Caucasians

[Hollus]

Hmmm....you know I think Scott has said over and over that he doesnt believe there is anything more than a "superficial" difference between people of different races. That's not the point. If someone says hey I would like to conserve white people so that they still exist it does not mean they think they are more important. I dont think Scott is talking about banning interracial marriages. He has not said anything to that effect. You know in the long run it doesnt matter if..... well...the baseball glove I had as a kid is still in a shoebox in my closet. But some people like to preserve stuff like that. You dont have to make it into a hate thing. If there were only 100 black people left and a few of em got together and said "you know i would like there to be black people in the future...i know its not important what color your skin is...but there always were black people as far as i remember...id like there to keep being black people."----would that be such a crime?

Sure there are no pure whites....well lot people who wanna marry what they consider white people marry them. What is the big deal. If a person decides to choose a woman who is white, according to your logic you should have no problem with it....since there is no difference between white. black, brown anyway...and the white race doesnt even exist...well he is really just marrying a really pale black woman,. Yeesh

Would you be defending me if I decided to breed Africans with Asians and declare their offspring to be Afians? And if I then started to passionately voice my concern about the possibility of discrimination towards my newly defined concoction of physical appearance, and their need for a homogeneous homeland?

Is this something you would support?

[Argus]

I'm even inclined to believe some of what he says.

Actually, "America" was all of those things long before the Europeans ever arrived.

Oh please.

[Argus]

I am disturbed that Scott (and others) feel that since the rest of the world is racist, then Caucasians have the right to be racist too. I disagree. Racism is not a step forward. It's not scientific.

I don't think he's suggesting we have the right to be "racist" but rather, the right to consider the implications for our descendants on what we do now. Consider that you have stated outright that non-whites "out there" are racists. We are bringing in vast numbers of these "racists" to live among us, and to, inevitably, if our birth rate does not change, outnumber us. I.e, we are sentencing our children's children to live as minorities among racists.

Thus the importance of changing the attitudes of those who migrate here, and of selecting those who migrate here better.

Now, let me finish with this comment in reference to Scott's OP:

Is anyone concerned that Caucasians are intentionally destroying themselves as a homogenous race? It's a fair question, I think, because that is the course embarked upon many years ago when the traditionally Caucasian nations embarked upon policies, almost as one, to institute mass immigration of so-called "visible minorities."

Scott, it seems rather odd that you would refer to "mass immigration".

The "mass immigration" of which you refer was the capture and enslavement of Africans by Europeans and their forced transfer to America.

I disagree. I think the mass migration he's referring to is the open immigration we've had since the nineteen seventies. I believe something like 53,000 African slaves per year were shipped to North America at one point. However, we are bringing in something like 200,000 migrants per year, and the Americans another 1.5 million (legal) per year. The African slave trade was nothing compared to this.

Edited July 14, 2007 by Argus

[Argus]

You, like quite a few others here, can't quite make the rather obvious distinction between the idea that caucasians should be proud of being caucasians and maintain a racial identity, and the idea that caucasians are somehow special. In fact there seems to be no room in the minds of many for the grey area between self-hate and self-exaltation. It's a shame.

That is the kind of shit that belongs on Stormfront.

If a Black man talks about being proud of being Black, all the liberals smile and nod. If an Asian man talks about being proud of being Asian all the liberals smile and nod. If an Arab man talks about the glories of Arabia past and how proud he is of being Arab all the little liberals smile and nod, but if a White man talks about being proud of being White the little liberals squeal and drop their glasses of wine and clasp their pale cheeks and run screaming from the room in horror.

[ScottSA]

When did I say my desire to protect the caucasian race is based on my belief in the superiority of western culture?

"I am ethnocentric, and proudly so, if what you mean by that is that I think my culture is superior to other cultures. "

"Of course my desire to preserve the the caucasian race is based on my ethnocentrism. Duh. When did this particular penny drop? When did I ever claim it wasn't based on my ethnocentrism?"

