Aunt on Facebook

david starling said:

A LOT of countries are primarily of one ethnic group. The Americas in general, North, Central, and South, are fairly mixed as to race.

Waybread, you would know this--is Canada primarily of one racial type?
I know the Scandinavian countries are, also the Middle Eastern, most of the Asian, etc.

Click to expand...

David, this is imply incorrect. Probably a century ago you could claim this, but there has been extensive migration post World War II. Then there have been extensive border regions with mixed populations, or with populations that stayed put but belonged to different nations, depending upon the most recent military conquest or royal claim to a given territory. European boundaries bounced around considerably.

For example, my German great-grandfather was born a Danish subject, prior to the border with Denmark changing yet again.

The USSR had a program of sticking Russian nationals in its conquered territories, from Kazakhstan to the Baltic. Today a quarter of the residents of Estonia are members of this Russian influx.

For example, German-speaking populations were scattered throughout central and even eastern Europe (cf. the Volga Germans, or Germans from Russia.) After WW II many were repatriated back to Germany in a major yet (apparently in the US) under-reported refugee movement. After WW II, when there were not enough Germans to staff the country's growing industries, Germany introduced a "guest worker" program, whereby thousands of Turks were given work permits. Many never returned and the German government finally allowed their descendants to become legal citizens. Germany also took in something like a million refugees from the Near East in recent years.

Ditto with France, which admitted many immigrants from North Africa. Italy is another country that has admitted economic and political refugees from Africa and the Near East.

The principal cleavage in Canada isn't about skin color, but language. 21% of Canadians are French speakers, mostly but not exclusively in Quebec and New Brunswick. Some of these people are Métis. About 5% claim First Nations status. 18% of Canadians claim Asian ancestry, both East Asian and South Asian. Vancouver is rapidly becoming an Asian ancestry-dominated city, with only a little under half of the city's population claiming European ancestry. The African-Canadian population is primarily from the Caribbean, about about 3%. Some, however, trace their ancestry to the Underground Railroad.

Then if you want to get into genetic genealogy, you find that national boundaries are often poor predictors of some kind of blood quantum. You know about the "Black Irish"? What about the North of Scotland showing more "Viking genes" than Celtic ones?

This information is readily available on Wikipedia or sites on demographic data by nation.

Dirius said:

Nah, it is still a racist statement, very discriminatory.

My people consider themselves "criollos", and is how we call ourselves in popular slang. We diferentiate ourselves from europeans in such manner. It exalts both the mixture of our european and native heritage - and is part of our national identity. In fact it is a term now used among our youth to show acceptance and heal the divide between the rich south-eastern provinces, and the poor north-west of the country.

So far you've given yourself the right not only to deny the national identity of my country, by ignoring the ethnical factor, but also to discriminate based upon it.

And you also lecture me what my national identity truly is? How dare you?

And you say those statements aren't racist or discriminatory?

Click to expand...

My comments about your inadequate knowledge of US current events and racism was in no way racist.

Nice try to turn the tables, Dirius, but it is completely mistaken. Your attempt to put words in my mouth that I never said doesn't work.

I assume you are now clear on the difference between ethnicity and nationality as a legal relationship between you and the state to which you belong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality

Possibly you are using a secondary and older definition of "nationality" as meaning ethnicity. You know that I am not using that definition. There are stateless ethnic groups who use the term "nation" in that way. It does not apply to you, however. You belong to the nation of Argentina.

As I use the primary definition. Nationality is what country you belong to. It has nothing to do with skin color, ethnicity, or "race." (Except for a few countries that did and perhaps still do require this information on identity cards or citizenship papers.)

Thank you for sharing about your ethnic background. If you ever shared it previously in a thread in which I participated, it didn't register and I forgot it long ago.

Actually the fact of your Argentinian birth is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that a foreign national cannot be expected to be highly knowledgeable about the United States, unless s/he has made far more of a study of US history and current events than you have done. If you came from England or Denmark, obviously the same template would apply.

As an American-born citizen (and taxpayer) living in Canada I truly understand how living in a different country gives one a certain perspective on the United States that people wouldn't get who never lived overseas. But this perspective is partial and probably skewed if the foreign national has never made a serious effort to become knowledgeable about the US.

