We are prepared to accept surrender in the "culture war"

[UltraMAGAKing]

That is something you only ever say when you are lying.

Not at all.... it something I say when you post something totally fucking absurd.

 

[pecksniff]

As soon as liberals defend the right of a high school teacher to assign his class to read "Race, Evolution, and Behavior," by Professor J. Philippe Rushton," I will agree that liberals are in favor of open political discussion.

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm

------------

I believe a teacher should be allowed to assign this essay to his class, as long as he allows them to disagree with it. The teacher should not require agreement in return for a good grade.

Any teacher morally capable of assigning it would require exactly that.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Any teacher morally capable of assigning it would require exactly that.

The most memorable teacher I had in K-12 encouraged his students to disagree with each other about the War in Vietnam, but he never told us what he thought about the War. He encouraged us to disagree with each other about the civil rights movement and South African apartheid too. He never presented his opinion on a controversial subject as though it was the Absolute Truth. Nevertheless he expected his students to present good arguments to support their beliefs.

 

[pecksniff]

The reason why it would be a good thing for the RW to surrender in the "culture war," is that then we could get the whole thing out of politics and focus on what matters: Economic issues. Culture-war politics are pernicious mainly because they are a pointless distraction from that.

And, don't tell me the same good could be achieved by the left surrendering. The left cannot help but win. Because of irreversible cultural and demographic changes. I have often said, however, that it would be a good thing for the Democrats to soft-pedal the social liberalism and play up the economic populism. The one is a fight we can win without fighting; the other is a whole lot tougher, because it goes against the vested interests of the PTB who wield immense power over election outcomes. They're the ones who control the "deep state" to extent such a thing even exists. All parties in Washington, and the civil servants too, take their marching orders from Wall Street.

This is the most important thing to keep in mind here. Let the culture war end so we can focus on more important things.

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

This is the most important thing to keep in mind here. Let the culture war end so we can focus on more important things.

Sure, all you guys have to do is stop trying to tell red states how to do things in their states.... and move on to more important things, like taking care of your own states.

 

[Rightguide]

I -- and presumably you -- was referring to the delegates at the Constitutional Convention. Arnold weren't there.

I was fortifying your reputation for ignorance by proving that Washington wasn't the only professional soldier in his army by showcasing the service to our country by your fourth great grandfather.

 

[Rightguide]

You can't claim that by being a Republican. Had you lived then, you would have fought, if at all, in a butternut uniform -- and that applies to most of today's Pubs. The party of Abraham Lincoln has morphed into the party of Jefferson Davis. Its geographical voting base is in the old Confederacy and its ideology aligned with it.

Nobody in my family lived in the South or fought with the Confederacy.

 

[Rightguide]

You can't claim that by being a Republican. Had you lived then, you would have fought, if at all, in a butternut uniform -- and that applies to most of today's Pubs. The party of Abraham Lincoln has morphed into the party of Jefferson Davis. Its geographical voting base is in the old Confederacy and its ideology aligned with it.

A lie used by propagandists to help cowardly Democrats hide from their past. Its typical Democrat projection.

 

[Rightguide]

The reason why it would be a good thing for the RW to surrender in the "culture war," is that then we could get the whole thing out of politics and focus on what matters: Economic issues. Culture-war politics are pernicious mainly because they are a pointless distraction from that.

It would be easier to put you on a plane for China.

 

[Kradder]

It is already lost. What are whites now in america? Less than two thirds. In a generation they are a minority in america and their culture will be submerged, unless they balkanise/segregate/ form bantustans. The non-white immigrants do not have to assimilate because their are enough of them to maintain their own culture. Look at muslims in europe. Hispanics in america as well. They can survive without having to adapt and impose their culture on the former majority.

The only way minorities (like whites will be in america) maintain their culture is to segregate. There is a unique black culture in america because of segregation. There is a white culture in africa also beacuse of segregation. Whether by choice or by rule, the only way to maintain a culture is by erecting walls. That is not saying it is good or bad, but what needs to be done. If you mix, you will end up as something else, like Brazil. That is what surrender looks like; celebrate it as a multiculti swamp, or decide to not accept it. See it as surrender or a new hybrid. Choice is yours.

 

[Rightguide]

It is already lost. What are whites now in america? Less than two thirds. In a generation they are a minority in america and their culture will be submerged, unless they balkanise/segregate/ form bantustans. The non-white immigrants do not have to assimilate because their are enough of them to maintain their own culture. Look at muslims in europe. Hispanics in america as well. They can survive without having to adapt and impose their culture on the former majority.

The only way minorities (like whites will be in america) maintain their culture is to segregate. There is a unique black culture in america because of segregation. There is a white culture in africa also beacuse of segregation. Whether by choice or by rule, the only way to maintain a culture is by erecting walls. That is not saying it is good or bad, but what needs to be done. If you mix, you will end up as something else, like Brazil. That is what surrender looks like; celebrate it as a multiculti swamp, or decide to not accept it. See it as surrender or a new hybrid. Choice is yours.

