Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by Bud2400 at 10:24 pm on Oct. 8, 2008 I have seen how concepts like white nationalism, black nationalism, Asian nationalism, etc. have developed in people without any real hatred of other races.  To claim these people prejudiced against other races, and thus fueling their nationalism, seems to be quite an assumption to make, even if it may be applicable to a good number of these people.  However, in all fairness, they are not until they have proven themselves to be so. But I have noticed a slight contradiction among racial nationalists.  They advocate for the separation of all races and the purification of at least their race.  Yet at the same time, those who believe this and harbor no hatred against other races usually also believes all races to be inherently equal (for if not, they would assert the superiority, or at least a hierarchy, of one over the others, which would make them technically a racist, which they often vehemently deny). This in itself is not a contradiction, but I'd have to ask to the racial nationalists or anybody who thinks they can answer a few questions regarding this: 1) If all races are truly inherently equal (and by that, I mean if hypothetically born under the same exact circumstances, with the only difference being their race), then what is the significance of keeping a certain racial group pure?  Why would it be important? 2) What are the dangers of racial intermixing?  If it's so important that we do not intermix despite our inherent equality, what kinds of negatives are we preventing?  Why would these negatives come about? 3) If you answered racial tensions in question #2, then is racial intermixing really the cause of the problem, or is self-identification with a race (that supposedly has little implications on a person due to every race's inherent equality) to the point that it forms a major part of one's identity, thereby leading groups to form and tensions to form between these groups more of the cause? While believing all races to be inherently equal and also needing to remain separate is not a contradiction in and of itself, it seems to me that the reasoning for keeping the races separate appears to contradict that.  After all, if everyone individual was inherently equal despite the race, what would be the issue with intermixing?  If dangers come about from racial intermixing, it certainly could not be because both are inherently equal, could it? -- Posted by jakelong at 12:12 am on Oct. 9, 2008 Sound of crickets while we wait for racial nationalists to answer,,, -- Posted by Shaknbake at 12:31 am on Oct. 9, 2008 No race is superior or inferior, just different. We should have the right to preserve those differences. /devil's advocate. -- Posted by Bud2400 at 12:43 am on Oct. 9, 2008 Quote: from Shaknbake at 12:31 am on Oct. 9, 2008 No race is superior or inferior, just different. We should have the right to preserve those differences.   /devil's advocate. Okay. Now you need to explain how they're different, whether or not this difference is inherent (and if it is, how equality would still be maintained), and most importantly, why it's significant (or at least significant enough to warrant preservation). -- Posted by Shaknbake at 12:49 am on Oct. 9, 2008 Quote: from Bud2400 at 12:43 am on Oct. 9, 2008 Okay.  Now you need to explain how they're different, whether or not this difference is inherent (and if it is, how equality would still be maintained), and most importantly, why it's significant (or at least significant enough to warrant preservation). Isn't it obvious? White empires were always the greatest, empires have always fallen because of race-mixing, Whites score higher on IQ tests regardless of their background and all the other races are only good at running and cooking rice. Therefore whites should remain pure. Not that we're better or anything. Just different. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 1:57 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 Quote: from Shaknbake at 2:49 am on Oct. 9, 2008 Quote: from Bud2400 at 12:43 am on Oct. 9, 2008 Okay. Now you need to explain how they're different, whether or not this difference is inherent (and if it is, how equality would still be maintained), and most importantly, why it's significant (or at least significant enough to warrant preservation). Isn't it obvious? White empires were always the greatest, empires have always fallen because of race-mixing, Whites score higher on IQ tests regardless of their background and all the other races are only good at running and cooking rice. Therefore whites should remain pure. Not that we're better or anything. Just different.   This is a joke, yes? -- Posted by Bud2400 at 2:20 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 Quote: from Prince o palities at 1:57 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 This is a joke, yes? I'd imagine it is.  He's clearly mocking how white nationalists tend to argue how the races are inherently different by taking what would be considered the values of European culture, the virtues of European history, and the current collective socioeconomic / educational position of whites (such as their general IQs) in our society today over most other races, yet at the same time, suggest that nobody's inherently superior or inferior over the other (which would make that specific argument irrelevent for if we're all inherently equal and just want to celebrate a culture, then why must race get in the way of that?).  