What is the Racial Tragedy?

[Frigga]

What is the Racial Tragedy? What does it consist of? Do you find anything offensive about it? What other thoughts do you have about it?

[Anthropos]

I think it's a good question. I made a thread about it while you were not here, and it's been extremely popular with many posts. Go to my profile and take a look at my threads where you will easily find it if you are interested.

[Loki]

Discussions regarding the race issue in Europe. Covering articles on racism and immigration - and discussing possible solutions to this dilemma.


There is no doubt that race is an issue in Europe. Open any daily newspaper and there will be something about it. If not immigration concerns, then somebody suing their employers for racial discrimination or something similar. It is a real issue and therefore needs to be discussed -- whichever way you are looking at it from.

[Tabiti]

Racial tragedy in Europe is linked with the multiculturalism. There's nothing wrong to preserve the physical traits of your people, just as the cultural ones.

[Kadu]

Racial tragedy in Europe is linked with the multiculturalism. There's nothing wrong to preserve the physical traits of your people, just as the cultural ones.


If we were talking about some lost Amerindian tribe in the Amazon forest it would be feasible as these ethnic groups still have a tribal organisation and their numbers are very reduced, but trying to do that in Europe(even if there was a will) it would be simply impossible as European nations overlap with each other on a phenotypical level not mention with extra-european nations too.

[Tabiti]

If we were talking about some lost Amerindian tribe in the Amazon forest it would be feasible as these ethnic groups still have a tribal organisation and their numbers are very reduced, but trying to do that in Europe(even if there was a will) it would be simply impossible as European nations overlap with each other on a phenotypical level not mention with extra-european nations too.
And how me managed to to that for hundreds of years, creating our separate nations? I just don't count the possible mixes in the past, I care for what is now.

[Kadu]

And how me managed to to that for hundreds of years, creating our separate nations? I just don't count the possible mixes in the past, I care for what is now.

What we have now is a mish mash of physical traits more or less clear. E.g one cannot define what the Italian phenotype is.
And this is due to the fact that some look Greek, French or Austrian and then you move to France for example and you can say that some in Southern France look Spanish or in that in Alsace they look German, and this are only peripheral and more evident cases because the same happens in non bordering areas.

[Electronic God-Man]

^ But you're not going to find a native German or Irishman that looks Japanese or Zimbabwean.

[Kadu]

^ But you're not going to find a native German or Irishman that looks Japanese or Zimbabwean.

Almost...:D

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o21/Kadu_album/gordonbanks.jpg


But talking seriously now....
You gave diametral examples but we could talk about intra European examples or even North African's or middle Eastern's to whom we can closely(closely than the ones you gave as example) relate in terms of physical traits

[Liffrea]

The demise of any people and/or culture, whilst probably inevitable in an ever fluid world, is a tragedy in itself.

This doesn’t just apply to Europeans, it applies to all.

Personally I consider myself a true adherent to diversity, one world, many races, cultures, languages, beliefs, ways of life. A global outlook doesn’t necessarily entail the acceptance of monoracial and/or monocultural ideology. The recognition of difference doesn’t equal hostility to the alien, acceptance of others doesn’t mean negation of one’s own convictions.

From a European perspective the questions are not easy, I have my own prejudices and convictions as does everyone else, but from a reasoned stand point the race issue isn’t cut and dried. Britain is a country that is racially segregated and yet has one of the highest rates of mixed race relationships….humans are complex creatures and there are no simple answers to the question.

[Rachel]

The demise of any people and/or culture, whilst probably inevitable in an ever fluid world, is a tragedy in itself.

This doesn’t just apply to Europeans, it applies to all.

Personally I consider myself a true adherent to diversity, one world, many races, cultures, languages, beliefs, ways of life. A global outlook doesn’t necessarily entail the acceptance of monoracial and/or monocultural ideology. The recognition of difference doesn’t equal hostility to the alien, acceptance of others doesn’t mean negation of one’s own convictions.

