Will all people of the world mix creating one race in the future?

[Kardu]

Kardu, have you outlined exactly what you propose should be done to prevent interracial marriage? Suppose we're living in Kardutopia. What happens to people who attempt to marry into a different race? Does the government step in and block it, refusing to allow any marriage-type contracts? Does the government step back and allow some sort of "community justice" to be administered at the discretion of whatever their home communities are (and how far would that go)?

I am not a statist to call for a government action. That's more leftist thing to do.
What I say would work by the group awareness and it's been working for centuries actually.

 

[Fire Haired14]

It is way different. My opinion is based on gun and murder statistics, a science. Your opinion is based on assumptions and feelings.
I'm not sure why you can't see that, when I pointed it out countless of times.

I admitted I don't know very much about genetic engineering, so I do see it. This is not a die-hard thing for me, but you assumed it is. From what I know I don't think genetic engineering would work out. I made simple comments and you took them too seriously.

 

[Angela]

I am not a statist to call for a government action. That's more leftist thing to do.
What I say would work by the group awareness and it's been working for centuries actually.

I'm assuming you mean social peer pressure. Well, whatever is happening in other parts of the world, social pressure against inter-racial marriage is definitely lessening in the U.S., as statistics show, statistics which haven't been proven to be incorrect. As for inter-ethnic marriage, it's so common as to be unremarkable. I read a statistic just the other day that among Americans who claim some Italian descent, fewer than one in eight are of 100% Italian ancestry. These are facts whether anyone likes it or not.

I also don't think Americans would take kindly to foreigners trying to mount some sort of campaign telling them there's some sort of benefit in only marrying within their own race.

 

[LeBrok]

If I choose a bacon over cereal for my breakfast it's also a discrimination...

Of course it is a discrimination. You are acting with your taste and feelings against cereal and pro bacon. You can also do discrimination based on facts that bacon gives you more energy for work, therefore you will eat bacon today. If cereal had conscious and feelings, it would sue you for discrimination and demand damages. However this discrimination is not important, because it doesn't affect life of other humans, and that's what this issue is about.
Telling others what ethnicity or race to marry or not is discriminatory and racist. You can either take it and act upon it or live in denial.

Who does not support interracial marriage by that commits an act of discrimination, being 'evil nazi supremasist'... Brave new world it is...

Nobody says we are pro or against interracial marriages, we say leave the decision to people involved, and whatever they chose is fine with us. This is a basic human right, a basic freedom. We don't even force the issue regardless of consequences or our feelings, we point to the statistics and the trend that it is happening faster and faster and one mixed race will be a product of this human behavior.
You are the one who disregards all the data and science behind it, telling us that world will fallow your discriminatory emotions and your old world, which needs to be supported and saved by forcing others to fallow your vision.

 

[Vallicanus]

Of course it is a discrimination. You are acting with your taste and feelings against cereal and pro bacon. You can also do discrimination based on facts that bacon gives you more energy for work, therefore you will eat bacon today. If cereal had conscious and feelings, it would sue you for discrimination and demand damages. However this discrimination is not important, because it doesn't affect life of other humans, and that's what this issue is about.
Telling others what ethnicity or race to marry or not is discriminatory and racist. You can either take it and act upon it or live in denial.

Nobody says we are pro or against interracial marriages, we say leave the decision to people involved, and whatever they chose is fine with us. This is a basic human right, a basic freedom. We don't even force the issue regardless of consequences or our feelings, we point to the statistics and the trend that it is happening faster and faster and one mixed race will be a product of this human behavior.
You are the one who disregards all the data and science behind it, telling us that world will fallow your discriminatory emotions and your old world, which needs to be supported and saved by forcing others to fallow your vision.

This is all very noble but there is only going to be one mixed race in the West.

 

[Fire Haired14]

That said, I definitely don't mean to attack or insult you, at all, but it is difficult to see how you could reconcile a belief in the Bible with what you know to be true about the sciences, history, etc.

