Post: #26

Crude/primitive

Post: #27

The first wave of "illegal immigration" hundreds of years ago was a land grab. Taking natural resources and subsequently all but destroying the native culture.

Illegal immigration now is a money grab. Stealing from the US economy and draining social resources and arguably destroying "native culture"

Six of one and half a dozen of the other?

Post: #28

To think that a countries citizens should not have the right to control immigration how they see fit is disturbing, what happened in the past is irrelevant,

Post: #29

(02-05-2013 05:59 PM)durangotang Wrote:  Diversity is not a strength, but a weakness. Name one strength of diversity besides ethnic restaurants.

Trade.

The strength brought by trade is greater than cuisine.

Post: #30

The best part of multi-cultural places is the chicks and the food. And, the sports are good too with all the different teams and pride.

Post: #31

(02-05-2013 11:59 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  The best part of multi-cultural places is the chicks and the food. And, the sports are good too with all the different teams and pride.

Toronto has terrible food. For being the 2nd most Multi-cultural City on the planet you think it would have amazing food but unless your eating super high end its all dog food.

Post: #32

(02-05-2013 11:59 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  The best part of multi-cultural places is the chicks and the food. And, the sports are good too with all the different teams and pride.

Well, the most multiculti places are US cities. I think it would be hard to argue that the women in LA/NYC/SF aren't among the lowest quality in the developed world. And as far as food, I'll take the cuisine of homogenous Japan, small town France and small town Belgium over the ethnic slums of the US.

Post: #33

(02-05-2013 11:54 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 05:59 PM)durangotang Wrote:  Diversity is not a strength, but a weakness. Name one strength of diversity besides ethnic restaurants.

Trade.

The strength brought by trade is greater than cuisine.

Not true. Take a look at China, Germany and Japan. The largest export nations in the world, excellent at trade, net creditors not debitors, and 95%+ homogenous.

Post: #34

China itself is not a homogenous contigous country.

It is a country full of internal strife on its borders because of the way the Han treat various ethnic groups. Unrest is common in Tibet, the western border muslim regions an inner mongolia.

Germany is far from homogenous.

However, it still doesn't point address what I am inferring.

Multicultural development within one country has a greater chance of developing trade links, namely of the country of heritage. It is not impossible to acquire the cultural skills without them, I would just assert more difficult.

That said, I would also assert some cultures offer more value than others.

Post: #35

(02-05-2013 03:58 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  He's got a point, even if some of the protestors try to forward some bogus arguments about "Kennywyck Man" or whatever.
The thing is that Native Americans preceded European Americans in the USA. The takeover happened, Euro-Americans won, and now the land is largely theirs.
What exactly makes the entrance of modern illegals and other immigrants more unjust than that of Euro-Americans to the New World (or Australia/NZ, for that matter)?

Nothing, really. I'm not saying that there aren't practical reasons to oppose illegal immigration, but I am saying that those who oppose it on principle ("this is OUR country, they just don't belong!") don't really have a moral high ground to stand on. I mean, did their ancestors belong when they arrived all those generations ago?

Migrations happen, new peoples take over-this is the way of the world. One invasion is no more inherently moral than anyone else's.

Native Americans conquered one another as well. Conquest is part of history on all continents. There were empires that conquered weaker tribes in pre-Colombian America as well as Africa. The Europeans even conquered other Europeans such as the Roman conquest of Britain and Saxony. The original inhabitans of Japan weren't the Japanese we now now, they were some indigenous tribe called the Ainu. Taiwan wasn't always Han Chinese, they were originally inhabted by polynesians. But the Chinese conquered the island and now we think of it as being native Han Chinese and I doubt the Chinese feel even the slightest guilt about it. Oh well, such is life.

That Native American guy in the video probably wouldn't be so quick to admit that some Native American tribes were allies with the European settlers and even teamed with them for trade and to to fight against common enemy tribes, which is also how Aztecs were defeated by the Spanish. Some of the Native Americans even got in on black slavery, both owning slaves and helping whites hunt down escaped slaves. I really don't care about their whining and I'm kind of sick of the glamorization of Native Americans as peaceful, loving, indigenous people who lived in harmony with nature. They practiced their atrocities like everyone else.

Another point is that immigration is only illegal if there are national borders and laws in the first place. The concept of countries as legally defined entities simply didn't exist in pre-colombian N. America. There were vague territories that tribes roamed that we might loosely refer to as "nations", but there was no codified law defining boundaries and who had rightful passage. The European settlers in a way were just another tribe showing up to compete with. Technically, the settlers did nothing "illegal" per se in settling here. And if they did, someone please show me the Native American immigration clause that stated such.

Most the people who are coming here illegally are not here looking for land that they were displaced from. There's actually way more empty space in Mexico than there is in the US. They are here because of the first world economy that was created here and the opportunity that economy provides. This economy is a product of Western culture and the human capital that comes along with that. It would not exist here if not for those settlers. So everyone can complain about what America did, but nobody would want to go back to life before that when everyone was chipping stone arrowheads in order to eat.

