I would say it is impossible at all. The entire populations of Japan and Europe are declining as well. I'm sure the variables could be common. In the U.S. the decline just seems to be more targeted and disportionately being used/affecting one group more than others.
Nick
Now hold on. There's no evidence of a declining black population - quite the opposite, Black population growth is still much higher than Whites.
to be sure.. much of the growth in Asian, Hispanic and Indian populations are due to immigration and emigration and not flat out birthrate. The Black population similarly is growing in large part to new immigration from the Caribbean and Africa. In fact new immigrants from Africa make up a rather large percentage of the new black population in NY. And let's not forget that "hispanic" could easily be "white", "black", "Asian" or Native American
As Sond mentioned that is likely do to immigration. However when you consider it in a racial context, Indians and most Hispanics would be considered caucasian. Thus when take out the tribalism, and revert just to pure race, blacks actually have the smallest growth of all.
Which can only mean the same government would need to go ?to great extremese (sic) to encourage whites to marry and breed with those persons darker than themselves? as well, you make it sound sinister. I wonder why.
Anyway, Brazilians have been merrily marrying with people of lighter or darker tones than themselves without needing some alleged government encouragement.
Again.. if you don't know the particular history of Brazil, then you don't know what you're talking about. The government did indeed have a programme to "encourage" lightening up.
[?]
Where did I say current day Brazil?
Here:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sondjata, 14/VII/2003 23:24 local
In Brazil there was/is a policy of "lightening up."?
The word ?is? means present-time.
Now you claim it's a policy insituting the kind of illict unequal relations of the time when racism was institutional both in Brazil and the U.S.A, and yet you go on claiming:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sondjata, 14/VII/2003 23:24 local
So such an idea that a Eugenics program is afoot in the US is entirely feasable.
That is clearly a suggestion that present-day U.S.A. might adopt a programme claimed to be from present-day Brazil.
Quote:
Quote:
While present-day Brazil is not yet a colour-blind society, it seems closer to it than the present-day U.S.A., and so married couples made of black men and white women, and of course, of white men and black women, are quite common there.
And even if I did are you aware of all the mnovements by Blacks in Brazil to address the rampant discrimination they face? Oh I'm sorry, you color blind folks only concern yourself with who's bedding who.
Did you even read this?
?While present-day Brazil is not yet a colour-blind society,??
Being indifferent to colour is about not having concerns about the colour of ?who is bedding who?, among other things.
Quote:
Quote:
How would you call people having partners of different skin tones? That's the very ?race mixing? some of your countrymen were railing against when I first visited your side of the Atlantic.
?Eugenics? referred more to the ideas promoting ?purity? rather than ?mixing?.
Clearly you failed to watch "Rabbit Proof Fence" or take the hint about how certain social and biological experiments have taken place on blacks. Eugenics is very much about mixing as it is about purity.
The Eugenics movement of the nineteenth-century was about preserving the ?purity? and increasing the natality of the so-called ?superiors? while segregating and harming the ?inferiors?.
Eugenics sprang out of the pseudo-science of the racial theories as well as of Social-Darwinism, which were later adopted by the Hitlerian regime, not the other way around.
Quote:
Quote:
No, Gobineau and Chamberlain actually invented the psudeo-scientific theories of racial hierarchies, which in turn heavily influenced Eugenics.
Clue for you. There would be no "marrying of blacks and whites in the US since it was Illegal in most states where blacks were in the majority or near majority populations. All those shadrs of black people in the US were largely the results of white men breeding black women. Many of these men believed that they couold further civilize the Negro by introducing "White blood" into the population. This is a well documented fact. Just like Strom Thurma who believed in strict segregation has a "black" daughter. It's too bad you don't get it, that Most of the people who were staunch about racial purity were also greatly involved in creating the mixes they supposedly despised.
It is well known that many racists obsessed with ?purity? had desires for the ?inferiors?. To claim that the fact of present-day marriages in Brazil of people of different skin colour, is somewhat a continuation of the illicit unequal relations of the past, is idiotic.
Quote:
In fact those mixed persons served their twisted minds by re-inforcing ideas of "mongrelization."
Back then as I remeber, ?mongrelisation? was deemed negative by racists, not something to be ?re-inforced?.
It remains that the racial theories of Nazi Germany (which were very much opposed to ?mongrelisation?), while stemming from the same prejudices that served slavery and discrimination in the New World, did not originate there.
Quote:
Quote:
Said racial theories were feeding on prejudices born out of the discovery by the peoples of North-Western Europe (whose physical features were by then quite homogenous) of very different, diverse, and varied physical human types from far a way lands. These prejudices preceded the U.S.A. of a few centuries, and so did not originate there, obviously.
The theorists of racial hierarchy lived where these prejudices originated; they didn't need any input from some overseas peripheral provinces.
Those "prejudices" actually did not develop until the dawn of the Atlantioc Slave trade.
And did when that happen?
