Caucasians

[Bonam]

No just ignorant of Jewish history.

How so? Being of Jewish descent myself, if you feel there's some history I should be aware of, feel free to inform me.

That said, in South Africa Bonham you really think you can dismiss what goes on there as simply a race problem against whites? What a simplistic and may I say misleading way to analyze the situation.

It's Bonam fyi, not Bonham. And no, it's not "simply" a race "problem". There are many issues (economic, political, health-related, etc) in South Africa that cause problems for all of its inhabitants. Just because there are plenty of other issues doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist there.

What Dancer was trying to explain to you is that the racism is fueled not simply because caucasians are caucasian but because they are perceived as having things gained by injustice. There is a tie in to the old apartheid. Racism of course generates reverse racism. Neither is right but to simplify it just as a race issue is dumb. If the whites in South Africa were dirt poor you really think anyone would be attacking them?

I think that if they were dirt poor now, they'd still be getting attacked for past crimes (whether real, applicable to ancestors but not current people, or imagined/manufactured). Of course, there is some reason or origin for racial discrimination against white people in South Africa. I never contended that the reason for the current racism against white people there is only because of skin color, or anything like that. But the fact that the racism that is going on is a backlash for previous injustice doesn't excuse it. Racism is racism.

do you think perhaps the poor blacks who turned on the poor whites hated them because they were white or because these poor whites were seen as being the same people of the white majority society that had forsaken them. What I am saying is yes on one level it manifests as racism, but you have to dig deeper-the real cause is poverty.

I agree that that can often happen, and that it can be a cause of racism. Nevertheless, once you start indiscriminately attacking white people simply because of the perception that most white people are rich, regardless of whether your particular target is rich, it's no longer discrimination based on economic status, but discrimination based on race. And once a stereotype like that sets in, it can propagate itself through generation after generation. Just about every type of racism is based on a stereotype that at one point had at least a partially valid origin. Does the fact that in this case the racism is based on a stereotype that is perhaps still valid rather than centuries-expired make it justified? I would say no.

Take for instance South Africa. Why would anyone be selective and simply look at the current conflict without also discussing its roots, underlying causes, and origins.

Of course there are causes and roots. But like I said, they do not excuse the current situation or make it ok. Racism exists there now. Whether it exists as a backlash to previous racism in the reverse direction doesn't change the fact that it exists now. Wrongs should be corrected, not turned around. The goal should be justice, not revenge.

Is Bonham that selective in what he chooses to analyze?

No, Bonam is not. You simply decided to interpret it that way. The fact that I did not post a hundred page essay on the origins of the current situation doesn't mean that I am unaware of these origins.

[ScottSA]

As for Scott he is a classic example of someone who projects. He starts off with the assumption he will see Mary in his coffee stain and that is what he sees.

This is precisely what fuels this line of caucasian anxiety arguements. Its simply people projecting what they want to see in situations. It is necessarily subjective not objective and therefore can not be rational or logical.

It is precisely because humans like to project and be subjective to simplify the world and make it less frightening that also breeds intolerance because the labels we use to try understand things, also can be used to avoid having to understand things. I think in this case the labels are being used not to try understand but to avoid having to understand and that is precisely Dancer's point.

Right. Tell me again why you're not for open borders for Israel?

[Rue]

As for Scott he is a classic example of someone who projects. He starts off with the assumption he will see Mary in his coffee stain and that is what he sees.

This is precisely what fuels this line of caucasian anxiety arguements. Its simply people projecting what they want to see in situations. It is necessarily subjective not objective and therefore can not be rational or logical.

It is precisely because humans like to project and be subjective to simplify the world and make it less frightening that also breeds intolerance because the labels we use to try understand things, also can be used to avoid having to understand things. I think in this case the labels are being used not to try understand but to avoid having to understand and that is precisely Dancer's point.

Right. Tell me again why you're not for open borders for Israel?

Terrorism.

More to the point How is that relevant?

You see Scott that is precisely the point I was making. I would not explain the confict with Israelis and Palestinians as a race war precisely because that is what anti-semites love to do.

I would explain the conflict as a land rights conflict that arose not just because of religion but because of many political factors. The religious component of the conflict would be one of many components I would use to describe it. No I would not stop simply at Jews and Muslims hate each other because they are different religions or races. To me that is a misrepresentation of the conflict precisely because it only looks at one of its manifested symptoms.

