Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

So today Bing has an animated map showing the flow of refugees throughout the world. The striking thing is that aside from some movement within Africa it's pretty much exclusively people heading to either Europe or the US.

Why don't people care that even countries like Japan (whose birth rate has fallen through the floor) have stubbornly refused to take in refugees? I even saw where an anonymous Japanese government official made a remark that they didn't want their women raped by Arab refugees. Why don't people call them nazis or bigots or whatever?

The only answer I can come up with is white guilt. Liberals have it drilled in their heads that the white man is the source of all the problems in the world and built it's civilization and made all the scientific and medical advances at the expense on brown people and they feel they need to make it right by us taking on all of the burden of giving sanctuary. Is xenophobia only xenophobia when white people do it? Or are they a bunch of bigots who only want white countries to have the joys and enrichment of a diverse society?

Australia has no guilt, they don’t take refugees.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

css75 wrote:Australia has no guilt, they don’t take refugees.

Could it have to do something with the fact they were once a penal colony.

I bet with the World Cup:
-Western European teams, & the US (if was in it), with the exception of Scandanavian/Iceland (homie don't like the cold) you'll see a lot of brown & black players.
-Eastern European & Russia you'll see little to none (they don't do refugees).

With the African, Mid Eastern, S American, & Asian teams you wont see a (non hispanic) white face.

Am I wrong?

BDKJMU wrote:I bet with the World Cup:
-Western European teams, & the US (if was in it), with the exception of Scandanavian/Iceland (homie don't like the cold) you'll see a lot of brown & black players.
-Eastern European & Russia you'll see little to none (they don't do refugees).

With the African, Mid Eastern, S American, & Asian teams you wont see a (non hispanic) white face.

Am I wrong?

Yes. Lots of diversity on the African teams...

Speaking of white guilt, the Charleston SC city council just approved a resolution denouncing slavery.
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/arti ... 01394.html

I'm sure the residents of Charleston will be able to sleep a lot better at night now knowing that their city council doesn't approve of slavery, and is sorry it happened over 150 years ago..

BDKJMU wrote:Speaking of white guilt, the Charleston SC city council just approved a resolution denouncing slavery.
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/arti ... 01394.html

I'm sure the residents of Charleston will be able to sleep a lot better at night now knowing that their city council doesn't approve of slavery, and is sorry it happened over 150 years ago..

I don't understand apologies like this. Nobody alive has anything to do with slavery. Is it our place to apologize for something someone from our race did 200-300 years ago? Willie Gregorie is a known quantity in Charleston. He's run for Mayor numerous times. Even other blacks on the council voted against this seeing as it will do nothing. I mean - we can all admit slavery was awful. What good will us saying sorry do for all of those that survived the Middle Passage and went on to become slaves?

What a waste of time.

BDKJMU wrote:I bet with the World Cup:
-Western European teams, & the US (if was in it), with the exception of Scandanavian/Iceland (homie don't like the cold) you'll see a lot of brown & black players.
-Eastern European & Russia you'll see little to none (they don't do refugees).

With the African, Mid Eastern, S American, & Asian teams you wont see a (non hispanic) white face.

Am I wrong?

There's a lot wrong with white nationalist tenets and ideology, but there's one maxim they have that has truth to it: "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, white countries for everyone."

There seems to be unwritten rules basically saying "it's only xenophobia when white people do it", "it's only colonialism when white people do it", "it's only racism when white people do it".

There are so many bullschit double standards that are weakly justified with the same predictable chorus of "because slavery and colonialism and segregation" as if it's self-evident that it makes it okay.

That we don't talk about this and can't talk about it often under threat of losing our jobs or being called a nazi just drives more people over to white nationalism and feeds racial resentment politics.

^
Post of the decade.

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:Speaking of white guilt, the Charleston SC city council just approved a resolution denouncing slavery.
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/arti ... 01394.html

I'm sure the residents of Charleston will be able to sleep a lot better at night now knowing that their city council doesn't approve of slavery, and is sorry it happened over 150 years ago..

