Ethnic exclusion

Since we know that there is no objective "right" or "wrong," let me ask this...

Why not allow ethnic exclusionism as occurred in Germany, if done peacefully?

There's no rule that says every ethnic group has to be in every country.

Thoughts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Early thoughts

Can we really pretend that ethnic purification of a society can take place peacefully?

Perhaps if a pure group crusaded to found a nation, it would be possible, but given the state of the world, this is only a theoretical abstraction until we get the species off this rock.

In the meantime, the only way to seize land and assets, move people, and strip equality is through violence. People just don't seem willing to get up and move just because a government tells them so. If they were, why would they go to war, ever?

Have you any theoretical model to propose? With some groundwork, the idea is more easily explored.

Morally? Well, having considered that moral right and wrong are, perhaps the issue here, I would say that the first practical matters to mind indicate that no, ethnic exclusion would not be a moral or proper thing in society. Without a moral foundation, the ethical considerations seem to regard the practical.

But I would have to see a model of how that plan would work, and it cannot assume that people will, like good sheep, just move out of the way when asked.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ethnical cleansing in a peaceful manner is detrimental to a society. If nations begin to do that there will undoubtedly become much more intense nationalism and much more anger for other nations. And you can see where that leads.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Early thoughts

Morality: an artifact of Abrahamic religions.

Peaceful: overrated.

I do not see any reason why it is necessarily non-peaceful however. After all, if we're all adults here, we can recognize what is good and simply work to create it. Some might not be happy about having to leave, but no one is happy with every decision in society.

 

Ethnic pride/nationalism doesn't lead to war unless obstructed.

 

Prozak

Really, Prozak, if you can provide a theoretical model of what you propose, we can more easily and deftly explore its merits and demerits. Thus, I repeat my question.

A theoretical model, for instance, would help reinforce these two points.

• After all, if we're all adults here, we can recognize what is good and simply work to create it. First and foremost is the fact that (A) we're not all adults, and (B) "adult" means different things to different people.

However, by what authority, then, or according to what standard, do we figure "good"? As one who examines right and wrong in terms of the collective--e.g. species--I must first be convinced that ethnic exclusionism is, in fact, beneficial to the species. Over the long term, ethnic purity weakens the genetic pool among each disparate collective.

So a theoretical model would first have to establish a standard of good, second to establish the authority of that standard, and third provide a proposal for implementation.

I agree that if we can all sit down and agree on what consider good, we can build something out of it. Which lends to another point, but that in a moment.

• Some might not be happy about having to leave, but no one is happy with every decision in society. A theoretical model would definitely offer us an opportunity to explore the nature of the authority that compels people to move in any given direction. Furthermore, apportionment and allotment issues can be addressed as relates that authority.

Lastly comes a simple point: there are certain things that people generally find good. But they let differences in method and theory interfere with their own as well as others' realizations of those good aspects. I don't see why people can't figure it out the simple way, and work toward those values we already have in common. In that sense, the sharp differences of ethnicity might undergo a natural reduction. One of the problems with ethnic diversity at present is the continuing trend toward division and not union. Because of ethnic and cultural differences, people tend to treat each other as alien, and not as family. And nobody can explain to me why different ethnicity means different morals. Most people strive for good, and we cannot begin to deal squarely with those we perceive as striving otherwise until we have established what good really is. Simply: division seems easiest because it is the easiest to figure out. If we put more effort into the figuring, the execution should come a little easier.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, Vlad Zhirikovski, that Rasta chap, Robert Mugabe, and many famous people asked that very same question. Rather than think about it, however, the Rastas choose to smoke, and Mugabe chose to smack people around. Zhirikovski simply faded from the political seen.

But... First understand my perspective. I am in Australia, in Melbourne. Australia was not settled only by Englishmen 200 years ago. At the same time this country was settled by Greeks, Italians, Chinese, and others, in huge numbers. Since the time of the First Fleet, Australia has been a mix of many cultures. Melbourne, they say, has the largest Greek population of any city other than Athens. A nearby suburb is almost entirely Vietnamese and Chinese. Whether you like it or hate it, Melbourne would simply not be the city it is today if all but one race was removed. Personally I enjoy the variety, in faces and foods and more. And I never understood why people have a problem with various racial groups when there are so many incredibly gorgeous girls from every race/ancestry. I mean, this girl Zenn from Singapore, lives in the next building... Wow!

No, there's no rule which demands that Malcom X live in Beaver Cleaver's house. But wouldn't Beaver Cleaver get really friggin bored with steak and chips for dinner every night? Why not try something different? Of course, Malcome X must live by the Cleaver house rules whil in their house. And Beaver must live by X house rules when he visits the Xs' house.

