have laws wiht a similar effect, but they were repealed, or just now unenforced, as being discriminatory -- against liars, apparently.

Or it could be, as you keep insisting, irrationally, that any one who talks about demographics and ethnicities is a racist and should be banned from radio because you don't agree with them.

Fortunately in America, there is a thing called free press. As I'm sure there is in Europe too.

Suits is not on in the UK because the UK has its own radio programs. I'm sure there are plenty of Americans shows being broadcast there just as there a couple of British shows that we get in some parts of America.

So you wish all the white ethnicities to die because they are all inherently evil.

lol whut?

I read her post twice and didn't see that at all. You're just trolling now.

Was there a point to the rest of your post??????
It sounded like useless dribble.

That sound was actually the sound of your argument shattering into a million pieces and you helplessly flamebaiting in response.

Which was in fact the point.

I suppose, but they're one of the more isolated tribes in the world. How about those Brazilians on the news a couple of months ago? They were completely isolated.

They dont count. Anyone who thinks differences are cool, is a raicst. LOL

The only reason the U.S. population is growing is that we allow immigrants to come here. Otherwise we would be at zero population growth or even negative. That's not just whites either, it's everyone who's a born citizen here.

The former Communist countries are experiencing a negative population growth because they are POOR. Because they tried that "free market capitalist" crap and it failed miserably for them. Give them an opportunity to make a real living and watch that turn around.

In any case I see nothing wrong with populations shrinking. In case you've missed the news, we've got a little bit of an overpopulation problem. Expect populations in developing countries to shrink as well, not because they're poor or diseased but because they're gaining wealth and education. Better that we should do it voluntarily than that we should be forced into it.

Besides, are the numbers for Russia and Ukraine accurate? Do they take into account all the children in orphanages? Do those count as part of the birthrate?

Depends on how assimilated he is. If his family has been there since the 1800's, they're probably fully assimilated by now, probably have intermarried with other Scots and self-identify as Scots.


Which brings to my mind an interesting question - 3 generations back, one of my great-grandparents was born-and-bred 'Scottish'. Her daughter was born in England, after she married a Yorkshireman. How 'scottish' was she?

What about in my generation, when the family exists not only throughout the UK, but across the globe, a merre three generations later.

What about me - living in the US, but not speaking a Navaho or Cherokee or Lakota tongue?

How about all the other ex-Euro's now dwelling in the Americas, almost completely ignorant of the culture they chose, collectively, not to assimilate into?


America is a nation of immigrants and was founded as a nation of immigrants.


All nations are nations of immigrants. Population is not static, and never has been.


You are now begging the very question at the heart of this issue: assimilation. Western Europe is "welcoming" a huge number of "differing peoples" a large percentage of whom are not "assimilating." Not only are Europeans failing to maintain their own numbers, but they are more and more often abandoning their own cultures so as not to "offend" the aliens. In other words, Europeans are all too often "assimilating" themselves to the aliens.

Europeans are running the risk of becoming minorities in their own nations


How can Europeans be minorities in their own nations? Spain is going to suddenly stop being Spain if the demographics shift? No - it'll still be Spain. Maybe the borders will change, maybe the demographics will change, maybe the nation will fragment into two, or assimilate a neighbour - that's the nature of national reality.

And, that's what's been happening in Europe for thousands of years. That's what happens everywhere.

Look at England. (A good example because it's fairly isolated, so it's borders are historically a lot more clearly defined than a lot of Europe)... a 'pagan' nation gone Christian. Which are the pure people? The Britons? Angles? Vikings? Romans? Normans? The language is Germanic...

Europe has never been static. It's population has changed and moved. It's cultures have changed and moved. It has assimilated outsiders, and it has adapted to outsiders. That is what a European is - a child of millenia of assimilation and accomodation. There is no such thing as a 'minority' European, or a 'majority' European, except in nationalist rhetoric.

You are wrong about the history of mass transcontinental migrations. You are certainly reading the history of the world wrong. We didn't get mass transit until relatively recently in terms of the whole of human history.


Mass immigration/invasion are nothing new, though.

According to Bede, the 'Angles' in English history literally picked up their entire people - lock, stock and barrel - and relocated to the nation that now bears the historical trace of their immigration/invasion.

If that's not 'mass' transit, then what is it?


You must be because you said it is racist and xenophobic to bring up the fact that white populations are declining due to lack of children


I think it was probably more an objection to the implications and the phrasing.


It sounded like useless dribble.


Drivel.

They dont count. Anyone who thinks differences are cool, is a raicst. LOL

Only if they believe those 'differences' are meaningful, give some kind of inherent knowledge about the sort of people you are judging... and should be preserved in status quo.

So - "I love Tabi's skin, it is the most beautiful ebony" is probably not a racist sentiment, despite being about a 'difference'.

On the other hand "Tabi should go back to the trees with her grandparents, and get the hell out of America", probably is.

I doubt my family could tell whether their ancestors supported Robert the Bruce, Bonnie Prince Charlie or the Act of Union, and if they did, wouldn't care anything over and above normal historical interest. Your're trying to define being Scottish on an racial (which is what we mean by ethnic here) framework that the vast majority of nations do not use, let alone Scots. Given that most people, including myself, come from a large mix of ethnic backgrounds, it would be quite silly to do so.


In which case, are African Americans, naturalised US citizens and born and bred Japanese Americans any less 'American'?

Ethnicity is not race. Race is not ethnicity.
Mixing of ethnicity, creates new ethnicities that shares traits of the old ethnicities.

Globalization is an entirely white American construct. They invented because they don't like that there are non whites, non Americans, who are prospering and hence, everyone must become Americanized or face the threat of an American mlitary invasion on the grounds that non Americans are racist for not being culturally American.

Globalization itself is a racist, xenophobic, imperialistic concept. It requires the world be culturally and ethnically Americanized. Thank God for people like Chavez, Ahmad, Jiang, Kim Jung Ill, Putin and the like who refuse to accept American domination. While I disagree with their politics, it can be appreciated that at at least they are not trying to force homogeniety on the world.

Globalization is an entirely white American construct. They invented because they don't like that there are non whites, non Americans, who are prospering

...





I think you need to go easy on the eggnog.

Globalization is an entirely white American construct. They invented because they don't like that there are non whites, non Americans, who are prospering and hence, everyone must become Americanized or face the threat of an American mlitary invasion on the grounds that non Americans are racist for not being culturally American.

Globalization itself is a racist, xenophobic, imperialistic concept. It requires the world be culturally and ethnically Americanized. Thank God for people like Chavez, Ahmad, Jiang, Kim Jung Ill, Putin and the like who refuse to accept American domination. While I disagree with their politics, it can be appreciated that at at least they are not trying to force homogeniety on the world.

Don't they teach history in schools where you come from?

American 'globalisation' is the bastard-stepchild - and, in fact, the direct result of - European globalisation with centuries of pedigree.

Fortunately in America, there is a thing called free press. As I'm sure there is in Europe too.
Yeah, we also have journalistic standards, though.

Mass immigration/invasion are nothing new, though.

According to Bede, the 'Angles' in English history literally picked up their entire people - lock, stock and barrel - and relocated to the nation that now bears the historical trace of their immigration/invasion.

If that's not 'mass' transit, then what is it?



I think it was probably more an objection to the implications and the phrasing.



Drivel.

Ditto.

By mass transit I'm referring to the modern practice of groups of people getting on a plane and say going from Japan to Hawaii and then becoming the majority over night.
Historically this has not been happening. Historically, migrations have been a slow and gradual process.

I think she is wrong about what she thought I was implying. I thought she was calling me a racist for summarizing Mr. Suits views and asking for comments. on it.

I get that some think that Mr. Suits is racist from the op. In fact, when I cited his statement about the English countries, I deliberately left out Zimbabwe, which we all know, is an english speaking dictatorship. A racist dictatorship at that. I wanted to see if anyone noticed. But no one has brought it up :(

I should probably phrase it better.

BTW, how can I be white racist/xenophobe if I'm Native American??????

About Britain. You left out that Britain's boundaries were not always what they are today. Britain onced owned half of France and even owned most of the planet at one point. I think there is reason that historians call the British Empire the largest empire to ever exist.

Britain onced owned half of France.
Whether it was half of France ruling Britain or Britain ruling half of France would have been a pretty fair question at the time.

Only if they believe those 'differences' are meaningful, give some kind of inherent knowledge about the sort of people you are judging... and should be preserved in status quo.

So - "I love Tabi's skin, it is the most beautiful ebony" is probably not a racist sentiment, despite being about a 'difference'.

On the other hand "Tabi should go back to the trees with her grandparents, and get the hell out of America", probably is.

I would hope the latter attitude wouldn't have any chance of becoming public policy. I am all for immigration/assimilition. I even support the borrowing of ideas from immigrants. It's just that there are certain ideas cultural concepts that immigrants should not be allowed to bring with them, and that locals should not be allowed to adopt: IE: religious radicalism, racism, hate, rape, gangbanging, slavery, violent tendencies. I would think those are things we want to keep out of our countries where as things like hard working, artistically talented, compassionate, etc are things we want people to bring with them when they immigrate to our countries.

Is there anything wrong with not wanting immigrants to bring a culture of slavery or wackoism with them to your country to impose those cultures on the host people's???

Fortunately most immigrants don't support slavery or religious fundamentalism.
They tend to assimilate over time. But then again, there are people who think assimiliation equals racism/ xenophobia.

Yeah, we also have journalistic standards, though.

Suits is not a journalist. He's a radio commentator paid to espouse his personal views on the radio. Most of America's programs are nonnews programs. They are people giving commentaries. If you want news, you watch world news tongiht or CNN Headlines.
All else is personal commentary about the news.
Just like Rush is not a journalist. He's a paid commentator. People pay money to hear their views.

Hardly anyone pays to watch the news because, news on American radio and TV is always gloomy. It's always "something bad is happening here and something bad happening there and 5 million people died today and more will die tomorrow. Americans don't like watching or listening to bad news. So they tend to avoid and let commentators interpret it for them.

I'm sure its possible that once reporters start reporting positive stuff people will start watching real news but that is unlikely if the networks are to be believied.

I heard about Russia's population woes several months ago, theres a fair about it on the internet.

The Russian government is taking it quite seriously and started a programme to combat the issue which include the following;

*State benefits (as already stated) for new parents.
*Days off work to encourage couples to try for a child.
*Bunch of freebies for new mothers (new car, etc).
*Special 'summer camps' (look up the details yourself).

I heard about Russia's population woes several months ago, theres a fair about it on the internet.

