Why would that be a legitimate question if they are properly integrated?
Normally, "integration" was almost directly understood as: intermarriage. After 3 generations of intermarrying into the majority group, you wouldn't even identify as the minority group.
If, on the other hand, they are still within their group (which suggests you weren't going slowly and you have created a colony), and they are integrated into the society, there is no reason to fear being a minority.
If the minority is merely recognized as a present minority in the country with no real concern about them one way or another; then there is no issue. I have yet to hear anyone complain about the number of Finns in their country, regardless of country. Nobody seems to really care. This is because either integrate with their neighbors or don't form colonies. But if a minority were to emerge and properly integrate; it would be recognized as simply a local curiosity. "Over here, you will see a small finish community. They have good fish!"
Now, we are left with the possibility of minorities in the country that won't integrate. This could be a problem, but only if they do not adopt a "model minority" tradition. Very few people complain about the presence of Amish beyond their buggies being slow. They are separatist to a significant degree, but they do not seek war, nor conflict, and often deal fairly with others. The overseas Germans, Japanese, and Chinese were also regarded in similar manners.
The danger of the model minority is that they might be too successful. You don't need a domestic population getting resentful of a successful minority otherwise you could create serious ethnic tension. Such as what has occasionally happened with the Chinese, Japanese, the Boer, and Jews. The Amish, physically can't outpace the domestic population by virtue of their religion, protecting them from popular reprisals; but the others could be a problem. This is why you want to keep immigration low. Low enough to the point that those populations do not colonize in the first place, and integrate with the society at large.
The only exception to this is in Civic Nationalism, where you basically forcibly integrate them into your civic value structure. This, in and of itself, is a big way of pushing back on most migration if you maintain it. The immigrants have to voluntarily arrive, and then voluntarily abandon their old ways to assimilate. Refusal is depuration. Nothing else can be tolerated.
Multi-culturalism doesn't work because it is staunch segregation. It can't work. You are either all in, or you are all out.
Normally, "integration" was almost directly understood as: intermarriage. After 3 generations of intermarrying into the majority group, you wouldn't even identify as the minority group.
OK I agree, but that's not what we're talking about here.
If, on the other hand, they are still within their group (which suggests you weren't going slowly and you have created a colony), and they are integrated into the society, there is no reason to fear being a minority.
If the minority is merely recognized as a present minority in the country with no real concern about them one way or another; then there is no issue. I have yet to hear anyone complain about the number of Finns in their country, regardless of country. Nobody seems to really care.
I would agree in theory. But in practice, the ethnic narcissism of certain groups, fanned by Jewish interests, insists on the privilege to import more and more of them - and who are the genetic natives to disagree because that would mean that a native is somehow more of a citizen than racial minorities?
Also there is the justification that the genetic natives are not really legitimate because they themselves displaced a native people, which can easily be applied to Japan via the Ainu. In practice, the immigration debate is a slippery slope toward this argument.
OK I agree, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Here is just a straight up failure to integrate. It's not even magic dirt, it's magic passport.
But in practice, the ethnic narcissism of certain groups
I don't think that's a thing that we can assume that 'groups' as we are constructing them makes sense. People aren't just from groups, they are from specific people, specific places, and specific times. Those specific people-places-times can vary quite wildly even within a group. I'm not worried about importing Indonesian Muslims from 1910, I'm worried about importing Pakistani Muslims from 2023.
fanned by Jewish interests
I reject that as well. Ethnic conflict is fanned by a series of authoritarian and Leftist interests.
who are the genetic natives to disagree
Most places don't have any genetic natives. Even Ireland doesn't. That's one of the reasons Leftists wield around this crazy "we're all immigrants" nonsense. If you take 'native' or 'indigenous' to that extreme, you'll be hard pressed to find any at all.
But, we understand the Irish are native to Ireland, regardless to whether or not the current Irish population is genetically Celtic and migrated from central europe several thousand years ago. Genetic nativism is pretty unhelpful.
... you went on to point this out.
that would mean that a native is somehow more of a citizen than racial minorities?
That's just not true. No recent arrival is "more" of a citizen than a citizen.
I don't think that's a thing that we can assume that 'groups' as we are constructing them makes sense. People aren't just from groups, they are from specific people, specific places, and specific times. Those specific people-places-times can vary quite wildly even within a group. I'm not worried about importing Indonesian Muslims from 1910, I'm worried about importing Pakistani Muslims from 2023.
You're adding needless complexity to the issue. Importing Muslims from any time period is wrong.
I reject that as well. Ethnic conflict is fanned by a series of authoritarian and Leftist interests.
