Becoming a minority in one's own Country.

[0123847a;fsdaklf]

   I've been reading and researching many articles and such on how the USA may see the minority become the majority.  Minorities surpass white births in the USA in fact. What do you guys think? Should any action be took against it, or for it? Should we all take a back seat and watch it happen? Tell me what you think.

[Liddojunior]

Is this a problem ? What action are you expecting ? Genocide ? 

[Water Salesman]

Why and what action would you take against this? "i don't like minorities please don't let then outnumber me (((((("

[♥Prof. Sugarcube♥]

If i may be the devil's advocate, the White race were worried about this 300 years ago when Whites and Native Americans were at war and then that ended in genocide, so effectively you're just getting your comeuppance on a land that isn't rightfully but legally yours

 

Just playing the devil's advocate here

[0123847a;fsdaklf]

Yes, I am wondering what you guys think about this.  Maybe we can look through different perspectives too.  How would a place, maybe Zimbabwe or such, were flooded with white immigrants and took over there communities?  I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm totally neutral and I just want to discuss.

[0123847a;fsdaklf]

If i may be the devil's advocate, the White race were worried about this 300 years ago when Whites and Native Americans were at war and then that ended in genocide, so effectively you're just getting your comeuppance on a land that isn't rightfully but legally yours

 

Just playing the devil's advocate here

Yup, it sure wasn't the whites to take. But genocide can happen in many ways, not just murdering. If the whites didn't kill and simply went into there land, politics, and people, they would still be overflooded and took over.

[Jacobmeister]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9271573/Non-white-births-outnumber-white-births-for-the-first-time-in-US.html

 

White people are still the majority, and this fact is really nothing to get worked up over.

 

It's not all about "white" and "non-white", it's about "white" and "hispanic" and "african-american" and "asian", seeing it as just white and non-white is a pretty bad way to look at it.

[CecilyLovesYou<3™]

Most white Americans are just being cocky about themselves being white lmao

[Hyperqube]

Pretty much this:

 

> It's not all about "white" and "non-white", it's about "white" and

> "hispanic" and "african-american" and "asian", seeing it as just

> white and non-white is a pretty bad way to look at it.

 

but especially this

 

> Is this a problem ? What action are you expecting ? Genocide ?

 

 

Do, not that it's not only 'your' country: when one say: "Becoming a minority in one's own Country" The minorities see it as  "Becoming a majority in one's own Country".

 

 

Consider that, when one fears to become the minority ... what does that say on how one treated the minority themselves?

When minority becomes majority, the minority will be able to treat the former majority as they were treated. Are you ready for that?

[Hyperqube]

Yup, it sure wasn't the whites to take. But genocide can happen in many ways, not just murdering. If the whites didn't kill and simply went into there land, politics, and people, they would still be overflooded and took over.

 

you sure?

• Between 1500 and 1820 (320 years), about 80% of the people who embarked to america were enslaved Africans

  (meaning 80 slaves ~ 20 non-slave, or 4:1) (link)

• Between 1620 and 1820 (200 years), 600 000 slaves were imported (link)

so, by estimate, we would be talking about 600 000 x 1.5 for the longer time  / 4 for the amount of whites = 225,000.

while

• Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from 8.4 million to 112.5 million (lets round, and say 10 to 100 million)

[0123847a;fsdaklf]

 

you sure?

• Between 1500 and 1820 (320 years), about 80% of the people who embarked to america were enslaved Africans

  (meaning 80 slaves ~ 20 non-slave, or 4:1) (link)

• Between 1620 and 1820 (200 years), 600 000 slaves were imported (link)

so, by estimate, we would be talking about 600 000 x 1.5 for the longer time  / 4 for the amount of whites = 225,000.

while

• Estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from 8.4 million to 112.5 million (lets round, and say 10 to 100 million)

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Enslaved Africans couldn't make it into politics or people. There were a lot of Native Americans, but they were spread out on a whole continent and they were mostly divided for that sake.  If you don't think that you can commit genocide without actually killing a race, look at what the Chinese did to Tibet. 

[Hyperqube]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Enslaved Africans couldn't make it into politics or people. There were a lot of Native Americans, but they were spread out on a whole continent and they were mostly divided for that sake.  If you don't think that you can commit genocide without actually killing a race, look at what the Chinese did to Tibet. 

