Racism and Xenophobia

  • Thread starter Thread starter Larquetta
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So you see nothing wrong with people from a totally different culture moving into a country and becoming the majority? That’s genocide, it’s destroying the culture of the country. For example, Finland has about 6 million people I believe. Let’s say that ten million Muslims from Iran and Afghanistan move there, a million Chinese, and two million Africans. But they all do it legally and have citizenship. So that means it’s ok that Finns would now be a minority in their OWN country which their ancestors have lived in for so many years and built? You do not see how that is cultural genocide? And also denying the natives the right to self-determination?
 
That’s closer to my view as well. A love of my own country, and an admiration for other countries. I am simply resisting the idea that the immigrants who come to Denmark and achieve citizenship should not be considered danish. I especially do so when we’re talking about third or later generation immigrants.
 
Not to mention that the people who come here will always have their own homeland to go to if they want to, but we have nothing else. We are losing the only home we have.
 
CCHcolonel said:
Some countries/cultures are objectively superior than others.
Click to expand...
04b5e1d713cc2a9b329bbe42791b8dc17086a7c5.gif
 
leonhardprintz said:
Vis-a-vis, people hiring more whites and people of color, even if both are equally capable. This is unjust and should be resisted.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, but that’s not how it works out. Non-Whites receive “affirmative action”. They will be put above more qualified non-minorities when it comes to colleges and jobs, so that those colleges and jobs can fulfill racial and diversity quotas. That, by the way, is obviously discriminating on the basis of race.
 
Larquetta said:
thinking your own nation is superior to other nations.
Click to expand...
Believing your own race to be superior is racism and a sin. If you believe your nation is superior because it is predominantly one race, and believe that race is the cause of its superiority, then that is a sin and racist.

However, if you are being patriotic that is fine.

I would say that as long as you are not harming others or not justifying harm to others on your belief, you are not sinning. It would also be a sin to put your country before God.

I am not sure about this, though, and would suggest you bring this up next time in Confession or look in the Catechism for answers.
 
The Olympics are a great peaceful example of this topic. Each country, proud of it’s citizens, wanting to be the best. Meanwhile in the US we celebrate our melting pot values. Champions with names like, yamaguchi, Chen, Miller, Phelps, gabby Douglas and many champions of every race. We take pride in that. Yet have you ever seen the Chinese team? If you guessed exclusively Chinese, you would be right. And they take pride in that. No sin involved.
 
Your post is highly fractured, and you’re asking repetitive questions. I’ll try to answers as best as I can, but its getting late here, so this will be my last post in this discussion tonight.

Your example is problematic. No country is allowing a sudden immigration multiple times of their current size. This isn’t happening anywhere. Denmark recently had a relatively large influx of asylum seekers which have mostly been processed now. The small numbers makes your example fall apart.

Each country controls its borders. There is nothing wrong with protecting those borders, nor is there anything wrong with limiting immigration. Each country decides what resources it has to help asylum seekers, and how many immigrants it will accept. Those are limits debated from day to day.

No genocide is taking place in Europe. Not here, not in the US. Except that in some places they’re going to have brown grandchildren and learn some Mexican customs. I see nothing wrong with that. You ask me to cut the strawmen, and you’re spewing hyperbole?

And I consider those people who more here, and have become citizens as danish. They are danish. Especially their children who speak the language. And even if you took a more restrictive view, there’s no reason at all to consider third-generation immigrants as anything else other than danes.
Stuartonian said:
Not to mention that the people who come here will always have their own homeland to go to if they want to, but we have nothing else. We are losing the only home we have.
Click to expand...
Where do you live?
 
Last edited:
“leonhardprintz said:
Your post is highly fractured, and you’re asking repetitive questions. I’ll try to answers as best as I can, but its getting late here, so this will be my last post in this discussion tonight.

Your example is problematic. No country is allowing a sudden immigration multiple times of their current size. This isn’t happening anywhere. Denmark recently had a relatively large influx of asylum seekers which have mostly been processed now. The small numbers makes your example fall apart.

