General US Politics

[Crysta]

How the hell is BLM preaching segregation? And how do any of those statistics demolish the actual movement, which I'm pretty sure it is a movement against racial profiling/police brutality/other stuff akin to that?

I'm sure they're also far more likely to be killed in car crashes. Whoopie.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Crysta

[Life]

How the hell is BLM preaching segregation? And how do any of those statistics demolish their actual movement, which I'm pretty sure it is a movement against racial profiling/police brutality/other stuff akin to that?

I'm sure they're also far more likely to be killed in car crashes. Whoopie.

Is this a serious question or do you simply not pay attention to the actual rhetoric that Black Lives Matter uses?

As for the second line, I get the feeling that you simply don't understand the issue here. I'm pointing out that there is a cultural problem here. Black men kill each other much more often than white men kill them. As I stated, it's 90%. If you don't believe me, look at the evidence. So why is Obama speaking about racial problems within the policing community that don't exist?

Edited August 4, 2016 by Pharoahe Monch

[Time the Crestfallen]

Black Lives Matter does not preach peace. It preaches segregation. Didn't MLK fight against that exact notion 50 years ago? And the best part is that they refuse to call it what it is (racism against the white majority because let's not sugar-coat the issue). Instead, they use a couple of bad (and they truly are bad) videos of a couple cops shooting black males. So suddenly there's an epidemic of racism in America's police force that goes around and shoots blacks by the minute?

Wrong. Let me point out the three best statistics from this study.

1) You have the same chance of getting killed by the police as you do of getting hit by lightning.

2) Black males have 37x more chance of being murdered by a private citizen than they do by a cop who is on duty.

3) 89.6% of blacks murdered... are murdered by other blacks.

Well shit, that basically blows apart the BLM's entire movement. But when did the left let facts get in the way of feelings?

First of all, Black Lives Matter is a movement, not an organisation. There are group leaders, but they are chapter-based and there is no one singular leader behind which the entire movement rallies. Criticising BLM is something I put in the same category as criticising feminism or the MRA; you're not criticising the movement itself as much as it is you're criticising individuals spreading an interpretation of the movement.

Second of all, while there does seem to be more of a focus recently on the deaths of blacks at the hands of police officers, that isn't the only facet of racism in this area. Racial profiling is too common for the ease of mind and the sentencing disparity between blacks and whites for committing the same crime is well documented.

Thirdly, what you're doing here is no different from what the far-left does to groups it doesn't like; using the actions of the most unpleasant individuals of a group and tarring the entirety of the group with the same brush. How is what you're doing any different that saying all Republicans are racist and using the brother/sister-fucking, bible-thumping degenerates that vote for the Republican party or the alt-right as proof? Or using r/MensRights or r/TheRedPill as proof that all Mens Rights Activists are neck-bearded misogynists who want the legal right to rape and beat women?

Edited August 4, 2016 by Phillius

[Life]

Thirdly, what you're doing here is no different from what the far-left does to groups it doesn't like; using the actions of the most unpleasant individuals of a group and tarring the entirety of the group with the same brush. How is what you're doing any different that saying all Republicans are racist and using the brother/sister-fucking, bible-thumping degenerates that vote for the Republican party or the alt-right as proof? Or using r/MensRights or r/TheRedPill as proof that all Mens Rights Activists are neck-bearded misogynists who want the legal right to rape and beat women?

I'll respond later to the rest because I have work soon and I fly in like 12 hours but let me jump onto this one.

First of all, I am not shouting down the other side and I am not stifling debate. You want to prove me wrong? Go ahead. I welcome an open debate where I can learn from the content.

I cannot say that about the left on any regard. As I said, I am educated as opposed to the vast majority of conservative voters that exist in the USA. I recognize that for what it is. But the vast majority of liberals in today's day and age prefer to shout "racist", "bigot" and "misogynist" to the rooftops in hopes that an ad hominem will actually win the debate. And the sad part is, the vast majority of media outlets parrot this view.

