Bob Doney: "...what group of "tribes" does the United States represent?"

The United States is not a nation in the ethnic sense, which as I have explained in other posts, is the only type of nation there is. Its first habitation by humans was by hunter-gatherers from northeastern Siberia who only created proto-nations before their conquest, occupation and colonisation by European settlers. These Europeans later forcibly settled enslaved West Africans in the southeast. After attempts to legislate a resolution to the segregation and racial discrimination of the descendants of these slaves, the United States is now undergoing massive legal and illegal immigration by non-Whites, in particular Latin Americans of which the majority are Mexican. Humans have not inhabited the Americas long enough to form true nations, although the Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, and Northwestern Europeans arguably have been able to build empires.

Bob Doney: "The history of the United States is one of an enormous cultural and racial melting pot."

A melting pot that British multiculturalists refer to as the "American nightmare." The United States is still based upon White Anglo-Saxon Protestant values and the assimilation of other Europeans into this system; even a Hispanic majority would be hard pressed to destroy these foundations and thrive any better than their kin south of the border. Of course, this does not take into account the significant color-barriers that remain ensconced in American culture.

Bob Doney: "That nation has been created by shared hardship, military conquest, genocide, civil war, scientific and technological revolution and much much more."

Firstly, what genocide are you referring to? Secondly, what military conquest are you referring to? Thirdly, the United States military was officially segregated until the Korean War and unofficially segregated until the Vietnam War, incidentally the first significant American military defeat. Fourthly, non-Whites were generally barred from participating in the American economy beyond providing labor inputs. How are these things shared by Blacks and Whites? How have Hispanics, many of which were not even residing legally or illegally in the United States during the Vietnam War shared any of these American experiences?

Bob Doney: "In the end what determines membership of the nation is no more and no less than being prepared to stand up and say "I am an American". It has absolutely nothing to do with "tribes"."

This is pure statism not nationalism, and it reduces citizenship to merely the conferrence of specific rights, obligations and benefits rather than membership in or belonging to a national community.

Bob Doney: "And one of the great virtues of a modern nation is that an individual can say to his family, "Sorry, but I don't see things that way. I'm off to live another sort of life". This is precisely what is denied to people living in societies which stress family and tribal loyalty above everything else. It is one of the great strengths of the West, not a weakness."

Again, such a state is not a nation but a precursor to a world state without cultural, racial or ethnic diversity save that which the environment imposes upon its citizenry. If the West is determined to pursue a path of 'The World in One Country' when the rest of the world is quite content to retain their countries and their uniqueness, it would merely be a depot for the excess population of the world around it - in essence a colony by choice.

Bob Doney: As for "folkways", what would you say the essential "folkways" of the American, French or British people are, and why would people of one colour of skin have a greater handle on them than those of another?"

American folkways are the average of the folkways of those peoples which inhabit the United States at any given time. Currently, American folkways are increasingly Hispanic, a fact that is manifesting itself in the American media and in Washington, albeit at a slower pace than Hispanic immigration or their share of the population. Soon, the Blacks who fought for so long to achieve equality and equity will find themselves marginalised by the Hispanics, which White Americans are collective either unwilling or unable to prevent from dominating the country demographically.

BD says: "The history of the United States is one of an enormous cultural and racial melting pot."

Not at all. The original population of the United States (not counting the Indians) was English, Scottish, Dutch, Swedish... They all came from the North-West of Europe.
The Africans also arrived early, but the populations were kept separate.

"In the end what determines membership of the nation is no more and no less than being prepared to stand up and say "I am an American".

Go to China, stand up on a soapbox and tell them: "I am a Chinese".
Note their reaction, and come back here to report.

"we could insist that the 600,000 French people here all congregate in Kent"

I don't know about that, but it seems to me that the Albanians have taken control of Kosovo. When Europeans are replaced by other populations, it is natural to expect that at some point the new populations would want political power over their own affairs.

"Will the Indian and Pakistani doctors..."

Why is it you can not have your own British doctors ?

"And who's going to clean our cars"

Why do you want to wash your car? I never wash mine.

The word racism doesn't have a precise meaning. What must be avoided is abusive treatment caused by racial discrimination. If you have different people living on the same piece of territory, and one group is suffering because of racial discrimination, it is obviously a problem.
But in immigration matters, there is no reason we should accept people from other races. Common sense says we should refuse them. People who recently settled in Europe, like most players of the french soccer team, should be sent back.
If the word "racist" has to be used, it should be applied to the loony left's deliberate policy of replacing whites with non-whites. It would be hard to pretend that their motive is philanthropic. Their policy is the cause of most of the violence in Europe (mostly directed at the whites) and it will only become worse in the future.
When you are rejected by a girl, you are not supposed to complain of unfair discrimination and rape her. But this is what the moralistic loony left is doing to Europe.
At some point, European countries will probably be partitioned along racial lines. It would make more sense to stop immigration and start repatriation NOW !

