Integration has failed

[Justin S.]

NegativeVolume,

Speed's Aug. 2nd post is appropriate, and further strengthened by his direct experience with the issue due to his occupation.

Also, you employ a very reductionist form of extreme subjectivism, which is as problematic as sweeping meta-narratives with simplistic categorical conceptions of race (many pan-isms)

Whatever you wish to call it, difference is. Because a hard, ascertainable line may be difficult, or impossible, to draw does not mean that no difference exists, or that it is insignificant and unworthy of classification (to argue otherwise would be like saying different colors don't exist because they are a gradient and not strictly bounded).

To say that there is no property to "white" or "black" is disingenuous, as the speaker asserts such, while denying it. Also, the meter for difference should not be limited to de-contextualized scenarios of individuals. Extreme reductionism discards all sense of historicity, which is inexcusable.

 

[speed]

We need to ask ourselves what Black America has failed to do? Have they failed to integrate into our personal ideas of Americana, adapting their culture to our needs? Whether Black America has failed to integrate or White America has failed to absorb are irrelevant questions. What we must ask ourselves is what about Black America do we find non-American or unintegrated? You guys are trying to find a solution to a problem that you think exists.

Race is a contrived concept. We create the idea of race and pass it down through the generations. Observe the inability of young children to see the world in terms of racial divisions and differences. We teach them to do that. There is nothing enlightening about assigning characteristics to race and then always being pleasently surprised when we find exceptions... the friendly Black man, the brilliant Mexican, etc. I'm offended to the point of pity by Speed's August 2nd post. There are no natural values in Whiteness and there are no natural values in Blackness. Race carries with it no natural virtues.

What this forum has done well to expose is the great tension between White America and Black America. Two Americas layered upon each other resisting and absorbing each other. This is a good dialog to have, but I see a great mistake being made here. We are assuming our personal values are more American, that White America is more truely American and that cannot be true. Race carries no virtues, to be American does, and those virtues exist because of both White AND Black America.

Somebody once suggested that the best judgement of people was the content of their character; race has nothing to do with that.

Well Justin S. has some very nice comments about all of this.

I was not upholding White values as any higher than black, or the white race as any better than the black race. In fact, I remember saying I do not have an answer. I was merely using my experiences as a point of discussion. Im not perfect, I can be racist and insensitive, and I do generalize. But frankly, I have worked closely with the Black community, and during that time, I did gain their trust. I was neither condescending or rude, I was invited to many a house for dinner etc, and I listened and tried to help them implement their ideas. Ive also personally been in thousands of units of squalid housing with crack addicts, the elderly--just about anything you can think of, Ive had the pleasure of seeing. Ive met and helped black business leaders, religious leaders, community leaders.

But riddle me this: how do you explain the very same characteristics, culture, statistics, problems of black culture throughout the U.S.? Are we to forget about the insanely high crime rate? Their majorities in public housing? Their ridiculously low educational attainment rate? Their distrust of anyone in power and inability to work with each other? Their own preference for segregation? Why is this? I suspect most of it has to do with historical factors. But why are all of these factors concentrated in the black race/culture? And why shouldnt one observe how the two races live in different worlds and different cultures?

And finally, have you considered whether or not Black people themselves consider America to be two worlds--with White virtues being more important than Black? I think you'd be surprised to find the answer.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Black activist Rev Al Sharpton: "That's like saying, 'I'm honest but I ain't never been around no money.'" -after Howard Dean said he's not a racist but had never lived in a racially diverse community.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blsharptonquotes.htm

What Sharpton must mean is that it is very tempting to be "racist" if you have direct regular experience with other races. Prejudice (in the original sense of prejudging a situation before you know enough about it) comes from lack of personal experience, not from encoutering the daily reality.

"Racist" is not really the right word though as it implies hatred.

 

[infoterror]

"Racist" is not really the right word though as it implies hatred.

Every identifiable group prefers its own. It's only the pretense of society that stops that from being recognized. And I have to ask: cui bono?

