jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <6830BF65.75023.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <682E5328.65499.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>

Boraxman wrote to Arelor <=-

If I tell you "Robert is Black, Harrison is White and Li is Asian",
and then I
give you a photo of three men, people WILL be able to tell who is who just from
those descriptors alone. Even if I photoshop everyone to have the
same skin
colour, you'll still be able to tell.

Yep - because we have been taught that dark skin = black race;
light skin = white race; etc.

And yeah, change the skin tone and you'll likely have an easy
time telling from facial features, unless you are looking
at a third or fourth generation 'mixed race.' In that case,
I dare say they may not be as easy to spot!

The "race is just a pigment of your imagination" was designed to
changes peoples attitudes, but it was the wrong approach. You can't
lie to people to change their attitudes, because they'll realise the
lie, and discard the lesson that accompanied the lie.

We would have been better off being honest about race, acknowledging
that racial differences are real, and just trying to work out the best
way to manage that reality.

Some argue that when we all become "mixed" then this won't be an
issue, but that is a horrendous idea, and I think has a deeper, underlying evil motivation behind it.

This means that race exists. When people select actors for an advertisement, for "Diversity", they select on race.

You cannot then argue it does not exist, when people use racial signifiers ROUTINELY and SUCCESSFULLY to categorise people.

My point is that they should NOT do this. People should be
identified by how they ARE and not how they LOOK.

Now it is incorrect to attribute a specific racial stereotype to an
individual, if that is what you mean. However you obviously can tell
peoples ancestry from sight alone. You'd know I'm European, and not
Asian or African or Australian Aboriginal by looking at me.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <6830BF65.75016.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <682DCF01.65469.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>

Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-

Re: race
By: jimmylogan to Gamgee on Tue May 20 2025 08:38 pm

Witness today "scientists" now saying that sex is not a binary, that
the spectrum is real. Even popularisers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and
Bill Nye have supported this. Science has always been willing to
support whatever the regime needed.

Another great example of 'scientists' saying things, based
on ideals rather than facts.

The answer is obviously yes, as we use race ALL THE TIME. Even those
who say race does not exist, use it ALL THE TIME. Now, whether it
should be called "Race" or "ethnicity" or "group", well, thats just semantics.

This I agree with. I think 'race' is a bad term. Cultural
group or something like that is better, in my opinion.

There are no 'white' people nor 'black' people. We all
have different levels of melanin in our bodies, so we
have different skin TONE. Some are darker; some are
lighter.

I think the 'lay person" understanding, is correct. When I say "lay
person" I mean those who aren't trying to abide by a Politically
Correct view. People, free of any particular ideological motivation reflexively understand, that Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans kind
of belong to two distrinct groups, and within those, there are sub
groups. Nobody would see Greeks, Italians, Chinese and Japanese, and
see four wholly distinct groups, they would see two sets of two. This
shows two levels of clustering. Clearly observable.

Now, its true that in in previous centures, specific categorisations
of "Race" were flawed, but I don't think the concept was, only the
specific application. Its still in use today, albeit updated with new anthropoligical learnings. A good example is phrenology and
physignomy. Physignomy does have legitimacy, but phrenology, which
was an extreme example of this taken too far, was debunked. However
this didn't mean that someones physical appearance says nothing about
their character.

---
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

jimmylogan wrote to Gamgee <=-

Gamgee wrote to jimmylogan <=-

jimmylogan wrote to Gamgee <=-

As for the 'one race' thing - we are ALL one "RACE" - there are
different ethnicities, but we are all human. I think there are
STILL a lot of people that miss that point...

Not exactly correct. We are *NOT* all one race. We (humans) are all
one *species*, but not all one *race*. Big difference.

So, I think you are among those who have missed that point...

I hear you, and I appreciate the correction, but I think this comes
down to how we define race.

Not really. There is a clear definition of what race is, and it's not open to your personal interpretation. It's biology/science, and
factual.

Can you give me an example? I've read a lot of references on
this tonight, and the general consensus has changed over time.
Race is now broadly considered a social construct rather than
a biological one.

Have you looked into the "one drop" rule? The geographical
theory? Do you consider races to be subspecies?

Biologically, you are right: humans are all one species: Homo sapiens. Scientifically, race is often considered a social construct with no significant biological basis. The Human Genome Project confirmed we
are over 99.9% genetically identical across all so-called races.

Again, "biology" *is* science. There aren't two definitions. Species
is one thing, and race is another. You don't get to create your own definition.

