Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Caucasians


ScottSA

Recommended Posts

That's very likely, almost a given in fact, in the long term and assuming that civilization remains global. The question is which racial groups will cease to exist first, which last, and what effect this may have. Will some races, as they dwindle, become objects of discrimination for past wrongs, real or perceived? How will humanity look in 1000 years? Will we all be Black, or will we all be Chinese? Or maybe humans will have spread out onto a bunch of other planets by then, and some of them will, in their isolation, have maintained characteristics of some of today's races. There's nothing wrong with thinking about and discussing these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 657
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[Well then, presumably, we'll all blend together into one homogeneous race again, as we were in the beginning.

Let me make an observation here. That will certainly happen in the west. But it shows no signs whatsoever of happening anywhere else. That's the problem. If we were all happily traipsing about the planet migrating in equal waves back and forth, it would be fine. The trouble is that is is ONLY in Caucasia (I just made that term up, but it applies) that it is happening. Bonam is quite right that we should look ahead. It is our children who will have to face the music in the end. What will the end be?

The myth of white superiority is alive and well all over the earth...in fact the only place it's largely absent is in caucasian society. Across Asia families strive to "whiten" the family line...in certain places like the Caribbean it has become a virtual cult. Even in China, known for its own cult of Han superiority, sees Han as better because of the lighter Han skin.

But the problem is that these things tend to call down fury on themselves from time to time, and as caucasians become less numerous, more atomized, and lose the social cohesion that has until now been a function of racial existence, what will happen? The Han, Blacks of all tribes, Asians...all of them have homelands. But what about Caucasians, 100, 1000, 10,000 years down the road? What about the transition period? What about 50 years down the road?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for surviving as an "entity" I'm not sure what that entails. The only similarity among White nations is western liberalism - and despite its many flaws I think what we really want to ensure is that non-white immigrants to these countries embrace western liberalism and cast aside their primitive cultural backwardness. That isn't happening as much as it should, and that's what we really need to be concerned with. Not that the guy standing next to you on the bus doesn't have white skin, but that he doesn't believe in democracy or free speech.
Argus has made the critical point that I would have made.

Let me support his argument.

There is essentially no genetic difference between members of so-called races in the world today. There are differences between our species and our closest cousins (athough these are relatively minor too). I'm not sure what it means to speak of a "race" or of "caucasians". The term is essentially meaningless. (To give one example, Finns have the highest percentage of blue-eyes of any country in the world yet Finnish is an Asian language.)

If genetic theory doesn't convince you, here's an argument closer to home. If I choose anyone reading this sentence, and go back about 10 generations, we'd be looking at about 500 some odd people (great-great-great etc parents, and assuming no intermarriage) and they'd be living in the mid-1600s. Of these 500 people, it's most likely that all of them were illiterate. If you met and spoke to them, you would be positively appalled at the absurd superstitious nonsense they would tell you.

If we go back 100 generations (about 3000 years or so), we'd be at a time when Europe (assuming we're sticking with this Caucasian idea) was filled with uncouth savages.

Genetically, human beings have not changed at all for the past 100,000 years. A child born 100,000 years ago, magically brought to the present and adopted by a modern couple, would grow up to be no different from any child born today. The child from the distant past would want a PS3 or a Barbie and complain about doing homework.

IOW, the only thing that differentiates anyone alive today and someone alive 100,000 years ago is the upbringing and education they received. The differences between people of different "races" alive today pale in comparison.

In a different thread, I argued that we in the West should defend and spread our liberal values elsewhere in the world - and someone criticised me. I was criticised for being a cultural imperialist, or some such. IMV, the criticism is moral relativism run amok. It is wrong to believe that every culture or value system is equally valid. Western liberal values rely primarily on the scientific method, or intelligent skepticism. We should defend these values with all our heart.

To take a missionary viewpoint, the question is how to ensure others around the world embrace these values as much as we in the West have. The advantage is to us because our values not only work in practice, they also mean freedom for the individual.

I find your comments curious because a falling birth rate is the mark of _every_ affluent society no matter what the race. It is basically a question of economics: as a society becomes wealthier the cost of raising children increases dramatically. This cost includes direct costs such as higher education. It also includes opportunity costs for women who lose out on employment income while raising children.
Riverwind, I have to agree largely with you. The US is an interesting counterexample however.

