• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Discrimination -- the reality

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,140
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,014
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
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

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,541
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,901
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
... 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

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,758
... 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

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,140
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
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

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,375
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,771
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
... 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

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,971
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
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

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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.
:consternation2:
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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,375
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,971
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,375
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
... 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.
Well that's a massive goal-post move. "As peoples migrated to the Americas" includes a hell of a lot more migrants than "the original immigrants". Are you stipulating then that Apaches are every bit as much "immigrant"/"non-indigenous"/"invader"-y as English-Americans?

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.
People are people. Welcome to the "damned human race".

Although as near as I can tell, no other culture practiced slavery in such abominable ways as was carried out in North America.
:consternation2:
Oh for the love of god! Why on earth would you believe something so counterfactual? Learn some world history. Every male Spartan was expected to murder a slave as a standard rite of manhood.

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.
Who said it does? Your fear that somebody might make a bad argument from actual history is no excuse for making up false history.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.
One quibble: I would argue that the sabotage of black people ( and indigenous people and generally brown people) continues, albeit with some more subtlety than Jim Crow.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,971
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
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.

Bullshit.
You did not respond to
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.

If you want to discuss
the subsequent inertia of those actions between the 1970s - and today.
you'll have to explain away two generations of Affirmative Action, the gigantic transfer of wealth from white people to black people called "government entitlement" and a bunch of other stuff.
Just hand waving all that away and pretending that things are still the same as the 70s does not give you any credibility to me.
Tom
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...
... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...
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.
Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
It does not mean that it was ok for them to purchase human beings as livestock and use them as such.
Who said it does? Your fear that somebody might make a bad argument from actual history is no excuse for making up false history.
I should add that as Politesse and I pointed out back in the DeSantis thread, slavers have the morality of mob capos. You don't get any credit for being a not-so-bad mob capo when your motive for being a not-so-bad mob capo is that worst-of-the-worst mob capo would be less profitable.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,771
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...
... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...
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.
Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.

Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. What is the opposite of what Metaphor said? Not only white people have the competence and intelligence & constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation. What is the point of saying that when talking about Europeans other than to say "so what everyone did it". Unless I read that incorrectly.
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,758
This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...
... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...
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.
Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.

Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. What is the opposite of what Metaphor said? Not only white people have the competence and intelligence & constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation. What is the point of saying that when talking about Europeans other than to say "so what everyone did it". Unless I read that incorrectly.
The point is not 'stop complaining'--though without a time machine, what people did before you were born is not something that can be changed. The point is 'you're not a special subjugated snowflake, and nobody is responsible for what their ancestors did'.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,771
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...
... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...
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.
Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.

Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. What is the opposite of what Metaphor said? Not only white people have the competence and intelligence & constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation. What is the point of saying that when talking about Europeans other than to say "so what everyone did it". Unless I read that incorrectly.
The point is not 'stop complaining'--though without a time machine, what people did before you were born is not something that can be changed. The point is 'you're not a special subjugated snowflake, and nobody is responsible for what their ancestors did'.

Aww you really think that's what its all bout when people look at the current human condition and reflect on the past? That's so cute. I remember arguing with 9th graders that thought the same thing. It's not about wanting to go back and change things it about realizing where we are and how we got here. Everyone that you know of that subjugated people think like you (which is nothing we can do about the past). How's about we grow up as a species and learn from the past without snowy white fee fees getting in the way because the now and the where is mostly a result of actions taken by your ancestors.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,771
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I really love folks who live off the blood of their ancestors, celebrate their ancestors with adorable holidays & than say "who me? I ain't got nothing to do with them".
 

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,758
This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...
... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...
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.
Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.

Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. What is the opposite of what Metaphor said? Not only white people have the competence and intelligence & constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation. What is the point of saying that when talking about Europeans other than to say "so what everyone did it". Unless I read that incorrectly.
The point is not 'stop complaining'--though without a time machine, what people did before you were born is not something that can be changed. The point is 'you're not a special subjugated snowflake, and nobody is responsible for what their ancestors did'.

Aww you really think that's what its all bout when people look at the current human condition and reflect on the past?
It depends on who is doing it and why.

