Jump to content

Changing Demographics


Andrea

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Wow, that's deep. How about refuting what I have said. You can't.

Honestly, I would advise you to save it. You have shown your true colors and trust, a zebra can't hide its stripes. If you don't like diversity, then move from Atlanta then. There are many places in this country that aren't as diverse as Atlanta like the Great Plains and its very WASPy. You wouldn't have a problem in the world with diversity there because there hardly is any. Seriously Scraper Enthusiast, you need to think before you type. You are starting to sound like Elisabeth Hasselback on The View.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe that white people don't have a right to be the majority population in the United States, then you are going completely against what American history was for up until 1965.

Who says that Caucasians have the "right" to be the majority population in the United States? What or who is your authority in this regard?

You're going against the homogeneity that made this country strong.

I find this quite laughable. The South would not exist were it not for slave labor, so what "homogeneity" are you speaking of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I would advise you to save it. You have shown your true colors and trust, a zebra can't hide its stripes. If you don't like diversity, then move from Atlanta then. There are many places in this country that aren't as diverse as Atlanta like the Great Plains and its very WASPy. You wouldn't have a problem in the world with diversity there because there hardly is any. Seriously Scraper Enthusiast, you need to think before you type. You are starting to sound like Elisabeth Hasselback on The View.

I don't watch "The View" and, seriously, I don't know who Elisabeth Hasselback is. Nonetheless, your point is ridiculous. I am a native Georgian. I should move because foreigners flock to my "home"? Where is the sense in that? Added to that, you make the accusation that I should try the "plains". Hello, it's only a matter of time before that area changes, which it already is. Therefore, your argument is flawed, as there is "no place to run".

Just be honest about the situation. Immigration, whether it is illegal or legal, is hurting America, and it is causing the genocide of white nations. If you can't see it, then you really are blind. I wish that you not listen to the media, for your opinions, in my opinion, are based on what they've told you to believe in. There's little rationality or common sense to a "multicultural" position. It's the kind of thing that destroys nations, makes them weaker, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't watch "The View" and, seriously, I don't know who Elisabeth Hasselback is. Nonetheless, your point is ridiculous. I am a native Georgian. I should move because foreigners flock to my "home"? Where is the sense in that? Added to that, you make the accusation that I should try the "plains". Hello, it's only a matter of time before that area changes, which it already is. Therefore, your argument is flawed, as there is "no place to run".

Just be honest about the situation. Immigration, whether it is illegal or legal, is hurting America, and it is causing the genocide of white nations. If you can't see it, then you really are blind. I wish that you not listen to the media, for your opinions, in my opinion, are based on what they've told you to believe in. There's little rationality or common sense to a "multicultural" position. It's the kind of thing that destroys nations, makes them weaker, etc.

Dude, seriously you need to give over it. Change happens, you can't stop. This is what most conservatives fail to realize, it occurs. White nations? WTF is a "white nation"? Whatever it is I certainly don't want to be part of one. Finally, you are a racist. The end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says that Caucasians have the "right" to be the majority population in the United States? What or who is your authority in this regard?

I find this quite laughable. The South would not exist were it not for slave labor, so what "homogeneity" are you speaking of?

Policies were in effect to keep the nation majority white until the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act. The nation was established by white men. This was a white nation. Yes, there was a small black minority, but overall, with the exception of parts of the south, this was a homogenous white nation.

It isn't laughable. Diversity actually weakens a nation. Since the social condition of mankind is to seek out individuals like himself, not to mention that conflicts often arise over race, culture, ethnicity, and nationality, multiculturalist and multiracial immigration policies are counterproductive to a strong, cohesive country.

Similarities breed unity. Think about how, on average, individuals of the same race are closer than individuals of opposing races. The same argument can be used for ethnicity and culture. Since, in general, whites are at least of western culture, and since whites, the majority population of the nation, are apt to feel more connected to other whites, it stands to reason that if there is any immigration policy at all it should be homogenous/monoracial.

As I stated before, given that a white "WASP" western culture came from the molding of various ethnicities of western culture, this uniqueness, lasting over two hundred years in the United States, should be preserved. We shouldn't change the nation and destroy everything that was established. It is unethical to pursue and/or support policies that results in the genocide of white nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, seriously you need to give over it. Change happens, you can't stop. This is what most conservatives fail to realize, it occurs. White nations? WTF is a "white nation"? Whatever it is I certainly don't want to be part of one. Finally, you are a racist. The end.

A White Nation is of the same order as a black nation or an Asian nation. They're real, and they're only apt to change if individuals allow it to happen. Like I said, the demographics of America did not change very much until 1965, and it was intentional.