You're right, I don't get to make up definitions. So whose do
we follow? Scientists today? Or scientists from the past? As
a wise man once said, science doesn't say anything - **scientists**
do. In other words, science is a process of gathering and interpreting data. If it always delivered absolute facts, its conclusions
wouldn't change over time.

But my original point was more moral and spiritual: we are one
human race with different ethnicities, cultures, and appearances,
but all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That is not ignoring
our differences but instead it recognizes our shared humanity.

When discussing scientific / technical things (of any sort), it's important to use proper terminology to avoid misunderstandings. There
is no such thing as the "human race". It really is that simple. There
is the human species, which has multiple races. That's how science
works. Words matter.

As for your point about "proper terminology," I agree that words
matter - which is why I checked a few sources. Here's how **dictionary.com** defines things:

**Species** A group of related individuals that resemble one
another, breed among themselves, and are biologically distinct
from other such groups. Also: a group of persons related by
common descent or heredity.

**Race** Multiple definitions:
1) A group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
3a) *(no longer in technical use)* traditional divisions of humankind.
3b) An arbitrary classification based on physical characteristics
(skin, eye shape, etc.).
3c) A **socially constructed** category based on appearance,
ancestry, or shared culture.
6) *The human race* - humankind.

So... while you might not like the phrase 'human race,'
it's still used, even in formal dictionaries, as a synonym
for humankind. It carries spiritual and moral weight, and yes,
it still exists in scientific and educational language as a
broad reference to all people.

If you're discussing gene flow or breeding populations,
sure - use precise taxonomy. But if you're talking about
our shared humanity and dignity, I still say 'one race -
the human race' fits just fine.

You can still say whatever you want. It doesn't change the facts about
what species and race are. When you write words that you claim are
"quotes" from a site like dictionary.com, but in reality *paraphrase*
what was there to suit your own needs, you become someone that I won't
discuss the subject with any longer. Go back to school and actually
learn something, and quit trying to be a "social warrior". Bye.




... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-

Re: Re: race
By: MRO to jimmylogan on Fri May 23 2025 02:21 pm

the spectrum is real. Even popularisers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and
Bill Nye have supported this. Science has always been willing to

bill nye is not an authority on any of the stuff he speaks on. he's a weird fucker too.

You replied to jimmylogan, but it looks like you quoted something from someone else (probably Boraxman?).

Yeah - I noticed that too and just ignored it. :-) I lost a lot of
respect for Bill Nye a few years ago...



... There will be a seminar on Time Travel last Thursday.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-

The "race is just a pigment of your imagination" was designed to
changes peoples attitudes, but it was the wrong approach. You can't
lie to people to change their attitudes, because they'll realise the
lie, and discard the lesson that accompanied the lie.

Yep - because men are evil at heart. People WANT to be racists,
because it's easier.

Some argue that when we all become "mixed" then this won't be an
issue, but that is a horrendous idea, and I think has a deeper,
underlying evil motivation behind it.

Why horrendous?

Technically we are all from the same group of ancestors anyway.
Adam and Eve, specifically, but even after that, the eight on
the ark spawned the repopulation.

You cannot then argue it does not exist, when people use racial signifiers ROUTINELY and SUCCESSFULLY to categorise people.

My point is that they should NOT do this. People should be
identified by how they ARE and not how they LOOK.

Now it is incorrect to attribute a specific racial stereotype to an individual, if that is what you mean. However you obviously can tell peoples ancestry from sight alone. You'd know I'm European, and not
Asian or African or Australian Aboriginal by looking at me.

Ancestral - yes - but I look more white than anything, so should
I be blamed for slavery in the distant past? Should a 'black'
person be blamed for crime in another city?

These are stereotypes and have nothing to do with the
individual.

To be blunt, I was NOT raised this way. I was raised by a VERY
biggoted man - my father. In the south, it was normal. Thankfully
I have made my own decisions as I grew up and realized this was
NOT the proper way to think or act.


... Chain Tagline Stolen 6 Times (add one when you steal it)
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-

I think the 'lay person" understanding, is correct. When I say "lay person" I mean those who aren't trying to abide by a Politically
Correct view. People, free of any particular ideological motivation reflexively understand, that Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans kind
of belong to two distrinct groups, and within those, there are sub
groups. Nobody would see Greeks, Italians, Chinese and Japanese, and
see four wholly distinct groups, they would see two sets of two. This shows two levels of clustering. Clearly observable.

I don't deny that at all. If you go back to the Tower of Babal
account, people were staying together instead of spreading out
and repopulating the earth after the flood. God broke up their
language and they clustered at that point. They spread out
and over generations they got paler skin, darker skin, etc.