Raising children is a cost, but it's also a benefit and I'm not sure standard economic analysis captures the benefits accurately. The evidence is that the more the State is involved in raising children, the fewer children people have. (This is not the first case of government's good intentions lead to the opposite effect.)

The Soviet Union nationalized child rearing and saw its birth rate collapse. The Soviet Union was not a wealthy society either. Something else. When the State provides generous pensions, people see less need for having children.

However one views this, there is something at the heart of life itself in relying on family and children. This is how we connect to the future, and the past. Religious people tend to have children; atheists tend not to have them.

False premise.
If ScottSA has based the OP on a false premise, then state first what the premise is and then explain (without insults) why the premise is false. In the posts above, I haven't seen you do that. (Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not say that ScottSA is correct.) IOW, Xman - make your case.

IMV, this forum is wonderful because anyone is free to make any argument. You can read posts here that are completely contrary to a belief plainly obvious to you. Well, if the belief is plainly obvious to you, then it should be simple and easy to use plain and simple language to refute the contrary posts.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argus has made the critical point that I would have made.

Let me support his argument.

There is essentially no genetic difference between members of so-called races in the world today. There are differences between our species and our closest cousins (athough these are relatively minor too). I'm not sure what it means to speak of a "race" or of "caucasians". The term is essentially meaningless. (To give one example, Finns have the highest percentage of blue-eyes of any country in the world yet Finnish is an Asian language.)

If genetic theory doesn't convince you...

After this, your post drifts back into culture, and that is simply not the angle I'm talking about.

I understand the genetics of the thing, and addressed it in my first post so as to avoid drifting into culture, which is a very different topic. I'm talking about the race aspect. The existence of caucasians.

In many way's it's disingenuous to pretend that race doesn't exist. It doesn't matter whether there are two tidbits of genetic difference between a chimp and a human, or a Bantu tribesman and a Scot, because everyone knows there IS a difference, no matter how much obfuscatory fluff is thrown about. Look, I'm not running screaming from the room because the guy next to me isn't white, but I AM opening up a topic that we have been indoctrinated to ignore and avoid at all costs. And we shouldn't ignore it. At all costs we shouldn't ignore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble is that is is ONLY in Caucasia (I just made that term up, but it applies) that it is happening.

You didn't really make it up, the Caucas region, or explicitly Caucasia in some languages, is an actual location. That location is the Caucus mountains in southeastern Europe, including parts of Russia, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, etc. The term Caucasian originates from a reference to this area, which was believed to be the origin of what we today consider white people. Just thought I'd clear that up.

There is essentially no genetic difference between members of so-called races in the world today.

While the overall genetic difference between "races" is often smaller than the genetic difference between two members of the same race, is it not true that certain genes, such as those that control skin pigmentation, are strongly correlated with race?

If we go back 100 generations (about 3000 years or so), we'd be at a time when Europe (assuming we're sticking with this Caucasian idea) was filled with uncouth savages.

3000 years ago (which is closer to 150 generations), most of the ancestors of most of the people reading this forum wouldn't have been in Europe yet.

Genetically, human beings have not changed at all for the past 100,000 years.

Can you provide a reference for that assertion? While I agree that change has most likely been relatively small, it is doubtful that there was no change at all. Evolutionary change can occur very rapidly when there are strong selection pressures, such as intense persecution of groups with certain features, rapidly changing environmental conditions, highly deadly and contagious diseases, etc.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post but just wanted to contest those points as I'm not convinced of their accuracy.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I think it is no different to want to preserve a race as it is to preserve a family name. It provides a sense of pride and connection to the future as well as the past. To label it as being racist is quite ignorant.

I am white, am I racist for marrying a white girl?

My neighbor is Chinese. Is he racist for marrying a Chinese girl?

The argument that desiring to perpetuate the race is racist or even condoning genocide is completely foolish.

Xman...you were real niggardly with your rationale in this thread.

Let me guess...I am a racist now ;)

Edited by BornAlbertan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, the question is this:

Is anyone concerned that Caucasians are intentionally destroying themselves as a homogenous race? It's a fair question, I think, because that is the course embarked upon many years ago when the traditionally Caucasian nations embarked upon policies, almost as one, to institute mass immigration of so-called "visible minorities."