If azything you just explained why I don't label things as racist or simply a clash of culture. I dig deeper.

Human behaviour is like layers of the onion. If you only peel the surface layers that is where your analysis will stop but it does not mean your analysis is complete let alone accurate.

I am arguing a basic analytical model of any social science. Since social sciences unlike the empirical sciences can not be tested under reconstructed tests to determine value, we have to taje even greater care not to jump to conclusions or assume our explanation for what we see is anything more then

an estimate. That is why I say with social or human behaviour, since we can't be empirical, we at least owe ourselves the academic obligation to look at as many layers of the issue as is possible.

So I am not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusions, simply saying for me they are incomplete unless I deep digger and satisfy myself intellectually I have exhausted any other explanations.

[M.Dancer]

Tell me Momo: do you think violence ever occurs because of race?

Yes.

Excellent. Then why are we arguing?

Perhaps because you think it always occurs because of race.

[ScottSA]

You see Scott that is precisely the point I was making. I would not explain the confict with Israelis and Palestinians as a race war precisely because that is what anti-semites love to do.

I would explain the conflict as a land rights conflict that arose not just because of religion but because of many political factors. The religious component of the conflict would be one of many components I would use to describe it. No I would not stop simply at Jews and Muslims hate each other because they are different religions or races. To me that is a misrepresentation of the conflict precisely because it only looks at one of its manifested symptoms.

If azything you just explained why I don't label things as racist or simply a clash of culture. I dig deeper.

Human behaviour is like layers of the onion. If you only peel the surface layers that is where your analysis will stop but it does not mean your analysis is complete let alone accurate.

I am arguing a basic analytical model of any social science. Since social sciences unlike the empirical sciences can not be tested under reconstructed tests to determine value, we have to taje even greater care not to jump to conclusions or assume our explanation for what we see is anything more then

an estimate. That is why I say with social or human behaviour, since we can't be empirical, we at least owe ourselves the academic obligation to look at as many layers of the issue as is possible.

So I am not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusions, simply saying for me they are incomplete unless I deep digger and satisfy myself intellectually I have exhausted any other explanations.

But Rue, I'm not trying to argue unicausality...that's either a strawman or a misunderstanding of my position. I'm certainly not so simplistic of thought that I would dump everything in the lap of race.

I am simply claiming that race is most certainly a factor, and often a determioning factor and focal point for violence, and Africa is a good example of that phenomenon, and as such it is an indication of possible future events in the west. Allow me to quote something I wrote on another thread:

We have, across the world, in both caucasian and non-caucasian populations, a significant number of "anti-caucasians." When examples of the fruition of that hatred were shown, both you and Momo scoffed at it, claiming it's something else entirely. You called it "projection," while Momo went further afield in claiming it has to do with wealth.

As for Momo's point; that Zimbabwe and SA are economic genocides, one could as easily make the same claim about the detention and dispossession of the Jews...indeed Hitler did...claiming that the Jews held the wealth of Germany hostage. And, like all Goebbelian half-truths, he was half-right...the Jews in Germany did hold a disproportionate amount of wealth.

But your point is even harder to defend. Like Germany in the early 20th century, there is in post-colonial African countries a widespread sentiment against Caucasians...something whipped up by African politicians to be sure...but there nonetheless. This sentiment is shared by many non-Caucasian populations across the globe, and indeed by a significant portion of the Caucasian population itself (I can almost guarantee, for example, that some lilly white neo-liberal will pop up here and justify murder and mayhem against himself by an appeal to alleged historic wrongs). With the advent of the one-world victim mentality that pervades the west and, as a correlary, the UN, anti-Caucasian sentiment is rampant.

Africa is a microcosm of the future in the west if floodgate immigration levels continue. Because of historical economic patterns, caucasians will hold the preponderance of economic power, but the day will come when they no longer form the majority of the population. What then, and why is it "projecting" to look at historical examples as a light shining into the future?

[steve789]

I wonder if it is at all possible to supoort Canadian Caucasian culture and not be branded a fearmonger or white supremacist.

Yes but you will still be branded as kook. As I keep trying to point out, Caucasian in it's original meaning doesnot mean white skin. Iranians are caucasians, Tamils are caucasians, Greeks are caucasians, the Ainu of Japan are caucasians.......

