Question for fans of multiracialism

[ThatOwlWoman]

Gentrification isn't caused by developers, it's caused by people. People, often young and educated, who typically move into older and more run down urban areas and through their efforts improve the area over time. Yes, a developer can by a building in a run down area and fix it up but that doesn't cause gentrification. It takes much more than that.

Developers are people too, my friend. lol

You got my point though -- that it's generally ppl with money (usually white) who move into run-down (often non-white) areas and start rehabbing. StoneByStone's comment about black residents resenting gentrification sounded as though she was saying that it was racist on their part. I was pointing out that their concern with the practice is economic, not necessarily racist in nature.

 

[cawacko]

Developers are people too, my friend. lol

You got my point though -- that it's generally ppl with money (usually white) who move into run-down (often non-white) areas and start rehabbing. StoneByStone's comment about black residents resenting gentrification sounded as though she was saying that it was racist on their part. I was pointing out that their concern with the practice is economic, not necessarily racist in nature.

Good point about them being people. But depending on one’s perspective toward gentrification developers don’t deserve the real credit or blame for it.

I have definitely heard the argument made that (most) gentrification is racist. I don’t agree with that. To your point it’s an economic thing because technically anyone with money can be a gentrifier.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So how come poor Blacks and poor Mestizos don't live together? If it's just about money, why are they still self-segregated in cities like Chicago and New York?

Instead of just guessing and then using that guess as a basis for a theory, why don't you ask them??

 

[Micawber]

I've asked this question a few times during discussions on this board and I never got an answer. Now I'm curious to see if anyone can answer it, so here goes.

Why does racial integration only happen when it's forced on people? I think most people prefer living around and associating with people of their own race. And that's the reason the government needs to force integration through affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws. If I'm wrong, and people don't have racial preferences, then what is the reason that multiracialism never just happens on its own? Why does it only happen through government force?

Premise rejected. In fact I assert the opposite. How long was your beard when you woke p tis morning anyway? I think you've been deprived of travel and slept 30 years. Get out, go to a city. The government doesn't force people to fuck exclusively their own race anymore. This argument is as silly as pitting the adages opposites attract against birds of a feather. No depth.

 

[StoneByStone]

Premise rejected. In fact I assert the opposite. How long was your beard when you woke p tis morning anyway? I think you've been deprived of travel and slept 30 years. Get out, go to a city. The government doesn't force people to fuck exclusively their own race anymore. This argument is as silly as pitting the adages opposites attract against birds of a feather. No depth.

So why does the government need affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws?
I'll agree that there are exceptions, but most people self-segregate, including in big cities.

 

[StoneByStone]

Multiracialism is damn near everywhere. Unless you want to outright say the color of their skin bugs you then it's multiculturism that irks you. Unfortunately for people like you that has been the American standard ideal since near the beginning.

Actually, America was originally a white ethnostate. We had immigration policy that favored white immigration until as recently as 1965 in order to maintain a strong white majority.

Multiracialism isn't a few racial minorities, which I'll agree that every country has. Multiracialism is when so many racial minorities are being let in, that the society no longer has a recognizable racial character. In the fifties, America was about 90% white. That was not multiracialism. So no, multiracialism is not damn near everywhere, rather it's the opposite.

 

[StoneByStone]

Instead of just guessing and then using that guess as a basis for a theory, why don't you ask them??

They are welcome to reply here too.

 

[christiefan915]

So why does the government need affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws?
I'll agree that there are exceptions, but most people self-segregate, including in big cities.

I'd say because the majority, which is white, was only too happy to deny certain rights to people of other races and that goes against the foundations of the US.

Think of the DoI... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Or the Constitution... "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,..."

Rights, liberty and equality are guaranteed to all but not necessarily granted to all in reality.

 

[StoneByStone]

There are still plenty of white people who would refuse to serve/rent to/hire/sell to ppl of other races and/or religions if they could get away with it.

That just proves my point. Multiracialism is not natural, people don't want it, it only happens through force.

Most of us have managed to stifle that innate genetic trait and embrace a diverse world.

Sure, a diverse world is a great thing. However, most people don't want to live in a diverse country. And if you disagree, then we're back to why do we need these laws?

And telling the truth about this is bad because.... ? Gentrification IS a "white thing" because which racial group is most likely to have the means to rehab an old building and sell it as condos? Unfortunately as this happens taxes and real estate prices rise, and pressure is put on long-time residents to sell out. Sometimes a developer with enough pull can get an area blighted so that he can get rid of the homeowners and make a mint on the properties.

Gentrification is a class thing, not a racial thing. The same way white people complain about immigration from brown countries by talking about "illegal immigration," black and brown people complain about white people by talking about "gentrification." And in both cases, the real complaint bleeds over into the talking-point complaint.

How interesting that you are somehow made to feel guilty by outside forces. Why on Earth would you feel guilty because a particular racial group in the U.S. wasn't doing well? Why wouldn't you feel anger and sadness instead, and try to do something about it? Or is the guilt because you don't want to?

The media and academia tell white people that it's our fault that these other people aren't doing well. I'm sure you've heard of White Guilt. It's a propaganda tool.

 

[christiefan915]

Actually, America was originally a white ethnostate. We had immigration policy that favored white immigration until as recently as 1965 in order to maintain a strong white majority.

Multiracialism isn't a few racial minorities, which I'll agree that every country has. Multiracialism is when so many racial minorities are being let in, that the society no longer has a recognizable racial character. In the fifties, America was about 90% white. That was not multiracialism. So no, multiracialism is not damn near everywhere, rather it's the opposite.

It was only a white ethnostate because our ancestors stole it from the original brown-skinned inhabitants and imposed their government and value system on the country.

