Pages: 1 2 3  Next -- Posted by kidd rune at 12:20 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/" target="_top">http://https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ Implicit attitudes on race are assessed by tests like the  Implicit Association Test (the link above) Subjects are shown photos of Blacks and Whites and asked to pair positive and negative words with them. 80% of Whites take longer to associate positive words with Blacks than Whites. This implies that that Whites have implicit negative stereotypes of Blacks. The thing that's interesting is that there's a gap between Whites certainly positive attitudes about Blacks and their certainly negative attitudes. Even liberal Whites show certain negative attitudes toward Blacks (although less negative than conservatives). In fact, White liberals are more race-hypocritical than conservatives because there is a larger gap between implicit attitudes and explicit attitudes towards Blacks. What's actually happening is that the conscious (explicit) brain is thinking positive thoughts about blacks because it is culturally pushed on them and they don't want to be "Racist" - it's suppressing the negative thoughts deep below the implicit part of the brain. In one study, Subjects were shown photos of blacks and whites while hooked up to an fMRI machine that takes pictures of the brain in action. When the photos were shown for very brief periods—too short to be explicitly processed, the fMRI showed that whites had a negative response to the photos of blacks. This procedure therefore measures implicit negative attitudes toward blacks. However, the photos of blacks were presented for a much longer period, so that they were processed by the explicit part of the brain. The difference in negative reaction to black and white faces decreased. This happened because the prefrontal cortex/explicit processing were activated. In other words: people CONSCIOUSLY aware that they are seeing Blacks have less negative thoughts than those that aren't - and they can suppress those negative thoughts (http://preview.tinyurl.com/66owqt" target="_top">http://http://preview.tinyurl.com/66owqt). Yeah.. discuss? -- Posted by Raza say at 12:25 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Yeah, listen dude. What do you think white people see blacks in their dreams everynight? This study is flawed by its very logic. Implicit, suppressing the not very popular views, lol. -- Posted by kidd rune at 12:29 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Yeah, listen dude. What do you think white people see blacks in their dreams everynight? This study is flawed by its very logic. Implicit, suppressing the not very popular views, lol. Explain. -- Posted by sadnessness at 12:41 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 My history teach did a test on us once where he told us to draw an average american. Being about 12 or 13 at the time, pretty much the whole class drew the steroptype: a white, fatish dude with a baseball shirt and cap. He told us we were racist because none of us drew a black person. Surely, if over 50% of Americas population is white, then a white person IS a typical American still? It doesnt mean that white people are the only americans, but it does make them more representative. I rarely trust stats over issues of race. -- Posted by kidd rune at 12:42 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 He told us we were racist because none of us drew a black person. He's a retard. I rarely trust stats over issues of race. That tested brain impulses when presented with other races. -- Posted by sadnessness at 12:49 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 8:42 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 He told us we were racist because none of us drew a black person. He's a retard. I rarely trust stats over issues of race. That tested brain impulses when presented with other races. They dont know exaclty that those brain impulses mean though. The brain could simply be processing that the person isnt of the average skin colour and documenting it in a different place. Whether someone is racist or not, they still notice whether a person is white, mixed, race, black, asian etc. the brain still has to notice something. Also, there are deep rooted stereotypes within people. It is probably automatic for a londoner who see's an Asian man to roughly calculate the chance that he is a terrorist, even if it is subconscious. I wouldnt say that is racist, more self preservation, because the same sort of reaction would most likely occur if a white man with a knife and hood was shown. -- Posted by kidd rune at 12:58 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 They dont know exaclty that those brain impulses mean though. The brain could simply be processing that the person isnt of the average skin colour and documenting it in a different place. Whether someone is racist or not, they still notice whether a person is white, mixed, race, black, asian etc. the brain still has to notice something. Also, there are deep rooted stereotypes within people. It is probably automatic for a londoner who see's an Asian man to roughly calculate the chance that he is a terrorist, even if it is subconscious. I wouldnt say that is racist, more self preservation, because the same sort of reaction would most likely occur if a white man with a knife and hood was shown. I know it's not racism. But, to the USA, it IS. They came with negative attitudes. They tested when given more time (where instinct can be overpowered) that less negative attitudes were given. It's just proof that people unknowingly