From a European perspective the questions are not easy, I have my own prejudices and convictions as does everyone else, but from a reasoned stand point the race issue isn’t cut and dried. Britain is a country that is racially segregated and yet has one of the highest rates of mixed race relationships….humans are complex creatures and there are no simple answers to the question.


Well said! i agree with all of it and am thankful you wrote it because now i know where i stand. Thank you for that i had the same feelings just did not know how to put them into words.

For me personally, i feel that the racial tragedy is that people are simply not aware of their heritage and their ancestry and therefor, not aware of what they as a race have accomplished. In America's schools we fixate on becoming so diverse and alien friendly that we feel we can not have different opinions that differ from the main group in society without serious retribution. Thus we lose a sense of pride for our heritage and our culture and that to me is the tragedy.

[Tabiti]

What we have now is a mish mash of physical traits more or less clear. E.g one cannot define what the Italian phenotype is.
And this is due to the fact that some look Greek, French or Austrian and then you move to France for example and you can say that some in Southern France look Spanish or in that in Alsace they look German, and this are only peripheral and more evident cases because the same happens in non bordering areas.
So, for you only look is important? I accept the term race in physical, cultural and ethnic meaning. Physical anthropology itself is quite relative. Of course, we look similar, but are we the same? I think history has proven otherwise.
Anyway, I'm not a big fan of inter-European mixing, however it can't do such damage, due the similarity and shared history we're just speaking about. I don't accept that as "race-mixing" in the full meaning of that word. But just imagine what are we going to loose if there is only one, universal and mixed world culture. I know that's the dream of many, however I do not share it. We are different, so let us be different. Peace and good relations between people could be reached that way.

[Bridie]

What we have now is a mish mash of physical traits more or less clear. E.g one cannot define what the Italian phenotype is.
And this is due to the fact that some look Greek, French or Austrian and then you move to France for example and you can say that some in Southern France look Spanish or in that in Alsace they look German, and this are only peripheral and more evident cases because the same happens in non bordering areas.It's probably useful to remember that for the majority of the time that racial types were evolving across the planet, to create the unique phenotypical and genetic clusters that we see today, countries as we now know them didn't exist. So why should all Italians or Greeks or French or Austrians etc have to bear a distinctly similar phenotype, that distinguishes them from other modern nationals, for racial preservation to be a valid concern?

It might be more realistic to look at broader regions in Europe. Afterall, ancient tribal groups are now lost for the most part (not much point in trying to reconstruct and preserve them as they were) and modern nationalities are a deception (in my opinion).

[Kadu]

So, for you only look is important? I accept the term race in physical, cultural and ethnic meaning.

Not, but you stated


Racial tragedy in Europe is linked with the multiculturalism. There's nothing wrong to preserve the physical traits of your people, just as the cultural ones.

You're clearly talking about looks, physical traits in your words.




Of course, we look similar, but are we the same? I think history has proven otherwise.

Indeed, it has proven that our identities do not depend on phenotypes but on strong customs, culture and a living language.




Anyway, I'm not a big fan of inter-European mixing, however it can't do such damage, due the similarity and shared history we're just speaking about.

And what kind of damage is that, what are the future consequences of that damage on our identities?



I don't accept that as "race-mixing" in the full meaning of that word. But just imagine what are we going to loose if there is only one, universal and mixed world culture. I know that's the dream of many, however I do not share it.


McDonald's and Levi's contribute to that but it's highly arguable that race-mixing does that. Race-mixing might be a factor of change if it's associated with a cultural identity but in the end the decisive and most important factor is the country where the children, product of such unions, are raised.
Education and upbringing are always the decisive factors.

[Tabiti]

Education and upbringing are always the decisive factors.
So, you think educating African children, for example, in European schools makes them European in the same degree as locals? Would you be African if were born and raised into Kenya, for example? According to you ethnicity could be "changed" by place of birth and upbringing?

McDonald's can't change your genes...

[Poltergeist]

So, you think educating African children, for example, in European schools makes them European in the same degree as locals? Would you be African if were born and raised into Kenya, for example? According to you ethnicity could be "changed" by place of birth and upbringing?