What a narrowminded view you seem to have of 'Frenchness'.

Frenchness includes physical characteristics as much as linguistic and cultural traits, and regarding the former, ethnic French are White. While a Russian may pass for being French-looking and after assimilating the French language and culture be considered French, a non-White cannot. Why? Because their physical traits are a reminder to themselves, to their original community and to the French that they are foreigners. Certainly, assimilation is easier for those who can visible "pass" for being a member of the majority group in question. A nation's folkways are passed down generationally in the same manner as family traditions, for a nation is no more than an extension of the family comprised as it is by a group of tribes; just as family "looks" denote membership as much as adhering to tradition, so too is it with the nation.

"You gave a nice description of cultural 'roots'.  Surely you are aware of (gradual) changes over time."

Agreed. However, this current situation is not gradual change (e.g. Germanisation, Russification), but the ethnolysis of Europe. Where multiculturalists err is believing that the rest of the world will abandon their standards of beauty, color, race, subrace and ethnicity in favor of a single united human ethnicity. While Europeans may become extinct and replaced by non-White Caucasians and Negroid peoples, every other people will remain intact including the Jews, Han Chinese, Persians, Arabs, Berbers, and Negroid Africans*. Therefore, multiculturalism is not the wave of the future but a call to self-inflicted extinction. I was born on this Earth and I make it my domain, and I will not see my children lose their self-determination, suffer genocide or become extinct.

"Cultures that do not change over time, die (like the Goths)."

Au contraire. The oldest civilisations (purely in terms of human habitation) have had the greatest scientific, technological, military and economic achievement, namely East Asia and Europe.

"Carmela more than suggested that "true Frenchmen" must be white."

I am in full agreement. If this is not a prerequisite than France is merely a geographic region rather than a people: for culture is in flux and is imported and exported, languages can disappear, and history can be forgotten and revised. Indeed, "looks" are the only constant in the equation of nationality and culture. Without diversity of human physical traits there will be no cultural diversity save that directly tied to economics and environmental concerns (e.g. use of rice vs. use of wheat or potatoes). This is why I consider pure liberals and pure socialists as both being globalist in outlook, differing only in their conceptions of the single united global culture and ethnicity i.e. liberal democracy vs. social democracy vs. communism.

"She judged individuals not on the basis of behavior (subject to individual free will) but on a physical feature they have no control over."

I am assuming then that you are a full liberal. I agree with liberalism in principle except where it erodes national integrity, as is the case with current Western immigration policy and fertility rates. Aside from these issues, fundamental though they are, we would find a great deal of common ground.

"You seem to be suggesting that I should stop making observations and learning something from these observations, or draw conclusions (cultural and otherwise) from them."

I find it hipocritical for a true liberal to engage in cultural or racial profiling as many are doing with regard to Muslims. I of course, have no problem drawing conclusions about the entire collective of Muslims the way Eastern Europeans might about Germans. Additionally, if the crime is collective than so too can the punishment be. Islam is at war with the West, as many including you have noted before, and Muslims do not seem to give any quarter or divide their enemies into combatants and civilians the way we would

"And every society that wants to survive will also make a 'sensible' immigration law (to retain self-determination or control over the process of change over time), AND enforce that law."

So you are opposed to mass immigration purely because it does not allow for enough assimilation and integration of newcomers?

"I do not understand what you mean by "freedom of movement"?  Of who?"

Of everyone: the freedom of a Mexican to reside in the United States, in spite of antiquated and 'racist' immigration laws.

An author, syndicated columnist, advisor to three American presidents and twice presidential candidate, Patrick J. Buchanan predicted these events many years ago. If you're not already familiar with him, I would highly recommend his books "Death of the West" and most recently "State of Emergency" which discusses how mass immigrant invasions and low birth rates are imperiling western civilization.

Bob Doney: One ingredient missing from your analysis is why there is so much immigration

The reason is the fanatical ideology of the loony European left.

Each immigrant that comes to Europe is extremely expensive, financially speaking. For the price of accommodating an African immigrant in france, you could probably get 100 or maybe 1000 Africans out of poverty in Africa. But the idea does not appeal to the Bob Doneys of the world. It is more fun to destroy European society!

"Your world has gone, Armor."

Not yet. It is only about to be gone. I have seen the population change in large French cities, and I know the left wants the same thing to happen where I live, but it has not happened yet. It is only beginning now, although the replacement is scheduled to speed up in the next few years.

In the case of Brittany, we would not need to send many people back home, we would mostly need them to stay home. We can even send them money, so they will stay in their home countries, and this is probably a solution they would prefer. But the French Bob Doneys will have none of that.

PS: By the way, Bob Doney, your leftist fantasyland ideology will die when there is no Europe left !