At the same time of the discovery by the peoples of North-Western Europe (whose physical features were by then quite homogenous) of very different, diverse, and varied physical human types from far a way lands.
Quote:
If you read the numerous manuscripts on the subject you would find that Europeans who started the slave trade were well familiar with blacks and didn't have particularly negatove views of them.
Those were navigators and explorers, the common people who constituted the bulk of those migrating to the new world as well as of those stayung at home, were completely unfamiliar not only with people of different physical appearance but with the very diversity and variety of physical appearances.
And those with the lesser such familarity (Dutch, English) ended up building the highest racist barriers.
Quote:
It was not until the colonization of Brazil, the West Indies and the US and the cvarious attacks against slavery that arguments about the diminished mental capacity of Africans started to form a cohesive Ideology. Much of those ideas started from American Colonists and their English counterparts. This stuff is well documented.
As said previously:
?These prejudices preceded the U.S.A. of a few centuries, and so did not originate there, obviously.
The theorists of racial hierarchy lived where these prejudices originated; they didn't need any input from some overseas peripheral provinces.?
Quote:
Quote:
b. You claim that the racial theories adopted by the Third Reich originated in the U.S.A. They did not, both the theories themselves, and the prejudices they fed upon, were common to the then Western civilisation, and originated in that civilisation's centre then: Western Europe.
Exactly common in Western Civilization as a result of the Trans Atlantic Slave trade and the arguments used to support it. No Slave trade no theories of inherent superiority of the "white" race.
The theories of a biological ?white race?, along with the advent of Social-Darwinism (which in turn led to Eugenics), was feeding on the same prejudices which served the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, but the claim that its sole cause was that slave trade itself (which also, originated in Europe), is way too simplistic to be taken seriously. The sought to apply of the notions of natural selection to human affairs, and the reaction against the ideas of the Enlightenment, are much more owed to by the theorists of racial hierarchy.
Quote:
Lets not forget that The Nazis' Killed awhole lot of other people besides Jews.
There were two categories of people rounded up for total extermination in Nazi-ruled Europe for the ?crime? of being born part of an ?anti-race?: the Gypsies and the Jews.
Millions of others were also killed by the Nazi death machine for a plethora of pretexts (political opponents, people having ?anti-social? practices, resistants, etc.).
As Sond mentioned that is likely do to immigration. However when you consider it in a racial context, Indians and most Hispanics would be considered caucasian. Thus when take out the tribalism, and revert just to pure race, blacks actually have the smallest growth of all.
Nick
Nah, if you look at that graph, White refers to all whites, and Hispanic is a separate category.
As to your other point, yeah, apparently the census doesn't have birth rate info, that's the National Center for Health Statistics.
Birth rates in the year 2000 (live births per 1000 women):
So Blacks are having a lot more babies than Whites. I'm not sure how to find population growth excluding immigration (there must be a term for that). I suppose you'd have to subtract death rates from birth rates. Maybe someone else knows how to obtain those data, but from what I gather, I'd be willing to bet that the Black population is still in positive growth even if you do exclude immigration. I say that because I believe the US population as a whole is still in positive growth excluding immigration, or close to it, and Blacks have among the highest birth rates.
So Blacks are having a lot more babies than Whites. I'm not sure how to find population growth excluding immigration (there must be a term for that). I suppose you'd have to subtract death rates from birth rates. Maybe someone else knows how to obtain those data, but from what I gather, I'd be willing to bet that the Black population is still in positive growth even if you do exclude immigration. I say that because I believe the US population as a whole is still in positive growth excluding immigration, or close to it, and Blacks have among the highest birth rates.
3 more babies is "a lot more babies" I don't think so. anyways the birth rate data put side by side with the population rate clearly shows that population growth among all groups except whites can be explained by immigration and emigration.
Some real genocides which actually happened during the last thirty years:
In Cambodia, perpertrated by the Khmer-Rouges led by Pol-Pot.
In Afghanistan, perpetrated by the Soviet Union and its puppet regime of Babrak Karmal and Najibullah.
In Iraqi Kurdistan, perpetrated by Saddam Hussain's Baath regime.
In Rwanda, perpetrated by the extremist racist government led by the C.D.R. (?Coalition pour la Défense de la République?).
Much of the ?international community? stood by while some lent a hand to these atrocities, whatever hope I had during the first postwar decades was completely erased by these events.
looka-here Mr. Goldstien. It is very apparent that we don't agree on this topic. Yes Present day Brazil is a consequence of it's past. In it's past the Black population was something to be despised and eliminated. The results of these programs are self evident. Again, since I know of Afro-Brazilians who have organized around the issues that affect them and the readily observable preference of lighter women by darker men in black populations is ample proof of that particular point. Since you don't want to agree ( for whatever reason), fine do you.
As for the origins of Eugenics. again we clearly disagree. If you want to believe that the concepts had their origins in Europe and such, knock yourself out.
Some real genocides which actually happened during the last thirty years:
In Cambodia, perpertrated by the Khmer-Rouges led by Pol-Pot.
