Why is virtually all the immigration in the world only to the white nations? Why are whites the only race that must accept the impoverished third-world masses? Will whites be the only race without a homeland they can call all their own? How is this fair? Why are all the western nations made to feel guilty if they do not unquestionably open up their borders to other races, while so much of the rest of the world has very restrictive immigration laws with harsh enforcement? Many members in this forum may ask how race/ethnicity makes any difference. Take a look at the world. Why are all the nations with high standards of living populated by people of the european race, the only possible exception being Japan? Why is it that all of the black nations live in poverty and have such high violent crime and rape rates? Not just on the African continent but in the Carribean also. The USA is the world's great experiment. Within a single generation whites will become a minority. Never before in world history has a mostly white nation transformed into a majority non-white nation. Will the USA still be able to maintain its previous high standards of living and vibrant middle class when most of its population is non-white? Or will it become plagued by third-world like poverty and crime? Multiculturalsim is being put to the test. This will certainly prove whether race in fact matters. The world is watching, waiting to see if the USA can return itself to its former standard of living, or whether things will just continue to deteriorate. Things did not turn out so well in South Africa after the blacks took power from the white minority. Hopefully the future of the USA will be better.
I just looked through my Telescope and I found a place where you can live free of fear from ALL THOSE Brown and Black People.
Just give me my cold little corner in Europe where my ethnicity has lived unmolested for thousands of years. That is all I am asking for. It is not really unreasonable. No one else would even think about living here if it was not for all the prosperity and high wage jobs my society has created, and all the free things my misled government is handing out to immigrants.
I have to admit, I dont know you, but somehow I feel sorry for you. Obviously, your personal experiences with Black people have convinced you that ALL black people are a threat to you and your way of life, and thats in its self is sad because Id bet anything that the biggest threat to you and your way of life will never come from a Black Man, but rather your own race. The last few years has more than proven that theory. Im a 50 year old Black Man whose main circle of family and friends spans the gambit of race, religion and gender, and Im a better person for it. In my opinion, your use of the word ALL is completely misplace, considering Ive personally been Black for a half century longer that you. Now that doesnt make me and expert on Black people, but I would sure take Neil Armstrongs opinion about the Moons surface over any Astronomer, although both may know the Moon quite well. Just my opinion about the Black person I know the most about ME; now your mileage maybe different.
You seem to forget that all white people living in the Americas and Oceania are descended of immigrants there. So, there you go. Who is white versus non-white? Arabs, some of whom can be very dark skinned, are very closely related to even the whitest of Norwegians, whereas most Europeans are more closely related to Africans than the Australian Aborigines are (the ancestors of Europeans made it to Europe between 40k and 42k years ago; the ancestors of Aborigines reaches back at least 42-48k years ago, making them further separated from Africans than Europeans). So, are Australian Aborigines white too? Or is there a certain number of absorbance units at a certain wavelength of light that we're using as an arbitrary cutoff for no discernible reason other than "RAR, I HATE DARKIES"? You can immigrate to Nigeria if you really cared to; no one's stopping you. Be kind to the people who provide you with so much of the great things in your life that make it easier and better. The minerals in your computer that make it function were almost certainly mined from central Africa under brutal conditions, while I'd be willing to bet at least some of your clothing has tags saying "made in Pakistan", and a lot of your electronic gadgets are stamped "made in China". As for why they have their own restrictive policies: if I'd hazard a guess, it's due to refugees and the inability to take care of large numbers of refugees and their own citizens, due to poverty resulting from historical contingencies. Historical contingencies related to the colonization of the rest of the world by Europeans, debilitating diseases (nations plagued by malaria have economies 1/3 the size of those that aren't, for instance), and enormous debts due to the first two, among other things. Sub-Saharan Africa deals with the scourge of malaria, which depresses economies to an enormous extent and encourages resource extraction work (relatively high returns on investments, even though it doesn't lead to much indigenous industries outside of resource extraction), which also has the side effect of encouraging warfare. Warfare encourages rape (look at the armies that moved through Europe during WWII made up almost solely of Europeans that raped on a fairly regular basis). The Caribbean I'm less familiar with, but I strongly suspect that historical poverty and racism from the various European overlords of its many nations contributed significantly to the problem. Considering that the reverse only ever happened due to genocide rather than demographic changes, I'd say that the non-whites are doing it in a much more gentle fashion, which already improves their moral standing. As long as the mostly white financial apparatus doesn't try to destroy the US's middle class to form a de facto class of serfs, I fail to see why not. I'm rather skeptical of this line of reasoning. I'm going to guess that if it deteriorates due to the actions of the financial apparatus from the "Great Recession," you'll blame it on non-white minorities, while if it prospers, you'll heap your praise on white people, regardless of where that prosperity emerges from. Except this is essentially wrong. The majority of South Africans are experiencing better economic growth now than at any time during Apartheid, while the high crime rate is essentially "trading in" violence from the Apartheid government for violence from the common man. It's tragic, but evidence does seem to suggest that people who are oppressed tend to engage in more crime (likely due to limitations on opportunity to procure resources; if legal means are unavailable, then illegal means become the only viable option), whereas it'd now be due to inertia of that problem (just because Apartheid ended doesn't mean all the problems it started will just go away; if the dog that bit me gets put down, that doesn't mean my wound magically disappears, by way of analogy).