The Russian government is taking it quite seriously and started a programme to combat the issue which include the following;

*State benefits (as already stated) for new parents.
*Days off work to encourage couples to try for a child.
*Bunch of freebies for new mothers (new car, etc).
*Special 'summer camps' (look up the details yourself).

Dam it. Why can't Native Americans get those things. :mad:

IF talking about ethnicity is racism then I guess over 3/4 of the world's population are all evil racists. LOL

Is anybody claiming this?

BTW, how can I be white racist/xenophobe if I'm Native American??????

What?

*Linkage* (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-471324/Sex-motherland-Russian-youths-encouraged-procreate-camp.html)

Info on the 'summer camps'.

I was making a point with the talking about declining ethnicities equals raicsm remark.

Mur. seemed to be implying I was a white racist. How can that be if I'm Native American. My people were almost rendered extinct by the combination punch of the Americans and their Mexican allies.
You know, "let's get together and kill off the indians and take their land and then say they never existed." lol

First we got screwed by the Spanish, then it was the Mexicans, and then it was the Americans. All them thinking their ethnicity/culture was superior to ours and that that justified wiping out Native Americans.

My neighbor is also Native American. He is Shoshone/Gabrieleno. The Mexicans pretty much rendered his people extinct.
Native Americans have a unique understanding of what it means when your culture/ethnicity is killed off by large numbers of immigrants who think they are better than you.

By mass transit I'm referring to the modern practice of groups of people getting on a plane and say going from Japan to Hawaii and then becoming the majority over night.
Historically this has not been happening. Historically, migrations have been a slow and gradual process.


On the contrary - I actually already provided an example of EXACTLY that happening - Bede's account of the Angles migrating to/invading (what is now) England.


I think she is wrong about what she thought I was implying. I thought she was calling me a racist for summarizing Mr. Suits views and asking for comments. on it.


No - it's probably things like this: "If Italians are really worried about being taken over by the immigrants, they should fight fire with fire. Have more sex, have more children. That is how the immigrants are able to take over. They have no qualms about shacking up and having kids. White families tend to have only 1 child if any. Most of the time, they are busy aborting children. Immigrants, whether North Africans or Latin Americans, tend to cherish children and as such it is common to see up to 12 children in a single household".

...which is pretty much packed full with negative stereotyping, racial pre-judgment and xenophobia.


BTW, how can I be white racist/xenophobe if I'm Native American??????


Have you seen the movie "The Believer"? It's about a Neo-Nazi who also just happens to be Jewish. It's even based on a real person, although the story is somewhat reimagined.


About Britain. You left out that Britain's boundaries were not always what they are today. Britain onced owned half of France and even owned most of the planet at one point. I think there is reason that historians call the British Empire the largest empire to ever exist.

I didn't mention Britain. I was talking about England.

I didn't mention Britain. I was talking about England.

Does it really matter if you say England, Britain or even the UK?

It is pretty much the same thing, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all ruled by a central government and along with England are pretty much all part of the same country despite the first three having limited form of home rule.

I would hope the latter attitude wouldn't have any chance of becoming public policy. I am all for immigration/assimilition. I even support the borrowing of ideas from immigrants. It's just that there are certain ideas cultural concepts that immigrants should not be allowed to bring with them, and that locals should not be allowed to adopt: IE: religious radicalism, racism, hate, rape, gangbanging, slavery, violent tendencies.


Ah. The sampler plate that Europeans brought with them for the Native Americans to try?

Here's a crazy thing - we refer to 'ethnic' minorities. A curious artifact of the English-speaking peoples, in general, is that we never consider ourselves 'ethnic'. And we don't assimilate well.


I would think those are things we want to keep out of our countries where as things like hard working, artistically talented, compassionate, etc are things we want people to bring with them when they immigrate to our countries.


None of which are racial or ethnic characteristics.


Fortunately most immigrants don't support slavery or religious fundamentalism.
They tend to assimilate over time. But then again, there are people who think assimiliation equals racism/ xenophobia.

Assimilation that is compulsary certainly sounds like xenophobia, doesn't it? Fear of that which is alien?

Assimilation isn't one way, and you seem to be implying it either is or should be. You seem to be saying that the 'foreigner' has to adopt the customs and language of the majority - but in reality, assimilation has always been a two-way road. The reason the English language is dominant now, is that it is a product of millenia of this kind of equilibrium-assimilation.

Does it really matter if you say England, Britain or even the UK?

It is pretty much the same thing, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all ruled by a central government and along with England are pretty much all part of the same country despite the first three having limited form of home rule.

It absolutely matters because I was specifically talking about England as being fairly isolated, and talking about it's borders.

If I'm talking about the specific borders of England, then alternating the phrase with British/Britain, or the UK, is somewhere between merely confusing, and entirely wrong.

I was making a point with the talking about declining ethnicities equals raicsm remark.
You really wasn't.

Mur. seemed to be implying I was a white racist. How can that be if I'm Native American.
You may have a difficulot time being "white", but being a racist is by no means incompatible by being a Native American.

I was making a point with the talking about declining ethnicities equals raicsm remark.

Mur. seemed to be implying I was a white racist. How can that be if I'm Native American. My people were almost rendered extinct by the combination punch of the Americans and their Mexican allies.
You know, "let's get together and kill off the indians and take their land and then say they never existed." lol

First we got screwed by the Spanish, then it was the Mexicans, and then it was the Americans. All them thinking their ethnicity/culture was superior to ours and that that justified wiping out Native Americans.

My neighbor is also Native American. He is Shoshone/Gabrieleno. The Mexicans pretty much rendered his people extinct.
Native Americans have a unique understanding of what it means when your culture/ethnicity is killed off by large numbers of immigrants who think they are better than you.

Hardly unique. But not the point.

The European migration into the Americas over the last few centuries was pretty much a genocide.

The current migrations in Europe, Russia, the Americas, the world... tend not to follow that pattern.

You are equating birthrates... with Manifest Destiny.

You may have a difficulot time being "white", but being a racist is by no means incompatible by being a Native American.

My wife and her sister are fairly visible as Native American, but their brother wouldn't stand out in a lineup of 'good ol' boys'. And he's a racist asshole.

It absolutely matters because I was specifically talking about England as being fairly isolated, and talking about it's borders.

If I'm talking about the specific borders of England, then alternating the phrase with British/Britain, or the UK, is somewhere between merely confusing, and entirely wrong.

How so?

England is part of a country rather than a state in its own right, its borders is the same as the borders of the UK/Britain.

I've been here all my life and thats how I've always been taught to view it as.

*Linkage* (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-471324/Sex-motherland-Russian-youths-encouraged-procreate-camp.html)

Info on the 'summer camps'.

Now who was it that said World War III was just around the corner.

How so?

England is part of a country rather than a state in its own right, its borders is the same as the borders of the UK/Britain.

I've been here all my life and thats how I've always been taught to view it as.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England


England is a country. As are Scotland and Wales.

Great Britain is an island. This island contains three of the four UK countries.

The UK consists of two islands, and four specific territories - the British countries, and Northern Ireland.

On the contrary - I actually already provided an example of EXACTLY that happening - Bede's account of the Angles migrating to/invading (what is now) England.



No - it's probably things like this: "If Italians are really worried about being taken over by the immigrants, they should fight fire with fire. Have more sex, have more children. That is how the immigrants are able to take over. They have no qualms about shacking up and having kids. White families tend to have only 1 child if any. Most of the time, they are busy aborting children. Immigrants, whether North Africans or Latin Americans, tend to cherish children and as such it is common to see up to 12 children in a single household".

...which is pretty much packed full with negative stereotyping, racial pre-judgment and xenophobia.



Have you seen the movie "The Believer"? It's about a Neo-Nazi who also just happens to be Jewish. It's even based on a real person, although the story is somewhat reimagined.




I didn't mention Britain. I was talking about England.

YOu make a valid point but if she wanted to accuse me of racism, she should have accused me of anti white racism. Because the negative racial stereotyping was aimed at the whites, not the immigrants. Though the only negative blanket stereoptype in there is the one where I said white people are too busy killing babies to cherish them.
What is wrong with saying Italians should have more babies if they are really worried about not being around in a century or so?

How nice. Unfortunately, I actually despise the Whites because of what they did. But that doesn't mean I want them extinct. It doesn't mean I want them deported. Look at the history of my people. I have cause to be angry with the Whites just as I have cause to be angry with the Mexicans. But that doesn't mean I think they should be allowed to go extinct.
But then again, some people have hopeless habits that it would futile to spend resources on them to keep them around. (alcoholism, drug usage, abortionism, religious wackoism that bars sex, etc.)

Fair dues.

Though the only problem is any issue effecting England effects the rest of the UK, its just easier to say UK or Britain.

As a related note, I'm part-Welsh and part-English...yet like many people I actually consider myself British.

Its easier that way especially since British has become interchangable with English and vice versa.

My wife and her sister are fairly visible as Native American, but their brother wouldn't stand out in a lineup of 'good ol' boys'. And he's a racist asshole.

Well, you know how the old saying goes: "Regardless of race, colour, gender, language, religion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status; an asshole is an asshole."

I must say, I'm still surprised that some people express the idea that only white people can be racists. Humans doesn't work that way, unfortunately.

Ah. The sampler plate that Europeans brought with them for the Native Americans to try?

Here's a crazy thing - we refer to 'ethnic' minorities. A curious artifact of the English-speaking peoples, in general, is that we never consider ourselves 'ethnic'. And we don't assimilate well.



None of which are racial or ethnic characteristics.



Assimilation that is compulsary certainly sounds like xenophobia, doesn't it? Fear of that which is alien?

Assimilation isn't one way, and you seem to be implying it either is or should be. You seem to be saying that the 'foreigner' has to adopt the customs and language of the majority - but in reality, assimilation has always been a two-way road. The reason the English language is dominant now, is that it is a product of millenia of this kind of equilibrium-assimilation.

True. Yet, the native population should not be forced by law nor by employers to adopt the language of the immigrants. Because then you are implying that the immigrants are not equal but superior and have more rights.
They can speak their language and have their nonviolent, nonradical customs as long as they dont go trying to force on the local natives.

My people are fully aware of the history of the Whites in this land. Now the Mexicans are doing the same to them, as are the Asians and other groups. It's called Karma.
Just like when the Mexicans illegally invaded and stole the southwest from th Native Americans and then the Americans came and invaded them and took over the Southwest. That was Karma.

How nice. Unfortunately, I actually despise the Whites because of what they did. But that doesn't mean I want them extinct. It doesn't mean I want them deported. Look at the history of my people. I have cause to be angry with the Whites just as I have cause to be angry with the Mexicans. But that doesn't mean I think they should be allowed to go extinct.

