Printable View
Seeing as the last post is nonsense, I wanted to get back to the fact that African Americans were better off before desegregation:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-...lliams137.html
Quote:
In 1940, black illegitimacy was 19 percent; today it's 72 percent.
Oh boy. Here we go again with more "facts" coming from pundit blogs.
This probably won't be all that interesting, but it should be good for a laugh.
The article is not about segregation, so I don't know how you can make the link, except as a form of wish-fulfillment. You might want to understand the American family from a broader perspective, because regardless of whether it is 'white', 'Black', 'Latino' etc, the pressures on families have been the same, and relate historically to Patriarchy and Employment.Quote:
Originally Posted by hngs
Most of the newest immigrant groups to the US from the rural areas of the Indian sub-continent and the Middle East are intensely patriarchal families who have retained close ties to the village, as was also the case with many Scandinavian immigrants in the 19thc, some of whom were temporary migrants (working mostly in mining or agriculture for 6 months at a time) before deciding to settle permanently.
However, world wars reducing the male population, and the emancipation of women have fundamentally transformed the family -patriarchy has declined, women's employment has increased. The campaign to create 'nuclear families' in the 1950s failed because more and more women went to college and fought the kitchen-sink romance they felt was imposed on them. Add the increasing infertility of European and Asian men, and throw in the decline of mass unskilled jobs in industry, and you have either a crisis or a transition in family structure. The family is just not as solid as it once might have been, it is more flexible, diffuse, and raises challenges that the nuclear family doesn't have to face. Employment, accommodation, education and so on.
Black Americans may be more vulnerable to these trends because of discrimination in the jobs market, because in a capitalist economy jobs are the key to all sorts of security in health, education, food and work. Illegitimacy is just one indicator that sociologists use, rates are highr among 'White' families in Vermont, for example, but among 'Black Americans' in Hawaii, very low.
The challenge is to create jobs, and that I think is more important than some waffle about segregation, but I assume Louis Farrakhan would agree with you. Why not ask him?
Try Frank F. Furstenburg, 'The Recent Transformation of the American Family', in: Marcia Carlson and Paula England [eds] Social Class and Changing Families in Unequal America (Stanford University Press, 2011)
don't understand why now all of you speak about race and genetics:confused:
The genetic differences are smaller than the cultural differences.
Here is an example for a small genetic difference between black and white sprintershttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...-swimmers.html
Here is another explains the difference between east african athletes and west african athleteshttp://www.blackathlete.net/artman2/...re_A_188.shtml
But you can not establish that black plays better rhythm music because of their genetics.I could name hundred more examples like this so it doesn't make sense to talk that much about genetics.
By the way the term race related to humans is antiquated and is very often a use for degradition to certain population groups.
which ironically would be considered to be the same raceQuote:
Originally Posted by ImmerGeil
the idea of race as a concept in a species as geographically connected as humans is just stupid and will become increasingly so as humans from around the world mix their genes more and more
Maybe we should start calling the racial variants breeds. Why not? Yorkies & Great Danes are all dogs.Quote:
By the way the term race related to humans is antiquated and is very often a use for degradition to certain population groups.
Dogs are deliberately bred to amplify and attenuate specific attributes. The different breeds are a perfect example deliberate and artificial selection. The exact opposite is the case with human populations. Trades routes, wars, immigrations, the human sex drive and just plain curiosity have been stirring the mix for millennia. Modern economics, modes of transportation and communication have accelerated the process.
There is of course considerable variation in a number of human traits, but no particular variable trait or group of them is considered by anthropologists nor by biologists to divide humans into viable taxonomical races.
and lets not forget that human inter species diversity is in no way easy to categorizeQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
for every definion of 2 races theres a million of gradual in betweens as you move your finger across the map from eg africa to europe
Act of God, act of man, random, planned... What's the difference? It's the same result. Just like bluebloods lose their official heritage when they hook up with "commoners", the AKC considers "Lady & the Tramp" a tragedy. In this respect, dogs & humans are the same. Unless there's artificial restraints, they don't give a shit who they're fucking. Hence, an Afro-Eurasian land mass full of mutts. Since all those human curs have moved to the new world, there's no place left for purity of breed. Well... Except for the enclaves of the klan/nazis & the accident of being born into royalty. I wonder if any of them know who their ancesters really were. Personally, I'm a pure bred hybrid.