When I say "vast", I am saying that I have not had a single political debate with any liberal that I know (and I grew up in Canada so I know a lot of liberals) who can answer with something that is more intelligent than "you're a racist so you're wrong". No, I'm not a racist. I hate racism just like you. The difference is, I don't call criticism of the black community on very viable terms (like high attrition rates at secondary school, for example) racism. I have yet to meet a liberal who will do the same.

[Crysta]

It is a serious question. I have heard anti-cop rhetoric from the fringe crazies but I have yet to hear "whites and blacks should be separated!"

I'm well aware that the fact that there's serious black-on-black crime problem, too, especially since it's brought up every single time there's a police incident, spoken as though there hasn't been any ongoing attempt to try to correct that problem (there has been - it's just not an easy fix, just like police ethics won't ever be). Obama has commented on it, but it's apparently given about as much attention. Do you simply think they should just focus on that instead, in a "clean up your own backyard first" kind of manner? Why the hell can't you confront two serious problems at the same time?

Or are you just upset that BLM is focused primarily on black-on-white police brutality, and that is the racist part?

Pretty sure MLK Jr. would be in support of combating both black-on-black crime and police brutality - at the same time - but I confess I never actually knew the guy. Just read a letter or two.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Crysta

[Time the Crestfallen]

First of all, I am not shouting down the other side and I am not stifling debate. You want to prove me wrong? Go ahead. I welcome an open debate where I can learn from the content.

We can agree on this much at least. This thread has really helped with my understanding of US politics and I didn't have to wade through knee-deep propaganda to do so. It's been enjoyable, which I can't say for my attempts at learning about social justice.

I cannot say that about the left on any regard. As I said, I am educated as opposed to the vast majority of conservative voters that exist in the USA. I recognize that for what it is. But the vast majority of liberals in today's day and age prefer to shout "racist", "bigot" and "misogynist" to the rooftops in hopes that an ad hominem will actually win the debate. And the sad part is, the vast majority of media outlets parrot this view.

It's kinda come full circle, hasn't it? It used to be the conservatives stifling debate, now it's the other way around. Anyway, you say that the vast majority of conservative voters are 'uneducated', but then single out the liberals for the same behaviour? Neither side is particularly clean here; when the liberals shout 'racist' the conservatives shout 'sjw' right back at them and both sides seem pretty willing to go for the ad hominem (curiously, both of them like to use neck beard as an insult). The only difference is that most media is liberal, which makes it easier for the liberals to do their smearing. Singling one group out for this behaviour is a little dishonest.

When I say "vast", I am saying that I have not had a single political debate with any liberal that I know (and I grew up in Canada so I know a lot of liberals) who can answer with something that is more intelligent than "you're a racist so you're wrong". No, I'm not a racist. I hate racism just like you. The difference is, I don't call criticism of the black community on very viable terms (like high attrition rates at secondary school, for example) racism. I have yet to meet a liberal who will do the same.

Well I can't say I've shared your experience, since most people on either side of the political spectrum I've debated have been reasonably intelligent. Also, criticism of the black community based on issues they suffer only looks at half the story. You have to look at what causes those issues (lower average socioeconomic status, inability to afford good schooling ETC), the short-term (lesser education, increased dropout) and long-term (higher unemployment, higher crime rates, higher instances of alcoholism, smoking and teen pregnancy) consequences, since more often than not those 'terms' are part of a self-sustaining cycle as opposed to an inherent 'badness' of the community. I haven't met any liberal bar the most unreasonable examples of the far-left who will dispute that these things are an issue, but you have my sympathies since your experience has obviously been a far more unpleasant one than mine.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Phillius

[Phoenix Wright]

After looking at the evidence (like from the Tax Policy Center or the IRS), the myth of the top 1% controlling everything and never paying taxes has been thoroughly debunked. And this is a myth that is constantly put out by the left in order to instill fear and hatred, similar to the ideas of "white privilege" or "rape culture". That's all they are; myths.

