Is it Racist for White Countries to Remain White?

[Jredbaron96]

I'm sure that you had a point, just not one relevant to my comments about Roman acculturation.

Probably because you didn't have a point to begin with.

 

[Jredbaron96]

At which point was it not continually putting down rebellions in this multicultural empire?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_civil_wars_and_revolts

This looks like a government barely able to hold onto power.

Not in the slightest. Notice how nearly all of these say "revolt suppressed" or occurred over the course of a single year? Or how many were limited to small territories or were so insignificant they didn't warrant any further explanation?

In an imperialist state with no means of democratic institution the only way to create changes in politics and power was through violence. There were tons of violent revolts in the Roman Empire, because it was the only way to get things done quickly. In our current state we have democratic elections, government representation, and bureaucratic infrastructure, so we don't have to resort to violence nearly as quickly.

And honestly, the single biggest point against you is that for 200 years the Roman quality of life was so good they gave it a special name; Pax Romana.

Again, the Byzantine empire survived for centuries with Christianity, so this argument about it doesn't really make sense.

Because at that point there was no Christian-Pagan divide within the Empire. You misunderstand me; Christianity itself wasn't the issue, it was the rise of a religion that ran counter to the established dogma of the Roman state.

But what were the origins of that crisis? I imagine putting down multiple revolts every century contributes to economic weakness.

You can imagine it but you'd be wrong. The Crisis of the Third Century was the result of failed conquests of Germania and the Persians, which required the Emperor's to constantly raise more and more legions, which cost money. These legions were raised by devaluing the coinage used by the Empire, which led to the collapse of Rome's internal trade network.

 

[phattonez]

Not in the slightest. Notice how nearly all of these say "revolt suppressed" or occurred over the course of a single year? Or how many were limited to small territories or were so insignificant they didn't warrant any further explanation?

How many open revolts are we putting down in this country, local or otherwise?

In an imperialist state with no means of democratic institution the only way to create changes in politics and power was through violence. There were tons of violent revolts in the Roman Empire, because it was the only way to get things done quickly. In our current state we have democratic elections, government representation, and bureaucratic infrastructure, so we don't have to resort to violence nearly as quickly.

This is utterly ahistorical. Athens had plenty of revolts. France has had countless revolts. We've had a civil war (which, note again, was between people's who viewed themselves as separate cultures).

And honestly, the single biggest point against you is that for 200 years the Roman quality of life was so good they gave it a special name; Pax Romana.

How peaceful:

The first known record of the term Pax Romana appears in a writing by Seneca the Younger in 55 AD.[6] The concept was highly influential, and the subject of theories and attempts to copy it in subsequent ages. Arnaldo Momigliano noted that "Pax Romana is a simple formula for propaganda, but a difficult subject for research."[7] In fact, the "Pax Romana" was broken by the First Jewish–Roman War, the Kitos War (also in Judea, 115–117), the Bar Kokhba Revolt (also known as the Third Jewish–Roman War), the Roman–Parthian War of 58–63, Trajan's Roman–Parthian War of 113, the Dacian Wars, various battles with Germanic tribes, including the Teutoburg Forest, and Boudica's war in Britain in AD 60 or 61.

Because at that point there was no Christian-Pagan divide within the Empire. You misunderstand me; Christianity itself wasn't the issue, it was the rise of a religion that ran counter to the established dogma of the Roman state.

Sounds like a cultural issue to me.

You can imagine it but you'd be wrong. The Crisis of the Third Century was the result of failed conquests of Germania and the Persians, which required the Emperor's to constantly raise more and more legions, which cost money. These legions were raised by devaluing the coinage used by the Empire, which led to the collapse of Rome's internal trade network.

I'm not denying any of that, but look at the list of revolts in the 2nd century and you see a lot of internal problems. Frankly, the empire was too large and spread over diverse peoples. It's amazing that it lasted as long as it did, which is a testament to Roman organization and brutality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_civil_wars_and_revolts#2nd_century

 

[Jredbaron96]

How many open revolts are we putting down in this country, local or otherwise?

