Thieves Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 OP, to put it simply, if it floats your boat... then go with it. Some people like vanilla ice cream, some chocolate, some strawberry, some like a mix of all three, etc. As long as you know you're being true to your likes and treating your women right, then don't pay attention if people try to say it's 'psychological', or only a sexual fetish. They don't know you personally, and quite frankly, life's too short to worry about what others think. Your relationships, your body.
Pierre Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 The rate of racial mixing is astronomical. Half of the contestants in the X-factor show are biracial. It has been said that within a few thousand years the entire planet will be a mixture of races. Conditions are set for the extinction of the white race because the traits are recessive. So the first race to disappear will be the white race. However, eventually the Asians and blacks will no longer look like they do today. In several thousand years practically everybody in the planet will have olive skin. Races developed because of isolation and the inability to breed with people that lived elsewhere in the planet. In the modern world there is no isolation and all races can freely mix. I can imagine museums in the future showing wax figures of what a white, black and Asian person were like.
allina Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Practically all of the intermarrying is happening among the working and lower-middle classes, while upper and upper-middle classes are marrying within their own races. That is untrue, ignorant and very offensive. I come from an upper middle class, highly educated family, so does my husband who is not of the same race as me. Additionally, in my area you see A LOT of interracial couples among educated professionals. I will admit that pretty much all of these couples are between Caucasians and Asians (be it east or south Asians) but it is common. I don't think that someone is wrong or racist for choosing to not date outside of their race but ignorant, derogatory comments like yours are repulsive. People like you are the reason I will never raise my future, biracial children in certain parts of the US.
allina Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I am not against people who wish to mix with other races. I have no right to pass comment on those who do, that's their choice and I wish those people all the happiness in the world - however please refrain from preaching in my direction. What Feelsgoodman says is his opinion and it is no more right or wrong than your opinion. My marriage doesn't exist to make a "progressive" statement as you call it. I married a man who I love deeply, a man whose values are similar to mine, a man I would have married no matter what his race was. As I mentioned, I have no issue with those who choose to not date outside of their race, and I was not preaching. I was addressing an untrue, negative generalization. I have a huge issue with what Feelsgoodman said because it was an untrue, hateful blanket statement. It is clear that he is trying to shame people for dating outside of their race because he disapproves of it in the general sense. He thinks that he can discourage people by painting relationships like mine as "low class" and "undesirable." This goes much further than him sharing his opinion, and his motives are clear and hateful.
Queen Zenobia Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I also find it offensive that people are expected to be in interracial relationships because it's a sign of "social progression". I would hate to raise my children among nampy, pamby white liberals who are obsessed with egalitarianism. I would love to see a world where there is only one culture and one race and see if the society's social, ethical and moral problems and Political differences are no longer present. I wonder if warfare will exist by then? All I know that such a world sounds boring. On one hand we're told to embrace diversity and one the other hand we're told to unify and unite. Which one is it Liberals? Embrace diversity or become unified in every sense of the word? Liberalism will see the demise of the Western world and I just hope it doesn't worm its way to the East. The thought of the New World Order creating one culture, one race, one language is enough to make me thankful that I will be long dead by the time that happens. I am not against people who wish to mix with other races. I have no right to pass comment on those who do, that's their choice and I wish those people all the happiness in the world - however please refrain from preaching in my direction. What Feelsgoodman says is his opinion and it is no more right or wrong than your opinion. Yeah you're right, to each their own. I think what the above poster objected to was the idea that interracial marriages and relationships were restricted to only lower income couples. Her experience contradicted that characterization. Mine does as well, I'm Arab and my fiance is white and we're middle class and come from upper middle class backgrounds.
allina Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 My problem with you is that you have "Holier-than-thou" attitude problem. As for Feelsgoodman I'm not going to slate him for his opinions, he has a right to his opinion. If he doesn't approve of Interracial relationships then that's his choice. You say he's trying to shame you and people like and I'd argue you're trying to do the same thing that you accuse him of doing which is irony in its purest form. Wrong. I have no issue with him stating what he wants/prefers for himself. I have stated that in both of my posts. I have an issue with him pushing those standards on to others and making broad, hateful generalizations about those who do not share his view points.
Queen Zenobia Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Out of curiosity, how do you define upper middle class? Statistically $100k is about right. Where I live that's the median income (actually a little below median income).
