Why is it so important for a white country to stay white?

[z3n]

That's not even a majority.

It's actually the majority; there were 3 options "too many" (majority), "just about right" (minority) or "too few" (extreme minority). Those who answered too few were comprised of a bit less than 1 in 5.

This was in response to whether immigration should increase or not in Canada.

[Love Mountain]

It's actually the majority; there were 3 options "too many" (majority), "just about right" (minority) or "too few" (extreme minority). Those who answered too few were comprised of a bit less than 1 in 5.

This was in response to whether immigration should increase or not in Canada.

In both instances, it's less than half, no?

[Gaidin]

It does make you different whenever you like or not. Should it be the basis of disenfranchising the rights of that particular group? No i dont believe so, never did.

"All you need to make you different is cosmetic genetics. But..." But. But. But. Such a nice word isn't it? If not for that you wouldn't be able to segue into the idea of not disenfranchising rights, huh? Still different though? The person with different colored hair is different from you, amirite?

[Kritias]

The Persian Empire. The Roman Empire (plus Byzantines). The Ottoman Empire. The British Empire.

Some examples where multiculti imperial states survived from centuries to millennia. Social cohesion isn't a problem of multiculturalism but of rising and falling elites, as is happening right now.

Aside from that, the Left isn't about making white countries non-white; this whole discussion is very much influenced by the white replacement conspiracy theory.

What's worse, it reaffirms the myth that the crypto-racists among genuine conservatives who bought the foreign scare are more patriotic than the godless, globalist leftists. Thats how you end up having neonazis waving the national flag. And that's bull, plain and simple.

What the left stands for is simple: since immigrants are present in societies right now and there's no political will to actually stop messing around with foreign countries which is the number one reason for immigration, treating them with humanity while present in the corpus of our societies should be the goal of any progressive government.

The problem is that any action to allow basic human and civic rights to immigrants are somehow misconstrued as enabling the "barbarous" others to murder us all. What's worse, there's a constant attempt to enforce collective guilt on all immigrants regardless of origin or personal actions as evident by the multiple news pieces where the actions of one person is generalised as the potential actions of every immigrant.

So, no. No one wants to make white counties non-white. But at least making life better by recognizing the humanity of those worse off than all of us is, I think, the main goal of civilization itself.

Because if not uplifting the huddled masses upwards, what's the point in it?

[Love Mountain]

What is a crypto racist?

[Kritias]

What is a crypto racist?

Well, you know. A racist. Who keeps it under wraps. Not code generated. The types who don't say other nationalities are inferior. But will insinuate it. A. Lot.

[Love Mountain]

Ah I see, closet racists. Yeah, a lot of those out there. Maybe even on here.

[Kritias]

Ah I see, closet racists. Yeah, a lot of those out there. Maybe even on here.

Mr. Sukiyama, please! Such sick burns make me flutter.

Getting back on track here, does the OP care explain as to why is it considered that someone is even suggesting the turning of a white country into non-white? Or maybe the OP means exclusively white by that?

[Cope]

The Persian Empire. The Roman Empire (plus Byzantines). The Ottoman Empire. The British Empire.

Some examples where multiculti imperial states survived from centuries to millennia. Social cohesion isn't a problem of multiculturalism but of rising and falling elites, as is happening right now.

Aside from that, the Left isn't about making white countries non-white; this whole discussion is very much influenced by the white replacement conspiracy theory.

What's worse, it reaffirms the myth that the crypto-racists among genuine conservatives who bought the foreign scare are more patriotic than the godless, globalist leftists. Thats how you end up having neonazis waving the national flag. And that's bull, plain and simple.

What the left stands for is simple: since immigrants are present in societies right now and there's no political will to actually stop messing around with foreign countries which is the number one reason for immigration, treating them with humanity while present in the corpus of our societies should be the goal of any progressive government.

The problem is that any action to allow basic human and civic rights to immigrants are somehow misconstrued as enabling the "barbarous" others to murder us all. What's worse, there's a constant attempt to enforce collective guilt on all immigrants regardless of origin or personal actions as evident by the multiple news pieces where the actions of one person is generalised as the potential actions of every immigrant.

So, no. No one wants to make white counties non-white. But at least making life better by recognizing the humanity of those worse off than all of us is, I think, the main goal of civilization itself.

Because if not uplifting the huddled masses upwards, what's the point in it?

