White Americans no longer the majority by 2042

[Cliffy]

Cliffy didn't play hockey.

Actually I did play hockey. I was very good at goals. Too good. One game during the finals, the opposing team could not score against me. In the third period, I saw five guys coming at me with their sticks up, looking threatening. They looked like they were going to break my legs. I skated off the ice and never returned to organized sports. I developed the concept that competition brings out the worst in people. I have no use for competition and prefer cooperation.

And yes, it was the French that beat me up until I hit them back. But that had nothing to do with them being French. It had to do with them being bullies, which just showed me that they were cowards inside because, no matter how big they were, if you hit back, they all run away.

 

[YukonJack]

I remember that in 2007 the Taliban in Afganistan set explosives to statue of Buddha, which at that time was the tallest statue of a deity.

Is there any reason to think that Mozart, Dickens, Michelangelo, Einstein, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Leonardo and many other DWM will not meet the same fate as the Buddha in Afganistan.

There is no hate as intense as hate spawned by envy. And based on historical achievements, no race is more envied and, therefore, HATED than whites.

 

[Cliffy]

I remember that in 2007 the Taliban in Afganistan set explosives to statue of Buddha, which at that time was the tallest statue of a deity.

Is there any reason to think that Mozart, Dickens, Michelangelo, Einstein, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Leonardo and many other DWM will not meet the same fate as the Buddha in Afganistan.

There is no hate as intense as hate spawned by envy. And based on historical achievements, no race is more envied and, therefore, HATED than whites.

And that has nothing to do with all the hatred, death and destruction that whites have wreaked on all others of racial, ethnic, political or religious persuasion? Jack, take your blinders off.

 

[YukonJack]

Cliffy, my blinders are off as they always been.

Nobody and nothing prevented "all the others of racial, ethnic, political or religious persuation" to go set sail, and conquer other lands and people, other than their own limitations.
Nothing and nobody prevented them to think and achieve, other than their own limitations. Nothing and nobody stopped them to develop defense against the evil white man, but their own limitations.
Nothing and nobody stops them now to take full advantage of white man's inventions and freeload on white man's generosity.

I know, you and your ilk will waste not a single second to call me racist for the above, well so be it. I simply expressed my fear that after 2042 the new majority will not be as accommodating and generous as the current one.

I am glad that I am old enough so I will not live to see it.

 

[Cliffy]

Cliffy, my blinders are off as they always been.

Nobody and nothing prevented "all the others of racial, ethnic, political or religious persuation" to go set sail, and conquer other lands and people, other than their own limitations.
Nothing and nobody prevented them to think and achieve, other than their own limitations. Nothing and nobody stopped them to develop defense against the evil white man, but their own limitations.
Nothing and nobody stops them now to take full advantage of white man's inventions and freeload on white man's generosity.

I know, you and your ilk will waste not a single second to call me racist for the above, well so be it. I simply expressed my fear that after 2042 the new majority will not be as accommodating and generous as the current one.

I am glad that I am old enough so I will not live to see it.

From this I assume you that you think invading, slaughtering and stealing other people's lands is a great accomplishment. Most aboriginal people believed in sharing. They never dreamed that their invited guests would turn on them, kill them and steal their lands. You truly are a strange one.

 

[gerryh]

From this I assume you that you think invading, slaughtering and stealing other people's lands is a great accomplishment. Most aboriginal people believed in sharing. They never dreamed that their invited guests would turn on them, kill them and steal their lands. You truly are a strange one.

You're going to have to back this one up.

 

[Cliffy]

You're going to have to back this one up.

Just look at the story of the first Thanksgiving. Later, when it was discovered what the Europeans real intentions were, the invitation was dropped. Unfortunately, the concept of uniting all tribes to resist the invasion, was not part of their thought patterns. Yes there was conflict between tribes, but most of the more violent conflicts happened after settlement displaced tribes and conflicts arose from westward migration away from the settler communities.

 

[gerryh]

so, in other words, you can't back it up.

 

[YukonJack]

From this I assume you that you think invading, slaughtering and stealing other people's lands is a great accomplishment. Most aboriginal people believed in sharing. They never dreamed that their invited guests would turn on them, kill them and steal their lands. You truly are a strange one.

Cliffy, you are the strange one, because you seem to be oblivious to the fact that the entire human history is virtually nothing but invading, slaughtering and stealing and yes, there were times when the white people were the victims. May I remind you of the Mongols invading Europe? Or the fact that whites were sold as slaves by the oh, so honourable black slave masters as recently as less than a hundred years ago?

But that is not even the issue. The accomplishments by white people I referred to was inventions to make our lives better, - including the lives of aboriginals - music, literature, science and social values, such as rights defined by written laws, known and endorsed only by whites.