Is "African" an ethnicity?

[Tabiti]

Is "African" an ethnicity?
No, it's a complex concept, of course.

[Loki]

You're clearly talking about looks, physical traits in your words.


Racial differences are more than just what meet the eye. It's not only physical traits. To deny this is to just bury your head in the sand and act wilfully ignorant.

Of course races evolve over time and take in new genetic material constantly. One cannot put a fence around every gene pool in this modern world. It's impossible. However, we are talking about a large-scale, real-time racial change that is taking place in Europe. And mostly, it has been engineered by politicians over the past 5 decades.

[Loki]

Is "African" an ethnicity?

African is a polite way to describe black people.

[Treffie]

Racial differences are more than just what meet the eye. It's not only physical traits. To deny this is to just bury your head in the sand and act wilfully ignorant.

Or just naievity in many cases.


Of course races evolve over time and take in new genetic material constantly. One cannot put a fence around every gene pool in this modern world. It's impossible. However, we are talking about a large-scale, real-time racial change that is taking place in Europe. And mostly, it has been engineered by politicians over the past 5 decades.

That's what bothers me, we're just being manipulated.

[Kadu]

So, you think educating African children, for example, in European schools makes them European in the same degree as locals? Would you be African if were born and raised into Kenya, for example? According to you ethnicity could be "changed" by place of birth and upbringing?

Yes, very much like that, have you never seen Tarzan. Of course Tarzan started questioning himself because he was one of a kind among apes but if the physical differences happened to be faint, almost unperceivable he would have never questioned his origins.
If a North African or Turkish child(depending on its phenotype of course) happened to be adopted and raised in Europe without the knowledge of its origins, it would certainly be European as any other cultural identity would seem alien to it.




McDonald's can't change your genes...


But it can destroy our countries gastronomical identity and diversity.

[Poltergeist]

Even if one accepts the premise that race, understood in purely biological sense, really matters that much (of which I strongly doubt), still, before one makes claim of a "racial tragedy" going on in Europe, firstly percentages of non-Europids living in various European countries should be taken into consideration, that is, whether they are big enough in order to justify the use of the word "tragedy" in describing that phenomenon.

[Loki]

Even if one accepts the premise that race, understood in purely biological sense, really matters that much (of which I strongly doubt),

It seems to matter a lot to pro-multicultural politicians, race-claim solicitors and "ethnic minorities" who try to take advantage of their special protected status.

An Albanian guy who lives in Sweden told me a while ago that a Swedish guy approached him, asking him to help with a black guy with a difficult attitude ... because if he himself addressed him, he could be considered to be a racist, being ethnically Swedish. :eek: This mindset has all the hallmarks of a tragedy.

[Treffie]

Of course races evolve over time and take in new genetic material constantly. One cannot put a fence around every gene pool in this modern world. It's impossible. However, we are talking about a large-scale, real-time racial change that is taking place in Europe. And mostly, it has been engineered by politicians over the past 5 decades.

The real issue is the time scale that this has all happened. It seems that our Govts are shocking us into it. I can understand individuals who are against the racial change - it has brought many problems, there's no doubt about it. Conversely, individuals who applaud the huge shift need to see the problems for themselves with an open mind.

[Tabiti]

If a North African or Turkish child(depending on its phenotype of course) happened to be adopted and raised in Europe without the knowledge of its origins, it would certainly be European as any other cultural identity would seem alien to it.

So, at the end phenotype is what matters. The first thought when you see someone different on the street is "A foreigner", no matter language, nor manners, nor clothes.

[Loki]

The real issue is the time scale that this has all happened.

And the manipulative nature of politics-driven social engineering. It is unnatural, modernist and artificial.

[Treffie]

So, at the end phenotype is what matters. The first thought when you see someone different on the street is "A foreigner", no matter language, nor manners, nor clothes.

Of course that would depend on where you live. If I see a black guy in my city, I'll naturally assume that he comes from England.

[Loki]

If I see a black guy in my city, I'll naturally assume that he comes from England.

Bizarre, given that the vast majority of black people in this country were born abroad.

