Discrimination -- the reality

[Toni]

This is true only in that Native Americans immigrated to the Americas exactly the same way that Europeans immigrated from Africa.

That was rather my point.
Bomb was contrasting immigrant and native. I was contrasting immigrant and indigenous.
In the most technical and unimportant way, the Cherokee are immigrants. So is everyone who isn't an indigenous central African.
Perhaps we could use "indigenous" and "invader"?
Tom

ETA ~It was only after the Twitter thing that I realized that Elon Musk isn't a native American. He's an african American. He's just so rich, powerful, and white plus I didn't care about his history at all.

The difference seems to be that as peoples migrated to the Americas, there were no other people here to displace.

This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas abd vastly different than how viemrtually all the people from the African continent came to be here. Europeans stole land, committed genocude as a policy abd brought over people who were enslaved. They might not have done but India s proved themselves not particularly amenable to being enslaved, being in their own land. So the Europeans did a pretty thorough job of simply wiping the Indians out. The enslaved Africans were already in rough physical shape from the voyage over, disoriented, unable to effectively communicate. Oh, and in chains.

 

[Politesse]

It's not about length of time, but about relationship to the European wars of conquest that subjected much of the world to their cultural and political hegemony. The matter is forced by that system, which assigns land rights based on conquest, up to and including the level of the legal system in the current international gestalt of nation-states; before the imposition of that system of land-right via the "right of discovery", other fundamentally different systems of land tenure flourished in the Americas, Africa, Oceania, and the other targeted zones. These included different and extermely various rules about movement, war, and conquest to be sure. But since the European system is now treated as the effective default strategy of reckoning ownership, indigenous peoples are obliged to describe themselves in terms of a people whose claim to the land predates the imposition of that system. How else can they describe their relationship to the land or the rights that do or should flow from it? It's not that indigenous peoples really want to call themselves by that label, which is just as much an imposition of Eurasian academic-political culture as anything else, but because their lived social, political, and legal situation has been circumscribed by those terms, ever since their own indigenous reckonings of land tenure came under mass international assault. I have never met anyone who describes themselves first and foremost as "indigenous" nor would desire to do so. It's a dirty word with a dirty history, and no one embraces it. There's just no way of getting around the fact of the Colonial Era, when the parameters of international interaction have been fully built around those fundamental inequalities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem to have ignored where I pointed out that you have it backwards--it's the immigrants whose genetics differ.

Differ from what?

I don't see how genetics are important in this discussion. There are indigenous peoples and immigrant peoples. Here in the Americas, we're nearly all immigrants.

Why people immigrated has a bunch of cultural implications. But I don't see how genetics becomes important.
Tom

The people that voluntary choose to move from one country to another tend to be above average--they trust themselves to be able to land on their feet in an alien environment. While it's possible the effect is entirely cultural I think there's also a genetic component. The children of immigrants tend to outperform locals.

Except for those who were kidnapped and stolen and enslaved, everyone chooses whether or not to immigrate--even refugees. They may not WANT to immigrate but they need to. Even among your preferred group of immigrants, the ones you see as having chosen to come, not all end up where they wanted to be.

Just because it's not 100% doesn't mean it's not a factor.

 

[Toni]

You seem to have ignored where I pointed out that you have it backwards--it's the immigrants whose genetics differ.

Differ from what?

I don't see how genetics are important in this discussion. There are indigenous peoples and immigrant peoples. Here in the Americas, we're nearly all immigrants.

Why people immigrated has a bunch of cultural implications. But I don't see how genetics becomes important.
Tom

The people that voluntary choose to move from one country to another tend to be above average--they trust themselves to be able to land on their feet in an alien environment. While it's possible the effect is entirely cultural I think there's also a genetic component. The children of immigrants tend to outperform locals.

Except for those who were kidnapped and stolen and enslaved, everyone chooses whether or not to immigrate--even refugees. They may not WANT to immigrate but they need to. Even among your preferred group of immigrants, the ones you see as having chosen to come, not all end up where they wanted to be.

Just because it's not 100% doesn't mean it's not a factor.

If you’re saying that individuals who are well educated and have substantial financial means and an established profession or business decide to immigrate, they have an advantage over people who immigrated out of desperation—economic or to escape war or violence, yes, that’s correct. They have resources that many immigrants do not.

They also get more favorable visa status.