Queen Zenobia Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 We're all guilty of generalisations aren't we? I get angry with the sweeping generalisation that all humans want to interracially date and those who don't are racists, bigots, xenophobic and whatever other term they wish to use. One of my television channels was celebrating "Mixed race season" and were ramming the message down viewers throats. Instead what that television channel should be focusing on is the religious persecution happening in Egypt at the moment where Christians are being killed on the streets of Cairo and elsewhere just like the Jews were in the 1950's. There's more important things in this world than Government backed multiculturalism and "ethnic cleansing" of traditional races. I'd consider the plight of Egyptian Christians to be more of a concern and more worthy of media time and attention. That's a fair point. I think everyone should be free to date and marry who they choose. Want to only date whites? Have at it. Only non-whites? Again, do as you wish. I really don't think it should matter to anyone but the two people involved. And FTR the plight of the Egyptian Christians (the Copts) is important to me. I'm Syriac Orthodox, the same church family that the Copts belong to (Oriental Orthodox).
Queen Zenobia Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 So below median income is what you consider "upper middle class"? When I think upper middle class, I think family income of over $300K a year. I gave you a national statistic. $100k per year annual income is top 20% in the U.S. FTR, my parents made almost $400k last year. You should see the house I grew up in, absolutely beautiful. And I was an only child
Queen Zenobia Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 For all of you proponents of a brighter interracial future, point me in the direction of a single country with a predominately mixed population that is prosperous and progressive? Latin America? A backwater dump, for the most part, with the most economically successful countries being the least mixed (Argentina and Chile). India, Shri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal? Yeah right. Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia? Hardly paradigms of social and economic progress. Having more interracial couples and children is neither good for society nor bad for society. It should neither be encouraged nor discouraged. Just live and let live. If people want to date outside their race or ethnicity why shouldn't they(and vice versa)? Is it that big a deal?
Queen Zenobia Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 India will never become a "superpower". Its economy is based on low wage labour and the average Indian has an atrocious quality of life (the per capita GDP is $1300). Brazil is really two countries in one: southern Brazil, which is prosperous and almost entirely European, and the rest of Brazil, which is the land of mixed populations...and flavelas. The point that I'm trying to make is very straightforward. Race mixing inhibits economic and cultural progress. Um...no. What inhibits economic progress is intrusive government regulations and excessive government spending. The most infamous country you mention is India which has only recently turned away from socialism and central planning (there are actually still some regions that have a socialist economy) and the country's economy and quality of life has skyrocketed as a result. Race mixing is unrelated to economic progress. If your theory was correct then China would be doing horribly economically because of their policy of deliberate race mixing (Uighurs and Tibetans with Han Chinese).
Thieves Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Um...no. What inhibits economic progress is intrusive government regulations and excessive government spending. The most infamous country you mention is India which has only recently turned away from socialism and central planning (there are actually still some regions that have a socialist economy) and the country's economy and quality of life has skyrocketed as a result. Race mixing is unrelated to economic progress. If your theory was correct then China would be doing horribly economically because of their policy of deliberate race mixing (Uighurs and Tibetans with Han Chinese). Thank you! Very much, for saying this. Beat me to the punch.
Queen Zenobia Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 There, that's much better. Yeah, it is more aptly described as ethnic cleansing due to the goals of the Chinese policy. But, I don't think I would compare voluntary interracial relationships as "ethnic cleansing".
Queen Zenobia Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 First of all, uighurs, tibetans and han chinese are all part of the same race. I'm not exactly an ethnographer, but Uighurs are Turkic an ethnic group whose language and cultural history are quite distinct from the Han Chinese. So unless you're saying that Central Asian people (Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pashtuns, Turkmen, Turks) are the same as East Asians, your statement is not true. Second, why is there not a developed country that has a predominately mixed population? Look at the mixed race countries I listed. Is it just a coincidence that they are all socially backwards and economically weak, while pretty much all first world counties are ethnically homogenous? I'm not just talking about the Western world either. In Asia, the countries with the highest standard of living - Japan, South Korea and Tawain - are all racially homogenous, while countries with the lowest standard of living - i.e. India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Philippines - have mixed populations. First of all Bangladesh is pretty much ethnically homogeneous (far more so than the U.S. for instance), 98% are ethnic Bengalis. Now, certainly there are some Biharis left over from when Bangladesh was part of Pakistan but their numbers are extremely low. Secondly, all of the countries in your first set (Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan) were all countries that never had communist regimes. All in the second set have spent a great deal of the past 50 years as either socialist economies or run by military juntas. Surely that might have something more to do with low standards of living and poor economic progress than "race mixing" would.