In other words, they take what general social differences they see and immediately apply it to race based on that simple association alone, thereby disregarding any other possible factors. As amusing as his mocking may be, it doesn't tell the full story.  It takes anecdotes of the views expressed by white nationalists frm his point of view, but I'd imagine a real white nationalist, or any kind of racial nationalist, answering the question or responding to what he said would be rather different. -- Posted by kidd rune at 3:24 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 1) Cultural differences, exploitation, different treatment, different qualities, ect. 2) Loss of individuality, destruction of race, culture, ect. This is a joke, yes? He's mocking me. -- Posted by Sudo XE at 4:53 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 I've never seen any point to the whole 'racial purification' thing (which miiiiight be because of my dating history, lmao), so I guess the only thing that would apply to me is the racial mixing issue I've never seen it as racial mixing being dangerous so much as the application of some degree of racial separatism being a practical and reasonable solution to certain problems. -- Posted by jakelong at 7:05 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 3:24 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 1) Cultural differences, exploitation, different treatment, different qualities, ect. So there is no cultural difference between a German and an Italian? No exploitation between ppl of the same race? Having different qualities may be helpful to a society. Once ppl agree to live together then they can DECIDE to treat ppl equally. 2) Loss of individuality, destruction of race, culture, ect. So we can ONLY define our individuality through race? We can ONLY define our culture through race? I am glad you think racial tensions is not the reason for not intermixing. -- Posted by Bud2400 at 10:51 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 3:24 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 1) Cultural differences So why must race be mixed with culture? Is an Asian person incapable of growing up in, functioning perfectly in, and expressing a European culture? Or do you believe that they're more likely to attempt retaining their own culture rather than assimilate? And if that's the case, why wouldn't you argue for assimilation as opposed to separatism? exploitation Could you elaborate? different treatment, different qualities, ect. Of what? Their culture? Goes back to the point of why wouldn't you simply argue for assimilation as opposed to separatism? Loss of individuality Loss of individuality? If anything, I get the opposite sense - arguing for a stronger identification with a certain race and preservation of that race encourages collectivism, the opposite of individualism. Your race may be a strong part of your individual character if you wish it to be, but you're using a collective concept to do that. If you want to encourage individuality, you'd advocate tossing away all collective ideals you may have (race being one of them) and defining yourself based on who you individually are through your own personal experiences as opposed to through collective concepts or collective experiences.  It's akin to describing all of your individual hobbies, thoughts, exactly the way you act, etc. instead of using a label to describe yourself (which simplifies the explanation, though at the expense of creating misunderstandings). destruction of race, culture, ect. And what is the significance of that?   I'm not trying to get on your ass about it. Please don't get that impression. I'm just wanting to discuss these things without the usual strawmen and bullshit being thrown around. -- Posted by Bud2400 at 10:53 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 Quote: from Sudo XE at 4:53 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 I've never seen any point to the whole 'racial purification' thing (which miiiiight be because of my dating history, lmao), so I guess the only thing that would apply to me is the racial mixing issue I've never seen it as racial mixing being dangerous so much as the application of some degree of racial separatism being a practical and reasonable solution to certain problems. You told me once that you're a black nationalist, right? I'm interested.  How and why do you think some degree of separatism will benefit society as a whole over complete integration?  What are the benefits vs. the costs?  What undesireable things would be prevented? -- Posted by jakelong at 12:10 am on Oct. 10, 2008 Quote: from Bud2400 at 10:51 pm on Oct. 9, 2008  If anything, I get the opposite sense - arguing for a stronger identification with a certain race and preservation of that race encourages collectivism, the opposite of individualism.  Your race may be a strong part of your individual character if you wish it to be, but you're using a collective concept to do that. Yeah thats true.  