In Afghanistan, perpetrated by the Soviet Union and its puppet regime of Babrak Karmal and Najibullah.
In Iraqi Kurdistan, perpetrated by Saddam Hussain's Baath regime.
In Rwanda, perpetrated by the extremist racist government led by the C.D.R. (?Coalition pour la Défense de la République?).
Much of the ?international community? stood by while some lent a hand to these atrocities, whatever hope I had during the first postwar decades was completely erased by these events.
The Rwanda Genocide was not racist in origins as both parties were of the same race but of a different ethnicity (Nilotic commentary aside). It was however rooted in the veryt racist colonization of that particular part of the world by Europeans.
Saddam Hussien is/was a US puppet..so really..
Cambodia... Yikes yet another European colony gone amuk!
Afghanistan..Yikes yet another.. you know I see a rather nasty pattern here....
looka-here Mr. Goldstien. It is very apparent that we don't agree on this topic. Yes Present day Brazil is a consequence of it's past.
Mr. Sondjata, Every country's present is a cosequence of its past, but that doesn't make every occurence in a present-day country a continuation of any occurence of that country's past.
Quote:
In it's past the Black population was something to be despised and eliminated. The results of these programs are self evident. Again, since I know of Afro-Brazilians who have organized around the issues that affect them and the readily observable preference of lighter women by darker men in black populations is ample proof of that particular point.
Is there any reliable empirical evidence that darker-skinned Brazilians men necessarily prefer lighter skinned women more than darker skinned women or anything about the preferences of lighter skinned men or of Brazilian women of whatever skinn colour for that matter?
Furthermore, the pesonal preference of some people is hardly an indictment as ?racist? of relations between adult people of various skin tones who generally choose so for their own personal reasons.
Of course, any community is rife with perceptions such as ?they're after our women/they're after our men? or ?our women are after them/our men are after them?, and the like.
Quote:
Since you don't want to agree ( for whatever reason), fine do you.
While I'm not naïve to the point of believing that love regardless of coulour is in itself the cure for racism and discrimination, it is certainly detrimental to racism.
At the end of the day, Brazil had certainly not ?whitened? over the years, far from it, and a good thing it is.
Quote:
As for the origins of Eugenics. again we clearly disagree. If you want to believe that the concepts had their origins in Europe and such, knock yourself out.
The origins of the racial theories which were later adopted by the Third Reich, are in Europe. Neither Gobineau, nor Wagner, Chamberlain, nor even Hitler himself had much care for New World things, as their main interest was in the whole Pan-Germanic/Teutonic/ Nibelungen myths.
Eugenics' beginning owes mainly to a nineteenth century Briton named Francis Galton. They later found more following in North America and influenced some of early twentieth-century U.S. policies.
The Rwanda Genocide was not racist in origins as both parties were of the same race?
Yes, both Hutus and Tutsis are Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Quote:
but of a different ethnicity (Nilotic commentary aside).
Like Germans, Jews and Gypsies are different ethnic groups.
Just like European racists invented the myth of an ?Aryan race? or a ?white race?, Hutu extremists invented the myth of a ?Hutu race?. Their campaign of incitement, discrimination, and extermination against the Tutsi was very much racist.
Quote:
It was however rooted in the veryt racist colonization of that particular part of the world by Europeans.
The imitation of European-born racist ideologies and adjusting them to their own tastes, was the Hutu racists own doing, they weren't remote-controlled drones.
Quote:
Saddam Hussien is/was a US puppet..so really..
Nonsense, Saddam Hussain was very much his own man, his main backers were France and the U.S.S.R. The U.S. started assisting him after their traditional ally, Iran, fell to Khomeini's regime, but far from the extent of Soviet and French assistance or influence there.
Quote:
Cambodia... Yikes yet another European colony gone amuk!
By the mid nineteen-seventies, Cambodia was no longer a colony, but under the control of the ultra nationalist, archaeo-communist movement of the Khmer-Rouge.
Quote:
Afghanistan..Yikes yet another..
Afghanistan was one of the few countries in Asia which were never colonised.
After assisting a Marxist coup in 1973, the U.S.S.R. found local Marxists were straying away for the ?true path? (as Czechoslovakia did in 1968 ), it invaded in 1979, with the consequnces we know.
Quote:
you know I see a rather nasty pattern here....
Yes, racist and/or totalitarian ideologies rejecting of the legacy of the Enlightenment (which is one of the good things that came out of Europe), paranoid absolute leaders, and of course blaming all ills on Western imperialism/foreigners/neighbours and their lap dogs or puppets on the inside.
Just like European racists invented the myth of an ?Aryan race? or a ?white race?, Hutu extremists invented the myth of a ?Hutu race?. Their campaign of incitement, discrimination, and extermination against the Tutsi was very much racist
Oh my GAWD!! You actually wrote and believe that? Ha ha haaaaaaaa
*immaturely pointing the the person who obviously failed their african history class......