This is not to diminish the achievements of others. But statistically, whites have nothing to be ashamed of, compared to others.

I have attended Habitat for Humanity projects since 1993. The number of non-whites and perhaps coincidentally, liberals, I could count on less than one hand.

 

[Cliffy]

so, in other words, you can't back it up.

What do you want Gerry? Most of the information I have read comes from unpublished anthropological and ethnographic studies. Unless you have access to them, the references are meaningless. Most of these reports are done for the government or corporations for their use and rarely make it into the public realm. I have access to some of them because of my affiliation with aboriginal peoples and museums. I used them in researching my book.

For example, if you can find a copy of Bouchard and Kennedy's "Ethnographic report on the Lakes Indians" you will find that their research discovered that the origin of the Blackfeet Indians was in eastern Canada and that they were forced west by settlement. They spent some time in northern Saskatchewan before landing at the foothills of Alberta around 1795. At that time they displaced the Kootenay (Ktunaxa) who ended up in the east Kootenays. If you go to the Blackfoot Nations web site you will see that they concur with that fact. You will also find that they (the Blackfoot) had to fight every inch of the way with the Cree as they tried to settle in their territory. Also, a good reference might be "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, which is a history of North America from the aboriginal perspective. You might also look up the history of the Sioux who started of as an agricultural culture before being driven out onto the prairies and developing the great horse culture that was so war like. Before that they were quite peaceful.

 

[YukonJack]

Here is a twofer: Classical music combined with politically incorrect world view.

Simply delicious and something to look forward to long before 2042:

YouTube - Budapest is the capital of what European country?

YouTube - The Three Terrors - A Három Terror (magyar felirattal)

 

[gerryh]

What do you want Gerry? Most of the information I have read comes from unpublished anthropological and ethnographic studies. Unless you have access to them, the references are meaningless. Most of these reports are done for the government or corporations for their use and rarely make it into the public realm. I have access to some of them because of my affiliation with aboriginal peoples and museums. I used them in researching my book.

For example, if you can find a copy of Bouchard and Kennedy's "Ethnographic report on the Lakes Indians" you will find that their research discovered that the origin of the Blackfeet Indians was in eastern Canada and that they were forced west by settlement. They spent some time in northern Saskatchewan before landing at the foothills of Alberta around 1795. At that time they displaced the Kootenay (Ktunaxa) who ended up in the east Kootenays. If you go to the Blackfoot Nations web site you will see that they concur with that fact. You will also find that they (the Blackfoot) had to fight every inch of the way with the Cree as they tried to settle in their territory. Also, a good reference might be "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, which is a history of North America from the aboriginal perspective. You might also look up the history of the Sioux who started of as an agricultural culture before being driven out onto the prairies and developing the great horse culture that was so war like. Before that they were quite peaceful.

It's very simple cliffy......... You are referencing what happened AFTER the european "invasion". How about you look at the interaction of the different Nations BEFORE the Europeans came to NA. I'm sure you will find that it was not all sugar and roses. As a matter of fact, just as one example, the 5 Nations were very adapt at pushing their neighbors further west well before European interaction. The idea that the different Nations on the North American continent lived in a utopian society with love and goodwill for all is out right bullshyte and you and I both know it.

 

[CDNBear]

I have to agree with Gh here. The 5 Nations, became just that, because of the violent interaction.That why we have the Tree of peace. Between us 5 Nations. Only. There would be no need for a Tree of Peace, if there was already peace.

Don't get me started on how the Cree would slaughter and/or enslave the Inuit.

 

[MHz]

Here is a twofer: Classical music combined with politically incorrect world view.

Simply delicious and something to look forward to long before 2042:

YouTube - Budapest is the capital of what European country?

YouTube - The Three Terrors - A Három Terror (magyar felirattal)

If you can't have those two over every night you could watch (insert recent link here), definitely put it in loop mode to go with the pallet of beer and the whole long weekend lol.
That's Mr. O'Neil and mourners. As long as white America can produce people like that they are not in danger even if we are 'outnumbered'. Let alone the fact the date brings us past the end of the baby-boomers from the end of the WWII.

 

[EagleSmack]

Just look at the story of the first Thanksgiving. Later, when it was discovered what the Europeans real intentions were, the invitation was dropped. Unfortunately, the concept of uniting all tribes to resist the invasion, was not part of their thought patterns. Yes there was conflict between tribes, but most of the more violent conflicts happened after settlement displaced tribes and conflicts arose from westward migration away from the settler communities.

You need a lesson on the first Thanksgiving I would say. There was no invitation, the Native Americans just showed up when they heard the noise. Go look it up if you don't believe me.

Thanksgiving was not really celebrated until after the Civil War.

In addition the Wappanoag made an alliance with the English settlers because they figured they would be a strong ally against the Naragansetts.