[Treffie]

Bizarre, given that the vast majority of black people in this country were born abroad.

Most black people that I have met were born in either London or Birmingham, so my view is based on assumption. It's usually their parents or grandparents that were born outside of the UK and arrived from the 1950's.

[Kadu]

So, at the end phenotype is what matters. The first thought when you see someone different on the street is "A foreigner", no matter language, nor manners, nor clothes.

If very different from the phenotypical average of the country, yes, this hypothetically adopted individual would question his origins. but even then who can affirm that this individual would feel any kind of kinship toward people with his phenotype.
But this discussion laid on the fact that you were stating that it is important to preserve physical traits and that race-mixing is damaging to our identities and you haven't said why.

[Loki]

Most black people that I have met were born in either London or Birmingham, so my view is based on assumption. It's usually their parents or grandparents that were born outside of the UK and arrived from the 1950's.

I have also taken an assumption, based on the fact that they only started to arrive in large numbers in the 50s (and, immigration accelerated greatly after that). So either most of them were born abroad, or they've had an enormous amount of children (which is a very possible scenario).

Most black people I have come into contact with in London (I have worked with several) consider themselves to be Nigerian, Jamaican, etc etc ... and not English. Even though some of them were born here.

[Treffie]

I have also taken an assumption, based on the fact that they only started to arrive in large numbers in the 50s (and, immigration accelerated greatly after that). So either most of them were born abroad, or they've had an enormous amount of children (which is a very possible scenario).

Most black people I have come into contact with in London (I have worked with several) consider themselves to be Nigerian, Jamaican, etc etc ... and not English. Even though some of them were born here.

Well, London is a much more multi-racial place than my sleepy backwater. :D
From what some black people have told me - the reason why they have moved into my area is to give themselves and their families a better quality of life.

This is my take on things - our Govts have severely underestimated the problems that have been caused by allowing huge amounts of people into the country. The Muslim community in particular is a place where segregation and ghettoisation is seen as a standard (even where I live) - Muslims, almost by definition will not assimilate. The populace has almost been brainwashed into a delusion that multiculturalism is a good thing and that for some miraculous reason will enrich our lives. Holistically, it hasn't benefitted anyone.

[Anthropos]

African is a polite way to describe black people.

I'd say it's more of a hypocritical or cowardly way for (some) racists to denote the negroid races. St Augustine and Tertullian were both recognised as Africans in their time, but they were probably europoid by race. A lot of people living in Africa are not negroid but semitic and europoid even today. African is not a racial but a geographical term just as Asian is. But of course, the hypocrisy of the Anglo-Saxon world has contributed to a gradual shift in meaning; hence there are such terms as 'Afro-American' and even 'European American', even if the latter is not in common usage as far as I know.

[Loki]

I'd say it's more of a hypocritical or cowardly way for (some) racists to denote the negroid races.


Not really. Racists usually call them other names. The accepted way in polite society in England is to call them people of African descent, or shortly "Africans". Maybe in Sweden it's different.



St Augustine, Tertullian and Origen were all recognised as Africans in their time, but they were probably europoid by race. A lot of people living in Africa are not negroid but semitic and europoid even today.


Of course, North Africa was at the time pretty much an extension of Europe in many areas (until the Arabic expansion arrived). What we are talking of here is sub-Saharan Africa.



African is not a racial but a geographical term just as Asian is. But of course, the hypocrisy of the Anglo-Saxon world has contributed to a gradual shift in meaning; hence there are such terms as 'Afro-American' and even 'European American', even if the latter is not in common usage as far as I know.

Well, it's just a term to describe. Pick another one if you want, it won't change the meaning.

[Anthropos]

Not really. Racists usually call them other names.

I said 'hypocritical'; maybe I should have said 'equivocal'? 'African' is used to denote the negroid races by racists who want to escape being accused of racism.

[Loki]

'African' is used to denote the negroid races by racists who want to escape being accused of racism.

I disagree. But what term would you prefer being used then? You can pick anyone, it's a matter of semantics. Actually, black people themselves prefer to be called African, more than anything else.