Oh my GAWD!! You actually wrote and believe that? Ha ha haaaaaaaa
*immaturely pointing the the person who obviously failed their african history class......
Sadly, that is not history, that genocide happened less than a decade ago, and many of the perpetrators are still at large.
Here's a sample of the racist ideology leading to the genocide, published on the December 1990 issue of the newpaper Kangura, a mouthpiece of the then official line:
Quote:
«The ten commandments of the Hutus»
1. Every muhutu should know that a mutusi woman, wherever she is, works for the interest of her Tutsi ethnic group as a result we shall consider a traitor any muhutu who marries a mututsi woman, makes a mututsi woman his concubine, ploys a mututsi woman as secretary or makes her his dependant.
2. Every muhutu should know that our bahutu daughters are more suitable and conscientious in their role of women, spouses and family mothers. Are they not beautiful, good secretaries and more honest?
3. Bahutu women be vigilant and try to bring your husbands, brothers and sons back to reason.
4. Every muhutu should know that every mututsi is dishonest in business. His only aim is to enhance the supremacy of his ethnic group. As a result, we shall consider a traitor any muhutu forms an alliance with batutsi in business, invests his money or government's money in a mututsi's enterprise, lends or borrows money from a mututsi, gives favours to batutsi in business like obtaining of import licences, bank loans, construction plots, public markets etc.
5. All the strategic posts, be they political, administrative, economic, military and security must be entrusted to bahutu.
6. The education sector (pupils, students, teachers) must be majority hutu.
7. The Rwandese armed forces must be exclusively hutu. The experience of the october war has taught us a lesson. No military person should marry a mututsi woman.
8. The bahutu should stop having mercy on the batutsi.
9. The bahutu, wherever they are, must have unity, solidarity and be pre-occupied by the fate of their Hutu brothers the bahutu both inside and outside Rwanda must constantly look for friends and allies for the Hutu cause, starting with our bahutu brothers; They must constantly counteract the tutsi propaganda. the bahutu must be firm and vigilant against their common enemy who are batutsi.
10. The 1959 social revolution, the 1961 referendum and the hutu ideology must be taught to every muhutu and at all levels. Every muhutu must spread widely this ideology. We shall consider a traitor any muhutu who will persecute his muhutu brother for having read, spread and taught this ideology.
It reades like Der Stürmer, same consequences as well.
Sadly, that is not history, that genocide happened less than a decade ago, and many of the perpetrators are still at large.
Here's a sample of the racist ideology leading to the genocide, published on the December 1990 issue of the newpaper Kangura, a mouthpiece of the then official line:
It reades like Der Stürmer, same consequences as well.
Immanuell: really now. You stated that the Hutu people were a "racist" creation. let me find your quote:
here we go:
"Just like European racists invented the myth of an ?Aryan race? or a ?white race?, Hutu extremists invented the myth of a ?Hutu race?. Their campaign of incitement, discrimination, and extermination against the Tutsi was very much racist."
There is no Hutu race there are Hutu and Tutsi's They existed long before any European stepped foot in that area of the world.
In other words, your Hutu commandments notwithstanding The Hutu people are very much an old people and very much an ethnic group the predated the present conflict or colonialism itself.
There is no Hutu race there are Hutu and Tutsi's They existed long before any European stepped foot in that area of the world.
There's no Aryan race, no Jewish race, no Gypsy race, no Serbian, no Croat, no Bosnian, no Albanian races either. Annoying details such as facts have never bothered racists.
Quote:
In other words, your Hutu commandments notwithstanding The Hutu people are very much an old people and very much an ethnic group the predated the present conflict or colonialism itself.
It remains that the motivation of the perpetrators of the Hutu genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 was their abovementioned racist ideology.
There's no Aryan race, no Jewish race, no Gypsy race, no Serbian, no Croat, no Bosnian, no Albanian races either. Annoying details such as facts have never bothered racists.
It remains that the motivation of the perpetrators of the Hutu genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 was their abovementioned racist ideology.
what exactly don't you understand? even your "commandment" post clearly states "ethnic.' yet and still you insist on calling the tragedy that was Rwanda a racial issue when it clearly is not.
If you got some issue with how serbs aryans and other europeans define themselves, you should take it up with those people. The fact of the matter is you have labeled a clear ethnic clash as a racial one. You're dead wrong.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
I would say it is impossible at all. The entire populations of Japan and Europe are declining as well. I'm sure the variables could be common. In the U.S. the decline just seems to be more targeted and disportionately being used/affecting one group more than others.
Nick
Now hold on. There's no evidence of a declining black population - quite the opposite, Black population growth is still much higher than Whites.
% growth over last 20 years:
Whites: 12
Blacks: 31
Indian: 74
Asian: 204
Hispanic: 141
From this census pdf file, page 79.
Originally posted by BRussell
Now hold on. There's no evidence of a declining black population - quite the opposite, Black population growth is still much higher than Whites.