stereotype and we would all be better off with our own people. -- Posted by sadnessness at 1:01 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 8:58 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 They dont know exaclty that those brain impulses mean though. The brain could simply be processing that the person isnt of the average skin colour and documenting it in a different place. Whether someone is racist or not, they still notice whether a person is white, mixed, race, black, asian etc. the brain still has to notice something. Also, there are deep rooted stereotypes within people. It is probably automatic for a londoner who see's an Asian man to roughly calculate the chance that he is a terrorist, even if it is subconscious. I wouldnt say that is racist, more self preservation, because the same sort of reaction would most likely occur if a white man with a knife and hood was shown. I know it's not racism. But, to the USA, it IS. They came with negative attitudes. They tested when given more time (where instinct can be overpowered) that less negative attitudes were given. It's just proof that people unknowingly stereotype and we would all be better off with our own people. Oh ok. Well i agree with you on the unknowlingly sterotype bit, but i have to differ on the "best with our own people" thing. I guess thats just our points of view :) -- Posted by kidd rune at 1:05 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Oh ok. Well i agree with you on the unknowlingly sterotype bit, but i have to differ on the "best with our own people" thing. I guess thats just our points of view :) That would be the "Stop the hate - separate" ideology that I have - opposite of mixing everyone so racism doesn't exist (or race for that matter) - and I find that horrific. -- Posted by sadnessness at 1:14 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 9:05 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Oh ok. Well i agree with you on the unknowlingly sterotype bit, but i have to differ on the "best with our own people" thing. I guess thats just our points of view :) That would be the "Stop the hate - separate" ideology that I have - opposite of mixing everyone so racism doesn't exist (or race for that matter) - and I find that horrific. isnt it also possible that separation would create more rivalry and racism though? People would start getting racially competative, there would be interracial sports... Could get messier than it is now even. Even if they are totally segregated, that still leaves the question open of "why?" and sadly many people would conclude that it is because one race is superior to the others. -- Posted by kidd rune at 2:53 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 isnt it also possible that separation would create more rivalry and racism though? People would start getting racially competative, there would be interracial sports... What do you mean by racism - Ethnocentrism or hate. From what I've seen - racism is caused by exposure to other races (especially living in the same area) Even if they are totally segregated, that still leaves the question open of "why?" and sadly many people would conclude that it is because one race is superior to the others. It wouldn't be total segregation - nations would exist for various races to live in - but other nations would exist for one race. And you're just throwing superior in there to make it seem bad. Hisotrically, people were supremacists and nothing happened. I urge you to read this: http://raceandreason.110mb.com/files/~People/What-is-racism.html" target="_top">http://http://raceandreason.110mb.com/files/~People/What-is-racism.html -- Posted by Moonscar at 5:01 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 2:53 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 isnt it also possible that separation would create more rivalry and racism though? People would start getting racially competative, there would be interracial sports... What do you mean by racism - Ethnocentrism or hate.   From what I've seen - racism is caused by exposure to other races (especially living in the same area) Even if they are totally segregated, that still leaves the question open of "why?" and sadly many people would conclude that it is because one race is superior to the others. It wouldn't be total segregation - nations would exist for various races to live in - but other nations would exist for one race. And you're just throwing superior in there to make it seem bad. Hisotrically, people were supremacists and nothing happened. I urge you to read this: http://raceandreason.110mb.com/files/~People/What-is-racism.html" target="_top">http://http://raceandreason.110mb.com/files/~People/What-is-racism.html This is the 21st century. With trade and different products and resource from different countries, you can't expect to have an all white country. A lot of your fellow white people don't even want that. I don't think you know enough to understand what you would be doing if you made 1 race countries in this day and age. The argument is pointless because it will never happen.......... -- Posted by kidd rune at 5:33 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 This is the 21st century. With trade and different products and resource from different countries, you can't expect to have an all white country. Sure you can - just make it so only Whites can immigrate there. It wouldn't totally shut the rest of the world off... I don't think you know enough to understand what you would be doing if you made 1 race countries in this day and age. The argument is pointless because it will never happen. Tell me - WHAT would happen? Why do countries of one race exist at the moment in Africa than? -- Posted by Moonscar at 5:45 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 5:33 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 This is the 21st century. With trade and different products and resource from different countries, you can't expect to have an all white country. Sure you can - just make it so only Whites can immigrate there.   