Facial features would cluster too. If you have people with
certain gene types (light hair dominant, dark regressive)
and they breed with another of the same, the offspring
will share this. Eventually the dark will be so far
regressive that it will only come up in RARE instances.

Now that's a basic way of saying it, but I hope you understand
what I'm saying...



... WOW! Short runway, but look how WIDE it is!
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Fair enough. No hard feelings-I still believe respectful dialogue
is worth having, even when we don't agree. Wishing you the best.

Gamgee wrote to jimmylogan <=-

jimmylogan wrote to Gamgee <=-

Gamgee wrote to jimmylogan <=-

jimmylogan wrote to Gamgee <=-

As for the 'one race' thing - we are ALL one "RACE" - there are
different ethnicities, but we are all human. I think there are
STILL a lot of people that miss that point...

Not exactly correct. We are *NOT* all one race. We (humans) are all
one *species*, but not all one *race*. Big difference.

So, I think you are among those who have missed that point...

I hear you, and I appreciate the correction, but I think this comes
down to how we define race.

Not really. There is a clear definition of what race is, and it's not open to your personal interpretation. It's biology/science, and
factual.

Can you give me an example? I've read a lot of references on
this tonight, and the general consensus has changed over time.
Race is now broadly considered a social construct rather than
a biological one.

Have you looked into the "one drop" rule? The geographical
theory? Do you consider races to be subspecies?

Biologically, you are right: humans are all one species: Homo sapiens. Scientifically, race is often considered a social construct with no significant biological basis. The Human Genome Project confirmed we
are over 99.9% genetically identical across all so-called races.

Again, "biology" *is* science. There aren't two definitions. Species
is one thing, and race is another. You don't get to create your own definition.

You're right, I don't get to make up definitions. So whose do
we follow? Scientists today? Or scientists from the past? As
a wise man once said, science doesn't say anything - **scientists**
do. In other words, science is a process of gathering and interpreting data. If it always delivered absolute facts, its conclusions
wouldn't change over time.

But my original point was more moral and spiritual: we are one
human race with different ethnicities, cultures, and appearances,
but all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That is not ignoring
our differences but instead it recognizes our shared humanity.

When discussing scientific / technical things (of any sort), it's important to use proper terminology to avoid misunderstandings. There
is no such thing as the "human race". It really is that simple. There
is the human species, which has multiple races. That's how science
works. Words matter.

As for your point about "proper terminology," I agree that words
matter - which is why I checked a few sources. Here's how **dictionary.com** defines things:

**Species** A group of related individuals that resemble one
another, breed among themselves, and are biologically distinct
from other such groups. Also: a group of persons related by
common descent or heredity.

**Race** Multiple definitions:
1) A group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
3a) *(no longer in technical use)* traditional divisions of humankind.
3b) An arbitrary classification based on physical characteristics
(skin, eye shape, etc.).
3c) A **socially constructed** category based on appearance,
ancestry, or shared culture.
6) *The human race* - humankind.

So... while you might not like the phrase 'human race,'
it's still used, even in formal dictionaries, as a synonym
for humankind. It carries spiritual and moral weight, and yes,
it still exists in scientific and educational language as a
broad reference to all people.

If you're discussing gene flow or breeding populations,
sure - use precise taxonomy. But if you're talking about
our shared humanity and dignity, I still say 'one race -
the human race' fits just fine.

You can still say whatever you want. It doesn't change the facts about what species and race are. When you write words that you claim are "quotes" from a site like dictionary.com, but in reality *paraphrase*
what was there to suit your own needs, you become someone that I won't discuss the subject with any longer. Go back to school and actually
learn something, and quit trying to be a "social warrior". Bye.

... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
= Synchronet = Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

... SYSOP (sih' sawp) n. The guy laughing at your typing.
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <6835DA59.75087.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <68313735.65565.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>

Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-

The "race is just a pigment of your imagination" was designed to
changes peoples attitudes, but it was the wrong approach. You can't
lie to people to change their attitudes, because they'll realise the
lie, and discard the lesson that accompanied the lie.

Yep - because men are evil at heart. People WANT to be racists,
because it's easier.

Its not easier. You are ostracised. ITs easier to just follow the consensus.

Some argue that when we all become "mixed" then this won't be an
issue, but that is a horrendous idea, and I think has a deeper,
underlying evil motivation behind it.

Why horrendous?