I mean, you're the guy who boasts of his disdain for MSM. From what sources, then, do you get your information about the US? Please list them.

You don't want an apology, Dirius. You merely want an extended argument.

david starling said:

A LOT of countries are primarily of one ethnic group. The Americas in general, North, Central, and South, are fairly mixed as to race.

Waybread, you would know this--is Canada primarily of one racial type?
I know the Scandinavian countries are, also the Middle Eastern, most of the Asian, etc.

Click to expand...

That is just not correct. Also, you say most countries and start throwing in groups of countries, which make a region up (like Scandinavia), and even entire continents, like "most of Asian" (Asia).

Do you know how many refugees live in a small country like Denmark?

Do you know how multi-cultural the UK is?

Do you know how multicultural, Singapore is? India has been for over a century - mostly due to Mughal invasions and then those by the Europeans? Just to mention two examples in "Asia"

Then, how about South Africa, and probably many more countries.

Did you consider that many countries have a LOT of old History, and actually so did America, until it was systematically squelched and thwarted?

Hence, keep that in mind too when you think of a "better place". Just a big GDP does not make a "better place" . Even China has it. As to democracy, most countries in Europe are socialist democracies, and some countries in Asia too are. And many others too.

Dirius said:

It is funny because the people who tend to discriminate the most, are usually the ones who feel they have to virtue signal, to cover-up their own discriminatory behaviour.

But perhaps it would be best if we focus on the facts of the discussion, rather than miss-perceptions of the ethnical and national heritage of other forum members yes?

Click to expand...

It's better to "virtue signal" than to "ignorance signal."

But do tell, Dirius: what are your thoughts about "identity politics"? Some folks would see making a big point about one's minority status in order to claim the moral high ground as "politically correct." Is this something you would condemn in African Americans working to create a fairer justice system?

aquarius7000 said:

That is just not correct. Also, you say most countries and start throwing in groups of countries, which make a region up (like Scandinavia), and even entire continents, like "most of Asian" (Asia).

Do you know how many refugees live in a small country like Denmark?

Do you know how multi-cultural the UK is?

Do you know how multicultural, Singapore is? India has been for over a century - mostly due to Mughal invasions and then those by the Europeans? Just to mention two examples in "Asia"

Then, how about South Africa, and probably many more countries.

Did you consider that many countries have a LOT of old History, and actually so did America, until it was systematically squelched and thwarted?

Hence, keep that in mind too when you think of a "better place". Just a big GDP does not make a "better place" . Even China has it. As to democracy, most countries in Europe are socialist democracies, and some countries in Asia too are. And many others too.

Click to expand...

I didn't say "most" countries. And, I said "primarily", rather than "entirely". I considered the Americas, North, Central and South to be mixed, with the possible exception of Canada. Opal, who actually lives there, says I should consider Canada primarily "mixed" as well.

waybread said:

My comments bla bla bla bla....

Click to expand...

Waybread there is no need to justify your statements. You are completely mistaken about how we, in other countries, relate race to nationality.

I understand you are trying to impose your first world view on race onto others, but this isn't how we view or discuss ethnicity and nationality in other countries.

Saying otherwise is extremely disrespectful. When I discuss race in regards to america, I do it from your own perspective (where race is defined by skin color - ethnical makeup, among other variables). Please have the decency to do the same, ok? The world doesn't revolve around your english wikipedia entries.

Yours was an attempt to shutdown conversation, by invoking someone's nationality or ethnicity as a way to demean someone's argument.

You know it, I know it, we all know. You've done this multiple times

It is what you do when you can't win an argument - you either report people or you attack personal details about them.

Your post history getting edited by mods for similar reasons shows this is true.

But don't be scared, you know I don't report posts. I frankly don't care about your prejudice. Its just how you are.

So can we get back to the political subject? - or do you have another excuse to avoid making an argument?

waybread said:

It's better to "virtue signal" than to "ignorance signal."

But do tell, Dirius: what are your thoughts about "identity politics"? Some folks would see making a big point about one's minority status in order to claim the moral high ground as "politically correct." Is this something you would condemn in African Americans working to create a fairer justice system?