Doney, you are very similar in your expression of your thoughts to the "gentleman" who intentionally passes his aids virus on to others.  You and many others of us slept and enjoyed the prosperity which others had been responsible for giving to us by their hard work and their standards which had been maintained for a very lengthy time and which unashamedly was bestowed to the native citizens.  We allowed the collectivists of society to mold our thoughts against our anscestry in the name of liberalization.  We suffer the full range of symptoms now that the disease has manifested openly and you go about promoting that we continue to engage in unprotected embrace of this AID's like killer of our way of life.

Just because many chose not to resist or have willingly kissed and still cling to this demonic host doesn't mean that all of us choose that.  We are fighting the epidemic, attempting to innoculate and immunize a sufficient number of the population that others will regain their strength and sanity and take measures to ward off this killer.  We know it is necessary for our continued survival and that of our future generations.

Your comments derogatory of those efforts may give you a smug sense of "you too - just as I have been", but your ironic and disapproving statements will result only in your own isolation to wither from your declining immune system.  You and those others suffering the ailment without resistence must be quarantined to areas in which your cynicism for society (which you attempt to hide as optimism, expressed in your wry non-productive coughs) does not affect the others.

The rest of us are going to continue taking our prescriptions, defeat this pandemic and restore society to a healthy lifestyle.

You gave a very good and clear explanation, Armor.  The explanation applies in whichever country the multiculturalist left has chosen to engage in their income redistribution through use of population shifting policies.

The capitalist supporters (of the leftists) have taken full advantage to raid the labor supply and drop standards of living for domestic citizens.

The opportunist's of government have cooperated with both, fattening their coffers with inside and under the table deals, while keeping tight control on the citizens they are supposed to represent.

Citizens are squeezed and molded by that three-bodied, one-headed monster and cannot see the cooperative efforts used against them because the monster's press portray them as being opposed to each other.   Immigrants are the tool the monster uses against us, each for their own reasons. 

@ Carmela

Now, I have been called much worse than a "socialist".  And, if calling someone a 'name' is considered an 'argument' by a contemporary white person, in support of any particular notion of "true Frenchness", then I guess the future must be bleak for 'white persons' if too many of them display such pitiful behavior. 

Serious discussion is impossible if one's interlocutor does not even understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion'.  

This is a very minor point, but Nicole Kidman was born to Australian parents in Hawaii and, thefore, is a dual citizen.  That is, she has carried American citizenship since birth -- whether she wants it or not. 

Ah, the rantings of a Socialist…you certainly can’t say they don’t put forth an effort!

Armor, the "loony leftists" are not interested in what Europeans want, in fact, it would bring them great satisfaction if every European soccer team looked like the "French" version.

Instead of trying to define "french-ness", you should just ask how many Europeans want to be replaced by African immigrants? The answer is very few. And yet the replacement is occurring, and the picture of the french soccer team illustrates that.

@ Carmela

1) Earlier, you juxtaposed the concepts of "reality" and of "the world".  The implication was that, in your view, "the world" was not part of "reality".  This shows 'muddled' thinking on your part.

2) Now, you are confusing the concepts of "opinion" and "fact" and, worse, you are asserting that your "opinion" of the word "French" is "obvious".  

Look, the word "French" can mean anything.  It has nothing to do with a "fact".  It can mean whatever any person wants it to mean.  But, that doesn't mean that all these different opinions are equally 'valid' or sensible.  Some opininons are better supported by empirical observations, and reveal better internal logic, than others.

A "fact" is incontrovertable, it cannot be contradicted, it always holds true.  No matter who says it, or where, or when.  For example, the statement that "In December 2006, Jacques Chirac was the President of France", that statement is a fact, it always holds true.  

By contrast, your statement that "a true Frenchman must be white".  That is not a fact, but it is an opinion.  And, it is clearly a very controversial opinion which is not shared by many others.  It certainly is not shared by the bulk of the 'ruling' French classes of today. 

You have now conveniently 'shifted your statement about "true Frenchness" to another one, namely that "people of French ancestry belong to the white race".  So "true Frenchness" has now been replaced by a new concept of "French ancestry".  And, of course, if you define (or 'limit') French ancestry to people with white parents then you have a tautology, and that is pretty meaningless.  That is like saying "a bean is a bean".   But a "bean" is a very different kind of concept than "Frenchness".  One can observe millions of beans and see what is 'common' to them, or what makes them "beans".   If you observe the 60 million "French" what is common is certainly not that they are "white".   And there are hundreds of millions of white people in the world who are definitely not "French" .   And, was Chopin a Frenchman, or is Sarkozy a Frenchman, if their "ancestry" did not lie in geographical 'France'?    So, it is not very logical to define the concept of "Frenchness" as "being white", or as linked to a "geographical ancestry".  There are too many counter-observations. 

3)  And yes, Georges Freche, is a "racist", if he defines his "own people" EXCLUSIVELY as limited to "white people".   In my opinion he is entitled to that opinion, and in a true democracy he would be able to express that opinion freely.  But that doesn't make him any less a "racist", because he has a 'race-based' view of what "own people" means.  If he linked "own people" to other criteria, like language or any other cultural behavior patterns, he would not be a "racist".    

