Racial Segregation

[Gorbachioo]

Lately ive been studying racial segretation and other related topics for quite a bit and even though i dont agree with most of it, theres one question that i cant seem to make up my mind on. Is racial segregation wrong in all cases?

Most Europeans would probably answer yes without even thinking about it. But ask yourselves this: Is Tibet a racist state for not wanting its culture/race being wiped out by the chinese? Were jews before Israel racist for not wanting to blend in to other societies? How about the gypsies? We accept these things but when someone talks about preserving the white race then its instantly considered nazism even if its just in the context of limiting immigration.

My personal opinion is that the world would be a much better place without racial differences but then in the other hand i do believe that Tibet has a right for its own culture and race and obviously these two things contradict eachother.


And since you cant talk about race without being branded a racist these days i'll say it again: No, im not a racist. Far from it.

 

[Zede]

no, no and no

dumbass questions anyhows.

are tibetans racist ? the fact you even pose the question shows how daft you really are.

no point in anyone replying, move along.. we just gonna get your nonsensical bull anyway.

 

[old.windforce]

the r-tardness of this thread is stunning

 

[Golena]

5 stars!!

 

[Bugz]

I dispise people who post silly replies to discussion questions, but FH has individuals with reading problems so it can't be helped!

I think the point you make is valid and I think it's a point that is topical today for the UK. ALTHOUGH racial probably isn't the right word for it - cultural perhaps. I don't think countries should go as far as not letting outsiders in, provided they comply with the cultural aspects of a country. Obviously, because the UK is ran by baboons and full of PC-abiding cock-loving anal-throbbing bastards, our culture and identity is being slowly torn away by other impeding cultures.

The values of a country should not be undermined by any outsider, because let's face it, if you don't like those values, you can just as well fuck off out of it.

 

[tris-]

i thought englands culture was to combine loads of other cultures?
nothing is really being taken away from us.

weve had chinks and indian takeaways for decades.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Did you assholes even read what i wrote there? Im not saying tibetans are racist, exactly the opposite. But when some other groups do this its instantly labelled as racism. For example, if a european politician said that we should stop immigration to make sure that europeans stay white he would be instantly labelled as a nazi. When Dalai Lama says it, we support him.


People need to realise is that if current trends continue some day there will only be 1 skin colour on earth. (And yes i do realise thats centuries away, but it doesnt mean we cant talk about it just because it wont happen anytime soon) I believe that would be a good thing but i also believe that people who want more immigration dont realise this fact.


Now if something about this is still not making sense to you then ask instead of making retarded comments.


edit: (not intented for bugz or tris) ;O

 

[Gorbachioo]

Maybe i should rephrase the original question:


Are different races/cultures worth preserving even if that means racial segregation? (As i said, eventually it would have to go to that.)

 

[tris-]

"worth preserving?"

LOL

who is 'qualified' to decide if a 'race' should be preserved?

madness.

let people do what they do, unless theyre causing a shit storm leave them.

 

[Lamp]

"Worth Preserving" ???!!?

"Racial segregation" ?!?!?!

WTF ?

For me, the very definition of humanity means diversity in terms of culture, race, religion, skin colour, languages, beliefs, customs, etc and I wouldn't want to have it any other way.

 

[Olgaline]

Ok,
Not that I know why I'm Even bothering on FH with this sort.
But I'll leave you with a few comments none the less

First off, I'm not all that familiar with the tibet situation, But I do think your confusing things abit, racial segretation and the wish to preserve a culture are in no way nessersarily the same thing, in any shape or form. I do not belive tibet wants to exclude Chinies people. what they want is control over thier region and culture. it's based on a fear of being over run by a larger more powerfull nation that doesnt nessersarily hold the same intrest or value over the Region & culture, I'm guessing what Tibetians want is Preservation, not segretation.

Oh and theres nothing wrong Preserving the white race, as you put it, or culture as I'd put it, but there's no reason to do that through racial segretation, I dont see how keeping others out is benificial in any way? other than to cradle mistrust towards that wich is unknown or different.

