Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

An interactive map of the US's historical racial and ethnic diversity by county for every US census year between 1960 and 2060


  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#61
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts
  • LocationUK

Joe, I'm 12 when you were the one ignoring me from when I called you out last time? Of course you don't recall that though do you? Anyways you can look at all the surveys, statistics, and actual evidence as to race relations as opposed to "historical laws" of which there are none. As seed pointed out we live in a different age. You know what else was was a historical law? Horses. But then we got cars.


Anyways bro it's all good you're entitled to your opinion.

The fact that you think I'm purposely ignoring you says a lot, yeah. I was actually too busy replying to caltrek who replied himself with more detail and actually engaged with the points I was making so if you want my attention, you're going to actually have to do that, sorry. Go on, give me all your surveys and statistics about race relations. Also, I'm not sure how that really weak comparison with cars and horses relates to racial tensions somehow not being real, but okay, you do you. This is what I mean when I say it's mostly not worth responding to you, because you say weird and irrelevant stuff like that. And yeah, cool, you're entitled to your opinion too (obviously) but just don't be surprised when the future isn't all dazzly and perfect. 



#62
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    If I die it shall be in vain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,118 posts
Also like I mentioned in my response that was a "platitude" according to you the "white" group that you separate into one homogeneous group is anything but. Like Caltrek mentioned there are many white Hispanics. Not only this but anglo whites and whites from italy or eastern europe are hardly culturally homogeneous. They hardly have a history of unity. Not for food religion or anything as I mentioned.
The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#63
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    If I die it shall be in vain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,118 posts
Institutions and the like change and the united States has no historical antecedent. Just like the internal combustion engine was a fundamental demarcation so it could be argued that the United States with it's unique circumstances is one. It's largely succeeded. The horse was a law but something changed that law. Maybe what you're saying was prevalent before but it does not necessarily mean that it always will be. That's what that analogy meant. Also I'll give you a few surveys.
The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#64
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts
  • LocationUK

Also like I mentioned in my response that was a "platitude" according to you the "white" group that you separate into one homogeneous group is anything but. Like Caltrek mentioned there are many white Hispanics. Not only this but anglo whites and whites from italy or eastern europe are hardly culturally homogeneous. They hardly have a history of unity. Not for food religion or anything as I mentioned.

White Americans today are treated as homogenous by outside groups, i.e. African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asians, Jews, etc and are classified as a group officially. Different European nations were able to integrate more or less, over centuries, into "White Americans" and increasingly so in the context of even more diversity from outside of Europe. Importantly, those European nationalities were able to do that in a way that is extremely unlikely to naturally happen between White Americans and African or Hispanic Americans on a large scale, despite a small minority of mixed race people. If the different European ethnicities were dissimilar to one another, then the effect can only be amplified with non-Europeans.



#65
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts
  • LocationUK

Institutions and the like change and the united States has no historical antecedent. Just like the internal combustion engine was a fundamental demarcation so it could be argued that the United States with it's unique circumstances is one. It's largely succeeded. The horse was a law but something changed that law. Maybe what you're saying was prevalent before but it does not necessarily mean that it always will be. That's what that analogy meant. Also I'll give you a few surveys.

Well, time will tell, but fundamentally, I don't see what is really so different about America. All the other civilisations before thought they had succeeded too, and eventually, that turned out to be very far from the truth. 



#66
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    If I die it shall be in vain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,118 posts
https://www.pewresea...ential-nominee/

You said multiracial groups weren't a large group... Almost as large as black people and larger than the Asian minority. You said that if they were a larger group Caltrek would have a point.

https://www.pewsocia...atter-movement/
Before the violence the support was huge.

https://www.pewresea...n-2018-vs-2006/

Progress on a major race issue.

https://www.pewsocia...ing-v-virginia/

Improving views on interracial relationships.

https://www.google.c...children/?amp=1

Americans support the integration of people who came here illegally.

So many other things. Sentiment may be declining but on specific issues and on statistics it's not doing bad. Sentiment would obviously decline given the president and the instant access to media. Either way hardly the end of the United States or universal opposition to diversity.
The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#67
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    If I die it shall be in vain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,118 posts

Also like I mentioned in my response that was a "platitude" according to you the "white" group that you separate into one homogeneous group is anything but. Like Caltrek mentioned there are many white Hispanics. Not only this but anglo whites and whites from italy or eastern europe are hardly culturally homogeneous. They hardly have a history of unity. Not for food religion or anything as I mentioned.