I don't know, but it wasn't Joseph Stalin.
So the concept of race will only fade once its been mixed out of existence? Impeccable logic. :Bowdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by muh_muh
Polymorphism is not by itself sufficient reason to create a taxonomic partition of a species. Persistent cross migration and cross breeding between polymorphic forms mitigate any such partitioning. Reproductive isolation is a definite requirement as well as the absence of intermediate forms. So yes, the logic is indeed impeccable. Life is dynamic. Forms merge and forms divide with time. Within human history it is questionable whether there ever was sufficient polymorphism, reproductive isolation and absence of intermediate forms to justify a taxonomic division into races. Sorry to disappoint you.
hngs,
The conversation about whether there is genetic diversity between races sufficient to segment them into distinct categories is a red herring. The reason I say this is because your claim that the disappearance of racial homogeneity is responsible for the weakening of the American economy is a smokescreen for an otherwise transparent white supremacist argument.
There are many poor societies that are racially homogenous. What you are arguing is that Germany is racially homogenous and that their genes are superior. Racial differences relating to skin color, resistance to disease, to uv rays by no means indicate that one race is ascendant over the rest in terms of mental or physical ability. Since you seem to be claiming as much you should at least be honest and admit it.
The rest of your arguments only further expose your bias against non-European individuals. I tend to trust African-Americans when they tell me that segregation was dehumanizing and evil. This is not just because the Supreme Court acknowledged this in its landmark decision, Brown v. Board of Education, where it said that the purpose of segregation was not mere separation of the races but the subordination and marginalization of Black people. No, this is because there are real life witnesses that can describe for you the injustice of segregation if you care to listen.
And no, German society under the Nazis could not be described as integrated when some people were being rounded up into camps and liquidated. German society today can make that claim much more convincingly, but you don't attribute their success to that trend because you have an agenda. The rest is all a subtle ruse on your part to contradict what many esteemed humanists have oft-said, that all men are created equal.
No it isn't. I believe in freedom. People should have the free choice of associating with whomever they want or don't want to, without petty tyrants like yourself forcing them to mix at gunpoint, which is what happened after BvB. You really need to consider where you are posting. This is a board for tranny chasers and you're calling me a white supremacist. This is the smirking level of crazy I was talking about earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Did I say this? Where? I believe I just pointed out that German society is the result of Germans. The fact that you consider Germany superior is simply your view. I didn't say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I tend to trust the social indices that say that African Americans had a healthier society before they were forced to mix with whites. I'm also convinced that Africa was better for Africans before whites went there. This allows the indigenous people to create societies of which they are capable without having some tyrant issue their system of governance upon them.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Talk about a red herring. That's not what I said. What I said was that in the 1936 Olympics, Jesse Owens was allowed to stay in the Olympic village with the other athletes, whereas in the United States he was not allowed to drink out of the same fountain as a white. This is absolute fact. So by your illogic, Nazi Germany was a more tolerant society. Understand? No, you don't, which is the problem. I'm simply rephrasing what you believe and all of a sudden it becomes a massive insult.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
To claim that German society is the result of Germans is to ignore the fact that every European society has been heavily influenced by a Middle Eastern desert prophet claiming to be the son of the god of creation. It ignores the fact that there would be no German society without the Marshall Plan and that the German economy depends upon work permits and the immigrant labor who have little hope of ever being citizens.