If you want to encourage individuality, you'd advocate tossing away all collective ideals you may have (race being one of them) and defining yourself based on who you individually are through your own personal experiences as opposed to through collective concepts or collective experiences. Or being judged on your individual quality or mistakes rather than collective qualities or mistakes. -- Posted by kidd rune at 2:48 pm on Oct. 10, 2008 So why must race be mixed with culture? Is an Asian person incapable of growing up in, functioning perfectly in, and expressing a European culture? A few people aren't a problem - when the number rises, they tend to remain individual. As I've stated before, around here culture clashes. Or do you believe that they're more likely to attempt retaining their own culture rather than assimilate? And if that's the case, why wouldn't you argue for assimilation as opposed to separatism? Because if nonWhites adopted White culture, their culture would die out. If White and nonWhite culture mixed, the dominant would overtake and the other would, henceforth, die out. Could you elaborate? Yggdrasil: It is a long list. Burdensome racial preference schemes in hiring, racial preference schemes in university admissions, racial preference schemes in government contracting and small business loans. Beyond quotas there is the denial of rights of free speech and of due process to Whites who are critical of these governmental policies. We have special punishments for assaults committed by Whites if the motives might be racial. In addition, Whites pay a proportion of the costs of the welfare state that is disproportionate to what they receive in benefits. But the most exploitative aspect of the situation is that neither the racial quotas, the business preferences, the loss of freedom of speech, nor the disproportionate contributions to the welfare state have managed to sate the appetites of non-Whites living in the United States. The more Whites sacrifice, the more non-Whites demand. Many Whites are beginning to believe that no amount of tribute, other than mass suicide, would satisfy the non-White demands. If our presence stirs up that much hatred in the hearts of non-Whites, then the only sensible course of action is to separate ourselves from them. Of what? Their culture? Goes back to the point of why wouldn't you simply argue for assimilation as opposed to separatism? Assimilation = loss of individuality. If someone wants to experience Mexican culture in the USA, they shouldn't approve of the illegal immigration, but visit Mexico and see the real deal. Loss of individuality? If anything, I get the opposite sense - arguing for a stronger identification with a certain race and preservation of that race encourages collectivism, the opposite of individualism. Your race may be a strong part of your individual character if you wish it to be, but you're using a collective concept to do that. If you want to encourage individuality, you'd advocate tossing away all collective ideals you may have (race being one of them) and defining yourself based on who you individually are through your own personal experiences as opposed to through collective concepts or collective experiences.  It's akin to describing all of your individual hobbies, thoughts, exactly the way you act, etc. instead of using a label to describe yourself (which simplifies the explanation, though at the expense of creating misunderstandings). If everyone mixed, people would be more similar than if everyone was different. And what is the significance of that?   Why shouldn't it exist? -- Posted by Bud2400 at 3:52 pm on Oct. 10, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 2:48 pm on Oct. 10, 2008 A few people aren't a problem - when the number rises, they tend to remain individual. As I've stated before, around here culture clashes. So you're saying that large waves of migrants tend to retain their own cultures within the overall culture, and they're more or less able to simply because they have enough numbers to exclude themselves from the rest of society?  And through this, there are cultural clashes between this isolated group, other isolated groups, and society at large? It would make sense, but again, why not just argue for their assimilation?  If they want to come live here, why shouldn't they just assimilate and you be happy with that?  The second and third generations usually do abandon this community at some point and join the mainstream society after all. Because if nonWhites adopted White culture, their culture would die out. If White and nonWhite culture mixed, the dominant would overtake and the other would, henceforth, die out. And what would the problem with this be?  We're talking within the US only, not worldwide.  It's not as if the culture of their home country would disappear if they decided to move and assimilate into the US. Yggdrasil: It is a long list. Burdensome racial preference schemes in hiring, racial preference schemes in university admissions, racial preference schemes in government contracting and small business loans. Beyond quotas there is the denial of rights of free speech and of due process to Whites who are critical of these governmental policies. We have special punishments for assaults committed by Whites if the motives might be racial. In addition, Whites pay a proportion of the costs of the welfare state that is disproportionate to what they receive in benefits. So because minorities tend to be poorer than usual, receive welfare more, and affirmative action is in place, you argue for having a society free of minorities? Why not just denounce affirmative action, welfare, and all that, and push for greater integration so that these minorities aren't stuck in such low socioeconomic positions in society? But the most exploitative aspect of the situation is that neither the racial quotas, the business preferences, the loss of freedom of speech, nor the disproportionate contributions to the welfare state have managed to sate the appetites of non-Whites living in the United States. If you grow dependent on the government and aspire for nothing more believing that you can't achieve anything more because you're of whatever race, what would you expect?  