 

1. I only used Enslaves Africans to calculate how much white people traveled to the US. A tiny fraction compared to the native american: 2% at best, 0.2% at worst/

 

2. On commiting genocide without actually killing a race, that's irrelevant. I was commenting on you claiming "they would still be overflooded and took over.". They woudn't. at best whites were with about 1%. To overflood, you usually need a (vast) majority, not a tiny minority ...

 

With those numbers, if whites tried what china does to tibet, they would quite quickly, with a democratice vote, find themselves back on a ship back home

 

3. On arguing that the natives where spread out - you seem to forget that whites were spread out too: over 320 years. We're talking about only 225K / 320 = 700 people / year, compared to a self sustaining population of 10-100 million

[0123847a;fsdaklf]

1. I only used Enslaves Africans to calculate how much white people traveled to the US. A tiny fraction compared to the native american: 2% at best, 0.2% at worst/

 

2. On commiting genocide without actually killing a race, that's irrelevant. I was commenting on you claiming "they would still be overflooded and took over.". They woudn't. at best whites were with about 1%. To overflood, you usually need a (vast) majority, not a tiny minority ...

 

With those numbers, if whites tried what china does to tibet, they would quite quickly, with a democratice vote, find themselves back on a ship back home

 

3. On arguing that the natives where spread out - you seem to forget that whites were spread out too: over 320 years. We're talking about only 225K / 320 = 700 people / year, compared to a self sustaining population of 10-100 million

 Sorry, when I referred to whites I meant American whites during that time. Quite concentrated on the East Coast of the United States, compared to all over the entire continent. 

[Hyperqube]

 Sorry, when I referred to whites I meant American whites during that time. Quite concentrated on the East Coast of the United States, compared to all over the entire continent. 

 

East Coast? OK. (linky) 73 of the 501  are on the east coast. So we're not talking 10-100 million, but only 1.5 - 15 million native americans? well ... sorry, but  700 white people per year is still not going to overflood that ...

[❤ΣκαπανέαςGr❤]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Enslaved Africans couldn't make it into politics or people. There were a lot of Native Americans, but they were spread out on a whole continent and they were mostly divided for that sake.  If you don't think that you can commit genocide without actually killing a race, look at what the Chinese did to Tibet. 

If anything if you get the minority to be the majority you might get the chance to have equal treatment  for everyone .

 

And we hopefully stop seing titles on news about "White underage woman will be tried as an adult black man" this sentence is what is wrong with you.

you have laws that allow ppl to be tried based gender and race thats sad.

 

As for your question and what you can do about it the answe is one.

 

dont use condoms you white ppl

have more childrens.

or just kill everyone else

 

I would go for more sex than more blood.

[t0night]

If anything if you get the minority to be the majority you might get the chance to have equal treatment  for everyone .

 

And we hopefully stop seing titles on news about "White underage woman will be tried as an adult black man" this sentence is what is wrong with you.

you have laws that allow ppl to be tried based gender and race thats sad.

 

As for your question and what you can do about it the answe is one.

 

dont use condoms you white ppl

have more childrens.

or just kill everyone else

 

I would go for more sex than more blood.

http://literallyunbelievable.org/post/109392800350/this-is-some-bs- you have seen an onion headline and mistaken it for reality, congratulations. what's wrong with that sentence is that everyone is tried the same, the satire is that not everyone is, and the really good bit is that people are upset that a white girl would be tried in the same exact way as a black man, which is exactly what's supposed to happen.

 

 

anyway,

 

'one's own country'

 

you don't own your country by virtue of being white and living there any more than someone who is part of an ethnic minority owns it by living there. the whole thing of 'whites will be outnumbered' can only ever be constructed as a genuine problem if part of your argument is that whites are superior or more deserving or the only bearers of culture or whatever, which is a very dumb and racist position to maintain.

[0123847a;fsdaklf]

http://literallyunbelievable.org/post/109392800350/this-is-some-bs- you have seen an onion headline and mistaken it for reality, congratulations. what's wrong with that sentence is that everyone is tried the same, the satire is that not everyone is, and the really good bit is that people are upset that a white girl would be tried in the same exact way as a black man, which is exactly what's supposed to happen.

 

 

anyway,

 

'one's own country'

 

you don't own your country by virtue of being white and living there any more than someone who is part of an ethnic minority owns it by living there. the whole thing of 'whites will be outnumbered' can only ever be constructed as a genuine problem if part of your argument is that whites are superior or more deserving or the only bearers of culture or whatever, which is a very dumb and racist position to maintain.