Click to expand...

You mean like when you called my post "racist" (in the BLM thread) and then refused to explain why?

We all know that if you have considered my post racist, you would have reported that post - as you often do. But you didn't, and we know why

david starling said:

I didn't say "most" countries. And, I said "primarily", rather than "entirely". I considered the Americas, North, Central and South to be mixed, with the possible exception of Canada. Opal, who actually lives there, says I should consider Canada primarily "mixed" as well.

Click to expand...

So, in other words, you consider the Americas mixed and other countries - so basically the rest of the world = the entire geography on the other side of the Atlantic "primarily" not multi-cultural.

Interesting, though inaccurate, assumption

As regards Canada, my last trip there was around this time last summer. Alone Quebec, not to mention Toronto, which I know like the back of my hand by now, had people speaking in French, English, German, Punjabi in most shops and restaurants. You saw people walking about speaking even - Vietnamese/ Chinese (I cannot distinguish well between them unfortunately). And no, these people did not seem just tourist.

Here is a very informative link.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...st-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/

aquarius7000 said:

So, in other words, you consider the Americas mixed and other countries - so basically the rest of the world = the entire geography on the other side of the Atlantic "primarily" not multi-cultural.

Interesting, though inaccurate, assumption

Click to expand...

No, definitely not the rest of the world. You know more about than I do, because you've traveled so extensively. How many countries would you say are (primarily, not entirely), homogeneous?

Do you know that many black people are born in this country and have generations in this country? What makes you say that leaving this country and emigrating to another one is easier? Pray, tell.

Would you leave if you were born here, had your family here, your entire life here?

wan said:

I never said it was their fault. I was merely saying that it would be the easier thing to do. It's like I said, changing hundreds of millions of people is very hard.

Click to expand...

This thread has completely gone off-topic.

Osa will probably close it very soon.

Well, at least this thread has uncovered and divulged a lot of underlying some very gross sentiments some harbour towards their fellow beings. It has helped me personally understand even better why there is such a deep racism problem still very much present in society.

Yes, we have come a long way in 200 years in 2020, but when today somebody says they don't like a black person because they find them ugly (can't stop shaking my head still)- that also shows how far we still need to go in terms of achieving decency and respect for one another.

wan said:

I never said it was their fault. I was merely saying that it would be the easier thing to do. It's like I said, changing hundreds of millions of people is very hard.

Click to expand...

You don't realize how much they have changed. From Slavery to Jim Crow to the message everyone heard from MLK, on through the Civil Rights legislation, the hip hop culture so attractive to so many, and a mixed-race President.

Now, it's another push for equality that will be absorbed and assimilated, on the way to fulfilling MLK's vision. It hasn't been a smooth, easy, process. There were riots in the 60's, there were groups like Snick, Core, and the Black Panthers saying it's not enough yet. And, the Black Muslims saying that America owes land to the descendants of Slaves, and that they wanted it segregated from the majority culture.

The legacy of the Confederacy, which demanded the right to own Slaves, is being challenged like never before. That's something new, which is very upsetting to a lot of people.

Dirius, the problem of cultural "slippage" is probably more than either of us has come to terms with at present.

I used the primary English language definition of "nationality" and that is all that I meant. And you know this. This is an English-language forum.

The primary English definition means your relationship to the state, and normally citizenship. (Some exceptions to the latter.) According to the primary definition that I used, "nationality" is not co-equal with "ethnicity," let alone "race."

If this is a "first world view," it is one widely shared by on-line English language dictionaries.

It is entirely possible that the equivalent word for the English "nationality" would read differently in another language such as Spanish or in a country where English is not the predominant language. That's fine, and I am happy to acknowledge that this might be the case, but I am using the primary English-language definition.

As I explained previously, there are additional definitions of nationality, such as stateless groups that self-identify as nations. An example would be the Kurds. (Some of my background is Friesian: is that a nation, an ethnic group, or an historical artifact to you?)

In the US some Native Americans call their group a nation. Others use older Anglo terms like tribe or band.

So I don't claim to use the only definition of nationality, merely the primary one in the English language.