And yes, those advantages: wealth and education and a smoother path because of weath, education, and a favorable visa process do benefit their children and grandchildren born here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you’re saying that individuals who are well educated and have substantial financial means and an established profession or business decide to immigrate, they have an advantage over people who immigrated out of desperation—economic or to escape war or violence, yes, that’s correct. They have resources that many immigrants do not.

They also get more favorable visa status.

And yes, those advantages: wealth and education and a smoother path because of weath, education, and a favorable visa process do benefit their children and grandchildren born here.

It's not just resources. The ones that choose to move to a new country are the ones that have enough confidence in their skills that they can land on their feet in an alien environment. Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility of genetics making a difference?

 

[ZiprHead]

If you’re saying that individuals who are well educated and have substantial financial means and an established profession or business decide to immigrate, they have an advantage over people who immigrated out of desperation—economic or to escape war or violence, yes, that’s correct. They have resources that many immigrants do not.

They also get more favorable visa status.

And yes, those advantages: wealth and education and a smoother path because of weath, education, and a favorable visa process do benefit their children and grandchildren born here.

It's not just resources. The ones that choose to move to a new country are the ones that have enough confidence in their skills that they can land on their feet in an alien environment. Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility of genetics making a difference?

That sounds more like opportunity than genetics to me. And resources.

 

[atrib]

If you’re saying that individuals who are well educated and have substantial financial means and an established profession or business decide to immigrate, they have an advantage over people who immigrated out of desperation—economic or to escape war or violence, yes, that’s correct. They have resources that many immigrants do not.

They also get more favorable visa status.

And yes, those advantages: wealth and education and a smoother path because of weath, education, and a favorable visa process do benefit their children and grandchildren born here.

It's not just resources. The ones that choose to move to a new country are the ones that have enough confidence in their skills that they can land on their feet in an alien environment. Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility of genetics making a difference?

Because you have presented no evidence to suggest that genetics is a significant factor differentiating immigrants from the descendants of slaves. What genes are different, and how do the expression of these genetic differences lead to a difference in the socio-economic status of black immigrants from Africa and black Americans who are decended from slaves? What about the conditions in which most black Americans live, and the history of racism and oppression that continues to this day? Are these not significant factors as well? How does one differentiate the effects of genetics from these other factors?

Making assertions is easy. Backing up those assertions with facts and reason is much harder.

 

[laughing dog]

If you’re saying that individuals who are well educated and have substantial financial means and an established profession or business decide to immigrate, they have an advantage over people who immigrated out of desperation—economic or to escape war or violence, yes, that’s correct. They have resources that many immigrants do not.

They also get more favorable visa status.

And yes, those advantages: wealth and education and a smoother path because of weath, education, and a favorable visa process do benefit their children and grandchildren born here.

It's not just resources. The ones that choose to move to a new country are the ones that have enough confidence in their skills that they can land on their feet in an alien environment.

Where do you come up with these theories? Immigrants leave their home country for a variety of reasons which may have little or nothing whatsoever to do with confidence or skills - they may just wish to avoid death.

 

[Bomb#20]

... In the most technical and unimportant way, the Cherokee are immigrants. So is everyone who isn't an indigenous central African. ...

The difference seems to be that as peoples migrated to the Americas, there were no other people here to displace.

This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...

Why do you believe something so Eurocentric? Did some history class teach you that people crossed the Bering land bridge 13,000 years ago, and Europeans arrived 500 years ago, and in the intervening 12,500 years the people of the Americas were all peace pipes and potlatches? Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. On top of all the displacing of one another the descendants of the earliest entrants carried out, people migrated from Asia into Alaska during at least three time periods. The ancestors of Na-Dene people migrated to the Americas perhaps 8000 years ago and displaced the local inhabitants; and some 4000 years ago the ancestors of Eskimos arrived and displaced Na-Dene people in turn.

 

[Metaphor]

... In the most technical and unimportant way, the Cherokee are immigrants. So is everyone who isn't an indigenous central African. ...

The difference seems to be that as peoples migrated to the Americas, there were no other people here to displace.

This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...

Why do you believe something so Eurocentric? Did some history class teach you that people crossed the Bering land bridge 13,000 years ago, and Europeans arrived 500 years ago, and in the intervening 12,500 years the people of the Americas were all peace pipes and potlatches? Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. On top of all the displacing of one another the descendants of the earliest entrants carried out, people migrated from Asia into Alaska during at least three time periods. The ancestors of Na-Dene people migrated to the Americas perhaps 8000 years ago and displaced the local inhabitants; and some 4000 years ago the ancestors of Eskimos arrived and displaced Na-Dene people in turn.

