Race mixing

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson
You switched your use of 'force'.

If they allowed 1 person of a seperate ethnicity to immigrate it would 'force' race mixing in the context of the second quote. I can't see how this has any bearing on the discussion as the only way to not 'force' race mixing would be to deport everyone not of one chosen race.

Well, I guess youre right, so perhaps I should clarify. Its not the "forced" part of race mixing that I see as being so much of a problem, as the grand scale.

In the context of your first quote, no, the government is not forcing race mixing composition. The 1965 act decreased compositional standards on basis of race/ethnicity.

The result of which was far greater non-white immigration. Lets forget about the "forced" part because its not my principal concern.

To claim that by removing national origin barriers they are promoting certain races over others is equally absurd.

Did non-white immigration increase significantly after 1965? Yes.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson


From your link. Seems much more fair to me.

Fair for the immigrants, but not so fair for the citizens of the US.

[Aeson]

I'm a citizen of the US. I can't see how it's unfair to me if all nationalities are given equal opportunity at immigration.

A person would have to be racist to advocate immigration quotas favoring one race over another.

[Aeson]

This Immigration Act of 1965 was framed as an amendment to the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, under which the total quota for Asia had stood at 2,990, compared with 149,667 for Europe and 1,400 for Africa.

Taken from http://www.itp.berkeley.edu/~asam121/web2.html

Of course when they removed these quotas the ratios of Europeans would fall in relation to Asians. Do you support the quotas? If not, what exactly is your problem with this act?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ethelred

Which isn't what you claim it was. Prior to that the immigration laws were VERY discriminatory. Removing that discrimination is not forced racial mixing. Heck even if it was for the purpose that you made up it wouldn't be forced racial mixing.

What is discrimination? Its choice. Why shouldnt a country have the right to discriminate (choose) between potential immigrants?

It is forced racial mixing, but thats not really what I want to talk about. Ifyou read my first post you will see that its not the biological aspect of race mixing that concerns me, but the social impact.

Calling anti-discrimation laws forced mixing of races does not speak well of your tolerance for other races.

I tolerate other races just fine thanks, but unfortunately many people dont. Thats why I see race mixing on a large scale as a bad thing.

I recognize it. You fixate on it. That smacks of bigotry. You are thinking in racial terms not merely recognizing the humans have local variations in some genes to adapt to local conditions.

Its a topic I feel deserves attention. This is not bigotry, just a subject I have an interest in.

Mixing the races will change it and humans are not merely the products of genetics. We can learn. Well most of us can learn. You are having a very hard time with this.

No, Im not. That is my whole point. Its not that I personally have a problem with people of other races, its that many others do. Yes we can learn, but to a certain extent racial predjudice is ingrained.

Still distorting I see. I was only talking about the racial situation. They don't have one. We can do the same and there is no reason to think we must have their incomptent government to do so.

Is Brazil really composed of one race? That seems unlikely to me, but I suppose I'll take your word for it for now. In any case, it seems like we both agree that the best way to achieve racial harmony is by creating a situation in which there is one race. We just dont agree on the best way of doing this. Cant we discuss this without accusations of racism and bigotry?

I can use other terms if you find that offensive. Racist applies quite well to people that think in racial terms in their interactions with others. Bigot is nicer though. Doesn't have the implied violence that racist does even if the other term is actually more accurate. You sound a touch racist even if you don't hate.

These days the word "racism" is never used in a consistent manner. Most of the time it is applied whenever the user feels necessary instead of restricting it to a strict definition. Usually when someone is accused of being "racist" its just an exercise in name-calling. Im sure you can rise above that if you try.

How about we invent a word. Racialist: one who can't stop thinking of people in terms of their race instead of treating them as people.

Instead of inventing words and questioning intentions, how about we just calmly discuss the issue.

I try to be friendly to everyone I meet regardless of race. I see poeple as individuals first and foremost.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson
I'm a citizen of the US. I can't see how it's unfair to me if all nationalities are given equal opportunity at immigration.

Its unfair to you because as a US citizen you must suffer the social consequences.

A person would have to be racist to advocate immigration quotas favoring one race over another.