Greater integration (which isn't forced) would lead to an end of that.   The more Whites sacrifice, the more non-Whites demand. Many Whites are beginning to believe that no amount of tribute, other than mass suicide, would satisfy the non-White demands.   If our presence stirs up that much hatred in the hearts of non-Whites, then the only sensible course of action is to separate ourselves from them. Nah, the most sensible course of action is to separate the white individuals of today from the whites of the past.  Whites today are not guilty because whites in the past enslaved others, engaged in imperialism, passed discriminatory laws, etc.  Most minorities I've known do this, but there are quite a few, and whites too, who don't.  If you really oppose this, then you'd enlighten them to that fact as opposed to simply running away from the whole thing. Assimilation = loss of individuality. There is no loss of individuality by assimilating into a new culture.  You're still an individual who exhibits individual characteristics.  You still have your origins in a foreign place.  You just simply live in a new culture.  Same person, different circumstances.  No loss of individuality - it's merely just a change. If someone wants to experience Mexican culture in the USA, they shouldn't approve of the illegal immigration, but visit Mexico and see the real deal. That I'll agree with. If everyone mixed, people would be more similar than if everyone was different. Which would lead you to believe that they'd seek out their differences between each other more in terms of individual differences as opposed to collective differences (like race), no? Why shouldn't it exist? I asked you first.  At our present state, it'd be far more convenient to simply have everyone in the US to assimilate into one culture with each individual adding his or her own piece of their culture into that mix and integrate.  You clearly need to establish and prove some kind of significance and why the benefits would be greater than the costs if what you suggest is to ever work out. -- Posted by kidd rune at 4:54 pm on Oct. 10, 2008 So you're saying that large waves of migrants tend to retain their own cultures within the overall culture, and they're more or less able to simply because they have enough numbers to exclude themselves from the rest of society?  And through this, there are cultural clashes between this isolated group, other isolated groups, and society at large? It would make sense, but again, why not just argue for their assimilation?  If they want to come live here, why shouldn't they just assimilate and you be happy with that?  The second and third generations usually do abandon this community at some point and join the mainstream society after all. Sometimes it's too late - the culture is changed. Then, there are separate cultures in one nation. These cultures are influenced by a 3rd world nation, and influenced THEIR third world nation, usually pushing the US itself downwards. And what would the problem with this be?  We're talking within the US only, not worldwide.  It's not as if the culture of their home country would disappear if they decided to move and assimilate into the US. That's different. But the thing is - is it really possible for them to do that? Is it likely? My experience and what I've seen/heard of tell me: no. So because minorities tend to be poorer than usual, receive welfare more, and affirmative action is in place, you argue for having a society free of minorities? Why not just denounce affirmative action, welfare, and all that, and push for greater integration so that these minorities aren't stuck in such low socioeconomic positions in society? Who says nobody wants this? It's pretty much a lost cause. And they have to be willing to integrate, don't they? If you grow dependent on the government and aspire for nothing more believing that you can't achieve anything more because you're of whatever race, what would you expect?  Greater integration (which isn't forced) would lead to an end of that. Well, you can't expect it to happen can you? People want to practice their own culture, when more than one exists, they clash. Nah, the most sensible course of action is to separate the white individuals of today from the whites of the past.  Whites today are not guilty because whites in the past enslaved others, engaged in imperialism, passed discriminatory laws, etc.  Most minorities I've known do this, but there are quite a few, and whites too, who don't.  If you really oppose this, then you'd enlighten them to that fact as opposed to simply running away from the whole thing. "enlighten them to that fact" I've been doing so Bud, and I get called a racist, White Supremacist, race-hating, genocide instigating, KKK member, Nigger lynching Nazi. The truth isn't always accepted y'know. There is no loss of individuality by assimilating into a new culture.  