 

[OldScratch]

If I may wander back to the original post for a moment, it seems to me one of the most rational(and recently rare?) things we humans do is weighing whether any given thing can, will, or has benefitted us in some way. The "us" in this discussion is White, Western man. And the answer to the "integration question" for me lies in even a surface analysis(or observation) of what "benefit" has been reaped therefrom.
Surely, one would be hard-pressed to show where the primarily forced integration of Blacks into White society has been a legitimate, tangible benefit to Whites themselves. And while some Blacks have clearly benefitted from this 'arrangement' far too many have not. Indeed, as many have noted already, Blacks have been largely relegated to dirty, dangerous ghettos, wherein few thrive and many don't even survive. (Yet, it must also be understood that these same ghettos didn't create themselves.)
Yes, there is a growing Black 'Middle-Class" but at what overall cost? (monetarily and sociologically) And realistically, how many will always remain "behind."
Many of these Black social-ladder advancements would never have resulted without the huge machinery of racial-preference programs, "Diversity" initiatives and the like. I have no doubt whatever, that if society reverted to a pure meritocracy versus the carefully engineered 'Diversity/multiculti' illusion that exists today, the number of successful Blacks would drop off precipitously.
It should be noted though, that some would argue that even these small and artificial "successes" are quite worth it - this is, of course, a central tenet of modern liberalism(and increasing neo-conservatism), which both seem to despise the Social-Darwinism of old, and never concern themselves with whether this benefits Whites one way or another. Indeed, so long as any act benefits a non-white in America, it is "good" according to the new moral orthodoxy as espoused by all "right-thinking" people, no matter how deleterious to Whites.
It is interesting to me that most here seem to agree that (largely)involuntary integration has realistically been harmful to both Black and White alike. And on a positive note, it seems equally clear that no one here is interested in harming any racial 'minority' one way or the other.
Yet, sadly the very social dogmas of our day demand that this integration process continue(and expand) unabated...and to even question it as we have done here, is an act of naked social heresy. So where do we go from here?

 

[Justin S.]

A very good post, OldScratch.

But, I have no answer to your final question, as "we" are in no position to do much of anything about it. One cannot force historical moments.

 

[OldScratch]

A very good post, OldScratch.

But, I have no answer to your final question, as "we" are in no position to do much of anything about it. One cannot force historical moments.

Thank you...though of course, these are really just fairly simple observations made complex by the strange and near-fanatical "egalitarianism uber-alles" mentality of our age. As for the last question, it is as much rhetorical as anything I suppose. I, for one, cannot see the solution to the issues surrounding race, ethnicity, nationality, demography or destiny being particularly peaceful.
Somehow it seems we(or our forebears) never considered that even the most well-intentioned social experiment is still subject to failure. Thus, it only follows that 'we' had no real plan of what to do if/when said failure occured. And given that so many are willing, even eager to stand reason and reality on their head to protect the lie or conceal the failure, real progress is impossible. One need only observe any official discussion of the so-called racial 'achievement-gap' in education to see this phenomenon in action. To the accompaniment of loud wailing and the rending of garments,
acedemics and social scientists dutifully twist themselves in knots, vigorously wringing their collective hands, indignantly ignoring the proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the room. Seldom have so many pretended NOT to see something so brutally obvious. Yet, we call ourselves enlightened...how odd.

 

[infoterror]

One cannot force historical moments.

SOMEONE is forcing them... (not a conspiracy post: point is that someone's actions result in change, and we can be that someone).

:Smokin:

 

[Horus]

Saying that one cannot force historical movements is like saying that history can't go in any direction but a straight line. Everyone likes to believe that they're either living in a time where absolutely NO significant historical events are occuring, or a time when a shitload of historical events are occuring. Well here's some news: We're living in history. 9-11 was a historical event now, of epic proportions. I am a part of history. The war in Iraq is a historical event. Israel v Lebanon came close to being on the same level, but didn't get quite as extreme as it seriously could've gotten. And any day now, if Bush r someone in Washington says the wrong thing, we could be in the middle of a historical event with the entire Middle East launching an arsenal of Death at the United States. All it takes for a historical event is for the right person to say the right thing in the right place in the right way at the right time for the right reasons.

The right person could be anyone.
The right thing could be anything.
The right place could be anywhere.
The right way could be any way.
The right time could be any time.
The right reason could be anything.
It's all just a matter of the chances of everything falling into place.

 

[Justin S.]

SOMEONE is forcing them... (not a conspiracy post: point is that someone's actions result in change, and we can be that someone).