It wouldn't totally shut the rest of the world off... I don't think you know enough to understand what you would be doing if you made 1 race countries in this day and age. The argument is pointless because it will never happen. Tell me - WHAT would happen? Why do countries of one race exist at the moment in Africa than? Who knows, though your idea of preserving all white countries is far fetched. Keeping races from mixing is far fetched. Especially if you plan on doing it in America which is full of different races. You can't stop people who love each other from mixing no matter what your belief is. There may be all black countries in Africa but What makes you think you can keep the U.S.A all white? Tell me in detail of your plan to do this. If you have a belief of doing something you must have some sort of idea on how it would work out. Again with trade and business races interact all the time through culture and entertainment. Especially since America has come so far in living with different races despite what some KKK members think. I just want to know your plan. -- Posted by kidd rune at 5:58 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Who knows, though your idea of preserving all white countries is far fetched. Keeping races from mixing is far fetched. Especially if you plan on doing it in America which is full of different races. You can't stop people who love each other from mixing no matter what your belief is. There may be all black countries in Africa but What makes you think you can keep the U.S.A all white? Tell me in detail of your plan to do this. If you have a belief of doing something you must have some sort of idea on how it would work out. Again with trade and business races interact all the time through culture and entertainment. Especially since America has come so far in living with different races despite what some KKK members think. I just want to know your plan. Why is preservation of race "Far fetched?" Why is letting something LIVE a bad thing? And love isn't everything. I told myself that even if I love a nonWhite more than anything I won't mix. I'm not selfish enough to do that. And where did the USA come from? I don't want to keep the USA White - Europe is a far better choice! The USA is about 2/3 White and falling - it's a lost cause (Even though 30-40% of the Nordic population lives there.) I hope Whites will one day push off the bad influences that are destroying their race and many will fight to create a nation for them and their children to live and exist in. And of course they interact - but does that mean they have to mass immigrate? Japan keeps itself somewhat homogeneous CIA.GOV: Japanese 98.5%, Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.6% Japanese, Korean, and Chinese are all East-Mongoloid - close enough to consdier the same race. The 0.6% is most likely Ainu (natives of Japan) mixed people and others living temporarily in Japan. In reality - it's over 99% East Asian. Does Japan shun the world? NO! Japan is a very popular country and constantly trades technology and information with others! Why can't parts of Europe do that? -- Posted by Moonscar at 6:33 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 5:58 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Who knows, though your idea of preserving all white countries is far fetched. Keeping races from mixing is far fetched. Especially if you plan on doing it in America which is full of different races. You can't stop people who love each other from mixing no matter what your belief is. There may be all black countries in Africa but What makes you think you can keep the U.S.A all white? Tell me in detail of your plan to do this. If you have a belief of doing something you must have some sort of idea on how it would work out. Again with trade and business races interact all the time through culture and entertainment. Especially since America has come so far in living with different races despite what some KKK members think. I just want to know your plan. Why is preservation of race "Far fetched?" Why is letting something LIVE a bad thing?   And love isn't everything. I told myself that even if I love a nonWhite more than anything I won't mix. I'm not selfish enough to do that.   And where did the USA come from? I don't want to keep the USA White - Europe is a far better choice! The USA is about 2/3 White and falling - it's a lost cause (Even though 30-40% of the Nordic population lives there.)   I hope Whites will one day push off the bad influences that are destroying their race and many will fight to create a nation for them and their children to live and exist in.   And of course they interact - but does that mean they have to mass immigrate? Japan keeps itself somewhat homogeneous CIA.GOV: Japanese 98.5%, Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.6%   Japanese, Korean, and Chinese are all East-Mongoloid - close enough to consdier the same race. The 0.6% is most likely Ainu (natives of Japan) mixed people and others living temporarily in Japan.   In reality - it's over 99% East Asian.   