I am a racial realist. I don't hate anyone. I do wish to preserve white nations, as they are part of the world's diversity. You simply cannot fathom how ridiculous you sound with your little short arguments of "You are a racist". You're showing that you haven't an argument. You are a little sound byte but without the sound.

I'm not saying that you would want to be part of it, but that is what America was. As it slips further away from what it was, you can expect to see greater ethnic and racial conflict, higher crime, deteriorating schools, as well as a multitude of other problems. However, you can live in your utopian dream and believe that it is all "for the best".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A White Nation is of the same order as a black nation or an Asian nation. They're real, and they're only apt to change if individuals allow it to happen. Like I said, the demographics of America did not change very much until 1965, and it was intentional.

I am a racial realist. I don't hate anyone. I do wish to preserve white nations, as they are part of the world's diversity. You simply cannot fathom how ridiculous you sound with your little short arguments of "You are a racist". You're showing that you haven't an argument. You are a little sound byte but without the sound.

I'm not saying that you would want to be part of it, but that is what America was. As it slips further away from what it was, you can expect to see greater ethnic and racial conflict, higher crime, deteriorating schools, as well as a multitude of other problems. However, you can live in your utopian dream and believe that it is all "for the best".

Nope, you haven't proven nothing still. Honestly, I'm tired of this back and forth "whatever you want call this". The end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Policies were in effect to keep the nation majority white until the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act. The nation was established by white men. This was a white nation. Yes, there was a small black minority, but overall, with the exception of parts of the south, this was a homogenous white nation.

So you are saying that the United States has the "right" to be a majority white nation because of policy? This begs the question, as a right is bestowed upon one entity by another entity. My question does not pertain to policy history, but the supposed "right" of America to remain a majority Caucasian nation.

It isn't laughable. Diversity actually weakens a nation. Since the social condition of mankind is to seek out individuals like himself, not to mention that conflicts often arise over race, culture, ethnicity, and nationality, multiculturalist and multiracial immigration policies are counterproductive to a strong, cohesive country.

What I said was laughable was the supposed "homogeneity" of the United States early in its history. Firstly, the founding of this country is of a multinational, multicultural nature--Scots-Irish, English, French, Spanish, etc. There is no such thing as a generic European culture, just as there is no such thing as a generic African culture. All of these groups, while having shared similarities, had distinct cultures. Secondly, if it was homogeneity that made for a "strong" United States, do you believe this nation would have been stronger had slaves not been imported from the West Indies and Africa? Would the South in particular have enjoyed its day in the sun before the Civil War? Thirdly, you probably have proved too much, since the arrival of Europeans to the New World indeed weakened nations--actually, it obliterated a whole lot of them. So perhaps they should have just stayed home as well? You also forget that the nature of man also involves power and conquest, and world history has shown this to take place cheifly through global expansion--meaning a non-indigenous people forces itself on the indigenous people of a particular geographic location. A sort of multiculturalism, if you will. Please don't act like all of this had its absolute beginning when in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Don't be so shortsighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A White Nation is of the same order as a black nation or an Asian nation. They're real, and they're only apt to change if individuals allow it to happen. Like I said, the demographics of America did not change very much until 1965, and it was intentional.

I am a racial realist. I don't hate anyone. I do wish to preserve white nations, as they are part of the world's diversity. You simply cannot fathom how ridiculous you sound with your little short arguments of "You are a racist". You're showing that you haven't an argument. You are a little sound byte but without the sound.

I'm not saying that you would want to be part of it, but that is what America was. As it slips further away from what it was, you can expect to see greater ethnic and racial conflict, higher crime, deteriorating schools, as well as a multitude of other problems. However, you can live in your utopian dream and believe that it is all "for the best".

I do not think you're a racist. But I do believe that you're wrong. You're right that before 1965, America's immigration policy was weighted toward European immigrants. But there were not as my Europeans immigrating to America at that time. The wars and famines of previous years were over and Europe was experiencing a time of prosperity. In order to keep our edge, America began accepting driven people from all over the world. Also it was a racist policy for a country that prided itself on being colorblind. This new wave of immigration from Mexico and S. America (I say new even though it's been happening for a long time) is different inasmuch that many of the people still feel strong allegiences to their old country. But really, come to think of it, is it that much different? I have an English flag, does that make me unpatriotic? Half the people on my block fly the Irish flag at St. Pat's Day, and the Irish Pub across the street from my house flies the Irish flag all year. Are they unpatriotic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scraper racist, you are truly a bigot- I feel sorry that yo still hold on to such archaic and close minded beliefs. Life for you must be very cruel. I know this sounds cliche, but I would really advise you to look on the bright side of things. Immigrants are changing our country for the better in countless ways too; if you can't see that, then you're more diluted that I thought. (which is saying something) I also don't know why you think America should be a white nation. Why? Because you think whites are superior? I'm a defender of civil liberties, so I'll agree that you have every right to say what you're saying, but as you can tell it disgusts me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newnan....I am disappointed in you. You have always handled yourself in such a gentlemanly-like fashion. Please don't allow yourself to get caught up in the moment. You are intelligent enough to careful word your rebuttals. I have all the faith in you.