[Anthropos]

I disagree. But what term would you prefer being used then? You can pick anyone, it's a matter of semantics. Actually, black people themselves prefer to be called African, more than anything else.

That is not an argument, and evenso I know that Africans (people from Africa, that is) often have an ethnicity that designates them better and that many of them actually dislike being bundled together as 'Africans'. But that's all beside the point, because you said that 'African' is a 'polite' way of denoting black people, and that's what I objected to, because 'African' is not a racial term (and neither, for that matter, is it an ethnicity). In contrast, negroid, black and capoid are racial terms.

[Loki]

That is not an argument, and evenso I know that Africans (people from Africa, that is) often have an ethnicity that designates them better and that many of them actually dislike being bundled together as 'Africans'. But that's all beside the point, because you said that 'African' is a 'polite' way of denoting black people, and that's what I objected to, because 'African' is not a racial term (and neither, for that matter, is it an ethnicity). In contrast, negroid, black and capoid are racial terms.

Everyday, accepted usage of words does not mean they are scientifically accurate. It just means it's accepted in non-scientific speech. For example, when you talk of others, you call them "people", not "members of the Homo sapiens species". :p And you say "water", not "H2O". ;) We are not all scientists.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Arawn
That's what bothers me, we're just being manipulated.

So what’s new?

A man is free the moment he decides he is free……most never make that choice, most never realise they have that choice, most don’t want that choice. Many who do make that choice never understand the consequences of that choice. Who wants to be the omega in the pack? Alone, outcast, ostracised, better to run with the pack and do what the Alpha says, yes?

We only allow ourselves to be manipulated to the extent that the stories we create in our minds to get through the day are fulfilled, politicians are expert story tellers.

[Anthropos]

Everyday, accepted usage of words does not mean they are scientifically accurate. It just means it's accepted in non-scientific speech. For example, when you talk of others, you call them "people", not "members of the Homo sapiens species". :p And you say "water", not "H2O". ;) We are not all scientists.

That's understandable, but evenso it is worth pointing out sometimes, especially when it becomes more relevant due to rather disturbing tendencies that some racialists take to the extreme. Among them there is a tendency to materialise anything no matter how immaterial it is, and so, most unfortunately, it's not just a matter of taste and mere choice of words. For example, there are those who equal ethnicity with ancestry and ancestry in turn with race, and that's not the most extreme example either, but there are always examples that one would not even want to mention because it could serve as a means of 'instruction' for minds out of balance.

[Svanhild]

What is the Racial Tragedy?
The Racial Tragedy is that my country has to suffer on mass immigration of ethnical and cultural foreign people. That they settle down, mix and breed new generations. That the faces of our towns change and that the identity and ancestry of our nation blurs. That alien ideologies and attitudes settle down. And that our ethnic heritage is endangered. Racial tragedy is a contemporary fact and people who call that into question are...questionable to me.

[Kadu]

Oh and BTW, why not the name ethnic tragedy instead of racial tragedy?

[Loki]

Oh and BTW, why not the name ethnic tragedy instead of racial tragedy?

What is it to you? You sound like you're obsessed with the concept. It's no big deal, really.

[Kadu]

What is it to you? You sound like you're obsessed with the concept. It's not big deal, really.

Calm down, you don't need to be defensive, i was just asking the reason behind it.

[Loki]

Calm down, you don't need to be defensive, i was just asking the reason behind it.

I'm not defensive and I am calm. But you seem to try and make an issue out of it. The reasons are clear and have been explained. Race/ethnic group means pretty much the same thing when one looks at a national scale in Europe. Once again we're talking semantics here.

[Kadu]

Race/ethnic group means pretty much the same thing when one looks at a national scale in Europe. Once again we're talking semantics here.

Oh do they? I thought it had been proved otherwise in this thread already. What you say only occurs when the examples are diametral.
And yes semantics are important in this case, just as important as when it comes to differentiate between Catholicism and Protestantism.