Knowledge of history gives a better perspective as to the circumstances the Bible's writers were in. We shouldn't expect Jews from the Bronze and Iron age to be 100% accurate about the origins of humanity, and even their own history. God didn't come down from heaven and hold their hand as they wrote, making sure every detail was historically accurate. The Bible isn't a history book.

It's about a people(The Jews) who were chosen by God to bring humans back to him. God had been almost completely forgotten. What those chosen people(Jews) wrote about history was up to their own chose. For example, the creation story and the story of Noah were believed by several differnt ethnic groups during the time the Jews wrote it down. For all we know they believed it when they were polytheistic, and replaced the old Gods with a single God.

The argument that anything supernatural is impossible because we haven't seen it or whatever is ridiculous in my opinion. Who are we to say we know everything about the world, or even have the ability the figure everything out?

 

[Maleth]

Knowledge of history gives a better perspective as to the circumstances the Bible's writers were in. We shouldn't expect Jews from the Bronze and Iron age to be 100% accurate about the origins of humanity, and even their own history. God didn't come down from heaven and hold their hand as they wrote, making sure every detail was historically accurate. The Bible isn't a history book.

It's about a people(The Jews) who were chosen by God to bring humans back to him. God had been almost completely forgotten. What those chosen people(Jews) wrote about history was up to their own chose. For example, the creation story and the story of Noah were believed by several differnt ethnic groups during the time the Jews wrote it down. For all we know they believed it when they were polytheistic, and replaced the old Gods with a single God.

I know what you mean. Here are some instructions how to keep a race pure and how a god can help you to be the victor over evils. To help, god kills the firstborn child of every Egyptian (Exodus 12:29-30) I guess this is what you mean by 100% accurate. Right? I will be bringing a few more examples so the infidels might start seeing the light of what is unquestionable.

Read also Leviticus 26:7-9 to see how god instructs genocide and how to exterminate Amalek and destroy all their possessions not to spare anyone killing off all men women infant and suckling ox and sheep and others[FONT=Georgia, Bitstream Charter, serif]. [/FONT]

 

[Kardu]

Of course it is a discrimination. You are acting with your taste and feelings against cereal and pro bacon. You can also do discrimination based on facts that bacon gives you more energy for work, therefore you will eat bacon today. If cereal had conscious and feelings, it would sue you for discrimination and demand damages. However this discrimination is not important, because it doesn't affect life of other humans, and that's what this issue is about.
Telling others what ethnicity or race to marry or not is discriminatory and racist. You can either take it and act upon it or live in denial.

Nobody says we are pro or against interracial marriages, we say leave the decision to people involved, and whatever they chose is fine with us. This is a basic human right, a basic freedom. We don't even force the issue regardless of consequences or our feelings, we point to the statistics and the trend that it is happening faster and faster and one mixed race will be a product of this human behavior.
You are the one who disregards all the data and science behind it, telling us that world will fallow your discriminatory emotions and your old world, which needs to be supported and saved by forcing others to fallow your vision.

Those so-called freedoms and rights are just social constructs, however 'noble', invented to achieve certain subjective political goals. Don't present them as if they were objective universal truths.

To state again, I am for diversity and multiculturalism, state of affairs where all ethnic or other groups have the opportunity to keep their identity and develop their culture and language.

You on the other hand under the guise of the free choice promote a melting pot, where everyone mixes in one rootless gray mass. And you need a big brother nanny state to enforce your ideas.

 

[Kardu]

I'm assuming you mean social peer pressure. Well, whatever is happening in other parts of the world, social pressure against inter-racial marriage is definitely lessening in the U.S., as statistics show, statistics which haven't been proven to be incorrect. As for inter-ethnic marriage, it's so common as to be unremarkable. I read a statistic just the other day that among Americans who claim some Italian descent, fewer than one in eight are of 100% Italian ancestry. These are facts whether anyone likes it or not.