Queen Zenobia Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Where have I made such a comparison? You didn't. And I didn't say you did.
Wolf18 Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Secondly, all of the countries in your first set (Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan) were all countries that never had communist regimes. All in the second set have spent a great deal of the past 50 years as either socialist economies or run by military juntas. Surely that might have something more to do with low standards of living and poor economic progress than "race mixing" would. [/Quote] Not really. Japan, S. KOrea, and Taiwan all have very high median IQ's, this has something to do with it. I think by ignoring scientific differences between groups and their intellectual capacity and taking the Libertarian view is dishonest. I am open minded and think there are pros and cons to every system. Take Cuba for example, yes I know you will spout all this propaganda to me about how horrible Cuba is etc, but you know what? Cuba is an island nation with a median IQ of 83 that is blockaded from the world, yet Cuban's have a living standard far superior to any equivalent nation (I said equivalent, don't use the strawman of saying "BUT LIFE ISNT AS GOOD AS IN AMERICA OR EUROPE"). If they didn't have socialism, they would be another Haiti, Guatamala, or dominican republic, or any other myriad of amazing capitalist success stories . The truth is, if the population is intelligent, creative and capable, any system will work, whether it's socialism or capitalism or a combination of these. If your population is of low IQ, then all systems will fail, but capitalism especially will be disasterous (except for a handful of foreign opportunists and plutocrats who will come to your country and plunder your resources). I think for low IQ nations, socialism is a must to have the people's needs met. Of course there are other forces that influence things, such as bankers, speculators, etc who crash economies and are not capable of making an honest living, for this reason I am more inclined towards socialism.
Queen Zenobia Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Not really. Japan, S. KOrea, and Taiwan all have very high median IQ's, this has something to do with it. I think by ignoring scientific differences between groups and their intellectual capacity and taking the Libertarian view is dishonest. I am open minded and think there are pros and cons to every system. Take Cuba for example, yes I know you will spout all this propaganda to me about how horrible Cuba is etc, but you know what? Cuba is an island nation with a median IQ of 83 that is blockaded from the world, yet Cuban's have a living standard far superior to any equivalent nation (I said equivalent, don't use the strawman of saying "BUT LIFE ISNT AS GOOD AS IN AMERICA OR EUROPE"). If they didn't have socialism, they would be another Haiti, Guatamala, or dominican republic, or any other myriad of amazing capitalist success stories . The truth is, if the population is intelligent, creative and capable, any system will work, whether it's socialism or capitalism or a combination of these. If your population is of low IQ, then all systems will fail, but capitalism especially will be disasterous (except for a handful of foreign opportunists and plutocrats who will come to your country and plunder your resources). I think for low IQ nations, socialism is a must to have the people's needs met. Of course there are other forces that influence things, such as bankers, speculators, etc who crash economies and are not capable of making an honest living, for this reason I am more inclined towards socialism. Truth be told, I only criticize the kind of socialism those countries had. While I certainly have a very capitalist view point in regards to the First World economies I am very sympathetic to the Tariq Ali school of thought (which leans very leftist) when it comes to economically depressed third world countries. But only with a very specific scope limited to education and economic development (infrastructure projects, etc.) and not indefinitely. But, needless to say it's not "race mixing" though that's causing the problem. Certainly whether you're a leftist or a classical liberal you can still agree with that.