Hello, a slight correction, based upon facial features and skin tones Greeks are of Caucasian white European origins. This surprised even me when I visited the country for the first time last year. I had a job through a contractor based over there for a year and let me tell, you'll not find many Greeks who are not white European Caucasian. The few that exist are of foreign extraction. What surprised me most was the fact that Greek women are very fair skin toned, even the ones with dark hair and coloring. I ways thought them ME dark but this is not the case. During the winter when they are not working on a tan they get as pale as nothern Europeans. Guess that's their natural skin tone.

-----

links to YouTube videos deleted

Edited July 31, 2007 by Charles Anthony

[M.Dancer]

I wonder if it is at all possible to supoort Canadian Caucasian culture and not be branded a fearmonger or white supremacist.

Yes but you will still be branded as kook. As I keep trying to point out, Caucasian in it's original meaning doesnot mean white skin. Iranians are caucasians, Tamils are caucasians, Greeks are caucasians, the Ainu of Japan are caucasians.......

Hello, a slight correction, based upon facial features and skin tones Greeks..........

Try again, slowly.......complexion, skin tone, colour have nothing to do with what Caucasian means. I admit it is an obsolete term but it refers to someone who is Caucasoid, which refers to the shape and features of a skull and bones.

And all those links are unnecessary.

[steve789]

I wonder if it is at all possible to supoort Canadian Caucasian culture and not be branded a fearmonger or white supremacist.

Yes but you will still be branded as kook. As I keep trying to point out, Caucasian in it's original meaning doesnot mean white skin. Iranians are caucasians, Tamils are caucasians, Greeks are caucasians, the Ainu of Japan are caucasians.......

Hello, a slight correction, based upon facial features and skin tones Greeks..........

Try again, slowly.......complexion, skin tone, colour have nothing to do with what Caucasian means. I admit it is an obsolete term but it refers to someone who is Caucasoid, which refers to the shape and features of a skull and bones.

And all those links are unnecessary.

Read what I stated before: of EUROPEAN Caucasian white origins based upon among other things facial features. Yes I am aware that Caucasian is based upon facial bones and genetics but there is difference between Caucasian groups of people. Caucasoid do not all look the same. The links were for the pleasure of any man out there who enjoys watching beautiful women. Period.

Edited July 31, 2007 by steve789

[M.Dancer]

Read what I stated before: of EUROPEAN Caucasian WHITE origins based upon among other things facial features. Yes I am aware that Caucasian is based upon facial bones and genetics but there is difference between Caucasian groups of people like it or not, Caucasoid do not all look the same. The links were for the pleasure of any man out there who enjoys watching beautiful women. Period.

No, no you are not aware at all. First off, caucasoid has nothing to do with genetics. Ask a geneticist if you will. It is an obsolete term no longer used in science. Whether you choose to incude skin colour is your business, no one will stop you being wrong.

And yes, Greeks are caucasians, so are turks, Albanians, Iranians....etc etc.....

...And if I were you I wouldn't post so many useless links, unless you want to get a warning form the mod.

[steve789]

Read what I stated before: of EUROPEAN Caucasian WHITE origins based upon among other things facial features. Yes I am aware that Caucasian is based upon facial bones and genetics but there is difference between Caucasian groups of people like it or not, Caucasoid do not all look the same. The links were for the pleasure of any man out there who enjoys watching beautiful women. Period.

No, no you are not aware at all. First off, caucasoid has nothing to do with genetics. Ask a geneticist if you will. It is an obsolete term no longer used in science. Whether you choose to incude skin colour is your business, no one will stop you being wrong.

And yes, Greeks are caucasians, so are turks, Albanians, Iranians....etc etc.....

...And if I were you I wouldn't post so many useless links, unless you want to get a warning form the mod.

I do not believe I ever stated that Turks, Albanian, Iranians are not of Caucasian origins, now did I. Iranians though do not share a European genetic link that has shown Turks, Albanians, Greeks, Serbians, and other Balkans people from that region to share. That is taken from the research work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza-probably the world’s leading expert on studies of this sort.

"Discovery Channel :: News - Archaeology :: Mummy's Mom Was European"

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/03/16/m...=20070316084500

As it was stated before based upon genetic testing Caucasoids are not all the same.

Thanks for the warning and taken about the links.

Edited July 31, 2007 by steve789

[M.Dancer]

I do not believe I ever stated that Turks, Albanian, Iranians are not of Caucasian origins, now did I. Iranians though do not share a European genetic link that has shown Turks, Albanians, Greeks, Serbians, and other Balkans people from that region to share.

Keep trying.

