MOD WARNING<<<Dismantle multiculturalism?

No, we don't agree. Each can be problematic.

So that means it is OK for another group to come in and destroy their people and culture?

 

Of course there are. My black neighbor and I are culturally identical. The problem is that, from a historical perspective, the concept of "race" is shaky. Were the Akkadians a different "race" from the Sumerians? What was the "racial" difference between the Arabs and the Levantine or Maghreb peoples they conquered and absorbed? What was the "racial" difference between the Han Chinese and the peoples of the southern jungles they assimilated?

It's not a recent thing at all. All the way back to Sargon multiracial empires have survived and thrived.

You don't think that maybe this is an oversimplification? There are differences, certainly, and divisions, but the cultural intermixing is obvious and important. In a lot of ways, we do act alike.

You're just taking a narrow view of what it means to "act like" somebody.

Nonsense. Are you completely unaware of the basis and history of nationalism in Europe?

You have no idea if that's true. Pagan cultures would often kill one another to prove which god or gods were superior, from Mesopotamia to the Rhine.

It's not "utopian in the extreme" at all. Again, you're making race into some kind of permanent monolith it is not.

Identity violence can exist for a billion reasons, from language to religion to which side of the river you're from.

In the Americas race has a history of being the most divisive. Once upon a time this was true of religion in Europe. Like religion in Europe there's no reason to believe that it's automatic or inevitable.

Like always, reality is more complicated than that.

 

Why is race automatically problematic? Because you think that phenotypic differences are violence-magnets?

lol, no. You won't find me using words like "OK" for geopolitics or historical processes. More importantly, I was only saying that "white people" have never been the brotherly monolith you seem to believe.

 

Then either he is acting white or you are acting black. I've seen both happen. But even then, I highly, highly doubt you are "culturally identical". Tens of thousands of years of history doesn't get wiped away just because you and him have lived in this country for a little while.

It wasn't "shaky" until modern day revisionism and "progressive" views on race. People were, and still are for the most part, able to figure out a person's race in less than a second of seeing them for the first time. It's an immediate thing, and always was.

Did they look the same? That's ultimately what it boils down to. The mirror test is extremely effective.

No they haven't. There are very few examples of civilizations existing where different races were all equals to each other. Almost always one (or more) of them were under the rule of others. Slavery was rampant, and largely based on race.

No, I don't think I'm oversimplifying anything. I have very little in common with the overwhelming majority of black people in the country. That's not to say I can't be friendly with them and relate to them on some things, but would I ever say I acted, in any way, black? Not a chance.

What nationalism? Europe didn't even have nations for the majority of its history.

They worshipped the same Gods despite having different names for them, so I doubt this. As for tribal warfare, that happened, of course. It did in every civilization.

It's utopian because it's never existed in history, but remains a possible and desirable possibility for you at some point in the future.

 

That was a religious devision, not racial.

 

"Races" aren't even the problem. It's when you put the races together in close proximity that it becomes a problem, especially when they have conflicting cultures.

Take Islam, for example. Do you think people in the West would hate it as much if it was confined to just the Islamic world? Or do you think the constant terrorist attacks and bombings by this small minority in the West is causing some problems for people, here?

Every race has had infighting amongst themselves. That's not even what I'm talking about. However the survival of whites has never been threatened like it is now, so hopefully whites can unite around that concept going forward. They won't with "progressive" thinking like yours, though. But go on believing that blacks share your culture, if you wish. Go down to your local inner city and be yourself. I'm sure you'll fit right in.

 

Race is inherited, culture not.
If there are people of different races in a country, there will always be tensions, because racial differences do not disappear, and people of different races will tend to stick together, and therefore there will be a conflict of interests. This ends with segregation or Balkanisation.

It is very difficult to manage such a society, for example, if one race profits from medicare, and the other has to pay, you will never solve the problem.

In a homogeneous society all members of the society know that they are an extended family, that they are all from the same gene pool, and in this case there is more solidarity in such a society.

Even intelligent black people, like Muhammed Ali, understood that.