Again, I'd ask that folks focus on the question and not get side tracked by what you might think my sinister motives are for asking it, and I'd ask that the accusations of "racism" be held to a minimum...every other racially homogenous region in the world asks these kinds of questions as a matter of course. And it is a fair question. Given the below replacement birthrates of caucasians across the board, if the west continues on this path, caucasians will become a minority in their own traditional lands, and eventually be absorbed into the other genetic pools.

I'm sure I forgot some caveats, but the question stands...is anyone concerned? Is anyone not concerned?

If your daughter had a brown baby would you love it any less?

Edited by Hollus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might just be vanity, but I would like to have a child and grandchild who *look* like me. In fact, I'm considering having myself cloned, just so that future generations will have the same opportunity to "Enjoy Kimmy Today!" that you all do.

To paraphrase the politically-correct slogan, I think that the world would be a less interesting place if we didn't have people in all the colours of the rainbow.

And more to the point, future generations will be greatly deprived if my radiant skin and straw-coloured hair isn't passed along to my offspring and their offspring. I would really say it's a duty, more or less.

If I had a brown baby I wouldn't love it any less. But I'd like to think that my descendants might give the future some visible reminder of Kimmy.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Xman @ Jul 10 2007, 08:19 PM)

False premise.

If ScottSA has based the OP on a false premise, then state first what the premise is and then explain (without insults) why the premise is false. In the posts above, I haven't seen you do that. (Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not say that ScottSA is correct.) IOW, Xman - make your case.

Maybe he means that some people here dont seem to understand the diff between race and ethnic group.

Or he could mean that race is a cultural construction that doesnt really exist.

Or he could be talking about how phenotype doesnt equal genotype.

I am not worried at all personally.

BTW - this is only a problem is 'white countries'???

What about Tibet, Iraq, Burundi, Sudan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure I forgot some caveats, but the question stands...is anyone concerned? Is anyone not concerned?

"Is anyone concerned that Caucasians are intentionally destroying themselves as a homogenous race? It's a fair question, I think, because that is the course embarked upon many years ago when the traditionally Caucasian nations embarked upon policies, almost as one, to institute mass immigration of so-called "visible minorities."

There is NO such thing as different races, there is no such thing as different races.

Differences in skin colours are responses to different climates.( sun exposure etc.)

etc.,

Therefore as the poster said, the premise is faulty and is being used to foment division.

Edited by kuzadd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

The map will show for the first time the interaction of migration and climate over this period. We are the descendants of a few small groups of tropical Africans who united in the face of adversity, not only to the point of survival but to the development of a sophisticated social interaction and culture expressed through many forms.

http://exn.ca/hominids/outofafrica.cfm

" One of the key questions in human evolution is when and how our early ancestors migrated out of Africa. "

Since we are all "out of Africa" we are all of one race. That's all there is to it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There is NO such thing as different races, there is no such thing as different races."

Race may be recognized. There are many different features that might be common to a specific ancestral area. However, race neither defines culture or nationality. To assume that Canada is a "white" society is the most inane concept put forth on this board yet. What is even more stupid is that many think that it was the "white" race that both populated and built Canada as a country. Absolutely wrong.

First of all the shiny whites from British decent (because that is who we are really talking about) are foreigners here, historically. From a cultural and racial perspective the whites are late immigrants. And without the help of indigenous peoples it is highly unlikely that their flee from an oppressive monarchy would have been successful.

As far as building Canada and making it what it is today, it took the hard work of hundreds of different ethnic cultures from around the world. They built roads, railroads, sewers, buildings and even the metal tools to build things with. They organized towns and companies that housed and employed more recent immigrants.

White racists and bigots like those that keep this thread going in the wrong direction like to align themselves with the elite white aristocracy that are esteemed in historical texts. However, the majority of them descend from the limys and beggars that came here looking for opportunity and ended up working in coal mines or for some tyrant master in mills and timber works. They are descendants of criminals and anti-politicos that took up arms against their neighbours here and some even sided with the US in their attempts to overthrow British rule here.

Your history isn't rosy and without various ethnic immigration that happened along side the limys and Cockneys it would be unlikely any of you would be living as well as you do.

