Thread: Is Racial Segregation really a human rights Violation?

Originally Posted by Glock

I guess people really need to learn their history before posting and making themselves look silly....

You haven't disproved anything I've said. I never denied some slaves worked in construction and industry. My assertion was that most of them worked in agriculture, and that is where most of the wealth of the colonies was generated. Furthermore, that turned out to be a tiny fraction of the money we waste on blacks each year. You have refuted none of this. It is you that looks silly.

Originally Posted by mikemikev

You haven't disproved anything I've said. I never denied some slaves worked in construction and industry. My assertion was that most of them worked in agriculture, and that is where most of the wealth of the colonies was generated. Furthermore, that turned out to be a tiny fraction of the money we waste on blacks each year. You have refuted none of this. It is you that looks silly.

silly?....nothing is more silly than your argument and state of denial. Have a nice day.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Is racial segregation completely incompatible with human rights? Is it possible there may be forms of racial segragation that are fair, or even desirable to the majority of people within both races?

Consider that there can be different extents of racial segregation, ranging from completely voluntary on both sides, to forced separation of different ethnicities into different nations. Indeed, on several occassions both the USA and UN have actively supported national separatism along ethnic lines (Serbia, South Sudan, Ossetia).

One form of racial segregation, for example, might simply be to offer racially segregated class rooms to students, so that a student could choose either a racially-mixed class, or a class of only his own ethnicity. The degrees of voluntary choice could be variable; for example a student of a certain ethnicity might or might not be allowed into the class designated specifically for a different ethnicity. Or private employers could simply be allowed to choose who they hire, using race as a factor if they so choose.

The United Nations has supported the 'International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights'. Is it overreaching its original intentions?

There are, of course, several valid reasons people would want to be racially segregated. People generally prefer to be amongst those of their same ethnicity. And there can often be cultural frictions. Asian people often prefer to live under a stricter and more regulated society than hispanic people for example. Different ethnic groups comitt crimes at significantly different rates, which can lead to resentment from other ethnicities. Some ethnicities may simply just wish to preserve their cultural integrity and reduce the possibility of future assimilation.

While racial/ethnic segregation has historically often been used as a tool of oppression, I am just saying that the concept itself is not necessarily unfair.

I think if we continue to work on pulling down the walls of ignorance and discrimination then real improvements can be made.

Racial segregation is stupid, immoral and, of course, totally unpopular. Its a dead idea, politically speaking.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Racial segregation is stupid, immoral and, of course, totally unpopular. Its a dead idea, politically speaking.

Except for the Jews.

In addition, those who have been most active in promoting "equality", have been Jews.

Funny that, isn't it?

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine

How can you be so contradictory to say you love diversity while promoting segregation?
Your views are becoming tangled.

How can you be so confused to imply that de segregation improves "diversity"?
Each race has its' own culture and heritage and by mixing them all up you destroy both; the race and their culture.

di·ver·si·ty
   [dih-vur-si-tee, dahy-] Show IPA
noun, plural di·ver·si·ties.
1.
the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
2.
variety; multiformity.

True "diversity" celebrates and encourages the differences. Variety is a good thing.
Latinos celebrate their heritage and culture and everything is fine.
Negroes celebrate their culture and heritage and everything is fine.
If white people try to celebrate and preserve their heritage, culture, laws and history....they are "racists".

"Diversity" has become a code word justifying anti white behavior.

Originally Posted by Akula

How can you be so confused to imply that de segregation improves "diversity"?
Each race has its' own culture and heritage and by mixing them all up you destroy both; the race and their culture.

di·ver·si·ty
   [dih-vur-si-tee, dahy-] Show IPA
noun, plural di·ver·si·ties.
1.
the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
2.
variety; multiformity.

True "diversity" celebrates and encourages the differences. Variety is a good thing.
Latinos celebrate their heritage and culture and everything is fine.
Negroes celebrate their culture and heritage and everything is fine.
If white people try to celebrate and preserve their heritage, culture, laws and history....they are "racists".

"Diversity" has become a code word justifying anti white behavior.

I am gong to try to explain it slowly so you can understand....there is no problem with white people celebrating their heritage, culture, etc. , it's when some of them try to show their superiority and that the other races are beneath them that people have a problem with.

but, just by you using the term "negro" says everything i need to know about your train of thought.

Originally Posted by Glock

Just by you using the term "negro" says everything i need to know about your train of thought.

Avoiding the topic, changing the subject and being unable to refute the premise (when backed into a corner by a simple, truthful, on topic statement) reveals a lot about you also, champ.

"Negro" is used on the U.S. census form as one of the choices for "race", you know.

EDIT;
You edited your post and included this;

Originally Posted by glock

I am gong to try to explain it slowly so you can understand....there is no problem with white people celebrating their heritage, culture, etc. , it's when some of them try to show their superiority and that the other races are beneath them that people have a problem with.

I'll reply that we were talking about "diversity" and how it destroys uniqueness and limits variety....Your condescending tone noted and disregarded.
Diversity IS good...but not the new "definition" of the word invented by anti whites.

Originally Posted by Akula

Avoiding the topic, changing the subject and being unable to refute the premise (when backed into a corner by a simple, truthful, on topic statement) reveals a lot about you also, champ.

"Negro" is used on the U.S. census form as one of the choices for "race", you know.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+does+negro+appear+on+census

EDIT;
You edited your post and included this;

What is your point? I edited it because I had additional information to add.


I'll reply that we were talking about "diversity" and how it destroys uniqueness and limits variety....Your condescending tone noted and disregarded.
Diversity IS good...but not the new "definition" of the word invented by anti whites.

YOU brought up the weak claim that it was unfair for white people to celebrate their heritage, I simply explained that it is not about the heritage, it is about the "claim of superiority"

Originally Posted by Glock

YOU brought up the weak claim that it was unfair for white people to celebrate their heritage, I simply explained that it is not about the heritage, it is about the "claim of superiority"

Who claimed "superiority"? I must have missed that post?