 

I want you to take a step back and realize how ridiculous this is. There is no "white way of acting" or "black way of acting." There are ways that lots of different peoples act. My black neighbor has more in common with me than a German, and I more in common with him than someone from Uganda. This isn't unnatural. We watch the same movies, received the same education, speak the same language, have similar religious backgrounds, have similar political views, blah blah blah.

He's not "less black" for it, he's just another human being with his own history and way of looking at the world.

People are capable of identifying phenotypic differences.

Bundles of phenotypic properties are more important in the American south than they were in Paris of the 1850s.

There are people who care more about religious differences, ideological differences, or linguistic differences more than phenotypic differences.

You're taking an idiosyncratic way of looking at the world and universalizing it.

Even today one can see phenotypic differences between Levantines and Yemenis, Moroccans and Omanis. Are they a single race? What level of phenotypic difference is suitable to differentiate between two races?

Where do Persians fall in your list of races? Vietnamese? Cossacks?

Slavery has rarely been based on race. Again, the Americas were a historical aberration. Romans had Latin slaves, German slaves, Celtic slaves, African slaves, etc. etc. The helots were just Greeks who spoke a different dialect than that of the Spartans.

If I could take "oversimplification" and bottle it up, this quote is what would come out. When you say that you have nothing in common with them you are taking two pictures in your head and comparing them.

But compare the things you have in common with an American black to the things you have in common with a Cossack, or a 14th Century French peasant.

So what? At a certain point in history linguistic differences became centrally important to the differentiated identities of Europeans, and remains so today.

Just how phenotypic differences became centrally important to the differentiated identities of Americans.

At an older point in history religious differences were centrally important to the differentiated identities of Europeans.

In other words, important points of identity differentiation are not monolithic through time. The importance of race is temporally idiosyncratic, just like the rest.

You think they knew they were worshipping the same Gods? You think that Celts and Germanics understood their shared ancestry?

It has obviously existed. The problem is that I can bring up any particular case and you will go into some basket-case theory about how they were all actually white.

But fine, let's give it a shot. The Roman Empire stretched from northern Britain to the edges of the Arabian desert. Do you believe that there weren't significant phenotypical differences between the peoples of the Roman Empire? I'd argue that there were significant phenotypic differences between the Latins and the Celts alone, and that's just in Italy.

 

I always loved that clip. Ali knocked that white progressive senseless, and you could tell how uncomfortable the progressive was because he couldn't unload on Ali for being "bigoted" and "racist", the way he wanted to if Ali had been a white man espousing the same arguments.

 

I see absolutely no reason to believe that phenotypic differences necessitate significant problems.

Yes, you're right, the intermixing between Muslims and Europeans has been problematic.

I'm not one who believes that any culture can mix with any culture painlessly. I believe that there will be pain here in my home state of Arizona on this account.

But I think that the best policy is generally to change the paradigm of identity differentiation.

In 50 years I fear that there could be an insurrection of Chicanos in the American Southwest, and this is the kind of bitterness I'd hate to see my country succumb to. I would like for North Americans to forge a sufficiently inclusive identity that this bitterness is dulled or wiped away.

The cultural differences between me and an inner-city black are certainly grave, but I'm not Essentializing this difference in the same way you are. The fact that we are different isn't based in some automatic genetic process, but in a complicated array of historical processes.

Just like a German Protestant and a German Catholic in 1630.

 

Yes, a white man cannot call a black man a racist as easily... unless you are Jewish.

Only when a black man points his finger to the JQ, then a white man can call him a "wicked racist", a "hater", and a shabbt goy can do that, too.

This was the case with Dieudonné M'bala M'bala.

As long as he made jokes about white Christians, everything was funny, nobody complained.
Then he decided to make jokes about Jews, and that was not funny any more.
He crossed the line!

 

So what? Did you just happen to miss my point entirely? The peoples of Yugoslavia were at each other's throats not over race, but religion.

If religion doesn't necessarily cause this kind of behavior, why should race?

I love the fact that you keep bringing up the racially homogenous Balkans.