You're still an individual who exhibits individual characteristics.  You still have your origins in a foreign place.  You just simply live in a new culture.  Same person, different circumstances.  No loss of individuality - it's merely just a change. Cultural individuality is lost. Which would lead you to believe that they'd seek out their differences between each other more in terms of individual differences as opposed to collective differences (like race), no? But their area is built to accommodate these cultural qualities - such as there being a lot of Mexican food in Texas, yet a lot of German food in North Dakota. I asked you first.  At our present state, it'd be far more convenient to simply have everyone in the US to assimilate into one culture with each individual adding his or her own piece of their culture into that mix and integrate.  You clearly need to establish and prove some kind of significance and why the benefits would be greater than the costs if what you suggest is to ever work out. "adding his or her own piece of their culture" They shouldn't add anything. This isn't Mexico, therefore Mexican culture has no place here. This isn't Japan, therefore Japanese culture has no place here. Instead of mixing up cultures and destroying previously existing characteristics, why not let people observe multiculturalism themselves? Then, the people that want it can have it - and the people that don't want it don't have to be in it. -- Posted by KaBooGurl at 5:38 pm on Oct. 10, 2008 Ok 1st most races aren't "pure" as it is because in the days of slavery white slave masters would rape the black female houseworkers, fieldworkers etc. SO no matter how much you say the white race is pure or the black race is pure it is not in actually. You can look now and even back then that most all races mixed thus not making any general race pure. I do see why there is a problem with mixing races because little do some people know you could say your Asian but your great-grandfather is white but you still consider yourself Asian because racial mixing in unacceptable. But your questions are very "hair raising" I suppose you can say for a person to truly answer these questions they have to put there race  aside and look at it in a more open minded kind of way you could say -- Posted by kidd rune at 6:23 pm on Oct. 10, 2008 Ok 1st most races aren't "pure" as it is because in the days of slavery white slave masters would rape the black female houseworkers, fieldworkers etc. Because race only exists in the USA, Whites haven't immigrated after slavery, and that all Whites had slaves. Oh, wait - More Whites are in Europe than the USA, many Whites immigrated into the US AFTER slavery was abolished, and most Whites never had, wanted, or could afford slaves. SO no matter how much you say the white race is pure or the black race is pure it is not in actually. Again, this is only pertaining to the US and some other countries. Of course, the Negro gene pool in the USA is about 30% or so White, but that's due to the 1/2 White, 1/2 Black being called a Negro instead of mulatto. You can look now and even back then that most all races mixed thus not making any general race pure. Are you referring to the USA or what? I do see why there is a problem with mixing races because little do some people know you could say your Asian but your great-grandfather is white but you still consider yourself Asian because racial mixing in unacceptable. Most people don't call themselves one race because they don't like mixing, but because they are mostly that race (or viewed as that race). -- Posted by jakelong at 12:24 am on Oct. 11, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 2:48 pm on Oct. 10, 2008 If everyone mixed, people would be more similar than if everyone was different. Yeah and no. I don't even LOOK like my sisters. mixed non whites dont look like each other or even behave like each other even if they the same mix type. They might be more tolerant because they know what its like to be different. But if everyone is mixed it dont mean also that ppl wil always get along either. I'd hope they do but its not like a garantee. what matters is the choice we make. So if everybody is mixed and agree that racedon't matter then at least that problem can get out of the way.   These cultures are influenced by a 3rd world nation, and influenced THEIR third world nation, usually pushing the US itself downwards. Japan is first world nation. Vietnam is 3rd world nation So does that mean you cool with anime and Japanese culture but not with Vietnamese? Barbados is a First world country. Brazil is a third world country. So does that mean you cool with Barabados culture but not Brazilian culture? Israel is First world nation but Egypt is more third world. Does that mean you cool with Israeli culture but not with Egyptian culture? -- Posted by kidd rune at 8:47 am on Oct. 11, 2008 Yeah and no. I don't even LOOK like my sisters. mixed non whites dont look like each other or even behave like each other even if they the same mix type. They might be more tolerant because they know what its like to be different. But if everyone is mixed it dont mean also that ppl wil always get along either. I'd hope they do but its not like a