Is america still a white nation?

Is america still a white nation?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZrZZQzyhp7g
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Definitely not.

>implying it ever was

Is this an amerimutt thread?

But america was 90% white in 1965

maybe

That just means that it had a white majority, not that it was a white nation. The U.S. has always had a Christian majority too, yet it specifically is not a Christian nation.

so what type of nation was the usa if it wasn't a white christian nation with white christian values?

>white christian values?
murders an indigenous people
values

pick one

An American nation with secular values.

Yes in most parts

If by white you mean (((white)))

But every race and culture has murdered rivals, i dont think its any different from anyone in history. That doesnt mean they didnt have any values.

So, are you saying that race was never a component on the american nation, even on the beggining?

But aren't the most populated parts are majority non white?

Wherever you got whites being 90% in 1965 is completely false. This country has NEVER been mostly white...because there were already people here before America was "discovered".

But (((white))) people only make up 2% of the USA population. If you watched the american media you would think they are at least 1 in 4, but the reality is much different.

The native americans didnt take any part in the building of the american nation. By 1900 they all lived in reservations that didn't affect the course of the american nation.

>So, are you saying that race was never a component on the american nation, even on the beggining?
Yep. It's a nation of ideas, not of race. There have certainly been race-related laws, but that again does not mean America was a racial nation.

Then why was non-white immigration and settlements almost completely restricted before 1965.

>There have certainly been race-related laws, but that again does not mean America was a racial nation.

Having race related laws like the ones i mentioned do appear as from a racial nation.

Something appearing a certain way to you does not make it so.

So, do you think the american nation will survive the demographic decline of the race that composed most of the nation until recently? Won't it collapse like all multi-etnic empires that existed until now, did?

>do you think the american nation will survive the demographic decline of the race that composed most of the nation until recently?
I see no reason to think it won't.
>Won't it collapse like all multi-etnic empires that existed until now, did?
Every empire that does not currently exist collapsed, multi-ethnic or not.

...

...

...

>I see no reason to think it won't.

So, you don't mind that the country has a higher quantity of low iq people than now?

>Every empire that does not currently exist collapsed, multi-ethnic or not.

Yes, but when a different demographic entered the nation/empire, most of the times it lead to the collapse of the current empire/nation.

it never was such a thing, and it's been half mexican for most of its history

...

If you refer to the conquest of the mexican northern territories, they existed for a couple centuries before america conquered them. But the american nation was 90% white more or less since its fundation and until 1965.

>So, you don't mind that the country has a higher quantity of low iq people than now?
You're now attempting to equate race with intelligence.

If you follow long-term trends, many indicators are positive, such as violent crime rates being in decline and life-spans rising.
>but when a different demographic entered the nation/empire
Again, we're a nation of ideas, not of race. A different race than the majority entering is irrelevant.

Everytime I see americunts in TV-shows,Films...they look like as Mexican.

Wrong! they look like africans!
"White" america pic related.

So they didn't teach the people who came to America how to farm, hunt, things of that nature? By helping the settlers learn how to cultivate the land and survive, they played no part in the building of america?

they started it we finished it ... native americas were too smart... they realized that white men would replace them as the dominant culture/race so they rallied against us and tried to kill us. that's why we had to use stupid lazy niggers as slaves.

>You're now attempting to equate race with intelligence.

But it is scientifically demostrated that some races have higher/lower iq that others.

>If you follow long-term trends, many indicators are positive, such as violent crime rates being in decline and life-spans rising.

That doesnt mean a nation can't collapse. They do, and there are still collapsing countries to this day.

>Again, we're a nation of ideas, not of race. A different race than the majority entering is irrelevant.

So, do you really think that people with different characteristics are interchangable cogs in a nation?

Are you sure they don't look like as having semitic origins?

>So they didn't teach the people who came to America how to farm, hunt, things of that nature? By helping the settlers learn how to cultivate the land and survive, they played no part in the building of america?

Not really, why? Because after that they were just conquered in their own lands and didn't play any part in the political process other than being people that had to be conquered and put in reservations.

>But it is scientifically demostrated that some races have higher/lower iq that others.
Source required. It has been demonstrated that some races have, on average, higher/lower iq than others. This is not the same thing and can have causes other than race.
>That doesnt mean a nation can't collapse.
It also doesn't mean that it will collapse.
>So, do you really think that people with different characteristics are interchangable cogs in a nation?
When those characteristics are something irrelevant like race, yes.

they planted the seeds of their own destruction. The thing is that native americans were intellectually inferior. Over time as we got bearings in the new land we overpowered them intellectually. Trains, guns, domesticating wildlife.. etc.. we fundamentally altered their way of life and we started making it impossible to live without the use of greater knowledge... we didn't migrate and we started taking up more land... they fought back physically and we annihilated them for it

Now I see where it's from

It's kind of hard for a slave to be lazy.....

Absolutely nothing you said negates the fact they played a major role in the building of this nation. In fact, without native Americans there would be no America because the settlers would have all basically died.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZrZZQzyhp7g

You get your facts from cartoons with obvious racist undertones? Do you watch the Disney channel as a substitute for CNN too?

>Source required. It has been demonstrated that some races have, on average, higher/lower iq than others

That is what i meant.

>This is not the same thing and can have causes other than race.

It is. Some races have , on average, higher iqs that others. If you are choosing someone to be part of your nation of a race that has lower iq on average than others, you are undermining your nation. That is , on average. Like importing low wage, low skill workers. Exceptions dont apply.

