Europe seems pretty segregated. Perhaps we insist that a equal propotion of spaniards live amongst the english. I've also noticed that there are far too few monogolians in pakistan. This must be addressed.
Not to mention the overbearing homogeneity of China. 95% Han Chinese. Sheesh. What are they thinking?
Ricter, can I suggest you acquaint yourself with the literature that describes how influential genes are on intelligence and behavior? In a nutshell, blacks are less intelligent (there is no dispute that they are, only why) and more criminal because of their genes, which they inherit from their black parents, and, since they procreate largely with other blacks, will pass on to their black children. That seems me to be by far the best explanation of why blacks form such enduring underclasses whereever in the world they live; the US, UK, Canada, Brazil, anywhere. Your own Canadian Quebecois once had a hard-on for importing "French" speaking (only some 10% can speak it) Haitians, until those Haitians immediately set about exhibiting the very same pathologies of American blacks; and they didn't even have a history of oppression by Canadian whites to cite. Yes, that's sad and desperate, but dammit, it just seems to be irrefutable. Likewise, the East Asians being docile, studious and achieving high academic attainment is best explained by their genes; Chinese have faced racism and oppression whereever they have lived, including other Asian countries, yet have managed to rise to the top in all of them. Indonesia's a good example. The small Chinese minority, despite being hated and discriminated against, came to a dominant economic position in that country simply because they're genetically more intelligent than the Indonesians. As for getting along with the colored family next door, you're talking BS. It's not about getting along with one or two individuals. That's the easy part. The problem is that different groups see themselves as members of different groups and perceive themselves as having particular group interests. Such interests often clash with the interests of other groups. Again, blacks are a perfect example. They have been encouraged, by white uplift-artists, desperate to do something, anything to help blacks, for decades now to see themselves as an exclusive group, with exclusive interests. And they've done it. But it hasn't resulted in anything remotely approaching equality. It's resulted in a hateful, vengeful black minority group who care virtually exclusively about their own interests. The response from white nancy boys like you is to keep singing the same tune about tolerance and melanin, blind to the reality of what is actually taking place. Well, I won't argue with that. I've experienced the same. But... Look, I've been very close friends with a couple of Chinese guys going on about five years now. When it's just me and them (or one of them), we get along great. Thoughts about racial differences have never entered my mind. But there have been times when I've been over at their place for dinner, or just to hang out (we were big on Mah Jong for a while), and their have been other Chinese there, well, I have often felt a little out of place, but I excused it away, telling myself that I "shouldn't" be feeling like that. I've also had many (many more) Italian and Greek friends (neither of whose nationality I share). With them, I've never felt as out of place as I did with the Chinese, not even when attending their festivals or saints days, which are times when nationalist feelings really come out (which Italians and Greeks are not shy about voicing, let me tell you). Why the difference? Well, I think eventually you just have to start looking at race and biology. We just seem to be made to prefer people who we perceive as closer to us, as more like us. That does not automatically mean you hate anyone who is not (or less) like you; only that you exhibit a preference for people that are (or are more). Anti-racists decry this as "visceral" - which to them means "bad" - reaction. But don't precisely such basal reactions form the basis for romantic attraction, and hence procreation? Can we simply just wish them away, and demand, for example, that Norwegians be just as attracted to Australian Aborogines as they are to Danes? Wouldn't it be wiser to take into account such normal human preferences and structure society around them, rather than around a set of fanciful, unproven multicuturalist dreams? Explain away the Chinese then. Speaking for myself, I am very much an "other". A non-Anglo immigrant who grew up in predominantly Anglo environment and experienced having racial and ethnic slurs hurled my way. I'm an insider into the mindset of the minority. And all I have to say to that is, let's stop creating more minorities! End immigration now!
