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

[LeBrok]

The mocking isn't evenly distributed. There shouldn't be any mocking in the first place. I don't mean to be offensive, but you're lying to yourself if you think we life in a balanced society.

I didn't say balanced. Though surly you have two strong elements, conservatives and liberals pulling their ways, and most of the people in between.

America didn't pop out of no where, it has roots. America in many ways comes from Europe(British colony, there's no debating this) which was pretty much uniformly Christian for a 1,000 years before America was founded. When America was founded it existed in a very Christian society, and the only diversity of religion were differnt Christian sects and other very unpopular newly formed religions. If Poles founded a country like America in the 1700s somewhere far away would you surprised to find leaks of Catholicism in its traditional way of doing government?

Poland is more conservative than America with catholic church having a strong influence on politics and society in general. America in 1700 hundreds was a different animal, so to speak, than it is right now. It consists of inter racial and ethnic, inter religious, and also atheistic community and should give up the useless relics of the past. Should be more tolerant and inclusive.
What value is for Atheist or Hindu to swear on a bible?
Saying "God bless America" will not force god to bless it, will it? If anything it should be a request "May God bless America".
Which god should bless it if future president is Hindu or Native Indian? Using religious symbols in addressing vast ethnic community and by any head of state is a bad taste, if not simply wrong.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Lebrok, I agree that if America was founded today it shouldn't favor one religion over another in government phrases, etc. Although I don't think it's necessary to replace all of the traditions in government laid down in the past. Maybe some stuff can be changed.

 

[Maleth]

Not all conservatives are cultic-nut cases. Besides what people say in churches and private life is differnt than what they say in the media, it has much less influence.

maybe today yes and only in a part of the world as a big chunk of the world population is still highly influenced by their religions leaders and in return the media bellows their sentiments. The world is not only made up of the USA. And do not underestimate the influence these so religious leaders have on a huge segment of the population (even in the USA and Europe}. If you want to discuss religion get familiar with their scriptures without any cherry picking, to which we have been so accustomed to and let me know if its not an institutionalized mocking exercise to people who do not agree with the ideologies. Of course there are good sides to the story, but the horrendous sides should not be swept under the carpet as its all part and parcel of ideologies. No one in a free world should pretend or expect not to be challenged

 

[Maleth]

You're right, Fire-Haired. There's too much generalization on all sides and there are nut jobs on all sides. There are Christians and there are Christians, and the surest way to get mocked in the media is to have anything good to say about established religions.

Are you familiar with scriptures as a whole Angela? I mean without the cherry picking exercises we are so accustomed too?

 

[Aberdeen]

So, you're assuming rich people are conservative?

Most wealthy Americans seem to be very conservative in the economic sense of wanting their corporations to be free from taxation and have fairly unfettered freedom of action. They tend to provide funds to support social conservatives, apparently on the assumption that social conservatives will support the idea of more power for corporations, etc., which generally seems to be the case. One example of rich people using social conservatives to promote a corporate agenda is your so-called Tea Party, which was initially created by professional organizers who were largely funded by the notorious Koch brothers.

 

[Aberdeen]

It's the idea not word that matters. I don't care how the dictionary defines tolerant. I care about my values, and you can call it whatever you want. Besides that definition doesn't suggest you there are no boundaries.

So, you don't want to see yourself as intolerant, you just want to not tolerate those who you disagree with? Have I understood you correctly? Words do have meaning, and anyone who doesn't tolerate ideas and actions they disagree with is, by definition, intolerant. Of course, there are many things that most of us are intolerant of, but the kind of things that are not tolerated in secular democracies are those things that interfere with the rights of others. Some people may personally believe that certain types of behaviour are, in their personal view, wrong because an invisible, magic person in the sky forbids such behaviour but they nevertheless tolerate such behaviour in others because they accept that not everyone shares their beliefs. That's one of the founding principles of secular democracy and it was embraced by the founding fathers of your country, who were mostly free thinkers and freemasons who believed in democracy and humanistic values.

 

[Aberdeen]

You're right, Fire-Haired. There's too much generalization on all sides and there are nut jobs on all sides. There are Christians and there are Christians, and the surest way to get mocked in the media is to have anything good to say about established religions.