Would it be racist for Zimbabwe or South Africa wanting to keep it all black? Most would say no. I'm not at all saying whites are superior, but I'm saying they deserve a homeland, that's not racist. I wish multiculturalism worked as well as people wanted it to, but I don't think it ever will unfortunately. 

[Heated Bread]

Racism and racist rhetoric are the potential problems, not simply which demographics are bigger.  As long as we continue to allow ourselves to be divided along racial lines instead of simply viewing skin color and other racial traits as being not really much different than hair or eye color, this will be a threat.  Unfortunately, many of those who claim to be against racism continue to insist that we focus on race above other factors, and this helps perpetuate division.  These are the same people that claim it's impossible to be racist against whites because whites are the traditional oppressors (aka redefining racism to escape being labeled a racist bigot) while insisting on focusing on the concept of a shared guilt and evil of whites as a collective.

 

The concept of race itself may even be useless beyond facilitating social division.  For example, there's no problem at all with interbreeding between the supposed races.  We all seem to be of the same species.  Any person of any racial group is capable of successfully breeding with any other person of any other racial group, provided that they are of the opposite sex and are both fertile.  What then is race other than a set of traits shared among people descending from a specific geographic location? Beyond a mere cataloging of basic facts for a better picture of common ancestry and human migration, what purpose is served by focusing primarily on the distinct combination of those traits other than to highlight differences and create and perpetuate division?  Some might insist that we must focus on race in order to counteract racism, however they fail (perhaps intentionally) to realize that by using race as a basis for judgement, they are themselves being racist and discriminatory.  It is racism that must be combated, and this cannot be done by being racist.  It must be done by first correctly identifying racism and racist practices.

 

tl;dr - the problem isn't what race is in the majority.  The problem is racial discrimination itself, no matter who does it.  There's no merit to it, and it serves no end but hatred and division.

[Professional Map Painter]

Would it be racist for Zimbabwe or South Africa wanting to keep it all black? Most would say no. I'm not at all saying whites are superior, but I'm saying they deserve a homeland, that's not racist. I wish multiculturalism worked as well as people wanted it to, but I don't think it ever will unfortunately. 

Are you serious? Cultures change over time - the cultures in Europe and America, for example, have changed dramatically in the past 2,000 years and you can't stop this. The rise & fall of the Diadochi, the Roman Empire, the Turkic and Mongol invasions, the fall of Constantinople and colonialism are but a few of many events that have changed the cultural and ethnic composition of Europe. There has never been a homeland for white or black people, but simply cultural unions of certain groups that drifted together over the years e.g France was a collection of Frankish domains, each with their distinctive cultures. Even the Native Americans and the Zulu tribes had their own subcultures within various federations.

 

But if each race or cultural group should have a homeland, then thousands of new countries would need to be created such as Brittany, Ainu, Occitania, Catalonia, Sicily, Manchu, Bavaria, a Cossack/Tartar "Homeland", Lombardy, an Aboriginal "Homeland", Crimea etc. The problem with this is that it then leads to issues similar to those faced in Israel. Multiculturalism is nice in theory, but sadly with the amount of illegal immigrants (the majority are simply economic migrants that claim to be refugees - and this only worsens the position of those in genuine need of help, such as those actually affected by conflict rather than those who use it as an excuse to flee a neighbouring country for a chance at a better job) and extremist migrants, it just doesn't work.

[Hyperqube]

Would it be racist for Zimbabwe or South Africa wanting to keep it all black? Most would say no. I'm not at all saying whites are superior, but I'm saying they deserve a homeland, that's not racist. I wish multiculturalism worked as well as people wanted it to, but I don't think it ever will unfortunately.

 

Zimbabwe? South Africa? Back? Most would say no, because blacks are native from africa.

Under that logic, the US belong to the native americans. Your "white homeland" would be europe or russia, as that's where white people come from.

 

 

 

If you're deadset against multiculturalism ... kindly get of indian lands will ya?

