Now defunct French poster Rudel apparently said that he'd rather France became predominantly Black but still French-speaking than remain predominantly White but no longer French-speaking. How do you feel about this?
Now defunct French poster Rudel apparently said that he'd rather France became predominantly Black but still French-speaking than remain predominantly White but no longer French-speaking. How do you feel about this?
I don't know how to answer. As an American, my country has no one race. It would be a shame if the USA lost English, but that's so unrealistic that I can't even imagine it being possible
Try visiting South Florida, Texas or California nowadays. xDQuote:
Originally Posted by DarkWater
Ofc, language.
Why is it 'of course'?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMaestro
In the South it may be possible. Where I live Spanish practically dominates. I'd rather not lose the dominance of the English language.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkWater
That's very true, but that isn't the entire country, just a small fraction. I think it's cool to have other languages and cultures within the US. The more diverse the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tooting Carmen
I actually would love for my country to lose its language and adopt an African one.
For me race and language. Losing a language like what happened in Anatolia, you get bunch of confused mutts like Bori, who looks like a cracker but thinks he is a gook LOL
California by itself is home to over a tenth of the US population and an even bigger percentage of the US economy. Hardly insignificant.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkWater
I care more about the language than the genetics/race. a country's culture is totally dependent on the language. look at literature. so I would care more about preserving the language than the race. a mulatto that speaks native Ukrainian is more Ukrainian than a white that does not speak it
xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Garvey
It was 94% white in the 1960s and the vast majority of non-whites were blacks in the South. In other words the vast majority of the USA was white and in most places you likely would not encounter any non-whites.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkWater
As to the OP, language easily. While language is important, it is something that can easily revived if one is so inclined...look at the revival of Hebrew in Israel. Once your race is gone, it's gone for good. Even if you lost your language for good it wouldn't be as transformative to a nation as a change in race.
Then everything does not make sense, for example France, if I would be French I rather have my own people speaking different language rather than black people speaking my language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tooting Carmen
I rather have my kid talking to me in Nigerian than someones kid pretending to be my kid talking to me with my language.
I thought the African-American population has always hovered around 12%? (One of the few constants in American history).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mug Ruith
I'd rather have the US and Mexico become predominantly loaded with pure blood Amerinds and adopt Amerind languages.
Basically language is just a tool to communicate...nothing more nothing less.
Genetics and sub-race? Those are important.
So...I would absolutely be willing to lose the language first.
[QUOTE=Tooting Carmen;5320173]California by itself is home to over a tenth of the US population and an even bigger percentage of the US economy. Hardly insignificant.[/QUOT
That region has always had Spanish influence. USA doesn't have an official language, but really everyone knows it's English. We don't even really teach a second language in schools
Surely language also embodies history and identity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish Swede
USA was not 94% white in the 60's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mug Ruith
https://thesocietypages.org/socimage...012/11/117.jpg
Also, USA was built on stolen land. The real Nation's people are the American Indians
How...the history would't change? Or are you saying that it would disappear as eye blink? Nope it would't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tooting Carmen
Identity? Are here some whose identity bases more on language than outlook? Not for me at least.
Isn't a big part of being Finnish or Swedish the ability to speak Finnish or Swedish?Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish Swede
For some maybe (who looks quite a same as Finns), but for me my Scandinavian outlook means more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tooting Carmen
How would you define it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish Swede
I wouldn't like my land to become Anglophone or Francophone. I myself happily would assimilate if I moved countries, though.
As for race, I'd be a non-racist if far fewer mixed individuals didn't hate whites. Seeing the failure of mixed societies I prefer keeping it white through observing the reality which conflicts versus the naive ideology.
Some compatibility based on equality is still a concept I'm open toward, though.
Besides one can always learn new languages ... but change the outlook/genetics? Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish Swede
People keeps me Swedish and not Finns based on my outlook. In both countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tooting Carmen
True. But your speaking Swedish gave you your Fenno-Swedish mentality. If you spoke English you'd have lost what binds you to your ancestors and even have an Anglo mentality probably and most likely a monoglot at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish Swede
So? Life would continue. As far it would not give me Mediterranean mentality....as by then I would probable hang myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danielion
So it still needs to be a Germanic language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish Swede
Perhaps she meant to say 'appearance'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danielion
Of course I understand someway Finnish already .... so maybe I could take that too.
Alright I got my numbers wrong, but it was 85% white and the majority of the non-whites were blacks in the south. Point is America was founded as a white nation (as evidenced by who initially was allowed to vote and the Naturalization Act of 1790 among others.) It was never intended by the founders or any of the men prior to the 1960s to become some place where anyone could come and be an American. The very idea of an "American" is bound up with the Europeans who founded and built the nation since the natives never thought of themselves as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkWater
In any case, there is no such thing as stolen land. Some land was conquered, some was purchased, and the Amerindians were not a homogeneous group in any case. If conquest and territorial expansion constitutes stolen land then the vast majority of people on this planet live on some form of stolen land.
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tooting Carmen
We should make English the official language of the United States. While I'm not happy about the browning of America, I can tolerate it if they at least learn to attempt to assimilate and speak English.
Language is an important aspect of culture and identity, certainly, but as noted it is something that can be regained and it is also something which is continually undergoing change, i.e. it is mutable. Middle English and medieval English culture aren't the same as 19th century English language and culture.
Race cannot be regained once lost unlike language and is more stable than language or culture. Race also plays a role in intelligence, civility, etc. which is why Africans who speak English, Portuguese, and Bantu are all uniformly violent, unintelligent, and prone to criminality whereas Japanese who speak Japanese, English, or some other language are typically the opposite.
Race is infinitely more important than language and culture.
Surprised is not already a thing
Inviato dal mio SM-G389F utilizzando Tapatalk
Language, I guess.
bump
Language can be re-learned, but if race is lost, it's lost forever. As simple as that.