Ahovking

Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, Europe for Europans etc.

24 posts in this topic

Do you agree with saying "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, Europe for Europans, America for Americans etc".

(please keep in mind im not attack any one state or county, im still on the fence, but leading more towards agreeing)

I personally Kinda agree, Regardless of race. Africa should be for Africans and not for Europans nor Americans however if though the process of war Europans gain land in Africa, should be fine as long as the land keeps its African culture and remains "African". (please keep in mind im not attack any one state or county, im still on the fence, but leading more towards agreeing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ignoring race, you think everyone should remain where they're and close their borders.

Denying the freedom of movement in this free world.

But you think Europe should take land if they have war with Africa.

 

I can't strongly disagree enough with this.

It's so ridiculous it sounds like something of the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ignoring race, you think everyone should remain where they're and close their borders.

Denying the freedom of movement in this free world.

But you think Europe should take land if they have war with Africa.

 

I can't strongly disagree enough with this.

It's so ridiculous it sounds like something of the past.

 

I dont think you read my post right.......

I said EXAMPLE:

let me say it differently, if though the process of war Africa gain land in America, should be fine as long as the land keeps its American culture and remains "American".

(Waring "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, Europe for Europans, America for Americans etc" has less about freedom of movement and more about foreign states own or controlling other states in deferent regional/culturel areas.)

 

I never said "Denying the freedom of movement in this free world" as an idea. You should be able to move to anywhere you want, but if your leaving your country (as long as your not being forced like a refugee) you should be agreeing that your leaving your culture behind and accpting the culture of the county your moving to.

 

 

For example if in your country you can "honour kill" a family member and your leaving to another country that doesn't support  "honour killings" because it has a completely different culture then you should be acctping your leaving your culture to another culture.

(As i said this idea isn't yet fully fleshed out,)

 

Edited by Ahovking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

Mostly because if your moving to a nation with a different culture you almost have no choice but to merge with it or forever be an outcast in its society.

Such a policy is already enforced by the world. Not by governments, but by the people. If you don't convert to said culture, you will be viewed as an outsider.

Take my state for example. In the recent decade we've had lots of imigrants from Mexico and surprisingly India.

Ill use the Indians for this example. Nobody talks to them. They dress weird, some don't speak English, and they don't seem to have any plans of converting to the typical American Christian culture. Thus, they keep to themselves and nobody talks to them. They're viewed. As outsiders, especially in a place where 80% of the populace is white and most of the other 20% is Mexican.

But of course, America doesn't really have one specific culture. We are a mix of everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't sugarcoat it, it is taking land plain and simple.

Doesn't matter if the culture remains the land is still being taking.

 

 

If you said European culture for Europe, African Culture for Africa and American Culture for America, then I would have totally understood your point.

If anything it is much the same as now except the part where it would largely deny freedoms as every culture does not have features which are all bad.

You for example used "Honor killings", there are plenty of good examples that would be outlawed.

Or it just the bad features of these cultures which are unacceptable?

If so it isn't all that different from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just complete and utter bs plain and simple. This kind of thought is one of the main reasons racism exists. The racists in this world are generally those who don't interact much with other races and this just encourages that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you agree with saying "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, Europe for Europans, America for Americans etc".

(please keep in mind im not attack any one state or county, im still on the fence, but leading more towards agreeing)

I personally Kinda agree, Regardless of race. Africa should be for Africans and not for Europans nor Americans however if though the process of war Europans gain land in Africa, should be fine as long as the land keeps its African culture and remains "African". (please keep in mind im not attack any one state or county, im still on the fence, but leading more towards agreeing)

 

Location: Australia

 

 

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well aside from just "culture" which is what this thread seems to be focused on, there is also eugenics which plays a role in this idea.

(Yes, I'm talking about eugenics again)

If you take a population of people who all share simmaler "good" genes and keep them isolated to the point that they only have eachother to breed with, eventually, other "bad" genes would be filtered out, in theory.

So if this idea was implemented to focus on genes rather than culture, it may actually do good for the world. Not trying to defend my worst enemy (Hitler), but I've been reading a lot about genes and the spread of genes throughout history and I have to give Hitler credit for at least that idea. If you could filter out "bad genes" within a population, your society would become vastly more advanced, strong, and inteligent. Modern science supports that idea.

Anyway, I know this post is more focused on culture than race. But no offense to my friend Ahovking, I find this idea to be half stupid, half smart. I don't think Id like to live in a nation where eugenics was implimented because I love experiencing new cultures and people without having to travel.

But also, I don't think I completely understand the idea that Ahovking has here. Because here in America, like I said, we have no single culture. We are vastly mixed in the US with the exception that we have a much smaller Muslim to population ratio than most of our European friends....

*waits for a response in slight confusion*

Hope I didn't make it even more confusing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To satisfy Pandora;   IM CONFUSED

*Now twice as confused*

Obviously time for a relaxing meal....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unable to post properly for some reason. Forget this is here

Edited by Kruschev1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cultures evolve through intermingling with one another. How would you define an <insert culture> in modern day terms? Almost every culture in the connected world has been influenced by others at some point in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. If someone follows the local laws, then there's no issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally a believe in the abolition of borders. I see no reason why free people should be restricted based on arbitrary political lines, and have to go through great deals just to relocate to a new piece of land. In a sense, let the free market decide how population is allocated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just complete and utter bs plain and simple. This kind of thought is one of the main reasons racism exists. The racists in this world are generally those who don't interact much with other races and this just encourages that.

>k-pop

oh alright sure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet you do.

What is that supposed to mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is just a wild guess, but Im assuming you like das reich.

Jew all are awesome but this is out of Mein kampfort zone. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is just a wild guess, but Im assuming you like das reich.

Jew all are awesome but this is out of Mein kampfort zone. :P

That's heilarious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one Reich. I'm sure it's not located in Germany, but rather in....Nepal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one Reich. I'm sure it's not located in Germany, but rather in....Nepal.

Nein, es ist Deutschland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now