I don't understand apologies like this. Nobody alive has anything to do with slavery. Is it our place to apologize for something someone from our race did 200-300 years ago? Willie Gregorie is a known quantity in Charleston. He's run for Mayor numerous times. Even other blacks on the council voted against this seeing as it will do nothing. I mean - we can all admit slavery was awful. What good will us saying sorry do for all of those that survived the Middle Passage and went on to become slaves?

What a waste of time.

But the ones who passed that had their self esteem rise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pwns wrote:There's a lot wrong with white nationalist tenets and ideology, but there's one maxim they have that has truth to it: "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, white countries for everyone."

Africa wouldn't be for Africans if people actually wanted to immigrate there. Asia, mostly Eastern China, has seen quite the uptick of immigrant populations. And there are certainly white nations.

Human migration patterns isn't a particularly complex thing. It boils down to people immigrating to places which offer opportunity, with geography playing a role (whether because of destitution or bordering conflicts).

Western Europe is successful. Geographically, it makes sense for Africans and Arabs to migrate there.

Eastern China is becoming successful. It's certainly attracting immigrants from all over the world right now, including white Europeans and Americans.

America is successful. Geographically, it makes sense for Latin Americans to migrate here. And even within the United States, immigrants tend to move to successful areas.

Would any of you want to immigrate to Africa? Would any of you want to immigrate to the Middle East? I certainly wouldn't. Could you see yourself living in Eastern Europe (which are white nations)? I'd say most of you would answer no.

Now ask yourselves, could you see yourself living in Western Europe? Or perhaps Canada? How about China if there's some serious money to be made?

∞∞∞ wrote:

Pwns wrote:There's a lot wrong with white nationalist tenets and ideology, but there's one maxim they have that has truth to it: "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, white countries for everyone."

Africa wouldn't be for Africans if people actually wanted to immigrate there. Asia, and in particular China, has seen quite the uptick of immigrant populations. And there are certainly white nations.

Human migration patterns isn't a particularly complex thing. It boils down to people immigrating to places which offer opportunity, with geography playing a role (whether because of destitution or bordering conflicts).

Europe is successful. Geographically, it makes sense for Africans and Arabs to migrate there.

Eastern China is becoming successful. It's certainly attracting immigrants from all over the world right now, including white Europeans and Americans.

America is successful. Geographically, it makes sense for Latin Americans to migrate here. And even within the United States, immigrants tend to move to successful areas.

Would any of you want to immigrate to Africa? Would any of you want to immigrate to the Middle East? I certainly wouldn't. Could you see yourself living in Eastern Europe (which are white nations)? I'd say most of you would answer no.

Now ask yourselves, could you see yourself living in Western Europe? Or perhaps Canada? How about China if there's some serious money to be made?

But I think you clearly missed Pwns' point that the minute China doesn't like what its seeing on immigration, it will close the valve, and you won't see babies wrapped in aluminum foil in front of fans, because they control their media. Furthermore, nobody will be calling the Chinese leader a racist or xenophobe throughout the closing of the valve. It's a double-standard. But of course, pretty much everything with white people (particularly white men) is a double-standard in this country and the western world. It's the way the country has been conditioned for the past 50 years. The Democrats need identity politics and a welfare-dependent class to survive.

∞∞∞ wrote:

Pwns wrote:There's a lot wrong with white nationalist tenets and ideology, but there's one maxim they have that has truth to it: "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, white countries for everyone."

Africa wouldn't be for Africans if people actually wanted to immigrate there. Asia, mostly Eastern China, has seen quite the uptick of immigrant populations. And there are certainly white nations.

Human migration patterns isn't a particularly complex thing. It boils down to people immigrating to places which offer opportunity, with geography playing a role (whether because of destitution or bordering conflicts).

Western Europe is successful. Geographically, it makes sense for Africans and Arabs to migrate there.

Eastern China is becoming successful. It's certainly attracting immigrants from all over the world right now, including white Europeans and Americans.

