“White Genocide”: The racist reason there are less and less white people.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

That is neat to know.. even provides a basis for African Americans being called “colored” , because African Americans are all mutts.

AA’s don’t even look like African, Africans.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

if we just agree the world is a melting pot of genes and there are no pure breeds because it flies in the face of everything we know about genetics and would ultimately lead to the demise of the species.

but if racists and bigots want to segregate then they can do that within their own little groups and not interbreed with outsiders and we shouldnt breed with them giving them the advantage of the deep gene pool of the mixed world and in a few short generations their babies wont make it to birth through genetic mutations
and we will be rid of the racist assholes from the gene pool !

by the way , it's their idea , we should let them run with it

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
That's true in America's racial categories but I already pointed out that other countries have different categories for race. In Latin American countries, Agartha's answer is correct. The multiracial child would be classified as Mulatto, Mestizo, or another term as opposed to "white/Latin" or "black/Negro".

Thank you, I was going to reply exactly the same. In the UK you'll have many boxes to choose from for ethnicity: white British, White Irish, White other, black British, Black African, Black Caribbean, Mixed white and black African, Mixed white and Black Caribbean etc etc. I can't believe in the US you don't have the same.

Usually ethnicity boxes can be left blank, they are not compulsory, same with religion and sexual orientation.

I also think the term "person of colour " is a bit confusing considering no human is without colour in their skin , there arent translucent humans cutting about ticking boxes saying not coloured

and in any case if we are being this picky about "people of colour " as a term then , black and white arent #ing colours
so neither black or white people can be called coloured either

all of these forms you fill in the uk

with white british , white scottish, white irish , black british , chinese british , etc

they are all just so the government can stick you into a class model , load of political bull# that is not even needed
and only serves to support a system which has been established on institutional racism off the back of colonial classism

a reply to: sapien82

aww, your poor liberal heart, you sound as if youre on the verge of a meltdown.

You gonna be ok there youngin?

a reply to: Agartha

Except the OP specifically states it is from the American POV, as “white genocide” is mainly an American movement.

a reply to: SailorJerry

Lmao.. guess you couldn’t come up with a decent counterpoint. So instead are resorting to toddler Tactics..

Well played.. well played.

a reply to: SailorJerry

Oh aye total Chernobyl oor here !


I'll be fine thanks for asking !

a reply to: sapien82

The government is not one monolithic thing.


It is a representation of the political
Elite of that generation. So it is constantly in flux.

The racial structure was put in place to justify keeping African slavery going after “white slavery “ was abolished.

So really just a few hundred years ago. It was a Russian /polish/Dutch/can’t remember , aristocrat that kinda popularized the concept.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Agartha

Except the OP specifically states it is from the American POV, as “white genocide” is mainly an American movement.

Yes, hence I said 'I didn't know in the US you don't have the same ethnicity boxes to tick'.

However, everything else in my first reply still stands and it's on topic.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Aye the government may not be fixed thing, but the ideology of the rich elite ruling class from those periods still survives to this day no matter how many people wish to deny it , or say that it doesnt exist , it clearly does.

it's the same system which first separated us by Class , and then by Race to further divide and also to keep power in place
for the very same few elites

it was german romantic philosophy I recall that placed european civilisation at the pinnacle of human achievement , this was then co-opted by racists, bigots and finally eugenicists

in any case, its wrong , and we all need to shut it down

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: JoshuaCox

This # is so annoying. Too bad humans can't get their # together and just start viewing people as people.
It's 2018 and there are still dudes at work who run the mouth about how their daughter better not come home with a black guy.
I hear that # all the time.

Sucks big time

And there are Black/Hispanic/Asian parents that hope their children don't bring home white people. If only they knew it was 2018.

No, no, its Only us white people who need to shape up their act. Everyoney else is doing Just Fine.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
That's true in America's racial categories but I already pointed out that other countries have different categories for race. In Latin American countries, Agartha's answer is correct. The multiracial child would be classified as Mulatto, Mestizo, or another term as opposed to "white/Latin" or "black/Negro".

Thank you, I was going to reply exactly the same. In the UK you'll have many boxes to choose from for ethnicity: white British, White Irish, White other, black British, Black African, Black Caribbean, Mixed white and black African, Mixed white and Black Caribbean etc etc. I can't believe in the US you don't have the same.

Usually ethnicity boxes can be left blank, they are not compulsory, same with religion and sexual orientation.