I've changed my viewpoint entirely. If I were American, I would vote for Trump simply as a middle finger to a ruling establishment that has constantly failed me and will continue to do so. The Milo Yiannopoulos way of voting, you might say. We're talking about an educated person who would vote Trump.

that's not what the left talks about. what the left talks about is that the burden of taxes should not be shifted to the lower classes (ie, middle class and down) because the fucking top 20% own 80% of this nation's wealth. there is an incredibly disgusting wealth inequality in this nation, and to say that the left just want to hike, hike, hike taxes for the rich just because is both ridiculous and demonstrably untrue. goddamn.

trump is the fucking ruling establishment. he is old wealth.

With regards to the first sentence, I don't care if it's derogatory and it is certainly not in the same category as "Jap" or "Paki" or what-have-you.

The second you feel the need to have a completely unnecessary medical procedure in order to change your sex because "you don't feel comfortable in your body", you have forfeited your right to be treated as a human being. Full fucking stop. It is a perversion of the animal kingdom. And before you want to jump down my throat for possibly thinking the same way of homosexuality, that is incorrect because homosexuality also exists within the animal kingdom, especially in primates (but not limited to).

As for why it is not on the same level as saying "Chink" or "Kike" or whatever, it is because the operation itself is unnecessary whatsoever in any medical capacity. It is something that the person is choosing the change. Race is from your DNA and ancestry. There is no medical procedure available to change race.

Unpopular view but whatever. It is my informed opinion of the matter and I won't attempt to convince you because it sounds so evil. But that is a logical explanation of why I feel that way.

As for the question (which I typed out twice and lost both), let's assume that left = liberals = Democratic Party of America for the purpose of this argument. Not a hard stretch.

Now the left's issue is one of bold hypocrisy, much more so than the right. They are so two-faced when it comes to a lot of the myths that get spread around. I mentioned "white privilege" above but let's dive into that.

Black Lives Matter does not preach peace. It preaches segregation. Didn't MLK fight against that exact notion 50 years ago? And the best part is that they refuse to call it what it is (racism against the white majority because let's not sugar-coat the issue). Instead, they use a couple of bad (and they truly are bad) videos of a couple cops shooting black males. So suddenly there's an epidemic of racism in America's police force that goes around and shoots blacks by the minute?

Wrong. Let me point out the three best statistics from this study.

1) You have the same chance of getting killed by the police as you do of getting hit by lightning.

2) Black males have 37x more chance of being murdered by a private citizen than they do by a cop who is on duty.

3) 89.6% of blacks murdered... are murdered by other blacks.

Well shit, that basically blows apart the BLM's entire movement. But when did the left let facts get in the way of feelings?

And that's the problem I have. Conservatives aren't perfect. It's why we are conservative; we do not adapt to change easily. But we don't go around perpetuating lies as a way of institutionalizing racism. Even Trump's most asinine comments about immigration are not unfounded. That is a job that the left does.

look guys, someone isn't afraid of being a dickhole cause being kind might be construed as pc!

how is that opinion "educated"? i'd be surprised if you were even fully aware of what the cell was made of, let alone the complex neuropsychiatric and genetic challenges in understanding the science behind trans. you provided no evidence for why you think the way you do, all the while claiming the toxic opinion informed.

it is a hard stretch because democrats aren't generally liberals or progressives by any stretch of the imagination.

there is no evidence to support the claim that blm protesters generally support desegregation.

1. ??? this is not relevant. comparing averages isn't a statistical analysis of the problem. here ya go.

2. again, so? this isn't a check for racial bias. also, no shit, we can assume criminals will kill more often.

3. BLACK ON BLACK CRIME YOOO. again, no shit. this is true for each race, according to fbi crime stats. the question to be asked is is there a racial bias against blacks? well, when it comes to criminal behavior, that's a little harder to prove. but cops are analyzed above.