Let us refrain from personal attacks....PERIOD!!!! I am all for freedom of speech when it is not harmful. Skyscraper Enthusiast gave his views. If I agree with them or not, he has the right to say how he feels. There is no need to attack him. I have always believed that when you are on the side of right, there is no need to get ugly. That's not to say that either person is wrong in their views but rather if you believe what you feel, say or type then you do not have to lower yourself to prove right. Right always prevail.

Now, as I have said before, I don't like to be so restrictive in the things we can talk about. I will not however allow this site to become what it was not envisioned to be. We will not tolerate personal attacks nor will we tolerate incendiary speeches. I love for everyone to have the freedom to express their feelings but we WILL do it in a dignified and intelligent manner.

Now, I can not come back any more tonight. I would hope that we as adults can handle this in a civilized manner. If not, then tomorrow is another day and there will be consequences.....and I just loathe being mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newnan....I am disappointed in you. You have always handled yourself in such a gentlemanly-like fashion. Please don't allow yourself to get caught up in the moment. You are intelligent enough to careful word your rebuttals. I have all the faith in you.

Let us refrain from personal attacks....PERIOD!!!! I am all for freedom of speech when it is not harmful. Skyscraper Enthusiast gave his views. If I agree with them or not, he has the right to say how he feels. There is no need to attack him. I have always believed that when you are on the side of right, there is no need to get ugly. That's not to say that either person is wrong in their views but rather if you believe what you feel, say or type then you do not have to lower yourself to prove right. Right always prevail.

Now, as I have said before, I don't like to be so restrictive in the things we can talk about. I will not however allow this site to become what it was not envisioned to be. We will not tolerate personal attacks nor will we tolerate incendiary speeches. I love for everyone to have the freedom to express their feelings but we WILL do it in a dignified and intelligent manner.

Now, I can not come back any more tonight. I would hope that we as adults can handle this in a civilized manner. If not, then tomorrow is another day and there will be consequences.....and I just loathe being mean.

Sorry, LC. You're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a free country isnt it? Why should anyone have to "acclimate" to the culture of Americans?

I guess I'm old fashioned enough to think that immigrants should JOIN their adopted country, learn it's language, adopt it's customs. I think it's condescending to tell a majority population they should LIKE immigrants and the change they bring. When immigrants move somwehere and feel unwelcome, well-- that's their CHOICE when moving to a DIFFERENT country.

Not everything about diversity is positive. IE, articles like this. Drug Resistant TB on the Rise

I do think, that UrbanPlanet prays at the altar of "the strength of diversity" sometimes, as if it's some unchallengeable chestnut such like "sport stadiums revitalize pedestrian traffic". Posters keep repeating these axioms as if they're facts. No, they are opinions!

Oh well, this thread will get locked soon anyway, the way it is headed. But FWIW, I do think Scraper is a troll. :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm old fashioned enough to think that immigrants should JOIN their adopted country, learn it's language, adopt it's customs.

I myself don't disagree with this; however, I also don't think that all of a sudden this means that immigrants should drop every single vestige of their native cultures, go under the knife to make their physical features more Caucasian, and buy a house out in the 'burbs with a picket fence and an SUV. What's wrong with ethnic restaurants? What's wrong with ethnic clothing? The delicate balance in all of this is that acculturation does not mean obliteration of the native culture; the two can certainly exist in harmony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Race in America is a very sensitive topic on all sides.

I think that Scraper and Newnan are both expressing opinions I find offensive. When I started reading this topic, I was a bit taken back when I came across Newnan's remark about the WASPs in Alpharetta (and no, I don't live there). First, WASP doesn't just stand for "White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant" - it is also an acronym for something that stings you...something that is nasty and racist. If we are going to be fair here, why is there something wrong with being white and protestant? Just because it is the majority nationally doesn't make it a bad thing. Being a white person, I find it a racially degrading term - period. (I realize that it may sound like I'm taking up for Scraper...trust me, I'm not. However, racism against white people is overly socially accepted. Racism against ANY race is wrong - period.)