:Smokin:

Historical moments are beyond individuals. Persons do no choose their context, but act within it.

And the people who do affect certain things in that sense arent posting on the UM board.

 

[Justin S.]

Ptah, I said "historical moments", not "historical movements". Big difference.

One, or many, cannot change the enabling conditions of their context (it precedes and determines even their ability to deny it, if they so "choose")

 

[Norsemaiden]

Historical moments are beyond individuals. Persons do no choose their context, but act within it.

And the people who do affect certain things in that sense arent posting on the UM board.

Infoterror pointed out that someone's actions have resulted in change. Power exists, and is siezed and used by people for their own purposes. Others stand passively by and get drawn along by circumstances they do not wish to attempt to control, or feel helpless to control. Power is being wielded. If it was not being wielded there would be a situation known as a "power vacuum", which would be quickly resolved.

We are ruled by people with a plan and they are part of a group that have schemed to bring their ideas into fruition for many years. Enforced racial mixing is not accidental - it is contrived. The establishment's hostiltity to white racial loyalty is contrived. It became dominant as an idea in the second half of the 20th century and is highly political.

When a political party becomes a government, they have spent a long time formulating the ideas that they stand for, and it is to be expected that when they are in power they will do things their way. Is this not an example of "forcing a historical moment"? It is certainly what they intended to do.

As far as solving this situation. Not assisting the agenda that you disagree with would be a start. Do whatever you can legally do not to cooperate.
Be ready to at least support those who offer a preferred alternative.
While it is true that there is a spontaneous aspect to this: "Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Man", when things get desperate enough, "the Man" has undoubtedly been preparing for his moment, and moving things in the appropriate direction beforehand.

 

[Patrick R.]

What about removal of race itself? With increasing interracial breeding, could we see eventually see genetic convergence leading to creation of a single "gray race" inhabiting the world? This would certainly solve the racial integration problem but would it lead to other problems?

No, that would just make a maelstrom of races and ethnic groups with no identity…it would be complete and total chaos, remember, being mixed race isn’t bad and little forms of race mixing is inevitable, but on a large scale it is nothing but trouble, take a look at the United States or the Middle East where you have a several races and ethnic groups, it is trouble no matter where you go.

 

[Justin S.]

^ Its also a huge error to assume that "race" is the only category of difference fought over. The meter of difference will simply be moved.

 

[Patrick R.]

^ Its also a huge error to assume that "race" is the only category of difference fought over. The meter of difference will simply be moved.

Well, you are right, it isn't the only category of difference fought over, but the most important one without question, I tell you what rather then mix ourselves to death why don't we just stay away from one another?

 

[Patrick R.]

I think you really have problem with history.
Ottoman empire was multi-ethnical state. It is a fragile situation. They were encouraging people to adopt Muslim faith, because it was making things easier for them- You have to rule country and relligious differences can make a lot of problems.

It sure was a multi-ethnical state, it was also a multi-racial state as well and like all multi racial empires, they crumble, but with the Ottomans they managed to conquer many parts of Europe before their demise, they were turned back twice at the gates of Vienna…like you said, when you rule a country religious differences can make a lot of problems, with the Ottomans they should of never tried to conquer and live over a diverse group of peoples, let that be the great lesson of history.

On the other hand, going heavy against other relligions on your theoritorries can also make problems. So they were walking a thin line between bit of pressure to convert to Muslim faith and let people be of faith they want to be. Actually you can find a lot of historical material where it is commented about it. For instance here, a lot of churches was built right at that time. They were not taxing christians more all the time and on all of theoritories.

Well first of all, it wasn’t Ottomans territory before they brutally invaded and crushed European cities, their first claim on European soil came about when a Byzantine emperor hired Ottoman soldiers as mercenaries to defeat a rival claimant to the Byzantine throne, they stayed even after their services were no longer required and they attacked and plundered the city of Gallipoli in 1354 and from then on they seemed invincible, it was only when white Europeans finally got a grip with reality and our technological achievements made the Ottomans the ‘sick man of Europe’.