This is utterly ahistorical. Athens had plenty of revolts. France has had countless revolts.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. We don't have open revolts in this country because we have other means of affecting changes in politics. Before the rise of a representative government and democratic institutions the only way to quickly influence political change was through violence. I realize Americans tend to romanticize violence in politics more than most other people's, but let's be real here.

We've had a civil war (which, note again, was between people's who viewed themselves as separate cultures).

We had a civil war because half the country wanted to continue functioning as a slaveocracy. It was about power, as most political endeavors are.

Sounds like a cultural issue to me.

I'm starting to get the impression you don't actually understand what culture is beyond a vague, generic term you can throw out on a whim whenever you don't like foreign things or people. When all you can throw out are random personal values, the vast majority of which are not unique to Americans in the slightest, it doesn't help to justify your ethnonationalist desires.

Frankly, the empire was too large and spread over diverse peoples.

It functioned quite well actually despite being just that. Diversity was not what doomed the Roman Empire no matter how much you want it to be.

 

[phattonez]

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. We don't have open revolts in this country because we have other means of affecting changes in politics. Before the rise of a representative government and democratic institutions the only way to quickly influence political change was through violence. I realize Americans tend to romanticize violence in politics more than most other people's, but let's be real here.

Again, Democratic France and Athens had plenty of revolts, so it's not democratic institutions that keep rebellions down.

We had a civil war because half the country wanted to continue functioning as a slaveocracy. It was about power, as most political endeavors are.

So then why didn't the slave states of the north join in the rebellion?

I'm starting to get the impression you don't actually understand what culture is beyond a vague, generic term you can throw out on a whim whenever you don't like foreign things or people. When all you can throw out are random personal values, the vast majority of which are not unique to Americans in the slightest, it doesn't help to justify your ethnonationalist desires.

Do you deny that religion is intimately linked with culture? What do you think the 'cult' part of the term culture means?

It functioned quite well actually despite being just that. Diversity was not what doomed the Roman Empire no matter how much you want it to be.

Except for the multiple revolts per century. It was unstable, and it's why the surrounding tribes were ultimately able to invade and replace it, especially in the west.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Again, Democratic France and Athens had plenty of revolts, so it's not democratic institutions that keep rebellions down.

Athens was an aristocracy masquerading as a democratic state, make no mistake about that. France's political environment was such that it practically lended itself to instability. The same could in fact be said for Rome, where back-stabbing was the norm, both in the Republic and the Empire.

So then why didn't the slave states of the north join in the rebellion?

Because they had more to gain by staying in the Union.

Do you deny that religion is intimately linked with culture? What do you think the 'cult' part of the term culture means?

No, I'm pointing out that you're constant insistence that culture is the root cause of all these issues and problems is hollow.

Except for the multiple revolts per century. It was unstable,

Again, which revolts were so devastating that they caused the collapse of the Empire?

If you were arguing that civil wars were the cause, then you'd have a point, but you can't really pin those on culture so it figures you would ignore them.

and it's why the surrounding tribes were ultimately able to invade and replace it, especially in the west.

They weren't replaced. The entire infrastructure and population of the Western Empire didn't just disappear when Odacer overthrew Augustulus. The live of the average Roman didn't change in the slightest when the Ostrogoths took over Italy.

 

[phattonez]

Athens was an aristocracy masquerading as a democratic state, make no mistake about that. France's political environment was such that it practically lended itself to instability. The same could in fact be said for Rome, where back-stabbing was the norm, both in the Republic and the Empire.

So then clearly it's something besides form of government that dictates stability. I say that it's cultural cohesion. You say, what?

Because they had more to gain by staying in the Union.

And they could keep their slaves. Hmm. Perhaps the war wasn't really fought over slavery.

No, I'm pointing out that you're constant insistence that culture is the root cause of all these issues and problems is hollow.

And your insistence that the form of government dictates stability is ahistorical. There have been stable dictatorships and unstable democracies. Something else is determining whether there is peace, and I say that it's culture.

Again, which revolts were so devastating that they caused the collapse of the Empire?