"Carmela more than suggested that "true Frenchmen" must be white. She judged individuals not on the basis of behavior (subject to individual free will) but on a physical feature they have no control over."

Carmela is not judging any individual or group, just simply stating a fact...people of French ancestry belong to the white race just as all Europeans do including German, Italian, Spanish and so on. Although these gentlemen hold French documentation, their ancestry is not French. I have not implied anything further than all human beings belong to a particular race and Georges Freche is not racist to want to be represented by his own people.

"there is no such thing as a "French race"

By the way, if you'd like to know what are the real borders of the "French nation", here it is.

@ Kapitein

1) There is no "French race".  We agree on something.   And, are you now claiming that any French person in France who does not correspond exactly to your perception of the "French look" is not French?  Come on, let's be serious.  What a narrowminded view you seem to have of 'Frenchness'.

2) You gave a nice description of cultural 'roots'.  Surely you are aware of (gradual) changes over time - for a wide variety of reasons - in many of these cultural 'traits', including "physical features".  You cannot possibly believe that the Parisienne of today looks much like the typical woman in Toulouse in 1500.  Or do you really believe that?  Cultures that do not change over time, die (like the Goths).

3)  Who suggested otherwise?  What a question!  Carmela more than suggested that "true Frenchmen" must be white.   She judged individuals not on the basis of behavior (subject to individual free will) but on a physical feature they have no control over.

4) Why should I stop discussing radical islam?  Surely these particular "terrorists" are individuals committing heinous crimes.  You think they are not individuals?  And surely they are displaying behavior which seems to be prevalent in their culture of radical islam (which I am sure has quite a number of 'subcultures').  You seem to be suggesting that I should stop making observations and learning something from these observations, or draw conclusions (cultural and otherwise) from them. 

5) Law is made in every society.  And every society that wants to survive will also make a 'sensible' immigration law (to retain self-determination or control over the process of change over time), AND enforce that law.

The freedom of speech for citizens is essential to retain genuine 'democracy' in society and to prevent cementing any orthodoxy that would prevent necessary change.  I do not understand what you mean by "freedom of movement"?  Of who?

Finally, if the law is "racist", then it is "racist".

"...there is no such thing as a "French race"..."

Correct. However, there is such a thing as French 'looks' or physical characteristics or phenotype, namely France's unique blend of Caucasoid subraces. Because these traits do no overlap exactly with national boundaries, they can be found to a minor degree in those states that neighbour France, particularly the German Rhineland, Switzerland, Italy, Spain (the Basques homeland straddles the border), Luxembourg, and Wallonian Belgium.

"...whereas there are clearly "French culture" and French nationality..."

French nationality is derived from genetic ancestry i.e. family --> extended family or clan (tribe) --> nation/ethnic group (group of tribes). Because nationality also consists of a shared language, culture, history, heroes, myths, and symbols, it is not wholly based upon genetic lineage; however, that lineage is nationality's raison d'etre. Without shared physical features, nations cannot be identified other than through the remaining factors, which are subject to change. Today, Western nations all advertise that their culture is based upon liberty and democracy; in that case, national cultures do not exist.

"Individuals should be 'judged' on the basis of their 'choices' (including choices in connection with culture and law), i.e. on their behavior."

Who is suggesting otherwise?

"To judge someone on the basis of characteristics (like ancestry or race) that he/she cannot control (or choose) is 'primitive', even immoral, because the individual has no control over these characteristics. So how could he/she be responsible for them."

In that case I suggest you stop discussing radical Islam because terrorists are only individuals committing crimes.

Apply this in the real world.  It is immoral to blame the son of Jozef Stalin for his 'ancestry', precisely because he did not (freely) choose it. 

Blame him for what? Would he be more likley to defend or soften his father's actions or supposed actions?

"At the same time, an ILLEGAL immigrant in France should 'normally' be deported, NOT because of his skin color or his nose-shape, but because of his behavior, i.e. because he broke the law of France."

Why stop there? Why is there a law making any immigrant 'illegal'? If people should have freedom of speech they too should have freedom of movement. What if the law itself is racist? 

"The world may change.....but reality remains the same".

If that statement would hold, then the logical conclusion must be that "the world" is not "reality" (or not part of reality).    It must be an imaginary world.  Perhaps an 'unreal' one!

@ Carmela

No one is disputing that one cannot choose one's parents and race.  Those are 'givens' for all people.

However, there is no such thing as a "French race", whereas there are clearly "French culture" and French nationality.

And, there is also such a thing as human (or individual) choices and free will, which can certainly be 'exercised' or used with regard to culture and nationality (at least to some extent for many people).   

Individuals should be 'judged' on the basis of their 'choices' (including choices in connection with culture and law), i.e. on their behavior.  To judge someone on the basis of characteristics (like ancestry or race) that he/she cannot control (or choose) is 'primitive', even immoral, because the individual has no control over these characteristics. So how could he/she be responsible for them. 