% growth over last 20 years:
Whites: 12
Blacks: 31
Indian: 74
Asian: 204
Hispanic: 141
From this census pdf file, page 79.
to be sure.. much of the growth in Asian, Hispanic and Indian populations are due to immigration and emigration and not flat out birthrate. The Black population similarly is growing in large part to new immigration from the Caribbean and Africa. In fact new immigrants from Africa make up a rather large percentage of the new black population in NY. And let's not forget that "hispanic" could easily be "white", "black", "Asian" or Native American
Originally posted by BRussell
Now hold on. There's no evidence of a declining black population - quite the opposite, Black population growth is still much higher than Whites.
% growth over last 20 years:
Whites: 12
Blacks: 31
Indian: 74
Asian: 204
Hispanic: 141
From this census pdf file, page 79.
As Sond mentioned that is likely do to immigration. However when you consider it in a racial context, Indians and most Hispanics would be considered caucasian. Thus when take out the tribalism, and revert just to pure race, blacks actually have the smallest growth of all.
Nick
Originally posted by Sondjata
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Which can only mean the same government would need to go ?to great extremese (sic) to encourage whites to marry and breed with those persons darker than themselves? as well, you make it sound sinister. I wonder why.
Anyway, Brazilians have been merrily marrying with people of lighter or darker tones than themselves without needing some alleged government encouragement.
Again.. if you don't know the particular history of Brazil, then you don't know what you're talking about. The government did indeed have a programme to "encourage" lightening up.
[?]
Where did I say current day Brazil?
Here:
Originally posted by Sondjata, 14/VII/2003 23:24 local
In Brazil there was/is a policy of "lightening up."?
The word ?is? means present-time.
Now you claim it's a policy insituting the kind of illict unequal relations of the time when racism was institutional both in Brazil and the U.S.A, and yet you go on claiming:
Originally posted by Sondjata, 14/VII/2003 23:24 local
So such an idea that a Eugenics program is afoot in the US is entirely feasable.
That is clearly a suggestion that present-day U.S.A. might adopt a programme claimed to be from present-day Brazil.
While present-day Brazil is not yet a colour-blind society, it seems closer to it than the present-day U.S.A., and so married couples made of black men and white women, and of course, of white men and black women, are quite common there.
And even if I did are you aware of all the mnovements by Blacks in Brazil to address the rampant discrimination they face? Oh I'm sorry, you color blind folks only concern yourself with who's bedding who.
Did you even read this?
?While present-day Brazil is not yet a colour-blind society,??
Being indifferent to colour is about not having concerns about the colour of ?who is bedding who?, among other things.
How would you call people having partners of different skin tones? That's the very ?race mixing? some of your countrymen were railing against when I first visited your side of the Atlantic.
?Eugenics? referred more to the ideas promoting ?purity? rather than ?mixing?.
Clearly you failed to watch "Rabbit Proof Fence" or take the hint about how certain social and biological experiments have taken place on blacks. Eugenics is very much about mixing as it is about purity.
The Eugenics movement of the nineteenth-century was about preserving the ?purity? and increasing the natality of the so-called ?superiors? while segregating and harming the ?inferiors?.
Eugenics sprang out of the pseudo-science of the racial theories as well as of Social-Darwinism, which were later adopted by the Hitlerian regime, not the other way around.
No, Gobineau and Chamberlain actually invented the psudeo-scientific theories of racial hierarchies, which in turn heavily influenced Eugenics.
Clue for you. There would be no "marrying of blacks and whites in the US since it was Illegal in most states where blacks were in the majority or near majority populations. All those shadrs of black people in the US were largely the results of white men breeding black women. Many of these men believed that they couold further civilize the Negro by introducing "White blood" into the population. This is a well documented fact. Just like Strom Thurma who believed in strict segregation has a "black" daughter. It's too bad you don't get it, that Most of the people who were staunch about racial purity were also greatly involved in creating the mixes they supposedly despised.
It is well known that many racists obsessed with ?purity? had desires for the ?inferiors?. To claim that the fact of present-day marriages in Brazil of people of different skin colour, is somewhat a continuation of the illicit unequal relations of the past, is idiotic.
In fact those mixed persons served their twisted minds by re-inforcing ideas of "mongrelization."
Back then as I remeber, ?mongrelisation? was deemed negative by racists, not something to be ?re-inforced?.
It remains that the racial theories of Nazi Germany (which were very much opposed to ?mongrelisation?), while stemming from the same prejudices that served slavery and discrimination in the New World, did not originate there.
Said racial theories were feeding on prejudices born out of the discovery by the peoples of North-Western Europe (whose physical features were by then quite homogenous) of very different, diverse, and varied physical human types from far a way lands. These prejudices preceded the U.S.A. of a few centuries, and so did not originate there, obviously.
The theorists of racial hierarchy lived where these prejudices originated; they didn't need any input from some overseas peripheral provinces.
Those "prejudices" actually did not develop until the dawn of the Atlantioc Slave trade.
