Caucasions now minority in New York, Washington, San Diego, Las Vegas and Memphis...

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by AdAbsurdum

 

No what I am suggesting that given the general definition of genocide, native Americans engaged in it. I'm suggesting that most groups in the history of the world engaged in it. It is unfortunate, steps should be taken to ensure that it does not happen again.

This notion that native American's were all peaceful folks sitting around the camp fire smoking the peace pipe, praying to the eagle and making beaded head dresses when whitey came in and killed them all is nonsense. That tribe likely recently came back from brutalizing a neighboring tribe. The popular notion of native Americans is fantasy and folklore and depending on how you would define it, racist. They were just as brutal as the white man.

Lol, the indians from my region, those were nasty, really nasty, in spanish we call them Caribes, but the real word was Carib, in plural they were called Caribales, and from that word we get the english one Cannibal.

Their slogan was "Ana Karina Rote", that in english would be "only we are people", of course, the other indian tribes were food.

That was the reason why the "food tribes" allied with the spaniards and now there are not much caribes anymore, the food still exist.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


The native americans who are in "dire" condition are of one stripe and that is those who live on reservations. I'm sorry, but all over the world that tribal model of living is dead. It may be unfortunate, but it is dead. Where it does exist you can guarantee that by the standards of success, those groups lag behind.

What was the infant mortality rate of the native Americans prior to the white man coming? Better than it is today? No. What was the literacy rate? Better than it was prior to the white man? No. Did they enjoy the same level of infrastructure? No.

This notion that you can choose to live separately and have the same life outcome is nonsense. Native American's have significant benefits with respect to other groups in the society currently. Gambling rights, tax free status, preferential treatment with respect to college admissions, access to land rights. Go to a state where there is a large native American population, like Washington. Native American's who live off the reservation are doing quite well. They have jobs, education trusts, a high standard of living and in many cases, doing better than other demographic groups generally. Go to the reservation and you'll find abject poverty. The best thing that could happen to the Native Americans is for all of the reservations to be closed down

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by AdAbsurdum

 

The native americans who are in "dire" condition are of one stripe and that is those who live on reservations. I'm sorry, but all over the world that tribal model of living is dead. It may be unfortunate, but it is dead. Where it does exist you can guarantee that by the standards of success, those groups lag behind.

Yes, by foreign standards of success that is accurate.

What was the infant mortality rate of the native Americans prior to the white man coming? Better than it is today? No.

Since there exists no information on this, I can not comment either way.

What was the literacy rate? Better than it was prior to the white man? No.

Since most NA nations didn't have a writing system this is a misnomer. The culture was oral and that is just as legitimate as written culture. To measure success by literacy rates is ethnocentric.

Did they enjoy the same level of infrastructure? No.

I know for my nation we had no desire for that infrastructure and the only reason to have it would seem to be able to meet foreign expectations of success. And these standards are culturally harmful and damaging.

This notion that you can choose to live separately and have the same life outcome is nonsense.

I never made such a statement.

Native American's have significant benefits with respect to other groups in the society currently. Gambling rights, tax free status, preferential treatment with respect to college admissions, access to land rights. Go to a state where there is a large native American population, like Washington. Native American's who live off the reservation are doing quite well.

Again they do well according to a foreign standard.

They have jobs, education trusts, a high standard of living and in many cases, doing better than other demographic groups generally.]Go to the reservation and you'll find abject poverty. The best thing that could happen to the Native Americans is for all of the reservations to be closed down

So they are doing better than other demographic groups but at the same time live in abject poverty... I guess when comparing them to Ethiopia they do have it pretty good.

The idea that "primitiveness" is defined by a lack of industrial infrastructure and/or technological/scientific advancements shows just how "primitive" some of us still are. This surely can only be defined as a lack of consciousness, which our country, heritage and culture so obviously continues to lack. Therefore, we are still very "primitive". But I am sure your T.V. and other material objects makes you feel very civilized and advanced, probably far more so than those savage Indians you so vigorously label as "primitive". That is sad and very dangerous for us all.