It's also important to note that the "one drop rule" wasn't universally accepted in the US as the only standard for determining race, though a lot of individuals in other States accepted it. Many States had much more lenient laws for being classified as "white". Some even allowed a person to now be classified as "white" if the person had no more than 1/8th or 1/16th "non-white" ancestry. That meant that a person could literally "breed out the black or Indian" and allow their offspring to become "white". Though that clearly refutes even more of today's dorky "racial purity" people.

Australia even had an assimilation program now notoriously known as "breeding out the colour" that was literally designed to replace Aboriginals with lighter & lighter skinned offspring and to supplant Aboriginal culture with Western culture. This included systematically having social services remove Aboriginal children from their parents and giving them to "white" families to raise instead. It lasted until at least the 1970s and it was outlined in their govt's 1997 report "Bringing them Home" (here's the PDF for anyone who's interested).

The US & UK had similar programs with Native Americans and First Nations. The racist term used back then was to grow "apples", which referred to people who were "red on the outside but white on the inside".

There is no white genocide. LOL In fact when it comes to races, there will be no pure "breeds" left because people all over the world are marrying or having babies with other races. Basically this world is becoming a planet of mutts. and that is OK with me. I think the only way any race can remain pure is to start keeping it in the family. LOL

To those people who think that marrying or having babies with their own race will keep them pure are in for some bad news because I am pretty sure pure is rare. In order for that to occur you would have to take search their genealogy history and take DNA tests and I would say that there is very rare for anyone to be pure.

All those stupid people of any race (white, black, Native American, Muslim or whatever) who want their race to be pure are most likely mutts themselves.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Agartha

Except the OP specifically states it is from the American POV, as “white genocide” is mainly an American movement.

If you're really only looking at it from an American perspective, then you should definitely look into the different State requirements for being considered "white" historically. As I just mentioned in another post that I just made, some States had far more lenient racial ancestry classifications than the "one drop rule" (the whole category you should be looking up is called "hypodescent").

Some allowed a person to now be classified as "white" if the person had no more than 1/8th "non-white" ancestry. This literally meant that people who had 1 or fewer "black" or Native great grandparents would now be considered "white" (Native Americans were legally considered "colored people" or "people of color"). This is literally the exact opposite of your OP's argument because it meant that a person could literally "breed out the color" so their descendants could become legally classified as "white".

Virginia had a 1/8th rule before it's 1924 "Racial Integrity Act" made it a "one drop rule" state. This meant that as long as 7/8ths of a person's ancestry were "white", the person would be considered "white". Tennessee had a similar 7/8th law, but they replaced it with a "one drop rule" policy in 1910. Here's one article about the Melungeon people that discusses this (HERE):

The court record of Jacob Perkins vs John White (1858) in Johnson County, Tennessee, provides definitions of the time related to race and free people of color. At the time, as in Virginia, if a free person was mostly white (one-eighth or less black), he was considered legally white and a citizen of the state:

Persons that are known and recognized by the Constitution and laws of Tennessee, as free persons of color are those who by the act of 1794 section 32 are taken and deemed to be capable in law to be certified in any case what is in, except against each other or in the language of the statute "all Negroes, Indians, Mulattoes, and all persons of mixed blood descended from Negro or Indian ancestors to the third generation inclusive though one ancestor of each generation may have been a white person, white bond or free." ... That if the great grandfather of Plaintiff was an Indian or Negro and he is descended on the mother's side from a white woman, without any further Negro or Indian blood than such as he derived on the father's side, then the Plaintiff is not of mix blood, or within the third generation inclusive; in other words that if the Plaintiff has not in his veins more than 1/8 of Negro or Indian blood, he is a citizen of this state and it would be slanderous to call him a Negro.[17]

And here's a quote from the wikipedia article on the "One Drop Rule" that refers to South Carolina in the late 1890s:

In 1895 in South Carolina during discussion, George D. Tillman said,

"It is a scientific fact that there is not one full-blooded Caucasian on the floor of this convention. Every member has in him a certain mixture of... colored blood...It would be a cruel injustice and the source of endless litigation, of scandal, horror, feud, and bloodshed to undertake to annul or forbid marriage for a remote, perhaps obsolete trace of Negro blood. The doors would be open to scandal, malice, and greed.[7]"

The one-drop rule was not adopted as law until the 20th century: first in Tennessee in 1910 and in Virginia under the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (following the passage of similar laws in several other states).

It's important to note that these States didn't start pushing "one drop rule" hypodescent legislation until the 1910s through the 1930s. This was literally when the KKK was at its strongest and when it claimed that it controlled half of the country's State legislatures! In other words, the people in America who are still pushing this "one drip rule" and "diluting the races" nonsense are literally pushing early 20th century KKK policies!