And did when that happen?
At the same time of the discovery by the peoples of North-Western Europe (whose physical features were by then quite homogenous) of very different, diverse, and varied physical human types from far a way lands.
If you read the numerous manuscripts on the subject you would find that Europeans who started the slave trade were well familiar with blacks and didn't have particularly negatove views of them.
Those were navigators and explorers, the common people who constituted the bulk of those migrating to the new world as well as of those stayung at home, were completely unfamiliar not only with people of different physical appearance but with the very diversity and variety of physical appearances.
And those with the lesser such familarity (Dutch, English) ended up building the highest racist barriers.
It was not until the colonization of Brazil, the West Indies and the US and the cvarious attacks against slavery that arguments about the diminished mental capacity of Africans started to form a cohesive Ideology. Much of those ideas started from American Colonists and their English counterparts. This stuff is well documented.
As said previously:
?These prejudices preceded the U.S.A. of a few centuries, and so did not originate there, obviously.
The theorists of racial hierarchy lived where these prejudices originated; they didn't need any input from some overseas peripheral provinces.?
b. You claim that the racial theories adopted by the Third Reich originated in the U.S.A. They did not, both the theories themselves, and the prejudices they fed upon, were common to the then Western civilisation, and originated in that civilisation's centre then: Western Europe.
Exactly common in Western Civilization as a result of the Trans Atlantic Slave trade and the arguments used to support it. No Slave trade no theories of inherent superiority of the "white" race.
The theories of a biological ?white race?, along with the advent of Social-Darwinism (which in turn led to Eugenics), was feeding on the same prejudices which served the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, but the claim that its sole cause was that slave trade itself (which also, originated in Europe), is way too simplistic to be taken seriously. The sought to apply of the notions of natural selection to human affairs, and the reaction against the ideas of the Enlightenment, are much more owed to by the theorists of racial hierarchy.
Lets not forget that The Nazis' Killed awhole lot of other people besides Jews.
There were two categories of people rounded up for total extermination in Nazi-ruled Europe for the ?crime? of being born part of an ?anti-race?: the Gypsies and the Jews.
Millions of others were also killed by the Nazi death machine for a plethora of pretexts (political opponents, people having ?anti-social? practices, resistants, etc.).
Originally posted by trumptman
As Sond mentioned that is likely do to immigration. However when you consider it in a racial context, Indians and most Hispanics would be considered caucasian. Thus when take out the tribalism, and revert just to pure race, blacks actually have the smallest growth of all.
Nick
Nah, if you look at that graph, White refers to all whites, and Hispanic is a separate category.
As to your other point, yeah, apparently the census doesn't have birth rate info, that's the National Center for Health Statistics.
Birth rates in the year 2000 (live births per 1000 women):
All races: 14.7
White: 14.1
Black: 17.6
Indian: 17.1
Asian: 17.8
From NCHS National Vital Statistics Report. Page 27.
So Blacks are having a lot more babies than Whites. I'm not sure how to find population growth excluding immigration (there must be a term for that). I suppose you'd have to subtract death rates from birth rates. Maybe someone else knows how to obtain those data, but from what I gather, I'd be willing to bet that the Black population is still in positive growth even if you do exclude immigration. I say that because I believe the US population as a whole is still in positive growth excluding immigration, or close to it, and Blacks have among the highest birth rates.
Originally posted by BRussell
Nah, if you look at that graph, White refers to all whites, and Hispanic is a separate category.
As to your other point, yeah, apparently the census doesn't have birth rate info, that's the National Center for Health Statistics.
Birth rates in the year 2000 (live births per 1000 women):
All races: 14.7
White: 14.1
Black: 17.6
Indian: 17.1
Asian: 17.8
From NCHS National Vital Statistics Report. Page 27.
So Blacks are having a lot more babies than Whites. I'm not sure how to find population growth excluding immigration (there must be a term for that). I suppose you'd have to subtract death rates from birth rates. Maybe someone else knows how to obtain those data, but from what I gather, I'd be willing to bet that the Black population is still in positive growth even if you do exclude immigration. I say that because I believe the US population as a whole is still in positive growth excluding immigration, or close to it, and Blacks have among the highest birth rates.
3 more babies is "a lot more babies" I don't think so. anyways the birth rate data put side by side with the population rate clearly shows that population growth among all groups except whites can be explained by immigration and emigration.
In Cambodia, perpertrated by the Khmer-Rouges led by Pol-Pot.
In Afghanistan, perpetrated by the Soviet Union and its puppet regime of Babrak Karmal and Najibullah.
In Iraqi Kurdistan, perpetrated by Saddam Hussain's Baath regime.
In Rwanda, perpetrated by the extremist racist government led by the C.D.R. (?Coalition pour la Défense de la République?).
Much of the ?international community? stood by while some lent a hand to these atrocities, whatever hope I had during the first postwar decades was completely erased by these events.