Apply this in the real world.  It is immoral to blame the son of Jozef Stalin for his 'ancestry', precisely because he did not (freely) choose it.  At the same time, an ILLEGAL immigrant in France should 'normally' be deported, NOT because of his skin color or his nose-shape, but because of his behavior, i.e. because he broke the law of France.   

@ Doney

If individuals and 'societies' (cultures) do not take charge of their own destiny, then they are not truly "free". Which could be their own fault, or someone else's (e.g. Tibet)  People in true democracies can determine their future to a very large extent.  It is in their hands, not 'fate'.    

The world may change but, thank God, reality remains the same!

We cannot choose our ancestry or race as it's determined for us by our parents and creator, not obtained with a document via a government.

I suppose if you want something bad enough, you can convince yourself of anything! This seems to be the way of our politically correct world today--I prefer reality.

Uranium says: I don't think of myself as a European, I think of myself as an Australian although I am not a native Australian aborigine.

It seems that Australians and Americans think of Europe as a homogeneous block. But on average, there is less difference between a Scot and an Australian than between a Scot and a Portuguese. Maybe you feel different, but after all, every country in Europe feels different from the rest of Europe.

I think Africans can become French because French is a Nationality.

What you mean by that is not clear. If being French is about having a French identity card, then of course, everyone on the planet can be French. Maybe you think that nationality has to do with culture more than ancestry. But we know that Africans living in the USA have not become more European over the centuries. I think it will be the same in Europe. Anyway, most of us in Europe do not want to be replaced by immigrants. We wish Africans would stay in Africa. We think the problem is how to stop immigration, that is to say, how to stop the loony left and the crazy politicians, not how to integrate immigrants into European society. Personally, I want repatriation, not assimilation.

I found these 3 definitions of european:

- a native or inhabitant of Europe

- of or relating to or characteristic of Europe or the people of Europe; "European Community"

- Someone originally from the continent of Europe

Who agrees with these definitions? I think they are probably too simple.

I am an Australian of primarily Scottish descent living in Germany. The majority of my ancestors arrived in Australia in the late 1800's and early 1900's. My identity no longer has any connection with Scotland. I consider myself Australian but when I walk down the street you probably wouldn't know I wasn't German unless I start speaking.

Racially I am European. But I don't think of myself as a European, I think of myself as an Australian although I am not a native Australian aborigine. I have some racially chinese friends who were born in Australia, they have an Australian accent, only speak english and Australia is their source of identity. They literally know nothing about China. I count them as Australian. Race (genetics) and Nationality are two different things.

 
But Australia is different situation to Europe since most Australians are not native in a racial sense. The aboriginals comprise only about 1% of the population and have very little influence. Hence the term Australian refers to nationality and is judged based on things like behaviour, accent, languages spoken, cultural values, loyalty, absence of an alternative culture etc.

Unless the term "European" becomes known as a form of nationality then it is impossible for Africans to become European. Can Europe be equated with a nation? Can Europe be classified under a uniform identity and sovreignty? Not yet I dont think and God forbid it should ever happen.

I think Africans can become French because French is a Nationality. However this would only happen if they lose all links to the country (for example with me and Scotland) of their ancestors and become fully reliant on their new country in every way. This would also need to involve full integration into French society and a lack of connection with any African Communities living in France. This process usually takes several generations. With the current soft policies of European politicians, the mentality of many immigrant communites, combined with the rate of immigration and demographics in Europe I doubt integration will ever take place in some communities.

@ Armor

Please read more carefully and do not attack 'strawmen' nor windmills.  

I have nowhere claimed that "Africans differ from Europeans by superficial physical 'group' characteristics".  Absolutely nowhere!   The cultures in Africa and in Europe differ considerably from each other, and they differ even considerably within Africa and Europe themselves. 

I would certainly agree with you that 'the French', as a people (not as a race), have a right, even a duty, to protect and preserve their own culture.  At least the positive (or 'good') bits of it.   I would also agree that MOST individuals in the world are LARGELY determined by the culture in which they are born.

But I categorically disagree that all individuals are "determined" by their bloodline, nor by their race.  And I re-affirm that it is "racist" to claim that they do.  The concepts of "individuals" and of "groups" are not identitical, and neither are the concepts of "race" and "culture". 

To deny these intellectual distinctions is in my view 'primitive'.

@ Carmela

Thank you for clarifying or demonstrating again that my initial judgement was correct.  You have a "racist", or race-based, view of what it means to be "French".  I also clearly stated that I did not use the word "racist" in a pejorative sense, nor as an insult, eventhough I think your view is nonsensical.  You confuse the concept of "race" with the concept of "culture".