Does Japan shun the world? NO! Japan is a very popular country and constantly trades technology and information with others! Why can't parts of Europe do that? It's bad because your looking as if the genes of a race are the most important thing which it is not. If you love someone, genes shouldn't get in the way of that. Maybe you would keep yourself from being happy over something stupid but others won't unless forced to do so which may be your plan. I agree too, I would rather see chocolate skin stay alive rather than light tan skin but it's not as important as your trying to say it is. "I hope Whites will one day push off the bad influences that are destroying their race and many will fight to create a nation for them and their children to live and exist in. " and what will that take? Force? I mean I still have yet to see a plan of yours. You say love isn't everything, well race isn't everything either and that way of thinking is what fuels prejudice. The only bad influence that started this racial conflict were people who thought too much about racial organization and placement. There's immigration in Japan too. Even if it is little. You say to stop immigration in a white country. Where would all those minorities go who are in Europe now? Kick them out to another part of the world? -- Posted by kidd rune at 7:08 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 It's bad because your looking as if the genes of a race are the most important thing which it is not. If you love someone, genes shouldn't get in the way of that. Maybe you would keep yourself from being happy over something stupid but others won't unless forced to do so which may be your plan. I agree too, I would rather see chocolate skin stay alive rather than light tan skin but it's not as important as your trying to say it is. Genetics is very important to me. The survival of the beauty and individuality of my race is dear to me. I love my race and will do all I can to continue its existence. WOAH there buddy - "I would rather see chocolate skin stay alive rather than light tan skin" That's where we differ. I want EVERY race to survive. and what will that take? Force? I mean I still have yet to see a plan of yours. Peacefully I hope. You say love isn't everything, well race isn't everything either and that way of thinking is what fuels prejudice. Race isn't everything - but it's SOMETHING and it should be preserved. The only bad influence that started this racial conflict were people who thought too much about racial organization and placement. There's immigration in Japan too. Even if it is little. You say to stop immigration in a white country. Racial conflict was due to races and cultures being unable to live compatibly. Europeans were taught that they were superior. Chinese were taught that THEY were superior. In their own minds - they were. No destruction came from this and everyone was happy. But, when Chinese people came into European schools - they didn't agree. What happens is conflict and "Racism" It would be better off if races didn't live together. You say to stop immigration in a white country. Where would all those minorities go who are in Europe now? Kick them out to another part of the world? You ask the big questions, for which there is no simple answer. Or perhaps there is a simple answer, but we lack the means to accomplish it. It is a matter of basic values and beliefs. Most people acquire these from external sources in their environment, and these overwhelmingly consist of the bad influences I referred to in my previous post. We lack the means to replace or counter these bad influences with good influences to any significant degree, and until we have such means we can't do much except develop the message, the philosophy, to use whenever we get the opportunity within our limited means. It would be a wonderful thing to restore the natural racial order of separate racial populations without harming anyone, without even harming their feelings. But I suppose we would need everyone to be on the same side, all wanting the same thing, to do that. Otherwise, once the fox gets into the hen house it's hard to remove him without hurting him, or at least scaring him so convincingly he runs for his life. Once other races are let into the homeland of another race, if they are determined to stay, it would take either forceful measures or some very powerful persuasion, or a transcendental moral enlightenment, to get them to leave. -- Posted by Moonscar at 7:22 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:08 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 It's bad because your looking as if the genes of a race are the most important thing which it is not. If you love someone, genes shouldn't get in the way of that. Maybe you would keep yourself from being happy over something stupid but others won't unless forced to do so which may be your plan. I agree too, I would rather see chocolate skin stay alive rather than light tan skin but it's not as important as your trying to say it is. Genetics is very important to me. The survival of the beauty and individuality of my race is dear to me. I love my race and will do all I can to continue its existence. WOAH there buddy - "I would rather see chocolate skin stay alive rather than light tan skin" That's where we differ. I want EVERY race to survive. and what will that take? Force? I mean I still have yet to see a plan of yours. Peacefully I hope. You say love isn't everything, well race isn't everything either and that way of thinking is what fuels prejudice. Race isn't everything - but it's SOMETHING and it should be preserved. The only bad influence that started this racial conflict were people who thought too much about racial organization and