• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Question about racial purity

Bearguin

Graduate Poster
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
1,095
Does anyone care about racial purity? I'm thinking in the manner of preserving a peoples culture and race, not by force, not by discrimination, but by personal choice of the individual. I'm thinking along the lines of a purebred German Shepard where a racially pure Scotsman has papers noting that he comes from a line of Scotsmen married to Scotswomen and holds the traditions to a certain extent (I would never expect someone to eat haggis).

It's just that I think that, with the modern mixing of cultures and races, something (no, I don't know what) is being lost.

I know this idea came to me from Sci-Fi shows (Alien Nation is one) where Humans and aliens can interbreed and protestors complain about keeping humans pure and my thought during these shows is "gee, it would be a shame if the human race lost it's identity but it isn't right to stop humans and aliens who choose to mate".

In my mind, it got extended to "wouldn't it be nice to have some "true" Scotsmen around".
 
Gods Advocate said:
In my mind, it got extended to "wouldn't it be nice to have some "true" Scotsmen around".
I think that that is the "No a true Scotsman" fallacy.
Just speaking as an Irish, English, French, German, Native American (and who knows what else?) mut.
 
Re: Re: Question about racial purity

Jeff Corey said:

I think that that is the "No a true Scotsman" fallacy.
Just speaking as an Irish, English, French, German, Native American (and who knows what else?) mut.

Does that apply to a "true Japanese", or "true" Indian?

You are probably right about the Scotsmen and how do you define "pure" (3 generations?, 5?, 1000?).

And I'm a mutt myself.
 
God's Advocate,
The problem with your argument is one of history and scale. There is no such thing as a "true Scottsman". As far back as recorded history, the land currently known as Scotland was inhabited by the Picts. The Celts invaded and interbred. Next came the Vikings and more interracial breeding occured. Sometime later the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and a whole host of others coming up through what is now called England were added to the mix.
If an immigrant from Pakistan moves to Scotland and has a child, isn't that person a native born Scott?
This argument is not confined to Scotland. Virtually every country has a similar history. The more movment that occurs do to technology, the more "mixing" will occur. At what age in any particular countries history would you like this to stop? Cultures are constantly changing. Just be glad that you too are made up of number of cultural backgounds and enjoy them all.
 
I'm of German/English heritage of the "white" race. I didn't have any say in the matter, my parents fell in love and married. People have access to travel and world experiences more than my parents did, so therefore the mixing of races is going to continue to happen. By the way, the Scotsmen I've seen are very handsome and sturdy folk.
Edited to add: My "godson" is half caucasian/half japanese, and he is a strong, good-lookin' kid.
 
Re: Re: Re: Question about racial purity

Gods Advocate said:


Does that apply to a "true Japanese", or "true" Indian?

You are probably right about the Scotsmen and how do you define "pure" (3 generations?, 5?, 1000?).

And I'm a mutt myself.
That was referring to the "No true Scostsman " phallacy, viz:
Angus Fitzpatrick, " Alll real Scotsmen have gruel fer breakfust!"
Patrick Fitzangus, " Eogh! I hate gruel. But I'm a Scotsman."
"Yere no a true Scotsman."
 
More succinctly, what does the term "racial purity" mean to most people here?

To me, it means what the very unpleasant person who knocked on my door who said "I can see from how you look that you're not the kind of person who spreads your seed in the mud races", right before my spouse (Chinese) and kids emerged to squint at the dude.

So I'm a wee bit sensitive to the term. I have no idea how to avoid my signature in this forum, please advise.
 
I think a common mistake is being made here in confusing race with culture.

Race is a dubious concept to begin with as it is very difficult to establish even a single concrete element to categorize a person's race. At exactly what shade does a black man become a white man? The chances of distinguishing a Scotsman from an Englishman in terms of race is moot.

Culture, on the other hand, is usually what we are truly referring to when distinguishing between peoples. Generally I feel there is rarely any need to protect a culture as cultures tend to survive based on their own merits. Notable exceptions of course are when one culture deliberately attempts to destroy another, a despicable act in my opinion, or when a minority is so overwhelmed by the majority.

But even in the latter case, history has shown that in most cases even a minority culture flourishes for generations if not deliberately extinguished by another.

I’ve always been amazed at people’s fear of what they see as cultural pollution. There is, as has already been pointed out, no such thing as a pure culture. Every culture that exists today is a hodge-podge conglomeration of innumerable influences.