I think it's ridulous that the OP would imply that it's racist for someone to oppose illegal immigration. Maybe that person should go move to East L.A. and live amongst MS-13 and let's see if that changes his view a bit. Yes, of course some people opposed to illegal immigration don't like the sight of brown people or the changing demographics. But to act like there's no rational reason someone could be opposed to it is inane.

Post: #36

(02-05-2013 03:34 PM)Partizan Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 03:24 PM)Faust Wrote:  I tend to take the opposite view. The native Americans let foreigners in in unlimited numbers, and look what happened to them!

They let them in? I think you are engaging in a bit of historical revisionism here.

Not only did they let them in, but they gave them social benefits in the form of turkeys. Isn't that what thanksgiving is about?

Post: #37

I would say if you're going out of your way to protest at an illegal immigration rally, you probably don't like anyone with a Spanish last name or who has some color to their skin. I think I saw Brian in the video

Post: #38

(02-06-2013 01:10 AM)durangotang Wrote:  Not true. Take a look at China, Germany and Japan. The largest export nations in the world, excellent at trade, net creditors not debitors, and 95%+ homogenous.

Well, I'm not so sure...

Quote: Government spending to stimulate economic activity has outstripped tax revenues, resulting in a sharp increase in government debt Japan spends more than ¥200 (£1.40) for every ¥100 of tax revenue received. Japanese government gross debt is now around 240 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). Net debt (which excludes debt held by the government itself for monetary, pension and other reasons) is about 135 per cent. Total gross debt (government, non-financial corporation and consumer) is more than 450 per cent of GDP.

...about that one.

Quote:For years, the world's third-largest economy has been unapologetically living on borrowed cash, more so than any other country in the world. In recent decades, Japanese governments have piled up debts worth some €11 trillion ($14.6 trillion). This corresponds to 230 percent of annual gross domestic product, a debt level that is far higher than Greece's 165 percent.

Such profligate spending has turned Japan into a ticking time bomb -- and an example that Europe can learn from as it seeks to tackle its own sovereign debt crisis. Japan, the postwar economic miracle, has never managed to recover from the stock market crash and real estate crisis that convulsed the country in the 1990s. The government had to bail out banks; insurance companies went bust. Since then, annual growth rates have often been paltry and tax revenues don't even cover half of government expenditures. Indeed, the country has gotten trapped in an inescapable spiral of deficit spending.

Japan is a massive debtor. Germany and China are both in much better shape, but the tea leaves tell us that this too can change, and it won't be a result of mass immigration alone.

Post: #39

Native Americans fell into the same trap that Indians had been falling into for over a 1000 years. India was never one single country just as the Native Americans were never one single political entity. Fighting amongst these meant invaders usually conquered with ease.

Post: #40

(02-05-2013 05:59 PM)durangotang Wrote:  Diversity is not a strength, but a weakness. Name one strength of diversity besides ethnic restaurants.

Multiculturalism is a failure and unchecked immigration should be stopped.

Oh really? Do you know that the USA is only powerful as it is due to the high numbers of immigrants? Do you know that the state of Arizona would lose billions of dollars if they were to deport every single illegal immigrant?

I also guess that you don't like fucking chicks from other races.

Great video OP, somebody had to tell them

Post: #41

(02-06-2013 01:31 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  Technically, the settlers did nothing "illegal" per se in settling here. And if they did, someone please show me the Native American immigration clause that stated such.

I'm not sure you thought this through or maybe I misunderstand. You're saying there was nothing illegal about the massacres, the forced displacements etc which brought about the death of countless Native Americans and which was necessary to enable many of the settlements? That was news to me. It was also news to me that somehow it falls on people who disagree with you to provide the proof, and that you are somehow relieved from the burden of proof, given how many historians who would disagree with you.

Just read Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee. Unless that book is all made up, the US government broke lots of legal agreements with the Natives.

Disregarding the fact much of the European colonization was illegal, what is more important is that much of it was immoral. After all, feminism is legal today but that doesn't make it moral. Sure, when the Europeans *first* arrived, the Natives didn't have any legal papers saying the land was theirs but that is just Western legal practice. It was still theirs, though, through the tradition of having possessed that land for generations, something which I think would be recognized by a Western court if it happened today.

Also, just because the Whites got help from some tribes, that doesn't legitimize killing innocent human beings. I'm sure you're aware that some Africans helped the White slave traders to ship over slaves to the New World. From their perspective, that was the only way to save themselfes from getting exterminated.

Post: #42

Primitive societies are generally always replaced by more advanced ones, or, if they overwhelm the advanced one with numbers, generally adopt the more advanced practices themselves. When Europeans started arriving in North America, it was only a matter of time before the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of the natives was curtailed by the white man's organized land development, with cities, permanent buildings, and large-scale agriculture.