Technically we are all from the same group of ancestors anyway.
Adam and Eve, specifically, but even after that, the eight on
the ark spawned the repopulation.

Because what makes us what we are, makes us unique. A world where humans are interchangeable, fungible, meaningless cogs is soul destroying.

A raceless, borderless world is that world. No thanks,

You cannot then argue it does not exist, when people use racial signifiers ROUTINELY and SUCCESSFULLY to categorise people.

My point is that they should NOT do this. People should be
identified by how they ARE and not how they LOOK.

Now it is incorrect to attribute a specific racial stereotype to an individual, if that is what you mean. However you obviously can tell peoples ancestry from sight alone. You'd know I'm European, and not
Asian or African or Australian Aboriginal by looking at me.

Ancestral - yes - but I look more white than anything, so should
I be blamed for slavery in the distant past? Should a 'black'
person be blamed for crime in another city?

These are stereotypes and have nothing to do with the
individual.

To be blunt, I was NOT raised this way. I was raised by a VERY
biggoted man - my father. In the south, it was normal. Thankfully
I have made my own decisions as I grew up and realized this was
NOT the proper way to think or act.

No, of course you shouldn't be personally blamed for things you didn't do.
I'm certaingly against bigotry, and it is right to scold people for say, blaming
an individual for something they didn't do.

But we have overcorrected. The pendulum swung too far, to the point where *any*
recognition of groups is considered evil. The opposite of an overreaction is just another overreaction. I was not raised in the south, I was raised perhaps in a more progressive, and more recent era than you, and my experience is that people were way, way too obsessed with NOT being racist to the point of doing actual harm and supporting folly. ITs like people feel so guilty they wan't to destroy themselves as restitution.


... BoraxMan
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <6835DA59.75088.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <68313739.65567.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>

Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-

I think the 'lay person" understanding, is correct. When I say "lay person" I mean those who aren't trying to abide by a Politically
Correct view. People, free of any particular ideological motivation reflexively understand, that Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans kind
of belong to two distrinct groups, and within those, there are sub
groups. Nobody would see Greeks, Italians, Chinese and Japanese, and
see four wholly distinct groups, they would see two sets of two. This shows two levels of clustering. Clearly observable.

I don't deny that at all. If you go back to the Tower of Babal
account, people were staying together instead of spreading out
and repopulating the earth after the flood. God broke up their
language and they clustered at that point. They spread out
and over generations they got paler skin, darker skin, etc.

Facial features would cluster too. If you have people with
certain gene types (light hair dominant, dark regressive)
and they breed with another of the same, the offspring
will share this. Eventually the dark will be so far
regressive that it will only come up in RARE instances.

Now that's a basic way of saying it, but I hope you understand
what I'm saying...

I get it. Actually, with facial features, what happens is that genes which code
for our morphology also affect behaviour. The two are intertwined. Hormone levels affect both body and mind, so it stands to reason you'll see physical and
mental correlations.


... BoraxMan
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-

Some argue that when we all become "mixed" then this won't be an
issue, but that is a horrendous idea, and I think has a deeper,
underlying evil motivation behind it.

Why horrendous?

Technically we are all from the same group of ancestors anyway.
Adam and Eve, specifically, but even after that, the eight on
the ark spawned the repopulation.

It won't happen in our generation. Maybe the next. I drove by a
schoolyard in my old neighborhood a few years back and looked at the
kids. I didn't see white kids, black kids, brown kids, yellow kids -- I
saw a mix of ethnicities.

I suppose we'll have white folks clinking to what used to be the status
quo and the rest of the county integrating cultures and ethnicities for
some time.


--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: race
By: poindexter FORTRAN to jimmylogan on Fri May 30 2025 07:51 am

I suppose we'll have white folks clinking to what used to be the status
quo and the rest of the county integrating cultures and ethnicities for
some time.

that's funny because i've always seen people of color exhibit racism and fighting integration.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: race
By: poindexter FORTRAN to jimmylogan on Fri May 30 2025 07:51 am

jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-

Some argue that when we all become "mixed" then this won't be an
issue, but that is a horrendous idea, and I think has a deeper, underlying evil motivation behind it.

Why horrendous?

Technically we are all from the same group of ancestors anyway.
Adam and Eve, specifically, but even after that, the eight on
the ark spawned the repopulation.

It won't happen in our generation. Maybe the next. I drove by a
schoolyard in my old neighborhood a few years back and looked at the
kids. I didn't see white kids, black kids, brown kids, yellow kids -- I
saw a mix of ethnicities.