America is successful. Geographically, it makes sense for Latin Americans to migrate here. And even within the United States, immigrants tend to move to successful areas.

Would any of you want to immigrate to Africa? Would any of you want to immigrate to the Middle East? I certainly wouldn't. Could you see yourself living in Eastern Europe (which are white nations)? I'd say most of you would answer no.

Now ask yourselves, could you see yourself living in Western Europe? Or perhaps Canada? How about China if there's some serious money to be made?

Yep. Japan & S Korea are very successful. That's why you see all the white, brown & black players on their teams..Oh, wait a minute...

93henfan wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: Africa wouldn't be for Africans if people actually wanted to immigrate there. Asia, and in particular China, has seen quite the uptick of immigrant populations. And there are certainly white nations.

Human migration patterns isn't a particularly complex thing. It boils down to people immigrating to places which offer opportunity, with geography playing a role (whether because of destitution or bordering conflicts).

Europe is successful. Geographically, it makes sense for Africans and Arabs to migrate there.

Eastern China is becoming successful. It's certainly attracting immigrants from all over the world right now, including white Europeans and Americans.

America is successful. Geographically, it makes sense for Latin Americans to migrate here. And even within the United States, immigrants tend to move to successful areas.

Would any of you want to immigrate to Africa? Would any of you want to immigrate to the Middle East? I certainly wouldn't. Could you see yourself living in Eastern Europe (which are white nations)? I'd say most of you would answer no.

Now ask yourselves, could you see yourself living in Western Europe? Or perhaps Canada? How about China if there's some serious money to be made?

But I think you clearly missed Pwns' point that the minute China doesn't like what its seeing on immigration, it will close the valve, and you won't see babies wrapped in aluminum foil in front of fans, because they control their media. Furthermore, nobody will be calling the Chinese leader a racist or xenophobe throughout the closing of the valve. It's a double-standard. But of course, pretty much everything with white people (particularly white men) is a double-standard in this country and the western world. It's the way the country has been conditioned for the past 50 years. The Democrats need identity politics and a welfare-dependent class to survive.

America is the most special case in the history of humanity. It's literally an ongoing experiment of an immigrant-heavy population and to be frank, it's clearly been successful as all hell.

As Reagan said, America is the "shining city on a hill." And I LOVE this country for it; the people it attracts are amazing. Whether poor or rich, black or white, smart or stupid, everyone here cares about liberty. We might be assholes to each other and disagree 99% of the time, but at the end of the day, you can usually share a beer with anyone, even if you can't share a language with them. Except Muslins...fuck those people.

∞∞∞ wrote:

Pwns wrote:There's a lot wrong with white nationalist tenets and ideology, but there's one maxim they have that has truth to it: "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, white countries for everyone."

Africa wouldn't be for Africans if people actually wanted to immigrate there. Asia, mostly Eastern China, has seen quite the uptick of immigrant populations. And there are certainly white nations.

Human migration patterns isn't a particularly complex thing. It boils down to people immigrating to places which offer opportunity, with geography playing a role (whether because of destitution or bordering conflicts).

Western Europe is successful. Geographically, it makes sense for Africans and Arabs to migrate there.

Eastern China is becoming successful. It's certainly attracting immigrants from all over the world right now, including white Europeans and Americans.

America is successful. Geographically, it makes sense for Latin Americans to migrate here. And even within the United States, immigrants tend to move to successful areas.

Would any of you want to immigrate to Africa? Would any of you want to immigrate to the Middle East? I certainly wouldn't. Could you see yourself living in Eastern Europe (which are white nations)? I'd say most of you would answer no.

Now ask yourselves, could you see yourself living in Western Europe? Or perhaps Canada? How about China if there's some serious money to be made?

You are getting China completely wrong here

you make some arguable points but your inclusion of China and lack of understanding about "immigrants" to China depth charges your whole post


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:You are getting China completely wrong here

you make some arguable points but your inclusion of China and lack of understanding about "immigrants" to China depth charges your whole post

I'm talking about immigration, not citizenship. I think citizenship is what you're implying?