Violent confrontations between settlers and Native Americans happened often and almost immediately.

 

[CDNBear]

The image of the "Noble Savage" and his peaceful, hunting and gathering ways. Is a much lauded reverie.

 

[Cliffy]

The image of the "Noble Savage" and his peaceful, hunting and gathering ways. Is a much lauded reverie.

I have no doubt there was violent conflict between tribes. I don't wear rose coloured glasses. Prior to Columbus though, most tribes, particularly on the East Coast were agrarian (read 1491) and almost all tribes were engaged in some form of agriculture throughout the Americas. Many of the "civilized" cultures, like the Aztec and Incas were rather brutal. But after 1492, up to 90% of all peoples were killed by disease and guns (the Spanish were particularly brutal) forcing most tribes to become hunter/gatherers again, and as settlement began, tribes were being displaced and forced from their territories which escalated violent conflict.

I am also aware that humans, in general, are war like and our history on this planet has been one of massive bloodshed. But it is also known that the very first European settlements on this continent would have perished if it had not been for the aboriginal people helping them. Their reasons for helping the settlers may not have been totally benevolent, that is for sure.

And yes, the Cree were nasty to the Inuit but if you know the history of the Inuit, you will see that part of the motivation of the Cree was that the Inuit wiped out every tribe they came across when they invaded the north from Siberia a thousand years ago. They even wiped out the Norsemen on Greenland and we all know their reputation for being war like.

Somewhere between the European and aboriginal version of what happened at the first harvest feast that settlers and aboriginal peoples shared, lies the truth. I just think there may not have been a first harvest if the aboriginal people had not shared with the settlers their agricultural expertise of what would grow in that climate.

 

[gerryh]

I have no doubt there was violent conflict between tribes. I don't wear rose coloured glasses. Prior to Columbus though, most tribes, particularly on the East Coast were agrarian (read 1491) and almost all tribes were engaged in some form of agriculture throughout the Americas. Many of the "civilized" cultures, like the Aztec and Incas were rather brutal. But after 1492, up to 90% of all peoples were killed by disease and guns (the Spanish were particularly brutal) forcing most tribes to become hunter/gatherers again, and as settlement began, tribes were being displaced and forced from their territories which escalated violent conflict.

I am also aware that humans, in general, are war like and our history on this planet has been one of massive bloodshed. But it is also known that the very first European settlements on this continent would have perished if it had not been for the aboriginal people helping them. Their reasons for helping the settlers may not have been totally benevolent, that is for sure.

And yes, the Cree were nasty to the Inuit but if you know the history of the Inuit, you will see that part of the motivation of the Cree was that the Inuit wiped out every tribe they came across when they invaded the north from Siberia a thousand years ago. They even wiped out the Norsemen on Greenland and we all know their reputation for being war like.

Somewhere between the European and aboriginal version of what happened at the first harvest feast that settlers and aboriginal peoples shared, lies the truth. I just think there may not have been a first harvest if the aboriginal people had not shared with the settlers their agricultural expertise of what would grow in that climate.

You're going to have to explain what difference an agrarian society has on whether or not the different Nations had conflicts. Without an agrarian base, the population of the different tribes was limited. It was a necessity for them to move from a strictly hunter/gatherer base to agrarian if they wanted to support a population that could provide a big enough warrior class to at least defend the nation.

 

[Cliffy]

You're going to have to explain what difference an agrarian society has on whether or not the different Nations had conflicts. Without an agrarian base, the population of the different tribes was limited. It was a necessity for them to move from a strictly hunter/gatherer base to agrarian if they wanted to support a population that could provide a big enough warrior class to at least defend the nation.

Good observation. There were something like 2500 different tribes at the time of "discovery" so I think the answer would be rather complicated. The one thing about agrarian cultures was that their territories would be more stable than hunter gatherers who need more space to move about. There were always conflicts on the fringe areas of their territories. But then again agrarian societies tended to outgrow their territories because a stable food supply tended to allow them to also grow their populations, requiring more space for crops, further aggravating conflict. As our own cultural history indicates, agrarian societies develop civilizations and hierarchies which tend to lead to expansionist wars. But considering that the population of North America was somewhere around 40 - 50 million prior to Columbus, there wasn't the crowding problem we have now with a population in the vicinity of 350 million. Since we don't have accurate stats from that period, it is difficult to extrapolate the extent of territorial conflict, particularly in the territory now known as Canada.

 

[Johnnny]

Some of us Canadians are forgetting that in America Most Hispanic decsent people were labelled as white on paper before the 90's. Much of these people havent changed since than. Also too ive noticed in Ontario and quebec we have quite a few white peoples mixed with native blood that have brown complexions. Most of them when they nail a white person usually pump out some light skinned fair haired child anyways....