I suppose we'll have white folks clinking to what used to be the status
quo and the rest of the county integrating cultures and ethnicities for
some time.

Very simply put. This "mixing" is occuring in white countries. If you go to Nigeria, Korea, Japan, China, Cameroon, Nepal, you won't see that.

See other nations will be able to maintain their identit.y White nations become a "mix". So white people, and only white people disappear.

This "the world will mix" is a pernicious and evil lie, a lie that needs to die.

The world will NOT become one race. East Asians, Indians, Sub Saharan africans will remain as they are. The end result is one group of people going.
That is why it is horrendous.

Anyone still advocating this should really be forced to look at themselves hard in the mirror.

---
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Re: race
By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Sat May 31 2025 02:23 pm

I suppose we'll have white folks clinking to what used to be the status quo
and the rest of the county integrating cultures and ethnicities for some
time.

Very simply put. This "mixing" is occuring in white countries. If you go to Nigeria, Korea, Japan, China, Cameroon, Nepal, you won't see that.

See other nations will be able to maintain their identity. White nations become a "mix". So white people, and only white people disappear.

What identity, specifically, are you referring to? I'm not sure a country's identity is mainly defined by the skin color of its residents. It's maybe a statistical factor, but I think the main identity of a country is its cultural beliefs, norms, history, etc.

This "the world will mix" is a pernicious and evil lie, a lie that needs to die.

The world will NOT become one race. East Asians, Indians, Sub Saharan africans will remain as they are. The end result is one group of people going. That is why it is horrendous.

Anyone still advocating this should really be forced to look at themselves hard in the mirror.

I've visited Brazil a few times, and while there are groups of certain ethniticies there, one thing I thought was interesting is that it seems there are a lot more mixed-race people in Brazil than there are in the US. Also, I felt like race/skin color isn't really talked about a whole lot there. It's like they just don't really make it an issue. In some ways, I feel like all the talk about race in the US only draws focus to it, and perhaps contributes to people of different ethniticites staying apart. The US ended segregation decades ago, but I feel like there's still a perhaps unconscious desire people have to stay around people of their own skin color. But I believe in Martin Luther King Jr.'s message, that skin color shouldn't matter, and I think everyone should be able to live together and mix. Though I know that isn't necessarily the reality today.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <683B4D91.75136.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <683A8434.65656.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: race
By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN
on Sat May 31 2025 02:23 pm

I suppose we'll have white folks clinking to what used to be

the status quo

and the rest of the county integrating cultures and ethnicities for some
time.

Very simply put. This "mixing" is occuring in white

countries. If you go

to Nigeria, Korea, Japan, China, Cameroon, Nepal, you won't see that.

See other nations will be able to maintain their identity.

White nations

become a "mix". So white people, and only white people disappear.

What identity, specifically, are you referring to? I'm not sure a country's identity is mainly defined by the skin color of its
residents. It's maybe a statistical factor, but I think the main
identity of a country is its cultural beliefs, norms, history, etc.

Maybe this is a speficially American thing, where you are taught that
you have no identity? Elsewhere around the world, this is not a
question. I'm in Australia, but from Southern European heritage, and I
can tell you in my ancestral country, there is utterly no question at
all of who "we" are. They consider me one of them, even though I was
born in Australia.

I'm thinking you are in the USA? Empires tend to think like this.

This "the world will mix" is a pernicious and evil lie, a lie

that needs

to die.

The world will NOT become one race. East Asians, Indians, Sub

Saharan

africans will remain as they are. The end result is one group of people going. That is why it is horrendous.

Anyone still advocating this should really be forced to look

at themselves

hard in the mirror.

I've visited Brazil a few times, and while there are groups of certain ethniticies there, one thing I thought was interesting is that it seems there are a lot more mixed-race people in Brazil than there are in the
US. Also, I felt like race/skin color isn't really talked about a whole lot there. It's like they just don't really make it an issue. In some ways, I feel like all the talk about race in the US only draws focus to it, and perhaps contributes to people of different ethniticites staying apart. The US ended segregation decades ago, but I feel like there's still a perhaps unconscious desire people have to stay around people of their own skin color. But I believe in Martin Luther King Jr.'s
message, that skin color shouldn't matter, and I think everyone should
be able to live together and mix. Though I know that isn't necessarily the reality today.