There is a big difference between "the truth" and ANY person's opinions of the "truth", and you would be well advised NOT to be so certain that you possess the truth completely (or even partially).  The truth is what "is".  In the physical world that can fairly easily be determined through empirical observations, mainly through repeated testing to see whether one gets the same 'results', for example taking the temperature of something etc... In the nonphysical or 'mixed' (physical/spiritual) world things are not so simple.  And there it behooves to reason on the basis of 'sensible' definitions of 'terms'. 

If you want to define the term "Frenchness" on the basis of skin color, or some other physical feature, you can do so.  But it does not make much 'sense'.  There are numerous white persons who are not French (and who do not even speak "French"), and there are numerous dark-skinned persons in the world who show a lot of 'Frenchlike' behavior.  You cannot wish away these observable realities, unless you want to keep your head in the sand, of course.

I agree with you that the peoples of France and of Africa in general have "separate cultures and different skin colors".  These differences are based on (or derive from) numerous factors, mainly different historical experiences and geography.  But they do not derive from physical features such as skin color, nose shape, or hairtypes, etc....  The concept of "Frenchness" makes only sense in terms of culture and law, of which language and nationality are major components. 

I also agree with you that "bloodlines determine an individual's heritage and skin color", but they do NOT determine the individual, nor necessarily his or her behavior.  Unless you of course want to deny the autonomy of the individual and of individual 'free will'.  As a 'white person', if I were the son of Adolf Hitler or of Josef Stalin, I certainly would not want to be "determined" by my "bloodline".  I wouldn't want that, not even if I were the son of Jacques Chirac or of Segolene Royal!   And this is not really a matter of 'wanting', the actual sons or daughters of any of these persons mentioned, are not "determined" by their blood line.

The issue and problem (that we are grappling with here) is culture (or behavior) - imposed or enforced multiculturalism, if you will - but NOT race.  

of course !

"You have to admit that being European is about having European ancestry, or it will no longer mean anything to be European. So, being European is also about looking like a European."

I don't agree. However, I respect your opinion.

"Anyway, we don't really need to argue. Not only do third-worlders living in Europe look different from us, but they do not behave like us."

I agree.

I also agree that the 'racist-argument' is being abused. It is loaded emotionally. Your opinion of being European is based on race. However, I am not going to call you a racist because of the negative connotations. I think you can sit next to a person of a different race and have a perfect normal and friendly conversation, human being to human being.

Marcfrans said: "exclusively equating "European" with "white" and "African" with "Black" is racist."

I think Carmela has it right. Being European is about having European ancestry. The idea that Africans become European by receiving British passports and French identity cards is preposterous. You would never come up with such a crazy theory if the loony left had not such a grip on western society. You could argue that it is a good thing to replace Europeans with third-world people, but saying that third-world people living in Europe are European does not make sense. It defies common sense, and it makes debate impossible by preventing the use of meaningful words.

The "racist" label is a weapon of intellectual terrorism. It doesn't mean anything, it just ends the debate. Instead of having meaningful debate, you change the question to "is Carmela racist", "is Kapitein Andre racist", "is Armor racist"...

George2 said:"White Southafricans are as african as black Southafricans and North Africans."

In that case, the word African becomes meaningless.

George2 said:"My cousins who grew up, married and are working in Europe but happen to have "Asian looks" are as European as you are."

If you "happen to" have Asian looks, it means you are not completely European!

George2 said:"Bloodlines do not determine Europeaness. Behavior does."

You have to admit that being European is about having European ancestry, or it will no longer mean anything to be European. So, being European is also about looking like a European.
Anyway, we don't really need to argue. Not only do third-worlders living in Europe look different from us, but they do not behave like us.

“The truth is that Africans cannot be French and vice versa as bloodlines determine an individuals heritage and skin color, therefore, true Europeans are, in fact, white or caucasian.”

White Southafricans are as african as black Southafricans and North Africans.

My cousins who grew up, married and are working in Europe but happen to have "Asian looks" are as European as you are.

Indeed, your statement is void of truth. Bloodlines do not determine Europeaness. Behavior does.

I admit that I cannot relate to the world in which people like Marcfrans reside because I live in one based in common sense, truth and reality. My statement was not even in the realm of racist but simply factual. Allow me to clarify.

“The logical implication is very clearly that black players cannot be true Frenchman.”

The truth is that Africans cannot be French and vice versa as bloodlines determine an individuals heritage and skin color, therefore, true Europeans are, in fact, white or caucasian.

“Linking true Frenchness to skin color is racist, and exclusively equating European with white and African with black is racist.”

The fact of the matter is that the peoples of France and Africa are two separate cultures and have different skin color. The French belong to the caucasian race and the Africans belong to the black race. I am a European but if I was to reside in Africa I would remain a member of the white race. Would an African be racist to state the obvious? Of course not! And this is exactly what I have done.

@ Armor

Let's clarify two things, shall we?  First, I know little to nothing about the French national soccer team, and I do not care about it.  Second, I am not a naive-leftie, which means that for me there are much worse things than "racism".  I do not always use that term in a pejorative way, but simply in a 'factual' way (of observation).