Doesn't matter if they have other causes than race (while they certainly seem like they do, since race develops traits over many generations), if you are importing people that, on average , have lower or much lower iqs that can perform certain jobs, you are undermining your nation.

>It also doesn't mean that it will collapse.

Empires collapse over time. If more time passes, the probability of collapse gets higher. Specially if the empire is old, has steep demographic changes and lots of debt.

>When those characteristics are something irrelevant like race, yes.

But would it matter if their IQ was significantly lower?

There was no America till the whites took the land after the savages attacked them.

>It is.
Is isn't. Correlation does not imply causation.
>if you are importing people that, on average , have lower or much lower iqs that can perform certain jobs, you are undermining your nation.
Your reasoning doesn't make sense. If we followed it to its conclusion, what we should screen for is IQ, not race, allowing in only those with a certain IQ and possibly even exporting people with low IQ (including white people).
>If more time passes, the probability of collapse gets higher.
Source? Probability does not have memory you know.
>Specially if the empire is old, has steep demographic changes and lots of debt.
U.S. debt isn't all that high, and a good portion of it is internally owned.
>But would it matter if their IQ was significantly lower?
Sure, but we aren't talking about IQ, we're talking about race.

I've never seen someone lie and misdirect in a thread this much.

>Is isn't. Correlation does not imply causation.

So, are you implying that some races don't have , on average, higher/lower iq's than others?

>Your reasoning doesn't make sense. If we followed it to its conclusion, what we should screen for is IQ, not race, allowing in only those with a certain IQ and possibly even exporting people with low IQ (including white people).

Why not have IQ screening? it makes more sense than race screening.

>possibly even exporting people with low IQ (including white people).

Yeah, that would be great, but the system does need a quantity of low iq people to do the low wage jobs. It definetely doesnt need more than what there are now, because of automation.

>Source? Probability does not have memory you know.

Source? Don't you understand how complex systems work? Complex systems don't last forever and the probability of them depleting their resources needed gets higher over time if the system isnt expanding.

>U.S. debt isn't all that high, and a good portion of it is internally owned.

Well, technically, yeah. But it's a sign of system strains.

>Sure, but we aren't talking about IQ, we're talking about race.

We are talking about race and IQ because they are correlated.

Not an argument.
>So, are you implying that some races don't have , on average, higher/lower iq's than others?
No, I'm not. I'm saying that it has not been shown that race causes higher / lower IQs.
>Why not have IQ screening? it makes more sense than race screening.
You've just agreed that your racial argument makes no sense.
>Don't you understand how complex systems work?
Except for the wrinkle that societies have a mechanism (people) that can potentially solve instabilities.
>Well, technically, yeah. But it's a sign of system strains.
Not really.
>We are talking about race and IQ because they are correlated.
A lot of things are correlated, that doesn't mean you can interchange them.

Yes, very much so, that questio is just there to trigger white people into thinking they are going to be destroyed because "reasons".

You're still top dog, you can still shit on everyone else and act like you're superior because you happened to be born with another skin pigment while doing nothing to actually earn your superiority individually.

Obvious bs is obvious

>No, I'm not. I'm saying that it has not been shown that race causes higher / lower IQs.

If some races have higher iqs than others on average, it means that the probability of someone having a higher iq for x race is higher.

>You've just agreed that your racial argument makes no sense.

it makes sense because some races have higher iqs on average and if you are not going to screen for iq, race is a good correlator of IQ and other traits. If you want statistics there are lots of them. Like the one showing that the richest blacks in america have lower iq/higher crime rates than the poorest whites.

>Except for the wrinkle that societies have a mechanism (people) that can potentially solve instabilities.

Yes, but that has not stopped any country around the world from collapsing and there has been a collapsing country and change of flags/nation in every inch of the populated world.

>Not really.

How not? Debt doesnt matter now?

>A lot of things are correlated, that doesn't mean you can interchange them.

Race and IQ are correlated.

>you're superior because you happened to be born with another skin pigment
>race is just skin pigment

kek, amerimutts everyone

>it means that the probability of someone having a higher iq for x race is higher
When you look at the overall population, sure.
>it makes sense because some races have higher iqs on average and if you are not going to screen for iq, race is a good correlator of IQ and other traits.
It doesn't though, because you should just screen for IQ and those other traits. That's the conclusion you reach from your argument, not screening for race, which you cannot show causes IQ.
>Yes, but that has not stopped any country around the world from collapsing
It hasn't stopped any of the currently existing countries from collapsing?
>Debt doesnt matter now?
A certain amount of debt is normal and even healthy.
>Race and IQ are correlated.
I agree. That doesn't mean you can interchange them.

>yes

Another great thread from some europoor

Well played.

>It doesn't though, because you should just screen for IQ and those other traits. That's the conclusion you reach from your argument, not screening for race, which you cannot show causes IQ.

Screening for IQ is more optimal obviously. But having a country with people of the same race is always preferable than having a multi-etnic country.

>It hasn't stopped any of the currently existing countries from collapsing?

Doesnt mean it wont happen

>I agree. That doesn't mean you can interchange them.

You can't but you can assume who has, on average, traits that are good for your nation.

...

I feel like I'm reading a child's book. Why can't you just type normally?

There is nothing wrong in the way i'm typing.

Everything is wrong with how you type.

...

Nope. Orange

I just type correctly and there is nothing wrong with typing like that.

...

...