If I say your nation is Argentina, this means that you belong to the República Argentina in the sense of the republic, not to a particular ethnicity because your country has multiple ethnic groups. It's what you would write down on a form asking you to identify your country of citizenship.

If I say that you are a foreign national vis`a vis the United States, that simply means you are not a citizen of the United States. It's not pejorative. It's a simple statement of fact.

If the equivalent word in Argentina for the English word "nationality" is used differently than is the primary English-language definition, that's fine. As I said, there may be something changed or lost in translation.

This doesn't make me a racist. I am writing in English on an English-language forum.

As I previously mentioned "race" is a highly problematical term not favored by anthropologists today. "Race" is more of a cultural construct.

It is still on the US census forms, however. But the Census Bureau explains race as "social groups," not as genetic inheritance. People self-identify, so it doesn't go by blood quantum. The categories are:

White (includes Europe, Near East, North Africa)

Native Americans and Alaska Natives

Black or African American

Asian ("Far East," Southeast Asia, India)

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, &c)

People can also report a bi-racial identity (Cf. Tiger Woods.)

There is no Hispanic race category, because it is viewed more as a linguistic category rather than as a race. Spanish speakers might have roots in any of a large number of countries. They can report whichever race they wish. There is a separate category called Ethnicity" and here people can report "Hispanic or Latino" vs. "Not Hispanic or Latino."

https://www.census.gov/mso/www/training/pdf/race-ethnicity-onepager.pdf

Dirius said:

You mean like when you called my post "racist" (in the BLM thread) and then refused to explain why?

We all know that if you have considered my post racist, you would have reported that post - as you often do. But you didn't, and we know why

Click to expand...

Sorry, Dirius-- which post was that?

As I said, I gave up reporting rule-breakers to the moderators several years ago.

But "it is funny how" there are so many posts on this and the Black Lives Matter/Marxist thread that violate forum rules on civility.

I recently learned that in Denmark, although the majority ethnic group is called "Danish", it requires only one Danish-native parent for the child to listed as "Danish".

In the U.S., having only one black grandparent qualifies as being of the "Black" race, despite being of 3/4 "White" genetic heritage.

david starling said:

No, definitely not the rest of the world. You know more about than I do, because you've traveled so extensively. How many countries would you say are (primarily, not entirely), homogeneous?

Click to expand...

Very few, David. Probably Japan and Iceland come closest.

We might distinguish ethnic identities on the basis of language or just what people call themselves.

The countries of Europe may claim unified ethnic identities that are more for ideological than factual purposes. There's a lot more than blood quantum at work.

Just to give more examples, when one of my ancestors immigrated to the US from present-day Germany in the 19th century, there was no unified Germany as we see it on the map. On his immigration papers he listed his country of origin as Bavaria. His district would have spoken a form of German that would have been very different from the "low German" spoken by my other ancestors from the North Sea area.

There was a saying among Italian immigrants to the US that there was no sense of Italy as a nation until they immigrated to the US. In the old country they self-identified by regions (like Sicily, Abruzzo, Tuscany, &c.) They became lumped together as "Italians" as new immigrants.

Thanks waybread. What about the ethnicity known as "Arabs"?
Also, I was including Sweden, which seems quite homogeneous at first glance.

wan said:

OK, I am going to say something that is probably very unpopular, however I feel that it needs to be said: if black people are so un-happy about living in a white-dominated country like the US, why dont they simply move to another place? There are a lot of countries in Africa that are run by people who look like them. People who hopefully do not act like their (black Americans) lives dont matter. I mean, it's the easiest thing to do, isn't it? There are literally hundreds of millions of white people in the States, and it really would require a Herculean effort to change their racist attitudes towards black people.

If I were black and American, I would really start looking to emigrate.

Click to expand...

Why should they? The point isn't to cut and run. It is to improve the United States so that it lives up to its promise of "liberty and justice for all.".

Frankly many white people are unhappy about the United States. Should they go back where their ancestors came from? Can they stick a pin on a map and just go back there?

Re: areas where the US is dysfunctional, it's been compared to supposing that your mother is an alcoholic. You love her because she is your mother but you want her to stop drinking.