If you're name is any indication, you're of Norse descent; why should your race deserve that, hmm? I seem to recall the Vikings invading the British Isles, France, Russia, Persia, and North America, among other places, and always slaughtering people for their bloodlust and greed of treasure. So, now that mostly peaceful immigrants are making their way there, why should you be protected? It's not like they are slaughtering other Norse people (Anders Breivik killed a lot more Norse people than any immigrant to the region has), nor are they raiding holy places for treasure, so you're really getting a much better deal out of this than your ancestors gave to Europe and North America.
It is not that white people cannot compete, it is just they do not want to. Sure, white people could churn out more babies than they could responsibly take care of, and live in overcrowded conditions like certain other ethnicities. But why should whites have to compete like that? If your race is slowly declining, or at least has a very low growth rate, essentially I see no problem. I am not speaking for others on this forum with racial beliefs, but I personally do not really have any problem with black people. As I see it, blacks have just as much right to live in the Americas as any other race. It is more the racial integration part I am not so much in favor of. And the Africans that are immigrating to my country are coming from a different part of Africa than the blacks in America came from- apparently a much more violent muslim part. What bothers me is the massive immigration of other ethnicities into my homeland where my people have lived for thousands of years- both African and middle-eastern immigrants. If you are referring to declining birth rates, if my race is deciding not to have enough children, that could potentially mean fewer people, more space, and possibly higher standard of living. Provided, of course, more outsiders do not move in. And at least in the USA, I have read, white families are not having enough children because they essentially cannot afford to. They have been displaced, both in jobs and housing, by the large influx of immigration. All the many offspring immigrants are having will just mean fewer births of white babies. Now of course the problem in my country is very different, and has more to do with the extreme feminist policies being pushed by the party in power. Just one of the many reasons I am STRONGLY opposed to free trade. The vikings were only a very small percentage of the Scandinavian population. Most of the people were just farmers that never ventured out. But point taken, I suppose it would be hypocritical to judge another race by the actions of a tiny minority of its members.
South Africa was a nation built on the oppression of a black majority. It was stupid government policy that led South Africa to the state its in now. The US isn't going to go down that road because we had a Civil Rights Movement 40 years ago. Blacks and other oppressed minority groups didn't have to resort to terrorism to get their equal rights, and the U.S. is very good at making various groups feel "American" due to its overpowering culture. This has led to a largely peaceful integration process between the different ethnic groups, though some resistance remains. However, we're never going to end up like South Africa.
That's easy. For this, we're going back to the second insustrial revoultion. There, medicine and steam powered ships were able to navigate and protect men from the dangers of the world. (Mainly in this case Africa) There, the Europeans (and in some cases Americans) colonized the countries. They only took raw materials, and shipped them to Europe, instead of setting up factories in the colonies. Therefore, the colonized countries in Asia and Africa never had the Industrial revoultion. When indepdence movements came in the 40's-60's, with no factories for their goods, and never having a real economy on their own, their countries went downhill.
What about Ethiopia? It was never colonised. Plenty of starvation there. Liberia, a country founded by freed american slaves, declared independance in 1847. The new nation began to modernize in the 1940s following investment by the United States and economic liberalization. Yet it is still an impoverished violent nation. This is what a "developed" African nation looks like:
In Ethiopia's defense, much of that starvation comes from the fact that the climate and landscape there is too dry and arid.
I am not done. Let us take a look at the people of Ethiopia who were never "oppressively" colonised by the europeans: taken in the town of Jinka, Ethiopia Apparently it is more important for the child to have a gun than clothes!
I am happy the United States is a great melting pot , why shouldn't poor people of any color want to come here and better their lives?
Okay I take that last statement back, although I do know somewhere in East Africa there is/was a lot of drought. As for the guns I can bet its because they don't want other people stealing their food in case of drought or to deal with rebels from Somalia. Maybe both.
I may not be the foremost expert on modern African history, but didn't they have a long civil war? This I'm going to take to another conintent. During the late 1800's, south America recieved many "investments" to modernize, rich got richer, poor got poorer.The Mexico revoultion occured in 1911, with Diaz being in for the last 40 years. Granted, it was during the cold war, and the US had a annoying habit of taking out elected leaders, with dictators who supported the US. I'm guessing along with the investements and the dicator, produced the violence you're seeing now.
Obviously not from Africa, consider that! With an estimated 30 million small arms/'light' weapons (guns) circulating across Africa*, one would think that the Africans should be manufacturing their own guns. In South Africa alone the estimated number of illegal weapons ranges from 500,000. *from 'Small Arms Survey', Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, Switzerland Only a two or three African countries even have the ability to manufacture arms! Over 99% of the guns circulating in the African continent were made somewhere else, typically China, Russia, or the USA. China is still selling landmines to several African nations, typically for the equivalent of only 2 US dollars each, just another reason why international free trade with China is bad.
The problem with Ethiopia is the same as it has always been for the last 1,000 years. Muslims and war. They have persistently refused to convert and these have been the consequences. Why should they convert to Islam when they are the ones who gave the Muslims their power?
Ethiopia has been fighting Somalia and Eritrea [Muslims] for the last few years and throughout it's history has had tense relations with Islam to put it mildly.
The Islamic religion was conceived through it's conflicts [and learnings] with the Ethiopian Hebrew/Christian Kings. It was known as the year of the Elephant 570 ad, when Mohamed was born.
They've been fighting somalia due to the pirate attacks, and a decentralized government. In Eritrea due to fighting anti-government and rebel factions. If Islam is the major probelm, how come Mentuk II was able to defeat the Italians?