placement. There's immigration in Japan too. Even if it is little. You say to stop immigration in a white country. Racial conflict was due to races and cultures being unable to live compatibly. Europeans were taught that they were superior. Chinese were taught that THEY were superior. In their own minds - they were. No destruction came from this and everyone was happy. But, when Chinese people came into European schools - they didn't agree. What happens is conflict and "Racism" It would be better off if races didn't live together. You say to stop immigration in a white country. Where would all those minorities go who are in Europe now? Kick them out to another part of the world? You ask the big questions, for which there is no simple answer. Or perhaps there is a simple answer, but we lack the means to accomplish it. It is a matter of basic values and beliefs. Most people acquire these from external sources in their environment, and these overwhelmingly consist of the bad influences I referred to in my previous post. We lack the means to replace or counter these bad influences with good influences to any significant degree, and until we have such means we can't do much except develop the message, the philosophy, to use whenever we get the opportunity within our limited means. It would be a wonderful thing to restore the natural racial order of separate racial populations without harming anyone, without even harming their feelings. But I suppose we would need everyone to be on the same side, all wanting the same thing, to do that. Otherwise, once the fox gets into the hen house it's hard to remove him without hurting him, or at least scaring him so convincingly he runs for his life. Once other races are let into the homeland of another race, if they are determined to stay, it would take either forceful measures or some very powerful persuasion, or a transcendental moral enlightenment, to get them to leave. Don't twist my words. I said That I would rather see chocolate skin stay alive rather than light tan skin. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want both to survive. That's just my preference on which one I like better based on Sexual urges which I will not talk about. I do recall Racial Conflict happening wherever The Europeans ventured. Native Americans, Africans, Aborigines? Europeans taking it a step further and coming into territory to take over and slaughter? It seems that a lot of Racial tension today is connected to Europeans. I mean you can't force people to preserve race unless you create a belief system and have people follow you. I don't think minority is a bad influence are things like the KKK...... -- Posted by kidd rune at 7:31 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 I do recall Racial Conflict happening wherever The Europeans ventured. Native Americans, Africans, Aborigines? Europeans taking it a step further and coming into territory to take over and slaughter? It seems that a lot of Racial tension today is connected to Europeans. I can't think of one event that they came to slaughter. To take over? For trade or direct benefit for them - it all matters what you call "Taking over." I mean you can't force people to preserve race unless you create a belief system and have people follow you. I don't think minority is a bad influence are things like the KKK...... Minorities aren't the bad influence really - it's the anti-race preservation influences by the media that are bad. The KKK? Well - irrelevant. The KKK wouldn't have existed if Whites and Blacks didn't live and become equal citizens in the same nation. Lincoln himself wanted to send all the Negroes back to Africa - and he wasn't all "We're all equal" either - it wasn't his idea to end slavery nor did he want Whites and Blacks to live equally. Slavery would've found itself useless anyway as technology came into light. -- Posted by Moonscar at 7:34 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:31 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 I do recall Racial Conflict happening wherever The Europeans ventured. Native Americans, Africans, Aborigines? Europeans taking it a step further and coming into territory to take over and slaughter? It seems that a lot of Racial tension today is connected to Europeans. I can't think of one event that they came to slaughter. To take over? For trade or direct benefit for them - it all matters what you call "Taking over." I mean you can't force people to preserve race unless you create a belief system and have people follow you. I don't think minority is a bad influence are things like the KKK...... Minorities aren't the bad influence really - it's the anti-race preservation influences by the media that are bad. The KKK? Well - irrelevant. The KKK wouldn't have existed if Whites and Blacks didn't live and become equal citizens in the same nation. Lincoln himself wanted to send all the Negroes back to Africa - and he wasn't all "We're all equal" either - it wasn't his idea to end slavery nor did he want Whites and Blacks to live equally. Slavery would've found itself useless anyway as technology came into light. Well lets see. There was slaughter when Europeans encountered the Indians, some with Africans and the Aborigines. Do you know your history? I know you don't like me using this phrase but I can feel you trying to "Sugarcoat" something again     -- Posted by Khadgar at 7:38 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Quote: from sadnessness at 1:01 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Oh ok. Well i agree with you on the unknowlingly sterotype bit, but i have to differ on the "best with