I think it's funny how defensive certain members are getting, about how people choose
to marry interracially, or how they perceive some kind of
large-scale ethnic conspiracy toward the 'genocide' of the white race, since 'white countries' are being 'invaded' by other cultures.
As another member stated, a major reason that there is such an influx of other cultures into those countries is because of the colonization of said
countries at the expense of those other cultures. Another, related, reason is that because most of those 'white countries' BROUGHT those other
cultures to their countries to work as slaves. So, when slavery became taboo, they were left with these other ethnic groups that now called these
places 'home.' (I'm looking at you, here, America.) I don't know what one would expect: That everyone just "go home, folks, because this is a white
country again! Slavery is done, so GTFO'? It doesn't work that way. The M.O. for most of these developing countries was to take-take-take and to leave
the other cultures (whose resources they were taking and continue to take) in impoverished states.
The idea of 'nobody is demanding that white people go into those non-white areas and mingle is pretty ridiculous because...why would they? Somebody
mentioned Japan. Did Japan import hundreds of thousands of other races into their country as slaves? NO. They were indigenous Japanese slaves.
Therefore, comparing the push for other cultures to feel like Japan is a home that they are entitled to (which is non-existent), and the ALLEGED
(fabricated?) 'demand' for other cultures to feel like places like America and Europe are homes they are entitled to (due to the involuntary
distribution of said cultures into those regions) is like the quintessential "apples and oranges" comparison. (But, of course, you won't acknowledge
that truth, because it doesn't fit your agenda.)
Your question is not a 'yes or no' question. Your push to make it one completely displays the answer that you are trying to coax.
If a culture wants to try to preserve itself in it's own region, then that is fine. But when that culture ships scores of other races into its midst -
as, say, white America did - then that culture makes it all but impossible for that region to 'belong' to that single culture anymore. This is what
you are seeing in places like America, and much of Europe. When it comes to sex and marriage, interracial unions have been happening since the times
of slavery and the colonization (excuse me, the invasion) of America - although on a much quieter scale - and much of it was perpetuated by white
slave owners having sex with their slaves. To act like interracial unions are apart of some conspiracy to 'kill off the white man' (which
realistically would never happen) is both paranoid and xenophobic.
As far as that ridiculous mantra "Anti-Racist is Anti-White," that takes paranoia and ethnocentrism to the extreme. Not only is it a complete
fabrication, but it has absolutely nothing of substance to back it up. Nothing. It is like saying 'Anti-Sexist is Anti-Male', seeing as how men were
the strongest proponents of sexism throughout history. It is absolutely false (maybe not in all
cases, but it is a false generalization).
'Anti-racist', in most contexts, means being against the exclusion or degradation of other people based on the color of their skin. That's it. My very
best friend in the world is white. Being that I'm an only child, he is the closest thing to a brother that I have. He is the Godfather of my child,
and we have been best friends for almost 20 years. We both share similar views on racism, in that we believe it to be wrong to value someone
differently, or exclude them from aspects of your life, simply because they are of a different skin color / race culture. It doesn't matter if that
skin color happens to be white, black, brown or yellow. That is Anti-Racism. For you to insinuate that Anti-Racism, at it's core, is part of a
conspiracy against the white man is just as paranoid (if not more-so) than most everything else you said...
Identity is not limited to skin color nor race. Those things can be a PART of cultural identity, but they do not necessarily DEFINE it.
Lots of people are seeing "cultural identity" and immediately thinking "race". I think thats way to narrow a scope for people to be using, and was
using a much broader one when posting.
Then omit 'race' from that section of my post, and replace it with 'cultural identity'. I would still ask the same question.
edit on 13-1-2012
by Oneiros247 because: Adding response to another member.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Oneiros247 because: (no reason
edit on 13-1-2012 by Oneiros247 because: Typos