Not so:

Is the white population in the US really ‘shrinking’?​

This article is more than 8 months old
Allison Plyer and Joseph Salvo


Increasing numbers of Americans identify as more than one race. But that’s not the same as white population decline

The Census Bureau released the first detailed results of the 2020 census this month, and many media reports highlighted the nation’s growing diversity, which is real, and the dramatically shrinking white population, which is … not so much.

First the data: The white population didn’t “shrink” to 57.8% as widely reported – unless you believe in the old “one-drop” rule, where one ancestor of another race means you are not fully and authentically accepted as white. Moreover, this statistic excludes people who checked the Hispanic box, many of whom identify as ethnically Hispanic but racially white.

What happened for the first time was people who identify as “white” were also able to document their detailed multi-racial ancestry. In fact, including the 31.1 million white people who indicated they also were part of another racial group, whites in 2020 constituted 71% of the population – an increase of more than 4 million white people since 2010. That’s because the 2020 census form made it much easier for Americans to claim their diverse heritage compared with 2010, and this affects all groups, including the white population.

What’s becoming less common is Americans identifying as only one race. Fully 10% of all Americans selected more than one race, up from just 3% in 2010, a jump from 9 million to 33.8 million in only one decade. So, what could account for the incredible increase in multiracial population by 2020? Birth records indicate that just 2.3 million multiracial children were born during this decade. Certainly, more Black people or Pacific Islanders, for example, may have claimed white ancestry for the first time this decade. But people who previously identified as “white alone”, and who are claiming their Native American, Asian or African American ancestry for the first time, are probably the driving force behind the increase. The Census Bureau itself acknowledged that the “decline” in the white population is largely due to more white people choosing additional race categories.

A more accommodating decennial census form seems to be driving a strong increase in the number of people identifying as multiracial – particularly among white people. All those DNA tests we’ve been taking may have contributed as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/07/white-population-us-shrinking-census

 

[ll74]

Who cares?

 

[Kradder]

Not so:

Is the white population in the US really ‘shrinking’?​

This article is more than 8 months old
Allison Plyer and Joseph Salvo


Increasing numbers of Americans identify as more than one race. But that’s not the same as white population decline

The Census Bureau released the first detailed results of the 2020 census this month, and many media reports highlighted the nation’s growing diversity, which is real, and the dramatically shrinking white population, which is … not so much.

First the data: The white population didn’t “shrink” to 57.8% as widely reported – unless you believe in the old “one-drop” rule, where one ancestor of another race means you are not fully and authentically accepted as white. Moreover, this statistic excludes people who checked the Hispanic box, many of whom identify as ethnically Hispanic but racially white.

What happened for the first time was people who identify as “white” were also able to document their detailed multi-racial ancestry. In fact, including the 31.1 million white people who indicated they also were part of another racial group, whites in 2020 constituted 71% of the population – an increase of more than 4 million white people since 2010. That’s because the 2020 census form made it much easier for Americans to claim their diverse heritage compared with 2010, and this affects all groups, including the white population.

What’s becoming less common is Americans identifying as only one race. Fully 10% of all Americans selected more than one race, up from just 3% in 2010, a jump from 9 million to 33.8 million in only one decade. So, what could account for the incredible increase in multiracial population by 2020? Birth records indicate that just 2.3 million multiracial children were born during this decade. Certainly, more Black people or Pacific Islanders, for example, may have claimed white ancestry for the first time this decade. But people who previously identified as “white alone”, and who are claiming their Native American, Asian or African American ancestry for the first time, are probably the driving force behind the increase. The Census Bureau itself acknowledged that the “decline” in the white population is largely due to more white people choosing additional race categories.

A more accommodating decennial census form seems to be driving a strong increase in the number of people identifying as multiracial – particularly among white people. All those DNA tests we’ve been taking may have contributed as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/07/white-population-us-shrinking-census

People who identify as more than one race are not white. They are Coloured. I am not sure what you call that in america, but they are not white. In america you call Blacks Coloured, and I don't know what you call Coloureds. So yes, if you exclude coloureds, whites are shrinking. The terminology may vary, but i think you can get my point.

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

Your capacity for self-delusion never fails to impress me.
If your point is that Republicans abolished slavery, that is correct. But in those days, the Republicans were the progressive party. Heck, if I were around 150 years ago, I'd be a Republican, no question about it. But things changed a very long time ago, and more to the point, the Republicans who abolished slavery were nothing whatsoever like you.

LOL.... you accuse others of self delusion and then try to pretend Classical Western Liberals from 1860's were "progressive" leftist commies like yourself LMFAO!!!!

 

[pecksniff]

People who identify as more than one race are not white. They are Coloured. I am not sure what you call that in america, but they are not white. In america you call Blacks Coloured, and I don't know what you call Coloureds. So yes, if you exclude coloureds, whites are shrinking. The terminology may vary, but i think you can get my point.