Are you angry at what long-dead white people did to your people back in the last millennium, or are you angry at white people living today for what other long-dead white people did to your ancestors back in the day?

Do you currently despise "The whites" as a group?

My people are fully aware of the history of the Whites in this land. Now the Mexicans are doing the same to them, as are the Asians and other groups. It's called Karma.

There's a genocide of whites by Mexicans going on in the US today?

Are you angry at what long-dead white people did to your people back in the last millennium, or are you angry at white people living today for what other long-dead white people did to your ancestors back in the day?

Do you currently despise "The whites" as a group?

Actually I do. On the inside. I just have a habit of supressing it in RL. I know it doesn't apply to all white people. That is why I supress it. Emotions are emotions. all you can do is supress them.
I am not the only one. A lot of people blame the whites for all the evil on earth. They are the ones who caused global warming, they created the threat of nuclear destruction, they created genocide and modern slavery. What good thing have whites, as a group, really done???

So uh, how long are you going to continue completely ignoring everything I post, UnitedStatesOfAmerica-?

Because you're doing this thing where you make an argument, I rebutt it (along with many other), you ignore the rebuttals, and continue on as if no one had said anything, repeat until vomit is induced into anyone reading.

What good thing have whites, as a group, really done???

Eradicated Smallpox. Next Question.

No. Mexicans are illegallly entering American land and insisting that their language be spoken and their culture be adopted by the locals.

That's the Karma I was talking about.

But since you mentioned it, there are Mexican immigrants going around killing Americans.
Karma.

No. Mexicans are illegallly entering American land and insisting that their language be spoken and their culture be adopted by the locals.

That's the Karma I was talking about.

Oh, the old "lol illegal immigration is just like the rape, pillage and conquest of the New World" meme. I suppose you'll repeat this for the next hundred posts until you find something else patently absurd to spew.

YOu make a valid point but if she wanted to accuse me of racism, she should have accused me of anti white racism.


Racism is racism.

If you're an 'anti-white racist'... you're still a racist.


Because the negative racial stereotyping was aimed at the whites, not the immigrants. Though the only negative blanket stereoptype in there is the one where I said white people are too busy killing babies to cherish them.


The idea that 'white' people can't cherish babies is a negative stereotype.

The idea that non-white households are going to be brimming over with '12 babies' is a negative stereotype.

The idea that Italians are in some kind of war (fight fire with fire... taken over) is pretty xenophobic.

"That is how the immigrants are able to take over" is fairly negative and pretty xenophobic. It's also a stereotype, suggesting that immigrant families are popping-out babies as a way of beating the system.


What is wrong with saying Italians should have more babies if they are really worried about not being around in a century or so?


Apart from the fact that it's nonsensical? The 'Italian' population of today is not the exact same population as two thousand years ago. Even the 'Romans' as we call them, were three peoples. 'Italians' of the twenty-second-century will be 'Italians', just as 'Italians' of the Second century were... no matter what gods they worship/worshipped/will worship, or what colour of skin.


How nice. Unfortunately, I actually despise the Whites because of what they did. But that doesn't mean I want them extinct. It doesn't mean I want them deported. Look at the history of my people. I have cause to be angry with the Whites


No, you 'have cause' to be angry with a whole lot of people that have been dead for a whole lot of time. You have an excuse to be angry with 'the Whites'.


...just as I have cause to be angry with the Mexicans. But that doesn't mean I think they should be allowed to go extinct.
But then again, some people have hopeless habits that it would futile to spend resources on them to keep them around. (alcoholism, drug usage, abortionism, religious wackoism that bars sex, etc.)

None of which are inherent (or exclusive) in 'being White'.

Eradicated Smallpox. Next Question.

they get no points for that because they not only created smallpox but that was one of the weapons they used to kill Native Americans.

they get no points for that because they not only created smallpox but that was one of the weapons they used to kill Native Americans.

Interesting theory you have there. I believe Tom Cruise is interested in making a movie out of it.

True. Yet, the native population should not be forced by law nor by employers to adopt the language of the immigrants. Because then you are implying that the immigrants are not equal but superior and have more rights.


On the other hand, forcing immigrants to - for example - learn the langauge of the native population... must similarly mean that the 'natives' are superior?


They can speak their language and have their nonviolent, nonradical customs as long as they dont go trying to force on the local natives.


And the natives can speak their language and have their nonviolent, nonradical customs as long as they don't go trying to force them on the immigrants?

Interesting theory you have there. I believe Tom Cruise is interested in making a movie out of it.

I have a theory. He's a troll.

The poster that is, not Tom Cruise.

they get no points for that because they not only created smallpox but that was one of the weapons they used to kill Native Americans.

Errr... how exactly did they create smallpox?

Racism is racism.

If you're an 'anti-white racist'... you're still a racist.



The idea that 'white' people can't cherish babies is a negative stereotype.

The idea that non-white households are going to be brimming over with '12 babies' is a negative stereotype.

The idea that Italians are in some kind of war (fight fire with fire... taken over) is pretty xenophobic.

"That is how the immigrants are able to take over" is fairly negative and pretty xenophobic. It's also a stereotype, suggesting that immigrant families are popping-out babies as a way of beating the system.



Apart from the fact that it's nonsensical? The 'Italian' population of today is not the exact same population as two thousand years ago. Even the 'Romans' as we call them, were three peoples. 'Italians' of the twenty-second-century will be 'Italians', just as 'Italians' of the Second century were... no matter what gods they worship/worshipped/will worship, or what colour of skin.



No, you 'have cause' to be angry with a whole lot of people that have been dead for a whole lot of time. You have an excuse to be angry with 'the Whites'.



None of which are inherent (or exclusive) in 'being White'.

How is having 12 babies in your family a negative stereotype. In my culture having many children is a positive and looked upon favorably. Ethnic groups and cultures where families are allowed to have many children are looked upon favorably.

If popping out babies helps you survive in the majority culture, then that is actually a positive. After all, if you get more welfare from the government for having more children, then you should have more children.

How is having 12 babies in your family a negative stereotype. In my culture having many children is a positive and looked upon favorably. Ethnic groups and cultures where families are allowed to have many children are looked upon favorably.

If popping out babies helps you survive in the majority culture, then that is actually a positive. After all, if you get more welfare from the government for having more children, then you should have more children.

I think you're a troll.

If you'd left it at the 'having many children is a positive', I might have bought it. It would differ from my wife's people, who DO consider many children a blessing, but not in some mathematic progression where two equals good, so four must be better, and being pregnant every day until you die must be best.

But, sorry... I just don't buy the welfare parasite as tribal morality bit.

Errr... how exactly did they create smallpox?

They brougth it with them to the america's to use as a weapon so they can that which did not belong to them to begin with.

I think you're a troll.

If you'd left it at the 'having many children is a positive', I might have bought it. It would differ from my wife's people, who DO consider many children a blessing, but not in some mathematic progression where two equals good, so four must be better, and being pregnant every day until you die must be best.

But, sorry... I just don't buy the welfare parasite as tribal morality bit.

Oh. So putting in a specific number makes it negative? Suppose I want 20 children. I think that is good number. And then I say the immigrants who like children will have 20 per household. That is negative stereotyping???

Actaully, I do want 20 children. Even if i have to bang different women to get to that number.

I would do it with my wife but unfortunately she was gangraped and buried alive in the Mojave Desert by a white man and his three Mexican friends.
Mexico won't hand them over because they won't accept that three of their citizens should be subject to American laws. The white guy got off on some stupid technicality because the Prosecutor, another dumb white, screwed up.
So the whole genocide by the whites thing, is, for me, about more than just a bunch of dead people.
I am not supposed to hate them for that????

I am not supposed to hate them for that????

"The Whites"? No.

I have a theory. He's a troll.

The poster that is, not Tom Cruise.

Of course. We all know that Tom isn't a troll.

He does have a nasty tendency to flame, though...

So the whole genocide by the whites thing, is, for me, about more than just a bunch of dead people.
I am not supposed to hate them for that????


I think you're a racist:
bad people who are white and have Mexican friends =/= white people are evil

also, you speak a lot of malarky:
European immigrants who carried smallpox to America =/= Europeans used smallpox to commit genocide against the current natives

You shouldn't hate an entire population because some people from said population did horrible things.
=[

They brougth it with them to the america's to use as a weapon so they can that which did not belong to them to begin with.

The pilgrims brought smallpox as a weapon? No - they 'brought it' because the christian belief that sex doesn't happen if you pretend it doesn't... ISN'T an effective barrier method.

And pure and chaste though they may have claimed to be, the European forerunners traditionally accompanied trade and mission work with equal shares of indiscriminate butchery and knobbing any natives that would hold still long enough.

Weapons, there were. Smallpox, not one of them.

Oh. So putting in a specific number makes it negative? Suppose I want 20 children. I think that is good number. And then I say the immigrants who like children will have 20 per household. That is negative stereotyping???

Actaully, I do want 20 children. Even if i have to bang different women to get to that number.

Putting in a specific number isn't the problem. But, if you have to ask...

I would do it with my wife but unfortunately she was gangraped and buried alive in the Mojave Desert by a white man and his three Mexican friends.
Mexico won't hand them over because they won't accept that three of their citizens should be subject to American laws. The white guy got off on some stupid technicality because the Prosecutor, another dumb white, screwed up.
So the whole genocide by the whites thing, is, for me, about more than just a bunch of dead people.
I am not supposed to hate them for that????

Random, unconvincing trolling. And an appeal to emoption. Yum.

As for an answer to the original statement/question/wall of horrid text even after being edited, although good sport for bothering editing it I guess maybe/thingy...

Demographics will change - as we are humanity (: the countries/states themselves in question however don't seem likely to cease to exist.

"The Whites"? No.

why not ? you would feel no animosity toward them?

The pilgrims brought smallpox as a weapon? No - they 'brought it' because the christian belief that sex doesn't happen if you pretend it doesn't... ISN'T an effective barrier method.

And pure and chaste though they may have claimed to be, the European forerunners traditionally accompanied trade and mission work with equal shares of indiscriminate butchery and knobbing any natives that would hold still long enough.

Weapons, there were. Smallpox, not one of them.

Then why did they give blankets to native americans? Blankets the whites knew were infected with smallpox? They clearly intended it as a weapon.

why not ? you would feel no animosity toward them?

"The Whites" as a group? Simply on account of the colour of their skin, no matter where in the world you bump into them? Untold millions of people, young and old, from all walks of life? No. That would be silly.

Then why did they give blankets to native americans? Blankets the whites knew were infected with smallpox? They clearly intended it as a weapon.

I assume we're talking about Amherst - who was, of course, British?