Also, muslim people were paying taxes too... State needs money, everyone were paying taxes. If you check european history a bit you will notice that living was equally hard or even harder at that time in christain world than in muslim world , so it was easier to be ordinary christian farmer in Ottoman Empire than in Europe in a lot of ways. Europe ws chaotic, wars were raging all the time, landlords were figting between themselves even if they are vasals of the same king etc. It was constantly on the edge of chaos.

Europe during the Middle Ages was indeed chaotic from the lunacy of the inquisition, the endless wars with one another, the virtual slavery from feudalism, the black death, the repression of all science, history, and all other works that were non Christian etc, the list goes on, but living as a Christian in the Ottoman Empire would not have been any better, not only would you have religious cleavages to deal with you would also have racial differences to deal with.

Look at the parts of Europe that weren’t under Ottoman control and look at the parts of Europe that were, with the former, they became what was know as Western civilization and controlled the known world and with that latter you will see the racial and ethnic differences to this day and which are still causing serious problems, religious differences can be dealt with, while racial differences can’t without separation.

Turkish dynasty was ruling in Otoman Empire, and not a lot of people in Ottoman Empire where Turks ethnically. Also, Turks were feeling more belonging to their own tribes than to something like "Empire" or to Sultan itself. So professional military that is not dependent on relligious leaders, or ethnicity was needed, millitary force that ruler can count on. Also, Janissaries were birocracy of the empire. At certain age, those more skilled in military disciples were separated of more intellectualy oriented, first were becoming Janissaries as a millitary force (Janissary means "Sultans slave") and second were ruling the emipire. Being Janissary was great, high social position, far different from simple soldier, and at that time having your children become Janissary was an honour and you were assured that your childred will be fed, educated, trained and have a good life. In historical period when families were having like ten childer to ensure that at least few of them will survive, it was good opportunity. Actually in Ottoman empire, people were trying hard to find "connections" so they can have thier child taken to Janissaries. Being Janissary ment that child of christian poor villager can become grand Vessir and rule Ottoman Empire in Sultans name.

The Janissaries were stolen white children, while you say it was a great high school position etc you forget to mention it was these individuals that were used to win many serious battles and without question kept the Ottoman life force flowing to continue their relentless assault on Europe.

I don’t see anything good about being a Janissary, being white taken from your home at birth and then learn Turkish, Persian, and Arabic while becoming indoctrinated into Islam with your origins and identity unknown.

And it was happening in practice, most of Vessirs were of Slav blood. Also having preferences of Arian children was never documented and has no sense.

The Slavs are Indo European, that is about as Aryan as you can get.

It is similar with "Girls taken to harems" comment. If you could be able to ask a girl at that time: Do you want to die from hunger or dissease, live poor life on farm, being raped at least once from christian soldier and once from muslim soldier, be constantly pregnant and watch most of your children die, or live civilized life as one of the wives of rich muslim lord, in nice clothes, wash every day, eat good food when your biggest problem that day is in what color will you paint your nails, what do you think girl would choose?

So, you are using the ‘lesser between two evils’ argument, live a feudal life style or entertain some Muslim womanizer.

Janissaries were not "Main reason for ottoman success". They were just a necessity because of the way things are. Having trained army is something that existed long before Ottomans.

The Janissaries were by your own admission a necessity, but at the same time their racial make up created problems with numerous rebellions.

And btw, they were not fanatical muslim warriors, they were extremely disciplined professional warriors. Quite a difference. Crusaders were extremly undisciplined fanatical christian warriors. Actually muslims were much less fanatical about their faith at that time, "Holy wars" term was made in west by Catholic church that invented holy wars as a way of channeling savagery of christians towards muslims, having convinience of pillaging rich muslim lands. In Kuran, it is forbidden to fight offensive war, so wars of Ottoman empire are in a lot of way just an act of agressive politics of state and not acts of muslim faith as it seems some people think. Idea that "muslim must be stopped" is made by christian church, as way to unify christians agains threat.

The Muslim warriors weren’t fanatical? Ok then what do you call the end of the Battle of Nicopolis, when the Muslims brutally murdered thousands of white prisoners lasting for hours? Was that something normal?

I have to disagree with your claim that the Crusaders were ‘extremely’ undisciplined…the very fact that they were able to wage wars outside of their homeland with very little communication is remarkable all by itself, if they truly were ‘undisciplined’ they would not of been able to even take back the holy land once.