Queen Zenobia Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Queen Zenobia, you are confusing race with ethnicity. There are hundreds if not thousands different ethnic groups out there, but only 4 races: europoid, mongoloid, negroid and austroloid (some anthropologists consider capoids a separate race, but that's a different subject). To give you a brief ethnographic history of the indian subcontinent, its original inhabitants were a group of people similar to australian aborigines. The area was then invaded by Dravidians. Their exact ancestry is a hotly debated subject, but it appears that they were either part of a totally separate race that is now extinct or already a mixed race group. Appearance wise, they looked like a hybrid of black and white. Finally, there was a second invasion, this time by caucasian Aryan tribes (not to be confused with Hitler's concept of 'aryans'). Ultimately, all of these populations intermixed and gave us the modern day Indian subcontinent populations. Some parts of South East Asia, in particular the Philippines and Indonesia, were also originally inhabited by austroloid peoples. They were later conquered by mongloid tribes who came form the north and intermarried with the local population. Fair enough. But then that means that even fewer nations are racially homogeneous. Take Arabs for example whose racial ancestry is both African/Negroid (via Abyssinia) and European/Europoid (via the Levant and the Mediterranean) they haven't been racially homogeneous for thousands of years. Really the only homogeneous places left are East Asia, the Pacific Islands, Central Africa, and Scandinavia. Everything else is already too mixed to fit your theory. None of the countries I listed ever had communist regimes. India was socialist, sure, but so is Sweden. And speaking of military juntas, Taiwan was run by a military junta for 30 years and lived under de facto martial law till 1987. By that time, Taiwan was already a developed nation. South Korea was ruled by a military dictatorship of General Park from 1960 until 1979 (which, incidentally, was a period of the country's most rapid economic expansion). And Japan was, of course, run by a military junta prior to WWII and was completely annihilated, both militarily and economically, in its aftermath. So your democracy vs. totalitarianism explanation does not even begin to fly. Pakistan had periods of leftist regimes (like under the Bhuttos), and Bangladesh had some very leftist politics (as did most of South Asia) during the 1980s. In any case the point I'm trying to make is that race mixing doesn't cause anything. It's neither good nor bad. Not to mention race mixing is entirely unavoidable. I would never suggest that interracial relationships should be encouraged or forced on people, but surely you're not saying society should actively discourage them?
Author antidote Posted October 10, 2011 Author Posted October 10, 2011 Conditions are set for the extinction of the white race because the traits are recessive. So the first race to disappear will be the white race. However, eventually the Asians and blacks will no longer look like they do today. In several thousand years practically everybody in the planet will have olive skin. I see where you are going with that, and i think that is a defiant possibility however its not concrete, We may choose to unite as one race we may also Choose to annihilate one another, which looking at history has always been the choice man kind has chosen. I do think ultimately a new human being which would live under one family could evolve from this. "Alexander the great" i think had similar plans for the world at one stage. This may come as a shocking revelation to you, but the world as seen on television is no the same thing as the real world. Only 2.9% of the U.S. population is biracial (even among those under 18, the figure is only 5.6%). In Europe, with the possible exception of the UK, it's even lower than that 99.3 % of the time statistics are made up on the spot And any statistic test is usually only a test over a very small area, then these numbers are extrapolated. it is nice to believe that we have it all figured out. Everyone is an "educated professional" these days. By upper and upper middle class, I'm not talking about silicon valley IT geeks or artsy bohemian types. I'm talking about people with money and class, who come from good families and have pride in their heritage. People with money dont necessarily have class, to have real class you need to be a prince or a duke or Barron or a sir, if you dont have at least one of these titles you dont really have class in the royal sense and certainly would not be among those that do have such titles, these people"the Classy" and rich aristocrats have absolutely no intention of ever mixing this so called class and consider themselves through years of seletive and interbreeding to be an entirely superiour race which should rule over the lesser races.. They are not the first group of people in history to attempt this either and probably wont be the last.
Wolf18 Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Truth be told, I only criticize the kind of socialism those countries had. While I certainly have a very capitalist view point in regards to the First World economies I am very sympathetic to the Tariq Ali school of thought (which leans very leftist) when it comes to economically depressed third world countries. But only with a very specific scope limited to education and economic development (infrastructure projects, etc.) and not indefinitely.[/Quote] But, needless to say it's not "race mixing" though that's causing the problem. Certainly whether you're a leftist or a classical liberal you can still agree with that. [/Quote] I'm not a leftist and definitely not a classic liberal. It's common scientific knowledge that there is a correlation between race and intellectual capacity, of course this is a very politically incorrect thing to say but there are countless scientific studies pointing to this. So yes, I would assume miscegenation between a more intelligent ethnic group and a less intelligent one would be bad for the former. Economic policies by and large are irrelevant if you have a capable population, it's why Sweden is so successful with its very tightly regulated economy and central America isn't with it's much "freer" market. If anything, capitalism opresses working and middle class people with intellectual capabilities by making them fill vapid and stupid corporate created demands of the market. So many engineers and craftsman in America dedicate their lives towards producing and "perfecting" the dirty water called "Coca Cola" instead of using their skills for truly worthwhile endeavors that would actually progress science, improve life, and technology.