As with whites, black people, asians, and arrabs, all people are individually different. and if you look at history you'll actually see that even "the white culture" is a product of a whole bunch of other cultures past.

I have yet to see one good or benificial reason for Racial segretation...
segretation sure......
but racial segretation? NO!

 

[Raven]

Another batshit crazy thread brought to you by the producers of "omglolmates we iz running out of oilz!!!"

 

[Golena]

My personal opinion is that the world would be a much better place without racial differences but then in the other hand i do believe that Tibet has a right for its own culture and race and obviously these two things contradict eachother.

Yes I read what you wrote.

I think we should all be the same, but people should be different.

Your first point is very wrong. Your second point doesn't require segregation based on race.
Happy now?

 

[Olgaline]

Golena,
Reading back I do think He's reffering to Culturs&tradition more than race,
Him just comfusing dem as being the same

 

[Gorbachioo]

"Worth Preserving" ???!!?

"Racial segregation" ?!?!?!

WTF ?

For me, the very definition of humanity means diversity in terms of culture, race, religion, skin colour, languages, beliefs, customs, etc and I wouldn't want to have it any other way.

Am i saying something unclearly here or why is it that no one seems to understand what i mean? ;O

So if we assume that eventually all cultures would blend in to one (which is likely in a long period of time if globalisation, immigration etc stay as they are) then would you support reductions in immigration (for example) to preserve this diversity?



edit: im talking both about culture and race. As i said before i dont think that the scenario i describe is a bad thing but a) some people do (whether these people are racists is a whole other question) b) most people who support things that will lead to this scenario (more immigration for example) dont think about these things.

 

[Golena]

So if we assume that eventually all cultures would blend in to one

Incorrect assumption.

Look at the internet. It's a place where everyone is in the same area, and can transition freely between areas. Yet even without those boundaries there's plenty of internet subcultures happily thriving.

Will the cultures in 10000 years resemble the exact cultures we have today, no.
Will there still be differences between them. Yes.

 

[Gorbachioo]

"worth preserving?"

LOL

who is 'qualified' to decide if a 'race' should be preserved?

madness.

let people do what they do, unless theyre causing a shit storm leave them.

Thats kind of what im asking here. Do we have the right/is there a point in trying to make sure that as many cultures (i'll leave the word race out as it seems to make people illiterate) survive as possible? To do this we would have to do things like reducing immigration and so on.


And maybe i shouldnt have used the word racial segregation either. Even though its still quite clear what i mean with it people seem to be unable to discuss this as long as its there.

 

[Lamp]

*walks away from thread*

 

[Bahumat]

I don't like this thread so wont be posting. I will just eat shit and die.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Ok,
Not that I know why I'm Even bothering on FH with this sort.
But I'll leave you with a few comments none the less

First off, I'm not all that familiar with the tibet situation, But I do think your confusing things abit, racial segretation and the wish to preserve a culture are in no way nessersarily the same thing, in any shape or form. I do not belive tibet wants to exclude Chinies people. what they want is control over thier region and culture. it's based on a fear of being over run by a larger more powerfull nation that doesnt nessersarily hold the same intrest or value over the Region & culture, I'm guessing what Tibetians want is Preservation, not segretation.

Oh and theres nothing wrong Preserving the white race, as you put it, or culture as I'd put it, but there's no reason to do that through racial segretation, I dont see how keeping others out is benificial in any way? other than to cradle mistrust towards that wich is unknown or different.

As with whites, black people, asians, and arrabs, all people are individually different. and if you look at history you'll actually see that even "the white culture" is a product of a whole bunch of other cultures past.

I have yet to see one good or benificial reason for Racial segretation...
segretation sure......
but racial segretation? NO!

This whole thread is based on the assumption that if things stay the same all cultures will eventually blend in to one. If you dont agree with it then say so and we can debate that.