If anybody can show me difinitive proof that a single....yes, SINGLE, race/country/culture that has not comitted atrocities at some point in their respective histories. I will eat my shoes, and record it for distribution on ATS!

Show one!

As for no genocides in Europe...go read up on history for a while.

Europe, as with any land mass populated by different tribes, had the same level of infighting and genocide as any other continent.

If any continents could recieve the title as 'worst' for genocide it would be Asia. And, the reasoning is simple. All humans have been pretty violent equally. Asia, having the largest population base, would have had the most absolute deaths while still maintaining the same average level as everywhere else.

We are essentially animals...all of us. Deal with it.

Originally posted by peck420
If anybody can show me difinitive proof that a single....yes, SINGLE, race/country/culture that has not comitted atrocities at some point in their respective histories. I will eat my shoes, and record it for distribution on ATS!

Show one!

mmmmmmm well, countries, San Marino, Monaco, Liechstentein

Race, all guilty.

Culture, mmmmm, australian aborigins?

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


Thats all well and good, but the issue is that demographic groups are compared against a common standard and that standard is that which is applied against the society at large. Native Americans are viewed in the context of society at large and to the extent that they wish to practice a tribal lifestyle, there should be no such comparrison.

Why is it legitimate to suggest that Native Americans are living in poverty when poverty is defined in a post industrial economic sense. There by definition is no poverty in common terms for folks living a tribal lifestyle and to the extent that there is, it certainly not the responsibility for society as a whole to do anything but allow for native Americans to fully and properly integrate in to modern society.

I lived in Washington for a few years, I enjoyed how diverse it was
I don't see how Caucasian was the minority though...does the link specify which cities or something? (I admit, I didn't read it)

Originally posted by MikeBoss
Reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

Your last part is funny because USA is never a cacuasian country to begin with. The native indians has more rights to complain about you invading their land than you vice versa in my opinion.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I don't think that was the point of this thread. I read it and didn't come to this conclusion. He was just asking what would happen if instead of a "chinatown" in a predominantly "white" neighbourhood, what if there was a "whitetown" in a predominantly asian neighbourhood. I am not quite sure what the native indians complaining have to do with this question, besides showing some of your true colours.

reply to post by CanadianDream420


Well, you might ask the people of Korea or Japan. Between the two countries, there are 60,000 American soldiers. I don't reckon too many Koreans or Japanese are terribly thrilled about them being there. At least with immigrants, they nearly always have the desire to get educated and work hard.

PS: yes, I do expect to get flamed about American soldiers. I am not saying they are all bad, just the ones who commit crimes in foreign countries.

ETA: Jude11 said what I tried to say, only much better.

reply to post by gandalph


What determines all you say is the barrel of a gun

Its very nice of the Caucasians to let the dark races in their country because, remember, they enslaved or colonized every non-white country and culture in the world except Japan and Turkey. Japan and Turkey, the ONLY non-white countries allowed in the sacred halls of the great white races two most powerful institutions: that being--NATO--in the case of Turkey, and the G8 in the case of Japan.

I imagine these two House Negro countries--Turkey and Japan--are allowed in the Great halls of the white man’s power structure, DESPITE THEIR COLOR, because their own history is filled with oppressing, destroying, and colonizing some of their neighbors, as the Caucasian powers did while marching all over the world and destroying everything they came into contact with.

Check it out it’s the truth.

So apparently a membership in these two splendid organizations, NATO and the G8, is that you have to have at least the credence of either a certified genocide in your history, as the Turks did in Armenia and the Japanese in Manchuria and China; or a known history of myriad cases of slavery and colonialism as in the G8 countries: United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Canada whose histories without a doubt meet such criteria . . . in spades.

We know of course the US has a well-known certified genocide in their bloody history; that being of course the Native Americans . . . and we might mention the millions of African slaves as being a de-facto genocide.