There are a couple of conflicting issues on the story... Amherst actually talks about innoculating the natives. The denizens of Fort Pitt were already suffering from an outbreak of smallpox (as surviving medical records show). The fact that Amherst also talks about hunting the natives according to the 'Spanish Method' (i.e. with dogs and armed hunters), and other letters where he talks about infecting the natives with smallpox muddy the issue.

What we DO know, is that we are talking about one British commander, and one specific response to an uprising in the wake of the French losses in Canada. It's worth remembering that the bulk of tribes (mainly, with the exception of the Iroquois) either opted out of supporting the British in the conflicts (three tribes), or actively sided with the French in the 8 year long 'French and Indian War'.

It is also worth bearing in mind that Smallpox had actually struck the Great Lakes area 6 years BEFORE the blanket story (winter 1757 - the blanket story takes place in 1763).

It's okay to think Amherst was an asshole. He was, there's little doubt. You can even say he possibly intended germ warfare.

But the reality is - smallpox was mainly spread by personal contact, had already been transmitted through the Native AND French AND English populations of the area... and that the plans of one man (and the acts of those who followed his orders) do not constitute 'the Whites'.

why not ? you would feel no animosity toward them?

I have Jewish grandparents and Gypsy grandparents. I lost relatives in WW2 (which is more current, not that that is relevant). I feel no animosity towards Germans (or Austrians). What is done is done.

Hmmm. I beginning to think you are the real racist. You won't listen to reality. lol

Funny that you claim to speak for all the Mexicans.
A lie. I never said did any such thing. Fail.

Because, being from Southern California, most of my friends are of Mexican heritiage and they happen to agree with me. Even Mexicans I meet on the street tend to agree with me. It's only the racists who insist that I'm wrong. You know, that ones who claim that all of North America belongs to Mexico, etc. After all, the motto "La Raza" is nothing more than the Mexican version of Hitler's rants about saving Germany for the "pure" German race.

Are you telling me that my Mexican heritage friends are wrong?
Claim of authority based on apocryphal anecdotes. Fail.

You are wrong about the history of mass transcontinental migrations. You are certainly reading the history of the world wrong. We didn't get mass transit until relatively recently in terms of the whole of human history.
False. Already addressed. Redundancy = fail.

Unlike you, I don't claim to speak on behalf of an entire nationality, I can only speak for myself and for my friends.
Another lie. I never did any such thing. Fail.

People who insist on homogeneity tend to be racist and xenophobic. There is no reason why different cultures can exist in the same country. No where did I say the contrary.

So you wish all the white ethnicities to die because they are all inherently evil. Hmmm. And that doesn't sound racist?

You object to people wanting to preserve any ethnic group, even if its not their own? You must be because you said it is racist and xenophobic to bring up the fact that white populations are declining due to lack of children while other races are succeeding because they are having children. I simplly state the facts as they are. If breeding is the determination of what makes a master race, then I'd have to say that people who are immigrants are the master race. Now doesn't that sound pretty racist?????

Was there a point to the rest of your post??????
It sounded like useless dribble.

THe only person I see talking about master races and superiority stuff is you.
Lies and flamebaiting. I never said any of the things you claim, and those heaping doses of personal attacks (based on nothing) = Fail.

Or it could be, as you keep insisting, irrationally, that any one who talks about demographics and ethnicities is a racist and should be banned from radio because you don't agree with them. <snip>
Another lie. Another fail.


I was making a point with the talking about declining ethnicities equals raicsm remark.

Mur. seemed to be implying I was a white racist. How can that be if I'm Native American. <snip>
I implied nothing. Another fail.

YOu make a valid point but if she wanted to accuse me of racism, she should have accused me of anti white racism. <snip>
I say what I want, and I say what I mean. If your words won't fit into my mouth, that's not my problem.

So uh, how long are you going to continue completely ignoring everything I post, UnitedStatesOfAmerica-?

Because you're doing this thing where you make an argument, I rebutt it (along with many other), you ignore the rebuttals, and continue on as if no one had said anything, repeat until vomit is induced into anyone reading.
Failed troll is obvious troll. He can't answer your posts. That's why he isn't answering them.

"The Whites" as a group? Simply on account of the colour of their skin, no matter where in the world you bump into them? Untold millions of people, young and old, from all walks of life? No. That would be silly.

Then Neither Should I.
There are certain whites I don't feel comfortable around. Just as there are certain Mexicans I am not comfortable around. But as I posted previously, most of my friends are Mexicans.
I know my feelings contradict what I know about people. That is why I avoid them. Emotions always lead to wars and resentments.

I have Jewish grandparents and Gypsy grandparents. I lost relatives in WW2 (which is more current, not that that is relevant). I feel no animosity towards Germans (or Austrians). What is done is done.

The past cannot be undone. But it is the plan that the Native Americans will return to prominence. In the future.

As soon as we can get the feds to apply the Constitution to us. In particular the 14th amendment.

The past cannot be undone. But it is the plan that the Native Americans will return to prominence. In the future.

As soon as we can get the feds to apply the Constitution to us. In particular the 14th amendment.

Sorry to pop in the middle, but WTF are you talking about?

You think Native American Tribes wished to be deprived of their independent sovereignty?

The past cannot be undone. But it is the plan that the Native Americans will return to prominence. In the future.

As soon as we can get the feds to apply the Constitution to us. In particular the 14th amendment.

You don't see an irony to seeming to support the downfall of the 'Whites'... whilst at the same time complaining that you don't feel you get access to all the benefits of 'White' society?

If you 'hate the Whites' why do you want their recognition?

A lie. I never said did any such thing. Fail.


Claim of authority based on apocryphal anecdotes. Fail.


False. Already addressed. Redundancy = fail.


Another lie. I never did any such thing. Fail.


Lies and flamebaiting. I never said any of the things you claim, and those heaping doses of personal attacks (based on nothing) = Fail.


Another lie. Another fail.



I implied nothing. Another fail.


I say what I want, and I say what I mean. If your words won't fit into my mouth, that's not my problem.


Failed troll is obvious troll. He can't answer your posts. That's why he isn't answering them.

Apocryphal anecdotes???

Lies??? You came out in your very first post and you said that I, as in me, was a racist. Why? Probably because I said Mr. Suits made some good points.

But as you claim, you never accused anyone of racism and you never said that lamenting the loss of particular groups of people was racism.

As you want to imply, we've always had modern type transportation/migration patterns. People have always been going from continent to continent on planes and on modern speed boats.

The people in the Pacific have always had contact with the Europeanas since time iimemorial.

Or it could be that I'[m partly right. That there are goups that have been able to develop with enough isolation for a long enough time to develop a distinct culture. A culture uniike that outside their areas.

Those people in the Amazon that was brought up earlier. The reason they were pointing their arrows at the plane, and I believed on of them actually fired, was because they had never seen a plane before. There are still isolated groups out there with cultures that have not been tuoched by the world's majority cultures. Though, today, there are very few of them.

Sorry to pop in the middle, but WTF are you talking about?

You think Native American Tribes wished to be deprived of their independent sovereignty?

It has a certain troll-y flavour about it... that is consistent with earlier trolliciousness.

Sorry to pop in the middle, but WTF are you talking about?

You think Native American Tribes wished to be deprived of their independent sovereignty?

Not in the lease. We would love to get our soverignty back. If that were ever possible in today's world.
I'm just referring to some research I did on the 14th for another thread. The webistes I found said that because I am Native American, the 14th does not cover me. :(
So I have pretty much little to know rights in my own land. It's bad enough that I'm only on this forum at the permission of the owner. But to find out that I really don't have rights off the forum either. That sucks.

It has a certain troll-y flavour about it... that is consistent with earlier trolliciousness.

If it isn't trolling, it is demonstrative of a shocking ignorance of American Indian Law. :eek:

You don't see an irony to seeming to support the downfall of the 'Whites'... whilst at the same time complaining that you don't feel you get access to all the benefits of 'White' society?

If you 'hate the Whites' why do you want their recognition?

Yeah. It is ironic. BUt I don't support the downfall of the whites. I said I didn't always like them.
I don't really care about the "benefits" I just want to be equal. I want all people to be equal.

I'm not sure I am understanding you correclty. What do you mean by "recognition".

Not in the lease. We would love to get our soverignty back. If that were ever possible in today's world.
I'm just referring to some research I did on the 14th for another thread. The webistes I found said that because I am Native American, the 14th does not cover me. :(
So I have pretty much little to know rights in my own land. It's bad enough that I'm only on this forum at the permission of the owner. But to find out that I really don't have rights off the forum either. That sucks.

I little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

First, Native American Tribes do retain a degree of sovereignty -- and are very protective of what sovereignty they have.

Second, it is not true that the 14th Amendment "does not cover" Native Americans. You misunderstand case law that says that beneficial legislation doesn't violate the 14th Amendment if it provides preferences for Native Americans because such treatment is based on tribal soveriegnty and not invidious racial classifications. See, e.g., Morton v. Mancari (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=417&invol=535), 417 U.S. 535 (1974) ("The preference, as applied, is granted to Indians not as a discrete racial group, but, rather, as members of quasi-sovereign tribal entities "), United States v. Antelope (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=430&invol=641), 430 U.S. 641 (1977) ("The decisions of this Court leave no doubt that federal legislation with respect to Indian tribes, although relating to Indians as such, is not based upon impermissible racial classifications. Quite the contrary, classifications expressly singling out Indian tribes as subjects of legislation are expressly provided for in the Constitution and supported by the ensuing history of the Federal Government's relations with Indians.").

If you still don't understand, read Morton -- which I linked above -- and get back to me.

If it isn't trolling, it is demonstrative of a shocking ignorance of American Indian Law. :eek:

I don't know anything about American Indian Law.
All I know is that I grew up thinking I had the same rights as everyone else and then I read that I don't.
Perhaps you could shed light???????
what rights do I have?

Yeah. It is ironic. BUt I don't support the downfall of the whites. I said I didn't always like them.
I don't really care about the "benefits" I just want to be equal. I want all people to be equal.

I'm not sure I am understanding you correclty. What do you mean by "recognition".

You didn't say you 'didn't always like them'.

You said you hated 'Whites'. You talked about their karmic deconstruction.

I think you're trying to shift your goalposts.

I don't know anything about American Indian Law.
All I know is that I grew up thinking I had the same rights as everyone else and then I read that I don't.
Perhaps you could shed light???????
what rights do I have?

The short answer is that in relation to state and federal governments, American Indians are entitled to the same constitutional rights as anyone else. The protections of the Bill of Rights extend to "persons" and nothing about their status removes Indians from that category. They are similarly entitled to invoke the protection of the various federal civil rights acts that have been passed to help effectuate constitutional guarantees.