What does it matter? I'm merely pointing out that this Roman peace wasn't all that peaceful. Plenty of dictators have been able to quash rebellions in their domain through brutality, but it doesn't mean that they were stable regimes.

They weren't replaced. The entire infrastructure and population of the Western Empire didn't just disappear when Odacer overthrew Augustulus. The live of the average Roman didn't change in the slightest when the Ostrogoths took over Italy.

The state was replaced, not the people.

 

[Jredbaron96]

So then clearly it's something besides form of government that dictates stability. I say that it's cultural cohesion. You say, what?

It's called politics and power. Who'd a ****ing guess?

You can claim here all you want that what brought down Rome was having too many non-Latins in the Empire, but it's demonstrably false, especially when most of Rome's civil wars were started by the Roman elite themselves, not their vast populations of culturally and ethnically diverse subjects.

And they could keep their slaves. Hmm. Perhaps the war wasn't really fought over slavery.

The war was all about slavery. They seceded from the Union for the purpose of preserving the institution of slavery which was the cornerstone of their economy. Several of their states' declarations of independence make this clear, as well as the vice president's Cornerstone Speech which described the reasons for secession in the same way Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did for the USA. In fact, Vice President Stephens specifically refutes Jefferson's belief stated in the declaration that all men are created equal, saying that the CSA would be founded upon the belief that some people were born to be slaves. I'd say the Vice President of the Confederate States is a greater authority on why they seceded than you.

And your insistence that the form of government dictates stability is ahistorical. There have been stable dictatorships and unstable democracies. Something else is determining whether there is peace, and I say that it's culture.

You can say it all you want, but that doesn't make it true

What does it matter? I'm merely pointing out that this Roman peace wasn't all that peaceful. Plenty of dictators have been able to quash rebellions in their domain through brutality, but it doesn't mean that they were stable regimes.

Rome provided it's citizens at the time with stability and comfort that wasn't again seen for centuries in Europe. It was certainly more peaceful than you wish to claim otherwise.

The state was replaced, not the people.

Not really. The Ostrogothic Kingdom operated within the administrative outline of the Roman Empire.

 

[phattonez]

It's called politics and power. Who'd a ****ing guess?

You can claim here all you want that what brought down Rome was having too many non-Latins in the Empire, but it's demonstrably false, especially when most of Rome's civil wars were started by the Roman elite themselves, not their vast populations of culturally and ethnically diverse subjects.

Those Jewish rebellions were no big deal, right?

The war was all about slavery. They seceded from the Union for the purpose of preserving the institution of slavery which was the cornerstone of their economy. Several of their states' declarations of independence make this clear, as well as the vice president's Cornerstone Speech which described the reasons for secession in the same way Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did for the USA. In fact, Vice President Stephens specifically refutes Jefferson's belief stated in the declaration that all men are created equal, saying that the CSA would be founded upon the belief that some people were born to be slaves. I'd say the Vice President of the Confederate States is a greater authority on why they seceded than you.

So why didn't the border states join the Confederacy?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Those Jewish rebellions were no big deal, right?

They were certainly a big deal to the Roman officials who were tasked with suppressing them and the affect they had on the Jews.

Big deal in the sense that's what brought down the Empire? No, not really.

So why didn't the border states join the Confederacy?

Well, for starters: Delaware is pretty straight forward. By the 1850s slavery in Delaware was confined to the extreme south of the state, with the majority of the state being abolitionist. Seceding from the Union was never gonna happen.

Maryland had a problem with geography; it had a long, largely undefended border with Pennsylvania that would've been impossible to defend. Furthermore, Maryland was pretty divided between northern and southern sympathizers, and while many of them did not support succession, some did, but martial law was declared in the state and used to round up most of Maryland's would-be Confederate leadership. The rest fled to Virginia.

Kentucky was weening off slave plantations due to it's economy moving towards tobacco, which required less manpower to harvest. Kentucky actually requested to stay neutral, which it did until Confederate troops took control of Columbus, swerving the state into the Union camp.

Missouri's top government officials were supporters of the south, but much of the legislature did not want to secede. The result was a short but complicated mini-civil war that ended when Governor Jackson declared his own Confederate state of Missouri that was actually recognized by the CSA, but Missouri itself never seceded.