Iranians speak Farsi which is an indo european language. We speak english which is also an indo european language. Iranians are caucasoid, and so are the Anglo Saxons.

The Iranian peoples (See [1] for local names) are a collection of ethnic groups defined by their usage of Iranian languages and their descent from ancient Iranian peoples.[2][3] The Iranian peoples live chiefly in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Caucasus and parts of the South Asia, though speakers of Iranian languages were once found throughout Eurasia, from the Balkans to western China.[4][5] As Iranian peoples are not confined to the borders of the current state of Iran, the term Iranic peoples is sometimes used to avoid confusion with the citizens of Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples

Iranians though do not share a European genetic link that has shown Turks, Albanians, Greeks, Serbians, and other Balkans people from that region to share. That is taken from the research work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza-probably the world’s leading expert on studies of this sort.

According to Cavalli-Sforza they do.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9...eneclusters.jpg

So closely related are the iranians to the Europeans that they can call the Danes cousins.

[kuzadd]

According to Cavalli-Sforza they do.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9...eneclusters.jpg

So closely related are the iranians to the Europeans that they can call the Danes cousins.

neat little chart! Interesting indeed.

but I must comment, you are a 'glutton for punishment'(no nastiness intended) to continue on in this thread.

People who believe in 'races' need to, for there own reasons.

There is no science, no fact behind it.

It is strictly for personal justification, thereby it is an irrational belief, and that is all there is too it.

I myself wasted my time long enough.

[jefferiah]

Iran is a variation of the word Aryan.

Whoever the actual Aryans were they were certainly present in Persia and they invaded India, as well. And they were quite racist in India, fancying themselves of a much higher caste then the native Dravidians or other tribes.

Whoever the actual Aryans were they probably were only distantly connected, as an Indo European people, to the Teutonic people Hitler romanticized.

In a more ancient and Biblical view of relation, Indo Europeans would be classified as Japhethites, sons of Noah's son Japheth.

Semites were sons of Noah's son Shem. Shemites. And so semitic people includes much more than Jewish people since there were generations and generations of Shemites before the birth of Jacob.

Edited July 31, 2007 by jefferiah

[Rue]

[

I get your other points Scott. I continue to listen.

Just a minor pt. of clarification as to a point you and Bonham responded to aboutt the Jews in Germany holding a disproportionate amount of wealth.

In regards to the perceived wealth of Jews in Germany, they in fact had been obliged for centuries to remain in urban ghettoes and could only pursue jobs Christians did not want to pursue. As a result many became peddlers or money-lenderers.

By 1914 they basically found a niche in the German economy working in areas no one wanted. There were an estimated 600,000 Jews in Germany prior to 1933, or .9% of its population. Many ended up in trade, banking, commerce, medicine, law. Of those 4 sectors they constituted 3% of its members and the stats show they did no worse or better then anyone else.

It is true 4,000 Jews owned 40% of Germany’s textile factories in 1930. They also owned 60% of wholesale and retail clothing stores, about 25% of all agricultural product wholesalers were Jewish. But don't confuse the fact they were concentrated in these sectors as being synonomous with great or disperportionate wealth. They were in fact intensified in minor economic secors that in the big picture were a very small percentage of the over-all gnp of the country. Their concentration in a few sectors still lends to the appearance of accumulation of financial wealth but that is a false assumption based on their high representation and is not based on economic fact.

By 1932 Jews owned 90% of Germany’s department stores but again in the over-all gnp, this was a very minor sector and hardly repersented many Jews, just certain families who would have been a minority of the Jewish community. In fact they ran less then 1% of German banks.

What also confuses things is that the estimated wealth stolen from German Jews could be somewhere in the 6 to 8 billion range that but that includes all the properties of these 600,000 Jews plus interest and probably includes wealth of Jews outside Germany too. It sounds like a lot but if you added up the wealth of all non Jewish Germans it might very well have been a thousand times larger.

In fact many Jews in Germany prior to Hitler were still poor, but the ones who did well and became Middle Class were heavily concentrated in areas Christians were not too interested in so they stuck out but they did not in fact control a disperportionate amount of wealth. They were too small a percentage of the population at .9% to be able to do that. Its because they owned many stores it lends to the appearance they had lots of wealth.

The perception of anti-semitism of Jews as rich and in control of wealth also comes not necessarily from German experience. Many Jews who did well were invisible, they had assimilated and did not consider themselves religious Jews so know one knew about their successes.