[Monolith]

I don't consider race-mixing as something of particular importance, as long as it's limited to individual scale. I could care less if an Eskimo marries an Aborigine, or if a Norwegian marries a Tibetan. However, I wouldn't like to see my country overrun by completely foreign peoples mixing with the natives, not because miscegenation is evil, but because it would mark the demise of my folk.

[Loki]

Oh do they? I thought it had been proved otherwise in this thread already. What you say only occurs when the examples are diametral.
And yes semantics are important in this case, just as important as when it comes to differentiate between Catholicism and Protestantism.

What are you actually trying to say here? I think I am missing your point. :cool:

[Germanicus]

As i have posted in a previous thread i was in a class at school with a large Jamaican number. 1970-1975
Whenever i see one of them i call them over and we chat, of course usually they put in a bit of patwa, to which i say to them: "hey this is me your talking to" to which they instantly start talking Gloucester dialect.
These guys were born here, their parents were from Jamaica, they visit their families on the island, although they were brought up here they have not lost the island culture.

[Kadu]

What are you actually trying to say here? I think I am missing your point. :cool:

I was asking why it was named racial tragedy instead of ethnic tragedy. But it seems that you don't have an answer, don't lose your time Loki, i already know the hidden motives that
you cannot spit out.

[Electronic God-Man]

I was asking why it was named racial tragedy instead of ethnic tragedy. But it seems that you don't have an answer, don't lose your time Loki, i already know the hidden motives that
you cannot spit out.

Are you saying what I think you're saying?

NO...it couldn't be!

LOKI'S A...RACIST!!1!

[Kadu]

Are you saying what I think you're saying?

NO...it couldn't be!

LOKI'S A...RACIST!!1!

No, it's actually another term but for a matter of respect i'll refrain myself from saying it.

[Loki]

I was asking why it was named racial tragedy instead of ethnic tragedy. But it seems that you don't have an answer, don't lose your time Loki, i already know the hidden motives that
you cannot spit out.

I've already answered you but you didn't like my answer. :cool: And why would I have a hidden motive? It's bizarre.

It was named Racial Tragedy precisely because it is a racial tragedy. How much more clear can one get about it? Are you expecting me to say something like "I HATE NIGGERS!!!" or something like that? :rolleyes2:

[Amarantine]

Of course that would depend on where you live. If I see a black guy in my city, I'll naturally assume that he comes from England.

Well, I don't like topics about race...mostly I am total ignorant about this issue.

But this statment is...I don't know, at the first moment I thought is some kind of sarcasm...very interesting statment indeed! It is difficult for me from Mne to realized something like that...

[Tabiti]

To be honest, in many countries in Europe the problem is still only ethnic, however there are tendencies for the appearance of racial problems everywhere in the EU.
The difference here is the racial problem is always both racial and ethnic at the same time.

P.S. It's our will not to agree with nowadays liberal views of relations between races.

[Praamžius]

Some immigrant's are in Europe for temporary job or for learning at collage or school and it's totally fine.But there is always those who come to settle and or hunt for a white woman or man , nor that they are acting like racial parasites , but they even betray their own race.Thought there is pretty a lot of white racial parasites for example women who goes to Jamaica for sex tourism and get's pregnant or man who like Japanese woman and impregnates one of 'em.We need to work out problem from inside of our society's and ethnic groups if there won't be European people who goes in to deep relationship with people of other race there will be no racial tragedy.Only problem's with immigrant's which can be fixed with radical law's.

[Eins Zwei Polizei]

I have never properly understood what the needs of temporary labor have to do with the concession of citizenship.

[Treffie]

Well, I don't like topics about race...mostly I am total ignorant about this issue.

But this statment is...I don't know, at the first moment I thought is some kind of sarcasm...very interesting statment indeed! It is difficult for me from Mne to realized something like that...


No, I wasn't being sarcastic. The black people that I know are in the same age group as myself, with families etc. They were born in England but moved to Wales.

[Agrippa]

The racial tragedy is if your own people or a high standing race in general disappears from the face of the world or being downgraded to a lower status due whatever reason.