That's so cute. I remember arguing with 9th graders that thought the same thing. It's not about wanting to go back and change things it about realizing where we are and how we got here. Everyone that you know of that subjugated people think like you (which is nothing we can do about the past).
But there is nothing we can do to change the past, and that's true whether you are a 'subjugator' or not.

How's about we grow up as a species and learn from the past without snowy white fee fees getting in the way because the now and the where is mostly a result of actions taken by your ancestors.
So, in other words, you do think there is a blood debt.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,771
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
But there is nothing we can do to change the past, and that's true whether you are a 'subjugator' or not.

Sure there is nothing anyone can do to change the past, but there is a lot we can do using what we've learned from it. You seem to be uncomfortable with the conversation in general. I do agree with you that there are people who cling to past wrongs and hold it over "the white mans" head. I live around those people. I also live around people that when confronted with the reasons for why things are the way they are I get the ole Shaggy "IT WASN'T ME" or the classic, "You can't change the past" when no one said anything to prompt it.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,771
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
I really love folks who live off the blood of their ancestors, celebrate their ancestors with adorable holidays
Not a fan of Asian cultures then I guess.


Don't know much about it, but that wasn't what I expressed not being a fan of (if I expressed such a thing). Simply put, I'm not a fan of people that refute arguments on this board that no one in particular made.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,140
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
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.
:consternation2:
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.
And no trouble ever came of those...

But it's a red herring anyway. Tu quoque arguments are a bullshit line of reasoning in the best of times, but especially in this case, as no one is asking for indigenous land tenure to be adopted in Europe, only the other way around. Hence, the need for an all-purpose label to encompass all peoples and polities canceled but not not entirely erased by the imposition of the colonial systems of law. Indigenous peoples didn't invent that label, it is the label assigned to them in the current system "International Law" (which to no serious degree recognizes their nations at all, be they past or present). The situation of Hanover is a much more interesting and complex than you seem to be implying - the annexation of the province, atrocious and belligerent aa it was, in no wise canceled all existing rights or identities of Hanoverites en masse, nor resulted in the invention of legal fictions to justify their situation - but the whole question has little bearing on the reasoning behind the indigenous label no matter what one thinks of it.

To say nothing of the fact that if atrocities have happened in Europe's past, that's sad but does not require the entire rest of the world to accept similar atrocities without question. Considering the unthinkable horrors that occurred in Hanover less than a century after annexation, I don't think anyone is looking at 19th century Prussian political history and going "oh boy, let's copy THOSE guys, what a perfect standard for every to follow for all time!"
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,822
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
And no trouble ever came of those...

But it's a red herring anyway. Tu quoque arguments are a <blah blah blah> in Hanover less than a century after annexation, I don't think anyone is looking at 19th century Prussian political history and going "oh boy, let's copy THOSE guys, what a perfect standard for every to follow for all time!"
I think Gospel can answer that one for me.

Simply put, I'm not a fan of people that refute arguments on this board that no one in particular made.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,771
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,140
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
And no trouble ever came of those...

But it's a red herring anyway. Tu quoque arguments are a <blah blah blah> in Hanover less than a century after annexation, I don't think anyone is looking at 19th century Prussian political history and going "oh boy, let's copy THOSE guys, what a perfect standard for every to follow for all time!"
I think Gospel can answer that one for me.

Simply put, I'm not a fan of people that refute arguments on this board that no one in particular made.
Big words, coming from someone whose artless attempts at strawman construction resulted in both Gospel's post and mine. Seriously, where did I say anything about fucking Prussia? But instead of complaining about your obvious quote-stuffing and leaving it at that, I made an earnest attempt to address the content, not just the form, of your posting. Can you say the same?

If I've misinterpreted your intended point, please explain how, and the conversation can continue. On what grounds was the annexation of Hanover relevant to... whatever point you were trying to make about the term "indigenous"? I know what I thought you were saying, but clearly I did not, so I am now inviting you to fill in your own logical gaps. How does your post relate to the main topic of discrimination?

And speaking of rude forum habits, don't think I failed to notice that you elided the main argument of my post as "<blah blah blah>" so you could complain about the supposed etiquette failure of the damn footnote.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...
... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...
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.
Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.

Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. What is the opposite of what Metaphor said? Not only white people have the competence and intelligence & constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation. What is the point of saying that when talking about Europeans other than to say "so what everyone did it". Unless I read that incorrectly.
The point is not 'stop complaining'--though without a time machine, what people did before you were born is not something that can be changed. The point is 'you're not a special subjugated snowflake, and nobody is responsible for what their ancestors did'.
During WWII, Nazis stole countless pieces of art and jewelry belonging to the Jewish people they tried to obliterate from the earth. They were fairly successful, killing millions. Their loot was often was hidden safely, ‘legally’ in Swiss bank vaults, making its way to private galleries and homes of art dealers and collectors. Much was recovered by the efforts of the MFFA, but much remains unaccounted for.

Occasionally one of these pieces of art is discovered at an auction or in a collection—often obtained unaware of the history of the piece, stolen from the rightful owners. Efforts are made to return such pieces of art, of property, to the rightful owners—if still living—or to their heirs. Most people see this as just, even if the modern day owners were unaware that the art was stolen as part of a war crime.

Intil quite recently, it was common practice for museums and historians and governments and private collectors to take as souvenirs pieces of art and artifacts belonging to subjugated peoples or cultures from hundreds of years ago.

Today, the thinking is that there could be no be no right to take such pieces of art and artifacts integral to the original owners and the return of such stolen pieces are being returned to their homelands, at least in some cases.

It is rare that the present day owner is thought to have stolen the art themselves. The modern art collector did not throw the original owner into a death camp or destroy important historical sites to plunder things they found pretty or interesting. Nonetheless, it is morally wrong and potentially illegal fir them to retain such items in their possession.

The fact that people were murdered or sent to their deaths decades or that palaces and temples were plundered centuries before the current illicit ownership does not make it ok to just keep what was stolen however many years ago. Those who have come by objects which could not rightfully pass to them have an obligation to return the object to the rightful owners who most likely willl be descendents of those whose belongings and perhaps lives were stolen from them
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,140
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker

Metaphor

Čarobnjak iz Oza
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,758
This is VASTLY different than what Europeans did in the Americas ...
... Beringian Americans stole land, committed genocide and enslaved people of other ethnic groups, same as Europeans. ...
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.
Not seeing where anybody said to stop complaining. It's perfectly possible to complain without posting disinformation. Then the rest of us wouldn't need to correct it.

Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. What is the opposite of what Metaphor said? Not only white people have the competence and intelligence & constitutional wherewithal to carry out subjugation. What is the point of saying that when talking about Europeans other than to say "so what everyone did it". Unless I read that incorrectly.
The point is not 'stop complaining'--though without a time machine, what people did before you were born is not something that can be changed. The point is 'you're not a special subjugated snowflake, and nobody is responsible for what their ancestors did'.
During WWII, Nazis stole countless pieces of art and jewelry belonging to the Jewish people they tried to obliterate from the earth. They were fairly successful, killing millions. Their loot was often was hidden safely, ‘legally’ in Swiss bank vaults, making its way to private galleries and homes of art dealers and collectors. Much was recovered by the efforts of the MFFA, but much remains unaccounted for.

Occasionally one of these pieces of art is discovered at an auction or in a collection—often obtained unaware of the history of the piece, stolen from the rightful owners. Efforts are made to return such pieces of art, of property, to the rightful owners—if still living—or to their heirs. Most people see this as just, even if the modern day owners were unaware that the art was stolen as part of a war crime.

Intil quite recently, it was common practice for museums and historians and governments and private collectors to take as souvenirs pieces of art and artifacts belonging to subjugated peoples or cultures from hundreds of years ago.

Today, the thinking is that there could be no be no right to take such pieces of art and artifacts integral to the original owners and the return of such stolen pieces are being returned to their homelands, at least in some cases.

It is rare that the present day owner is thought to have stolen the art themselves. The modern art collector did not throw the original owner into a death camp or destroy important historical sites to plunder things they found pretty or interesting. Nonetheless, it is morally wrong and potentially illegal fir them to retain such items in their possession.