Middle and South America was colonised by Iberians. Spanish and
Portuguese. They had a very different approach to the British. The
Spanish and Portoguese approach was "assimilation". Maybe this is a
Catholic thing? But those colonists made it a point to assimilate with
the native popultion, hence why these countries are very mixed. The
British did not have this. Australia actually had a White Australia
policy up until the 1960s. The British approach was to remain seperate.
So the original Spanish colonists are largely gone in central America,
whereas all the British colonies, remained British up until the "1960s" ideological poison set in.

The difference then is that countries like Mexico, Brazil, Peru,
Nicaragua, all those central American countries which people seem to be
seeking to flee to go to the USA illegally, are "Blended". You may not
have seen much focus on race, but I've heard differently, including from
people who lived there. I think it is clear which approach is better.
You can tell from where people are moving from, and where they want to
move to. The British approach is clearly better.

Australia though, up until it decided to become "multicultural" was
still distinctly Anglo-Saxon, and maintained its original colonial
identity.

As for MLK, he was a product of his time. This post WWII ideal is in my
view, dead, and should be buried. I still cannot believe people are
pushing for this social message. I put it down to people who just haven't realised the world has changed, and still think its the late 20th century.

Ask the Whites in South Africa how things are going. Ask Australias
how the mass immigration is working out. Or the English.


... BoraxMan
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Re: race
By: Boraxman to Nightfox on Sun Jun 01 2025 12:12 pm

Maybe this is a speficially American thing, where you are taught that
you have no identity? Elsewhere around the world, this is not a
question. I'm in Australia, but from Southern European heritage, and I
can tell you in my ancestral country, there is utterly no question at
all of who "we" are. They consider me one of them, even though I was
born in Australia.

I'm thinking you are in the USA? Empires tend to think like this.

Yes, I'm in the US. And it's not that we're taught that we have no identity (I'm not sure where that came across in my last post); our identity is that we're Americans.

And people in the US do identify with their heritage too. People in the US often say they're Italian-American, Irish-American, German-American, etc.. And often they just shorten it and say they're Italian, Irish, German, etc. And I've seen a lot of posts online where people say they think people from the US shouldn't say that - Mainly because the people saying that were born & grew up in the US and have never actually been to the places they say they identify with. Maybe it's just semantics. I thought that was mainly an American thing where people talk about themselves like that, as it sounded like it's not something people in other countries do.

Pesonally I'm a mix, mostly of several different European countries, and a small amount of Native American. I think it makes the most sense for me to say I'm American, as even if I count my heritage, I couldn't say just one country.

The difference then is that countries like Mexico, Brazil, Peru,
Nicaragua, all those central American countries which people seem to be
seeking to flee to go to the USA illegally, are "Blended". You may not
have seen much focus on race, but I've heard differently, including from
people who lived there. I think it is clear which approach is better.
You can tell from where people are moving from, and where they want to
move to. The British approach is clearly better.

I'm not entirely sure how that's better.. It sounds like it's for the argument of tracking people, and I feel like that's very Orwellian from the book '1984'.

As for MLK, he was a product of his time. This post WWII ideal is in my
view, dead, and should be buried. I still cannot believe people are
pushing for this social message. I put it down to people who just haven't realised the world has changed, and still think its the late 20th century.
Ask the Whites in South Africa how things are going. Ask Australias
how the mass immigration is working out. Or the English.

Why just the whites? It feels wrong to me to talk about a country being a "white country", etc.. I feel like it's a sort of racist ideology.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: race
By: poindexter FORTRAN to jimmylogan on Fri May 30 2025 07:51 am

It won't happen in our generation. Maybe the next. I drove by a
schoolyard in my old neighborhood a few years back and looked at the
kids. I didn't see white kids, black kids, brown kids, yellow kids -- I
saw a mix of ethnicities.

I suppose we'll have white folks clinking to what used to be the status
quo and the rest of the county integrating cultures and ethnicities for
some time.

What I see is whites with money send their kids to high end schools and peasants get thrown into public schools. You won't see any ethnic mix in a reputable private center.

And, quite frankly, I keep hearing the idea that all the old-school status quo ideas will be phased out when old generations die and get replaced by the new, progressive ones. I don't think that is going to happen because I see way more homophobia, racism and old-school ideas in young generations than in mine.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: race
By: Boraxman to poindexter FORTRAN on Sat May 31 2025 02:23 pm

See other nations will be able to maintain their identit.y White nations become a "mix". So white people, and only white people disappear.

This is absurd. Do you not travel... or read?
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #4:
ASCIIZ = NUL ('\0') terminated string/array of ASCII characters
Norco, CA WX: 66.0øF, 81.0% humidity, 10 mph W wind, 0.02 inches rain/24hrs
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net