Yeah, and a lot of those leftists are Jews, like the ones advising MLK Jr., or Tim Wise, or HIAS. The intellectual groundwork for racial division was also laid down by Franz Boas when he founded anthropology and created the concept of cultural relativism.
The nail in the coffin is even right wing Jews like Ben Shapiro don't even see a problem with the Great Replacement, while simultaneously supporting the Israeli ethnostate. Exceptions like Stephen Miller and Ron Unz are few and far between.
Most places don't have any genetic natives. Even Ireland doesn't. That's one of the reasons Leftists wield around this crazy "we're all immigrants" nonsense. If you take 'native' or 'indigenous' to that extreme, you'll be hard pressed to find any at all.
But, we understand the Irish are native to Ireland, regardless to whether or not the current Irish population is genetically Celtic and migrated from central europe several thousand years ago. Genetic nativism is pretty unhelpful.
... you went on to point this out.
I wish your LEFTIST dive into racial sophistry wasn't so predictable, but it is. The Irish are a genetically distinct group of people who should be considered native to Ireland today, regardless of the exact time in antiquity they were established. The Japanese should likewise be considered native to Japan. The Irish and the Japanese should maintain supermajorities in Ireland and Japan. Therefore, genetic natives exist and are not just helpful, but necessary to consider.
The intellectual groundwork for racial division was also laid down by Franz Boas when he founded anthropology and created the concept of cultural relativism.
Racial division (as you are using it) is inherent in Leftism, but pre-dates it by millennia. "Laying the ground work" doesn't make sense. Just like "laying the groundwork for profiteering" doesn't make sense.
Cultural Relativism is simply a tactic used occasionally by Leftists. Like all of their tactics, those aren't principled stands. If it were, they would tolerate monarchy in a monarchy. They don't.
The nail in the coffin is even right wing Jews like Ben Shapiro don't even see a problem with the Great Replacement, while simultaneously supporting the Israeli ethnostate. Exceptions like Stephen Miller and Ron Unz are few and far between.
You can't make the same argument without doing the same thing to whites & Catholics. There's no real reason to play this game of "I found a few people on one side of a political issue or another, therefore the race is collectively guilty".
I have a problem with communists, not the chinese.
I wish your LEFTIST dive into racial sophistry wasn't so predictable, but it is.
It's not sophistry, it's recognizing that genetic racial determinists aren't speaking honestly, and aren't speaking sensibly. This is mostly because they are still operating almost entirely off of the late 18th century progressive racialism and Volkish concepts. These are concepts that even the Fascists actually learned to stop wasting their time with because it was nonsensical pseudo-science.
What you're actually alluding to is re-defining what a "genetic native" is, simply to be: "the genetics of the amalgamation of people that are here given this specific moment in time".
This is why that whole framework is useless. You're emphasizing genetics when you should be emphasizing integration and assimilation into culture, but you're sticking yourself into a corner and emphasizing one arbitrary genetic admixture over another, and then claiming that culture evolves from that. You don't seem to realize that communists that have the same admixture as you are still more dangerous than someone with different genetics who agrees with you. You should be just focusing on cultural integration. If you are still, somehow, worried about your preferred admixture, you won't have to if foreign populations have been assimilated properly. Again, they would be fully integrated into the genetic admixture anyway to the point of very little relevancy, and no real effect anywhere else.
Why would that be a legitimate question if they are properly integrated?
Normally, "integration" was almost directly understood as: intermarriage. After 3 generations of intermarrying into the majority group, you wouldn't even identify as the minority group.
If, on the other hand, they are still within their group (which suggests you weren't going slowly and you have created a colony), and they are integrated into the society, there is no reason to fear being a minority.
If the minority is merely recognized as a present minority in the country with no real concern about them one way or another; then there is no issue. I have yet to hear anyone complain about the number of Finns in their country, regardless of country. Nobody seems to really care. This is because either integrate with their neighbors or don't form colonies. But if a minority were to emerge and properly integrate; it would be recognized as simply a local curiosity. "Over here, you will see a small finish community. They have good fish!"
Now, we are left with the possibility of minorities in the country that won't integrate. This could be a problem, but only if they do not adopt a "model minority" tradition. Very few people complain about the presence of Amish beyond their buggies being slow. They are separatist to a significant degree, but they do not seek war, nor conflict, and often deal fairly with others. The overseas Germans, Japanese, and Chinese were also regarded in similar manners.
The danger of the model minority is that they might be too successful. You don't need a domestic population getting resentful of a successful minority otherwise you could create serious ethnic tension. Such as what has occasionally happened with the Chinese, Japanese, the Boer, and Jews. The Amish, physically can't outpace the domestic population by virtue of their religion, protecting them from popular reprisals; but the others could be a problem. This is why you want to keep immigration low. Low enough to the point that those populations do not colonize in the first place, and integrate with the society at large.