Well you defined ethnocentrism as your belief that your culture is superior to others and then you said your desire to preserve the caucasian race is based on your ethnocentrism. So if we take your second statement and substitute 'ethnocentrism' with the definintion you gave it in your first statement we get:

Of course my desire to preserve the the caucasian race is based on my belief that my culture is superior to other cultures. Duh. When did this particular penny drop? When did I ever claim it wasn't based on my belief my culture is better than other cultures.?

Yup, I see that was a bit of a mixup on my part. I fell into the same trap of sloppy definition as I accuse others of. "Ethno" is a weird word...according to all the sociological material I've seen, it means a combination of race and culture, with no real emphasis on either; a properly academic word, and one that revels in the false gravitas of social "science." Unfortunately, on the other hand, it's often used as synonymous with one or the other. Because it's so broad in its definition and usage, and assumptive in its compound, it's probably a word to stay away from in discussions like this.

Anyway, suffice it to say that I don't think race has anything to do with culture. I believe they are two separate facets of society. To the extent that they cross over, or appear to operate together, I believe it is simply a congruence based on the genetic homogeniety implicit in the geographical development of historical "culture" (there's another word to tread carefully around). But that doesn't assume in any way causality.

I believe that western culture is superior to all others. In spite of its recent intellectual slide toward nihilism.

I do not believe that any categorization of "race" is inherently superior or inferior to any other race. With the possible exception of the Picts of course, and I'm Scottish, so I can say that. As long as I meant that the Picts are inferior, of course, according to the lexicon of proper meanings as defined by the neo-liberal School of Grovelling and Snivelling in Apology for Everything. I can't remember what I meant just above, and I frankly don't care and neither should you.

But really what you are doing is sniffing suspiciously around my ankles, darting in now and then to attempt a snap at my butt, in an effort to see if you can detect a dreaded Nazi lurking inside. And using innuendo about as subtle as a rabid jackhammer at full throttle, I might add. Let me suggest to you that you are barking up the wrong tree, baying at the wrong moon, nipping at the wrong ass. I'm the least Nazi I know. It's because I don't want a return of that whole paradigm that I want to stop setting the conditions for it. Just so you know. Not because I feel any particular need to defend myself from silly innuendo.

And in truth, this foolishness that we have allowed the forces of right-think to perpetuate, the drawing off limits and submerging of certain topics in a sea of distrust and suspicion, is wrong and dangerous. It was wrong to avoid debate on issues like floodgate immigration before it began, and its wrong to perpetuate that avoidance now. Debate about homogeniety of race, and culture, and the face of 22nd century Canada, and all the other aspects of immigration that should have been debated without the squeamishness of learned distaste. And since it wasn't then, it is even more important to debate it now, while it still has meaning, while we can still reduce the impact until we do have that debate.

Stifling debate on it by creating a climate of fear around the subject results in the very agar that allows silly theories of racial superiority to take hold and grow in the semi-believability created by censorship. It restricts information flow, leaving a semi-vacuum into which rumours and half-truths flow, at least initially, but then leaves a stagnance in its wake, a cesspool where silly ideas can fester and eventually calcify into moral certainties. Once someone becomes entrenched in a moral position, all argument is useless and the only thing left is action.

That's exactly what I don't want to see happen.

So anyway, you can keep sniffing around and trying to scare up a mob of angry peasants with torches if it makes you feel better, but since I think I've stated my case here fairly, I hope succinctly, you will just look silly trying.

[Argus]

Hollus directed this at me earlier:

However, my suspicion is that if you don't recognize beauty in the opposite sex of people with darker skin than yourself you are either visually impaired or have some kind of prejudice towards them.

...and I still haven't figured out what prompted that. Because I waxed poetic about my skin and hair? Because I said I hope those characteristics live on in future generations?

I don't get it. How does someone interpret that as an attack on other skin colors?

-k

As someone, I believe August, pointed out earlier, White people are the oppressors, and all others are their victims. Victims get to express pride in themselves, but when oppressors express pride the PC crowd reacts with anger because the oppressors should feel only shame.