If you are truly interested, I highly recommend Canby's American Indian Law in a Nutshell (http://west.thomson.com/productdetail/126160/22079820/productdetail.aspx) (which I paraphrased for the comments above).

In the meantime, here a good internet resource re American Indian Law:
American Indian law | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/indian.html)

The short answer is that in relation to state and federal governments, American Indians are entitled to the same constitutional rights as anyone else. The protections of the Bill of Rights extend to "persons" and nothing about their status removes Indians from that category. They are similarly entitled to invoke the protection of the various federal civil rights acts that have been passed to help effectuate constitutional guarantees.

If you are truly interested, I highly recommend Canby's American Indian Law in a Nutshell (http://west.thomson.com/productdetail/126160/22079820/productdetail.aspx) (which I paraphrased for the comments above).

In the meantime, here a good internet resource re American Indian Law:
American Indian law | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/indian.html)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001360----000-.html

seems to be saying that Native Americans are not soverign in California, not even on their reservations. The only exemption from state law that I saw was in regards to property.

Well that will happen soon. In America the white population is in decline due to low birth rates. (I guess when we know we can't support a child we don't have one, too bad we are the only ones in general) Hispanic people on the other hand are breeding like rabbits (prolly a reason why they tend to be poorer) Soon enough they will be the new majority.

Oh, I see. It hasn't ever happened before, but it will happen soon?

Well, I don't believe you. It won't happen soon. You have absolutely no evidence to base your assertion on except current trends. And you use those current trends to try to prove the potential for a major cultural change that will envelop the country, but has mysteriously never happened before in the history of the democratic West. Not to mention it fairly reeks of xenophobic furor.

Why not be concerned about something real, like the potential for a nuclear holocaust in the case of war between nuclear nations. That's only exactly what Lashkar-e-Taiba is trying to do in India.

You could worry about the people with cholera in Zimbabwe. Or the fact that East Timor is in a state of anarchy. Or a resurgent Russia which is trying to recover post-Soviet republics. Or a lot of real problems.

Why choose this garbage? It's just some crap you made up.

Well that will happen soon. In America the white population is in decline due to low birth rates. (I guess when we know we can't support a child we don't have one, too bad we are the only ones in general) Hispanic people on the other hand are breeding like rabbits (prolly a reason why they tend to be poorer) Soon enough they will be the new majority.

You know, generally it's the contrary.
Being poor leads to be less educated, and this leads to fail to realise the need for birth control (not making kids unless you want them and you know you can support them).


One of my grand-grandmothers, born in Milan in 1897, was the last of 18 children. Her parents were landlords of a small pub outside the walls of Milan, and never went to school. My grand-grandmother went to school only until age 8, then she had to work. She became a worker in the chemical industry. She had 2 children (one died quite soon, though).
One of my grand-mothers, born in Milan in 1920, was the third of 5 children. Her father went to school until age 8, her mother never went. She went to school until age 10 (and she wished she could have continued), and she had 1 daughter only.

Being poor => being undereducated => making too many children. Not the other way around, I think.

Why not be concerned about something real, like the potential for a nuclear holocaust in the case of war between nuclear nations.

Why? Everyone says "India is a democracy and Pakistan is friend of the west, HENCE you don't have to worry that two countries who fought 3 wars between them in the last 50 years now are both nuclear powers... beware of Iran instead! Iran Iran Iran! We cannot allow a muslim country to have nukes! Pakistan doesn't count as muslim when we speak about nukes!" :rolleyes:

So, look on the bright side of life, and hope that that brightness isn't the flash of a nuke.

Let me have the Russian models, and I'll repopulate Russia.

Apocryphal anecdotes???

Lies??? You came out in your very first post and you said that I, as in me, was a racist. Why? Probably because I said Mr. Suits made some good points.
Another lie. I did not say that you were a racist. I said that your argument was one that had been created by racists and xenophobes. I then said that I suspected you were a xenophobe. NOT a racist.

Of course, since then, you have shown that you are a racist, but I never said you were, even though you keep claiming I did. And that's what makes you a liar as well.

But as you claim, you never accused anyone of racism and you never said that lamenting the loss of particular groups of people was racism.
Another lie. My statements are the exact opposite of what you say they are. Maybe you're not lying. Maybe you suffer from some form of dyslexia, where it's not the words but the ideas that get scrambled in your head.

As you want to imply, we've always had modern type transportation/migration patterns.
More psychic powers, eh? Now you can read my mind, too, and that's how you know what I want to do.

People have always been going from continent to continent on planes and on modern speed boats.

The people in the Pacific have always had contact with the Europeanas since time iimemorial.
Ridiculing your opponent's argument with outrageously idiotic exaggerations and NOT accompanying such jokes with an actual counter argument, is a sign that you are not able to refute that argument. Therefore, you fail.

But then, I believe we all already knew that.

Or it could be that I'[m partly right. That there are goups that have been able to develop with enough isolation for a long enough time to develop a distinct culture. A culture uniike that outside their areas.
Like the Bermudans, as I said before. There they are, isolated enough to have developed a whole style of shorts that is iconic of their culture and exists nowhere else.

As I and others have already said many, many, many times, history shows that NO culture is free of influences from other groups, just like no population is free of DNA from other populations. That is because humans get around, and in their travels, they notice things. You can come from your culture and meet a culture that you've never seen before, that is distinct from yours and has no influences from yours, BUT there will be -- there always are -- other culture groups closer to that one, from which it is less distinct, with which it shares obvious influences. ALWAYS. And guess what? After you leave, no one will ever be able to go to that place again and find a culture that is not influenced by yours.

You claimed the Sentinalese were an example of what you say. I showed reasons why they are not. Rather than come back with information that shows I'm wrong, you just drop the Sentinalese and still keep insisting on your assertion.

Now you try to claim that Brazilian tribe as an example, when it is clear you know even less about them than you do about the Sentinalese. At what point are you going to admit the obvious -- that you just adopted your entire argument as a justification for xenophobia and that you never even bothered before to try to establish a factual basis for it?

(See what I did there? I made fun of your argument, and THEN I followed that up with an actual argument of my own in response to yours.)

Those people in the Amazon that was brought up earlier. The reason they were pointing their arrows at the plane, and I believed on of them actually fired, was because they had never seen a plane before.
And yet more psychic powers! You should get one of those 900 numbers. You'd make a fortune. You can read the minds of the living, communicate with the dead, and now you can know, without ever having met them, the entire history and all the experiences of an Amazonian tribe. You KNOW, oh mystic swami, that the reason they fired arrows at that plane was because they'd never seen one before, not because they had and don't like them. You even know that they had never fired an arrow at a passing plane before in their entire lives, none of them.

There are still isolated groups out there with cultures that have not been tuoched by the world's majority cultures. Though, today, there are very few of them.
How can you possibly know that?

Seriously, it has been a long time since this forum has seen a poster as full of shit as you.

Another lie. I did not say that you were a racist. I said that your argument was one that had been created by racists and xenophobes. I then said that I suspected you were a xenophobe. NOT a racist.

Of course, since then, you have shown that you are a racist, but I never said you were, even though you keep claiming I did. And that's what makes you a liar as well.


Another lie. My statements are the exact opposite of what you say they are. Maybe you're not lying. Maybe you suffer from some form of dyslexia, where it's not the words but the ideas that get scrambled in your head.


More psychic powers, eh? Now you can read my mind, too, and that's how you know what I want to do.


Ridiculing your opponent's argument with outrageously idiotic exaggerations and NOT accompanying such jokes with an actual counter argument, is a sign that you are not able to refute that argument. Therefore, you fail.

But then, I believe we all already knew that.


Like the Bermudans, as I said before. There they are, isolated enough to have developed a whole style of shorts that is iconic of their culture and exists nowhere else.

As I and others have already said many, many, many times, history shows that NO culture is free of influences from other groups, just like no population is free of DNA from other populations. That is because humans get around, and in their travels, they notice things. You can come from your culture and meet a culture that you've never seen before, that is distinct from yours and has no influences from yours, BUT there will be -- there always are -- other culture groups closer to that one, from which it is less distinct, with which it shares obvious influences. ALWAYS. And guess what? After you leave, no one will ever be able to go to that place again and find a culture that is not influenced by yours.

You claimed the Sentinalese were an example of what you say. I showed reasons why they are not. Rather than come back with information that shows I'm wrong, you just drop the Sentinalese and still keep insisting on your assertion.

Now you try to claim that Brazilian tribe as an example, when it is clear you know even less about them than you do about the Sentinalese. At what point are you going to admit the obvious -- that you just adopted your entire argument as a justification for xenophobia and that you never even bothered before to try to establish a factual basis for it?

(See what I did there? I made fun of your argument, and THEN I followed that up with an actual argument of my own in response to yours.)


And yet more psychic powers! You should get one of those 900 numbers. You'd make a fortune. You can read the minds of the living, communicate with the dead, and now you can know, without ever having met them, the entire history and all the experiences of an Amazonian tribe. You KNOW, oh mystic swami, that the reason they fired arrows at that plane was because they'd never seen one before, not because they had and don't like them. You even know that they had never fired an arrow at a passing plane before in their entire lives, none of them.


How can you possibly know that?

Seriously, it has been a long time since this forum has seen a poster as full of shit as you.

I think you've confused me with another poster. I never said anything about the the Sentinalese. I've never heard of them until this thread. It was another poster who was talking about them.

Regarding the Amazonian tribe. The reason I said they had been isolated and "pointed arrows at the plane because they had never seen one before" was because in the article I read, the anthropologists working for the government of Brazil said they had never seen a plane before and that they were indeed isolated from the rest of the world.

I'm not sure what people making shorts in the Bahamas has to do with anything???? People make new styles of clothing all the time. They are called fashion designers. LOL
Sides, people have been visiting the Bahamas since the Europeans discovered and then placed an illegal claim to them. The islands being a bit small, it would be a wee bit difficult for anyone on them to hide from the outside world.
In the Amazon, it would a wee bit easier.

Not only did they recently find a new tribe, but they are also finding new speciies.
We don't know everything that is out there. We don't know everyone that is out there and those who are out there, don't necessarily share our culture or its values.

A culture is not just what you wear, it also what you value. The ethnic differrences that offend you are created by the natural workings of human evolution. This evolution changes people just enough to enable them to survive in their home envirronments.. That is why some diseases attack some ethnicities but not others. Some are immune to cancers while others are more susceptible. That's a medical fact. Not xenophobia.
If you don't like that there ethnic differences that help people survive and pass on their genes, blame it on nature or blame it on God. Don't blame the people. They had no control over it.