Now if we assume that fast growing populations in the third wolrd and fast immigration will eventually lead to a muslim europe then do we have the right to use that as a reason to reduce immigration? (This is just one example, if you dont agree with this theory then say so, but answer the real question as im sure you acknowledge that this could happen somewhere in the world)


Tibetans fear that if 100 million chinese move to Tibet, tibetans will marry them and slowly blend in to the chinese society. Meaning that soon there wont be anyone calling themselves tibetan.

Imperial Russia tried to do the exact same thing to Finland before ww1. They did everything they could to destroy the finnish culture so that future generations would call themselves russians instead of finns.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Incorrect assumption.

Look at the internet. It's a place where everyone is in the same area, and can transition freely between areas. Yet even without those boundaries there's plenty of internet subcultures happily thriving.

Will the cultures in 10000 years resemble the exact cultures we have today, no.
Will there still be differences between them. Yes.

Maybe your right, maybe i am. Who knows. But the truth is that there have been cases (like the case with tibet) where a country has had to stop immigration because of fears that it would make their own culture disappear. There have been cases where an ethnic group in a country has had to discriminate another to preserve their own culture. (this is why i used the word racial segragation and the pre-israel jew example)

and the question is: Is this ok?

 

[Raven]

Maybe your right, maybe i am. Who knows. But the truth is that there have been cases (like the case with tibet) where a country has had to stop immigration because of fears that it would make their own culture disappear. There have been cases where an ethnic group in a country has had to discriminate another to preserve their own culture. (this is why i used the word racial segragation and the pre-israel jew example)

and the question is: Is this ok?

The answer is surely "wibble"

 

[tris-]

Thats kind of what im asking here. Do we have the right/is there a point in trying to make sure that as many cultures (i'll leave the word race out as it seems to make people illiterate) survive as possible? To do this we would have to do things like reducing immigration and so on.


And maybe i shouldnt have used the word racial segregation either. Even though its still quite clear what i mean with it people seem to be unable to discuss this as long as its there.

if a culture wants to survive as its own entity its upto them to ensure it. its not upto others to absorb that culture, unless that other culture involves absorbing cultures (such as england, it absorbs all the cultures to make a super-culture). why is not possible to have hippys and europeans living on the same street? theres nothing stopping them, they can leave each other alone and live in their own culture.

other cultures should either work along side them if possible or fuck off and stop trying to enforce their shit on everyone.

if all cultures blend into one, whats the problem? only the best qualities of each culture would survive, leaving the shit behind like chopping peoples hands off for shop lifting, or needing X number of male witnesses if your raped to get a conviction. youd have the best of every culture, blended into one mega-DUPER-licious culture.

 

[Gorbachioo]

if a culture wants to survive as its own entity its upto them to ensure it. its not upto others to absorb that culture, unless that other culture involves absorbing cultures (such as england, it absorbs all the cultures to make a super-culture). why is not possible to have hippys and europeans living on the same street? theres nothing stopping them, they can leave each other alone and live in their own culture.

other cultures should either work along side them if possible or fuck off and stop trying to enforce their shit on everyone.

if all cultures blend into one, whats the problem? only the best qualities of each culture would survive, leaving the shit behind like chopping peoples hands off for shop lifting, or needing X number of male witnesses if your raped to get a conviction. youd have the best of every culture, blended into one mega-DUPER-licious culture.

You're saying that cultures merging isnt a bad thing. Ok, thats how i feel too.

You're saying that if a culture wants to survive it has the right to do that? So does this mean that a culture has the right to use means that we would deem racist in order to save its culture? Such as banning marriages that involve 2 cultures and other things like that? Because that is what is needed in many cases to accomplish the goal.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Perhaps i havent been completely clear about what im actually asking here so forget everything ive said before and focus on this question:


Theres ethnic group A and ethnic group B living in a country. Ethnic group A is the minority (say 10%). Does ethnic group A have the right to use things that we would consider racist in order to save their culture? As in racial segregation? Such as banning intercultural marriages or straight out racism towards the B's.