Having said that, I repeat that 'Carmela' made a "racist" statement.   She talked about "true Fenchman" IN THE CONTEXT of a complaint by Monsieur Freche "that there were too many black players on the national soccer team".   The logical implication is very clearly that "black" players cannot be "true" Frenchman.  Thus, Ms 'Carmela' EXPLICITLY linked true frenchness to skin color.  That is "racism", pure and simple. 

I repeat that I know nothing about the composition of the French national soccer team, and I know even less about the 'background' (or personal history) of the players on that team.  But, since it is the national soccer team, I presume that they all have French nationality.   

I do NOT dispute your analysis about the follies of French immigration policy, and about the "sick ideology" being promoted by most of the French media, academia and politicians.  But, linking "true Frenchness" to skin color is "racist", and exclusively equating "European" with "white" and "African" with "Black" is racist.   

You must make an honest distinction between 'physical' features (like race) and 'cultural' features (like behavior patterns and 'legalities').  And, judge every person on an INDIVIDUAL basis.

marcfrans: 4) And, yes, 'Carmela' has made a racist statement.

No, Carmela has not made a racist statement, but marcfrans, the free speech supporter, has made a very agressive statement. When you take a look at a mostly black french soccer team led by an Kabyle captain, it obviously makes you think of the rapid change in population which is occurring now. It isn't just on soccer fields. The same change is occurring in the rest of the country, although at a slower pace. What could be more racist than deliberately replacing Europeans with Africans, and calling the protesters racist? This is exactly what is happening now, and the French media are using soccer to push their sick ideology. How can you ask Europeans to say they are happy to be represented by Africans? Just ask the Africans living in france if they feel french, they will laugh at you (but you won't call them racist, because of your point #3).

marcfrans: 2) Monsieur Freche is intolerant for seeming to argue for a quota system for whites in sport. He does not appear to judge fellow citizens on the basis of their individual characteristics and skills for a 'job', but rather on the basis of superficial physical 'group' characteristics.

I wonder how you can read so much in Freche's remarks. Anyway, your idea that Africans differ from Europeans by "superficial physical 'group' characteristics" is ridiculous. You won't find two groups more dissimilar. Africans living in Europe don't care about us. They should be sent back home, and Europeans should be allowed to continue to exist. What's important is not the territory or the papers you have been given, but the people you belong to.

"No, I do not believe that "most of the western world is in favor of mass immigration". But I do believe that most of the western world is responsible for its own predicament."

How do you explain that we have mass immigration even though most people do not want it? And how is it their fault?

"people are responsible for their own actions, i.e. votes at election times"

Being asked to cast your vote is not enough. The determining factor is the media. Currently, television is at the hands of the loony left, even though it is a political minority. It is not a small detail ! If you gave me one hour's television time every evening in every European home, I would soon enlist people's support to start massive repatriation to the third world, and get European democracy working again.
Before you are asked to cast your vote, it is important to examine how the political debate has been framed. As long as it is mainly framed by the loony left mass media, there is little hope for democracy. When the most important issues have not been debated because the media and the main political parties would not allow it, the result of the elections has little significance. When just two parties are given most of the airtime on television, there is no use voting for anyone else because you know that politicians from other parties won't make it. When the two main parties both support mass immigration, as is the case in France, you have little hope of influencing anything by casting a vote.

"I do not believe that people in a democracy can 'hide' behind their politicians. They are the ones who put these politicians there in the first place."

How do you explain that in the USA, most Republican voters oppose immigration, whereas Bush seems to be pushing for a merger with Mexico? How can the direction of a conservative party stop defending conservative positions, even though it relies on the vote of conservative voters? It clearly shows that democracy is not working at the moment.

"it is always 'hard' psychologically to face the folly of one's fellow citizens."

Most Europeans are not crazy. They have always remained opposed to mass immigration even though they are brainwashed by the media, the schools and the administration. Most politicians are not even in favor of immigration, but they are so afraid of the media that they won't say a word against it. My local political representative was never heard saying a word about immigration (against or for). When he goes to the french parliament in Paris, he just votes as he is told by his employer, which is Chirac's party. The alternative would be for me to vote for the socialists. It would make no difference.

PS: what is the best way to insert a double line break?

....by Armor, le Breton (?).

@ Armor

To answer your question.  No, I do not believe that "most of the western world is in favor of mass immigration".   But I do believe that most of the western world is responsible for its own predicament.  In other worlds, people are responsible for their own actions, i.e. votes at election times,  and that includes the degree to which they take politics 'seriously' and the priority they give to this particular issue.  I do not believe that people in a democracy can 'hide' behind their politicians. They are the ones who put these politicians there in the first place.  And, for a true democrat, it is always 'hard' psychologically to face the folly of one's fellow citizens.   I am sure that applies to the few true French democrats as well.

"I am only "following Voltaire" as far as his defense of 'freedom of speech' is concerned."