 

Re: Prozak

A theoretical model according to which specification?

You've repeated dogma at me, but there's nothing substantive above.

It is entirely possible that people - at least, the smart ones - can agree on something which preserves all of our heritages instead of smearing us into one uniform brown color like you propose.

It is further easily possible that it be done peacefully, in that all parties benefit.

Any questions?

 

Re: Re: Ethnic exclusion

Now wait three generations. No more of the "diversity" you applaud, but a group of people with no clear connection to any one heritage who've grown up on TV.

Bra-vo.

 

In Australia we have had maybe eight or ten generations of people from all over the world. So far, I'm still about as white as it gets. I get sunburn if I even think about stepping outside; brown hair, blue eyes. So I don't think we will all be one colour eventually. Even here, we see different groups trying to maintain their own cultural identity, living in separate suburbs and such. I like it that way. I can drive from here to another suburb and be immersed in another culture; then again in the next suburb. Heaps of fun.

Consider other settings and racial groups. Within white Britain there are heaps of separate racial groups. To me it is quite difficult to tell them apart, but a Cornish woman I knew said she found it quite easy to identify the Cornish from the Scots from the Saxons, and so on. Should they interbreed and such? Should they mix together, or not?

Exactly how fast do different groups lose their individuality when they live together? The Scots, I would think, remain quite Scottish compared to the English. The Masai seem to retain a fairly distinct culture. And as I said, we're about ten generations along here in Australia, since the First Fleet, and I'm still about as white as it gets.

 

Am I the only one here who read the Turner Diaries? I didn't buy it or anything (a friend of mine had it, a teacher believe it or not) but its very interesting to see how a racist would perceive a race war and such. Very interesting.

P.S. My teacher isnt a racist. He was my Hummanities teacher, very cool guy. He wanted me to get opinions from every side so that I could understand things better.

 

It's funny you mention the Cornish - I've met quite a few and the Bretagne/Romanish ancestry shines through quite clearly.

The question hinges on the percentage of racial groups and intermixing. I think in Australia as in the USA, most non-whites were seen as minority races and mixing was not encouraged. But with enfranchisement, adulteration of the mainstream is occurring, resulting in people in the middle.

My observation is that people in the middle don't have a home, so to speak - caught between home-cultures, they end up running to the only things that embrace them, namely the capitalist system and certain political excuses.

 

I've never read this book. What was it like? I know the guy from www.natall.com wrote it, and he's very popular with certain underground bands, but have never read it.

http://www.anus.com/metal/absurd.html

 

Where's the model?

Um ... accoridng to yours.

Dogma? Hardly. If you'd like to document it, go for it. In the meantime, what's wrong with proposing a theoretical model to explain the concept you invoke?

I think part of what's at issue is that you haven't established how this peaceful exclusionism would occur. A theoretical model would propose that method and give us something more concrete to examine.

Please establish why something as useless as the color of a person's skin is that important.

I find it more important to maintain Irish music and poetry, for instance, than I do any physical aspect of what makes the appearance of an Irishman.

The connection between ethnic purity and "smart" isn't exactly happening, either. You might wish to substantiate that.

That's an odd definition of "peaceful", for starters, but whatever wroks.

In the meantime, I ask once again for a theoretical model which would demonstrate the possibility of peaceful ethnic exclusion.

Yeah: Why won't you provide a theoretical model of the system you propose so that we can discuss it more directly?

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i always maintained that there are more similarities than differences b/w cultures and societies. to be confused by mere window dressing is shortsighted.

think of us as icecream that come in different flavors

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

is that what happened over there?
is ethnic exclusion the pc term for genocide nowadays?

 

prozak I think they sell it on amazon.com. YOu might aslo try looking for it in eBook form.

 

Adam

Re the idea of different suburbs embracing thier own cultures - where I live that can go to extremes. The suburbs surrounding me have whole streets filled with shops with their signs written in another language (usually Asian or Arabic).

I once made the mistake of thinking I make a purchase from one of those shops and was completely ignored. As we are an English speaking country, I would like to think that while maintaining their own cultures, immigrants should make the effort to become Australians.

As a child of Polish immigrants I fondly remember my parents becoming friends with our Australian neighbours. Vodka and beer, Polish salami and Australian sausages came together on many happy weekends. It's been a long time since I've seen that happening in people's backyards.

Cheers.
Teri

 

Re: Where's the model?

"Theoretical model" = vague unless you provide a specification.

Further, your assertions are still undocumented.

You can keep repeating yourself, but it doesn't make you smart

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: Adam

Soon we'll all be one ethnicity, and none of these traditions will exist. That's assimilation for you.