So today, the children of these empires of pain, misery, plunder, oppression and injustice may have to face something that is called:

KARMA!

Originally posted by MikeBoss
Reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

Your last part is funny because USA is never a cacuasian country to begin with. The native indians has more rights to complain about you invading their land than you vice versa in my opinion.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Even the Native Americans traveled to the land that is now North America. All humans outside of Africa have moved to new lands. Regardless true Native American belief never had them believing something as arrogant as them owning the land. They didn't own land, it wasn't until white people came that they were even exposed to the stupid idea of owning land.

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
The overwhelming majority in congress and in the senate are caucasion and look where that got us.
Also, I believe south Africa was ruled by english speaking white men and we all know how well that worked out.
Your post reeks of racism.

Are you daft? South Africa was much more stable when it was ruled by white people than it is doing now with a black majority government. Of course apartheid was abhorrent, and white had no right to assert themselves the leaders in the first place, but get your facts straight at least if you're going to use an example this way.

Originally posted by MikeBoss
Reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

Your last part is funny because USA is never a cacuasian country to begin with. The native indians has more rights to complain about you invading their land than you vice versa in my opinion.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Will we be seeing you on the thread titled "Rampant Immigration Dividing The UK says Cameron". I read a few accounts from indigenous Englishmen suggesting England is their rightful homeland. I think that they would like to hear from you.

Originally posted by Lubek

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
The overwhelming majority in congress and in the senate are caucasion and look where that got us.
Also, I believe south Africa was ruled by english speaking white men and we all know how well that worked out.
Your post reeks of racism.

Are you daft? South Africa was much more stable when it was ruled by white people than it is doing now with a black majority government. Of course apartheid was abhorrent, and white had no right to assert themselves the leaders in the first place, but get your facts straight at least if you're going to use an example this way.

edit on 14-4-2011 by Lubek because: (no reason given)

How can you say "apartheid was abhorrent" and "South Africa was much more stable when it was ruled by white people" in the same breath? That wasn't stability it was oppression.

Originally posted by atlguy
Who cares? Really? Why are you threatened?

It's inevitable - especially since the birthrates for WASPS have been going down for decades, while the birthrates for other nationalities (non-white) have been on the increase.

If the subject of your post is something you feel unsettled by, perhaps you could join up with a group that shares your opinions. I think they're usually in the south and like to wear white sheets....

edit on 4/14/2011 by atlguy because: (no reason given)

A very small percent of white people are "wasps", but yes at the moment I'm doing a research project on birthrates in human geography. It seems there is a direct correlation between the level of education and the amount of children you have.

It can be assumed that after the hispanics have been the majority in the U.S. for awhile and become financially established they will start sending their children to college in droves that their own birthrates will drop.

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by MikeBoss
Reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

Your last part is funny because USA is never a cacuasian country to begin with. The native indians has more rights to complain about you invading their land than you vice versa in my opinion.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I don't think that was the point of this thread. I read it and didn't come to this conclusion. He was just asking what would happen if instead of a "chinatown" in a predominantly "white" neighbourhood, what if there was a "whitetown" in a predominantly asian neighbourhood. I am not quite sure what the native indians complaining have to do with this question, besides showing some of your true colours.

My true color? what are you smoking? All I said was quit complaining and deal with it because there is always someone who got the #ty end of the stick. He obviously feels that he doesn't want whites to be a minority in what ever USA cities but didn't think about the Native Indians were the majority in those areas back then and now it's the minority.

Originally posted by squandered

Originally posted by MikeBoss
Reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

Your last part is funny because USA is never a cacuasian country to begin with. The native indians has more rights to complain about you invading their land than you vice versa in my opinion.

Originally posted by Frontkjemper

Originally posted by MikeBoss
Reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

Your last part is funny because USA is never a cacuasian country to begin with. The native indians has more rights to complain about you invading their land than you vice versa in my opinion.

