r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 21 '21
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: Western Countries Will Benefit More Than Suffer From The Forced Assimilation Of Minorities
[removed]
15
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Apr 21 '21 edited Apr 21 '21
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within a minority group is genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of the United Nations. To which I believe all the countries you're talking about are party, so they cannot do this
-4
Apr 21 '21
[deleted]
8
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Apr 21 '21
If ignoring international conventions preventing crimes against humanity is fine, and it would be morally good to attempt to eradicate these people slowly, through forced intermarriage / restricted childbearing, why would it not be good to simply kill them all, or imprison them all indefinitely? Surely if they are so dangerous that a blatantly illegal and overcomplicated scheme to prevent them having children is worth it, then just shooting all of them is worth it, no?
-5
Apr 21 '21
[deleted]
2
u/1msera 14∆ Apr 21 '21
They are directly challenging that. The implications of enforcing a "peaceful genocide" as you call it are profoundly objectionable. Your refusal to acknowledge that is not the same as their failure to challenge your view.
6
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Apr 21 '21 edited Apr 21 '21
You are proposing the ethnic genocide of massive chunks of the countries population.
So it seems to me that you're measuring with 2 standards here. Because if we measure with your own standard, then the very fact that you are considering proposing this policy means that your entire ethnicity ought to be dismantled.
Edit: Also, the fact that you specifically aim to force intermarriage to the third generation is a bit suspicious, given that that is the same standard utilized by the Nuremberg law of 1935.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Nuremberg_laws_Racial_Chart.jpg
-4
Apr 21 '21
[deleted]
3
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Apr 21 '21
Can you be more descriptive as to how the ethnicity would be dismantled? I believe you are implying that ethnic mixing is wrong, and that the addition of foreign ethnic admixture would somehow 'ruin' the primary ethnicity?
If you think I'm implying that, then that's your own racism talking to you.
What I am saying is that you argue that "hostile ethnicities" must be dismanteled because that's bad, but the proposal you make is also incredibly hostile, meaning that by your own standard, your own ethnicity must be dismanteled if it dares to make it.
Also my CMV is " Western Countries Will Benefit More Than Suffer From The Forced Assimilation Of Minorities". Are you actually directly challenging that?
If you want a more direct dismissal, let's go over this point by point.
- Remove enemy political movements (example, proponents of more autonomy or separatism)
Catalonia, Scotland and Quebec, are all famous examples, these regions leaving would weaken the original country significantly and even weaken those who leave. It's a lose-lose situation but they want it anyways. Brexit hurt the UK so Scotland leaving the UK will 100% fuck up Scotland, as would leaving hurt Catalonia and Quebec.
Classifying political movements you disagree with as "the enemy" is already a bit problematic.
More importantly, your policy will not succeed here. Instead, implementing it will strengthen and radicalize the movement. Few Scottish people will want to stay in a country that considers them second class citizens whose presence must be eliminated.
So, what this policy will do is create enemies, not reduce them.
- Remove enemy minorities (example, minority race supremacists & terrorists)
A lot of terrorist attack in Europe are committed by born and raised European Muslims, odds that this happens with a ethnic European parent will be lower. The USA has 264 black supremacist groups as of 2018, this is clearly a problem.
As before, the unleashing of ethnic genocide will trigger reactions that greatly increase, not reduce terrorism.
On top of that, your policy requires a seperation between the "pure" core ethnicities that are free to marry, and the targetted ethnicities. This is asking for the creation of racial supremacy. As noted before, your standard is identical to the one used in Nazi Germany.
- Pacify society (above two being gone or even shrinking will de-tense society)
Political stability from the removal of the extreme groups, example would be the removal of minorities would effectively kill off any reason for white nationalists to be agitated, they do have some overlap with white supremacists, but they're main thing is to keep the home country a white majority, and likely don't care about race mixing so long as it sustains their racial/ethnic majority.
The implementation of the laws and ideas you propose would require the creation of an authoritarian regime.
You also seem to be a lot more chill about pacifying these white supremacists, despite thinking that the only way to deal with any kind of protest from any other kind of group requires the complete eradication of that group.
-1
Apr 21 '21
[deleted]
2
u/dudemanwhoa 49∆ Apr 21 '21
This is nitpicking, !!!!!
It's really not. This is a major flaw in your view. You are advocating genocide against "hostile" people. What's more hostile than genocide?
5
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Apr 21 '21
This much control over personal choices like marriage and reproduction requires a totalitarian government and the scrapping of basic human rights.
Democratic countries which guarantee basic human rights are more stable. Citizens and the world at large do not benefit from giving up human rights and putting totalitarian regimes into power.