I also don't think Americans would take kindly to foreigners trying to mount some sort of campaign telling them there's some sort of benefit in only marrying within their own race.

Would that happen without strong and directed pressure by the government? and zillion speciafically designed programs?

 

[Angela]

Would that happen without strong and directed pressure by the government? and zillion speciafically designed programs?

People are always influenced by their social group. Government is of course part of that as is the media. However, so is the indoctrination about such things by the, what did you call it...the ethnic group? Certain larger social groups, or even, in certain cases, religions, play their part.

So, what's the difference logically? There isn't any; you just like what one group is teaching, and dislike what is taught by the other. You want there to be only one source of indoctrination...yours.

As to the relative impact of such various types of "indoctrination", I think the strongest influence is always that of one's parents although of course that can be modified by other influences.

The real question is whether such things are innate. There may be some hard wired inclination to feel less threatened by similar features, but it is very weak from my experience. I don't know if you have children or have ever even lived in an area where people of various backgrounds live in social proximity to one another. I have. In playgrounds where children of various races come to play, some mere toddlers, they all interact with one another quite naturally if no one interferes. The distrust comes later. The same phenomenon is described with great poignancy by great American writers of the so called "southern school" like the Nobel prize winner William Faulkner or Robert Penn Warren and others. In many cases, the children of rich southerners were raised by African American women and played with African American children. The wrench as they grew older and were "socialized" to lessen those bonds was for many a painful one.

Also, I find promoting such attitudes rather disingenuous because it ignores actual human behavior and the lessons of history. Going by personal observation as well as those lessons of history, it seems to me that men of European descent have had very little difficulty mating with women of other "lesser" ancestry and muddying the racial, social and cultural identity of others. How else could the average African American be 20% European or many Latin Americans be about 50-70% European? One could interpret that to mean that their only goal is to prevent their women from engaging in some miscegenation of their own. Good luck with that.

 

[LeBrok]

Would that happen without strong and directed pressure by the government? and zillion speciafically designed programs?

Please, post one of the zillions programs specifically design into pressuring people into intermarriages.

Those so-called freedoms and rights are just social constructs, however 'noble', invented to achieve certain subjective political goals. Don't present them as if they were objective universal truths.

So is a marriage in general, a social construct. So is forcing people into marriages of their own race, a social racist construct.

Actually giving a freedom of a choice is rather a physical proposition than a social construct only. It is a physical ability of a physical body to follow a trajectory of a choice without a constraints of social systems.
Freedom of a choice comes from lack of social constructs, and not because of them.

invented to achieve certain subjective political goals.

Now that's a new construct. Goal is neither subjective nor objective. Your opinion and understanding is, and so called "your truth" is.

 

[Kardu]

Please, post one of the zillions programs specifically design into pressuring people into intermarriages.

So is a marriage in general, a social construct. So is forcing people into marriages of their own race, a social racist construct.

Actually giving a freedom of a choice is rather a physical proposition than a social construct only. It is a physical ability of a physical body to follow a trajectory of a choice without a constraints of social systems.
Freedom of a choice comes from lack of social constructs, and not because of them.

Now that's a new construct. Goal is neither subjective nor objective. Your opinion and understanding is, and so called "your truth" is.

As expected you picked out and focused on what was convenient for you do you have anything to say about this? : "To state again, I am for diversity and multiculturalism, state of affairs where all ethnic or other groups have the opportunity to keep their identity and develop their culture and language.

You on the other hand under the guise of the free choice promote a melting pot, where everyone mixes in one rootless gray mass. And you need a big brother nanny state to enforce your ideas."

 

[Kardu]

People are always influenced by their social group. Government is of course part of that as is the media. However, so is the indoctrination about such things by the, what did you call it...the ethnic group? Certain larger social groups, or even, in certain cases, religions, play their part.

So, what's the difference logically? There isn't any; you just like what one group is teaching, and dislike what is taught by the other. You want there to be only one source of indoctrination...yours.