I don't speak for anyone else but when I talk bout restricting immigration, I am talking about limiting the types of values that we allow to come into our country.
I don't want people who support child sacrifice, slavery, pedophilia, rape, or theocracyism being allowed to immigrate to my country. I don't care who they are. I only want people with good values. It is not xenophobic to say that I don't want slave traders in my country. I certainly don't want people guilty of piracy or drug cartelling being allowed into my country. I do not agree that discriminating against such people equals xenophobia. Xenophobia is when you want to deport or you dislike any person who is of a different religion or from a different nationality from your own. The religion and the national origin is not the problem, its the lifestyle.

There are good liftstyles and there are just plain evil lifestyles.

Will Russians and Germans really be extinct by 2100???



No.

I think you've confused me with another poster. I never said anything about the the Sentinalese. I've never heard of them until this thread. It was another poster who was talking about them.

Regarding the Amazonian tribe. The reason I said they had been isolated and "pointed arrows at the plane because they had never seen one before" was because in the article I read, the anthropologists working for the government of Brazil said they had never seen a plane before and that they were indeed isolated from the rest of the world.

I'm not sure what people making shorts in the Bahamas has to do with anything???? People make new styles of clothing all the time. They are called fashion designers. LOL
Sides, people have been visiting the Bahamas since the Europeans discovered and then placed an illegal claim to them. The islands being a bit small, it would be a wee bit difficult for anyone on them to hide from the outside world.
In the Amazon, it would a wee bit easier.

Not only did they recently find a new tribe, but they are also finding new speciies.
We don't know everything that is out there. We don't know everyone that is out there and those who are out there, don't necessarily share our culture or its values.

A culture is not just what you wear, it also what you value. The ethnic differrences that offend you are created by the natural workings of human evolution. This evolution changes people just enough to enable them to survive in their home envirronments.. That is why some diseases attack some ethnicities but not others. Some are immune to cancers while others are more susceptible. That's a medical fact. Not xenophobia.
If you don't like that there ethnic differences that help people survive and pass on their genes, blame it on nature or blame it on God. Don't blame the people. They had no control over it.

I don't speak for anyone else but when I talk bout restricting immigration, I am talking about limiting the types of values that we allow to come into our country.
I don't want people who support child sacrifice, slavery, pedophilia, rape, or theocracyism being allowed to immigrate to my country. I don't care who they are. I only want people with good values. It is not xenophobic to say that I don't want slave traders in my country. I certainly don't want people guilty of piracy or drug cartelling being allowed into my country. I do not agree that discriminating against such people equals xenophobia. Xenophobia is when you want to deport or you dislike any person who is of a different religion or from a different nationality from your own. The religion and the national origin is not the problem, its the lifestyle.

There are good liftstyles and there are just plain evil lifestyles.
You're right. I mixed you up with the other xenophobe who was bedeviling me with nearly the exact same bogus arguments that you made. I wish you guys would vary it up once in a while. Like use different font colors or something.

So ignore all the jazz about the Sentinalese and the Bermudans -- they are specific references to another conversation.

Now as to YOUR points, clarified above: They are all xenophobic bullshit utterly at odds with historical experience. If you wish to defend yourself, I will gladly wait for another post in which you pick some points you especially feel like arguing, so that I don't mix up my xenophobes again.

But in general: Claiming that some people's values will contaminate your culture is a xenophobic argument not borne out by the constant pattern of population shifts and migration throughout human history.

Regarding the Amazonian tribe. The reason I said they had been isolated and "pointed arrows at the plane because they had never seen one before" was because in the article I read, the anthropologists working for the government of Brazil said they had never seen a plane before and that they were indeed isolated from the rest of the world.

[...]

Not only did they recently find a new tribe, but they are also finding new speciies.
We don't know everything that is out there. We don't know everyone that is out there and those who are out there, don't necessarily share our culture or its values.
Are you talking about this tribe? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/21/amazon)

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/05/30/brtribe460x276.jpg

You didn't say you 'didn't always like them'.

You said you hated 'Whites'. You talked about their karmic deconstruction.

I think you're trying to shift your goalposts.

I do not understamd karmic deconstruction. I tried to google it and it brought me back to your post in this thread.

Do mean destruction??????

I was referring to Karmic Cycles. When you do something bad to some you set off a Karmic cycle that will come back to bite you.

The Mexicans set it off when they stole the land from the Indians. The Americans completed it when they stole the land from Mexicans.

The Americans chose not accept or assimilate into Native American cultures. In fact they sought to punish people for speaking Native languages or customs. Now the Latin Americans are imposing spanish and Mexican customs on Americans.

The Mexicans declared that prissts were illegal immigrants and immediately deported them. Today they persecute and deport people who immigrate to Mexico illegally. In the US, there is a popular will that all Mexicans who enter America illegally should be deported and not have rights.

All three are examples of the Karmic Cycle.

But I do not understand the Karmic Deconstruction you speak of. I can't find anything on it so I require more information.

Are you talking about this tribe? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/21/amazon)

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/05/30/brtribe460x276.jpg
There ya go. Especially:

But he is determined to keep the tribe's location secret – even under torture, he says. 'They can decide when they want contact, not me or anyone else.'

Yeah, they can now -- now that they know we're loitering around in the bushes.

And if this tribe is nomadic in that region, it only increases the likelihood that they have contact with other tribes in the area that themselves have more extensive contact with non-native communities and, thus, cultural inflences.

Hm... I wonder what those uncontacted people wear when they're not kitted out for war...

Karma is actually a good example of convergent cultural evolution.
MOst people know about Karma from India. But Native Amerians did not get the idea from the Indians. They did develop it on their own over thousands of years of their history.
Just because two groups on opposite side of the planet have similar beliefs or customs, it does not prove they had contact with each other. It only proves convergent cultural evolution.
A Shoshone Man might invent the shovel. And then a man in Senegal might invent the shovel on his own. The fact that they both have shovels does not mean they intermixed or traded ideas with each other. It just means they both independently invented the shovel.

When studying differing cultures, one ought not deny convergent evolution as an explanation for any apparent similiarities.

You're right. I mixed you up with the other xenophobe who was bedeviling me with nearly the exact same bogus arguments that you made. I wish you guys would vary it up once in a while. Like use different font colors or something.

So ignore all the jazz about the Sentinalese and the Bermudans -- they are specific references to another conversation.

Now as to YOUR points, clarified above: They are all xenophobic bullshit utterly at odds with historical experience. If you wish to defend yourself, I will gladly wait for another post in which you pick some points you especially feel like arguing, so that I don't mix up my xenophobes again.

But in general: Claiming that some people's values will contaminate your culture is a xenophobic argument not borne out by the constant pattern of population shifts and migration throughout human history.
Yo, UnitedStatesofAmerica, are you trying to pretend to be someone else?

I wrote the above post in response to your claim that I was confusing you with someone else -- and as I've been involved with several contentious threads at once this week, I decided to just assume you were correct.

However, looking back over some of the thread history, I see that it is indeed you I have been corresponding with in this thread for almost two days, and that the references that you claimed not to recognize have in fact been under discussion between us for a good part of that time. All of a sudden you don't know why I'm mentioning the Sentinalese or Bermudans, even though you got those references earlier?

What clued me to this weird disconnect was your post in which you claim not to understand GnI references to karmic destruction, even though those words also arise out of an exchange of several posts between you and him.

Did you get konked on the head and suffer short term memory loss over the holiday? Or is this some odd new trick you're trying on?

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

You are saying that barring child rapers, slavers, cannibals, drug dealers, and violent reigious nuts from your country is xenophobic???

We are not talking about banning all Mexican or all muslim immigrants. Only those whose lifestyles involve the above activities.
If a guy raped a kid in Mexico then he's very much likely to do it America as well.
That is not the same as saying we should ban all Mexicans.

If a guy blows up Christians or synagagues in Pakistan he is likely to do the same in Britain or in Germany. That is not the same as saying the Europeans should ban all Muslims.

There is such a thing as people who are undesriable.

IF a guy is a pirate, he is likely to engage in piracy in whatever country he immigrates to. We are talking about banning him from being allowed to immigrate. Not everyone in his ethnic group. Just him and the ones who enage in behaviors like his.

Piracy is not a human right, nor is child rape nor is killing in the name of religion.

Yo, UnitedStatesofAmerica, are you trying to pretend to be someone else?

I wrote the above post in response to your claim that I was confusing you with someone else -- and as I've been involved with several contentious threads at once this week, I decided to just assume you were correct.

However, looking back over some of the thread history, I see that it is indeed you I have been corresponding with in this thread for almost two days, and that the references that you claimed not to recognize have in fact been under discussion between us for a good part of that time. All of a sudden you don't know why I'm mentioning the Sentinalese or Bermudans, even though you got those references earlier?

What clued me to this weird disconnect was your post in which you claim not to understand GnI references to karmic destruction, even though those words also arise out of an exchange of several posts between you and him.

Did you get konked on the head and suffer short term memory loss over the holiday? Or is this some odd new trick you're trying on?


His spelling threw me off. He spelled it deconstruction. I was asking what he meant by it because I could not find the concept.

Can you qoute where I say anything about the Sentanalese or the Bermudans? Other than my post from today????

I know I am not that other guy.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.
Let me see if I understand you correctly -- you have given up trying to make a coherent argument, first to the extreme of pretending you weren't involved in the earlier parts of your own discussion and now not even addressing your comments to anyone in particular?

You are saying that barring child rapers, slavers, cannibals, drug dealers, and violent reigious nuts from your country is xenophobic???
No, that would be a strawman.

We are not talking about banning all Mexican or all muslim immigrants. Only those whose lifestyles involve the above activities.
If a guy raped a kid in Mexico then he's very much likely to do it America as well.
That is not the same as saying we should ban all Mexicans.

If a guy blows up Christians or synagagues in Pakistan he is likely to do the same in Britain or in Germany. That is not the same as saying the Europeans should ban all Muslims.

There is such a thing as people who are undesriable.

IF a guy is a pirate, he is likely to engage in piracy in whatever country he immigrates to. We are talking about banning him from being allowed to immigrate. Not everyone in his ethnic group. Just him and the ones who enage in behaviors like his.

Piracy is not a human right, nor is child rape nor is killing in the name of religion.
Mm-hmm. It also has fuck-all to do with the conversation to date.

His spelling threw me off. He spelled it deconstruction. I was asking what he meant by it because I could not find the concept.

Can you qoute where I say anything about the Sentanalese or the Bermudans? Other than my post from today????

I know I am not that other guy.
A) "Deconstruction" is a word and he spelled it correctly.