Its the loss of your own kin, their elimination or the loss of quality, of future potential for further development and survival.

In the case of Europeans its always both, we lose our countries to foreign racial forms, our own people shrinking to lower and lower numbers, while mixture and dysgenic trends lower the level, the niveau of our people simultaneously.

I'd compare it to a nice house your ancestors build, great to live, great to harbour nice people. Now its being inhabited by foreign, unrelated elements, while being degraded and slowly falling apart. Such a loss of value is always a tragedy, even if its about foreign people, but even more so if your own people are the victims of such a process.

I just have to look towards the East, in villages formerly inhabited by healthy, well organised, community and group oriented, biologically and culturally high standing Germans - now the same villages being occupied by Gypsies of the lowest level. Its just a great loss for the German people, for Europe and all of mankind, if such a change takes place.

The greatest racial tragedy thinkable is of course the elimination or downgrading on a massive scale of all mankind, with the result of cockroaches inhabiting a world devoid of human beings and higher culture.

[Kitkalas]

Well... tragedies stemming from issues of race come in many forms. The most pervasive is, naturally, being hated for no reason other than what you looked like when you were born, or the difference in values that your parents raised you with compared to those around you.

My ancestors were told that they could not live where they lived, live how they lived, speak what they spoke, or believe what they believed, because it was different than the views and objectives of the larger and stronger group entering their area. They were Saami, and the change came by order of settlement by the Swedish crown in 1673.

Living in shame of an identity you are no longer allowed to live out is a tragedy, assimilation under duress (up to and including threat of death) is a tragedy, and of course any racially motivated violence or cleansing is a tragedy.

Racial geographic co-location? I apologize, I'm not really built to see that as a mortal threat to my existence. There's a difference between one's view of the things that make up their own private internal identity and the desire to project one's personal identity on to those around you.

Although my ancestors probably felt differently, I could have accepted being crowded in by newcomers, even to the point of losing nomadism and having to adapt to new pressures in local economy/ecology. I doubt I (with my admittedly 21st century perspective) would have liked it, but the real oppression for me would have come from being told to change my language and belief system (and the pressures the new culture exerted to that end). My children growing up in that new world would likely have chose to learn the new dominant culture, and though there is sadness often associated with that form of assimilation as well, it is a more passive and voluntarily sort of assimilation based on making personal choices on how to get along in the world you are presented with.

Government policy allowing various ethnicities to arrive and/or stay in your various localities (and the various individual human interactions that result) just means that your particular democracy has structured its laws toward a specific set of economic and civic value judgments. Democratically derived policies don't make my list of 'tragedies', either.

[Monolith]

Democratically derived policies don't make my list of 'tragedies', either.
Modern 'democracy' is a failure to begin with. A tragic failure.

[Kitkalas]

Modern 'democracy' is a failure to begin with. A tragic failure.

A broad statement to make without offering qualification. The many weaknesses of democracy vary in the eyes of each beholder's perspective. If it is functioning properly, every participant should be able to point to at least one weakness (If they were unanimous on the weakness, after all, they would have legislated it away). But it's perceived weaknesses are often the result of the very democratic processes - separations of power, checks and balances - that prevent failure: the seizure of power by any one component of the government or constituent demographic.

There are unique weakness to each local execution of democracy, depending on the specific constitutional rules and relationship the local populace has to various types of leader. There are also weaknesse associated with scale - some unique to big governments, some to small.

Do feel free to elaborate on your conclusion. Local examples are especially helpful.

[Guapo]

Democracies everywhere are being hijacked by bureaucracies and special interest pressure groups. Political power is shifting from the populace to the powerful organisations. The major problem of modern democracy is that of the tyranny of a minority, and particularly a minority with a strong ideological fervour, which purports to be representative of the majority or a wider group, but is not so representative. Left wing trade union leaders, purporting to represent workers, are not representative of all workers for example.

[Daos]

Political power is shifting from the populace to the powerful organisations.

You don't say? And when was the last time "the people" had power?