You should feel nothing but shame for your white skin and blonde hair, for they are the marks of the oppressor!

[ScottSA]

If there were only 100 black people left and a few of em got together and said "you know i would like there to be black people in the future...i know its not important what color your skin is...but there always were black people as far as i remember...id like there to keep being black people."----would that be such a crime?

Very few people have the ability to distill a position and set it in analogy as well as this. It captures the ethos, the logic, even the self-deprecatory humour of the issue, and does it while stripping away the rhetoric of both sides.

[ScottSA]

I'm just left with one question, how does becoming a minority in a region affect race? Will being a descendant of white ancestors be affected if that group makes up the minority in a country? Do you foresee a genocide of white people in the future? Will the white people become the American Indians of the 22nd century?

That's the 'just one question' I'd like the answers to as well. I don't know. You don't know. Why don't we debate it? Why are you scared to? Why don't we look at all those aspects honestly while they are still relevant? What if you're right and all of those scenarios never come to pass? Don't you feel strongly enough about it to defend your implied position, or is there a sneaking suspicion on your part that the vision of a shining multicult New Athens is becoming a tad tarnished and logically hard to defend these days? Have you abandoned what I believe is an indefensible intellectual position, and retreated instead to a faith-based moral certainty that allows no debate? Is that wise?

Have you so much faith in the perfectability of Man that you are willing to gamble the lives of future generations on an experiment of this magnitude with no debate? It seems a tad foolhardy, to say the least, to have so much faith in a vision with so much historical evidence against its probability of success, that we are willing to close off debate in the hope that it will go away. It won't. It can't, in the therapeutic grievance society we've created. I think you're just scared to talk about a potential tiger we both know is lurking out there. But if indeed you think it's nothing more than a mythical bogeyman under the bed, then you ought not be afraid to try to explain why the mythical bogeyman keeps shoving its head in the window and snapping at us.

[KO2]

Caucasians?

Are Asians with cock, aren't they?

[ScottSA]

Caucasians?

Are Asians with cock, aren't they?

Is this just jamming or do you have a fetish you'd like to share with us?

[KO2]

You are fond of my fetishes?

I have an inclination to sprinkle a little crude humour here and there, in order to lighten up a somber seething mood.

[kimmy]

Well I didn't watch much Sesame Street. Thought Mr. Dress-up was way more fun. But as I remember it: Elmo is red, Grover is blue, Grouch is green, Cookie monster is a different shade of blue that I can't really describe, Hermit is green, Mumford is pink etc. And that's cool because they're all pretty cool (well except the Grouch is kind of a dick, but hey: He lives in a trash can. And the Cookie Monster might rip you off. He's clearly suffering from addiction). I guess lots will interpret the show differently. I don't think the show's message of the value of diversity is about the value of color. I think it is teaching that lots of different looking characters can be pretty cool. The characters community is a rich tapestry of looks and personalities, and as the show evolves over the years some the colors and personalities vary. The important part is they remain a tolerant and accepting community.

Will future versions of the show have characters of uniform hue?

Will it be renamed "Sepia Street"?

Do you really want your great grandchildren to grow up in a monotone world?

Wouldn't it be a boring world if everybody looked the same?

(insert other nuggets extolling the intrinsic value of diversity. I'm sure one could find a trove of them at the Canada Ministry of Culture and Heritage website.)

Hollus directed this at me earlier:

However, my suspicion is that if you don't recognize beauty in the opposite sex of people with darker skin than yourself you are either visually impaired or have some kind of prejudice towards them.

...and I still haven't figured out what prompted that. Because I waxed poetic about my skin and hair? Because I said I hope those characteristics live on in future generations?

I don't get it. How does someone interpret that as an attack on other skin colors?

Sorry for such a late reply to that; maybe my sinister impression was wrong: I thought you were speaking of race when you stated "However, I'm not too big to admit that I am influenced by appearance. My suspicion is that only the visually impaired can truthfully say otherwise." I don't see how else your comment could have pertained to our discussion.