garantee. what matters is the choice we make. So if everybody is mixed and agree that racedon't matter then at least that problem can get out of the way. If nobody mixed and they agreed that race doesn't matter it would be all around better, correct? But, mixed or not, people won't say race "Doesn't matter," or they'll find something else to separate themselves by. Japan is first world nation. Vietnam is 3rd world nation So does that mean you cool with anime and Japanese culture but not with Vietnamese? Barbados is a First world country. Brazil is a third world country. So does that mean you cool with Barabados culture but not Brazilian culture? Israel is First world nation but Egypt is more third world. Does that mean you cool with Israeli culture but not with Egyptian culture? Most of the immigrants coming into the USA are from 3rd world countries, if not a large portion. Any foreign culture has no place here outside of the house of the immigrant. -- Posted by Shaknbake at 4:52 pm on Oct. 11, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 8:47 am on Oct. 11, 2008 Any foreign culture has no place here outside of the house of the immigrant. What, for you, constitutes culture stepping outside the house of the immigrant? -- Posted by Shaknbake at 4:55 pm on Oct. 11, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 3:24 pm on Oct. 9, 2008 He's mocking me. To be totally fair, I'm mocking the views I take you to represent, not you personally. I don't know you. Please don't take any nasty/frustrated comments/behaviors on my part as personal attacks. -- Posted by kidd rune at 5:01 pm on Oct. 11, 2008 What, for you, constitutes culture stepping outside the house of the immigrant? It having a public influence. Nobody should have to see it if they don't want to. To be totally fair, I'm mocking the views I take you to represent, not you personally. I don't know you. Please don't take any nasty/frustrated comments/behaviors on my part as personal attacks. Alright... -- Posted by jakelong at 7:42 pm on Oct. 12, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 8:47 am on Oct. 11, 2008 If nobody mixed and they agreed that race doesn't matter it would be all around better, correct?  Not better. The same. But, mixed or not, people won't say race "Doesn't matter," or they'll find something else to separate themselves by. Peopl like you, you mean? Any foreign culture has no place here outside of the house of the immigrant. The US is MADE of immigrants who were foreigners before they became citizens. So your point fails. -- Posted by RedNoir at 8:16 pm on Oct. 12, 2008 Maybe, it's just that some people feel that they deserve more in their countries. In America, some races have obviously done more than others, they feel that they deserve the right to be in America. Think about the millions of slaves that built this country, and to this day African-Americans do not get nearly as much respect that they deserve. -- Posted by jakelong at 4:07 am on Oct. 13, 2008 KR thinks that if your a slvae you didn't contribute anything to the country   -- Posted by kidd rune at 3:16 pm on Oct. 13, 2008  Not better. The same. But they would agree that race doesn't matter - ending racism, racialism, ect. Peopl like you, you mean? I like to be with people like me, what can I say? Horses run with their breed too. The US is MADE of immigrants who were foreigners before they became citizens. So your point fails. What do you consider an immigrant? KR thinks that if your a slvae you didn't contribute anything to the country That's a lie, they picked a lot of cotton while Whites were creating the country, signing the declaration of independence, the constitution, fighting the British, ect. -- Posted by jakelong at 10:01 pm on Oct. 14, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 3:16 pm on Oct. 13, 2008 But they would agree that race doesn't matter - ending racism, racialism, ect. It does not matter to me if they mix or not if that's what you asking. ]I like to be with people like me, what can I say? Horses run with their breed too. And they can be made to accept to be bridled and led by the bit too. What do you consider an immigrant? Someone who comes from another country and immigrates to a new country. That's a lie, they picked a lot of cotton while Whites were creating the country, signing the declaration of independence, the constitution, fighting the British, ect. So you value their contribution? -- Posted by snowfish at 8:40 am on Oct. 15, 2008 races may be equal, but we aren't treated equally by the racist society that we live in. Being Native American, having never had the option of having a nation, I am for having more Indian Nationalism. Reservations are officially sovereign nations but in fact just get screwed over by the U.S. government by that status. We need actual sovereignty. -- Posted by kidd rune at 4:13 pm on Oct. 15, 2008 It does not matter to me if they mix or not if that's what you asking. Yeah, I assume that as you're mixed yourself. And they can be made to accept to be bridled and led by the bit too. Similar to Whites... I see... Someone who comes from another country and immigrates to a new country. Then good ol' George Washington wasn't an immigrant. So you value their contribution? I'm sure their cotton kept my ancestors quite warm, but it would be foolish to value that over many White contributions. Pages: 1 2  Next