Having mixed levity with seriousness, perhaps I should restate a few points.
First, I have nothing fundamentally against any racial group or non-Muslim ethnic group. I have always made fun of the conduct and attitudes of many cultures and peoples, including that of rednecks, Cajuns, Arkies, Texans, cow town evangelists, fundi tongue speakers, crystal gazers, necromancers, priests and nature worshiping eco-Nazis and all groups in identity politics. Yet I have both admiration and disdain for most groups, and I don't think one needs to delude oneself to avoid socially programmed shameful thoughts. I rejected the prudish and religious programming of "bad thought" repression at 13, and I have never looked back. And I certainly don't intend to replace it with a secular PC form of shame and intellectual repression over race, culture, gender, religion or national origin - its childish.
Max, if my questions make you uncomfortable, you are in no way obligated to address them. I am just attempting to understand which was the initial source or which were the triggers in your youth (that is when the blue prints of the adults we are today are set) leading you to your current mentality.
I have been raised by 2 adults who were opposite in terms of their perceptions "of the rest of mankind". My father was a multi culturalist who embraced ethnic and cultural diversity and considered it beneficial. My mother persistently loathed specific ethnic groups viewing them as inferior and genetically pre disposed to be void of ethics and ability to perform or achieve. Her socio cultural environment was not related to Hispanics/Latinos. Her focus of disdain was on Arabs and Sub Sahara Africans.(she grew up in French Algeria, married my father and followed him in his assignments in Sub Sahara Africa). I had a choice to make as a child. Mine was to rebel against my mother's mentality. It was clear to me that my father was a much happier and balanced human being via his ability to adapt to ethnically and culturally diverse milieus versus my mother's self imposed distancing from "whom was so different from her". The choice for me was to either cultivate a sectarian mentality based on "this is my group and I can only be enriched by my own group" or " I will always search and find enrichment in other groups". I chose the second one.
What was your upbringing like, Max?
Second, I believe in realism. The fact is that some groups tend to be smarter, or have more ability, in certain areas of human endeavor than others.
It is NOT a fact that ethnicity in itself and alone determines your fellow human beings' abilities. You have eliminated nurturing. A person's ethnicity is not what governs their abilities and desire to achieve. It is the type of nurturing they received as children. It is also what type of socio economical status they grew up with.
It is also obvious that some tend to have greater socially dysfunctional behavior.
Again, dysfunctional behaviors of any nature (except those prompted by a medically diagnosed pathology) source from the type of nurturing each of us has received or absence of any nurturing. It is not a phenomenon triggered by ethnicity in itself and alone.
Some are better at math, or language, or social interaction. Some are gifted in humor, or music, or dance. Some tend to make better athletes. Some tend to commit more homicide and less suicide. Some are more attractive, some are not. Some groups are better at social cohesiveness, others are more conflict oriented. Its a reality - get over it.
The problem here is that you attribute such strengths and weaknesses to ethnicity in itself and alone. You are wrong. You find a great diversity of different talents and abilities within each ethnic group. As to "some are more attractive, some are not" you should know by now that aesthetics are a highly subjectively induced experience. In most instances, attractive or not attractive is in the eye of the beholder. However if the beholder is conforming to a culturally induced definition of attractive versus non attractive, chances are that beholder will always experience attractive versus non attractive via that restrictive definition. Some of us have the ability to experience attractive versus non attractive based on non visually induced traits. The anatomy of a fellow human being or their "looks" is not what define for us attractive versus non attractive.
Third, there are groups with values and abilities that are more of contribution to human well being than others. Buddhists don't conduct jihads, Muslims do. Jews are leading scientists and businessmen, aboriginals are not. Its a reality - get over it.
Unfortunately and going against the venerated representative of the pacifism taught in Buddhism, some Buddhists will conduct their own "Jihad" :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ese-buddhists-embracing-anti-muslim-violence/
No group is immune to radicalization, Max. Even those who preach tolerance and pacifism.
And as far as Muslims are concerned, please try to not dump all Muslims in the same bag. "Some Muslims conduct jihads" would be closer to the reality than your broad brush painting comment.
Finally, I don't believe that the immigration from Latin America has been conductive to the well being of the last few generations of the American people - not even for the earlier waves of Latin immigrants.
Define "American people". It appears you have a specific definition which the majority of posters here would disagree with.
While their are numerous individual exceptions, as a whole the self-selected waves have been of people with below average intellectual ability who disproportionately contribute to many negatives in American life. As a people, many are benignly and seriously under-talented - others (especially in second and third generations) are also especially prone to violent crime. In any event, I find them culturally boring and often very unattractive. (So do many others who don't have the nerve to admit it).
You come across as if your thinking has been greatly influenced by Jason Richwine's dissertation :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/jason-richwine-dissertation_n_3240168.html
More on that :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-doesnt-understand-why-people-are-mad-at-him/
Emphasis on :
The question is whether those differences are attributable to centuries of oppression and deprivation or due to immutable biological differences. What outraged people was not the mention of the score deficit, but his belief that it is biologically caused and irreversible.
It appears you are leaning towards "immutable biological differences" versus acknowledging centuries of oppression and deprivation. Am I correct? Asking that question since you can only project a cataclysmic vision of the US being dominated by an ethnic group of "underdogs", known as Hispanics or Latinos. Rather than expecting that once removed from a climate of oppression and economical deprivation, that group will be capable of matching your perception of what "American people" ought to be.
On the other hand, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese are culturally complex, usually far more pleasing to the eye than average, and a net benefit to our well being - as are the Indian immigrants of the last 20 or 30 years. And if Muslims had never come to America, its difficult to see what would have been missed.
Muslims are NOT an ethnic group. Any person of any ethnicity can be a Muslim. Of any economical class and any degree of achievement. Do you ever consider the individuality of each person you encounter or do you keep falling for defining them based on their ethnic identity and it appears now also religious?
IMO, you are a demonstration of the nauseating influence of tribalism.