If you had read the two paragraphs (the original message is here, for your reference) which follow the soundbite you've quoted, you'd have noticed that I go into some explanation of this. I muse on the way in which humans form attachments and associations with others, suggest a biological predisposition to do so, and suggest that visual cues (including skin and hair color) are a significant factor in the way in which we form these attachments. I even mentioned an experiment supporting the theory.

I mentioned all of this by way of talking about the my sentimental hope that people who share my phenotype exist well into the future.

-k

[jefferiah]

Hmmm....you know I think Scott has said over and over that he doesnt believe there is anything more than a "superficial" difference between people of different races. That's not the point. If someone says hey I would like to conserve white people so that they still exist it does not mean they think they are more important. I dont think Scott is talking about banning interracial marriages. He has not said anything to that effect. You know in the long run it doesnt matter if..... well...the baseball glove I had as a kid is still in a shoebox in my closet. But some people like to preserve stuff like that. You dont have to make it into a hate thing. If there were only 100 black people left and a few of em got together and said "you know i would like there to be black people in the future...i know its not important what color your skin is...but there always were black people as far as i remember...id like there to keep being black people."----would that be such a crime?

Sure there are no pure whites....well lot people who wanna marry what they consider white people marry them. What is the big deal. If a person decides to choose a woman who is white, according to your logic you should have no problem with it....since there is no difference between white. black, brown anyway...and the white race doesnt even exist...well he is really just marrying a really pale black woman,. Yeesh

Would you be defending me if I decided to breed Africans with Asians and declare their offspring to be Afians? And if I then started to passionately voice my concern about the possibility of discrimination towards my newly defined concoction of physical appearance, and their need for a homogeneous homeland?

Is this something you would support?

Lol. You know that is a very ridiculous comparison. You are becoming the breeder putting two people together like a farmer. There is a huge difference between that and two consenting adults deciding to marry each other. You are forcing your will on someone and pre-arranging the marriage based on the idea that other people should marry the way you want. As far as I can tell, Scott is not going to come to my house with a burning cross if I decide to marry an asian. And he can choose who he wants to marry. There is no overseeing farmer.

[jefferiah]

I'll spell it out for you again Hollis.

In Scott's case he may want to look for a woman who is "white" (by his definition) and marry her (if she agrees to it) and procreate.

In your case you are not talking about getting married and procreating, , but choosing two people and forcing them to mate.

[jefferiah]

Marriage is not a crime. And marrying a white woman is not a crime either. Nor is it a crime to marry someone of another race.

I can respect Scott's decision to limit his female suitors to the white ones. And I would hope he would respect mine to marry a Chinese lady. But even if he didnt respect mine, I would still respect his decision to marry who he wants, because people can marry who they want. That is the beautiful thing about marriage----you get to choose.

[KO2]

There sure are some good spellers here, eh?

[Hollus]

Hmmm....you know I think Scott has said over and over that he doesnt believe there is anything more than a "superficial" difference between people of different races. That's not the point. If someone says hey I would like to conserve white people so that they still exist it does not mean they think they are more important. I dont think Scott is talking about banning interracial marriages. He has not said anything to that effect. You know in the long run it doesnt matter if..... well...the baseball glove I had as a kid is still in a shoebox in my closet. But some people like to preserve stuff like that. You dont have to make it into a hate thing. If there were only 100 black people left and a few of em got together and said "you know i would like there to be black people in the future...i know its not important what color your skin is...but there always were black people as far as i remember...id like there to keep being black people."----would that be such a crime?

Sure there are no pure whites....well lot people who wanna marry what they consider white people marry them. What is the big deal. If a person decides to choose a woman who is white, according to your logic you should have no problem with it....since there is no difference between white. black, brown anyway...and the white race doesnt even exist...well he is really just marrying a really pale black woman,. Yeesh

Would you be defending me if I decided to breed Africans with Asians and declare their offspring to be Afians? And if I then started to passionately voice my concern about the possibility of discrimination towards my newly defined concoction of physical appearance, and their need for a homogeneous homeland?

