Thread: Were Blacks better off under segregation?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

..my ancestors..

..might have originated from one african female..

Originally Posted by Oneiro

..might have originated from one african female..

yeah yeah yeah, who originated form a single celled organism millions of years ago, therefore we are single celled organisms. See the logic fail? What is it with people who seem to deny that whites even exist.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

yeah yeah yeah, who originated form a single celled organism millions of years ago, therefore we are single celled organisms. See the logic fail?

What.. yours? Or the Geneticists who theorise that it may be true about that one african female?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

What is it with people who seem to deny that whites even exist.

Blimey.. we've got an intellectual giant here..

My point was that I accept that Modern Europeans probably have ancestors in africa from 60,000 years ago or so. It's just when people bring up about how whites have ancestors from africa they usually are trying to make the point that 'we are all the same' or that 'whites are black because of ancestors originating in africa'

Listen.. if you want segregation, I'm sure most people would be happy to see you + chums living in a separate community. I know that, because I've spoken to two of my neighbours.. and they virtually all agree with me to some extent.

cool post bro

Originally Posted by Thatperson

It's just when people bring up about how whites have ancestors from africa they usually are trying to make the point that 'we are all the same' or that 'whites are black because of ancestors originating in africa'

Along with that, they are probably trying to make the point that the same logic you are using to say that "whites should stick together and preserve the 'purity of their race'" is both flawed and hypocritical - which...well....it is.

Whites didn't come out of thin air, so of course all our ancestors (from really reall far back) were not white, doesn't mean we don't exist as a race though,

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Whites didn't come out of thin air, so of course all our ancestors (from really reall far back) were not white, doesn't mean we don't exist as a race though,

That's not the point. The point is that the fundamental argument that you're using "preserving a sanctity of race" (generally speaking) is weak. Humans didn't come out of thin air. So the fact that you decide to choose sides now that the human race is split up into subsections doesn't garner much sympathy, because its basis is completely arbitrary, and not based on strong logic.

what is arbitrary and not based on logic? I think i've lost you at some point.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

what is arbitrary and not based on logic? I think i've lost you at some point.

"Race" is an arbitrary illusion, that's the point.

What do you think race is then, because you must have a definition to consider it an arbitrary illusion.

I think the main point isn't so much that race is an illusion rather than it is that negligible physical differences have virtually nothing to do with how a person turns out than does the environment and culture they find themselves in and that segregation actually fosters differences and seperateness. Let's not forget it wasn't that long ago that segregation existed. Culture doesn't change that quickly and as a result much of our society is still focused on or based around ideas of "whiteness" and "blackness" but the point is that these associations we have are only a cultural perspective and not something inherent to our colour. Despite that you'd have to be blind to not see how far we've come. It's a much different world than it was in 1950. People are no less black and white then they were back then but our culture has evolved. It amazes me that people in this day still can't seem to realize that.

Well I'd disagree about how negligable the differences are, but It's late in the day so I'll save that for another day. Oh i'm not blind and I'm definatly aware of how perceptions have changed since 1960ish. However, i'm not sure if you've also seen that since about 2009, things have been retreating and we seem to be going the other way once again, slowly, but surely.

Also, you say you are amazed people in this day still have the viewpoint similar to mine. Well I'd ask you to think about why I am the way I am, I used to have your viewpoint on these issues, and my parents still do have the same viewpoint as you, so you can't say it's because of my upbringing, also I've been brought up in what possibly is the most liberal society in human history, so its not because i was brought up in a conservative area. It's quite possible your view might change towards mine oneday, and from personal experience I know how unlikely that will sound, but I think people for the large part will revert to the traditional view on race over the coming decades.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

what is arbitrary and not based on logic? I think i've lost you at some point.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

that you decide to choose sides now that the human race is split up into subsections doesn't garner much sympathy, because its basis is completely arbitrary, and not based on strong logic.

Your apparent assumptions that blacks were better off under segregation; that [insert race here] nationalism is the 'good side'; and that a philosophy of divisiveness is better than the alternative....take your pick. You attempted to present the 'blacks were better off under segregation' argument as something that was practically obvious. Yet all the reasons you've put forth have been arguable, at best (or, at the very least, flacid in the face of other points as to why they may not be true). So, the double standard (as was pointed out before) that you're basing your argument on (that it's important to preserve the white race, even though you think the 'we all come from the same place' sentiment - as it applies to the human race in general - is not) is just that...a double standard...and it's not really based on strong logic.

( also notice that I said it wasnt based on strong logic not "just logic". There's a very important difference.)

Good Heavens!

You would have thought a site like this wouldn't have an argument as childish and offensive as this. Do bigots stop here often?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

It's quite possible your view might change towards mine oneday, and from personal experience I know how unlikely that will sound, but I think people for the large part will revert to the traditional view on race over the coming decades.

Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by ThePieMan

Please elaborate.

I think people will start to change their viewpoint, firstly because it's already been slowly happening since around 2009 (Just look at the rise of the BNP/EDL in UK alone) For those of you know don't know, the EDL (English Defence League) is a protest group that is against sharia law, islamism and islamic immigration, it was only founded in 2009 and already had over 100,000 likes on the old facebook page, and over 40 demostration in about 30 towns of between 500-6,000 people.

The second reason I belive that peoples view will change is because more people will be exposed to multiculturalism. The towns that are more multiracial often have higher than average votes for 'far right' parties. Bradford, Burnley, East London and Dewsbury just to name a few. Redditch also elected a BNP councillor, despite its low immigratn population although this could be put down to having population overspilt from Birmingham. Rural areas are often uncontested to due low levels of support and when they are the vote is megre.

BornSleepy: I don't think i'm the only 'bigot' here but i've seen very few. I do stop here resonably often, because its one of the best place for discussion, as there are so many non-bigots here.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

3) Do you know what you would get, if things went back to segregation? You would get an exacerbation of the "us" vs" them" dichotomy. You would get a closing off of communities. You would get increased hateful and divisive rhetoric. You would promote the "poor black scum" vs the "rich white oppressor" ideologies. You would fuel the animosity on both sides of a racial divide - that are each working to make themselves stronger and more prosperous, in the face of an opposing neighboring culture. And then, you would get war.

Sounds like a great plan, chief.

Not to mention Auron's gotta taste the rainbow if you know what I mean.

Ah! A fan of Skittles!!

Originally Posted by Auron

Not to mention Auron's gotta taste the rainbow if you know what I mean.

Gahdamn Right!

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I belive that peoples view will change is because more people will be exposed to multiculturalism. The towns that are more multiracial often have higher than average votes for 'far right' parties. Bradford, Burnley, East London and Dewsbury just to name a few. Redditch also elected a BNP councillor, despite its low immigratn population although this could be put down to having population overspilt from Birmingham. Rural areas are often uncontested to due low levels of support and when they are the vote is megre.

False.
There is no significant correlation between the diversity of a society and its social cohesion.
More diversity does not lead to etnocentrism.
More diversity does not lead to a higher score of extreme right.

ok, you all get your way, I'll never return to dreamviews again.

People can state their opinion, that doesn't mean other people have to tolerate these opinions.