[Kitkalas]

Democracies everywhere are being hijacked by bureaucracies and special interest pressure groups. Political power is shifting from the populace to the powerful organisations. The major problem of modern democracy is that of the tyranny of a minority, and particularly a minority with a strong ideological fervour, which purports to be representative of the majority or a wider group, but is not so representative. Left wing trade union leaders, purporting to represent workers, are not representative of all workers for example.

See, operating perfectly. :thumb001: Up until the end of your post, I thought you were referring to the right wing, because it could refer to either side. Perception of the tactics of your opponent (which are near infinite) is not a failing of democracy, although the threat that a given interest group will seize not just elected power, but institutionalized power is a perpetual threat.

Money is also an interesting issue, the boon or bane of any political perspective. It's very distressing how a deep bank account can seem to change the minds of voters, but it seems to have a real effect.

And yes, it is a bummer that small groups seem to occasionally get large percentages to vote for them even when you'd think the large percentage of voters should be able to tell the small group doesn't have their best interests at heart. I've never figured that part out myself...

But as long as we can still vote, we're only temporarily hijacked.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Monolith
Modern 'democracy'

No such animal.

Makes me laugh when people mourn the “death of British democracy”……interesting, I wasn’t aware that we had an alive one to begin with.

They must mean this oxymoron known as “representative democracy” a ludicrous creation, which isn’t democratic and is often not even representative.


Originally Posted by Kitkalas
But as long as we can still vote

Give it time, you’ll realise just how pointless the vote is……

Unless you like rubber stamps?

[Agrippa]

Democracy in general has certain problems in larger communities, states in particular.

First, not all people are equally capable of processing information
Secondly the information itself being transmitted by means

This means, those who control the means of information, the mass media, control the information the mass gets. So even those which could process more complex and important information correctly, might never get certain informations crucial for a correct and effective "democratic process" to begin with.

That are very basic problems, there come many other problems which add to that, like the exact modus of voting, the way of "democratic representation", constitution, voting right etc., but for the moment it suffices to stress the information - mass media - money connection.

Independent, objective and uncorrupted information is a joke, especially in the modern Western states we have now and since "political correctness" in "science and public" and the banks and corportions in all economic and social areas made the rules.

This quote says it in a more attractive and concise form:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=159198&postcount=83

It doesnt matter how certain ideas, ideals and structures were made up, whether there were good or bad intentions behind it, for us now, because what we see and everybody has to recognise, is that many institutions were indeed hijacked and this was partly due to their inherent weaknesses.

To change that and prevent it from happening again or getting even much worse, we have to completely reconsider many aspects of Western Life for once and for all, just for having any chance, as nations, people, free individuals, group, race and human species. Simple as that, it didnt work, now think how we can make it better, at best with all the good things which were produced lately, but without the defects.

I'm open minded, I just know what didnt work and won't work, I see however different possible alternatives, of which some are not tested enough yet, some others might work but are suboptimal and the optimal solution finally means a drastic change in the course of human history - at least in some respects, because others did well and do well, so no reason to touch those...

[Monolith]

A broad statement to make without offering qualification.
I find it to be perhaps the most dangerous of all the political systems, because it creates an impression that people have some power. It's the most effective way to rule the masses. In totalitarian regimes, the masses had someone to direct their resentment against, whereas today there exists a dispersion of this resentment, and therefore a sort of risk diversification for the authorities, so to speak.


But it's perceived weaknesses are often the result of the very democratic processes - separations of power, checks and balances - that prevent failure: the seizure of power by any one component of the government or constituent demographic.

Perceived? I beg to differ. The real power is never redistributed by electing new faces. It is those who are wealthy beyond imagination that have the power. I think the election of Barack Obama (and perhaps of most modern American presidents, for that matter) proves my point.

[Óttar]

Modern 'democracy' is a failure to begin with. A tragic failure.
The word democracy does not appear once in the US Constitution. The only democracies were in Greek city-states and they eventually collapsed and became ruled by tyrants. The US at least is a republic, but like Rome, has become an empire increasingly ruled by an oligarchy and will, like its Roman predecessor, eventually fall.