White Americans today are treated as homogenous by outside groups, i.e. African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asians, Jews, etc and are classified as a group officially. Different European nations were able to integrate more or less, over centuries, into "White Americans" and increasingly so in the context of even more diversity from outside of Europe. Importantly, those European nationalities were able to do that in a way that is extremely unlikely to naturally happen between White Americans and African or Hispanic Americans on a large scale, despite a small minority of mixed race people. If the different European ethnicities were dissimilar to one another, then the effect can only be amplified with non-Europeans.

The primary lens that most Americans see themselves through is not through the lens of race. They see themselves through the lens of a common heritage, respect for the rule of law, and many other things. I see no impediment to the continued integration and homogenization of the American culture. Not everyone has to be exactly the same and even those white people that you group into one group still aren't homogenous in their culture or lifestyles. The differences between races and ethnicities is less than what ties them together in the United States.

Or that's what most Americans feel. See above and look up more stats for yourself. I've responded in good faith but I'm done since I can't be bothered to type more or look up more info.
The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#68
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts
  • LocationUK

So many other things. Sentiment may be declining but on specific issues and on statistics it's not doing bad. Sentiment would obviously decline given the president and the instant access to media. Either way hardly the end of the United States or universal opposition to diversity.

Thank you for posting these surveys.

 

So with the first one, 2.4% of American adults report being two or more races, so still very much a minority group. 

 

Support for the protests before the violence existed, yes, but it's crucial that that was before the violence.

 

With Black imprisonment, well, that's certainly a win for the Black population, but it's unlikely to improve race relations.

 

Increasing intermarriage is an interesting factor, although still uncommon and I'd be very surprised if that became sufficient to engineer a majority mixed-race population in the US and dissolve different racial identities. 

 

The last one about illegal immigrants, again that's quite an interesting find, although I wonder how much effect the use of children had for that one.

 

When I speak of opposition to diversity, I'm not assuming it's universal. My argument was that in the long run, it will become necessary because the situation is not likely to improve from now, in my view. With skyrocketing crime in large cities amidst the defunding of police and an invigorated radical movement which is determined on extracting reparations from white people who are soon to be a minority, I'm not particularly optimistic about race relations in America going forward. Perhaps some sort of authoritarian police state will emerge under which all the factions can be kept in line, but even that can't last forever. A lot of my thoughts are of course inspired by what I see happening in Britain, which perhaps might influence me in a way more negative than warranted for America, given I don't live there and can't directly experience it. Although at the same time, I can't ignore what I've seen elsewhere from many who do live in America and take the view that most people are at least implicitly opposed to diversity (no matter what race they are). White liberals are definitely less likely to identify according to race, but the problem is that they often become atomised individuals, cut off from a sense of community, which is not a healthy state for any human to be in. Black Americans and Hispanic Americans (and others) are much more in tune with their sense of ethnicity and community than are Whites. It seems the divide between White liberals and White conservatives is much starker than I perhaps realised, with the two groups living in completely different worlds more than I ever thought they did, or at least perceiving that to be the case. Something I have noticed though is that those who live away from diversity and live comfortable lives are sometimes more likely to support that diversity, whereas those who live in its midst are often not quite so pleased with it.



#69
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    If I die it shall be in vain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,118 posts

The overall trend has been towards less violence. The only point of contention that I see here is whether this small hiccup with the George Floyd riots (i'll even concede this even though I don't agree with that characterization) is the start of something larger. I doubt it. 

 

I mean even if we use the election of Donald Trump as a proxy for the level of resentment white people felt towards a perceived threat to the current power structure we're already seeing a refutation of it with the 2020 election. 


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth.

#70
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,713 posts

 

That is why they formed as a federation of states, so that each state could function with some autonomy.

They were formed as states by White Americans for White Americans - however good or bad anyone might believe that to be. The US Constitution was not built for racial diversity everywhere within each state, or even much racial diversity at all. It wasn't until 1965 that immigration restrictions were loosened enough to allow a great many non-Europeans to move to the country and shift the demographic makeup of the US in the way they now have.

 

 

Amazing how conservatives (and you are now sounding more like a conservative than a Marxist-Leninist) keep ignoring the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. At least two, if not all three of these amendments very much addressed the issue of "racial diversity".  In the South, Reconstruction followed.  A condition for re-entry into the Union during re-construction was the adoption of these three amendments.

 

Not "until 1965 that immigration restrictions were loosened to allow a great many non-Europeans to move to the country." That does not even pass the laugh test.  More accurate to say that restrictions were loosened and tightened in a very erratic manner.  As Transcending God indicated, do not leave Asians out of your review.