This concept comes from falsehoods promulgated since ancient times. Jews were always portraye as wealthy because they were money lenderers so many were seen as having money in their hands.

For someone who does not own land and must make a living loaning money or sharpening knives and show exchanging coins, it lends to the appearance of wealth if you are someone who did not need to have coins because you owned land and traded in barter. That is where the stereotype flows from.

[M.Dancer]

Iran is a variation of the word Aryan.

Whoever the actual Aryans were they were certainly present in Persia and they invaded India, as well. And they were quite racist in India, fancying themselves of a much higher caste then the native Dravidians or other tribes.

You might want to read the history of India before you continue along this line. The Aryan invasion hypothesis has been debunked for decades and only hangs on stubbornly on the fringes.......it has no currency what so ever in academia or anyone serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_mi...ey_Civilization

[Bonam]

Rue, thanks, that is all pretty much well known. More important than the actual distribution of wealth though is the perception of its distribution. One of Hitler's big points, whether numerically true or not, was that Jews had too much financial and political influence in Germany. And, again, whether such a claim is true or not, I would strongly argue that it is absolutely not a valid justification for discrimination, against Jews or against any other group.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Bonam

[steve789]

Again what you posted does not disprove what I stated before, even between Caucasoid people There Are Differences and for anyone to try and claim otherwise is blind to reality.

1) Iranian people were once found throughout Eurasia, the Balkans, Caucasus regions, ME, and the fact that Europeans settled in Iranian lands and intermarried with Iranians since ancient times, its a given there will be Iranic peoples who are closely related to Europeans.

2) "Genetic testing of Iranian peoples has revealed many common genes for most of the Iranian peoples, but with numerous exceptions and regional variations. Genetic studies conducted by Cavalli-Sforza have revealed that Iranians cluster closely with European groups and more distantly from Near Eastern groups. Preliminary genetic tests suggest common origins for most of the Iranian peoples. Basically, the findings of this study reveal many common genetic markers found among the Iranian peoples from the Tigris to the areas west of the Indus. This correlates with the Iranian languages spoken from the Caucasus to Kurdish areas in the Zagros region and eastwards to western Pakistan and Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan in Central Asia. The extensive gene flow is perhaps an indication of the spread of Iranian-speaking peoples, whose languages are now spoken mainly on the Iranian plateau and adjacent regions. These results relate the relationships of Iranian peoples with each other, while other comparative testing reveals some varied origins for Iranian peoples such as the Kurds, who show genetic ties to the Caucasus at considerably higher levels than any other Iranian peoples except the Ossetians, as well as links to Europe and Semitic populations that live in close proximity such as the Arab and Jews.[30][39][40][41]

Ultimately, genetic tests reveal that while the Iranian peoples show numerous common genetic markers overall, there are also indications of interaction with other groups, regional variations and cases of genetic drift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples#Genetics

This is what is stated.

Reserch on mtDNA, carried out in several Middle Eastern countries, proves a common origin of Iranian, Central Asian, and Anatolian populations, and reveals genetical links to other West Eurasian populations.[38] At the same time, influence from South Asia or Eastern Asia is either absent or negligible. A large-scale research by Cavalli-Sforza (as shown above) also reveals genetical similarities between all Eurasian speakers of Indo-European languages, including speakers of Iranian and Indo-Iranian languages; but this does not necessairily prove a common Indo-European origin for these populations and may be due to common Non-Indo-European ancestors (see Paleolithic Continuity Theory) who were later linguistically Indo-Europeanized (q.v.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples#Genetics

As for Iranians calling the Danes "cousins"...not very likely, unlesss we are talkinag about very distant cousins.

[ScottSA]

Again what you posted does not disprove what I stated before, even between Caucasoid people There Are Differences and for anyone to try and claim otherwise is blind to reality.

Steve, on behalf of this board, let me apologize for Morris, and for the entire lot of racial deniers (to borrow from Holocaust and now Global Warming terminology). Morris et.al. are at great pains to deny the fact that racial characteristics exist and are extant, while at the same time crying "racist" at caucasians for "oppressing" other races-who-are-not-races. It reaches comedic proportions at times, as when Momo cites the Iranians as "caucasians" when in fact the only reason they are seen as having any connection to caucasians is because the pre-persians subsumed the Hurrians and inherited the "non-genetic" traits of them. Anyway, it sounds like you have more knowledge of the subject than GoogleU momo, so bear with him...he means well even if he and his denialist colleagues are partial to praising the emperor's new clothes, loudly and invectively.