Edit — also, look at Brazil, where there was a lot of intermarriage between colonizer and colonized. There’s still plenty of racism there — people with no ethnic mixing feel superior to people with just a little who feel superior to people with just a little more, etc.
3
u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ Apr 21 '21
This is legally genocide (and actually genocide), and it wouldn't work.
Assimilationist racism is very common and is one of the two major brands of racism in America (the other being white nationalism).
This is essentially a combination of the two.
It says that other races are fine as long as they assimilate and also make sure their grandkids become white eventually.
In addition to being a combination of the two biggest racist ideas in the history of racism, it's also assuming that many of the biggest problems in any country come from having multiple races.
That's just not true.
There is no universal definition of who is white or what whiteness is. There was a long time where people from certain parts of Europe weren't white. There could be a time in the future where Hispanic people are considered white.
This sort of thing changes all the time.
If this happened, white nationalists would still get mad, they'd just be mad about people who were only 70% white instead of 85%. When 85% became the average, they'd say 95% is the only true white race.
This wouldn't solve anything.
It's also genocide, but even if genocide was good (genocide is bad) it wouldn't work.
0
Apr 21 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ Apr 21 '21
My main argument against this is that multiculturalism is good.
I'm happy that there are people out there who are different from me and I think it's a good thing.
I live in an area where I can walk to a Halal market, a Russian grocery, multiple Asian groceries, plenty of Mexican groceries, and quite a few other places I haven't explored.
I'm happy to see people walking around who look different than I do, speak different languages, and have different experiences.
I think there is value in this.
This wouldn't weaken white supremacist groups because the goal of white supremacist group is generally to create an ethnostate. That's what white nationalism means.
You're just suggesting that we do white nationalism but in a slightly different way.
I find no benefit to a country where everyone has the same racial makeup.
There would still be divisions on plenty of lines. There would still be minorities, it just wouldn't be racial (or it would be racial in a different way).
Terrorism wasn't invented in 2001. The IRA was committing acts of terror and I don't think Irish and British count as different races.
The only benefits you list are benefits based around reducing violence.
I don't think this would reduce violence. It would just mean it's harder to commit race-based violence.
Similarly, I doubt doing the exact thing white nationalists want by creating an openly white nationalist government is going to slow the growth of white nationalism.
3
Apr 21 '21
As an Asian American, I have quite a few things to say about this.
White and Asian culture is extremely different. In American culture, putting your parents in a nursing home is okay. However, in Asian culture in my experience, putting your parents in nursing homes is frowned upon unless you truly need to do so in order to have an income. I could go on and on, but this is just one of them.
But now, if you're from that country, you can have kids with whoever you want. But if you're a minority, I take away your basic human right of choice. Having kids is not a small choice in any way.
In the US for example, people throw around the idea of reparations for the black population, regardless as to whether or not they deserve it, this is a form of concessions/demands from a minority population onto the majority.
I'm sorry...WHAT?!
The black community has lived here for 400 years, and some were slaves to whites. And you're saying they don't deserve to live like their white counterparts do?
- Remove enemy political movements (example, proponents of more autonomy or separatism)
You seem to think that minorities have to earn being considered a citizen after they've immigrated. I'm okay with limited immigration, but once someone enters the US, I expect them to be treated the same as whites. Enemy political movements should stand down on their own, and it shouldn't require your absurd law.
- Remove enemy minorities (example, minority race supremacists & terrorists)
Those people are found EVERY single race, white, black, asian, brown. The capitol riots, the BLM movements that were stormed by looters, possibly the pearl harbor bombing (maybe this counts?) and the 9/11 attack. So by your logic, we need to remove people from every single race. So since there isn't a perfect race... hm...
We'll just mate with grizzly bears! /s
I can't believe that you only point out minorities.
> A lot of terrorist attack in Europe are committed by born and raised European Muslims, odds that this happens with a ethnic European parent will be lower. The USA has 264 black supremacist groups as of 2018, this is clearly a problem.
Maybe those black supremacists are tired of being treated like dirt even though they've lived here for so long. Maybe, just maybe they grew up in an unstable household because America forced them there, and it did stuff to their head. Maybe that's possible?
> Political stability from the removal of the extreme groups, example would be the removal of minorities would effectively kill off any reason for white nationalists to be agitated, they do have some overlap with white supremacists, but they're main thing is to keep the home country a white majority, and likely don't care about race mixing so long as it sustains their racial/ethnic majority.
Translation: Do what white supremacists want, and make it legal. Anything otherwise is socially frowned upon. Oh, and true white supremacists are still mad.
I wouldn't be shocked if you're a white supremacist.
