Is Racial Segregation really a human rights Violation?

Yes, one of the main reasons for the growth of the suburbs in the USA are the whites trying to leave the problems that racial diversity caused in the more crowded cities. Better school districts, less crime, raising their children in a safe environment. The same thing is beginning to happen in Malmö, Sweden. It is a completely new phenomena for Swedes, they have no idea how to deal with these new problems.

 

Always people have tried to get away from the poorest areas which always have the worst conditions and most obvious crime. Always improvement comes when those with more see the conditions of the poorest and work to improve this. You are either blindly or deliberately in an attempt to deceive, adding the 'racial diversity' in where it simply used to be the poor.

 

Yes, poverty certainly does contribute to these problems. But racial diversity also independantly contributes to these problems, even in the absence of income differences.

 

Yes, I read the first few lines of your link where it said minorities were inferior genetically. Despite your believe that this is so there is no evidence of this and any attempt to show such evidence is contraindicated by other research.

If Sweden has never had minorities, then clearly like everywhere else before it, it will need to deal with racism.

I don't really care what your situation is regarding taking in immigrants. Apart from Asylum seekers that is normally an economic decision. However hard as it might be for you to see, given your belief in the genetic inferiority of immigrants, they are not cattle and you cannot just take them in for a few generations when it is needed and then cull them.

Sweden has a responsibility towards her immigrants. Sweden has a responsibility to create conditions where they may feel Swedish and have equal opportunity to other swedes for social mobility.

Crime always always has existed in poor areas and such people in the past were considered genetically inferior to those above e.g aristocrats. It is an excuse to abuse.

 

Or Sweden could just keep minorities out. Then there would be no racial tensions, no worries about racial conflict, and none of those other problems.
Racism only began to exist in Sweden when other ethnicities started coming in. More diversity will only mean more racism.

That is why Sweden should not take any more in. As soon as they enter, then the government and society suddenly become "obligated" to have to accomodate them. Giving these migrants "social mobility" will only displace other Swedes from the limited number of decent paying jobs.

 

Racial tensions exist exclusively because of............... RACISTS!!!!

 

Like I said Minorities are not cattle but I see you wanting to return to Nazi policies.

antisemitism only began when Jews came around.

If you guys are racist then it will. That will result in more crime and riots. Then you can round them up and do mass deportations or set up camps if no one will take them. We have heard it all before. You believe Swedes are incapable of conscience and acting in an honourable way to those they invited to their country but instead are simply of Nazi White National mentality. Sad people Swedes if this were true.

Sweden like any other country can choose it's immigration policy. However once Sweden has accepted immigrants it has a responsibility not to treat them as cattle. I suspect you are not a typical Swede.

You invited them in, your responsibility to follow laws.

Not giving them the opportunity for social mobility will create social discontent and is against international law on human rights. You still live in the mentality when Jews were invited into countries when it suited that country financially and then thrown out when they were not.

As I said people are not cattle. You cannot invite them in and exploit them when it is economically convenient to you, then cull them or deport them or refuse them the opportunity to create a decent life for themselves and force them into crime when you no longer need them.

 

that makes sense but they wont cause trouble as much if you take away anything that offends them do that they may not even be aware their racists

 

Racial tensions exist because of immigration, and all the supporters of immigration that believe racial differences do not exist.
Psychological feeling of acceptance towards those that are more genetically similar to oneself are a natural phenomena, driven by evolution.

What you are saying is yet another example of the double standards held by progressives. You blame poverty as the cause for Black men committing crime, rather than the Black men themselves. Yet when it comes to racism, you blame racists themselves rather than racial diversity! You cannot have it both ways. You want have your cake and eat it too.

 

ya its racists white ones are no better or wourse then any others knock it off

 

"rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"
- Democratic Party Senator Robert Byrd, vowing he would never fight in a racially-integrated armed service

(if any of you think this is an excert from the early American history, you should know that Robert Byrd died only two years ago)

 

any particular reason you believe the KKK is representative of modern day America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

That being said I think sometimes people forget that equality in the States is a relatively new thing.

 

I love it... this guy was a KKK member who later "denounces" racial intolerance... supports Vietnam, but criticises Iraq... sounds like he rides the waves and either doesn't know who he is, or just talk a lot of (*)(*)(*)(*) depending on whatever people want to hear.

 

Easy come, easy go

 

I think that racial segregation is certainly in conflict with natural law when it is forced - for instance, when there are government laws which establish it. I would support the right of any person to segregate (by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, age, et cetera) on his own property. I would also support his right not to segregate on his own property.

 

Depends on what you mean by 'racial' and 'human rights'. There are no object morals, so things can symbolically mean anything you want them to. It's the authority figure that decides.

 

Beast Mode, I just wanted to say that I agree that perhaps morality as you or I see it isn't entirely objective; that said, "human rights" are separate. As a follower of Murray Rothbard I would doubt anyone who said you couldn't discern a theory of rights in a scientific manner. Rothbard, in his book "The Ethics of Liberty" does not try to lay out morals as far as whether or not lying is immoral, or whether abortion is immoral or not. He comes up with a theory of 'Natural Law' based on property rights, and while I don't agree entirely with him (I disagree on his avoidance of coming up with a theory on animal rights mainly because it is based solely on what I feel to be the discredited assumption that humans are the only animals at all capable of reason). His work in the area has given me some faith in the idea that an objective 'Natural Law' could be discovered using property rights as a basis - and I think his ideas could be expanded upon and evolved a whole lot more.