B) Another poster brought up the Sentinalese. I brought up the Bermudans in making fun of a part of his argument, namely his misuse of the concept off "isolation". YOU engaged me on points in which those two groups were referenced, and you and I did include cultural exchange and influence in the Pacific, where the Sentinalese live, in those exchanges. I do not understand how you suddenly don't know where those references came from, unless you just don't read the posts you respond to at all.

C) If I managed to retrace the thread, so can you. Look up your own posts.

Are you talking about this tribe? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/21/amazon)

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/05/30/brtribe460x276.jpg

all it is saying is that the trribe was not a recent discovery. They were found in the early 20th century so Brazil knew about them for a hundred years. No one else in that time period knew about that tribe.
They remained isolated enough that, (and this is from your link), "For two days, Meirelles says, he flew a 150km-radius route over the border region with Peru and saw huts that belonged to isolated tribes. But he did not see people. 'When the women hear the plane above, they run into the forest, thinking it's a big bird,' he said. 'This is such a remote area, planes don't fly over it.'

How does that contradict my statement that they thought the plane was a bird???

"Survival International, the organisation that released the pictures along with Funai, conceded yesterday that Funai had known about this nomadic tribe for around two decades. It defended the disturbance of the tribe saying that, since the images had been released, it had forced neighbouring Peru to re-examine its logging policy in the border area where the tribe lives, as a result of the international media attention. Activist and former Funai president Sydney Possuelo agreed that – amid threats to their environment and doubt over the existence of such tribes – it was necessary to publish them."

Until Mr. Funai pulled his little stunt, the tribe had had no contact with the outside world. His, fraud was committed for the purpose of protecting the tribe's status as being isolated from the world because they were about to be infringed upon by greedy loggers from Peru. That would have polluted the indiigenous culture.

"Meirelles, one of only five or so genuine sertanistas, has no regrets, arguing that the pictures and video released to the world were powerful and indisputable evidence to those who say isolated tribes no longer exist. 'Alan García [the President of Peru] declared recently that the isolated Indians were a creation in the imagination of environmentalists and anthropologists – now we have the pictures.'"

I think their stunt was also aimed at all people claim that there are absolutely no isolated people left anywhere on earth.

The article doesn't support the idea that there no isolated people left anywhere on the planet. It does the opposite.

The only question it raised why they were photographed. It does not disprove that they are/were isolated for a long time and that they continue to be isolated from the outside world.

Let me see if I understand you correctly -- you have given up trying to make a coherent argument, first to the extreme of pretending you weren't involved in the earlier parts of your own discussion and now not even addressing your comments to anyone in particular?


No, that would be a strawman.


Mm-hmm. It also has fuck-all to do with the conversation to date.

Actually it has a great deal to do with the conversation to this point. By implication your posts were saying that to ban anyone was equal to xenophobia. That to advocate the banning of anyone from your country was equal to xenophobia. I just gave reasons why that is not always the case.

When you have Muslims chanting death to Europe and demanding that Europeans change to and adopt Muslim culture or face suicide bomgings, it is not xenophobia to want them deported or banned from your nation.

Actually it has a great deal to do with the conversation to this point. By implication your posts were saying that to ban anyone was equal to xenophobia. That to advocate the banning of anyone from your country was equal to xenophobia. I just gave reasons why that is not always the case.

When you have Muslims chanting death to Europe and demanding that Europeans change to and adopt Muslim culture or face suicide bomgings, it is not xenophobia to want them deported or banned from your nation.
Strawman. A complete misrepresentation of my argument, which has been explained to you several times, even if you don't remember it. You will find that I do not allow strawmen to be propped up on me. You are wasting your time.

Actually it has a great deal to do with the conversation to this point. By implication your posts were saying that to ban anyone was equal to xenophobia. That to advocate the banning of anyone from your country was equal to xenophobia. I just gave reasons why that is not always the case.

When you have Muslims chanting death to Europe and demanding that Europeans change to and adopt Muslim culture or face suicide bomgings, it is not xenophobia to want them deported or banned from your nation.

Equating all immigrants and/or all non-Europeans to "child rapers, slavers, cannibals, drug dealers, and violent reigious nuts" is pretty much the definition of xenophobia.

Strawman. A complete misrepresentation of my argument, which has been explained to you several times, even if you don't remember it. You will find that I do not allow strawmen to be propped up on me. You are wasting your time.

If its a strawman its a pretty solid strawman.

The OP stated that the RUssians were so concerned that their distinct ethnic group might become extinct due to low population births. This view has been debunked by the population cycle rule that other posters brought up.
But to the Russian government the threat is real. To some Europeans, the threat of declining numbers is also real.
You, and other posters, implied that by suggesting that if they were really concerned about their particular group dissappearing that they have mroe sex and hence more children was racist or xenophobic.
It was also stated that when people talk about declining numbers or ethnicities, it was a sign of racism. What they forgot, and what you forget is that is not always true. In the OP, for example, a lot of posts in this thread have said that Mr. Suits is a racist. Yet no where did Mr. Suits say that Muslims should be deported from Europe. No where did he say that Europe should ban Muslims. Those are exactly the types of policy advocations that one would exhibit if he/she were really xenophobic.
No where did it say the Russian govenment was banning or deporting non Russian ethnic groups. If it did, it woulld prove the Russian government xenophobic. But Russia is not doing that. Instead Russia is paying its people to have more sex and hence more babies.
I do not agree that encouraging people of your own culture or ethnicity to have more sex and more children makes you a racist or an xenophobe. You claim there is no reason to ban or deport anyone. I gave you several good reason why some people should be deported or banned from a country.

You also stated, and I probably qoute one of your posts, that all people have been crossing planet and mixing and sharing genes and ideas. You stated that all archeological evidence and that all history supports your position. The fact is that neither the archeology nor the history of man, when taken over thousands of years gives much support to it. It was only in the last 200 years that people have gained the ability to colonize the planet or have global trade agreements. Remember the first global trade agreement did not happen until the mid to late 20th century. How long has mankind been around?

There is no such as an original invention just as there is no such thing as an original idea. Someeone somewhere has thought of the same thing. The only reason you don't know about them is because they live on the other side planet isolated from you and the two of you have never heard of each other. Convergent evolution explains why a lot of cultures are so similar even when we know they've been isolated for most of human history.

What that does not disprove is the idea that these groups were orginally isolated. What it does, in actuality, prove, is that africans are just as capable of inventing the wheel independently as the Arabs are.
EX. The Inca developed civilization and built an Empire without having had contact with the Europeans, Arabs, Indians, or even the Chinese. THey developed the important concepts, such as bureacracy and civil service independently.

Equating all immigrants and/or all non-Europeans to "child rapers, slavers, cannibals, drug dealers, and violent reigious nuts" is pretty much the definition of xenophobia.

No one here was doing that.
The original, unfounded statement, which I was debunking, was that anyone who thinks Europeans should have children if they fear their group is dissappearing is automatically xenophobic just for wanting their own people to have more children.

My original statement, somewhere in the first couple of pages that started this conversation was that if a group of people are so worried that their people are shrinking while another is growing, the solution is for them to make more babies of their own. Some how that is xenophobic.
Also, things I consider a postive for minorities are seen by some posters as negatives. Talk about cultural conflict. That is a good example of how people's cultures can differ. Which is one the great things about humanity. Not everyone has the same ideas. That's why I think we should, to an extent, try to preserve various culture groups. NOt because I hate Muslims but because it would be a shame and a total loss to humanity as a whole for any group to be allowed to slip into the night.
Yes it is a negative stereotype to say that whites are shrinking because they don't like chldren. But I have not seen anything presented here that disproves that idea.
Has it not been the trend in this century that white people in both America and Europe have seen pregnancy as a disease. When a white girl in the US, for example, wants to keep her child instead of aborting it, she is generally frowned on and disrespected in white society. Among white american culture, it is considered bad behavior for women to have children in their teens or early 20's.
I would like to know what disproves this concept rather than being told that anyone who tallks about making babies in a population race with another group is automatically racist. or xenophobic. Why is encouraging people to have kids, necessarily xenophobic?

If its a strawman its a pretty solid strawman. Whoa, wait a minute. Are you saying that completely misrepresenting someone's argument and claiming to have defeated their actual argument is a good way to operate when debating with someone?

No one here was doing that.
The original, unfounded statement, which I was debunking, was that anyone who thinks Europeans should have children if they fear their group is dissappearing is automatically xenophobic just for wanting their own people to have more children.

My original statement, somewhere in the first couple of pages that started this conversation was that if a group of people are so worried that their people are shrinking while another is growing, the solution is for them to make more babies of their own. Some how that is xenophobic.


Well that is xenophobic. "Hey there are more of their kind then out kind so we must make more of our kind."


Also, things I consider a postive for minorities are seen by some posters as negatives. Talk about cultural conflict. That is a good example of how people's cultures can differ. Which is one the great things about humanity. Not everyone has the same ideas. That's why I think we should, to an extent, try to preserve various culture groups. NOt because I hate Muslims but because it would be a shame and a total loss to humanity as a whole for any group to be allowed to slip into the night.


You can't save all cultures and many are dying or have changed into something else. The Miskito and the Kund for example.

Yes it is a negative stereotype to say that whites are shrinking because they don't like chldren. But I have not seen anything presented here that disproves that idea.

Culture defines the children count. China used to have large families for the fact life was cheap and it was also a sign of prosperity. In the US, there was a high mortality rate. As health, etc. improved, the type of employment changed(ie farming to white color) the need for multiple kids declined.

Has it not been the trend in this century that white people in both America and Europe have seen pregnancy as a disease. When a white girl in the US, for example, wants to keep her child instead of aborting it, she is generally frowned on and disrespected in white society.
Hogwash. NOBODY HAS EVER SAID ABORT IT YOU BITCH!

Now if you want to talk about "compasionate conservatism" bitching about the lazy poor people spitting out babies to get more welfare.....

Among white american culture, it is considered bad behavior for women to have children in their teens or early 20's.
Again views change. Woman have changed. The rights and abilities of women changed.

A girl should not have a child. She does not have the maturity or the skills to give it a decent upbringing.

Early 20's? Again why? If she can make something of herself, children can wait. Better a household that decided they wanted one and could raise one versus one that has one because it's the "right" thing to do.


I would like to know what disproves this concept rather than being told that anyone who tallks about making babies in a population race with another group is automatically racist. or xenophobic. Why is encouraging people to have kids, necessarily xenophobic?

Making babies to preserve an "ethnic" community is xenophobic.

Are we not of the human race?

We can all breed which pretty much says that is the way it supposed to work. If the "races" were not supposed to breed we would have results like the mule....