Because before these KKK-created policies, "white" people in the US didn't follow such absolute requirements for defining "race". They were more like the Europeans in "Latin" American colonies, who placed different levels of "race" depending on how much "white", "colored", or "black" ancestry a person had. Have you ever heard of "quadroons" or "octoroons"? Those were classifications in some States for a person who was 1/4th "black" and 1/8th "black" (Mulatto was half black). As screwed up & bigoted as it was, they were literally giving "Black", "Colored", and "Indigenous" ethnic groups a chance to breed themselves into becoming first class "white" citizens, which is the opposite of your OP & explains the complexion fascination in a lot of former European colonies.

But after the "one drop rule" stuff, now even the people who were previously classified as "white" in those US Sattes were now disenfranchised as being "black". Remember, until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any Americans who were classified as "black" were legally segregated from "white" Americans, couldn't testify in court against a "white" American, couldn't vote, couldn't run for office, etc because of the KKK-supported Jim Crow laws. And it wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that Americans who were classified as "black" could vote here.

It's also important to note that it was through the 1940s when these States also started implementing KKK inspired anti-miscegenation laws which literally banned interracial marriages. These lasted in something like 30 States until the 1967 Supreme Court case "Loving v Virginia" struck them down (virtually all States in the Deep South had these laws in their State Constitutions). This was the whole point in the Civil Rights Movement and the conservative programs like the "Massive Resistance" which fought against the Civil Rights Movement. The "white supremacists" were literally trying to permanently guarantee that no person with "black" or "colored" ancestry would have equal rights in America.

Ok, that's waaay longer than I expected. And I'm in no mood to continue talking about this subject. So I'll just leave it with this: If your OP is really just about the American POV, then you need to rethink it because it doesn't match the historical reality. But if it's about the global POV, then all of the previous arguments about "race being umbrella terms to lump together different ethnic groups" still apply.

originally posted by: sapien82
I also think the term "person of colour " is a bit confusing considering no human is without colour in their skin , there arent translucent humans cutting about ticking boxes saying not coloured

and in any case if we are being this picky about "people of colour " as a term then , black and white arent #ing colours

"Colored" was the legal term to designate specific ethnic groups, just like how "minor" and "citizen" are legal terms. Depending on the place, Indigenous/Native America and Asian descent were legally designated as "colored people" or "colored races". Usually, people of African descent were further classified as "Black", though sometimes they were also lumped into the "colored race" classification. It literally depends on which State and province in question because it was all arbitrary.

Ok, now I'm done for real

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: enlightenedservant

That is neat to know.. even provides a basis for African Americans being called “colored” , because African Americans are all mutts.

AA’s don’t even look like African, Africans.

(sigh...)

Webster's Dictionary's definition of "Mutt" (HERE)

Definition of mutt
1 : a stupid or insignificant person : fool
2 : a mongrel dog : cur

OxfordDictionary.com's definition of "mutt" (HERE)

noun
informal

1A dog, especially a mongrel.
‘a long-haired mutt of doubtful pedigree’

2A stupid or incompetent person.
‘he pitied the poor mutt who ever fell for her charms’

I know that you're referring to most of us as being multi-ethnic, but you should definitely use a different term. Because if we're "mutts" because we're multi-ethnic, then so are every one of you.

Where I work ,there was a handful of foreigners and the rest were white people ,now 20 years later its the reverse ,once the foreigners got into the recruiting of new workers ,they now only employ their bros and sisters ,other white people told me they went for jobs ,and failed medicals despite being heathy and fit, were given BS excuses ,why they weren't employable, and yet the grossly over weight, slow ,foreigners were given jobs ,don't give me the crap that there is not a Plan against the white races ,its obvious to anyone who isnt a brain washed dumb gullible snow flake ,they are pumping thousands of them into Australia to take jobs ,welfare , etc .Formerly you had to be a ''Person of Good Character '' to enter now, they let anyone in ,to commit countless ,crimes ,robberies ,murders ,gang violence and the Government refuses to do anything about it .The country has now just become a Nation of ghettos ,its not the country it used to be and only getting worse ,you don't feel comfortable or safe going places you formerly went ,aggressive muslims ,who if you look at twice ,then its on ''what the f..k are you looking at'' ,obnoxious Lebanese , African gangs ,Asian gangs ,bikie gangs ,Tasmania is the last good place mainly due to lack of jobs ,etc the hordes have not ruined the place and is what Australia used to be but for how long before they turn it into a multi ghetto hole

so this is where all the stormfronters went

a reply to: magnetik

well had you bothered to read the thread you'd find the majority in here are in favour of a multi ethnic society of mixed ethnic backgrounds and genetics and we are shooting down eugenics and racist ideology