So simply but most of the border states didn't secede because over time they had grown less reliant on slavery to support their economies. Without such a major issue at hand they couldn't justify secession, so they stuck with the Union.

 

[iliveonramen]

I just wanted to quote the entire post. No, obviously Japan is not a white country. We both know that. So quit playing semantics and give a straight answer.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

So your question is closer to "is it racist for countries to want to remain homogenous"

 

[phattonez]

So your question is closer to "is it racist for countries to want to remain homogenous"

That's another good question, actually.

 

[iliveonramen]

That's another good question, actually.

I think culture/religion causes much more friction than race. In the US, it's the opposite because of our history. In other countries, it's culture and religion.

 

[lefty louie]

South Africa is in the process of killing off all it's white farm owners, if I were a white SA I'd be on my way out the door.

Let them fall even further into the **** hole they have become since doing away with Apartheid and when they wake up they will beg whites to come rescue them.

 

[phattonez]

I think culture/religion causes much more friction than race. In the US, it's the opposite because of our history. In other countries, it's culture and religion.

All of these things are closely linked. They're not necessarily substitutes for each other, but they're generally correlated.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

 

[TobyMeyers]

I asked this question in another thread and got what I found to be a very interesting answer.



So what do you think? Is it racist for a white country to remain white?

Yes whites just want to be left alone.
but they all dream of living around us because their countries are terrible

the truth and everybody knows it. if honest.

 

[TobyMeyers]

What's a white country? Examples?

Europe, Canada, Australia, Usa,

any country has is nice and has money and not corrupt and backwards was founded by a white majority.

 

[TurtleDude]

Europe, Canada, Australia, Usa,

any country has is nice and has money and not corrupt and backwards was founded by a white majority.

like Singapore or Taiwan? pretty advanced countries

 

[TobyMeyers]

like Singapore or Taiwan? pretty advanced countries

Yes the Asians are the exceptions to this rule.

and Jewish people

they make nice countries..

East asians that is .. av iq is 105
West asian av iq is 90.. much lower

If u go to asia there is racism between the two.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes the Asians are the exceptions to this rule.

and Jewish people

they make nice countries..

East asians that is .. av iq is 105
West asian av iq is 90.. much lower

If u go to asia there is racism between the two.

sort of bitch slaps the idea that only "white countries" are nice

and lots of "black countries" are F.U.B.A.R. because of white colonialism

 

[TobyMeyers]

sort of bitch slaps the idea that only "white countries" are nice

and lots of "black countries" are F.U.B.A.R. because of white colonialism

dream on blacks always use that an excuse

 

[TurtleDude]

dream on blacks always use that an excuse

its the truth-European colonialism often

1)forced warring ethnic groups into the same country units

2) in the Case of England-England didn't try to force the native populations into becoming English (unlike the French) rather the English tended to merely leave the current power structure in place-requiring the then current leader to merely report to the English while giving that leader British military support. African societies were often used to conquerors taking hostages so they would not present the leader of a group to the British but a social outcast (figuring the outcast would be a hostage or worse). When the British treated the outcast as the leader-social distortions became rampant (read THINGS FALL APART by Achebe to get more background of this practice)

when the French colonialized an area-they tried to turn the local elites into "French"

this is what screwed up south Vietnam. The elites were Catholics and spoke French and looked down upon the Buddhists who were most of the country.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

South Africa has also existed as a continuous government even through the end of apartheid. Are you going to claim that this was a successful state during the transition?

Riiiight.. so we're comparing a transition period of (being generous here) 30 years against the Roman Empire lasting from B.C.20 (minimising it) to 470 A.D.?

 

[PoS]

like Singapore or Taiwan? pretty advanced countries

And Japan and China, who are #3 and #2 economically in the world. South Korea too.

 

[ataraxia]

You may have a point: when it comes to bloodshed, violence, enslavement, and exploitation of others, no one matches the whites. The two most bloody and barbaric wars in all human history, the two world wars, were started by the whites.

Thanks for the analogy. It explains it all really well now.