Queen Zenobia Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I'm not a leftist and definitely not a classic liberal. It's common scientific knowledge that there is a correlation between race and intellectual capacity, of course this is a very politically incorrect thing to say but there are countless scientific studies pointing to this. So yes, I would assume miscegenation between a more intelligent ethnic group and a less intelligent one would be bad for the former. Economic policies by and large are irrelevant if you have a capable population, it's why Sweden is so successful with its very tightly regulated economy and central America isn't with it's much "freer" market. If anything, capitalism opresses working and middle class people with intellectual capabilities by making them fill vapid and stupid corporate created demands of the market. So many engineers and craftsman in America dedicate their lives towards producing and "perfecting" the dirty water called "Coca Cola" instead of using their skills for truly worthwhile endeavors that would actually progress science, improve life, and technology. Well I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this as I think it's somewhat derailing the actual topic. I still stick to my original point though that people should be free to date and/or marry whoever they want, even if it's someone from another race/ethnicity. It's shouldn't be encouraged nor discouraged. Just live and let live.
aj22one Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I would never suggest that interracial relationships should be encouraged or forced on people, but surely you're not saying society should actively discourage them? Ha. He can have society discourage them all he wants. I'll still date and be attracted to women from other races (usually Indian women). It's just the way it is for me. I don't care what anyone thinks. Not my job to uphold his moral or cultural ideals.
aj22one Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Why shouldn't it be? From a macro-political standpoint, race mixing has all sorts of negative implications: elimination of cultural diversity, loss of a sense of identity, and, in some instances, economic stagnation. At the same time, I cannot think of a single benefit of creating one borg-like mixed race. So while I don't think there should be laws against miscegenation, as it ultimately comes down to individual choice, I believe that interracial relationships should be discouraged by society and people should be raised to be proud of their heritage. And before someone accuses me of racism, I'm not just talking about white people respecting their heritage...I'm talking about all people embracing and preserving their unique racial, ethnic and cultural identities. Dude, you care way too much about other people's lives. If a couple of people have interracial relationships no one is going to die. Most people end up marrying someone of their own race anyway so you really don't need to be so worried about it.
Author antidote Posted October 11, 2011 Author Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) Why shouldn't it be? From a macro-political standpoint, race mixing has all sorts of negative implications: elimination of cultural diversity, loss of a sense of identity, and, in some instances, economic stagnation. At the same time, I cannot think of a single benefit of creating one borg-like mixed race. Do you believe in creation or Evolution? Evoltion would say genetic mixing of this type is partly responsible where man kind is today, there is evidence of like i said before neanderthals mating with primates which science knows to be our ancient ancestors.. its hard to believe in evolution and say the mixing of genetics has no benefit when the whole theory is based on that things evolved through mixing, single cellular life mixing and evolving into muti cellar life and later creating diversity.. There are many creation theories but most of them also pretty much imply that man was created as one, and science, archeology would also tell you the first men on this planet looked very different to the men of today was of a darker complexion and is said to have first lived in Africa. I may be wrong, but i believe as a human we came from one, and we will return to one. (one love) and there is only really one race and that is the human race Edited October 11, 2011 by antidote
Wolf18 Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 Do you believe in creation or Evolution? Evoltion would say genetic mixing of this type is partly responsible where man kind is today, there is evidence of like i said before neanderthals mating with primates which science knows to be our ancient ancestors.. its hard to believe in evolution and say the mixing of genetics has no benefit when the whole theory is based on that things evolved through mixing, single cellular life mixing and evolving into muti cellar life and later creating diversity.. There are many creation theories but most of them also pretty much imply that man was created as one, and science, archeology would also tell you the first men on this planet looked very different to the men of today was of a darker complexion and is said to have first lived in Africa. I may be wrong, but i believe as a human we came from one, and we will return to one. (one love) and there is only really one race and that is the human race I think you have some sort of self-hating racial complex and want to pass it off as you being an amazing, noble progressive. Your arguments for miscegenation are all feel-good nonesense popularized by the media and political system, scientific facts speak otherwise. Neanderthals mated with PRIMATES? LOL!
Recommended Posts