Ah yes, the Roman, Ottoman and British Empires - all great examples of liberal democratic "multiculti" societies which were very cohesive and totally didn't enslave and commit genocide against minority communities.

[Kritias]

Ah yes, the Roman, Ottoman and British Empires - all great examples of liberal democratic "multiculti" societies which were very cohesive and totally didn't enslave and commit genocide against minority communities.

Do you deny that these empires where a) multicultural, b) standing from centuries to millennia? If not, the social cohesion argument is bull. Also, I never claimed these empires are liberal, or democratic. Only multicultural, which is true.

Also, how these empires were run was indicative of the mores of the times when they existed. And I think we can have multiculti societies without brutal repression of minorities in 2019.

[Cope]

Do you deny that these empires where a) multicultural, b) standing from centuries to millennia? If not, the social cohesion argument is bull. Also, I never claimed these empires are liberal, or democratic. Only multicultural, which is true.

Also, how these empires were run was indicative of the mores of the times when they existed. And I think we can have multiculti societies without brutal repression of minorities in 2019.

You attempted to use the existence of these empires to provide a historical precedent for stable multicultural societies; what you conveniently failed to mention is the ruling elite of these societies were extreme bigots who committed gross offences against minority communities (including genocide) for "centuries" and maintained "social cohesion" with an iron first. Try again.

[Kritias]

You attempted to use the existence of these empires to provide a historical precedent for stable multicultural societies; what you conveniently failed to mention is the ruling elite of these societies were extreme bigots who committed gross offences against minority communities (including genocide) for "centuries" and maintained "social cohesion" with an iron first. Try again.

No. It has been said here that multiculturalism breaks down social cohesion which leads to all kinds of problems. I argued by saying the rise and fall of elites in states cause a break down in social cohesion.

In contrary to white supremacists who believe the existence of some golden era lost in the past, I do not believe such a past existed. In my previous post I said how these empires were run was indicative of the mores of the times they existed. So, what exactly is your point? Also, you can see that most of these brutal depressions happened during times when the elites where battling it out for supremacy. The infighting between the sultan and the neo Turks being a characteristic example.

Added to the above, keep in mind that up until roughly the last fifty years access to news, validation resources and basic education on what happened in the past was barred to the majority of the people. My point is simple: a) multiculturalism has never broken down social cohesion but warring factions within the ruling classes has, b) the fact something hasn't happened yet isn't to say it never will. Unless you believe this is the end of history, and all we'll ever amount to as a species.

We have a brain between our ears with virtually unlimited access to fill it with knowledge. Our ancestors had the same brain but no information lying around save for a shockingly few of them. We can learn, we can adapt, we can overcome their shortcomings.

Having said that you fail to notice the rest of my post. Why is that?

[Cope]

No. It has been said here that multiculturalism breaks down social cohesion which leads to all kinds of problems. I argued by saying the rise and fall of elites in states cause a break down in social cohesion.

In contrary to white supremacists who believe the existence of some golden era lost in the past, I do not believe such a past existed. In my previous post I said how these empires were run was indicative of the mores of the times they existed. So, what exactly is your point? Also, you can see that most of these brutal depressions happened during times when the elites where battling it out for supremacy.

Added to the above, keep in mind that up until roughly the last fifty years access to news, validation resources and basic education on what happened in the past was barred to the majority of the people. My point is simple: a) multiculturalism has never broken down social cohesion but warring factions within the ruling classes has, b) the fact something hasn't happened yet isn't to say it never will. Unless you believe this is the end of history, and all we'll ever amount to as a species.

We have a brain between our ears with virtually unlimited access to fill it with knowledge. Our ancestors had the same brain but no information lying around save for a shockingly few of them. We can learn, we can adapt, we can overcome their shortcomings.

Having said that you fail to notice the rest of my post. Why is that?

The social disunity which can be caused by competing cultures/races occupying (or attempting to occupy) the same space can itself be the cause of war between ruling elites. There are countless examples of this (particularly in post colonial history) ranging from Ireland to India. All political factions have a ruling contingent isn't proof that said contingent and its supporters either don't specifically exist to represent particular cultural interests or that they cannot be motivated to incite division or violence by sectarian intolerance.

[athanaric]

Well, skin color and race are two hilariously different concepts as it were. Race is a human social invention, and an African Country can literally become white without outside interference, though the odds of that are hideously long, depending on what we were to find the current pigmentation makeup to be.