Then, reading on down, Scraper had equally, if not more so racially degrading comments. Scraper, America, like it or not, is a mixed bag...the proverbial melting pot. I always find going into the ethnic areas of the larger cities exciting and stimulating. It is the United States plus any country you'd like to visit. A wonderful thing. Accept it as such and life will be much easier!

Unfortunately, some (SOME) white areas in the south are used to being the dominant population. There will always be a tendancy for birds of a feather to flock together - which may drive people from certain areas. It is human nature to cling to the familiar - China Town, Little Havana, Little Italy, White Folk Alpharetta, etc. So everyone lighten up. White isn't bad, black isn't bad, Korean isn't bad, Mexican isn't bad. People are people, folks, so chill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newnan....I am disappointed in you. You have always handled yourself in such a gentlemanly-like fashion. Please don't allow yourself to get caught up in the moment. You are intelligent enough to careful word your rebuttals. I have all the faith in you.

Let us refrain from personal attacks....PERIOD!!!! I am all for freedom of speech when it is not harmful.

Ok Lady Celeste, here is one area where you are wrong. Freedom of speech is freedom of speach, regardless of whether it is harmful or not. Harmful is a subjective term and is not included in the Constitution. You can't go to jail or be fined for calling anyone a name or something nasty in private life - regardless of what the ACLU claims!

However, this is a private board and freedom of speech is somewhat limited by the owners/operators as they pay the bills and can make the rules. So, while you are giving Newnan a reprimand for name calling, let's remember what freedom of speech actually means...even if it hurts Scraper's feelings, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Race in America is a very sensitive topic on all sides.

I think that Scraper and Newnan are both expressing opinions I find offensive. When I started reading this topic, I was a bit taken back when I came across Newnan's remark about the WASPs in Alpharetta (and no, I don't live there). First, WASP doesn't just stand for "White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant" - it is also an acronym for something that stings you...something that is nasty and racist. If we are going to be fair here, why is there something wrong with being white and protestant? Just because it is the majority nationally doesn't make it a bad thing. Being a white person, I find it a racially degrading term - period. (I realize that it may sound like I'm taking up for Scraper...trust me, I'm not. However, racism against white people is overly socially accepted. Racism against ANY race is wrong - period.)

Then, reading on down, Scraper had equally, if not more so racially degrading comments. Scraper, America, like it or not, is a mixed bag...the proverbial melting pot. I always find going into the ethnic areas of the larger cities exciting and stimulating. It is the United States plus any country you'd like to visit. A wonderful thing. Accept it as such and life will be much easier!

Unfortunately, some (SOME) white areas in the south are used to being the dominant population. There will always be a tendancy for birds of a feather to flock together - which may drive people from certain areas. It is human nature to cling to the familiar - China Town, Little Havana, Little Italy, White Folk Alpharetta, etc. So everyone lighten up. White isn't bad, black isn't bad, Korean isn't bad, Mexican isn't bad. People are people, folks, so chill.

I agree and would also like to add that WASP as it is traditionally defined is not definitive of the vast majority of Americans, even if they were raised White Anglo Saxon Protestants. It is an old, almost archaic term that was used to describe those raised in the mainline churches (Presbyterian Church, Episcopal Church, Congregational Church, UMC, American Baptist, etc.), and were in positions of power. There are WASPs in the South, but Alpharetta is not the personification of it. And like you said, it is a derogatory term as usually applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Lady Celeste, here is one area where you are wrong. Freedom of speech is freedom of speach, regardless of whether it is harmful or not. Harmful is a subjective term and is not included in the Constitution. You can't go to jail or be fined for calling anyone a name or something nasty in private life - regardless of what the ACLU claims!

However, this is a private board and freedom of speech is somewhat limited by the owners/operators as they pay the bills and can make the rules. So, while you are giving Newnan a reprimand for name calling, let's remember what freedom of speech actually means...even if it hurts Scraper's feelings, lol.

One can make a point without attacking a person and his/her character. I try not to attack other people, I very much hope that I don't. Attacking a person rather than their argument is poor form. It's one of the logical fallacies, ad Hominem is the fancy term.

The mods are very good about letting people say what they want say, and letting people be as controversial as they please - IF they (the users) don't resort to attacking people personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can make a point without attacking a person and his/her character. I try not to attack other people, I very much hope that I don't. Attacking a person rather than their argument is poor form. It's one of the logical fallacies, ad Hominem is the fancy term.

The mods are very good about letting people say what they want say, and letting people be as controversial as they please - IF they (the users) don't resort to attacking people personally.

