Quote:
Originally Posted by / / ///AutoZone
B2: yes
you already know my answer. why do you keep reframing the same loaded question?
I'm peeling back the layers of your perspective one at a time. I am trying not to overstate your position.
Quote:
if that was the current situation, i think it would be more desirable. would i support ANY measure to bring this into fruition? no. we have american indians and american blacks in this country. people with more and the same right to be here than/as us.
Again, I've never once mentioned displacement. As far as I can tell, you're the only who keeps bringing it up, and you keep bringing it up as if you're trying to play the victim card of being misrepresented in some way.
Quote:
an ethnically homogeneous america will never happen nor should it be desired.
Do you desire a homogeneous America? So far, you have explicitly stated that you object to Muslims being US citizens (not that you would act to remove their rights) and you object to blacks being US citizens (though you would not act to remove their rights).
Quote:
the only way an ethnostate could occur is on a very small scale in an area already leaning in that direction. but even as people naturally drift this way, govt takes measures to ensure diversity.
Please tell me more about your narratives of how society works. You've been *so* on point so far.
People don't "naturally drift" one way or the other on the whole. Some places are racially stable and some are not, depending on what's happening economically. Diverse cities along the coasts are not government imposed melting pots. They are artifacts of a deep history of successful trade and the movement of people. Homogeneous states are historically not the result of government intervention, but living in places that are not as mobile.
What you actually see is the application of selective rule-making to *prevent* the movement of people that is actually the cause of homogeneity. One group of people don't like another group, and they make active decisions to keep them out. (And I'm talking about citizens with the US, not international movement.)
Redlining was a practice of keeping blacks out of white neighborhoods. Not because of natural drifting tendencies, but because of active decisions being made to prevent it. White people move out of neighborhoods when they start diversifying (but surprisingly the rest of the racial groups don't seem to mind that it's diversifying).
There are deep racist histories at play here, and historically racist attitudes revealing themselves in the culture of whiteness. Many have started to move away from the overt ways in which that has manifested, even if there are still biases.
States like New Hampshire and Maine recognize that long-term economic prosperity is more closely tied to successful integration and diversification than homogenization. So yes, they're taking active steps to try to fight back against the tides that push them away from their long-term economic goals. (And also push back against the historical racist attitudes that have created problems for so many other areas.) Do you fault them for that?