As to the relative impact of such various types of "indoctrination", I think the strongest influence is always that of one's parents although of course that can be modified by other influences.

The real question is whether such things are innate. There may be some hard wired inclination to feel less threatened by similar features, but it is very weak from my experience. I don't know if you have children or have ever even lived in an area where people of various backgrounds live in social proximity to one another. I have. In playgrounds where children of various races come to play, some mere toddlers, they all interact with one another quite naturally if no one interferes. The distrust comes later. The same phenomenon is described with great poignancy by great American writers of the so called "southern school" like the Nobel prize winner William Faulkner or Robert Penn Warren and others. In many cases, the children of rich southerners were raised by African American women and played with African American children. The wrench as they grew older and were "socialized" to lessen those bonds was for many a painful one.

Also, I find promoting such attitudes rather disingenuous because it ignores actual human behavior and the lessons of history. Going by personal observation as well as those lessons of history, it seems to me that men of European descent have had very little difficulty mating with women of other "lesser" ancestry and muddying the racial, social and cultural identity of others. How else could the average African American be 20% European or many Latin Americans be about 50-70% European? One could interpret that to mean that their only goal is to prevent their women from engaging in some miscegenation of their own. Good luck with that.

Do you compare influence of any social group with the influence of a government (special programs, legislation, education) and mainstream media?!

What does toddlers' interaction on a playground has to do with what I say? Don't twist my words and ideas. You all the time allude to a "race war" kind of scenario. So for you if one keeps his identity he is automatically hostile to others and wants to dominate them? Very flawed and paranoid vision it is...

 

[Angela]

Do you compare influence of any social group with the influence of a government (special programs, legislation, education) and mainstream media?!

What does toddlers' interaction on a playground has to do with what I say? Don't twist my words and ideas. You all the time allude to a "race war" kind of scenario. So for you if one keeps his identity he is automatically hostile to others and wants to dominate them? Very flawed and paranoid vision it is...

What special programs, legislation, education can you point to that promote what used to be called miscengenation in the U.S., ie. that promote marrying someone not of your own race? I've lived here for decades and my children have gone through the school systems and I've never seen it. You really can't just make these broad claims without proof backing it up. There is indeed legislation prohibiting discrimination against people of minority genetics or culture. That isn't the same as having legislation and programs actively encouraging people to marry people of other races. You're talking apples and oranges. It isn't logical.

I'm not alluding to any type of race war. I'm afraid that's all in your imagination. You were talking about the fact that it's a good thing if some groups apply social pressure to their members not to marry people of other groups, but that if the government does that it's wrong, presumably because they have more resources. I told you that pressure is pressure, and while it may be true that the government would have more and stronger persuasive resources (see Nazi Germany where miscegenation resulted in death), the fact is that there is no institutional pressure in the U.S on anyone to marry someone of another race. Nor have I ever heard of people individually pressuring people to intermarry racially. On the contrary, any pressure that is still applied is from the minority who do not approve of it, usually on their children. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that your ethnic group or country does or at least should pressure people to marry within their own race. These are important distinctions. In your own region, I don't know whether you would support the government taking a hand and prohibiting such intermarriage.

I haven't stated an opinion as to what people should feel as to their own or their children's intermarriage with people of other groups. What I am trying to do is to present facts as to what is actually going on, and to point out the lack of logic and the hypocrisy in many of the arguments made with regard to this topic.

 

[sparkey]

I like that both opponents and advocates of interracial marriage here are in agreement that the government does not need to be involved in the question. I doubt that the trend of society as a whole to keep governments out of it will ever reverse, and I think that's a good thing.

I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the question of how things will progress naturally if governments are left out of the equation. There are just too many places, like rural China, where there are such large pools of unmixed people that we can't currently put any reasonable estimates on how long it would take them to mix. We'd need such an estimate to compare against a similar estimate of how often new races would pop up in order to answer the question that this thread is asking.