 

[StoneByStone]

I'd say because the majority, which is white, was only too happy to deny certain rights to people of other races and that goes against the foundations of the US.

Well I'm not talking about denying people basic human rights. I don't want to bring back slavery. I'm talking about people being able to associate with whoever they want.
If an apartment building owner wants to only rent to people of one race, that should be legal.

So why isn't it legal? My guess is that the majority of people rather self-segregate.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Actually, America was originally a white ethnostate. We had immigration policy that favored white immigration until as recently as 1965 in order to maintain a strong white majority.

No. Originally America was inhabited by non-white people with an amazing diversity of phenotypes, languages, religions, cultures, lifestyles, music and art. That was wiped away and supplanted by your cherished European all-white-all-the-time homogeneity. Ugh.

Multiracialism isn't a few racial minorities, which I'll agree that every country has. Multiracialism is when so many racial minorities are being let in, that the society no longer has a recognizable racial character. In the fifties, America was about 90% white. That was not multiracialism. So no, multiracialism is not damn near everywhere, rather it's the opposite.

Yes, it was quite boring in the old days when all we encountered was the same people, religion, language, food, music, etc. The best bet for ppl like you who abhor "otherness" is to make a lot of money and buy your way into a gated community where you don't have to see or hear non-white ppl anymore. You can send your servants to the stores so you won't have to sully yourself by being forced to associate with other Americans who aren't as light as you. Hopefully you can find some white servants.

 

[StoneByStone]

It was only a white ethnostate because our ancestors stole it from the original brown-skinned inhabitants and imposed their government and value system on the country.

When Europeans got here, there was no single Native American country. The Americas were full of different tribes constantly killing and stealing land from each other. Europeans just did what everyone else was doing in those days.

Anyway, regardless of how we got here, the point is that America was created as a white ethnostate, not as a multiracial "melting pot."

 

[StoneByStone]

No. Originally America was inhabited by non-white people with an amazing diversity of phenotypes, languages, religions, cultures, lifestyles, music and art. That was wiped away and supplanted by your cherished European all-white-all-the-time homogeneity. Ugh.

First of all, all of those different tribes were constantly trying to kill each other. It wasn't the happy peaceful multiculturalism that (((the media))) makes it out to be before those evil white people showed up.

Secondly, I'm talking about America as a country, not the continents known as the Americas. When America was established as a country, it had certain laws and policies to keep the population at least mostly white.

Yes, it was quite boring in the old days when all we encountered was the same people, religion, language, food, music, etc.

There is plenty of ethnic diversity within races. It's not like everyone in America was from one small neighborhood in England.

The best bet for ppl like you who abhor "otherness" is to make a lot of money and buy your way into a gated community where you don't have to see or hear non-white ppl anymore. You can send your servants to the stores so you won't have to sully yourself by being forced to associate with other Americans who aren't as light as you. Hopefully you can find some white servants.

But why does that have to be the only option? If multiracialism is so natural and so great, why do we need laws to enforce it?

 

[Gonzomin]

Mixing the races and colors is the way for peace. Separation results in inequality and strife. People are people. Skin pigmentation is not a way to judge people.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

First of all, all of those different tribes were constantly trying to kill each other. It wasn't the happy peaceful multiculturalism that (((the media))) makes it out to be before those evil white people showed up.

Let's see some sources for this specious claim, eh? The majority of indigenous ppl lived peacefully, particularly those who practiced agriculture.

Secondly, I'm talking about America as a country, not the continents known as the Americas. When America was established as a country, it had certain laws and policies to keep the population at least mostly white.

What a very odd belief. I suppose you can back this up with actual facts? Bringing over thousands upon thousands of African ppl, as well as thousands of Asians, hardly sounds like an effort to keep America white. What you really mean to say is that you believe the laws favored CITIZENSHIP for white immigrants only. Non-white ppl were more than welcomed as servants, slaves, laborers.

But why does that have to be the only option? If multiracialism is so natural and so great, why do we need laws to enforce it?

We don't. We have laws that forbid a small number of assholes from using their bigotry to discriminate against other American citizens. You might as well ask why do some towns have laws about picking up after your dog? Why do we have laws about not littering, polluting, running around outside naked, graffiti, etc.? Because no matter how well-behaved most of us are, there are always assholes. I'm more concerned about possibly living by assholes than I am a non-white family.

 

[christiefan915]

When Europeans got here, there was no single Native American country. The Americas were full of different tribes constantly killing and stealing land from each other. Europeans just did what everyone else was doing in those days.

Anyway, regardless of how we got here, the point is that America was created as a white ethnostate, not as a multiracial "melting pot."

I guess you're saying the end justifies the means? I don't see why creating a white ethnostate was a positive, especially when it was created to displace a Native American ethnostate.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

They are welcome to reply here too.

They don't seem to be posting here, so why don't you stop being obtuse and ask them; unless this is like your asinine unproven fallacy, regarding smaller magazines??

 

[StoneByStone]

They don't seem to be posting here, so why don't you stop being obtuse and ask them;

I've spoken with non-white people about this and most of them admit what we all already know. People prefer Nationalism. However, people on this board deny this, so I wanted to give them a chance to defend their position.

unless this is like your asinine unproven fallacy, regarding smaller magazines??

I'm honestly sorry that you're still so butthurt about that.

 

[StoneByStone]

I guess you're saying the end justifies the means? I don't see why creating a white ethnostate was a positive, especially when it was created to displace a Native American ethnostate.

But it wasn't an ethnostate. It was a large swath of land filled with different ethnicities all trying to kill each other. The Spanish and the English were just two more ethnicities fighting for land.