> you say 'why should america be run be 'over-run' by non-whites?' - or
> words to that effect, implying that it's always been populated by majority
> whites? Since when? Since not very long ago, historically. And the English
> were invaded by the French in 1066, before that we were Danish....
Valid point. But, the United States is not very old either -- the LAND has existed long before the 1600s (populated sparsely by loose tribes of Native Americans), but the *country* the United States of America has always been a white majority, and Anglo in the initial going. If you look from 1776 onward, it is whites who have written the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, set up our legal system, our values of freedom and pursuit of happiness, etc. Nearly every single president has been a WASP (Kennedy excepted, and even then he's a white Catholic). Nearly every single congressman has been white up until the 1960s, so that means all the laws that regulate our country were written by whites. If you're talking about the United States of America as we know it, it is a singularly Anglo-based nation. There is a reason we call England the "Motherland."
England is of course not "pure", I wasn't trying to imply that. But let's face it -- when you describe someone as "English", the entire world has a pretty good idea of what you're talking about. "English culture" means something, we all know what it is. Sure it's a combination of Angles and Saxons and Normans and what have you, but it is still a very homogenous notion even today.
To avoid (yet again) coming off as racist or hateful, let me say the same thing for any other nation. Japan was taken over by the U.S., was it not? Defeated after WW2? Well I'm in NO favour of Americans overrunning Japan and displacing their native populace. Japan should be kept mostly Japanese so as to preserve their race and culture. Same with Russia, same with the Congo, same with Greece, same with any country.
I'm also not saying that minorities shouldn't exist at all. I think "diversity" (lowercase "D") is a GOOD thing, and that minorities add variance and perspective and unique foods and styles and cultures. BUT. I'd want them to remain just that - a minority. As in, no more than 10-15% of a populace total. And they should learn the mother country's language and try to assimilate as best they can, the way the early non-anglo european immigrants did in America.
Today, you get hispanics who not only refuse to learn English, they have the audacity to demand that the English-speaking government bend over backwards and use Spanish themselves! The gall....
If I were to go and emigrate to Syra, you can be sure I would not be demanding that that government start using English to accommodate me. The phrase "When in Rome..." comes to mind -- showing respect and deference to the culture you have decided to enter. Of course, we won't even touch upon the idea that if I emigrated to Syria, I'd probably get kidnapped by terrorists and tortured before suffering a brutal death. Funny how Muslims emigrating to France don't have to worry about the French government sanctioning something like that. Per usual, the West's tolerance is wasted on the intolerant.
Oh well, this is kind of off the track for a Moz-solo discussion board. I just agree with Moz on his affection for an "Old England", and that Bengalis should shelve their Western plans ;-) I like the REAL kind of diversity where each country is unique with a unique people and a unique culture, instead of every single country being so overrun with every other country's people that all identity, history, and uniqueness are lost in one big blurry, discordant, fractured, and violent mess.
Believe me, I harbor no mean intent or hatred or intolerance -- it is purely a love of EACH nation's individual identity, and a wish to preserve that. Ie, in the same breath, I hate how America's McDonalds are overrunning France and littering their landscape with the golden arches. I support French movements against McDonald's wholeheartedly, and I'm American.
Cheers,
JTRipper