Immigration to China has certainly seen quite the uptick. There's opportunity there, whether business opportunities, manual labor, etc.

∞∞∞ wrote:

CID1990 wrote:You are getting China completely wrong here

you make some arguable points but your inclusion of China and lack of understanding about "immigrants" to China depth charges your whole post

I'm talking about immigration, not citizenship. I think citizenship is what you're implying.

No, I'm not - and you're still in the wilderness


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

∞∞∞ wrote:

CID1990 wrote:You are getting China completely wrong here

you make some arguable points but your inclusion of China and lack of understanding about "immigrants" to China depth charges your whole post

I'm talking about immigration, not citizenship. I think citizenship is what you're implying?

Immigration to China has certainly seen quite the uptick. There's opportunity there, whether business opportunities, manual labor, etc.

Please provide evidence for your claim that there has been an influx of white immigration, legal or otherwise, to China.

CID1990 wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: I'm talking about immigration, not citizenship. I think citizenship is what you're implying.

No, I'm not - and you're still in the wilderness.

Argue it; educate me. Don't need to do it tonight though; I'm heading out.

Ivytalk wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: I'm talking about immigration, not citizenship. I think citizenship is what you're implying?

Immigration to China has certainly seen quite the uptick. There's opportunity there, whether business opportunities, manual labor, etc.

Please provide evidence for your claim that there has been an influx of white immigration, legal or otherwise, to China.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/infl ... on-policy/

Of the top ten nations with foreigners immigrating to China, five are from historically white nations (US, Canada, France, Germany, Australia).

∞∞∞ wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Please provide evidence for your claim that there has been an influx of white immigration, legal or otherwise, to China.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/infl ... on-policy/

Of the top ten nations with foreigners immigrating to China, five are from historically white nations (US, Canada, France, Germany, Australia).

Probably to work for companies from their native land. They aren't showing up there in droves to start a new life.
I know of a bunch of fucking Brazilians that are in this country to work for a global Belgian company that is run by Brazilians. They suck by the way.

∞∞∞ wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Please provide evidence for your claim that there has been an influx of white immigration, legal or otherwise, to China.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/infl ... on-policy/

Of the top ten nations with foreigners immigrating to China, five are from historically white nations (US, Canada, France, Germany, Australia).

Yeah, but the numbers are pretty small, and the article states that China is restrictionist on immigration. Not any detail on the 70,000 US residents. Probably associated with commercial ventures, multinational law firms, etc. You don’t see waves of US citizens lining up for scarce visas to emigrate to that beacon of liberty and human rights.

∞∞∞ wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Please provide evidence for your claim that there has been an influx of white immigration, legal or otherwise, to China.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/infl ... on-policy/

Of the top ten nations with foreigners immigrating to China, five are from historically white nations (US, Canada, France, Germany, Australia).

I can see why you'd be confused, because Brookings basically makes up their own definition of what an immigrant is:

"Therefore, if we define immigration as the movement of humans across national borders for long-term or permanent durations, we might find that approximately 796,047 international immigrants or potential immigrants were living in China in late 2010."

Our H visa holders stay in the US for longer than up to 1 year and they aren't immigrants. They are non-immigrants in possession of non-immigrant visas. It is the same situation in China, because of visa reciprocity.

The term immigrant, as it is applied in U.S. law, are people who enter to stay. They become legal permanent residents and eventually (if they choose), US citizens. There is absolutely no analog to this in China. The "immigrants" being referred to in the Brookings article are the equivalent to temporary workers, very similar to our H visa class. It also includes government workers and diplomats. In fact, I myself would have been captured in those numbers had I served in China, as I have been legally resident in Nigeria, El Salvador, Vietnam, and now Thailand. I am not an immigrant.

China has no formal system of permanent immigration. They allow tourists, business people, and accredited government types and that's it. All of those are "duration of status" visitors.