Carry on.

Edited July 31, 2007 by ScottSA

[ScottSA]

I get your other points Scott. I continue to listen.

Just a minor pt. of clarification as to a point you and Bonham responded to aboutt the Jews in Germany holding a disproportionate amount of wealth.

In regards to the perceived wealth of Jews in Germany, they in fact had been obliged for centuries to remain in urban ghettoes and could only pursue jobs Christians did not want to pursue. As a result many became peddlers or money-lenderers.

By 1914 they basically found a niche in the German economy working in areas no one wanted. There were an estimated 600,000 Jews in Germany prior to 1933, or .9% of its population. Many ended up in trade, banking, commerce, medicine, law. Of those 4 sectors they constituted 3% of its members and the stats show they did no worse or better then anyone else.

It is true 4,000 Jews owned 40% of Germany’s textile factories in 1930. They also owned 60% of wholesale and retail clothing stores, about 25% of all agricultural product wholesalers were Jewish. But don't confuse the fact they were concentrated in these sectors as being synonomous with great or disperportionate wealth. They were in fact intensified in minor economic secors that in the big picture were a very small percentage of the over-all gnp of the country. Their concentration in a few sectors still lends to the appearance of accumulation of financial wealth but that is a false assumption based on their high representation and is not based on economic fact.

By 1932 Jews owned 90% of Germany’s department stores but again in the over-all gnp, this was a very minor sector and hardly repersented many Jews, just certain families who would have been a minority of the Jewish community. In fact they ran less then 1% of German banks.

What also confuses things is that the estimated wealth stolen from German Jews could be somewhere in the 6 to 8 billion range that but that includes all the properties of these 600,000 Jews plus interest and probably includes wealth of Jews outside Germany too. It sounds like a lot but if you added up the wealth of all non Jewish Germans it might very well have been a thousand times larger.

In fact many Jews in Germany prior to Hitler were still poor, but the ones who did well and became Middle Class were heavily concentrated in areas Christians were not too interested in so they stuck out but they did not in fact control a disperportionate amount of wealth. They were too small a percentage of the population at .9% to be able to do that. Its because they owned many stores it lends to the appearance they had lots of wealth.

The perception of anti-semitism of Jews as rich and in control of wealth also comes not necessarily from German experience. Many Jews who did well were invisible, they had assimilated and did not consider themselves religious Jews so know one knew about their successes.

This concept comes from falsehoods promulgated since ancient times. Jews were always portraye as wealthy because they were money lenderers so many were seen as having money in their hands.

For someone who does not own land and must make a living loaning money or sharpening knives and show exchanging coins, it lends to the appearance of wealth if you are someone who did not need to have coins because you owned land and traded in barter. That is where the stereotype flows from.

Got no argument with you here at all, except for a small confusion over the meaning of "disproportionate." The segment of the population made up of Jews is not relevant to the proportion of wealth they held...Jews did in fact hold disproportionate wealth on a per capita basis. And in times of economic trouble, people look for someone to blame...which is precisely my concern about caucasians becoming a minority in the west. One can see it in Hitler's ascendency...which was by no means fore-ordained or inevitable. In fact, he hit his highest point prior to 1933 in 1923...a decade earlier than when he actually came to power, when German inflation skyrocketed for a few months. His 1923 temporary ascendency was no coincidence, and in fact paralleled the inflationary spike. After that he faded slowly away, and would have disappeared entirely had the Weimar not reached a state of paralysis and collapse.

But again, historically, Hitler did not come to power because of his anti-semitism. He came to power because a number of things converged...economics, anti-communism, anti-democratic sentiment, the collapse of government, and most of all his certain promise to do something. If he had only a platform of anti-semitism to run on, he would have been laughed out of history in 1922 and returned to some low level clarking.

Edited August 1, 2007 by ScottSA

[M.Dancer]

As for Iranians calling the Danes "cousins"...not very likely, unlesss we are talkinag about very distant cousins.

But closer than Lapps, Scandinavians and Tamils. This evidence together with the linguistic trail points to a common and relatively recent ancestry.

[M.Dancer]

Steve, on behalf of this board, let me apologize for Morris, and for the entire lot of racial deniers (to borrow from Holocaust and now Global Warming terminology). Morris et.al. are at great pains to deny the fact that racial characteristics exist and are extant,

How about the next time I need you to misrepresent me, I will whistle, 'kay?