Each country controls its borders. There is nothing wrong with protecting those borders, nor is there anything wrong with limiting immigration. Each country decides what resources it has to help asylum seekers, and how many immigrants it will accept. Those are limits debated from day to day.

No genocide is taking place in Europe. Not here, not in the US. Except that in some places they’re going to have brown grandchildren and learn some Mexican customs. I see nothing wrong with that.​

United Nations definition of Genocide::

Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part1
; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Click to expand...
 
I wanted to add this to the previous post.

I pulled this out from Danish Statistics Institute. Shows how many we took in. Our population is around 5.7 million. Meaning even at the highest peak influx, we took in around 0.35%, and that was orthodox Syrian refugees!

Green represents those who’s asylum was accepted, blue represents those who applied.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Stuartonian said:
/
“leonhardprintz said:
/
Your post is highly fractured, and you’re asking repetitive questions. I’ll try to answers as best as I can, but its getting late here, so this will be my last post in this discussion tonight.

Your example is problematic. No country is allowing a sudden immigration multiple times of their current size. This isn’t happening anywhere. Denmark recently had a relatively large influx of asylum seekers which have mostly been processed now. The small numbers makes your example fall apart.

Each country controls its borders. There is nothing wrong with protecting those borders, nor is there anything wrong with limiting immigration. Each country decides what resources it has to help asylum seekers, and how many immigrants it will accept. Those are limits debated from day to day.

No genocide is taking place in Europe. Not here, not in the US. Except that in some places they’re going to have brown grandchildren and learn some Mexican customs. I see nothing wrong with that.​

United Nations definition of Genocide::

Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part1
; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Click to expand...
First of all, learn to use the quote function. Second of all, none of what you’re writing about is actually taking place, and to the extent that new cultural practices become part of Europe I see that only as a strength.
Stuartonian said:
Going to have brown grandchildren and adopt customs of a foreign nation? That’s kind of the point.
“deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”.
By allowing non-Europeans to pour into Europe, conditions are being created which will destroy the European race and culture. It is a fact that at current rates, Europeans will become the minority in their countries within this century. That is genocide. No white grandchildren who are German? Instead mixed grandchildren who practice Arab culture and traditions and are most likely Muslim? That’s Cultural Genocide, erasing a culture of people from the planet.
Click to expand...
I get it, you’re a xenophobic racist. Goodnight. 😛
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Stuartonian said:
So you see nothing wrong with people from a totally different culture moving into a country and becoming the majority? [etc etc]
Click to expand...
Do you think that what we see as ‘cultures’ these days sprouted out from the earth fully formed or something? Culture isn’t static. The markers of culture isn’t static. Waves of immigration through the millennia has woven what we see today. So I don’t understand how anyone can object to this natural cultural evolution without blatant xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and racism.

Not to mention that ‘cultural genocide’ is a well-known and much-used dog whistle used by xenophobes, ethnocentrists, and racists.
 
Last edited:
There are literally, not figuratively, hundreds of history, sociology, philosophy, political science, and X studies departments in colleges and universities across the globe that explore that topic in depth.

The semantics of this all is itself incredibly obscuring in these sorts of debates. Let alone getting to the actual facts at hand.
 
Last edited:
By the way, how am I a xenophobic racist by going by the definition of genocide the United Nations gives? Oh wait, your only response to that would be to say I’m racist because you don’t have any arguments. Racism= Loving your culture and not wanting to lose that culture.
 
Lol, when you can’t explain why saying Europeans built Europe is racist, so you just say “Wow”.
 
By the way, I’m serious. Are you enjoying the increase in terrorism in the UK?
 
How is it racist to say every race deserves a home and self determination? Can you explain that?
 
No need to point out the obvious.
 
Last edited:
How is it racist and offensive to say Europeans built Europe and that everyone deserves self determination and a home regardless of race? You have yet to explain this. Your only argument is saying “That’s offensives and racist”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top