The only exception to this is in Civic Nationalism, where you basically forcibly integrate them into your civic value structure. This, in and of itself, is a big way of pushing back on most migration if you maintain it. The immigrants have to voluntarily arrive, and then voluntarily abandon their old ways to assimilate. Refusal is depuration. Nothing else can be tolerated.
Multi-culturalism doesn't work because it is staunch segregation. It can't work. You are either all in, or you are all out.
OK I agree, but that's not what we're talking about here.
I would agree in theory. But in practice, the ethnic narcissism of certain groups, fanned by Jewish interests, insists on the privilege to import more and more of them - and who are the genetic natives to disagree because that would mean that a native is somehow more of a citizen than racial minorities?
Also there is the justification that the genetic natives are not really legitimate because they themselves displaced a native people, which can easily be applied to Japan via the Ainu. In practice, the immigration debate is a slippery slope toward this argument.
Here is just a straight up failure to integrate. It's not even magic dirt, it's magic passport.
I don't think that's a thing that we can assume that 'groups' as we are constructing them makes sense. People aren't just from groups, they are from specific people, specific places, and specific times. Those specific people-places-times can vary quite wildly even within a group. I'm not worried about importing Indonesian Muslims from 1910, I'm worried about importing Pakistani Muslims from 2023.
I reject that as well. Ethnic conflict is fanned by a series of authoritarian and Leftist interests.
Most places don't have any genetic natives. Even Ireland doesn't. That's one of the reasons Leftists wield around this crazy "we're all immigrants" nonsense. If you take 'native' or 'indigenous' to that extreme, you'll be hard pressed to find any at all.
But, we understand the Irish are native to Ireland, regardless to whether or not the current Irish population is genetically Celtic and migrated from central europe several thousand years ago. Genetic nativism is pretty unhelpful.
... you went on to point this out.
That's just not true. No recent arrival is "more" of a citizen than a citizen.
You're adding needless complexity to the issue. Importing Muslims from any time period is wrong.
Yeah, and a lot of those leftists are Jews, like the ones advising MLK Jr., or Tim Wise, or HIAS. The intellectual groundwork for racial division was also laid down by Franz Boas when he founded anthropology and created the concept of cultural relativism.
The nail in the coffin is even right wing Jews like Ben Shapiro don't even see a problem with the Great Replacement, while simultaneously supporting the Israeli ethnostate. Exceptions like Stephen Miller and Ron Unz are few and far between.
I wish your LEFTIST dive into racial sophistry wasn't so predictable, but it is. The Irish are a genetically distinct group of people who should be considered native to Ireland today, regardless of the exact time in antiquity they were established. The Japanese should likewise be considered native to Japan. The Irish and the Japanese should maintain supermajorities in Ireland and Japan. Therefore, genetic natives exist and are not just helpful, but necessary to consider.
Racial division (as you are using it) is inherent in Leftism, but pre-dates it by millennia. "Laying the ground work" doesn't make sense. Just like "laying the groundwork for profiteering" doesn't make sense.
Cultural Relativism is simply a tactic used occasionally by Leftists. Like all of their tactics, those aren't principled stands. If it were, they would tolerate monarchy in a monarchy. They don't.
You can't make the same argument without doing the same thing to whites & Catholics. There's no real reason to play this game of "I found a few people on one side of a political issue or another, therefore the race is collectively guilty".
I have a problem with communists, not the chinese.
It's not sophistry, it's recognizing that genetic racial determinists aren't speaking honestly, and aren't speaking sensibly. This is mostly because they are still operating almost entirely off of the late 18th century progressive racialism and Volkish concepts. These are concepts that even the Fascists actually learned to stop wasting their time with because it was nonsensical pseudo-science.
What you're actually alluding to is re-defining what a "genetic native" is, simply to be: "the genetics of the amalgamation of people that are here given this specific moment in time".
This is why that whole framework is useless. You're emphasizing genetics when you should be emphasizing integration and assimilation into culture, but you're sticking yourself into a corner and emphasizing one arbitrary genetic admixture over another, and then claiming that culture evolves from that. You don't seem to realize that communists that have the same admixture as you are still more dangerous than someone with different genetics who agrees with you. You should be just focusing on cultural integration. If you are still, somehow, worried about your preferred admixture, you won't have to if foreign populations have been assimilated properly. Again, they would be fully integrated into the genetic admixture anyway to the point of very little relevancy, and no real effect anywhere else.