In America, we no longer call anybody "colored" (you spelled it wrong, BTW), but there are self-ID'd "people of color." The blacks we call black, and those you call "coloured," we also call black. It's the traditional one-drop rule, only pureblood whites are white. This mattered, because African-Americans of all colors from black to milk chocolate formed a single social caste that freely intermarried within itself, and anyone of that caste could get into dangerous trouble for even trying to marry or date a white. Even looking at a white woman with visible interest could get a black man hanged. It was a double standard -- the paler AAs got their white blood from the widespread practice of masters using slave women as concubines.

 

[ll74]

People who identify as more than one race are not white. They are Coloured. I am not sure what you call that in america, but they are not white. In america you call Blacks Coloured, and I don't know what you call Coloureds. So yes, if you exclude coloureds, whites are shrinking. The terminology may vary, but i think you can get my point.

Half the whites who are clueless about family history are probably not white because there's a slave in their history.

 

[pecksniff]

LOL.... you accuse others of self delusion and then try to pretend Classical Western Liberals from 1860's were "progressive" leftist commies like yourself than liberty loving, and thus everything not Democrat, LMFAO!!!!

The Republicans of that period were a lot closer to leftist commies than classical liberals. Lincoln appointed Marxists to high civil and military offices, and Karl Marx himself ran a column in Horace Greeley's pro-Republican New York Tribune.

Slaveowner John Randolph of Roanoke, VA, said, "I am an aristocrat. I love liberty. I hate equality." There's your classical liberal.

 

[pecksniff]

Half the whites who are clueless about family history are probably not white because there's a slave in their history.

Or, as they used to say, "There's a nigger in the woodpile."

 

[Kradder]

In America, we no longer call anybody "colored" (you spelled it wrong, BTW), but there are self-ID'd "people of color." The blacks we call black, and those you call "coloured," we also call black. It's the traditional one-drop rule, only pureblood whites are white. This mattered, because African-Americans of all colors from black to milk chocolate formed a single social caste that freely intermarried within itself and could get into dangerous trouble for even trying to marry or date a white.

For us Coloured is spelled like this, proper english not american english. It is an accepted term for mixed race people they use themselves and has no offensive conotation. I know americans lump all 'people of color' as black. We don't. American blacks also do not have an african culture, and it is a hybrid. Any african black will also agree. Generally here Coloureds intermarry amongst the same, as do blacks and whites and indians. No one sees this as racist. It is just the preferred choice by all groups. Coloured and Black are very different social 'castes'.

Many of your blacks would not be considered black by blacks here. They would probably be considered Coloured, with that hybrid culture. There is little in common between your american black, a black zulu or a brown San.

 

[phrodeau]

It would be easier to put you on a plane for China.

You would like China. They have a wall.

 

[Kradder]

In America, we no longer call anybody "colored" (you spelled it wrong, BTW), but there are self-ID'd "people of color." The blacks we call black, and those you call "coloured," we also call black. It's the traditional one-drop rule, only pureblood whites are white. This mattered, because African-Americans of all colors from black to milk chocolate formed a single social caste that freely intermarried within itself, and anyone of that caste could get into dangerous trouble for even trying to marry or date a white. Even looking at a white woman with visible interest could get a black man hanged. It was a double standard -- the paler AAs got their white blood from the widespread practice of masters using slave women as concubines.

If an african-american can be any colour, just have soome roots in africa, can I move to america and be an african-american? I am lily white with reddish blonde hair, but of course have a tan. Only my bum is still white I have more roots in africa than your african-americans, was born here, know the cultures better and mix with more africans than your african-americans. Would that qualify me for an affirmative-action job?

Actually in many places in america, like the very liberal places, I found I had more in common with black africans than whites there. Same for black africans and african-americans. That often caused friendships that would not normally form back home. And we would get many laughs at the reactions of libtards seeing a black and white 'waycist' preferring each other's company than that of white liberals. With a white liberal all i have in common is a skin colour.

 

[pecksniff]

If an african-american can be any colour, just have soome roots in africa, can I move to america and be an african-american?

Only in the sense that Teresa Kerry is African-American.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The Republicans of that period were a lot closer to leftist commies than classical liberals. Lincoln appointed Marxists to high civil and military offices, and Karl Marx himself ran a column in Horace Greeley's pro-Republican New York Tribune.

Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams​

January 28, 1865 [A]​

---

Written: by Marx between November 22 & 29, 1864, and included in the Minutes of the General Council on 29th November 1864;
First Published: The Bee-Hive Newspaper, No. 169, January 7, 1865, and in German translation in Der Social Demokrat on 30 Dezember 1864;
Source: The General Council of the First International 1864-1866, Progress Publishers;
Transcription/Markup: Zodiac/Brian Baggins;
Online Version: Marx & Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000.

---

Sir:

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

 

[Philthy_Phil]

I should hope nobody loves this country as founded. That was the America that kept slaves and oppressed women and massacred Indians. We got better.

That's the america he longs for.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

[Discussions promoting and/or accusations involving under-18-year-old sexuality prohibited per our forum guidelines.]

Lmao.