 

You'd have more in common with a German than you think. He/she is from the same gene pool as you, whereas your black friend is not. If you mated with a German person you'd have a child that looks like you. Not so with a black person. Those kinds of things don't go away just because you watch the same movies.

That's because Paris in the 1850's was a homogenous society and they took it for granted. The American South was, and is, under demographic transformation, so of course race is seen as important, there.

They can do that if they wish. It seems stupid to me, as you can voluntarily change these things if you wanted to (or they change over time, naturally), whereas my basis can't possibly change.

There is a lot of race mixing in some groups, and very little in others. Many of the groups you list are mixed race groups, so of course the lines get blurry.

No, the Americas were not an aberration. Arabs took more black slaves out of Africa than whites did. Mongolians made distinctions on race when they took slaves.

I have enough experience around black people to recognize that I am very different from them. Living around them, speaking the same language (kind of ), watching the same movies, etc really aren't meaningful similarities. Why you think I'd have more in common with them than people within my same race is a mystery.

According to who? Languages changed all throughout history. Before the Indo European languages became dominant there were lots of other languages spoken in Europe that were much older, and most of those are gone now. All of these groups eventually learned new languages, and many of them share a lot of similarities. Take a look at any chart that measures the difficulty in learning a new language. For English speakers, the easiest languages are all fellow Indo-European languages. The only exceptions are languages like Finnish, which are part of the Uralic language branch, which is older than the Indo European languages.

Which is not the same thing. You can't change your race, you can change your language.

Which, again, is not similar to racial differences. Christianity was responsible for much of what you are talking about here, and it is a foreign Jewish religion. That division did not come from within Europe.

No it's not, and those Jews and other members of the left currently flooding every white country in the world with non-whites understands this. Despite hundreds of years of propaganda, people still fall back onto their race when they can. They want to mix Europeans from existence.

In some ways, yes. But so what if they didn't understand all of it at the time? Humans have learned a lot since those days.

The Romans were a mixed group to begin with, so of course there were large differences. Their attempts at creating a gigantic empire and making everybody a citizen of Rome is one of the reasons their civilization collapsed. When they were more homogenous they were gaining strength rapidly. The same basic trend is being replayed here in the US empire.

 

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you cannot prove your point of view with observable reality.

You can change the language and stop calling a spade a spade, but you cannot change the observable reality. A spade will remain a spade, even if you prohibit the word "spade".

The genetic differences are based on many, many thousands of years of evolution in different environments.

And this difference is inherited!

How can you change that via re-education?

Do you know that a Rottweiler and Bichon are genetically more closely related to each others, than say a North European to a Sub Saharan African?

Can you re-educate a Rottweiler so he behaves like a Bichon, or vice versa?

Yes or no?

If German Catholics were black, and German Protestants wer white, the problem would have been perpetuated.

BTW, German identity was never based on religion. Do not confuse Germans and other Europeans with Jews.

 

Yes, there will be a Chicano insurrection, and in many ways it is already happening. See, they aren't like you, bending over backwards to not see race, bending over backwards to convince themselves that they are just like you. They view themselves as a unique people and they are self-interested, like whites used to be. They are already the majority population in California and New Mexico, and will be the majorities of Arizona, Texas, and Nevada very soon, if they aren't already. There are numerous groups in existence that want to reconquer this landmass for the Hispanic world, and I don't think that's too unlikely.

More utopian thinking. "North Americans" are not a unified group just because they share the same land mass. Cows living in horse stables alongside other horses do not become horses. They are different, and will always be.

The German protestant and the German catholic differed only on religion - a Jewish religion that was foreign to German lands. Take away that religious difference, and its possible they had the same exact forebears at some point in the past.

 

Yes, isn't it amazing how offended that group gets when the same type of offensive humor they create and promote against Christians is applied to them? They support dipping crucifixes in urine, slathering pictures of Jesus and the Virgin Mary with human excrement, portraying Jesus as a flaming homosexual having sex with another man, but if a cartoon picture of a menorah has a slightly bigger nose than what a Nordic European would have, it's the worst thing since Hitler. It's like another shoah!