I know, but it is funny that a French fraud like Voltaire should be cited in defense of free speech. It is the equivalent of quoting Chirac in defense of honesty or cultural diversity.

"Also, I do believe that the French people at regular intervals can express their 'opinions' at election times, and in between through numerous media and 'social' organisations."

Views critical of mass immigration are not really allowed in the French media or in the two main political parties. The media keep lying about the extent of the disaster, and no referendum on immigration is to be allowed.

By the way, do you think that the western world by and large is in favor of mass immigration from the third-world?

@ Armor

I am only "following Voltaire" as far as his defense of 'freedom of speech' is concerned.  His investments and his literary quarrels are of little interest to me.   But, I thank you for useful information.

Also, I do believe that the French people at regular intervals can express their 'opinions' at election times, and in between through numerous media and 'social' organisations.   

"If the French people, through their freely-elected (but shortsighted) elected officials hand out pieces of paper to newcomers, and these papers state that they are "French", then they are French."

In fact, french people have not been asked their opinion. It is a safe bet that most of them would disapprove of handing out french identity cards in Africa.

"following Voltaire I wouldn't dream of denying her the right to make any statement she wants. That makes democrats, like Voltaire and me, very different from most contemporary French people."

In fact, Voltaire was as duplicitous as Chirac :

- According to wikipedia: He "made an investment in a slave-trading enterprise in Nantes, which, according to the contemporaneous observers, made him one of the twenty richest men in France. However, some passages of Candide reveal hostility to slavery, although in Essai sur les moeurs he states that Negroes are born to be slaves."

- Voltaire is also known for his quarrel with the literary critic Élie Fréron who had been critical of him. It seems that Voltaire became obsessed with Fréron in a bizarre way. His friends had Fréron's literary journal suspended for a time.

Let's state the obvious.

1) The French socialist party is intolerant for "expelling" a member who does not agree with the party line on 1 specific subject.  American political parties (and society at large) are much more tolerant for diverse opinions within their midst. That unables them to adjust easier to new circumstances and to evolve to new 'orthodoxies'.

2) Monsieur Freche is intolerant for seeming to argue for a quota system for whites in sport.  He does not appear to judge fellow citizens on the basis of their individual characteristics and skills for a 'job', but rather on the basis of superficial physical 'group' characteristics.   

3) French socialists are hypocritical, since they argue for quotas for nonwhites in many other spheres of human endeavor.  Perhaps they follow the dictum of that famous Belgian politician who stated that nonwhites cannot discriminate or, alternatively, that whites cannot be discriminated.  This is what happens when victimology is pushed to its extremes, and society is no longer governed by and guided by empirical observation but by ideological dogma.

4) And, yes, 'Carmela' has made a racist statement. If the French people, through their freely-elected (but shortsighted) elected officials hand out pieces of paper to newcomers, and these papers state that they are "French", then they are French. Now, while Carmela has made a racist statement, following Voltaire I wouldn't dream of denying her the right to make any statement she wants. That makes democrats, like Voltaire and me, very different from most contemporary French people.

In all honesty, at first glance you would not think this was a French team. Would anyone actually disagree? How is it racist for a true Frenchman to want his own representing France? How would it be racist for a true African to want his own representing Africa?

Only in a politically correct world does a piece of paper make one French. In reality, this couldn't be further from the truth.

If the French Socialists want to act in this way, that's their good right. However, I am waiting for the moment where any political party will exclude an individual who claims that there are not enough immigrants as elected officials, or that there are too many whites. I guess this is a reasoning the (French) socialists are not willing to understand.

I don't care about the color of skin of any soccer player. As long as the game is good.

If the French Socialist want to act in this way, that's their good right. However, I am waiting for the moment where any political party will exclude an individual who claims that there are not enough immigrants as elected officials, or that there are too many whites. I guess this is a reasoning the (French) socialists are not willing to understand.

I don't care about the color of skin of any soccer player. As long as the game is good.

 ...Ya have to love them....So tolerant....So caring toward the common man and the common good.....so feeling to the needs of the people......(uncontrolable laughter about to begin!).......

Pashley, you must be relatively young.  The NBA was well integrated long before Michael Jordan.  And you must have little knowledge of what was played on "mainstream music stations" before the early 80's, because music from black artists was widely played on radio and even TV before Michael Jackson was even born.  There were black superstars in both sports and music long before Jordan and Jackson came along.  Have you ever heard of Dr. J and Willie Mays, or Louie Armstrong and Jimi Hendrix (to name a few)?

that would have been the 70's.   The superstars like Michael Jordan seem to break the sterotypes.  Michael Jackson had to do the same thing for mainstream music stations in the early 80's.

Perhaps this is merely a result of specialization. It is not as though Blacks are found in disproportionately large numbers amongst the French business and political elites. Does he advocate affirmative action for White football players? Nor are Whites being discriminated against here. Unless Freche is a true supporter of affirmative action for all interests in all areas of society, which I doubt, he is a hypocrit.