As for the origins of Eugenics. again we clearly disagree. If you want to believe that the concepts had their origins in Europe and such, knock yourself out.
Originally posted by Sondjata
3 more babies is "a lot more babies" I don't think so.
Blacks have a 25% higher birth rate than whites. 3 more babies?
Originally posted by BRussell
Blacks have a 25% higher birth rate than whites. 3 more babies?
17 out of 1000
vs
14 out of 1000
3 extra babies....
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Some real genocides which actually happened during the last thirty years:
In Cambodia, perpertrated by the Khmer-Rouges led by Pol-Pot.
In Afghanistan, perpetrated by the Soviet Union and its puppet regime of Babrak Karmal and Najibullah.
In Iraqi Kurdistan, perpetrated by Saddam Hussain's Baath regime.
In Rwanda, perpetrated by the extremist racist government led by the C.D.R. (?Coalition pour la Défense de la République?).
Much of the ?international community? stood by while some lent a hand to these atrocities, whatever hope I had during the first postwar decades was completely erased by these events.
The Rwanda Genocide was not racist in origins as both parties were of the same race but of a different ethnicity (Nilotic commentary aside). It was however rooted in the veryt racist colonization of that particular part of the world by Europeans.
Saddam Hussien is/was a US puppet..so really..
Cambodia... Yikes yet another European colony gone amuk!
Afghanistan..Yikes yet another.. you know I see a rather nasty pattern here....
Originally posted by Sondjata
looka-here Mr. Goldstien. It is very apparent that we don't agree on this topic. Yes Present day Brazil is a consequence of it's past.
Mr. Sondjata, Every country's present is a cosequence of its past, but that doesn't make every occurence in a present-day country a continuation of any occurence of that country's past.
In it's past the Black population was something to be despised and eliminated. The results of these programs are self evident. Again, since I know of Afro-Brazilians who have organized around the issues that affect them and the readily observable preference of lighter women by darker men in black populations is ample proof of that particular point.
Is there any reliable empirical evidence that darker-skinned Brazilians men necessarily prefer lighter skinned women more than darker skinned women or anything about the preferences of lighter skinned men or of Brazilian women of whatever skinn colour for that matter?
Furthermore, the pesonal preference of some people is hardly an indictment as ?racist? of relations between adult people of various skin tones who generally choose so for their own personal reasons.
Of course, any community is rife with perceptions such as ?they're after our women/they're after our men? or ?our women are after them/our men are after them?, and the like.
Since you don't want to agree ( for whatever reason), fine do you.
While I'm not naïve to the point of believing that love regardless of coulour is in itself the cure for racism and discrimination, it is certainly detrimental to racism.
At the end of the day, Brazil had certainly not ?whitened? over the years, far from it, and a good thing it is.
As for the origins of Eugenics. again we clearly disagree. If you want to believe that the concepts had their origins in Europe and such, knock yourself out.
The origins of the racial theories which were later adopted by the Third Reich, are in Europe. Neither Gobineau, nor Wagner, Chamberlain, nor even Hitler himself had much care for New World things, as their main interest was in the whole Pan-Germanic/Teutonic/ Nibelungen myths.
Eugenics' beginning owes mainly to a nineteenth century Briton named Francis Galton. They later found more following in North America and influenced some of early twentieth-century U.S. policies.
Originally posted by Sondjata
17 out of 1000
vs
14 out of 1000
3 extra babies....
You sure are good with numbers.
Originally posted by Sondjata
The Rwanda Genocide was not racist in origins as both parties were of the same race?
Yes, both Hutus and Tutsis are Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
but of a different ethnicity (Nilotic commentary aside).
Like Germans, Jews and Gypsies are different ethnic groups.
Just like European racists invented the myth of an ?Aryan race? or a ?white race?, Hutu extremists invented the myth of a ?Hutu race?. Their campaign of incitement, discrimination, and extermination against the Tutsi was very much racist.
It was however rooted in the veryt racist colonization of that particular part of the world by Europeans.
The imitation of European-born racist ideologies and adjusting them to their own tastes, was the Hutu racists own doing, they weren't remote-controlled drones.
Saddam Hussien is/was a US puppet..so really..
Nonsense, Saddam Hussain was very much his own man, his main backers were France and the U.S.S.R. The U.S. started assisting him after their traditional ally, Iran, fell to Khomeini's regime, but far from the extent of Soviet and French assistance or influence there.
Cambodia... Yikes yet another European colony gone amuk!
By the mid nineteen-seventies, Cambodia was no longer a colony, but under the control of the ultra nationalist, archaeo-communist movement of the Khmer-Rouge.
Afghanistan..Yikes yet another..
Afghanistan was one of the few countries in Asia which were never colonised.
After assisting a Marxist coup in 1973, the U.S.S.R. found local Marxists were straying away for the ?true path? (as Czechoslovakia did in 1968 ), it invaded in 1979, with the consequnces we know.
you know I see a rather nasty pattern here....