 

Yes, the Jewish humour is very selective.
Any resemblance to Hitler is not funny in the eyes of Jews.

Humour is the first thing that suffers in a Mu-Cu-Society.
Political correctness and affirmative actions reduce everything to the lowest denominator in such a society, so nobody feels insulted or discriminated.

If Black Children are not good in Math, just abolish any tests!

And in such a Mu-Ku society there will always be a group, that is more "equal", than other groups.

 

America used to have close to a thousand German language newspapers, and we somehow managed to do okay.

 

Hahaha, that's hilarious. Just the kind of thing I would expect them to get upset about.

I disagree that it reduced everything to a level where "nobody" feels insulted. Political correctness was put into effect by Marxist Jews such as those in the Frankfurt school, and it has always been about protecting those groups who they feel are valuable to their cause and punishing those who they deem as enemies. Whites, and anything related to whites, are bashed, mocked, insulted, and ridiculed endlessly in a "multicultural" environment, by (((them))) and the groups that they support.

 

None of this means anything at all to me. Remember that we started this strand of our conversation talking about whether the important difference lies in the cultural or in the phenotypic.

I'm not going to pretend that phenotypical differences are meaningless, but I'd say that your attitude towards them is far more harmful than those differences themselves.

How do you know that? Why are we to assume that race is an automatic predictor of social unrest as opposed to religion?

Your focus on phenotypical differences is idiosyncratic, especially in it's potency, I can assure you of that.

I care a lot more about whether my neighbor is part of some weird cult than if he's black. I care more if a significant portion of my country are Communists than if they're black.

According to the history of 19th and 20th century Europe.

According to modern Europe, where national groups are defined by the language they speak. This remains a fundamental road block to European integration.

First of all, the language you are born to has always had significant cultural meaning. Further, why you think whether or not a difference is fungible has bearing on it's cultural potency is baffling.

Again, you're completely missing the important point.

Social disunity can be caused by any form of identity differentiation. Sometimes linguistic, sometimes religious, sometimes ideological, sometimes phenotypic.

There is nothing automatic about any of it.

Completely beside the point. Social disunity between Germanic and Celt was far more profound than social disunity between my neighbor and myself, or even myself and an inner-city black.

That has absolutely nothing to do with why their civilization collapsed. They had integrated Celts perfectly fine. They failed to integrate the Germanics.

There were key differences that had nothing to do with race between the two instances.

Again, it's far more complicated than you seem to believe.

 

Did this Multiculturalism survive WWI?
And what if Germans looked like Japanese?
Would they not have been all put into camps, like Japanese were during WWII?
Germans were indistinguishable from other Americans (they changed their last names, did not tell their children about their ancestry ), that is why they were not put into camps.

 

Of course I can. Modern America is far more unified than the racially homogenous Syria.

In other words, there is no good reason to believe that phenotypic differences are the root of, or automatic cause of, social strife.

I don't believe that human behavior is genetically determined. I believe in the primacy of free will.

lol, why? There is less of a problem now between black Protestants and Latino Catholics than there was between two Germans in 1630.

Not only did I not say that, but my examples of two Germans of different religions makes it logically inconsistent with what I said.

 

But you're wrong, because most Mexican-Americans are like me, and want to get along with all of their neighbors.

The Chicano insurrectionists, on the other hand, are more like you. Both minorities with idiosyncratic views.

Has literally zero bearing on our conversation.

Our conversation revolves around the following point: Are phenotypical differences especially harmful, in some automatic sense, to social cohesion as compared to any other form of identity differentiation?

 

Bloodiest civil war was between the members of the "same" culture. The American Civil War.
European white culture was even ruled by members of the same family (Habsburgs), yet two World Wars were started by fighting among themselves and their descendants. The City states of Italy spoke the same language, had the same heritage, yet the Papal Wars and fighting between the cities nearly caused the ruin of the country.

This utopia you seek is BS.

 

I think you overstate Hapsburg power here, quite substantially. The Hapsburgs might have been made the rulers of Europe, but the wars of religion across the continent hobbled them as far back as the 17th century. They were never the same domineering force in Europe after that.