Stupid question: When Black and white people have seeeeex!

[The Brain]

Ethnicity is fictive by definition.

We can't all be North Germanic.

[grumbler]

Ethnicity is fictive by definition.

Artificial by definition, yes.  Not fictive by definition, though.

[garbon]

Incorrect.  Just because something is made up doesn't mean it's not real.

God isn't real, he just has real consequences.

[The Brain]

God isn't keepin it real.

[garbon]

He needs to rep where he's from.

[Eochaid]

Yes there is a Godwin point. You just won it for bringing up nazi atrocities.Gotcha!  You brought up the Nazis, you violated Godwins law, so you lose the argument by definition.

I didn't say you did. Just said its ridiculous to bring Nazis into this.

Your made-up numbers correspond to nothing in the argument.

My numbers for Pre-Colonial America come from  Charles C. Mann's '1491: The Americas Before Columbus' (and other assorted sources).

My numbers for 1890 come from the official 1890 US census. It is believed though that the number of natives might have been highier due to the difficulty to count some populations.

So what you are saying is that actual US census results must be dismissed because it is implausable that they could be true based on your made-up numbers?

How about we toss the made-up 250,000 number, instead?

See above regarding the 1890 stats.

The 1990 census records 1,959,234 Native Americans (including Inuits & Aleuts).

The 2000 census allowed people to describe themselves as being part of as many races as they wanted to. In 2000 4,119,301 people described themselves as "American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more other races" with 2,475,956 of them describing themselves as "purely" Native.

LINK FOR ALL STATS


Get your facts rights before you want to start a debate. BTW, just in case you didn't notice, you just been gauged, weighed... and found wanting

Time will tell, of course, but the fact is that Europe isn't there yet, and "tribalism" is far stronger in Europe than in the US.  So, so sneering at US ethnic "posers" seems a pretty dumb idea when you have actual European ethnic hosers willing to kill for their ethnic beliefs.  At least the "posers" are harmless.

Hardcore nationalism is a bad which we're trying to stamp out over here. It's an unpleasant inheritance from the past. Posers are fucking morons CREATING a problem.

Kevin

[grumbler]

I didn't say you did. Just said its ridiculous to bring Nazis into this.

I quite agree - but I didn't even mention the Nazis.  You did.

My numbers for Pre-Colonial America come from  Charles C. Mann's '1491: The Americas Before Columbus' (and other assorted sources).

Oh, I never said that you made up the numbers.  Mann's conclusions are not considered especially credible, and for you to refer to his 20 million figure as a "conservative estimate" is downright dishonest.  Not even he goes that far!  See William Deneven's "consensus" figure (not conservative) in Russell Thornton's American Indian Holocaust and Survival (1987) which puts the number of Native Americans in North America at less than 10 million.  See also David Henige's Numbers from Nowhere (1998), especially page 83, in which he describes the highest of the high counters, Henry Dobyns, noting that the population of North America (north of the Aztecs, specifically) was only 18 million.  How your 20 million can be considered "conservative" when not even the highest of the High Counters would agree with it is clear - the "conservative" label is attached dishonestly.  Even if you throw in the Aztecs as "North American" you still end up with  only three of the "experts" cited in Thornton (Dobyns, Thornton himself, and Borah) showing populations of over 20 million in North America, and 18 disagreeing.

My numbers for 1890 come from the official 1890 US census. It is believed though that the number of natives might have been highier due to the difficulty to count some populations.

The 1890 census only included Indians who had been naturalized.  Non-citizen Indians were not counted.  Indians didn't become American citizens until 1924.

See above regarding the 1890 stats.

See the above regarding the 1890 census.

The 1990 census records 1,959,234 Native Americans (including Inuits & Aleuts).

The 2000 census allowed people to describe themselves as being part of as many races as they wanted to. In 2000 4,119,301 people described themselves as "American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more other races" with 2,475,956 of them describing themselves as "purely" Native.

Yes, thus demonstrating my point that there are more Native Americans in the US than Jews in Europe!

Get your facts rights before you want to start a debate. BTW, just in case you didn't notice, you just been gauged, weighed... and found wanting

Since I just owned your ass on this issue, I really don't care about your weighing.  It turns out that my facts were correct and pertinent, and yours were dubious, presented dishonestly, and not pertinent even if, for whatever reason, correct.

Hardcore nationalism is a bad which we're trying to stamp out over here. It's an unpleasant inheritance from the past. Posers are fucking morons CREATING a problem.

Since you concede my basic point, I will only note that the only kinds of posers I see creating a problem are those Euro posers pretending an expertise in America that they manifestly lack.  The idea that Armenian-Americans are somehow creating Armenia's problems (or whatever it is you so vaguely hint at) is absurd in the extreme.

[CountDeMoney]

Yay, another pointless debate with shaky comparisons. We were talking about nationalism, not religion.