As for "racial", I find that a lot more subjective and agree with you pretty much 100%.

But what's an authority figure? Is that perhaps a parent, or a religious institution, or a teacher,...?

 

Voluntary segregation seems to be a contradiction. Segregation involves separating people, restricting access. You can voluntarily gather with whoever you want, even folks of the same 'race' -- but that's not segregation. Segregation is when you tell someone else they can't join in. When it become segregation, it stops being voluntary.​

 

Too bad the American government infringed upon this right with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that tells people who they can and cannot sell their house to, what criteria banks can use to lend money (even if it is worse for their profits), and who an employer can and cannot hire.

You mean like immigration residency and employment laws?

Do you have any idea what would happen in your country if the laws that segregate people by nationality/citizenship suddenly dissappeared?
Take a look at how things are in Africa to get some idea.

 

Then maybe discrimination based on citizenship might be useful in some circumstances. Now back to the topic of racial segregation...​

 

While discrimination under the law was eventually prohibited in the 1960's that did not eliminate discrimination against African-Americans in the United States and it continues to be widespread today. African-Americans have never achieved equality and, in fact, if all discrimination by individuals and enterprise ceased today it would take generations before actual equality could be reached.

Racist hate groups continue their relentless campaign of discrimination against African-Americans and many with "right-wing" political ideologies are highly opposed to any government efforts to address the inequalities created by invidious racial discrimination. For example, Affirmative Action is an attempt to mitigate the harm caused by racial discrimination that continues today but it is highly opposed by many "right-wing" conservatives.

 

The one sure way to completely end this discrimination would be to give Blacks their own nation in the Americas. The only reason this never happened after the end of slavery was that the wealthy whites owned all the land, and did not want to give any of it up to the Blacks. Many Black nationalists, such as Louis Farrakhan, have correctly surmised that the only way Blacks will ever be free of discrimination is to get their own nation.

 

“Racist hate groups continue their relentless campaign of discrimination against African-Americans and many with "right-wing" political ideologies are highly opposed to any government efforts to address the inequalities created by invidious racial discrimination. For example, Affirmative Action is an attempt to mitigate the harm caused by racial discrimination that continues today but it is highly opposed by many "right-wing" conservatives.” Shiva_TD

Let me try to understand this comment, Shiva. A government should preemptively discriminate against white people by taking their tax dollars and giving it to black people in order to offset the effects of potential racial discrimination? Once you start to think in this cyclic loop of nonsense, you will confuse yourself ad infinitum.

In case you haven’t noticed, I am all about equality. If the government wants to support a capitalist system with energy, food, healthcare and water quotas, fine. Donald Trump and Warren Buffet are just as entitled to these minimum “human rights” as the poorest person in the USA. What they do with them is their business. The only debate is how these “human rights” are paid for.

When I was a kid, I was told not to acknowledge that half of my family was black because I would also be discriminated against (keep in mind that I’m white but several aunts and uncles married blacks). Thus, racial discrimination is real. However, is it undeserved? When you have workers that sleep on the job, steal from the employer and cause industrial accidents due to negligence (and the disproportionate number are black), discrimination is a harsh word. When is one discriminating versus making a statistically wise and informed decision (an example for job employment prospects)?

Agree with Anders Hoveland. There is no solution other than the establishment of separate countries for the races unless the government stops using racism to counter racism.

 

This is what I want to do, in a way. I guess you could say I have something in common with liberals.
This money should go to making a nation for Blacks in the Americas. Better for Blacks, better for whites.
Maybe not so good for wealthy whites, who have created a "wall of money" around their own insulated neighborhoods. But they have been screwing the middle class for years. Slavery could have never been allowed to happen if the 90% of lower middle class whites had not remained silent to the greed of the wealthy plantation owners.

I am in favor of reparations too: Every single Black that wants to start a new life in Africa deserves a big compensation payment and a free one-way plane ticket.
That and an official apology for tainting their gene pool with the blood of a white slave master who took advantage of a Black slave-woman. Black slave women were unfortunate that the KKK wasn't around sooner. A single plea for help and they would have given her abuser what he deserved and made 100% sure he would have never abused another slave ever again...

if a troop of klansmen could go back in time and get their hands on the money-grubbing evil masters of those wretched transatlantic slave ships...

 

"I am in favor of reparations too: Every single Black that wants to start a new life in Africa deserves a big compensation payment and a free one-way plane ticket." Anders

I have a problem with this also. Using this definition, any "indentured servant" in the USA is a slave and deserves compensation and a ticket to their European ancestry along with guaranteed citizenship if they so choose. Otherwise, again, it is all about blacks getting something for nothing. When does it end? Clearly, at the collapse of the USA dollar. However, I would like to see some rational minds come together to prevent it. A serious and academic study of slavery has proven that most black parents sold their kids for a bag of beans. This myth of European raving lunatics using chains and force is propagated to enhance sympathy.