I've spoken frankly about race. I grew up and still live in a VERY diverse neighborhood in the city of Chicago. I know the demographics of U.S. cities like the back of my hand. My particular neighborhood would be something like Jackson Hgts in Queens or even more so if you can imagine rolling the Castro, the Mission, the Haight and Hunters Point all into one. So yea Rictor, I've had "black" neighbors, classmates, co-workers and fellow church goers since high school when my neighborhood became an in vogue center of diversity. I was like any white, urban kid who listened to Motown, disco and the Philadelphia Sound rather than Judas Priest (I picked a band I've NEVER heard a song by). My inclination, upon the black emigration to my area was to embrace black culture. I was into the whole mystique of Kool as personified by such mid-70's "black" icons as Richard Prior, Redd Foxx, Dr.J., Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, and I hate to admit, Cinque of the SLA! There are many, many, many totally genius, in tune, African-Americans. In EVERY walk of life. But like I've said, IMO,statistically, there's a higher percentage of "blacks" who are pricks, than whites. Period. Now I AGREE that circumstance defines actions. But as someone who doesn't feel that I contributed much to the circumstance, I've become resentful that my lifestyle has to suffer from these alleged "injustices." I already hear much of what you're saying, at least on a spiritual, philosophical plane. Yet in the practical, in a global economy that's given Mexicans, Asians and even native-Africans an edge over African-Americans, all Americans, must examine what's needed to speed along the snail like pace that's occurred since the 1860's.
i always found it interesting how I was attracted to Irish women as I am 15/16 Irish. But the statement above : Can we simply just wish them away, and demand, for example, that Norwegians be just as attracted to Australian Aborogines as they are to Danes? Wouldn't it be wiser to take into account such normal human preferences and structure society around them, rather than around a set of fanciful, unproven multicuturalist dreams? begs this question. Who would the top aboroginal choose. A hot Norwegian or a hot aboriginal. Tiger woods married a very hot sweedish bikni model. He himself is not all that attractive. Did he choose the super hot chick because of genes or because of culture?
estrader is trying to distance himself from the trailer pk he lives in by quoting salvador dali. good one dude!
I've read a few interesting studies on this. One looked into the addresses of New Zealand members of Parliament. They found the most liberal, progressive ones were also the ones most likeley to live in neigbourhoods with low crime (and high percentage 'white')- but the most likley to vote and speak in favour of affirmative action etc. The conservatives had a considerably higher chance of living in a racially mixed area,.. Another university study gave questionairres to students, elitcing their possible prejudices.. Then the students had to visit the campus doctor where a large male of uncertain racial origin was parked in the waiting room. The ones who got the best marks for non-prejudice, according to the form they filled out, were the ones who sat as far away as possible from the man ....
"In a nutshell, blacks are less intelligent (there is no dispute that they are, only why) and more criminal because of their genes." This of course is a deeply flawed and false concept. Criminal behavior is not determined as criminal on the basis of genetics. Laws are man made, not a product of genetic disposition. In any society, laws are made and followed by man, even if man attributes those laws to God. Laws are always arbitrary, and vary from culture to culture, even among homogeneous races, as determined not by genetics, but by culture, belief systems...personal choice. They laws of a society are the product of human mind, not genetics. Therefore, genetics simply does not, could not, be the cause of violation of those laws. To suggest that violation of laws, i.e. criminal behavior is found in genetics is simply false.
In any society, laws are made and followed by man, even if man attributes those laws to God. Laws are always arbitrary, and vary from culture to culture, even among homogeneous races, as determined not by genetics, but by culture, belief systems...personal choice. They laws of a society are the product of human mind, not genetics. Therefore, genetics simply does not, could not, be the cause of violation of those laws. To suggest that violation of laws, i.e. criminal behavior is found in genetics is simply false. [/QUOTE] So laws are determined by culture. What determines culture? Why wouldn't genes play a role there? Surely the role of enviornment is minimal: North American Indians and native Europeans occupied more or less the same sort of environment yet produced vastly different cultures. So to the extent that genes do play a role, you're admitting that blacks are unable to follow the white man's laws (to the same extent that whites are) because they're not culturally, which is to say genetically, predisposed to following them, which is to agree with my position that blacks are more "criminal", as defined by whites' laws.