How far can group A go to preserve its own culture in the country? (Incase this still needs to be said: IN YOUR OPINION)


I

 

[Zede]

Thats kind of what im asking here. Do we have the right/is there a point in trying to make sure that as many cultures (i'll leave the word race out as it seems to make people illiterate) survive as possible? To do this we would have to do things like reducing immigration and so on.


And maybe i shouldnt have used the word racial segregation either. Even though its still quite clear what i mean with it people seem to be unable to discuss this as long as its there.

maybe you shouldnt have posted this thread. maybe you shouldnt insult the " illiterate". maybe you should think more about the crap you type before doing so. maybe you shouldnt correct yourself with each new post. maybe....

 

[Gorbachioo]

maybe you shouldnt have posted this thread. maybe you shouldnt insult the " illiterate". maybe you should think more about the crap you type before doing so. maybe you shouldnt correct yourself with each new post. maybe....

Maybe you should answer my question.

 

[tierk]

28 posts into the thread and you still dont seem to know what exactly you trying to say in this thread. Its simple, racial segregation has been tested and doesnt work.

Look at the Nazi's in Germany and Aparthied in South Africa - these are perhaps two of the finest examples and there are many many more, all which eventually turn out like the two i have quoted.

Please show me one positive aspect about segragation and i might be happy to discuss this with you.

Cultural preservation is not possible, take a look at the Red Indians in the USA. The old and the rubbish will eventually be replaced by the better and the new, human beings always strive to get better - in most cases - and as such you will eventaully see cultures evolve for the better - though you might not agree its better.

Its why England, for example, doesnt live like we did in Victorian times, because society, people and country have moved on.

It is why today we see so many things exported from American culture to the wider world and with the modern advances in technology - communication travel etc - things get from point A to point B much faster then a thousand years ago.

If you ever visit the Middle east for example and see how many young kids talk and act like they come from some ghetto in a rundown US city, having never ever been out of there own country.

Society will always evolve and when one culture meets another new culture it is inevitable that it will be subject to changes as members from each culture absorb the new ways of the other culture, its evolution of a sort and cannot be stopped.

 

[Gorbachioo]

28 posts into the thread and you still dont seem to know what exactly you trying to say in this thread. Its simple, racial segregation has been tested and doesnt work.

Look at the Nazi's in Germany and Aparthied in South Africa - these are perhaps two of the finest examples and there are many many more, all which eventually turn out like the two i have quoted.

Please show me one positive aspect about segragation and i might be happy to discuss this with you.

Cultural preservation is not possible, take a look at the Red Indians in the USA. The old and the rubbish will eventually be replaced by the better and the new, human beings always strive to get better - in most cases - and as such you will eventaully see cultures evolve for the better - though you might not agree its better.

Its why England, for example, doesnt live like we did in Victorian times, because society, people and country have moved on.

It is why today we see so many things exported from American culture to the wider world and with the modern advances in technology - communication travel etc - things get from point A to point B much faster then a thousand years ago.

If you ever visit the Middle east for example and see how many young kids talk and act like they come from some ghetto in a rundown US city, having never ever been out of there own country.

Society will always evolve and when one culture meets another new culture it is ineviQUOTE]table that it will be subject to changes as members from each culture absorb the new ways of the other culture, its evolution of a sort and cannot be stopped.

I disagree. The jews have managed to preserve their religion and culture despite being a scattered minority for all that time before Israel. They did this by distancing themselves from others. If that were true then many ethnic minorities that exist today would have disappeared already. Whether its a good thing that these minorities survive is up to you to decide.


If you look at the questions ive asked so far all of them have pretty much the same message. Is racial segregation wrong in all cases?


ps. Im still waiting for someone to tell me why this question is so stupid.

 

[chipper]

i dont think its a good thing it simply creates a divide and as such the minority race ends up becoming a 2nd class citizen thats true racism and it has no place in todays world

cultural segregation is a different matter i dont see a problem with trying to protect your cultural identity but to the point where you become xenophobic is madness we can all learn from other cultures its what keeps us evolving as a species.