The "whites" are nothing more than a handful of supremacists seeking advantage over ordinary Canadians. They are not interested in "rule of law" nor equality because they believe that by suppressing one part of Canada they can gain an advantage over them. It is perverse, obtuse and limited simplistic thinking, that shows just how inferior intellectually, and culturally they are to the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might just be vanity, but I would like to have a child and grandchild who *look* like me. In fact, I'm considering having myself cloned, just so that future generations will have the same opportunity to "Enjoy Kimmy Today!" that you all do.

To paraphrase the politically-correct slogan, I think that the world would be a less interesting place if we didn't have people in all the colours of the rainbow.

And more to the point, future generations will be greatly deprived if my radiant skin and straw-coloured hair isn't passed along to my offspring and their offspring. I would really say it's a duty, more or less.

If I had a brown baby I wouldn't love it any less. But I'd like to think that my descendants might give the future some visible reminder of Kimmy.

-k

I do think you have an excessive pride in appearance. I think the sentiments you present in this post are at best superficial. I did not enjoy Kimmy today and I probably will not enjoy her tomorrow. Not unless she develops a deeper set of values and losses the narcissism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not just that.....

If I had a brown baby I wouldn't love it any less. But I'd like to think that my descendants might give the future some visible reminder of Kimmy.

lets think about this.

You will give 50% of your gen material to your kid, roughly 25% will go on to grandkids and roughly 12.5% will go on to great grandkids.

So basically she seems to think that if her kids marry white then a greater % of her gen material will be passed on?

Thats what I get from her post, which suggests she does not understand either simple math or simple bio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To assume that Canada is a "white" society is the most inane concept put forth on this board yet. What is even more stupid is that many think that it was the "white" race that both populated and built Canada as a country. Absolutely wrong

Canada has been largely a "white" society for the last couple of centuries, and still is largely white. And it was White people who founded and built this country. To argue otherwise is foolish.

First of all the shiny whites from British decent (because that is who we are really talking about) are foreigners here, historically. From a cultural and racial perspective the whites are late immigrants.

This is a tired cliche. Everyone here is an "immigrant" if you want to stretch the concept far enough. By the way, I always wonder, since the Lefties like to consider that White people have fewer rights to this land than the Aborigines because we get here later, do you also figure that most of the non-whites, ie, the immigrants and children of immigrants from the Carribean, Africa, Asia and the middle-east who arrived here in the last thirty or forty years should have fewer rights than us? I mean, they're REALLY late immigrants, right??

As far as building Canada and making it what it is today, it took the hard work of hundreds of different ethnic cultures from around the world.

Almost all of them White. Try again.

White racists and bigots like those that keep this thread going in the wrong direction like to align themselves with the elite white aristocracy that are esteemed in historical texts. However, the majority of them descend from the limys and beggars that came here looking for opportunity and ended up working in coal mines or for some tyrant master in mills and timber works. They are descendants of criminals and anti-politicos that took up arms against their neighbours here and some even sided with the US in their attempts to overthrow British rule here.

Uh huh, and every native can trace his ancestry to some grand chief or other, even though, let's face it, his ancestors were savages who worshiped dust bunnies and clouds.

The "whites" are nothing more than a handful of supremacists seeking advantage over ordinary Canadians. They are not interested in "rule of law" nor equality because they believe that by suppressing one part of Canada they can gain an advantage over them. It is perverse, obtuse and limited simplistic thinking, that shows just how inferior intellectually, and culturally they are to the rest of us.

Most ordinary Canadians are White. And your rant, you know, can't really be termed anything but racist, easily worse than what the OP wrote. Unlike yourself, he didn't try to denigrate any racial groups. Do you make it a habit to write hate literature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might just be vanity, but I would like to have a child and grandchild who *look* like me. In fact, I'm considering having myself cloned, just so that future generations will have the same opportunity to "Enjoy Kimmy Today!" that you all do.

To paraphrase the politically-correct slogan, I think that the world would be a less interesting place if we didn't have people in all the colours of the rainbow.

And more to the point, future generations will be greatly deprived if my radiant skin and straw-coloured hair isn't passed along to my offspring and their offspring. I would really say it's a duty, more or less.

If I had a brown baby I wouldn't love it any less. But I'd like to think that my descendants might give the future some visible reminder of Kimmy.