I can certainly understand groups wanting to preserve traditions that they feel define who they are but absorbing new ideas does not necessarily destroy one’s roots. Old and new ideas can coexist with out destroying one another.
 
I'm Portuguese and Irish. I never think about it like that. I'm an American. I base it more on the land mass than anything.
 
Brian said:
I'm Portuguese and Irish. I never think about it like that. I'm an American. I base it more on the land mass than anything.

I'm half Welsh and half Hungarian.

That makes me Well-Hung.
 
Maybe I am just thinking of culture (I'm not convinced).

Think about it this way. The Aboriginals lost a lot of their culture when the Anglo's came to North America. Things were lost that are irreplacable simply because their culture was not respected by the newcomers. I doubt this is the only occurence of this in history.

I think we have all lost something because of this and am wondering if there is a way to prevent it from happening in the future. I'm thinking that a respect for a race/culture including some way of recognizing people from that culture would help prevent the loss.

I know Racial Purity is a loaded term and I don't mean it that way, but I'm not sure how else to phrase it. I am talking about some documented history of an individuals ancestory to support that they are of a certain race. Again, I'm thinking of a purebred dog and something similar. But (obviously to me) the individual would be able to choose to not have offspring that would qualify.

Again, I'm not sure I am getting across what I mean clearly (as it is not clear in my head).
 
Gods Advocate said:
Does anyone care about racial purity? I'm thinking in the manner of preserving a peoples culture and race, not by force, not by discrimination, but by personal choice of the individual. I'm thinking along the lines of a purebred German Shepard where a racially pure Scotsman has papers noting that he comes from a line of Scotsmen married to Scotswomen and holds the traditions to a certain extent (I would never expect someone to eat haggis).

It's just that I think that, with the modern mixing of cultures and races, something (no, I don't know what) is being lost.

I know this idea came to me from Sci-Fi shows (Alien Nation is one) where Humans and aliens can interbreed and protestors complain about keeping humans pure and my thought during these shows is "gee, it would be a shame if the human race lost it's identity but it isn't right to stop humans and aliens who choose to mate".

In my mind, it got extended to "wouldn't it be nice to have some "true" Scotsmen around".
I guess I'll jump in and get labled a racist. I agree alot is begining lost here in America. Lets do a rough comparision to America and Rome. Both were the biggest kids on the block. Both were the most advanced. Both used their military might to force peace, law and order on the rest of the world. The languge and culture of both was adopted by the world.

Roman's lost their sense of civic duty. We have lost our sense of national pride. The Romans degenerated into pleasure seeking society with little thought toward self sacrifice. The same can be said for us. Roman absorbed ideas that were foreign to their founding fathers. We have done the same. Rome lost control of their borders and were overwhelmed by barbarians. The same can be said for us. The newcomers were of a different culture and had no use for the ideas that made Rome great. The same can be said for our new immigrant. The Roman newcomers lacked the ability to maintain the infrastructure of the Empire. The same thing is happing to America. When Rome fell, Europe collapsed into a dark age that last 1,000 years. The same thing will happen to the world when we collapse
 
Death of the West by Pat Buchanan
• By 2050, only 10% of the world’s people will be of European descent. One third of Europe’s people will be over 60, and one-in-ten over 80. Involuntary euthanasia has already come to Europe.

• There are 30 million foreign born in the U.S. today, and between 9 and 11 million illegal aliens, or as many undocumented aliens in the U.S. as there are people in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

• Mexico is exporting its poor and unemployed for U.S. taxpayers to employ and educate. Radical and militant Hispanics and Mexican leaders alike believe this will lead to the cultural and demographic recapture of the Southwest from America, reversing the results of The Mexican War.

• By supporting open borders, the GOP is committing suicide. First-time Hispanic voters chose Clinton 15-1 over Dole. Of the seven major immigration states -- Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Texas and Florida -- Mr. Bush lost five, and perhaps six. Of the 10 states with the smallest share of immigrants, Bush won all 10.

• European-Americans are a minority in America’s most populous state, California, and by 2004, will be a minority in Texas.

• The political agenda of California Hispanics includes race welfare for illegal aliens, racial preferences, bilingual education, open borders, dual citizenship, Cinqo de Mayo as a California holiday, and, in one case, replacing a statue of an American hero of the Mexican War with the Aztec god Quetzacoatl.