I will say that there are certainly particular locations in the West where mixed-race people will quickly become a majority, including my home state of California. There is little pressure to marry within one's own race here, and even less to marry within one's own ethnic group. In my family, the closest I've heard to anyone even mentioning any sort of opposition to marrying out of the group has come from my mother-in-law's side, who are recent immigrants from the Middle East. And even to them, white Americans are universally considered an acceptable group to marry into (they all like me very much!).

One interesting dynamic is that certain gender/race combinations are more likely to marry other gender/race combinations than others. I don't have a study handy, but I recall that Asian women are more likely than Asian men to marry non-Asians, and black men are more likely than black women to marry non-blacks.

 

[Kardu]

What special programs, legislation, education can you point to that promote what used to be called miscengenation in the U.S., ie. that promote marrying someone not of your own race? I've lived here for decades and my children have gone through the school systems and I've never seen it. You really can't just make these broad claims without proof backing it up. There is indeed legislation prohibiting discrimination against people of minority genetics or culture. That isn't the same as having legislation and programs actively encouraging people to marry people of other races. You're talking apples and oranges. It isn't logical.

I'm not alluding to any type of race war. I'm afraid that's all in your imagination. You were talking about the fact that it's a good thing if some groups apply social pressure to their members not to marry people of other groups, but that if the government does that it's wrong, presumably because they have more resources. I told you that pressure is pressure, and while it may be true that the government would have more and stronger persuasive resources (see Nazi Germany where miscegenation resulted in death), the fact is that there is no institutional pressure in the U.S on anyone to marry someone of another race. Nor have I ever heard of people individually pressuring people to intermarry racially. On the contrary, any pressure that is still applied is from the minority who do not approve of it, usually on their children. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that your ethnic group or country does or at least should pressure people to marry within their own race. These are important distinctions. In your own region, I don't know whether you would support the government taking a hand and prohibiting such intermarriage.

I haven't stated an opinion as to what people should feel as to their own or their children's intermarriage with people of other groups. What I am trying to do is to present facts as to what is actually going on, and to point out the lack of logic and the hypocrisy in many of the arguments made with regard to this topic.

I'd like to keep government as limited as possible, and I view all kinds state prohibitons or enforcements with skepticism. (to answer your question about intermarriage prohibition)

All right, can you explain me antisegregation legislation in this light, please?

And what I am trying to say, and somehow it keeps falling on deaf ears, is that I'd like to keep the world diverse! Is it that difficult to understand? Do you want Italian identity, language and culture to disappear?

 

[Kardu]

So I can not post any more?

 

[LeBrok]

As expected you picked out and focused on what was convenient for you do you have anything to say about this? : "To state again, I am for diversity and multiculturalism, state of affairs where all ethnic or other groups have the opportunity to keep their identity and develop their culture and language.

You on the other hand under the guise of the free choice promote a melting pot, where everyone mixes in one rootless gray mass. And you need a big brother nanny state to enforce your ideas."

Stand behind your claim, your word, your honor and address this:

Please, post one of the zillions programs specifically design into pressuring people into intermarriages.

 

[sparkey]

So I can not post any more?

Sorry, that was the automated moderation bot, I approved your posts.

 

[LeBrok]

I'd like to keep government as limited as possible, and I view all kinds state prohibitons or enforcements with skepticism. (to answer your question about intermarriage prohibition)

All right, can you explain me antisegregation legislation in this light, please?

And what I am trying to say, and somehow it keeps falling on deaf ears, is that I'd like to keep the world diverse! Is it that difficult to understand? Do you want Italian identity, language and culture to disappear?

From this post it, and few previous ones, it becomes obvious that you have difficulty recognizing and separating government programs, or restriction laws, which narrows choices of citizens, from government support and securing of freedoms for citizens, especially in Western World. There are things which government doesn't want to control, doesn't consider it vital to control, and grants freedoms of choice to citizens. This includes freedom of choice of ones spouse or a partner.

Again, to prove your point, please post one of the zillions of government programs designed to force citizens into intermarriages.