Post: #43

dont worry guys, the USA and Europe are not the only ones with illegal inmigration problems. Here in Argentina we have the same issue with people from peru, Bolivia and Paraguay, a lot of them come here illegaly, and the populist goverment, always hunting for votes, gave them everything while they left the nationals to fend for thenselfs.

Post: #44

Nice vid. It perplexes me that people oppose immigration in the United States when this very country was built on the backs of immigrants, that either chose to come here or were brought by force. The white man is no less an immigrant to this land than the immigrants he opposes that come here. While I'm in agreement with most on illegal immigration, when it comes to white nationalists opposing legal immigration, I have to call a spade a spade.

Post: #45

(02-06-2013 11:10 AM)Ovid Wrote:  Primitive societies are generally always replaced by more advanced ones, or, if they overwhelm the advanced one with numbers, generally adopt the more advanced practices themselves. When Europeans started arriving in North America, it was only a matter of time before the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of the natives was curtailed by the white man's organized land development, with cities, permanent buildings, and large-scale agriculture.

How about the barbarian invasions of the Rome? It's hard to argue that the Germanic tribes who overran Rome were more advanced than the empire they brought down.

Post: #46

(02-06-2013 01:24 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 11:10 AM)Ovid Wrote:  Primitive societies are generally always replaced by more advanced ones, or, if they overwhelm the advanced one with numbers, generally adopt the more advanced practices themselves. When Europeans started arriving in North America, it was only a matter of time before the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of the natives was curtailed by the white man's organized land development, with cities, permanent buildings, and large-scale agriculture.

How about the barbarian invasions of the Rome? It's hard to argue that the Germanic tribes who overran Rome were more advanced than the empire they brought down.

Let us also observe this guy is describing inaccurately what happened AFTER atrocities were committed by both opposing forces in a series of escalating skirmishes.

The idea that the peaceful, noble, savage was just minding his own business by the pristine lakeside when the evil white man descended upon him is fucking absurd.

Post: #47

(02-06-2013 01:24 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 11:10 AM)Ovid Wrote:  Primitive societies are generally always replaced by more advanced ones, or, if they overwhelm the advanced one with numbers, generally adopt the more advanced practices themselves. When Europeans started arriving in North America, it was only a matter of time before the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of the natives was curtailed by the white man's organized land development, with cities, permanent buildings, and large-scale agriculture.

How about the barbarian invasions of the Rome? It's hard to argue that the Germanic tribes who overran Rome were more advanced than the empire they brought down.

Actually, that was just the scenario I had in mind. Government apparatus was dismantled as Rome was transformed from a pacified empire into a number of feudal kingdoms but Roman culture did not disappear. It was amalgamated into the Germanic culture and formed the basis of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. The medievals didn't have the infrastructure and bureaucracy for massive building projects, by and large, but their actual engineering skill equalled and surpassed that of the Romans. The Germans eventually became civilized "Romans," rather than the Romans becoming Germanic barbarians. Orderly states prevail in Europe now, not tribes and war bands.

Post: #48

(02-06-2013 02:38 PM)Ovid Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 01:24 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 11:10 AM)Ovid Wrote:  Primitive societies are generally always replaced by more advanced ones, or, if they overwhelm the advanced one with numbers, generally adopt the more advanced practices themselves. When Europeans started arriving in North America, it was only a matter of time before the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of the natives was curtailed by the white man's organized land development, with cities, permanent buildings, and large-scale agriculture.

How about the barbarian invasions of the Rome? It's hard to argue that the Germanic tribes who overran Rome were more advanced than the empire they brought down.

Actually, that was just the scenario I had in mind. Government apparatus was dismantled as Rome was transformed from a pacified empire into a number of feudal kingdoms but Roman culture did not disappear. It was amalgamated into the Germanic culture and formed the basis of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. The medievals didn't have the infrastructure and bureaucracy for massive building projects, by and large, but their actual engineering skill equalled and surpassed that of the Romans. The Germans eventually became civilized "Romans," rather than the Romans becoming Germanic barbarians. Orderly states prevail in Europe now, not tribes and war bands.

Good explanation. Hadn't thought of the continuation of Rome in those terms. I need to go back to Gibbon and early medieval history.

Post: #49

(02-06-2013 02:08 PM)Fisto Wrote:  The idea that the peaceful, noble, savage was just minding his own business by the pristine lakeside when the evil white man descended upon him is fucking absurd.

Who said this???

Who said that the natives were peaceful and noble???

It had to be whites. I am native. We do not claim to be peaceful and noble. We go to war just like everyone else.

The noble savage is a myth made up by white people. Liberal whites say indians were peaceful, conservative whites say indians were violent. All you have is whites arguing with other whites about a myth.

Ask an Indian if he is peaceful or violent. He will say he is peaceful in times of peace and violent in times of war.

The "noble savage" is just a fantasy created by whites. Maybe, due to "white guilt". Another stupid concept.

Indians never claimed to be a "noble savage".

Ironically, I now consider myself a "Noble Savage".

I had to remind someone of this a few weeks ago in another thread.

Post: #50

Enough of this shit. Time to colonize the moon!!