Curious that Adolf Hitler in his time, and the Germans before during and after two world wars right up to the present day -and for good reason- idolised, manipulated, and ultimately have just enjoyed the music of a German described by one biographer thus:
"His somewhat flat broad nose and rather wide mouth, his small piercing eyes and swarthy [dark] complexion, pockmarked into the bargain, gave him a strong resemblance to a mulatto.”
When he moved to Vienna and develop one of the most illustrious careers in music, this Heroic German lived for a while in a place known as the Schwarzspanierhaus, the house of Black Spaniards. The belief is that the family had originated in Belgium and that during the age when Spain ruled the Low Countries, Africans who had migrated to Spain arrived in Belgium through the armed forces, or as traders, who knows?
And if that isn't enough, consider the Ethiopian called Ibrahim Petrovich Gannibal, the grandfather of the man considered to be simply the best Russian poet of all time, and would you adam and eve it, one of the grand-daughters of this most Illustrious [er, and Black] Poet of All the Russias, married a grandson of Queen Victoria called George Battenberg...but let's not go there!
As the poet said:
Not for the wordy agitation,
Not for the gold or bloody ways,
We have been born for inspiration,
For charming sounds and for prayers.
Alle menscher werden Bruder indeed!
where the hell does that come from? that is patently falseQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
basically anybody who has been living and working in germany legally for 8 years has the right to become a german citizen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...German_citizen
Good to know, much_muh. I obviously labored under the opposite impression. Has this been the law for some time? In any case, it makes my point even stronger: Given their numbers, immigrants have a strong influence on German culture and society, especially if they are allowed to integrate into that society.
dunno but i dont remember that there ever were any strong restricions on becomming a german citizen as long as you fullfilled some basic requirements
the reason most immigrants dont is usual national pride and that there really is hardly any benefit to it other than being able to vote
as far as i know immigrants are elligible to pretty much every social security german citizens are including unemployment benefits free schooling etc
I also don't think it's right for the impression to be created that those who attribute economic success to race or genetics are pro-German and those who think the Germans have probably made sound fiscal decisions are not. I think it is truly ironic that decades after Germany abandoned the militarism of the 30's and 40's, developed an open and free society and began to thrive that some would argue that the ideology underpinning those dark years is responsible. That's some policy lag if I might say so.
And we see many forms of this argument. Some say it's racial homogeneity and not something about the Germans. Before attacking the theoretical deficiencies of this argument, this creates the impression that Germany is an apartheid society, which it is not.
But theoretically, such an argument implies that mixing races is like mixing oil and water and that there's some sort of biological incompatibility among races; people who in fact are fundamentally so similar that our species is a genetic bottleneck compared to others. You don't see a Jew or a Mexican or a Black guy in a workplace who are somehow unable to communicate or work together or be civil. This is a total myth.
And the ideas being promoted above are similar to the reasoning in Plessy v. Ferguson where the Justices to their shame argued that separate but equal doctrine was only seen as racist because of the construction put on it by minorities. This nonsense was later repudiated in Brown v. Board of Education. The separate but equal doctrine was never intended to be coherent and never intended to live up to its name. First, there were dozens of ethnic groups who could not be classified as either black or white and so under a literal interpretation could not use any of the duplicate institutions. Second, the effort required to duplicate institutions for every race is not just insane but would be extremely inefficient. Third, there was not literal equality as the institutions provided for African-Americans were substandard by design as African-Americans were intentionally kept from enjoying the privileges of full citizenship that was promised to them by the 14th amendment.
Supporting this defunct, bogus doctrine is self-discrediting and claiming that being on a tranny forum forecloses any argument that you could make a racist argument is equally foolish. The problems that exist in the African-American community are not a product of too much freedom or because our society is too inclusive. They certainly would not be fixed by segmenting our society into racial spheres where people don't live or work together and ride separate cars on the train. And I haven't seen any evidence that such a system exists in Germany or is responsible for their economic success. Nor is there any evidence that allowing African-Americans to dine at restaurants with white folks has created all sorts of social ills. But please do tell me about the dangers of not being able to put up signs such as "no blacks allowed."