Is this something you would support?

Lol. You know that is a very ridiculous comparison. You are becoming the breeder putting two people together like a farmer. There is a huge difference between that and two consenting adults deciding to marry each other. You are forcing your will on someone and pre-arranging the marriage based on the idea that other people should marry the way you want. As far as I can tell, Scott is not going to come to my house with a burning cross if I decide to marry an asian. And he can choose who he wants to marry. There is no overseeing farmer.

Allow me to rephrase that. If I was born from African and Asian parents and considered myself and other African/Asian offspring as unique, would you support my concerns for the survival of my kind and my fear of discrimination and my desire for a homogeneous homeland?

Side note: I’m not speaking of marriage. I’m speaking of people procreating with the intention to create a specific looking offspring, which would make those people ‘breeders’.

Edited July 14, 2007 by Hollus

[jefferiah]

Hmmm....you know I think Scott has said over and over that he doesnt believe there is anything more than a "superficial" difference between people of different races. That's not the point. If someone says hey I would like to conserve white people so that they still exist it does not mean they think they are more important. I dont think Scott is talking about banning interracial marriages. He has not said anything to that effect. You know in the long run it doesnt matter if..... well...the baseball glove I had as a kid is still in a shoebox in my closet. But some people like to preserve stuff like that. You dont have to make it into a hate thing. If there were only 100 black people left and a few of em got together and said "you know i would like there to be black people in the future...i know its not important what color your skin is...but there always were black people as far as i remember...id like there to keep being black people."----would that be such a crime?

Sure there are no pure whites....well lot people who wanna marry what they consider white people marry them. What is the big deal. If a person decides to choose a woman who is white, according to your logic you should have no problem with it....since there is no difference between white. black, brown anyway...and the white race doesnt even exist...well he is really just marrying a really pale black woman,. Yeesh

Would you be defending me if I decided to breed Africans with Asians and declare their offspring to be Afians? And if I then started to passionately voice my concern about the possibility of discrimination towards my newly defined concoction of physical appearance, and their need for a homogeneous homeland?

Is this something you would support?

Lol. You know that is a very ridiculous comparison. You are becoming the breeder putting two people together like a farmer. There is a huge difference between that and two consenting adults deciding to marry each other. You are forcing your will on someone and pre-arranging the marriage based on the idea that other people should marry the way you want. As far as I can tell, Scott is not going to come to my house with a burning cross if I decide to marry an asian. And he can choose who he wants to marry. There is no overseeing farmer.

Allow me to rephrase that. If I was born from African and Asian parents and considered myself and other African/Asian offspring as unique, would you support my concerns for the survival of my kind and my fear of discrimination and my desire for a homogeneous homeland?

Side note: I’m not speaking of marriage. I’m speaking of people procreating with the intention to create a specific looking offspring, which would make those people ‘breeders’.

Sure, if thats your concern, whats it to me. As long as you dont belittle non-Afro-Asians or think any less of them.

[jefferiah]

Hmmm....you know I think Scott has said over and over that he doesnt believe there is anything more than a "superficial" difference between people of different races. That's not the point. If someone says hey I would like to conserve white people so that they still exist it does not mean they think they are more important. I dont think Scott is talking about banning interracial marriages. He has not said anything to that effect. You know in the long run it doesnt matter if..... well...the baseball glove I had as a kid is still in a shoebox in my closet. But some people like to preserve stuff like that. You dont have to make it into a hate thing. If there were only 100 black people left and a few of em got together and said "you know i would like there to be black people in the future...i know its not important what color your skin is...but there always were black people as far as i remember...id like there to keep being black people."----would that be such a crime?

Sure there are no pure whites....well lot people who wanna marry what they consider white people marry them. What is the big deal. If a person decides to choose a woman who is white, according to your logic you should have no problem with it....since there is no difference between white. black, brown anyway...and the white race doesnt even exist...well he is really just marrying a really pale black woman,. Yeesh

Would you be defending me if I decided to breed Africans with Asians and declare their offspring to be Afians? And if I then started to passionately voice my concern about the possibility of discrimination towards my newly defined concoction of physical appearance, and their need for a homogeneous homeland?