• White Americans are fleeing California at the rate of 100,000 a year.

• MeCHA, the student organization that claims chapters on hundreds of campuses has a program that reads like a Mexican version of the agenda of the white-supremacist Aryan Nation.

• In 2001, an Office for Mexicans Abroad in Mexico was providing survival kits with everything from dried meat to anti-diarrhea pills to condoms to Mexicans setting off to break in to the United States .

• As of 2000, there were 8.4 million foreign born in California, as many foreign born as there are people in New Jersey, a primary cause of the state energy and schools crisis.

• Among Third World immigrants, poverty rates and incarceration rates are double and triple what they are among native-born Americans

• Under Political Correctness, America’s greatest heroes -- soldiers, explorers and statesmen from Columbus to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson -- are under savage attack as genocidal racists and exploiters of indigenous peoples.

• The history books of American public schools are being rewritten with the old heroes ignored or trashed and Western civilization disparaged and demeaned.

• With the assault on Confederate books, symbols, flags, heroes, and holidays almost complete, the attack is now proceeding against the Puritan fathers, soldiers who fought in The Mexican War, and, in New Jersey, even against the Declaration of Independence itself.

• In some school districts, Mark Twain, Flannery O’Connor, and any realistic portrayal of the America South, including Harper’ Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, are now forbidden.

• Even the great museums on America’s Mall, to introduce school children to the greatness and glory of America’s past, are being used to indoctrinate children in how wicked and evil our forefathers were.

In his chapter, “The De-Christianization of America,” Buchanan argues that the death of the Christian faith in Western countries is a primary cause of their dying populations. Whenever faith dies, the people die. A new atheistic civilization is arising, he argues, and is using its dominance of the culture and the courts to drive Christianity out of the temples of our civilization.

• Secular Humanism, widely mocked and disparaged, a few decades ago, is now the dominant faith of the nation’s cultural elites. The moral tenets of humanism are replacing those of Christianity in our public life.

• Even Christian churches are rewriting their hymnals to make them acceptable to the dominant culture.

• Anti-Catholic films and filthy and blasphemous anti-Christian art are the deliberate insults of a triumphant pagan and secularist faith.
 
Re: Re: Question about racial purity

Outcast said:
I guess I'll jump in and get labled a racist.

Oddly, I don't see this as racist; your argument doesn't seem to mention race. You haven't said whites are better than blacks. Even Buchanans arguments sometimes refer to native-born Americans, of which there are people of every race. (Though I hasten to add that 90% of the things Buchanan presents as talking points are utterly irrelevant to the strength of or quality of life in the US. I don't see a problem if more people are brown than white or vice versa.)


I agree alot is begining lost here in America. Lets do a rough comparision to America and Rome.

SNIP

There are similarities, but there are also differences. For one, The US has quite a few powerful allies, while Rome was the only kid on the block. Technolgoy and communication are vastly different.

On the other hand, the traditions and cultures may be lost, and though I can't give you a concrete reason why, I think we are better off having them than not. It would be good, culturally, for humanity to have some "culturally pure" Scots. And Chinese. And Indians. And whoever else.

I think it's tough to talk about racial purity because even the Japanese, one of the most homogenous populations on Earth, are a mix of several ancestral lines.
 
Re: Re: Re: Question about racial purity

Loon said:


Oddly, I don't see this as racist; your argument doesn't seem to mention race. You haven't said whites are better than blacks. Even Buchanans arguments sometimes refer to native-born Americans, of which there are people of every race. (Though I hasten to add that 90% of the things Buchanan presents as talking points are utterly irrelevant to the strength of or quality of life in the US. I don't see a problem if more people are brown than white or vice versa.)
That is exactly the roblem. Prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, most of our immigrants came from Europe. After 1965 they came primarily from Latin America and Asia. Proper to 1965 we were a melting pot of European Nations with English as a common language and a common culture going back to the Greeks and Romans. The new immigrants don't want to assimilate. They want to bring their language and culture with them and turn America into what they left behind. Look at the crime, poverty and corruption that is rampant in Latin America. That is our future in the next 50 years. In the next 10 years I can see Southwestern United States becoming like Quebec in Canada is. There is going to be a push to make some states Spanish only. If the people coming into this country can't run their own countries, how can they run this one? It was one of the problems that Rome faced.