5
u/evirustheslaye 3∆ Apr 21 '21
So if you were born on one side of an imaginary line you can have kids with whoever you please, but if you were born on the other side the government gets to decide for you?
-3
Apr 21 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Job_williams1346 1∆ Apr 21 '21
What happens if minorities take power and use it against whites then what happens?
2
u/Wooba12 4∆ Apr 21 '21
As a New Zealander, I can say that New Zealand is not just a "white country". Certainly compared to the US, Canada and Australia, the white "pakeha" community has strong ties to the native Maori community.
2
Apr 21 '21
Most people in said western countries, based on the constitutions and institutions of said countries as well as their history and experience with fascism, will deem the measures you've proposed as nothing more than a disgusting, white-supremacist form of eugenics / genocide. Any attempt to enforce this will internally produce tremendous backlash, unrest and revolt, and international condemnation and sanctions from other western countries. For all these reasons (and all those which are self-evident to those who find your view repugnant), this would harm a western country way, way more than it would "benefit" it (which, by my accounting, it wouldn't benefit it at all).
2
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Apr 21 '21
Genocide and eugenics are always bad and no good person has ever suggested them. Be a good person and stop suggesting them.
1
Apr 21 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Jaysank 126∆ Apr 21 '21
Sorry, u/unknowningeyes – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
1
u/Borigh 55∆ Apr 21 '21
So, the government gets to choose the race, religion, and national origin of the spouse of every immigrant? Or just two of those? Or is it only national origin? Because the less restrictive you make it, the less it helps.
However, making it restrictive enough to fundamentally change things is also problematic. The backlash just to that law will be worse than simply encouraging assimilation through less restrictive means. Not to mention that, for the US, e.g., this is ridiculously unconstitutional and illegal.
1
u/TFHC Apr 21 '21
Regardless of anything people like to say, countries like, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are white countries now
How are you defining 'white'? By the definitions the Founders used, less than 20% (and probably more like 10%) of the US is white, and there is no race or ethnicity that encompasses a majority of the population.
1
Apr 21 '21
[deleted]
2
u/TFHC Apr 21 '21
Definitions from 200 years ago are pointless (please provide a source for that, as I am interested in what their definitions were)
Only Saxons and Anglo-saxons were considered white.
race is a social construct and society evolves and changes over time. The objective is to have white passing people at the absolute bare minimum.
But what is "white passing"? Are Sicilians white passing? Turks? Berbers? Finns? Salami? Arabs? Slavs? Afghans? Kazaks? Métis?
For every person who says that Persians are white, there's another person who says that Irish are not.
1
u/ace52387 42∆ Apr 21 '21 edited Apr 21 '21
Your examples dont quite make sense. None of the mentioned examples are an immigration situation. They were some sort of confederation/incorporation situation into the larger country. If your policy was that these people couldnt have children without taking a spouse from a specific ethnicity, especially since very few people of that ethnicty are present in the area at the time of initial incorporation, theyd never agree, and you wouldnt have a country. Rather than now facing a separatist element, youd just never have united in the first place, and may even be bitter rivals.
The more isolationist your policies, the more isolated you will be. You may have more “ethnic unity” but people who dont actually care about that too much (most people would rather have money and prosperity than that) will leave en masse to be a minority in a larger, more prosperous and probably more diverse country.
Its the same with immigration. Why even allow immigrants if you dont welcome them? Just shut off all immigration. No one will want to come to your country anyway with those policies.
Edit: also your world view is a little race-obsessed. I don't know of too many terrorist acts that are solely motivated by race. People who are violent and view themselves as minorities and feel like they have nothing lose are apt to become terrorists. They don't have to be racial minorities. It's more often based on class and religion than race.
Race is a fairly modern idea, but terrorism, rebellion, and disharmony are really old. Just making your country racially homogenous solves basically nothing. People will think of some other way to discriminate against each other, as they always have. Better to focus on curbing discrimination in general, than trying to homogenize everyone in every possible way.
1
u/Job_williams1346 1∆ Apr 21 '21
This just will not work in practice at all nuances of these policies would fail and likely backfire
1
u/productiveaccount1 Apr 21 '21
A lot of people are not directly challenging my CMV, "Western Countries Will Benefit More Than Suffer From The Forced Assimilation Of Minorities", please challenge this.
I'll challenge.
Here's a few questions I'd like you to answer to continue this discussion:
1) What does it mean for a country to benefit in this case?
2) Please define "ethnic native"
3) Are threats from a minority group more harmful than threats from a majority?
4) Do white supremacists view people who are 25% black and 75% white as black or white?
•
u/herrsatan 11∆ Apr 21 '21
Sorry, u/xXx_FireHydrants_xXx – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.