This all sounds highly implausible. Only white people have the competence and intelligence and constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's not about length of time, but about relationship to the European wars of conquest that subjected much of the world to their cultural and political hegemony. The matter is forced by that system, which assigns land rights based on conquest, up to and including the level of the legal system in the current international gestalt of nation-states; before the imposition of that system of land-right via the "right of discovery", other fundamentally different systems of land tenure flourished in the Americas, Africa, Oceania, and the other targeted zones. These included different and extermely various rules about movement, war, and conquest to be sure. But since the European system is now treated as the effective default strategy of reckoning ownership, indigenous peoples are obliged to describe themselves in terms of a people whose claim to the land predates the imposition of that system. How else can they describe their relationship to the land or the rights that do or should flow from it? ...

Are you proposing that conquest was only a minor consideration in the determination of land rights prior to the arrival of Europeans? What evidence is there for that hypothesis?

 

[Politesse]

Are you proposing that conquest was only a minor consideration in the determination of land rights prior to the arrival of Europeans? What evidence is there for that hypothesis?

No, only that it was understood in different terms that are difficult to translate into post-Colonial legal systems, and wouldn't be recognized by the international community in any case, because indigenous peoples are not, in fact, treated as the political equals of European nations. If they were, the majority of California (most of which was never ceded by mutually recognized treaty) would now be under indigenous jurisdiction.

 

[Toni]

If you’re saying that individuals who are well educated and have substantial financial means and an established profession or business decide to immigrate, they have an advantage over people who immigrated out of desperation—economic or to escape war or violence, yes, that’s correct. They have resources that many immigrants do not.

They also get more favorable visa status.

And yes, those advantages: wealth and education and a smoother path because of weath, education, and a favorable visa process do benefit their children and grandchildren born here.

It's not just resources. The ones that choose to move to a new country are the ones that have enough confidence in their skills that they can land on their feet in an alien environment. Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility of genetics making a difference?

Why don’t you just flat out say what you really mean: There is/superior race(s) and we know who they are because they are financially advantaged.

We know that society was arranged for centuries to help those who were ruthless to grab wealth keep that wealth, select multiple brood mares/mates to carry on the family line of wealth—and genes. With the bastions of power: armies and laws and that old superstition of royal lineages with heaven’s blessings. We just call it by different names now.

With the rich making laws to suit and support themselves,

... In the most technical and unimportant way, the Cherokee are immigrants. So is everyone who isn't an indigenous central African. ...

The difference seems to be that as peoples migrated to the Americas, there were no other people here to displace.

This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...

Why do you believe something so Eurocentric? Did some history class teach you that people crossed the Bering land bridge 13,000 years ago, and Europeans arrived 500 years ago, and in the intervening 12,500 years the people of the Americas were all peace pipes and potlatches? Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. On top of all the displacing of one another the descendants of the earliest entrants carried out, people migrated from Asia into Alaska during at least three time periods. The ancestors of Na-Dene people migrated to the Americas perhaps 8000 years ago and displaced the local inhabitants; and some 4000 years ago the ancestors of Eskimos arrived and displaced Na-Dene people in turn.

Who did the original immigrants from Asia displace? No one as far as I can tell.

As you wrote, various populations in the Americas behaved much the same as Europeans (and Asians and Africans) did all of those years ago: invasions, wars, enslavement, etc. Although as near as I can tell, no other culture practiced slavery in such abominable ways as was carried out in North America.

That does not mean that it was ok for Europeans to come to the Americas and exterminate the people they found here. It does not mean that it was ok for them to purchase human beings as livestock and use them as such.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you’re saying that individuals who are well educated and have substantial financial means and an established profession or business decide to immigrate, they have an advantage over people who immigrated out of desperation—economic or to escape war or violence, yes, that’s correct. They have resources that many immigrants do not.

They also get more favorable visa status.

And yes, those advantages: wealth and education and a smoother path because of weath, education, and a favorable visa process do benefit their children and grandchildren born here.

It's not just resources. The ones that choose to move to a new country are the ones that have enough confidence in their skills....

Woah woah there. There are plenty of people that choose to move to a new country. That new country usually has a say in the matter. And this can have a notable impact on who is allowed into the country.

Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility of genetics making a difference?

Because when we went down that road in the early 20th Century, it led us to some pretty fucking dark grounds. Besides, look at the fucking Trump family and tell me that wealth is because of fucking genetics. Inheritance isn't a genetic trait.

