Originally Posted by
Alonzo
There are some in this thread whose mothers’ (in utero) should’ve belly flopped down 249 flights of stairs, and spared us the subsequent social and intellectual drain. Unapologetically, I take a hostile stance to certain views–to those not directly/immediately affected by hatemongering idiocy masquerading as accuracy, it’s easier to hold a more dispassionate point of view–but my “interest groups” aren’t afforded that luxury because much of these views encompass an existential assault and not the imagined kind by those perpetuating the notion of some “white genocide.” And so I give subzero fucks about any bigots and their sympathizers whom I might offend.
But you, unlike the rest, don’t necessarily strike me as a completely hardened piece of fecal waste; I think that some of your thoughts and conclusions lack a certain rigor, but that can be remedied if you have the will–if not, off to the heap with you as well. But I say this to say the only reason why I’m critiquing your comment and not any of the others (that hardly amount to anything but compacted hot air and flatulence) is because you don’t seem morally submerged. For the sake of transparency, I'm approximately 3/4 ethnic Scandinavian (with a European passport) and the rest a mishmash of colonized "others," but I'm particularly interested in those who speak on affairs concerning "my people" and what's happening within our borders.
So then how do the vast majority of the 87 European ethnicities, for example, live side by side in relative harmony and not routinely slaughter and murder each other? Granted, prior to WWII and in a few blips on the radar since then, that certainly wasn't the case. But for the most part, since WWII and particularly in Western Europe, the various ethnicities, while still having stark socio-cultural-political differences in some cases (Scandinavia vs the Mediterranean), all live in relative stability with each other. If what you say is true, that "clustering groups of different ethnicities together won't work," how is this currently possible?
Would love to read your answer to that.
According to the latest and most up to date empirical data (If you'd care to see, I have the research to post), the fact of the matter is that a third of income inequality in the world today can be explained by the diversified impact of European colonialism on different societies, especially on the continent of Africa, where much of its economic growth was substantially smothered and stifled by way of removing opportunities for the vast majority of its population. Were there some benefits to colonialism? Yes, but the cons far outweigh the pros (e.g., by splitting ethnicities across countries, the colonial border design has systematically spurred political violence, unrest, and instability). That being the case, why should it be unreasonable and unacceptable for Africans to try and better their lot, particularly in the lands that reaped the most benefit from their disenfranchisement? Would that not, at the very least, amount to some degree of fairness? Or is that not a concern of yours?
The Rise of Trumpism
Reply With Quote
