ScottSA

I love the mental gymnastics the PC crowd goes through to deny the bleeding obvious, or better yet to make it into some kind of crime. My suspicion is that you are either in supreme denial or an aberration. Chinese people are attracted to Chinese people, Black to black, and white to white. This is some kind of revelation to you? What does it have to do with "darker skin?" Do you always operate at a bumper sticker level of debate?

Looks more like you actually...

Is this what you're talking about? Photographs of a facial reconstruction showed a middle-aged man who looked more like a "European accountant than a Paleo-Indian hunter[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man They found Cap't Jean-Luc Picard Why do you jam threads with inanities like this? Seems like anytime someone has something to say that doesn't jive with your preconceived political correctisms about race you get all weird.

Is this what you're talking about? Photographs of a facial reconstruction showed a middle-aged man who looked more like a "European accountant than a Paleo-Indian hunter[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

Saw them as? So we're no longer talking about race as such but rather the perception of race. That makes matters even more confusing (if that were possible).You should be worried about another Caucasian who perceives you as belonging to a different race. Should brown-eyed Caucasians be fearful of blue-eyed Caucasians? Or will the differences be more subtle. Shoudl Caucasians who watch hockey be afraid of Caucasians who watch football? If you want to descend into the ludicrous, that's your business I suppose. I would have thought that phenotype as a descriptive of race would be self-evident, since a good many folks are at pain to point out the lack of genotype differences...and because race has already been defined as phenotype. I'm not sure that parsing the question out so that you can mock it is particularly helpful, really. If you have a passing acquaintance with history, you'll know that racially motivated wars are by far the most hideous events we are capable of. But I'm not even sure why this thread drifted into genocide...I suppose I made the mistake of defending that as a possiblity, so a bunch of people decided to run that angle down as the hardest scenario to imagine at this particular point in time. That of course doesn't mean it's not likely to happen in the future, it just means that looking out at a bright sky today, in 2007, makes it hard to imagine...today, in 2007. My larger question was the shrinking numbers and social atomization of caucasians. Aside from the usual yahoos, cartoon debaters, and trolls, I think there were some good posts.

My proposition was: "I simply pointed out that discrimination, including genocide, has happened everywhere and always when races are mixed. It doesn't come from "sweeping generalizations", it comes from historical fact." I hardly see how your point addresses it. It is true that female Praying mantises eat male praying mantises, but that hardly addresses the fact that sparrows, everywhere and always, eat praying mantises. And frankly, some of your numbers...in particular the Asian and African numbers...are suspect. The Hutu killed the Tutsis precisely because they saw them as different races...read the rhetoric used against the Tutsis...it is starkly racialist. And in Asia the same thing applies between the Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, even the Khmer...even in Europe there are racial overtones in wars...in particular the 1st WW.

Haven't you already said that?

You are doing a poor job. My apologies, I will try harder. ScottSA claims that dark skinned people are going to commit genocide against caucasians in the not so distant future. Where does this fear come from? It comes from sweeping generalizations and condemnations of others, which are both precursors of the genocide he's afraid of. So dark skinned people have just as much if not more reason to fear the likes of him. The type of isolationism he supports creates a positive feedback loop inwhich the very things he fears are much more likely to happen. What nonsense. I didn't make any such claim, I simply pointed out that discrimination, including genocide, has happened everywhere and always when races are mixed. It doesn't come from "sweeping generalizations", it comes from historical fact. To say that this creates a "feedback loop" is so completely disingenuous that it's not worthy of comment, except to say that it demonstratyes an irrational fear on your part of having a grownup discussion on this topic.

Source? Hardball During a baseball game?

I can only assume this cartoon version of a discussion is meant tongue in cheek? you assume wrongly. No tongue in my cheek at all. Your original question was is anyone concerned or not concerned about the impending racial suicide of Caucasians. I said no I am not concerned about the demise of Caucasians. Whats the problem? You asked a question and I provided an answer. You have said that you forsee sometime in the future other races discriminating against Caucasions. Fine. But your original question was not about discrimination and/or genocide or anything else resulting from one races acts against another. It is about Caucasian racial suicide via immigration. You however seem very concerned - I asked why? Was my question out of the blue? Irrational? Off subject? Insulting? Oh sorry. I assumed that the phrase " inherently wish to kill all caucasians" upon which your entire post hinged, was just a farce. I'm sorry you meant it seriously...I don't know what to say...

Source?

They are called the Black Hand, and they killed Christ. And Kenny.