 

For that matter, Blacks were forced  to immigrate centuries earlier, Native Americans were already here, and many Pacific Islanders were allowed in to help meet labor  requirements, especially in agriculture. 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#71
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts
  • LocationUK

Amazing how conservatives (and you are now sounding more like a conservative than a Marxist-Leninist) keep ignoring the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. At least two, if not all three of these amendments very much addressed the issue of "racial diversity".  In the South, Reconstruction followed.  A condition for re-entry into the Union during re-construction was the adoption of these three amendments.

 

Not "until 1965 that immigration restrictions were loosened to allow a great many non-Europeans to move to the country." That does not even pass the laugh test.  More accurate to say that restrictions were loosened and tightened in a very erratic manner.  As Transcending God indicated, do not leave Asians out of your review.

 

For that matter, Blacks were forced  to immigrate centuries earlier, Native Americans were already here, and many Pacific Islanders were allowed in to help meet labor  requirements, especially in agriculture. 

None of those amendments envisaged a scenario of mass immigration which would lead to a White minority. Two of them were amendments dealing with the already existing African-American population. Also, laugh test? So you've never heard of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which abolished the National Origins Formula which had been in place since the 1920s which was aimed at preserving the existing demographic makeup of the US. No law was ever introduced after 1965 which reinstated the National Origins Formula. And yes, I know that Africans were forced to migrate to America - and that was a terrible thing. The political structure of the US was always intended to preside over an overwhelmingly White majority population, that's what I'm saying. There's nothing about the US today which gives it any advantage over any other historical regime in dealing with racial tensions.



#72
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,713 posts

None of those amendments envisaged a scenario of mass immigration which would lead to a White minority.

 

Sure, but now you are moving the goal post.

 

Also, laugh test? So you've never heard of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which abolished the National Origins Formula which had been in place since the 1920s which was aimed at preserving the existing demographic makeup of the US. No law was ever introduced after 1965 which reinstated the National Origins Formula.

 

As I tried to explain, there have been many oscillating policy shifts over time on this issue. Your citation merely underlines that point.

 

And yes, I know that Africans were forced to migrate to America - and that was a terrible thing. The political structure of the US was always intended to preside over an overwhelmingly White majority population, that's what I'm saying. There's nothing about the US today which gives it any advantage over any other historical regime in dealing with racial tensions.

 

Prior to the Civil War, many southern states were heading to a majority Black population threshold. Amazingly, this was only mildly alarming to White Southerners. Mostly because they trusted the institution of slavery to maintain an apartheid society.

 

Edit: Minor changes made for reasons of grammar and clarity.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#73
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,320 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

I REALLY don't think that US blacks and US Hispanics (other than fringe groups among them, that is) are going to want their own ethno-states for the very simple fact that their quality of life is likely to severely suffer if they will stop being a part of the US. One could just take a look at Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and compare these regions with the US.

I do agree with that actually, that materially they would be worse off, but like you said yourself, look at the race riots this year. Nationalism usually wins out over materialism. Whites are due to become the minority in the US by the early 2040s, but they'll still be blamed for the ills that America will continue to experience. African-Americans and Hispanics (as well as the myriad other groups) will continue to resent whites and each other, and in the long term, the only solution will be to break apart. If they don't break apart, then America's problems will continue to get worse and worse until it really does sink to the level of sub-Saharan Africa and any united federal American state by that point will become incredibly weak and unstable. But maybe it will be White Americans who take the lead in trying to break off eventually, who knows? There are many, many ways this could play out.

The people who engaged in race riots in the US earlier this year generally didn't want to secede from the US, I'm presuming. After all, there would be much less fancy stores to loot in a black or Hispanic ethno-state than there would be in a diverse and wealthy US.

 

As for the US sinking to Sub-Saharan Africa's level, I just don't see it happening short of perhaps complete and total open borders (and even then, it might be a stretch) since the US likely has a much higher average IQ than Sub-Saharan Africa has, and average IQ along with things such as the size of a country's smart fraction determine just how prosperous this country will be and become.



#74
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts
  • LocationUK

Sure, but now you are moving the goal post.

I'm really not.

 

As I tried to explain, there have been many oscillating policy shifts over time on this issue. Your citation merely underlines that point.

Yes, but I cited it because it supports my point that overall, immigration laws to the US have become less restrictive over time and have allowed a situation to develop in which White Americans will become a minority in the country as a whole by the early 2040s. Whether you think that's good or bad, that's what happened.