And your post is funny because Europe which has always been a Caucasian country is losing their culture and heritage. Think of it this way: People are taught at schools that what the Europeans (British) did to the American-Indians was wrong. Well, now the new American-Indians are Europeans and the new Europeans are the immigrants moving into these countries.

Where's the outcry for them? Oslo, Norway will have a "minority" majority in under 50 years. This is why I'm against mass-immigration. It's cultural genocide no matter how you try to spin it with political correctness.

I never said I supported mass immigration to Europe, that's another different topic. I believe that every country should rightfully keep their culture from eroding by doing what ever they can, and that includes limiting immigration. But for a multi-cultural country like USA, its all different because it is meant for allowing all different kinds of people to immigrate here and start a new life.

Originally posted by Tharsis
I think he's just raising talking points.

The OP is from Canada, I don't think he's too worried folks.

I don't see any racism, I don't see how you can.

This.
OP you should have changed your picture and added the words "I'm black and..." at the beginning and you got yourself a civil conversation.
To me, when I hear this, it just gives me kind of a 'the world is changing' introspective. But it's ultimately the same as hundreds of other mundane facts that point to this.
The conspiracy theorist in me sees this thread as some sort of test to gauge human reaction.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420

New census data confirm that some major metropolitan areas flipped from majority white to majority populations of minorities during the past decade.

White people are now in the minority in 46 of the nation's 366 metro areas, including New York, Washington, San Diego, Las Vegas and Memphis

news.blogs.cnn.com...

I'm unsure of how many Canadian cities fall into this category but Toronto/Vancouver must be well on their way.

How do you feel about this?..

Sort of off-topic but:
I still wonder what would happen if 200,000 caucasians/africans migrated to Japan, for example, and bought up lots of real-estate, had a whole part of city sectioned off for us with malls/stores/buildings with stictly in English what would happen?...

Let me address the first question - How do you feel about this? - first. I must say that I honestly don't feel about this. It isn't something that I consider to be newsworthy in any way, unless you're a demographer or an anthropologist. Realistically though it is entirely meaningless to me as skin colour is quite irrelevant to me socially. It doesn't matter! What is relevant to me though, and I need to stress this, being a worker I have more in common with anybody of any skin colour who is also a worker, than I have with any rich people! The skin colour doesn't matter! In fact, I would like to quote an artist (Immortal Technique) who spoke on this particular issue once, but from the perspective of a black latino from New York City. HIS view echos MY view:

My enemy is not the average white man, it's not the kid down the block or the kids I see on the street; my enemy is the man I don't see: the people in the white house, the corporate monopoly owners, fake liberal politicians those are my enemies.

In fact, I have more in common with most working and middle-class white people than I do with most rich black and Latino people. As much as racism bleeds America, we need to understand that classism is the real issue. Many of us are in the same boat and it's sinking, while these bourgie Mother-#ers ride on a luxury liner, and as long as we keep fighting over kicking people out of the little boat we're all in, we're gonna miss an opportunity to gain a better standard of living as a whole.

This echoes my view to a tee! Their skin colour doesn't matter, they are my equal - we are all workers being screwed by elites who are inch-by-inch cracking down and taking away what little we have. The more we respect each other and work for each other rather than wealthy elite bastards who don't care about us, the better we'll all be off.

Now let me address your second question. It is quite a ridiculous and borderline fallacious question simply because you are implying a conspiratorial agenda of sorts - as if minorities are conspiring to "take over" part of a city, when in reality it isn't like that at all. There aren't committees of South African, Liberian or Sudanese people planning to take over the UK or Australia! There aren't committees of Filipinos planning the best way to take over California or Toronto! Its absolutely ridiculous. Anybody who has never lived in a foreign country with a different native language to theirs should do so for a lengthy period of time, and they will very quickly stop pretending like immigrants are plotting to "drive us out!" It isn't easy moving to another country, especially when there's people who think you're some sort of evil alien trying to "take over their neighbourhood." They are people just like you and me trying to get by.