Is this a serious question or do you simply not pay attention to the actual rhetoric that Black Lives Matter uses?

As for the second line, I get the feeling that you simply don't understand the issue here. I'm pointing out that there is a cultural problem here. Black men kill each other much more often than white men kill them. As I stated, it's 90%. If you don't believe me, look at the evidence. So why is Obama speaking about racial problems within the policing community that don't exist?

lol, do you?

because racial problems do exist. it's not just about being killed by people. non-white people in this nation are treated differently. often they're seen as criminals, don't get hired (even if all else equal), don't go to college, etc. they don't have remotely similar opportunities compared to many whites. you don't live here, so it makes sense you don't get it. but just because you don't get it doesn't mean you should refuse it being true. more focused to your question, we see that blacks are targeted by police. there exists racial bias.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Tryhard]

Understand that I lost my entire post twice. I edited it so that it is now complete.

Granted, I responded before that and I'm glad you're not going to try to convince me of it, but I guess that means I'm not going to try and convince you that trans people are actual human beings. If you were saying that you don't believe getting an operation is helpful, then I would be fine with that, but it's not your decision to make nor to declare anyone's human rights forfeit.

As for the rest, I don't believe BLM is for segregation (and actually I think I agree with the point Phillius made that it is similar to feminism/MRA where it's criticizing individuals) for the reasons others have said, but I do agree that members of it are sometimes very disagreeable. And like pretty much everyone else said, both black-on-black crime and police hostility towards blacks are both issues with no easy solutions.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Tryhard

[Balcerzak]

It is a serious question. I have heard anti-cop rhetoric from the fringe crazies but I have yet to hear "whites and blacks should be separated!"

Black Activists Need Black-Only Spaces. Here’s Why We Should Respect That

Black students demand segregated spaces from white students

Black Lives Matter slams public library’s ban on blacks-only meetings as racist

???

How have you not heard these (and many similar)?

Edited August 4, 2016 by Balcerzak

[Moblin Major General]

Black Activists Need Black-Only Spaces. Here’s Why We Should Respect That

Black students demand segregated spaces from white students

Black Lives Matter slams public library’s ban on blacks-only meetings as racist

???

How have you not heard these (and many similar)?

Since when is pushing for resegregation a good thing? Their forefathers fought against this crap! It seems the Democrats still hold control over the minorities, albeit in a different, but more sinister form.

[Augestein]

Since when is pushing for resegregation a good thing? Their forefathers fought against this crap! It seems the Democrats still hold control over the minorities, albeit in a different, but more sinister form.

You know what's fun? Having people lump all minorities together because of a couple of dunces. Clearly all of humanity is stupid because some of them are not very bright.

[Moblin Major General]

You know what's fun? Having people lump all minorities together because of a couple of dunces. Clearly all of humanity is stupid because some of them are not very bright.

Irony aside, you are correct. One idiot can change public opinion on a whim, and that's wrong. The mob mentality of people is so easily turned against them.

[Phoenix Wright]

Black Activists Need Black-Only Spaces. Here’s Why We Should Respect That

Black students demand segregated spaces from white students

Black Lives Matter slams public library’s ban on blacks-only meetings as racist

???

How have you not heard these (and many similar)?

none of this is segregation lol

ucb has an "afro-house" where black students can apply for living so they feel most comfortable. it works out fine. black students still interact with the rest of the student body, and aren't cutoff at all from anything or anyone. nor is anyone or anything cutoff from them. ucla wants to follow suit.

http://housing2.berkeley.edu/theme

i'd wager most universities have a "latino club," "black club," etc. etc. it's common.

i mean, if we're now defining segregation to mean sometimes people of a certain race/religion/orientation wanna meet amongst themselves then that's just stupid. the reason why when white people do it it's seen as wrong or racist is because the majority of the nation is already white--you'll find much of the classrooms, work environments, etc. are predominantly or exclusively white. so what would a white meeting do that daily life already doesn't?