Prior to the Civil War, many southern states were heading to a majority black population threshold. Amazingly, this was only mildly alarming to White Southerners. Mostly because they trusted the institution of slavery to maintain an apartheid society.

Yes, so maintaining order in a diverse South had to depend on slavery. That's not exactly an ideal situation, to say the very least.



#75
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts
  • LocationUK

The people who engaged in race riots in the US earlier this year generally didn't want to secede from the US, I'm presuming. After all, there would be much less fancy stores to loot in a black or Hispanic ethno-state than there would be in a diverse and wealthy US.

 

As for the US sinking to Sub-Saharan Africa's level, I just don't see it happening short of perhaps complete and total open borders (and even then, it might be a stretch) since the US likely has a much higher average IQ than Sub-Saharan Africa has, and average IQ along with things such as the size of a country's smart fraction determine just how prosperous this country will be and become.

Okay, yeah, I can agree with that. I just think that over the coming decades, ethnic separatism is likely to gain traction, even if it's only a fringe idea at the moment. 



#76
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,320 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

Amazing how conservatives (and you are now sounding more like a conservative than a Marxist-Leninist) keep ignoring the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. At least two, if not all three of these amendments very much addressed the issue of "racial diversity".  In the South, Reconstruction followed.  A condition for re-entry into the Union during re-construction was the adoption of these three amendments.

 

Not "until 1965 that immigration restrictions were loosened to allow a great many non-Europeans to move to the country." That does not even pass the laugh test.  More accurate to say that restrictions were loosened and tightened in a very erratic manner.  As Transcending God indicated, do not leave Asians out of your review.

 

For that matter, Blacks were forced  to immigrate centuries earlier, Native Americans were already here, and many Pacific Islanders were allowed in to help meet labor  requirements, especially in agriculture. 

None of those amendments envisaged a scenario of mass immigration which would lead to a White minority. Two of them were amendments dealing with the already existing African-American population. Also, laugh test? So you've never heard of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which abolished the National Origins Formula which had been in place since the 1920s which was aimed at preserving the existing demographic makeup of the US. No law was ever introduced after 1965 which reinstated the National Origins Formula. And yes, I know that Africans were forced to migrate to America - and that was a terrible thing. The political structure of the US was always intended to preside over an overwhelmingly White majority population, that's what I'm saying. There's nothing about the US today which gives it any advantage over any other historical regime in dealing with racial tensions.

Switzerland is diverse and yet is able to govern itself pretty well? Or does it not count because most of its peoples are white?

 

Anyway, white people appear to be doing OK in some Latin American countries, no? I mean, white people (and also Asian groups such as the Japanese) are still the elites of various Latin American countries even right now even if they're not the majority of the total population in these countries--correct?



#77
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,320 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

So many other things. Sentiment may be declining but on specific issues and on statistics it's not doing bad. Sentiment would obviously decline given the president and the instant access to media. Either way hardly the end of the United States or universal opposition to diversity.

Thank you for posting these surveys.

 

So with the first one, 2.4% of American adults report being two or more races, so still very much a minority group. 

 

Support for the protests before the violence existed, yes, but it's crucial that that was before the violence.

 

With Black imprisonment, well, that's certainly a win for the Black population, but it's unlikely to improve race relations.

 

Increasing intermarriage is an interesting factor, although still uncommon and I'd be very surprised if that became sufficient to engineer a majority mixed-race population in the US and dissolve different racial identities. 

 

The last one about illegal immigrants, again that's quite an interesting find, although I wonder how much effect the use of children had for that one.

 

When I speak of opposition to diversity, I'm not assuming it's universal. My argument was that in the long run, it will become necessary because the situation is not likely to improve from now, in my view. With skyrocketing crime in large cities amidst the defunding of police and an invigorated radical movement which is determined on extracting reparations from white people who are soon to be a minority, I'm not particularly optimistic about race relations in America going forward. Perhaps some sort of authoritarian police state will emerge under which all the factions can be kept in line, but even that can't last forever. A lot of my thoughts are of course inspired by what I see happening in Britain, which perhaps might influence me in a way more negative than warranted for America, given I don't live there and can't directly experience it. Although at the same time, I can't ignore what I've seen elsewhere from many who do live in America and take the view that most people are at least implicitly opposed to diversity (no matter what race they are). White liberals are definitely less likely to identify according to race, but the problem is that they often become atomised individuals, cut off from a sense of community, which is not a healthy state for any human to be in. Black Americans and Hispanic Americans (and others) are much more in tune with their sense of ethnicity and community than are Whites. It seems the divide between White liberals and White conservatives is much starker than I perhaps realised, with the two groups living in completely different worlds more than I ever thought they did, or at least perceiving that to be the case. Something I have noticed though is that those who live away from diversity and live comfortable lives are sometimes more likely to support that diversity, whereas those who live in its midst are often not quite so pleased with it.