our own people" thing. I guess thats just our points of view :) Don't bother talking to kidd rune, he's a whacko conspiracy theorist who is fanatical about race as prisoner of hss is about psychology. Kidd's essential flow is: A is true. A causes B, therefore Z is true. He likes to make these huge leaps in association that are much farther than the standard laws of logic dictate. And in advance, Rune, NO I will not give you an example of this, because you will merely pick it apart and use it to disprove what I am saying, when in reality we all already know it is true. -- Posted by kidd rune at 7:50 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Well lets see. There was slaughter when Europeans encountered the Indians, some with Africans and the Aborigines. Do you know your history? I know you don't like me using this phrase but I can feel you trying to "Sugarcoat" something again The Amerinds were the first to fight. Some African tribes attacked Whites on first contact. The same with Amerinds - there's actually a book about disproving the myths about Australoid and White encounters. Don't bother talking to kidd rune, he's a whacko conspiracy theorist who is fanatical about race as prisoner of hss is about psychology. Kidd's essential flow is: A is true. A causes B, therefore Z is true. He likes to make these huge leaps in association that are much farther than the standard laws of logic dictate. Not really. I present evidence and let others make the decision. Conspiracy theorist? What conspiracy? And in advance, Rune, NO I will not give you an example of this, because you will merely pick it apart and use it to disprove what I am saying, when in reality we all already know it is true. There you go. "I'm an idiot and I make statements but I will not let you try to disprove them." -- Posted by jakelong at 2:45 am on Nov. 27, 2008 Quote: from sadnessness at 12:41 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Being about 12 or 13 at the time, pretty much the whole class drew the steroptype: a white, fatish dude with a baseball shirt and cap. He told us we were racist because none of us drew a black person. I'd have said you guys were racist because you think all whites are fatish and wear baseball caps     -- Posted by jakelong at 2:46 am on Nov. 27, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:50 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 The Amerinds were the first to fight. 1. No proof 2. They were defending their hunting territory which was being destroyed. 3. Don't they have a right to exist and defend their existence?   Or only whites have that right? -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 8:18 am on Nov. 27, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 8:58 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 It's just proof that people unknowingly stereotype and we would all be better off with our own people. Care to provide evidence for this assertion? The study mentions nothing of the sort. -- Posted by kidd rune at 9:55 am on Nov. 27, 2008 1. No proof 2. They were defending their hunting territory which was being destroyed. 3. Don't they have a right to exist and defend their existence?   Or only whites have that right? 1. No proof on the other side either! 2. Some of them are reported to have ATTACKED ON SIGHT. 3. They all do - but then again only about 6% of the Amerind population ever existed in the USA - most were in South America. I have said many times that people should've stayed in their own lands. Care to provide evidence for this assertion? The study mentions nothing of the sort. It's an opinion. "Better off" is what you make it - correct? -- Posted by Moonscar at 10:02 am on Nov. 27, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 9:55 am on Nov. 27, 2008 1. No proof 2. They were defending their hunting territory which was being destroyed. 3. Don't they have a right to exist and defend their existence? Or only whites have that right? 1. No proof on the other side either! 2. Some of them are reported to have ATTACKED ON SIGHT. 3. They all do - but then again only about 6% of the Amerind population ever existed in the USA - most were in South America. I have said many times that people should've stayed in their own lands.     Care to provide evidence for this assertion? The study mentions nothing of the sort. It's an opinion. "Better off" is what you make it - correct? What about the Native Americans? Also as history shows which you insist on denying it was Europeans who couldn't stay in Europe am I right? -- Posted by kidd rune at 10:11 am on Nov. 27, 2008 What about the Native Americans? Also as history shows which you insist on denying it was Europeans who couldn't stay in Europe am I right? What about the Amerinds? They have a right to exist - though only about 6% of the population of Amerinds ever lived in the USA. -- Posted by Moonscar at 10:28 am on Nov. 27, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 10:11 am on Nov. 27, 2008 What about the Native Americans? Also as history shows which you insist on denying it was Europeans who couldn't stay in Europe am I right? What about the Amerinds? They have a right to exist - though only about 6% of the population of Amerinds ever lived in the USA. What about the Native Americans? <-------Don't avoid the question again. -- Posted by kidd rune at 10:32 am on Nov. 27, 2008 What about the Native Americans? <-------Don't avoid the question again. I'm not trying to avoid it - I don't know what you're asking! Ask me a question about the Amerinds and I'll answer - but not something bland like "What about the Amerinds?" Pages: 1 2 3  Next