The Muslim are making demands on our school system to conform to their religious beliefs. If Christians made any one of those demand, the ACLU would be up in arms.

I don't like the term "racial purity." I like the term racial identity better. Which race do you identify with? Who do you feel comfortable with? Where do you fit in?
 
Outcast said:
That is exactly the roblem. Prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, most of our immigrants came from Europe. After 1965 they came primarily from Latin America and Asia. Proper to 1965 we were a melting pot of European Nations with English as a common language and a common culture going back to the Greeks and Romans. The new immigrants don't want to assimilate. They want to bring their language and culture with them and turn America into what they left behind. Look at the crime, poverty and corruption that is rampant in Latin America. That is our future in the next 50 years. In the next 10 years I can see Southwestern United States becoming like Quebec in Canada is. There is going to be a push to make some states Spanish only. If the people coming into this country can't run their own countries, how can they run this one? It was one of the problems that Rome faced.

The Muslim are making demands on our school system to conform to their religious beliefs. If Christians made any one of those demand, the ACLU would be up in arms.

I don't like the term "racial purity." I like the term racial identity better. Which race do you identify with? Who do you feel comfortable with? Where do you fit in?
Why is being "different" in any sense of measure of your person and/or personality a problem? At some level at some time, every person on earth is different from everyone else in at least one apect. It is only at more gross levels that what we perceive as a "culture" emerges, e.g. "The Scots". And yet even within this group there are fierce rivalries, e.g. clan warfare.

At what point are any group of people "a culture" that is alike in some way? Chances are, there are sub- and super-cultures of that which will defy or even invalidate the supposed attributes of that culture.
 
"with the modern mixing of cultures and races", presumably if this continues, at some point in the future there will be a homogenised human culture, and a homogenised gene pool (unless those attractive people keep insisting on mating with each other). This will mean the end of people who look like (our image of) native Americans, eskimos, West Africans, etc.

I seem to remember a news report months ago that reported on the life-span of blondes. I seem to recall that blond hair is determined by a recessive gene, and so the more blonds who mate with brunettes, the fewer blonds there will be. The scientists who estimated this life-span also, I think, predicted that the last blond person on the planet would live in Finland.

I, for one, think it would be a shame if natural blondes became a thing of the past, but realise that it would be impossible (immoral?) to stop this happening, and I am partly to blame, since I plan to dilute my partner's Swedish genes with my dark brown hair genes.

S.
 
Stevie -G- said:
I seem to recall that blond hair is determined by a recessive gene, and so the more blonds who mate with brunettes, the fewer blonds there will be. The scientists who estimated this life-span also, I think, predicted that the last blond person on the planet would live in Finland.
This is nonsense.

Someone with one blonde gene and one brunette gene (to simplify), will come out brunette. But if two such people marry, then 25% of their children will be blonde. (Or rather, each child they have will have a 25% chance of being blonde.)

If a recessive gene is widespread then it will come out quite frequently, as two "carriers" mate. It doesn't go away just because being paired with a dominant gene means that it isn't expressed for a generation or two.

Rolfe (all family Scots on both sides so far as anyone has been able to figure, but currently living in England....).
 
Re: Re: Question about racial purity

Outcast said:
I agree alot is begining lost here in America. Lets do a rough comparision to America and Rome. Both were the biggest kids on the block. Both were the most advanced. Both used their military might to force peace, law and order on the rest of the world. The languge and culture of both was adopted by the world.
Neither valued science or intellectual work for its own sake. Both were bloodthirsty and violent. Both downplayed the individual for the sake of the group. Both glorified conquest and obedience. Both treated everyone around them horribly.

Roman's lost their sense of civic duty. We have lost our sense of national pride. The Romans degenerated into pleasure
seeking society with little thought toward self sacrifice.
What's so wonderful about self-sacrifice?

To paraphrase: the thing about self-sacrifice is to get some other poor bastard to do it for you.

The same can be said for us. Roman absorbed ideas that were foreign to their founding fathers.
Rome endlessly copied Greek works because it had little artistic tradition of its own. Rome destroyed more than it saved and incorporated into itself.

Rome also encouraged worship of the state itself, manifested in Emperor-Gods.

It was a good thing when Rome fell.
 

Back
Top Bottom