You are simply presuming way too damn much based on what is effectively zero information. "They want to immigrant to another country" isn't a data point indicating anything about genetics. It is more indicating that the place they are isn't viewed as good for them as some other place.

 

[Gospel]

... In the most technical and unimportant way, the Cherokee are immigrants. So is everyone who isn't an indigenous central African. ...

The difference seems to be that as peoples migrated to the Americas, there were no other people here to displace.

This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...

Why do you believe something so Eurocentric? Did some history class teach you that people crossed the Bering land bridge 13,000 years ago, and Europeans arrived 500 years ago, and in the intervening 12,500 years the people of the Americas were all peace pipes and potlatches? Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. On top of all the displacing of one another the descendants of the earliest entrants carried out, people migrated from Asia into Alaska during at least three time periods. The ancestors of Na-Dene people migrated to the Americas perhaps 8000 years ago and displaced the local inhabitants; and some 4000 years ago the ancestors of Eskimos arrived and displaced Na-Dene people in turn.

This all sounds highly implausible. Only white people have the competence and intelligence and constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation.

Ahh it's the ole, everyone did it so stop complaining stance. That's the verbal equivalent of a crane kick; looks good, but in reality doesn't work.

 

[TomC]

It's not just resources. The ones that choose to move to a new country are the ones that have enough confidence in their skills that they can land on their feet in an alien environment. Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility of genetics making a difference?

It occurs to me to try to clarify what I mean here.

I see three big differences between indigenous and immigrant peoples. Culture, opportunity, and genetics. Of the three, I'd put genetics at around 2% of the influence. Negligible, and quickly subsumed by the other two. A generation or two at most.

Here in Christendom, European culture was the cultural equivalent of an invasive species. We also had comparatively high powered weapons and deadly diseases and concepts like borders. European culture spread like dandelions with nukes.

That doesn't mean that the immigrants themselves were genetically superior all that much.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Are you proposing that conquest was only a minor consideration in the determination of land rights prior to the arrival of Europeans? What evidence is there for that hypothesis?

No, only that it was understood in different terms that are difficult to translate into post-Colonial legal systems, and wouldn't be recognized by the international community in any case, because indigenous peoples are not, in fact, treated as the political equals of European nations. If they were, the majority of California (most of which was never ceded by mutually recognized treaty) would now be under indigenous jurisdiction.

On what planet does lack of mutually recognized treaties mean the losers of wars retain jurisdiction? Tell that to the Polish whose country was partitioned by Russia, Prussia and Austria. Tell it to the little German kingdoms like Hanover that Bismarck incorporated when he created Germany -- the Elector of Hanover never agreed to that. And the same goes in the other direction -- Serbia never signed a treaty to lose jurisdiction over Kosovo.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's not just resources. The ones that choose to move to a new country are the ones that have enough confidence in their skills that they can land on their feet in an alien environment. Why are you so unwilling to consider the possibility of genetics making a difference?

It occurs to me to try to clarify what I mean here.

I see three big differences between indigenous and immigrant peoples. Culture, opportunity, and genetics. Of the three, I'd put genetics at around 2% of the influence. Negligible, and quickly subsumed by the other two. A generation or two at most.

Cute... it is "negligible", but somehow you can detect it above background?

I'm not saying it is genetics... I'm just bringing it up for some reason.

 

[TomC]

Cute... it is "negligible", but somehow you can detect it above background?

I'm not saying it is genetics... I'm just bringing it up for some reason.

It wasn't me who made genetics an issue in this thread. I've been dismissing the importance of genetics.

Did you read the rest of that post, or any of my other posts?

Perhaps you have a different agenda than the topic.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Cute... it is "negligible", but somehow you can detect it above background?

I'm not saying it is genetics... I'm just bringing it up for some reason.

It wasn't me who made genetics an issue in this thread. I've been dismissing the importance of genetics.

Did you read the rest of that post, or any of my other posts?

Perhaps you have a different agenda than the topic.
Tom

Yes, I read it... and I replied to all of it. I get you miss context or subtle jabs, but my response replies in whole to your post.

Now let's get back to this stupid fucking derail that has shit to do with attempting to address the intentional bondage of blacks in America between 1776 -1865, sabotage of blacks in America between 1865 - 1970s, and the subsequent inertia of those actions between the 1970s - and today. But without the derail, it makes this shit harder for people notice it being swept under the rug.