No, we're talking about tribalism.  And since you've inherited it and are dealing with it, then I'm sure Yugoslavia was just a hiccup, Muslim immigration has been working out fine, and Turkey will be admitted to the EU post-haste.

[Eochaid]

I quite agree - but I didn't even mention the Nazis.  You did.

Oh so when you were talking about "people" shoving jews into ovens, you were talking about the Muffin Man and his crew?

See also David Henige's Numbers from Nowhere (1998), especially page 83, in which he describes the highest of the high counters, Henry Dobyns, noting that the population of North America (north of the Aztecs, specifically) was only 18 million.

North America doesn't stop at the Rio Grande. I included Mexico and left out the Caribbean and everything south of Mexico.

You forgot quite a few high counters BTW, including Denevan.

If you're talking about the USA alone, then I (personally and for what it's worth) put numbers at around 10,000,000 people.

The 1890 census only included Indians who had been naturalized.  Non-citizen Indians were not counted.  Indians didn't become American citizens until 1924.

OK so now you're rejecting the numbers you were accepting two posts ago? Nice way to go.

I agree that the real Native population in 1890 was most probably bigger than what was recodred, butore than doubling the 250,000 figure given by the census would be questionable.

See above regarding the 1890 stats.

See the above regarding the 1890 census.

Yes, thus demonstrating my point that there are more Native Americans in the US than Jews in Europe!

You're neatly side-stepping three issues:

a. Defining and counting judaicity
b. How to make a census of jews.
c. Jewish emigration to Israel

a) You only are a jew if your mother is jewish. I myself would be considered jewish if you went by blood, but am not a jew since my mother isn't a jew.

b) Most European countries make it illegal to make a census of people by skin colour, creed or any other related criteria. All numbers are educated guesses at best.

c) A huge number of jews were of course genocided by Nazis during WW2, but a 2,000,000 jews moved to Israel over the past decades.

Altogether if you take "pure jews" and "pure natives" your figures are wrong.

It turns out that my facts were correct and pertinent, and yours were dubious, presented dishonestly, and not pertinent even if, for whatever reason, correct.

They were? I must have missed something then, O Great Leader

Since you concede my basic point, I will only note that the only kinds of posers I see creating a problem are those Euro posers pretending an expertise in America that they manifestly lack.  The idea that Armenian-Americans are somehow creating Armenia's problems (or whatever it is you so vaguely hint at) is absurd in the extreme.

I never said the posers were responsible for all of Europe's problems, I said that they were annoying (IMHO), offensive (IMHO) and in SOME cases dangerous. Beyond the occasional lout who'll use his posing to go looking for troubles (see my answer to Anchor) I'm talking about, for example, Irish-Americans being the major source of funding of the IRA.

Now I know you'll probably disagree with anything I might say and I will probably disagree with anything you might say.

How about you think I'm a posing moron, I think you're a moron and we leave it at that?

Kevin

[Eochaid]

No, we're talking about tribalism.  And since you've inherited it and are dealing with it, then I'm sure Yugoslavia was just a hiccup, Muslim immigration has been working out fine, and Turkey will be admitted to the EU post-haste.

Just look at the number and intensity of conflicts on the continent over the past two centuries and you'll see the trend. Yugoslavia is slowly being integrated and will be taken care of.

As for integrating Turkey, I'm in favour but that's open to a democratic debate in the EU.

And our Moslem population says hi.

Kevin

[CountDeMoney]

Just look at the number and intensity of conflicts on the continent over the past two centuries and you'll see the trend. Yugoslavia is slowly being integrated and will be taken care of.

Funny how that all works out once everyone's displaced and dead.

As for integrating Turkey, I'm in favour but that's open to a democratic debate in the EU.

Translation: "Even though Germany's killing us more, we'll use Turkey's debt as an excuse not to be invited.  Yeah, that's it.  Debt."

And our Moslem population says hi.

Really?  Funny, with an unemployment rate of 35% for adult Muslim males in France, I thought they were saying "will work for food, insha'allah".

[Eochaid]

Funny how that all works out once everyone's displaced and dead.

Are you suggesting that Jews were somehow blocking European construction or are talking about ex-Yugoslavia? 

If you're talking about the latter, then I think we can agree that the international community (mainly the EU and the USA) failed the Yugoslavs but I don't see what this has to do with

Translation: "Even though Germany's killing us more, we'll use Turkey's debt as an excuse not to be invited.  Yeah, that's it.  Debt."

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Honestly 

Really?  Funny, with an unemployment rate of 35% for adult Muslim males in France, I thought they were saying "will work for food, insha'allah".

Discrimination still is a common thing, but it is slowly decreasing. It is obvious that most EU countries have immigration-related problems, but the same of true of most immigration flows. If you wish we can talk about how unemployment amongst African-Americans is 2.3 times higher than amongst when Americans. I'm not saying that it's worse in the US than in Europe, just that in both cases I'd hardly call this the root of all evil.