Race is people saying we want you to be different because you look different. That is all it is. If this is a definition you take issue with I want you to picture disenfranchising the rights of someone for something as simple as their hair color. Are you saying a few fundamental genes that effect your skin color makes you different? Or would it be your ability or inability to adapt to a culture? Your ability or inability to do a job? Anything more fundamental to your character? Anything actually key to society?

That's not what he meant though, and you know it. The question to the OP is "do you have a problem with an African country becoming white [as in: the local native majority being eclipsed by ethnically native European people]?" And the OP still hasn't anwered the question. Does anyone else have a problem with an African or Asian country "becoming white" as detailed above? Or just any country having a majority of immigrants?

[Kritias]

The social disunity which can be caused by competing cultures/races occupying (or attempting to occupy) the same space can itself be the cause of war between ruling elites. There are countless examples of this (particularly in post colonial history) ranging from Ireland to India. All political factions have a ruling contingent isn't proof that said contingent and its supporters either don't specifically exist to represent particular cultural interests or that they cannot be motivated to incite division or violence by sectarian intolerance.

Ethic, cultural or religious minorities have rarely if ever caused social disunity. They have, however, been the target of competing native elites. Jewish history in Europe is evident enough that minorities don't cause civil strife, they are the casualties of it. The uncomfortable truth is that the established elites usually employ the rhetoric of social cohesion which ends up in the above mentioned casualties when challenged by the rising elites crying out for change.

[Cope]

Ethic, cultural or religious minorities have rarely if ever caused social disunity. They have, however, been the target of competing native elites. Jewish history in Europe is evident enough that minorities don't cause civil strife, they are the casualties of it. The uncomfortable truth is that the established elites usually employ the rhetoric of social cohesion which ends up in the above mentioned casualties when challenged by the rising elites crying out for change.

The idea that minority groups can't cause social disunity is simply wrong; there are countless examples of violent minority sects (particularly religious zealots) causing "civil strife" throughout history. What you seem to be doing is taking your narrow interpretation of the current situation in the western world and superimposing it onto the rest of history.

[Kritias]

The idea that minority groups can't cause social disunity is simply wrong; there are countless examples of violent minority sects (particularly religious zealots) causing "civil strife" throughout history. What you seem to be doing is taking your narrow interpretation of the current situation in the western world and superimposing it onto the rest of history.

On the contrary, the religious zealots you bring up as an argument to support your thesis existed and still do exist mainly in same religion countries, and supported by the native population. Example being Iran, Egypt in the sixties and others. We are debating white countries being progressively non white which a) no one is advocating for so it's a non sequitur to begin with, and b) we're discussing foreign minorities living in another country as a cause for social cohesion breakdown, not native political or religiopolitical minorities. So it seems you're the one narrowing and widening interpretations here, not me.

Also, you're not debating the point of my argument. Any reason for this?

[z3n]

In both instances, it's less than half, no?

I've been a wee bit busy lately, or I would have answered sooner. You're talking about white people & non white people being less than half?

Essentially what's going on in Canada (and the subtext behind this issue) is we have a current "stable" immigration rate of around 250k~ per year. The immigration minister however wants to raise that to over 300k, hence the options being "too few", "just about right" or "too many". Most people want immigration to stay at 250k~ per year or even less, rather than 300k+.

Specifically there was a plan talked about at one point to the finance minister of raising it to over 50% more at around 450k per year.

Just over two years ago, the federal government’s economic advisory council — a group of external experts advising Finance Minister Bill Morneau — unveiled a series of recommendations that presented possible solutions: one of which was to boost immigration levels by 50 per cent (from 300,000 to 450,000 people annually) over the following five years.

In fact, a clear majority 2/3 of Canadians think that immigrants aren't integrating properly at this point.

68 per cent of Canadians said minorities should work harder to “fit in” to Canadian culture

This same view was only shared by 57% of Muslim respondents, but even then it's a majority.

[Bob69Joe]

Considering what ratio an European ethnic population comprises places along other populations, it is worthy to revive the old ways, monarchy and nationalism, etcetera.

[Gaidin]

That's not what he meant though, and you know it. The question to the OP is "do you have a problem with an African country becoming white [as in: the local native majority being eclipsed by ethnically native European people]?" And the OP still hasn't anwered the question. Does anyone else have a problem with an African or Asian country "becoming white" as detailed above? Or just any country having a majority of immigrants?

Except any non-white country can become white through long odds and no overtaking of their culture. White is just a color. There are even many cultures with no associated skin color that racists like to think are white.