The fact that people were murdered or sent to their deaths decades or that palaces and temples were plundered centuries before the current illicit ownership does not make it ok to just keep what was stolen however many years ago. Those who have come by objects which could not rightfully pass to them have an obligation to return the object to the rightful owners who most likely willl be descendents of those whose belongings and perhaps lives were stolen from them

If there are stolen artifacts in my family, I will return them to the rightful owner.

There are not any, however.

(I have a reproduction of Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I in my living room, the original of which was stolen by Nazis. However I'm certain it is not in fact the original, as I do not and did not have a spare $135m lying around).
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
A lot more people have opportunities than actually take advantage of them. My wife gave three of her relatives the opportunity in the form of green card applications for them. One came for a while and went back, the other two didn't even come when their visa numbers came up. I am not at all surprised at this outcome (and in the case of the ones who didn't come I was almost certain they wouldn't)--none of them have the drive she does. They bemoan obstacles, my wife looks for how to deal with obstacles.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
The reality is the children of immigrants (from anywhere, not just Africa) on average outperform locals. I am not aware of any studies of whether genetics plays a role but I don't see how such a study could be done. It has been established that socioeconomic status is to some degree genetic, I see no reason this wouldn't apply to immigrants also.

Why is there so much resistance to the idea that genetics plays a role? I feel like I'm dealing with religious dogma here--I'm not saying any race is inferior to any other. I see no reason to believe there's any meaningful racial differences (there are differences at the extremes--race does play an appreciable role in things like top athletes), but it's pretty obvious there are differences within every race. Many physical traits are obviously heritable (you often can see which parent certain body parts take after), why is it blasphemy to think that mental traits aren't?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
Note that I am distinguishing those who voluntarily chose to immigrate vs refugees/slaves--the latter groups would not be expected to show any genetic superiority.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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?
I think it comes down to the colonial era displacements are the only ones that really made the history books. The others are pretty much the realm of the archeologists and lack victims that preserved any real history of what happened.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.

Why can't you understand my repeated statements that I do not believe there is any racial pattern to it? I'm talking about selection within a population, not selection between populations!

We have one clear example of it at work: The Ashkenazi Jews. Keep putting them through situations where getting out in time confers a substantial survival advantage and combine that with mostly breeding within their group and it's not surprising they are a better part of a standard deviation above average.

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.
Conveniently ignoring the fact that there was more than one wave of immigrants from Asia.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,496
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
Poland. Basically everything that you blame for passing between generations was wiped out by the Russians when they occupied the place. Yet we see basically the same pattern of "inheritance" despite there being nothing to inherit. There must be a major component that is either genetic or from parenting. We also see that when looking at adoption vs genetic parentage that genetics plays a substantial role.

The fact that some people decreed that certain races were inferior doesn't make genetic differences not exist. I see no evidence of any substantial genetic differences between races but it's quite obvious that there are considerable genetic differences within races.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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.

Why can't you understand my repeated statements that I do not believe there is any racial pattern to it? I'm talking about selection within a population, not selection between populations!

We have one clear example of it at work: The Ashkenazi Jews. Keep putting them through situations where getting out in time confers a substantial survival advantage and combine that with mostly breeding within their group and it's not surprising they are a better part of a standard deviation above average.

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.
Conveniently ignoring the fact that there was more than one wave of immigrants from Asia.
You seem to be making the opposite e claim you did earlier: Ashkenazi Jews did not necessarily voluntarily immigrate—they often fled fir their lives. Upthread, you make the claim more than once that better people immigrate compared with those who come as refugeees, as the Ashkenazi Jews often did.

Here’s an observation: Groups of people who are allowed to maintain their culture, their language, religion, history, family structure: their way of life— tend to fair much better compared with groups whose families are broken apart, who must give up their language, their culture in order to survive. When these things are forcibly taken from them, often on pain of death, groups begin to fail even though individuals might not because individuals might assimilate sufficiently get along in the new culture and circumstances they find themselves.

Certain Asian cultures which are able to remain somewhat intact: language and at least some traditions are retained: this creates a cohesiveness and a strength that they can rely on.

Not all immigrant groups are so lucky to be able to live in neighborhoods where they are supported by others like them.
 
Top Bottom