Is this something you would support?

Lol. You know that is a very ridiculous comparison. You are becoming the breeder putting two people together like a farmer. There is a huge difference between that and two consenting adults deciding to marry each other. You are forcing your will on someone and pre-arranging the marriage based on the idea that other people should marry the way you want. As far as I can tell, Scott is not going to come to my house with a burning cross if I decide to marry an asian. And he can choose who he wants to marry. There is no overseeing farmer.

Allow me to rephrase that. If I was born from African and Asian parents and considered myself and other African/Asian offspring as unique, would you support my concerns for the survival of my kind and my fear of discrimination and my desire for a homogeneous homeland?

Side note: I’m not speaking of marriage. I’m speaking of people procreating with the intention to create a specific looking offspring, which would make those people ‘breeders’.

Sure, if thats your concern, whats it to me. As long as you dont belittle non-Afro-Asians or think any less of them.

But I am not sure what you mean by "not marriage" and people seeking to "procreate". Do you mean some sort of program by where people volunteer to have sex with each other? Or do you mean two people who are going to be partners anyway, deciding, among other factors, to include what they view as the same race?

If you dont mean the second one, then the analogy is still off, since I dont think Scott is planning a breeding center where people just procreate for one reason. Alot of people are going to have partners and procreate anyway, whats the difference if they want that partner to be of the same race, hybrid race, or what have you? Whose business is that?

As for the homeland bit, I may have missed that part in Scott's posts. I can see more of a concern there. But I would at like to hear what he has to say about how he defines that homeland, and also how you define it.

[marcinmoka]

This is broadly dishonest. Jefferiah used the term "protection," which you changed to "preference."

Yes. Good point. However, I was not referring to his posts, but yours Scott.

You want to "protect" them because you "prefer" them. And as with far too many of my posts, you just ignore them, or claim they are not worth addressing. And this all coming from the person who chides us on trying to ignore pertinent debate.

And it hurts.

Is it because I am an immigrant?

Furthermore, we all ought to practice what we preach. Calling my post "broadly dishonest", than introducing the word "superior" in response to my request to find out the underlying reason for your "preference", and even more so, attributing it to me.

A Freudian slip? A genuine mix up? Who knows. I shall not impute.

But you seem to be presenting a lot of non sequiturs, and I would presume for the sake of political correctness.

Ex.

Your line of reasoning that preserving the Caucasian race will somehow weaken its culture is, I admit, far beyond me.

Than how about a simpler term to borrow from econ, "crowding out'. Or Birthrates. Or is that still beyond you.

Or are you implying that only Caucasians can subscribe to the Caucasian culture, and that getting other "non Caucasians" to adopt Caucasian culture is an impossible feat. If that is the case, than why?

Regardless, I do not care to go down to some childish level of argumentation, I would just like an answer.

I agree with your wanting to preserve our common culture.

I just do not know how skin colour got tangled up in it.

Please, oh please, tell us why this race, or any race is worth preserving*.

Edited July 14, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Hollus]

But I am not sure what you mean by "not marriage" and people seeking to "procreate". Do you mean some sort of program by where people volunteer to have sex with each other? Or do you mean two people who are going to be partners anyway, deciding, among other factors, to include what they view as the same race?

If you dont mean the second one, then the analogy is still off, since I dont think Scott is planning a breeding center where people just procreate for one reason. Alot of people are going to have partners and procreate anyway, whats the difference if they want that partner to be of the same race, hybrid race, or what have you? Whose business is that?

As for the homeland bit, I may have missed that part in Scott's posts. I can see more of a concern there. But I would at like to hear what he has to say about how he defines that homeland, and also how you define it.

Ya, I think my distinquishing between marriage and procreation is inconsequintial, so please disregard that. And I agree that my original analogy was off, the rephrased one is not.