Can you provide some specific examples to support your claim?

 

[Aberdeen]

Lebrok, I agree that if America was founded today it shouldn't favor one religion over another in government phrases, etc. Although I don't think it's necessary to replace all of the traditions in government laid down in the past. Maybe some stuff can be changed.

Your own constitution does not favour one religion over another in "government phrases". The only thing it says about religion is that your Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It does not define "religion" as meaning one specific religion.

 

[Aberdeen]

The mocking isn't evenly distributed. There shouldn't be any mocking in the first place. I don't mean to be offensive, but you're lying to yourself if you think we life in a balanced society.



America didn't pop out of no where, it has roots. America in many ways comes from Europe(British colony, there's no debating this) which was pretty much uniformly Christian for a 1,000 years before America was founded. When America was founded it existed in a very Christian society, and the only diversity of religion were differnt Christian sects and other very unpopular newly formed religions. If Poles founded a country like America in the 1700s somewhere far away would you surprised to find leaks of Catholicism in its traditional way of doing government?

This is why we have in God this and that. It's been around since our begging and if you understand culturally where America comes from you should be fine with it. This is not evidence that the current media is conservative or balanced. I don't dispute there's biased conservatism in mainstream society but I won't lie and say its balanced.

Actually, "in God this and that" wasn't around in the beginning of your country. The unofficial motto of the U.S. was a Latin phrase "e pluribus unum". It wasn't until 1956 that the unofficial motto was replaced by an official motto "one nation under god". It was only in 1954 that the phrase "under god" was added to your pledge of allegiance.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Actually, "in God this and that" wasn't around in the beginning of your country. The unofficial motto of the U.S. was a Latin phrase "e pluribus unum". It wasn't until 1956 that the unofficial motto was replaced by an official motto "one nation under god". It was only in 1954 that the phrase "under god" was added to your pledge of allegiance.

My point still holds. That was about 60 years ago, it's said and done. The country was also very differnt back then. If people want to change I'm fine with that, but it will cause a very large divide in the country which isn't good.

 

[Maleth]

The theme of this thread has been changed from Will all people of the world mix creating one race in the future?


to
Do you support all people of the world to mix creating one race in the future?

Its not a matter of supporting, but what people (humans) do if left to their free will without being intimidated. I have never come across (yet at least) parents that intimidated or forced their children to marry someone of a difference race yet. However came across a good number of people to the contrary.

 

[LeBrok]

Its not a matter of supporting, but what people (humans) do if left to their free will without being intimidated. I have never come across (yet at least) parents that intimidated or forced their children to marry someone of a difference race yet. However came across a good number of people to the contrary.

Kardu will be one of them pressuring his kids to marry their own kind. But supposedly we are the ones with agenda. :67:

 

[Kardu]

Oh, for goodness sakes'...this isn't Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_County,_New_Jersey
Take a look at the "ethnic" and racial groups that are represented in this county, one of the richest in the U.S.

This is a more "mixed" town, maybe a quarter African-American, so higher than the national average:

Even in the more predominantly "white" villages like Ridgewood, which is in the top 25 richest villages in the U.S., it sometimes looks like this:

Are all the parents thrilled? No, some, perhaps even the majority, are not thrilled when it involves their own children, even if in general they don't oppose it. Do all the kids cross the "color line" when dating? Absolutely not. In fact, the majority clearly do not, as the statistics indicate. However, it is increasing, and the attitude is live and let live, even among the adults. As for the kids, even if they don't date across certain lines, they are friends or at least friendly. (The situation is totally different as concerns the really impoverished minority communities. )

No internet "white supremacist" group is going to turn the vast majority of these kids into nut jobs foaming at the mouth because some of their peers are part of inter-racial partnerships. The only ones that might be affected are the at risk kids who are loners and outsiders for various reasons. The older generation is totally out of step, and that goes for the so called African American leaders too. As for inter-ethnic issues, forget it...everybody is 1/4 this, 1/4 that, 1/2 the other. Nobody cares.