[t0night]

Would it be racist for Zimbabwe or South Africa wanting to keep it all black? Most would say no. I'm not at all saying whites are superior, but I'm saying they deserve a homeland, that's not racist. I wish multiculturalism worked as well as people wanted it to, but I don't think it ever will unfortunately. 

i think you don't know anything about the histories of those two countries which were white-dominated and governed for significant amounts of recent history and in which black nationalism and identity has a massively different context, meaning and significance. i wouldn't support the deportation of all whites from these nations, no. i don't understand the argument. would it be racist? maybe within the context of a single nation such an act would be, but as andre3000 put it (i'm paraphrasing his question into a statement) 'across the world, people of darker skin tones suffer disproportionately', and in the global scheme of things white people really don't experience systemic racism at all.

[t0night]

Multiculturalism is nice in theory, but sadly with the amount of illegal immigrants (the majority are simply economic migrants that claim to be refugees - and this only worsens the position of those in genuine need of help, such as those actually affected by conflict rather than those who use it as an excuse to flee a neighbouring country for a chance at a better job) and extremist migrants, it just doesn't work.

it's interesting on the point of immigration to note that the people most virulently opposed to immigration, especially illegal immigration, are the same people who lambast governments for intervening in markets in other ways. immigration law is a government intervention in the labour market. in libertarian terms, the concept of an illegal immigrant should not exist.

 

also i feel like there's a lack of sympathy for people in a desperate enough situation to risk their lives to try to have a better future for their families, they're relentlessly dehumanised and portrayed as scummy scroungers trying to sneak in and ruin things for everyone.

[Professional Map Painter]

it's interesting on the point of immigration to note that the people most virulently opposed to immigration, especially illegal immigration, are the same people who lambast governments for intervening in markets in other ways. immigration law is a government intervention in the labour market. in libertarian terms, the concept of an illegal immigrant should not exist.

 

also i feel like there's a lack of sympathy for people in a desperate enough situation to risk their lives to try to have a better future for their families, they're relentlessly dehumanised and portrayed as scummy scroungers trying to sneak in and ruin things for everyone.

Legal economic migrants are fine, as long as we're not swamped by them. Illegal economic migrants posing as refugees simply make the position of actual refugees worse. Calais is currently a prime example of this. The Government should only intervene where necessary, at this rate the tube will be automated due to the unreasonable attitude of the RMT union (the budget was nowhere near perfect but neither are their demands). It's interesting that many have stated that Cameron didn't win an actual majority (and neither did Blair but nobody complained then) yet strikes don't require an actual majority currently. Immigration needs to be controlled, and whilst Cameron's a fairly average PM at least he's willing to cut down immigration. Asylum exists for a reason - EU loopholes (entering through Serbia/being picked up in the Mediterranean) shouldn't exist. Of course, if we weren't in the aftermath of a recession we could provide funding to countries affected by war.

[t0night]

Legal economic migrants are fine, as long as we're not swamped by them. Illegal economic migrants posing as refugees simply make the position of actual refugees worse. Calais is currently a prime example of this. The Government should only intervene where necessary, at this rate the tube will be automated due to the unreasonable attitude of the RMT union (the budget was nowhere near perfect but neither are their demands). It's interesting that many have stated that Cameron didn't win an actual majority (and neither did Blair but nobody complained then) yet strikes don't require an actual majority currently. Immigration needs to be controlled, and whilst Cameron's a fairly average PM at least he's willing to cut down immigration. Asylum exists for a reason - EU loopholes (entering through Serbia/being picked up in the Mediterranean) shouldn't exist. Of course, if we weren't in the aftermath of a recession we could provide funding to countries affected by war.

distinguishing types of migrants by legal process, i.e. laws and controls on immigration, are already a government imposition on the labour market. also union rules are very different to parliamentary democracy rules. cameron is 'willing' to get stuck between the EU and his party over immigration and takes it out on student visas and high skilled workers from outside the EU

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11485419/Japanese-academic-forced-to-leave-Britain-due-to-visa-rules.html

[0123847a;fsdaklf]

 

Zimbabwe? South Africa? Back? Most would say no, because blacks are native from africa.

Under that logic, the US belong to the native americans. Your "white homeland" would be europe or russia, as that's where white people come from.

 

 

 

If you're deadset against multiculturalism ... kindly get of indian lands will ya?

I doubt people would say NO because they are native from Africa. In fact everyone at some point of time were native to Africa, this argument is very weak. Unfortunately it's no longer the Native American's land, but why should we have history repeat itself? The Indians and whites living on the same continent shows how multiculturalism doesn't work.