-k

Well, this is the internet, Kimmy. Get yourself a webcam and take some "memorable" pictures. They'll be around forever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the genetics of the thing, and addressed it in my first post so as to avoid drifting into culture, which is a very different topic. I'm talking about the race aspect. The existence of caucasians.

In many way's it's disingenuous to pretend that race doesn't exist. It doesn't matter whether there are two tidbits of genetic difference between a chimp and a human, or a Bantu tribesman and a Scot, because everyone knows there IS a difference, no matter how much obfuscatory fluff is thrown about. Look, I'm not running screaming from the room because the guy next to me isn't white, but I AM opening up a topic that we have been indoctrinated to ignore and avoid at all costs. And we shouldn't ignore it. At all costs we shouldn't ignore it.

Well, let's argue, for the sake of arguing, that slowly, over time, and we're talking a number of generations here - i.e., long after we're all gone - Caucasians blend into the darker skinned people around them - but retain all of our western cultural values, beliefs, attitudes and social enlightenment. The only real difference then would be that the actual physical appearance of the people here would be altered. Now maybe it's my innate bigotry, but I happen to prefer the physical appearance of White people, esp White women (generally) over people of other races. I don't know if that's programmed into me or the affect of cultural indoctrination, but it's a fact. So a part of me would prefer that everyone stay White - but really, isn't that just superficial and largely unimportant to the evolution of the world?

As for mistreatment, that would depend on what cultural values we are able to leave to our children. My worry is that large numbers of these "non-whites" mainly Muslims, to be honest, have a backward, barbaric culture which resists assimilation, and which is almost the antithesis to our own value systems and beliefs. So assimilation is what we need to go for.

I don't really see any way that Whites will not continue to be greatly outnumbered barring some kind of catastrophic event which wipes out Asia or something. As someone else pointed out, the more enlightened, more advanced, more wealthy your nation is the lower your birth rate, and we are the most enlightened, advanced and wealthy people on this planet - pretty much. So unless we resort to government mandated cloning to replace ourselves (not a bad idea, imho) I don't see how we can continue to grow our population apace with others.

As for a homogeneous White society - that is pretty much behind us in most places, and I see no chance of its return. We made our choices, or rather, our parents did, and there's no going back on them short of some kind of uber Hitler arising and throwing all non-whites into death camps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A child born 100,000 years ago, magically brought to the present and adopted by a modern couple, would grow up to be no different from any child born today. The child from the distant past would want a PS3 or a Barbie and complain about doing homework.

Except that they would die of a minor contagious disease before they ever had the chance to go to school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh but argus, you are mistaken, persons who were not considered 'white' not so long ago, are now accepted as 'white', you see, what 'white' is is always changing, which is why it is so much baloney!

Could you expand upon this? What persons are now considered "White" who were not previously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now maybe it's my innate bigotry, but I happen to prefer the physical appearance of White people, esp White women (generally) over people of other races.

I think you may be on to somethign here. This very sentiment, which is usually in the subconscious, could be the greatest hope in keeping the caucasian race going on for generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, the question is this:

Is anyone concerned that Caucasians are intentionally destroying themselves as a homogenous race? It's a fair question, I think, because that is the course embarked upon many years ago when the traditionally Caucasian nations embarked upon policies, almost as one, to institute mass immigration of so-called "visible minorities."

I am not concerned and no they aren't, given that race is a poorly defined unscientific concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, a number of interesting responses, ranging from Hollus' cloying sentimentalism, to sweal's hyper-academic nitpicking, to the usual assertion that race doesn't exist, to the obligatory howls of 'racism' and curbstomping of white society. The only people who seem to have 'got' the question are kimmy, argus, and wd, although I might have missed someone else, and if so I apologize.

It's funny, because in all our cinemagraphic renditions of the future, usually set in white society, Caucasians are still very much alive and well as a race, but this seems not to be a faithful rendition of the actuality.

As a caucasian, I don't think that's a good thing. I don't want my lily white sheep shagging ancestors to disappear into a genetic melting pot. On a more immediate level I don't want my kids or their kids or their kids to be faced with the potential of violence or even genocide with no place to retreat to. Once caucasians (thanks Argus, I know about the Caucasus lol) become a minority in Caucasia (the west), that potential exists, and strongly exists, given history. I think it entirely possible that in the not too distant future, Caucasians may become the Jews of the 22nd century, but with no Israel to retreat to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...