Agreed...personal attacks aren't necessary, nor do they add to the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Lady Celeste, here is one area where you are wrong. Freedom of speech is freedom of speach, regardless of whether it is harmful or not. Harmful is a subjective term and is not included in the Constitution. You can't go to jail or be fined for calling anyone a name or something nasty in private life - regardless of what the ACLU claims!

However, this is a private board and freedom of speech is somewhat limited by the owners/operators as they pay the bills and can make the rules. So, while you are giving Newnan a reprimand for name calling, let's remember what freedom of speech actually means...even if it hurts Scraper's feelings, lol.

Wellllllllllllllllll Ryancs....since I am a MODERATOR and this is a private board and said owners have every faith in me that I will uphold their standards then isn't it really my subjective reasoning as to what I feel is appropiate and what is not? Since this is not public domain per se, I have to right to censor whiting reason what I feel is not appropiate. The RULES.....not Celeste....state that there are to be no personal name calling. If you have a problem with that rule then that is for you to take up with the owners of said website. My main purpose is to uphold the rules of this site.

If I feel that a situation is becoming personal...or not in keeping with the general idea of this website then I will exercise my moderator powers. Plain and simple. So I guess in regards to this website I am not wrong.

One can make a point without attacking a person and his/her character. I try not to attack other people, I very much hope that I don't. Attacking a person rather than their argument is poor form. It's one of the logical fallacies, ad Hominem is the fancy term.

The mods are very good about letting people say what they want say, and letting people be as controversial as they please - IF they (the users) don't resort to attacking people personally.

Thank you Moonshield. I will continue allowing freedom to express one's views...to a point...as long as the name calling STOPS. Newnan was not the only poster to start with the name calling but he was where I drew the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying that the United States has the "right" to be a majority white nation because of policy? This begs the question, as a right is bestowed upon one entity by another entity. My question does not pertain to policy history, but the supposed "right" of America to remain a majority Caucasian nation.

What I said was laughable was the supposed "homogeneity" of the United States early in its history. Firstly, the founding of this country is of a multinational, multicultural nature--Scots-Irish, English, French, Spanish, etc. There is no such thing as a generic European culture, just as there is no such thing as a generic African culture. All of these groups, while having shared similarities, had distinct cultures. Secondly, if it was homogeneity that made for a "strong" United States, do you believe this nation would have been stronger had slaves not been imported from the West Indies and Africa? Would the South in particular have enjoyed its day in the sun before the Civil War? Thirdly, you probably have proved too much, since the arrival of Europeans to the New World indeed weakened nations--actually, it obliterated a whole lot of them. So perhaps they should have just stayed home as well? You also forget that the nature of man also involves power and conquest, and world history has shown this to take place cheifly through global expansion--meaning a non-indigenous people forces itself on the indigenous people of a particular geographic location. A sort of multiculturalism, if you will. Please don't act like all of this had its absolute beginning when in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Don't be so shortsighted.

I was out of town for the weekend, so I was unable to respond in a prompt manner.

Of course the United States was built by people coming here from many nations. It is built from many nations and cultures. However, these individuals acculturated and, by one generation, they assimilated. One thing you fail to mention is that multiracialism is completely different in the ability to absorb different peoples. Individuals of different cultures can acculturate and assimilate if they are of the same race. However, assimilation is about the complete integrations and/or idea of sameness within the general culture. Today, yes, there is a general "white" culture, just as there is a general "black" culture. There are variances within those general cultures. However, overall, there are generalities. In much the same way, there is a general "American" culture, and there is not doubt that racial minorities can acculturate. However, part of being a minority is that they are seen as different and, hence, true assimilation is impossible. The same could be said for one million white Americans moving to Japan. They may learn Japanese and acculturate, but true assimilation will never happen with Japanese being the predominate group.

As far as the "right" of remaining a predominately white nation, I will go ahead and say that the United States should remain a predominately white nation. It is part of its identity, and with the loss of whites as the majority population, much of what we associate with America will change. I do not believe that it is right to forcefully change a country via demographic warfare.

We can go into a variety of reasons why it would be unethical, as well as insane to allow this nation to become majority non-white. Socially, culturally, economically, and ethically, such an occurance would place undue burdens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this an Indian Nation prior to the white man immigrating here ? Good thing those indians didn't have any good policies in place to keep us out. I kind of like it here.

Well, you bring up an interesting point. While the Indians did refer to themselves as a nation, which they were in the cultural-spacial realm, they were lacking one thing in most cases: borders and a defining government. Without these, the land was "up for grabs" and was not beholden to any group. The same cannot be said of today where the United States has borders, a government, and a predominate demographic group in the millions. In comparison, early "America" was comprised of sparsely populated tribes, most with no allegiance or connection to one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.