Yes, racist and/or totalitarian ideologies rejecting of the legacy of the Enlightenment (which is one of the good things that came out of Europe), paranoid absolute leaders, and of course blaming all ills on Western imperialism/foreigners/neighbours and their lap dogs or puppets on the inside.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Just like European racists invented the myth of an ?Aryan race? or a ?white race?, Hutu extremists invented the myth of a ?Hutu race?. Their campaign of incitement, discrimination, and extermination against the Tutsi was very much racist
Oh my GAWD!! You actually wrote and believe that? Ha ha haaaaaaaa
*immaturely pointing the the person who obviously failed their african history class......
Originally posted by Sondjata
Oh my GAWD!! You actually wrote and believe that? Ha ha haaaaaaaa
*immaturely pointing the the person who obviously failed their african history class......
Sadly, that is not history, that genocide happened less than a decade ago, and many of the perpetrators are still at large.
Here's a sample of the racist ideology leading to the genocide, published on the December 1990 issue of the newpaper Kangura, a mouthpiece of the then official line:
«The ten commandments of the Hutus»
1. Every muhutu should know that a mutusi woman, wherever she is, works for the interest of her Tutsi ethnic group as a result we shall consider a traitor any muhutu who marries a mututsi woman, makes a mututsi woman his concubine, ploys a mututsi woman as secretary or makes her his dependant.
2. Every muhutu should know that our bahutu daughters are more suitable and conscientious in their role of women, spouses and family mothers. Are they not beautiful, good secretaries and more honest?
3. Bahutu women be vigilant and try to bring your husbands, brothers and sons back to reason.
4. Every muhutu should know that every mututsi is dishonest in business. His only aim is to enhance the supremacy of his ethnic group. As a result, we shall consider a traitor any muhutu forms an alliance with batutsi in business, invests his money or government's money in a mututsi's enterprise, lends or borrows money from a mututsi, gives favours to batutsi in business like obtaining of import licences, bank loans, construction plots, public markets etc.
5. All the strategic posts, be they political, administrative, economic, military and security must be entrusted to bahutu.
6. The education sector (pupils, students, teachers) must be majority hutu.
7. The Rwandese armed forces must be exclusively hutu. The experience of the october war has taught us a lesson. No military person should marry a mututsi woman.
8. The bahutu should stop having mercy on the batutsi.
9. The bahutu, wherever they are, must have unity, solidarity and be pre-occupied by the fate of their Hutu brothers the bahutu both inside and outside Rwanda must constantly look for friends and allies for the Hutu cause, starting with our bahutu brothers; They must constantly counteract the tutsi propaganda. the bahutu must be firm and vigilant against their common enemy who are batutsi.
10. The 1959 social revolution, the 1961 referendum and the hutu ideology must be taught to every muhutu and at all levels. Every muhutu must spread widely this ideology. We shall consider a traitor any muhutu who will persecute his muhutu brother for having read, spread and taught this ideology.
It reades like Der Stürmer, same consequences as well.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
Sadly, that is not history, that genocide happened less than a decade ago, and many of the perpetrators are still at large.
Here's a sample of the racist ideology leading to the genocide, published on the December 1990 issue of the newpaper Kangura, a mouthpiece of the then official line:
It reades like Der Stürmer, same consequences as well.
Immanuell: really now. You stated that the Hutu people were a "racist" creation. let me find your quote:
here we go:
"Just like European racists invented the myth of an ?Aryan race? or a ?white race?, Hutu extremists invented the myth of a ?Hutu race?. Their campaign of incitement, discrimination, and extermination against the Tutsi was very much racist."
There is no Hutu race there are Hutu and Tutsi's They existed long before any European stepped foot in that area of the world.
In other words, your Hutu commandments notwithstanding The Hutu people are very much an old people and very much an ethnic group the predated the present conflict or colonialism itself.
Originally posted by Sondjata
There is no Hutu race there are Hutu and Tutsi's They existed long before any European stepped foot in that area of the world.
There's no Aryan race, no Jewish race, no Gypsy race, no Serbian, no Croat, no Bosnian, no Albanian races either. Annoying details such as facts have never bothered racists.
In other words, your Hutu commandments notwithstanding The Hutu people are very much an old people and very much an ethnic group the predated the present conflict or colonialism itself.
It remains that the motivation of the perpetrators of the Hutu genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 was their abovementioned racist ideology.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
There's no Aryan race, no Jewish race, no Gypsy race, no Serbian, no Croat, no Bosnian, no Albanian races either. Annoying details such as facts have never bothered racists.
It remains that the motivation of the perpetrators of the Hutu genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 was their abovementioned racist ideology.
what exactly don't you understand? even your "commandment" post clearly states "ethnic.' yet and still you insist on calling the tragedy that was Rwanda a racial issue when it clearly is not.
If you got some issue with how serbs aryans and other europeans define themselves, you should take it up with those people. The fact of the matter is you have labeled a clear ethnic clash as a racial one. You're dead wrong.