Listen, don't blame me because you are to pathetically stupid to grasp a few simple facts.

1) The differences between the races are cosmetic.

2) Your fears of the differences borders on neurotic.

3) As far as apologizing on behalf of this board, suffice to say the vast majority on this board are bored by your xenophobic, anachronistic, archaic views.

4) Your definition of Caucasian arises from the American usage, which is part of the history of their racist past. It's only usage was to differentiate between Negroes and whites. The fact that you cling to this marginal definition in the face of its proper definitions, and in spite of its obsolete status just shows how out of touch you are with mainstream reality.

Carry on. I'm sure to the amusement of most here (Mikedavid, leafless excepted) you provide minutes of amusement.

[ScottSA]

Steve, on behalf of this board, let me apologize for Morris, and for the entire lot of racial deniers (to borrow from Holocaust and now Global Warming terminology). Morris et.al. are at great pains to deny the fact that racial characteristics exist and are extant,

How about the next time I need you to misrepresent me, I will whistle, 'kay?

Listen, don't blame me because you are to pathetically stupid to grasp a few simple facts.

1) The differences between the races are cosmetic.

2) Your fears of the differences borders on neurotic.

3) As far as apologizing on behalf of this board, suffice to say the vast majority on this board are bored by your xenophobic, anachronistic, archaic views.

4) Your definition of Caucasian arises from the American usage, which is part of the history of their racist past. It's only usage was to differentiate between Negroes and whites. The fact that you cling to this marginal definition in the face of its proper definitions, and in spite of its obsolete status just shows how out of touch you are with mainstream reality.

Carry on. I'm sure to the amusement of most here (Mikedavid, leafless excepted) you provide minutes of amusement.

Right Momo, and only "racists" can tell the difference between a Scotsman and a Zulu, right?

Need I add that your appeal to numbers is the last resort of a scoundrel, and something I would sooner expect from Robin the bumfighter than you. So sad, watching minds deteriorate...

[M.Dancer]

Right Momo, and only "racists" can tell the difference between a Scotsman and a Zulu, right?

No anyone with just eyes can see the differences.....hence the word cosmetic. But I doubt that a customer in Halifax could tell the difference from a prescription filled by a Zulu pharmacist over a Scots.

Need I add that your appeal to numbers is the last resort of a scoundrel, and something I would sooner expect from Robin the bumfighter than you. So sad, watching minds deteriorate...

Steve, on behalf of this board, let me apologize for Morris

You're funny when you are inadvertently ridiculous.

Edited August 1, 2007 by M.Dancer

[ScottSA]

Right Momo, and only "racists" can tell the difference between a Scotsman and a Zulu, right?

No anyone with just eyes can see the differences.....hence the word cosmetic. But I doubt that a customer in Halifax could tell the difference from a prescription filled by a Zulu pharmacist over a Scots.

Then why are you expending all this energy in a ridiculous quest over semantics? Beyond that, why are you shoving your head in a vat of concrete and refusing to look at historical examples? Don't like Zimbabwe? Don't like South Africa? What other examples would you like of racial minorities suffering under racial majorities? I can supply 100s, even 1000s. How many historical examples of racial harmony for any appreciable length of time can you supply? One? Two?

Yet you find it somehow sane to mock the possibility...and again I say possibility...that caucasians-by-whatever-name-you-want-to-call-them will suffer when they become minorities in the west. You mock the possibility even in view of the tangible seething hate against caucasians on this very thread. Who is the insane one here?

[M.Dancer]

Then why are you expending all this energy in a ridiculous quest over semantics?

You say Caucasian, you mean white western European. Why are you so afraid to say what you really mean?

Not withstanding, why should I be afraid of something that in all likelihood will not happen and if it did, not in my grandchildren's lifetime. Further, if it did happen, by then the cultural pressures from within would make the differences (other than cosmetic) trivial.

So anyway, I am even less afraid of this than I am of space aliens......but certainly more afraid of people who don't understand humanity......

How many historical examples of racial harmony for any appreciable length of time can you supply? One? Two?

The US for the last umpteen decades......Brazil, Cuba, UK, Canada, France......there, that's 6 without even breaking into a sweat. There have been more wars by white europeans against white Europeans in the last 200 years than.....how many times in the last 200 have there been between Indians and Chinese.....? once? Twice?

........If you had no false premises, where would you start from?