It is foolish to try and claim that the Ottoman invasion of Europe wasn’t savage but then moan about the ‘savagery’ of Christians toward Muslims and pillaging their land, it was both Islam and aggressive politics that caused this invasion…how do you explain the Moorish/Muslim invasion of Spain and then demanding white virgin women to be handed over to them?

Ottoman Empire had agressive politics, while arabs were much more peacefull before Turks came, and that was one of the reasons why crusaders have had so much success initially against them even if it is highly unfavorable position to be far from home in foreign land depending on long see routes for support. A lot of time and effort was needed historically to reclaim their own lands from savage christian invanders.

Likewise, it took a lot of time to reclaim European land from save Muslim invaders…lets not forget it wasn’t only Europe the Muslims spread with their violent religion, take a look at Egypt and the rest of North Africa…take a look at the black slaves, yes they were the black slave traders long before whites engaged in that business.

But don’t get me wrong, modern Muslims and Arabs are fine in my book, I don’t use their past and throw it against them for a guilt trip when every race and religion has been naughty at one point of history or another.

Lol. I can't see anything favorable in English history, no offense to english people here. I mean, they were colonial power for few hundred years and that's it... So what?

Oh Britain’s achievements were a lot more then just being a colonial power, they gave birth to the best intellectuals ever, from Shakespeare to Sir Isaac Newton, they have more history then any other nation.

Kosovo has nothing to do with muslims. You are mixing things that have nothing in common. Battle of kosovo was a draw actually even naturally it had dire consequences because having same number of people killed and rulers killed has different results for small and big countries. Also, period after battle of kosovo was a period of friendship between Ottoman Empire and Serbia. Serbian leader has gave his sister as a wife for Sultan, they were good personal friends, they fought alongside in battle of Ankara (funny on one side were Janissaries and Serbs as Sultans force and a most of Turks were on enemy side). There was actually another great battle of Kosovo where Serbian and Ottoman army triumphed against Austrian-albanian forces. Even when Serbia has centuries later lost its independence, Christian church had benefits and everything was functioning normally. It was in interest of Ottoman empire to keep people in order, and relligion was a great way for that, peacefull christian or Jew that obeys and pays its taxes was always better than rebellious uncontent muslim that does not pay taxes.

The Battle of Kosovo had to do with Muslims, that was one of the first battles that the Ottomans started (they were savage and were invading other peoples lands) and they destroyed a Bulgarian army and then defeated the Serbs at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 where a Serbian soldier killed Murad, the Ottoman Emperor and then the Ottomans executed the Serbian prince who’s name was Lazar as payback.

Shortly after that, in 1396 the Ottomans defeated a Christian assault at the Battle of Nicopolis and murdered thousands of them afterwards, so the Ottoman invasion of Serbia wasn’t the holly jolly ordeal you are trying to make it out to be.

Not much sense... Nothing has happened in Zimbabwe by itself... Zimbabwe is actually ok compared to some other african countries that are victims of hunger for profit of western countries.

I think you missed her point…what she is saying is that whites are being demographically overwhelmed and that the non whites are taking control of our countries stamping whites out of existence, Zimbabwe is a perfect example and yes something has happened, going form white rule (Rhodesia) to black rule (Zimbabwe) is a significant change all by itself, now the world has seen a country well run, to a country with a brutal dictator, Robert Mugabe brutally murdering whites and blacks…he has even come out publicly stating that he wants to ethnically cleanse all whites, but I know, they are being oppressed by the West right?

South africa seems ok to me, my friend was living there until recently (white) and it was ok for him too. So I am failnig to see any conections even if you obviously think that there is some.

Well, I would hate to see what is ok in your book, if you think massive amounts of murder, rape, torture, and AIDS is ok (which wasn’t the case when South Africa was white ruled) then I guess South Africa is just fine…I don’t know what your white friend down there considers ‘ok’…if he thinks it is ok to be imprisoned for even complaining about anti white discrimination then I guess South Africa is just his little paradise.