Exactly, back to capitalism, the same system that got the rest of the first world to where it is now. Yes, but it drove Asia, and in particular the Pacific seaboard, into virtual bancruptcy in the mid 90s. One does not simply drag a third world state into the first world overnight. Sure it will someday drag itself into the first world, but it won't happen overnight, and it won't happen under it's current political system. Oh, and to Kuzzad...go back and research what Goldman Sachs said about the "Pacific Tigers" in 1990. Then investigate what DID happen to the Pacific Tigers. scottsa: as i stated previously: "It seems to be a widely accepted fact, this is certainly not the first time i have come across this type of projection. Some have even stated a little sooner then 2050." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4998020.stm China is set to become the world's biggest economy by 2026 according to a poll conducted on behalf of the BBC. And India is poised to take over fourth place behind the US and Japan. Only 1% of respondents felt the UK would be the world's leading economy in 20 years. India's infrastructure problems and scarcity of resources were seen as putting it at a disadvantage to China. The findings contradict a Goldman Sachs projection of the world's economies which had the US in top place in 2026. Large populations A total of 41% of respondents in the BBC World Poll, powered by GMI, had China in top spot by 2026, 35% plumped for the US, 10% chose Japan, and 6% favoured India. The findings contradict a Goldman Sachs projection of the world's economies which had the US in top place in 2026. Any chance of explaining why you think an opinion poll of the public has some kind of predictive power over economic futures? Look, economists are fond of using the "goose" analogy in Asia. According to this view, the lead goose is supposed to be Japan, leading the rest of Asia into prosperity. I don't dispute that one bit, because it's premised in a vaccuum. But what if there are headwinds? What if one of the geese bites another one? What if there are goose hunters watching the flock? All of those things exist in spades in Asia right now, including the very possible prospect of China exploding from the edges inward...specifically along its northwestern boundaries

Good grief. America is hardly in its "death throes." What a silly topic.

Yeah, but Momo will argue anyway. He usually starts out by arguing that there's no difference between races, then after milking that one to death, he usually wraps up with a rendition of the finer meanings of racial categories, which of course don't exist except when they support his side

I can only assume this cartoon version of a discussion is meant tongue in cheek?

No doubt. Now can you go away? Please? Obviously this topic sends you into panic mode, so go find another thread to jam. I will not go away, just as the dark skinned people will not go away. You are saying ridiculous things and it is my freedom to point them out to you. You also have a double standard regarding your behaviour in threads as Ive seen you in others behaving much the same as I in this one. If you can not tolerate dissenting views (which you quite obviously cannot) than why dont you go join your knuckle-dragging brethren at stormfront.org. You will feel quite at home there and can be sure that dissenting views will be banned from debate. Look, if you reduce a perfectly good question to hysterical namecalling, it just ruins the thread. If you can't get a little deeper into the question than shouting the standard slogans of the screaming mobs of the racial harmony crowd, then please go away. I'm sure everyone has heard it already...

No, the anthropologists determined that the skull resembled a "caucasoid" skull. They could make no inference on his skin complexion. The people he most resembled were the Ainu of northern Japan. The discovery of the skull confirmed for some anthropologists theories about genetic dispersal and what mnay happen in the wonderful random world of genetics and inherited traits when gene pools get isolated from one another. The archaeologists who discovered him were never under any dismay that the subject was aboriginal. They also never inferered he was european or anything other than what he is generally accepted to be. Actually, we've had this discussion before, years ago, and I showed you proof then that the issue was a hot potato, and that while the researchers themselves were not particularly concerned about it, the Indians worked themselves into rages about it. It fits with other theories of cultural dispersal as well, and it's quite possible that visitors other than the Indians showed up in the Americas during prehistory and were either killed or absorbed.

Yep. As a place of retreat in the very likely event of racial discrimination and/or attack. Glad the penny has dropped.

No doubt. Now can you go away? Please? Obviously this topic sends you into panic mode, so go find another thread to jam.

The evidence from the recent past tends to show that Europeans largely slaughtered other Europeans.Usually, religion is blamed for various wars. Now, you're blaming race. ---- ScottSA, what is your blood type? Are you O negative or AB? Are yoy concerned whether your blood type is going to disappear in the future? Or, are you left-handed or right-handed? Are you not concerned about the survival of left-handed people? We could slice the human race in many different ways and come up with innumerable divisions. For some reason, you seem to have chosen skin colour. That strikes me as arbitrary and not worthy of a deep thinker. Others think it is worth worrying about. I, for instance, don't want my grandkids discriminated against or worse on the basis of skin color or haircolor. And that happens a great deal more across the globe than discrimination on the basis of blood type or which hand is dominant. I think your counterexamples are a bit facile, given historical events, don't you?

But you deny the need for a homeland for other potentially persecuted races? You're against sub-national ghettos yet for national ghettos? You seem to be all over the map in your conceptions here Rue.

That's pretty generous of you.

What's it to you?

Yes, thank you so much for the stirling psychological analysis, but unfortunately your credibility pooled around your ankles long ago, apparently taking your commas and language skills with it. "Sowed by your ilk?" Why are you so afraid of the topic? Oh I lost my credibility have I? And how was that, by disagreeing with your twisted logic? Oooh, grammer mistakes? Typical irrelevant attacks you use when you can't provide a valid rebuttle. Would you like me to rephrase that expression your having trouble with? Here it is: Caused by you and your kinds self righteous racial intolerance. Valid rebuttal to what? Ad hominem? Why would I dignify your childish accusations of racism with a "rebuttal?