Kevin

[grumbler]

Oh so when you were talking about "people" shoving jews into ovens, you were talking about the Muffin Man and his crew?

I was talking about European tribalism.  I didn't make distinctions between tribes.

North America doesn't stop at the Rio Grande. I included Mexico and left out the Caribbean and everything south of Mexico.

Since the Atzecs have nothing to do with American tribalism, I have no idea why you would include them.  Remember, your comment was (to CdM): "How's your fake imported tribalism going, now that you've genocided [sic] Native Americans?"

And my response was to that.  Seedy didn't "genocide" any Aztecs.

You forgot quite a few high counters BTW, including Denevan.

Denevan isn't a High Counter.  He is just averaging a bunch of counts, not deriving any numbers himself.

If you're talking about the USA alone, then I (personally and for what it's worth) put numbers at around 10,000,000 people.

Since you completely lack cred with me on this, I really don't care what your guess would be.

OK so now you're rejecting the numbers you were accepting two posts ago? Nice way to go.

I never accepted your bogus "estimate" of the number of Indians in 1890.  Nice way to lie.

I agree that the real Native population in 1890 was most probably bigger than what was recodred, butore than doubling the 250,000 figure given by the census would be questionable.

So now you are rejecting the numbers you introduced, right after you falsely accused me of rejecting your numbers after accepting them?  "boggle:

In any event, now that you have completely conceded my point (even if in a distinctly dishonest way), we can go on to both agree that neither the 1492 numbers nor the 1890 numbers have anything to do with the numbers of Native Americans in the US in 2009 versus the numbers of Jews in Europe in 2009.  That your whole introduction of these irrelevant numbers was a red herring to try to avoid conceding that I was right.   Correct?

You're neatly side-stepping three issues:

a. Defining and counting judaicity
b. How to make a census of jews.
c. Jewish emigration to Israel

I am not side-stepping anything.  I made a bet, and won.  You are weaselling around trying to pretend that didn't happen.  First, with the red herrings of the numbers of Native Americans in 1492 and 1890, and now with the "depends on what the definition of 'is' is"-style appeal to difficulties of definition.

a) You only are a jew if your mother is jewish. I myself would be considered jewish if you went by blood, but am not a jew since my mother isn't a jew.

Don't care because it doesn't matter.

b) Most European countries make it illegal to make a census of people by skin colour, creed or any other related criteria. All numbers are educated guesses at best.

Funny how you can accept numbers like those of Dobyns for Native Americans in North America in 1491, but then get all weaselly about estimates of much-better-known numbers in the 21st Century!   
Current numbers are estimates, but they would need to be low by over 100% to void my point.

c) A huge number of jews were of course genocided by Nazis during WW2, but a 2,000,000 jews moved to Israel over the past decades.

A total red herring.  This has nothing to do with my argument that there are now more Native Americans i the US than Jews in Europe.

Altogether if you take "pure jews" and "pure natives" your figures are wrong.

Prove it.  First, prove that something like a "pure jew" or "pure native" even exists, and then prove that the number of "pure jews" now in Europe is greater that the number of "pure natives" in the US.

They were? I must have missed something then, O Great Leader

Yes, you missed a great deal.  But since you have stuffed both feet into your mouth by tying yourself to the argument about "pure jews" and "pure natives," I expect that what you have missed to date will pale in comparison to what you will miss in the future.

I never said the posers were responsible for all of Europe's problems, I said that they were annoying (IMHO), offensive (IMHO) and in SOME cases dangerous. Beyond the occasional lout who'll use his posing to go looking for troubles (see my answer to Anchor) I'm talking about, for example, Irish-Americans being the major source of funding of the IRA.

Re-read that article (from 2005), dude.  What it says is that "until Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher asked President Ronald Reagan to stop them, they were the IRA's primary source of funding."  It also notes that "The IRA's announcement last week that it would finally abandon armed struggle was at least partly the result of a decade of Irish American pressure."  Seems to me that the Irish Americans you sneer at were far more effective than you yourself at stopping the IRA's armed struggle.  The problem you allege to was resolved before Reagan left office in 1988.  That is 21 years ago.  The solution you ignore was in 2005.  That was four years ago.

Now, do you have actual examples of American "ethnic posers" actually creating problems in Europe right now (you say "in some cases" but then only provide one, which turns out to be a lie)?  This whole claim is smelling more and more like hysterical bullshit with each post you make.

Now I know you'll probably disagree with anything I might say and I will probably disagree with anything you might say.

Speak for yourself.  I respond to arguments, not posters.

How about you think I'm a posing moron, I think you're a moron and we leave it at that?

Think what you like, but don't tell me how to think, thanks.

[PDH]

Artificial by definition, yes.  Not fictive by definition, though.

I was just sayin'

[Siege]

You are just saying!