"This is a board for tranny chasers and you're calling me a white supremacist. This is the smirking level of crazy I was talking about earlier."
I don't see how this argument follows. Being a minority does not mean one cannot be a racist, being a woman does not mean one cannot be a sexist, and looking at tranny pornography certainly does not mean one cannot express white supremacist views. If you need proof of that, look at the posts of Hard4Janira or fastingforlife.
Anyhow, I did not say you were a white supremacist, I said that the racial homogeneity argument is a white supremacist argument. There's a reason many white supremacists call themselves white separatists. They pretend that their dream is to live all by their lonesome in this great land and not be disturbed by the darker races. But how do they achieve that objective? Why do they seek that objective? What we are talking about here is a conceptual difference without an actual difference. There's not only no reason to make this your goal, there is no way to accomplish it without force, without breaking up thousands of interracial marriages, and without dehumanizing people of different backgrounds who don't see the evil of integration.
I didn't say you're a white supremacist, but to me, the goal of racial homogeneity has its roots in the white supremacist movement of the early 20th century.
Too tired to write a longer reply so all I'll say is that I prefer to live amongst people who are like me. I think most other people do too, be they black, yellow or green. Do I hate blacks? Hell no. I like black tgirls. But they are their own kind and I like the diversity of races. I like the fact that I can look at asian or black porn. There are those people, such as yourself, who are so tyrannical that they want to mix me with people I don't want to associate with at gunpoint. I will always resist this kind of tyranny. I will always acknowledge that larger groups exist, while being an individualist. I see both sides, instead of having your tunnelvision. But indirectly calling me a white supremacist is a real howler, being that most white supremacist would beat me to death.
It does not matter whether you would be accepted by white supremacists. I am not sure why you don't understand that anyone can advocate such an argument, regardless of whether other people with such views would find them in other ways acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by hngs
I don't see it as tyrannical to make institutional racism unlawful. It seems a different type of tyranny to mandate separatism and insist that there's not enmity involved. I am not surprised that you enjoy Asian and Black porn, as what is better than being able to view erotic images of other races without actually having to deal with them personally.
You act as though you've been misunderstood. I think I understand you well. You want to live in a society where people are separated based on superficial differences. That's not the United States. It's not Germany either. It was the United States during an era that's been universally condemned as racist by our courts and by an overwhelming majority of the public.
Actually, the larger point is that Germany does not have this social structure, and therefore it is impossible to attribute its economic success to this dystopian fantasy. Let's not get any more personal. I am not saying you are a racist. I am saying you expressed a racist viewpoint. I don't think that's hairsplitting.
And another point is this; if you feel that you have not said anything worth being uncomfortable about and are certain I have mischaracterized your views then rest assured the other people on this site are very intelligent. They will surely not believe you have advocated institutional racism just because I said so.
Have to dig this thread to doubt the proper question that was asked.Just because other european nations like Greek,Spain...standing in bigger trouble and Germany having less problems does not mean that it is a succesfull country.
Can't imagine that other countries are so much less efficient related to their work ethics.
There are real big problems in Germany.
4th lowest birth rate of the world.Thus excess of age.
Bad education:Too much Pupils aren't even able to do an easy job and it's getting worse from year to year.
Bad Immigration:Most immigrants aren't graduates.Only 38% of the immigrants here have a job!!!
Brain Drain:Every year Over 150000 people leaving the country.And these aren't people who are living from welfare.Most of them are well educated.
All kinds of Bad things in Germany. Bad Kreuznach, Bad Orb, Bad Ems, Bad Godesberg, Bad Konigsburg, Baden Baden.... I could go on.
So maybe the germans are so successful because they take a lot of baths?
Maybe I should of named the thread "Why Have The Germans Got All The Money" then.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImmerGeil
I keep hearing on the news that German citizens are getting pissed off with their tax euros bailing out Europe, so why have the Germans got all the money?
Putting it another way, why isn't Greece bailing Germany out?