From post 26 by Mur. Her very first post in this thread.
"No human population or culture sprung up like grass out of the ground of any given place, making it more "native" to that place than any other group who might wander in at any time. There is no culture that has not undergone many changes over many generations and is not currently continuing to change, as a result of changing needs and changing people."

She claimed that are no unchanged cultures anywhere on earth. And that every person on earth is completely the same. Medical facts and genetics disprove this. As does archeology.

"This bullshit about ethnic cultures is nothing but the window dressing of racism and xenophobia. It is based on pure fantasy."

She implies here that there is no such thing ethnic culture.

"Wrong. See above. See also every single empire that was ever established and broken in the entire span of history. See also the archeological and fossil records of human remains. Reality disagrees with you. Humanity does not work the way you imagine it does."

Written in response to my statement here:
"'m not sure its a fariy tale. Especially when you consider that until recently, with the rise of first European colonialism and then with the rise of the US, most ethnic groups around the world pretty much stayed to themselves and didn't mix. This was so even in Europe until about the time of the industrial revolution."

Actually my statement was incorrect technically. It was with the establishment of the European colonies, that the ethnic groups began to mix together. However, until the industrial period, the Native Americans and the whties tended, for the most part, to keep to themselves. They did not intermarry on a constatt basis. Trading in goods was not the same as sharing genes.
But you also have to account that the first colony was set up by the Spanish around 15 something. Humans have been around for over a 100,000 years. Our groups and our cultures have been intermixing only for the last 400 to 500 years. Such that for barlely half of a percent of the human race's existence, was there the kind of mass migrations and intermixing we are seeing in our world today.

She ignores this next statement, "There have been mass migrations in the past but nothing like what we are seeing today. Mostly because we didn't have the technology and cultural influences that we have today." A statement based on the facts.


500 divided by 100,000 giving you .005 which = 1/2%

She forgets about the Incas who were not influenced by either the Europeans, the Arabs, or Indians, or the Chinese. They might have had contact with the Aztecs, but remember that until the spanish wiped them out, The Aztecs and the Inca were totally isolated from all the other civilizations. They did develop in isolation.
Also that Amazonian tribe, which was proven in that article to have developed in total isolation from civilization.

I said " What is wrong with not wanting a culture or ethnic group to go extinct? Especailly if it is your own?"

Her response was this: " it could also make you a xenophobe"

But then she comes right out, in the same post and says this: "I'm thinking you're a xenophobe"

Mur. you have shown that you do not understand the difference between race, nationality, or ethnicity.

Thank you.

Well that is xenophobic. "Hey there are more of their kind then out kind so we must make more of our kind."



You can't save all cultures and many are dying or have changed into something else. The Miskito and the Kund for example.



Culture defines the children count. China used to have large families for the fact life was cheap and it was also a sign of prosperity. In the US, there was a high mortality rate. As health, etc. improved, the type of employment changed(ie farming to white color) the need for multiple kids declined.


Hogwash. NOBODY HAS EVER SAID ABORT IT YOU BITCH!

Now if you want to talk about "compasionate conservatism" bitching about the lazy poor people spitting out babies to get more welfare.....


Again views change. Woman have changed. The rights and abilities of women changed.

A girl should not have a child. She does not have the maturity or the skills to give it a decent upbringing.

Early 20's? Again why? If she can make something of herself, children can wait. Better a household that decided they wanted one and could raise one versus one that has one because it's the "right" thing to do.



Making babies to preserve an "ethnic" community is xenophobic.

Are we not of the human race?

We can all breed which pretty much says that is the way it supposed to work. If the "races" were not supposed to breed we would have results like the mule....

I get most of your point about how most cultures change or evolve over time. What I still don't get, is the xenophobia part.
How is making babies to preserve an ethnic community xenophobic???
That is what I don't understand about Murs post or the other posts.

We can have mixed races because human groups have not been isolated very long but they were moving in that direction until the Europeans started colonizing every land mass, except Antarctica, and then causing all the groups to interbreed.
When we speak of mass population intermixing, we are talking about barely 1/2 of 1 percent of the totality of human history.

The Commanche for example are not the result of a mass mixing of all the world's people. They are direct, pure descendents of the Shoshone. The Shoshone are the descendents of yet another Native American group.

We ougth to keep in mind also, that not all individuals are mixed. Though we mixed people do make up the majority of the world today.

From post 26 by Mur. Her very first post in this thread.
"No human population or culture sprung up like grass out of the ground of any given place, making it more "native" to that place than any other group who might wander in at any time. There is no culture that has not undergone many changes over many generations and is not currently continuing to change, as a result of changing needs and changing people."


She is correct if you believe the Pangea hypothesis. Africa seems to be the birth place of everybody as the fossil record is far older then every where else.

Cultures will change simply because of the interaction with others. People aren't dumb. If they see somebody doing something that is better they will try to do the same.

She claimed that are no unchanged cultures anywhere on earth. And that every person on earth is completely the same.


No she did not say everybody was the same as it obvious they are not. There is no culture that is completely unique. Not anymore. Go back 100 years and you could have argued it for some isolated groups but they are all but gone. For example, even the Kund have taken things from the other cultures.

Medical facts and genetics disprove this. As does archeology.

Medical facts only show that some adaption has happened(for example, skin color).

Genetics was a bad choice. They should we are very similar. Even the chimpanzee has 98% of our DNA.

Archeology is another bad choice. That shows the different civilizations did interact and trade which in turn causes changes to culture.


"This bullshit about ethnic cultures is nothing but the window dressing of racism and xenophobia. It is based on pure fantasy."

She implies here that there is no such thing ethnic culture.


There is no such thing as an ethnic culture. Again a german baby raised in Tibet will not be a German.

*snip*

I am too tired for the rest.

But you also have to account that the first colony was set up by the Spanish around 15 something. Humans have been around for over a 100,000 years. Our groups and our cultures have been intermixing only for the last 400 to 500 years. Such that for barlely half of a percent of the human race's existence, was there the kind of mass migrations and intermixing we are seeing in our world today.

She ignores this next statement, "There have been mass migrations in the past but nothing like what we are seeing today. Mostly because we didn't have the technology and cultural influences that we have today." A statement based on the facts.


500 divided by 100,000 giving you .005 which = 1/2%This would be correct if you completely disregard the fact that recorded history is only around 5,000 (Give or take 500) years old.

She is correct if you believe the Pangea hypothesis. Africa seems to be the birth place of everybody as the fossil record is far older then every where else.

Cultures will change simply because of the interaction with others. People aren't dumb. If they see somebody doing something that is better they will try to do the same.



No she did not say everybody was the same as it obvious they are not. There is no culture that is completely unique. Not anymore. Go back 100 years and you could have argued it for some isolated groups but they are all but gone. For example, even the Kund have taken things from the other cultures.



Medical facts only show that some adaption has happened(for example, skin color).

Genetics was a bad choice. They should we are very similar. Even the chimpanzee has 98% of our DNA.

Archeology is another bad choice. That shows the different civilizations did interact and trade which in turn causes changes to culture.



There is no such thing as an ethnic culture. Again a german baby raised in Tibet will not be a German.

*snip*

I am too tired for the rest.

What you said about the hundred years is the primary point I was making.
But there have been cultures that have developed in total isolation for most of history.
The last 100 years of human history, does not represent the entirety of human history.

As for the pangea or Out of Africa hypothesis, while it enjoys majority support, it remains controversial still to this day because not all paleoacrheologists agree with it.
The debate over "out of africa" continues to this very day within the archeological community.

There are a good portion of archeologists who claim that humanity developed around the world somewhat simultaneously as it spread from continent to continent to continent.

Take the hobbit, they are still debating if that was pygmy human or if it was a seperate race of primates.

Not everyone in the archeological community agrees with the theories and I'm sure there are a lot of disgreements and arguments.

I get most of your point about how most cultures change or evolve over time. What I still don't get, is the xenophobia part.
How is making babies to preserve an ethnic community xenophobic???
That is what I don't understand about Murs post or the other posts.


To "preserve" your kind means to exclude their kind. Understand the "kind" talk?

We are the same species. You might be able to argue subspecies but we are the same species.

We can have mixed races because human groups have not been isolated very long but they were moving in that direction until the Europeans started colonizing every land mass, except Antarctica, and then causing all the groups to interbreed.

When we speak of mass population intermixing, we are talking about barely 1/2 of 1 percent of the totality of human history.


Actually they have been interbreeding long before the European colonialism. Even in China, the Caucasoid mummies that were found.

The Commanche for example are not the result of a mass mixing of all the world's people. They are direct, pure descendents of the Shoshone. The Shoshone are the descendents of yet another Native American group.

Which in turn can be traced to the migration from the Asian continent across the Bering sea land bridge.

We ougth to keep in mind also, that not all individuals are mixed. Though we mixed people do make up the majority of the world today.

?

Where is there an unmixed group of people?

This would be correct if you completely disregard the fact that recorded history is only around 5,000 (Give or take 500) years old.

Well if you take only the history of civilization, then, with the start of European colonialism that leaves us with barely 10% of the totality of all human civlization. For 90% of that time, the differing ethnic groups and cultures, while they were indeed evolving with time, were for the most part, completely isolated from those cultures found on the opposite side of the planet. Or in some cases, the other side of the mountains, such as the Himalayas. Trade between China and the west was extremely rare if it occured at all during the 90% time frame.

Actually my statement was incorrect technically. It was with the establishment of the European colonies, that the ethnic groups began to mix together.

The Romans maintained colonies of different sorts - trade colonies, military colonies... even 'personal' colonies until that 'right' was revoked by Caesar.

The Greek city states expanded, traded, and gained access to resources and other cultures, through establishment of colonies from about 800 BC onwards.

'Carthage' was originally founded as a Phoenician colony, as was the settlement now known as Cadiz.

The Egyptians had colonies as far back as the First Dynasty - that's 5000 years, or more, ago.

Colonisation isn't a new invention. The earliest cultures for which we have recorded evidence, had colonisation - in other words - all the evidence suggests that humanity has been intermixing, intra-assimilating, conquering and colonising one another for about 100% of it's history.

Well if you take only the history of civilization, then, with the start of European colonialism that leaves us with barely 10% of the totality of all human civlization. For 90% of that time, the differing ethnic groups and cultures, while they were indeed evolving with time, were for the most part, completely isolated from those cultures found on the opposite side of the planet. Or in some cases, the other side of the mountains, such as the Himalayas. Trade between China and the west was extremely rare if it occured at all during the 90% time frame.Trade between China and Rome/Parthia doesn't count, huh? And what about the silk routes?