 

[A Dying Breed]

Race isn't the problem. Ethnic/cultural identification is the problem. It is quite possible to socialize people such that they no longer identify with their race any more than they identify with their height, hair color or other physical attributes, so that race consciousness of the type we're familiar with no longer exists. Of course, this would necessitate quite a bit of historical revision, genuine integration in which minority groups are effectively diluted among the majority (unlike the obvious geographic division that exists today in the US and elsewhere), and basically the total loss of culture. I wouldn't really mind though, I mean look at the Germans and those stupid traditional outfits they wear. Would we really miss that if we could have undying (intra-state) peace and harmony in its place?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Race isn't the problem. Ethnic/cultural identification is the problem. It is quite possible to socialize people such that they no longer identify with their race any more than they identify with their height, hair color or other physical attributes, so that race consciousness of the type we're familiar with no longer exists. Of course, this would necessitate quite a bit of historical revision, genuine integration in which minority groups are effectively diluted among the majority (unlike the obvious geographic division that exists today in the US and elsewhere), and basically the total loss of culture. I wouldn't really mind though, I mean look at the Germans and those stupid traditional outfits they wear. Would we really miss that if we could have undying (intra-state) peace and harmony in its place?

That would involve one hell of a domineering state, brutally enforcing social engineering to that extent. The point has been made before that people have a natural urge to have a unique identity. If race is taken out of the picture there will be group identities forged on some other difference, for example religious, or more likely it will be some physical form of classification as long as these exist. Even if everyone in the world was white, there would be divisions on any and all possible levels. That is the way things work in nature: cladogenesis.

However there would be more peace if races were separate, because divisions would be happening at a more gentle, organic pace rather than a manmade artificially forced chaos.

 

[Patrick R.]

Race isn't the problem. Ethnic/cultural identification is the problem.

Well, if ethnic/cultural identification is the problem then clearly race would be a problem as well, ethnic differences can be dealt with if the race is the same, history is full of examples and we can use examples of the present day, look at African Americans, there has been a lot of efforts to Americanize them but can you actually call them Anglo Saxons? No of course you can’t, in marked contrast to the European immigrants that came to America, all of them were Americanized and all of them became “white”, blacks want to be black, not white and that is their natural right to do so.

The Japanese understand racial homogeneity well…they don’t encourage massive immigration that isn’t the same racial stock as the majority of the inhabitants of Japan, they know very well a Hispanic couldn’t become Japanese, speaking of Hispanics they don’t push for “diversity” in their land neither, Mexico is a prime example of that.

It is quite possible to socialize people such that they no longer identify with their race any more than they identify with their height, hair color or other physical attributes, so that race consciousness of the type we're familiar with no longer exists.

Oh really? How is that? Haven’t the liberal hypocrites been trying that for decades with all of their multi-cultural propaganda? It doesn’t seem to be working, after all, Bill Clinton, ‘the first African American president’ preaches multiculturalism but where exactly does this man live? No, it isn’t a ‘multi racial’ neighborhood, on the contrary, it is a very mono racial neighborhood and it isn’t ‘African American’…it is very ‘white’.

Of course, this would necessitate quite a bit of historical revision, genuine integration in which minority groups are effectively diluted among the majority (unlike the obvious geographic division that exists today in the US and elsewhere), and basically the total loss of culture. I wouldn't really mind though, I mean look at the Germans and those stupid traditional outfits they wear. Would we really miss that if we could have undying (intra-state) peace and harmony in its place?

Sorry ‘genuine integration’ isn’t the answer, geographic separation of the races is the only answer…as I have already pointed out ethnic problems can be dealt with if the race is the same, so it is race that must be separated, not integrated and that will solve many problems and then the races can build a civilization that reflects their interest and their people.

I can’t help but to wonder why you don’t worry about race but you worry about traditional German outfits. What is that all about? How in the hell does that really concern you?

 

[OldScratch]

Norsemaiden & Patrick R. - well stated indeed!
So many seem to forget that by and large, the only way the integration scheme even produces the illusion of success, is by government enforcement(from Congress to the classroom), a sympathetic mass-media propaganda machine, an equally complicit entertainment-industry, etc., etc.
NONE of this foolishness has been achieved organically or naturally - none of it! This is not progress - it is delusion and self-deceit!
Fantasize all you like about egalitarian utopias...yes, in theory this would likely be wonderful and ideal. But alas, it is utterly unrealistic and we by now should understand that wishing never, ever makes it so.