Re: Diversity: Here in southern California, we have a lot of diversity and yet things are generally pretty calm other than with the high housing prices, large income inequality, and of course massive wildfires (with this specific part NOT being related to diversity). The main problems that the US has with diversity have to do with the high crime rate among native-born US blacks and perhaps some US Hispanic groups (though some heavily Hispanic US cities, such as El Paso, are actually pretty peaceful). Interestingly enough, though, immigrant blacks to the US are largely peaceful.

 

But Yeah, the US has gotten more diverse over the years and decades but its crime rate didn't actually explode during this time, did it?



#78
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts
  • LocationUK

Switzerland is diverse and yet is able to govern itself pretty well? Or does it not count because most of its peoples are white?

 

Anyway, white people appear to be doing OK in some Latin American countries, no? I mean, white people (and also Asian groups such as the Japanese) are still the elites of various Latin American countries even right now even if they're not the majority of the total population in these countries--correct?

Correct, the various peoples of Switzerland are still similar enough that they can function as a federal state.

 

The White communities of Latin America didn't migrate there under conditions of open hostility. When or if Whites become a minority in America, as well as in the nations of Western Europe, we will be a despised minority. Think of all the critical race theory and white privilege theory being expounded to the masses and even to schoolchildren. It won't be like South America, it will be like South Africa, and the reality will be much more violent than it is now, even if 2020 proves to be an exceptional year. 



#79
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,320 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

 

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Still, a lot of us preceded the groups that you are talking about. Importantly, we can trace our heritage back to at least the 19th century or very early twentieth century.  So we can and do provide guidance for the new arrivals. There is also a naturalization process whereby immigrants who want to become citizens must display a basic knowledge of civics. So, that includes some understanding concerning the Constitution, etc.

Yes, but they don't suddenly become the same as other Americans - not that that's "better" or "worse", but people preserve their differences for generations and that's natural. People should keep their own traditions, their own heritage, their own culture - but part of that means different peoples remain separate to one another and constitute different nations (that is, when you get into the root of the word 'nation' which refers to 'birth'). Hispanic-Americans aren't the same as African-Americans and they aren't the same as White Americans, who in turn aren't the same as Native Americans - and that's after a very long time of living together in the US. 

 

 

Just to quibble a little - Hispanic is an ethnic term related to the culture one comes form and the major language of that culture. African-American refers to race. There are, in fact, many blacks who are also of Hispanic heritage. They often come from Latin American countries where slavery was imported.  

 

Also, racially, Hispanic is largely a subset of White, although as I already mentioned there are some who are of Black heritage.  

 

Hispanics who married Native Americans are often called things like "Mexican" if they did so south of the Rio Grande.  Native Americans and Whites intermingled so much in what is now the United States that I think there are probably a lot of folks who have some Native American blood who do not even know it.  

 

Otherwise, I don't much disagree with what you are saying as quoted in this post.  As you said earlier, there are a lot of ways this can all play out.

I suspect that when a lot of people think of "Hispanic" they think of "mestizo", but Yes, you're correct that, according to the official definition, one can be Hispanic and simultaneously be white, black, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, and/or some other race.



#80
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,320 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

I could flip that question back unto you: do you really think there aren't millions of Americans who would strongly disagree with you? This is 500AD; this is not 250 BC; the simple fact that you've even met a person from a different ethnicity or racial group indicates that this is not the world of 1000 years ago. Therefore, your appeal to the past has no value; if anything, it makes you seem less historically-inclined because you fail to see the difference between a world in which you can cross the globe in hours and a previous world in which the only people you'd ever know were in your village.

My "appeal to the past" i.e. the concrete reality that ethnically diverse civilisations and Empires always break apart on national lines and there is no good reason to believe America is any different. Go and disprove it then. Tell me just how eternally stable and endlessly cohesive the USA will be for all time and how racial tensions are somehow a negligible issue then. 

Always? What about countries such as Indonesia or Nigeria or some other Sub-Saharan African countries? Or for that matter Iraq after it has managed to defeat ISIS? Or Switzerland?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users