[jefferiah]

But I am not sure what you mean by "not marriage" and people seeking to "procreate". Do you mean some sort of program by where people volunteer to have sex with each other? Or do you mean two people who are going to be partners anyway, deciding, among other factors, to include what they view as the same race?

If you dont mean the second one, then the analogy is still off, since I dont think Scott is planning a breeding center where people just procreate for one reason. Alot of people are going to have partners and procreate anyway, whats the difference if they want that partner to be of the same race, hybrid race, or what have you? Whose business is that?

As for the homeland bit, I may have missed that part in Scott's posts. I can see more of a concern there. But I would at like to hear what he has to say about how he defines that homeland, and also how you define it.

Ya, I think my distinquishing between marriage and procreation is inconsequintial, so please disregard that. And I agree that my original analogy was off, the rephrased one is not.

Well I am not sure of that cuz your second analogy leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Do you mean so- called white people who breed with so-called white people for no other reason than mass producing white children? Wham bam thank you mam, here is your official I Help Saved Whitey pin. Or do you mean people who plan to get married and have kids anyway, choosing to marry someone who is of the same race, not just because they want to perpetuate whiteness, but because they want kids and they also could try their hand at preserving something for some sort of sentimental value as Kimmy puts it.

[jefferiah]

And more importantly than what you mean is what Scott means. If your analogy is the wham bam thank you mam one, and his isnt, then it would still be off.

[jefferiah]

But I am not sure what you mean by "not marriage" and people seeking to "procreate". Do you mean some sort of program by where people volunteer to have sex with each other? Or do you mean two people who are going to be partners anyway, deciding, among other factors, to include what they view as the same race?

If you dont mean the second one, then the analogy is still off, since I dont think Scott is planning a breeding center where people just procreate for one reason. Alot of people are going to have partners and procreate anyway, whats the difference if they want that partner to be of the same race, hybrid race, or what have you? Whose business is that?

As for the homeland bit, I may have missed that part in Scott's posts. I can see more of a concern there. But I would at like to hear what he has to say about how he defines that homeland, and also how you define it.

Ya, I think my distinquishing between marriage and procreation is inconsequintial, so please disregard that. And I agree that my original analogy was off, the rephrased one is not.

Well I am not sure of that cuz your second analogy leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Do you mean so- called white people who breed with so-called white people for no other reason than mass producing white children? Wham bam thank you mam, here is your official I Help Saved Whitey pin. Or do you mean people who plan to get married and have kids anyway, choosing to marry someone who is of the same race, not just because they want to perpetuate whiteness, but because they want kids and they also could try their hand at preserving something for some sort of sentimental value as Kimmy puts it.

I realize that race is a very superficial thing. I mean it doesnt matter if a person is white or not, right? So I mean if everyone turned "caramel" as someone else put it, I am sure life would go on and we'd all be ok.

Take two families with a parallel situation. Each of them has an heirloom that has been handed down for 10 generations. A ring lets say.

Now the parallel is about to end.

One family is robbed in the middle of the night, and the burglar finds the ring in the little wooden jewellery box in the living room. The ring is not important is it? I mean its not like these people are going to lose what inherently makes them a family. The physical ring is just a superficial symbol, and there is no use crying over spilled milk.

You have no trouble understanding that I know. Nor do I. "There is nothing wrong with losing something like that."

But lets look at the other family. They still have their ring. Is it wrong of them to try to preserve it? Is there something wrong with keeping something like that?

If there is no use crying over spilled milk, does that mean people who take care not to spill it are bad?

As long as they are not hurting you or I, what is the problem?

[Hollus]

Sure, if thats your concern, whats it to me. As long as you dont belittle non-Afro-Asians or think any less of them.

Would you not be afraid that my Afro/Asian group might dicriminate against whatever appearance group you belong to? Do you think there is any reason my Afro/Asian group should be afraid that your appearance group whould discriminate against us? Do you think there is any reason Scott's appearance group should be afraid of discrimination from either of us?