The words "racist" and "racism" are essentially meaningless to me because they are used with such broad definitions. Cant we discuss this without using these words?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson
Of course when they removed these quotas the ratios of Europeans would fall in relation to Asians. Do you support the quotas? If not, what exactly is your problem with this act?

I would support immigration quotas based on race.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Welcome to the Apolyton Zoo.

We have only two rules, here:

1. Keep off the grass.
2. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

I know I have trolled in the past, but I am trying to have an intelligent discussion this time. Care to join in?

[Aeson]

The words "racist" and "racism" are essentially meaningless to me because they are used with such broad definitions. Cant we discuss this without using these words?

I think the term applies to this discussion. The way I used it just means anyone who would discriminate against a person based on their racial/ethnic background. That would include quotas based on race/ethnicity. I would be willing to use another word to encompass that meaning, but I'm not familiar with any other terms that fit it.

Its unfair to you because as a US citizen you must suffer the social consequences.

The social consequences of eliminating race based quotas would not cause me to suffer. I support the elimination of existing forms of racial discrimination, and don't feel it is a right of anyone to demand any form of racial discrimination be instituted in our society.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Caligastia


I know I have trolled in the past, but I am trying to have an intelligent discussion this time. Care to join in?

Frankly, no. Your statement of not trolling here is bull****. You're just getting your race jollies, as usual, and I'm sick of playing along.

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Frankly, no. Your statement of not trolling here is bull****. You're just getting your race jollies, as usual, and I'm sick of playing along.

Seconded. Any time I see a thread with the word 'race' in the title, Cali isn't far away, trying to pretend that he doesn't discriminate on grounds of race and then blatantly doing so.

[Aeson]

I tolerate other races just fine thanks, but unfortunately many people dont. Thats why I see race mixing on a large scale as a bad thing.

People are more likely to fear/hate those things they are not familiar with. The more diverse our population, the more likely people will let go of their racial ideas and see each other as human.

This not only entails allowing equal opportunity for immigration, but also the integration inside our country. Most of the racial/ethnic tension is in areas where there is one predominant group, or highly segregated groups. Apartheid is not the solution, more integration and better understanding of each other is.

[Ethelred]

Its a topic I feel deserves attention. This is not bigotry, just a subject I have an interest in.

That might be true but you clearly are supporting discrimination which IS bigotry and nothing but. I think you are confused on this issue at best.

Some people think I have something against Mexicans because I have something against excessive imigration but I don't care what country the people come from. I just want a lower total. You seem to care about the race. Thats discrimination.

No, Im not. That is my whole point. Its not that I personally have a problem with people of other races, its that many others do. Yes we can learn, but to a certain extent racial predjudice is ingrained.

You are having a problem. You are advocating racialy based solutions to domestic unrest. That is the wrong answer since it magnifies the problem instead of decreasing it.

Is Brazil really composed of one race? That seems unlikely to me, but I suppose I'll take your word for it for now.

Its has no raciation. The people of Brasil run the full gamut from nearly pure European to nearly full African or even Indian. There is no way to say what race a person is since nearly all are a mix.

Cant we discuss this without accusations of racism and bigotry?

You keep advocating race based thinking at best. Much of it is indistinguishible from racist solutions. I am not trying to call you names. I trying to get through to you just what you are saying means. If you talk like a bigot you look like one.

Im sure you can rise above that if you try.

I am sure you can rise above the race based thinking you are using if you try.

Sometimes its necessary to shock someone into thinking more about what they are saying. You seem to need the shock.

Instead of inventing words and questioning intentions, how about we just calmly discuss the issue.

I try to be friendly to everyone I meet regardless of race. I see poeple as individuals first and foremost.

You sure don't sound like it here.

I am discussing this calmly. I think the shock therapy might be getting through to you.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SKILORD
Rascism.

it stems, at least in part from evolution, or at least many supporting arguments can be found in that theory.

Oh? What, pray tell, in evolutionary theory supports racism?

Much of the Bible supports racism, and it was used as a justification by the South for Black slavery. So guess we should do away with the Bible, eh?

[Tingkai]

You can always count on Cali to prove the stupidity of racists.

Cali is against AA because he says race becomes part of the decision-making process.

Cali is against the 1965 immigration act because it removed race from the decision-making process.