So if you want to defend your group's interests it makes you a 'supremasist'?! what bull*** reasoning is this? Although I am not surprised, it's usual liberal cheap trick way of 'arguing'... I am waiting when you gonna start screaming: Nazi :useless:

 

[Aberdeen]

So if you want to defend your group's interests it makes you a 'supremasist'?! what bull*** reasoning is this? Although I am not surprised, it's usual liberal cheap trick way of 'arguing'... I am waiting when you gonna start screaming: Nazi :useless:

Nobody is saying that we want to force you to marry someone whose race or complexion is different from your own. I think you should be able to marry whatever type of person you choose, as long as they're agreeable to the idea. We're saying that, just as you should have the right to marry someone of the same race, if you so choose, other people should have the choice to marry outside their own race if that's what they want.

I chose to marry someone of the same race as myself, but it's none of my business if other people choose differently. After all, modern white Europeans wouldn't exist as they are today if it weren't for some racial mixing that happened thousands of years ago.

 

[Kardu]

Nobody is saying that we want to force you to marry someone whose race or complexion is different from your own. I think you should be able to marry whatever type of person you choose, as long as they're agreeable to the idea. We're saying that, just as you should have the right to marry someone of the same race, if you so choose, other people should have the choice to marry outside their own race if that's what they want.

I chose to marry someone of the same race as myself, but it's none of my business if other people choose differently. After all, modern white Europeans wouldn't exist as they are today if it weren't for some racial mixing that happened thousands of years ago.

Exactly which races were mixed to create modern white Europeans?

When others act to defend their group interests that uberindividualistic thinking puts you at disadvantage.

P.S. and why all this emphasis on white Europeans? I am for diversity, I want Japanese, Africans, Amerindians etc. to keep their identity, cherish their heritage and develop their cultures.

 

[LeBrok]

So if you want to defend your group's interests it makes you a 'supremasist'?! what bull*** reasoning is this? Although I am not surprised, it's usual liberal cheap trick way of 'arguing'... I am waiting when you gonna start screaming: Nazi :useless:

I hope you understand the difference of personal preference in making one's choices, versus forcing your personal preference on others, when selecting a spouse.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Depends on everyone personal preference.

 

[Rethel]

Exactly which races were mixed to create modern white Europeans?

Corded, mediterrenian, alpine, mongoloid, some of negroes from Africa...
But probably the other races were absorbed by lighter types, and that
means, that probably the lighter types were much more numerous than
the darker ones. In south Europe or in Asia the absorbtion was different:
darker were probably more numerous than lighter types.

p.s. Kardu - Georgians for us in Europe, are a pretty dark people...

 

[LeBrok]

Exactly which races were mixed to create modern white Europeans?

Race of West Hunter Gatherer (who carried some African admixture), race of ANE hunter gatherer from Siberia, and race of neolithic farmers from Near East. Also in modern Europeans we see some levels of African, East Asian and South Asian admixtures. If you think we look the same, think and act the same like our ancestors from 10kya in Europe, you are kidding yourself.

When others act to defend their group interests that uberindividualistic thinking puts you at disadvantage.

What choosing a spouse have to do with group interest? What disadvantage would the mixing bring?

P.S. and why all this emphasis on white Europeans? I am for diversity, I want Japanese, Africans, Amerindians etc. to keep their identity, cherish their heritage and develop their cultures.

We all are, the difference is you want to force people into staying within own group, we (cultural liberals) want this to be a personal choice, a total freedom of choice, in this regard.

 

[Aberdeen]

Exactly which races were mixed to create modern white Europeans?

When others act to defend their group interests that uberindividualistic thinking puts you at disadvantage.

P.S. and why all this emphasis on white Europeans? I am for diversity, I want Japanese, Africans, Amerindians etc. to keep their identity, cherish their heritage and develop their cultures.

I'm emphasizing white Europeans because that's who my ancestors were. And if you were interested in genetics, you would know that modern Europeans are mostly a mixture of hunter/gatherer types who were already in Europe during the Mesolithic, farmers from the Middle East who moved to Europe during the Neolithic and Bronze Age invaders from the east who seem to have been a racial mixture themselves.

I'm all for people developing and enjoying national identities - I like mine. I just don't want to dictate to other people that they have to stay in the cultural mould they were born in if they aren't comfortable there.

Edit: I didn't see LeBrok's last post - he did a good job of addressing this stuff.