Granted, I responded before that and I'm glad you're not going to try to convince me of it, but I guess that means I'm not going to try and convince you that trans people are actual human beings. If you were saying that you don't believe getting an operation is helpful, then I would be fine with that, but it's not your decision to make nor to declare anyone's human rights forfeit.

As for the rest, I don't believe BLM is for segregation (and actually I think I agree with the point Phillius made that it is similar to feminism/MRA where it's criticizing individuals) for the reasons others have said, but I do agree that members of it are sometimes very disagreeable. And like pretty much everyone else said, both black-on-black crime and police hostility towards blacks are both issues with no easy solutions.

black on black crime is as much a thing as white on white crime, or asian on asian crime, or what have you.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Balcerzak]

I'm familiar with certain things of a similar nature to the "afro-house" you mention. U of M Ann Arbor had a Jewish house, predominately for Jewish students, but the thing is, other people were not discriminated from living there if they so chose (I asked specifically if I had to be Jewish and was told "of course not" when I was touring it. Indeed it was rather high up on my list of places I considered living for my first year of grad school, but I ultimately settled on a different apartment with a better room size to rent ratio).

There is a very large difference between a club that advertises and encourages members of a race to join, and one that specifically excludes members not of that race from joining. When you're turning away potential allies based on the color of their skin and not the content of their character, that, to me, is a huge problem. How is that not segregation? How does that not go against what the Civil Rights Movement strove to achieve?

[Augestein]

I'm familiar with certain things of a similar nature to the "afro-house" you mention. U of M Ann Arbor had a Jewish house, predominately for Jewish students, but the thing is, other people were not discriminated from living there if they so chose (I asked specifically if I had to be Jewish and was told "of course not" when I was touring it. Indeed it was rather high up on my list of places I considered living for my first year of grad school, but I ultimately settled on a different apartment with a better room size to rent ratio).

There is a very large difference between a club that advertises and encourages members of a race to join, and one that specifically excludes members not of that race from joining. When you're turning away potential allies based on the color of their skin and not the content of their character, that, to me, is a huge problem. How is that not segregation? How does that not go against what the Civil Rights Movement strove to achieve?

I agree there is a difference, but it's not a huge one from on-lookers. I personally see no reason to have a "women's society for engineers," but then there's no "men's society for engineers," the male's version is just "the society for engineers."

It's almost like a soft form of segregation versus a hard form of segregation-- ie, one is inadvertently encouraged through naming conventions, while the latter is pushed and enforced. Obviously one is worse than the other, but I was never fond of a club or something that even bothered to encourage people to join based on physiological attributes rather than psychological interests.

[Phoenix Wright]

There is a very large difference between a club that advertises and encourages members of a race to join, and one that specifically excludes members not of that race from joining. When you're turning away potential allies based on the color of their skin and not the content of their character, that, to me, is a huge problem. How is that not segregation? How does that not go against what the Civil Rights Movement strove to achieve?

this i can say we agree on. after reading over some of the demands myself, it would appear that at least ucla students are asking for a "black only" house. i can't say i support the notion at all. i'd be more for that + allies type of thing. or just poor students in general. i don't go to either ucla or ucb, but i'd appreciate something like that very much.

to respond to the larger point, i think the greater issue is that black students are fearful enough to demand things like this. like that one makalov fellow here that literally fears brown people because of the incident in florida. whilst i think the students in question are misguided, i think rather than focusing on that we should focus on reshaping our culture so that doesn't happen.

I agree there is a difference, but it's not a huge one from on-lookers. I personally see no reason to have a "women's society for engineers," but then there's no "men's society for engineers," the male's version is just "the society for engineers."

It's almost like a soft form of segregation versus a hard form of segregation-- ie, one is inadvertently encouraged through naming conventions, while the latter is pushed and enforced. Obviously one is worse than the other, but I was never fond of a club or something that even bothered to encourage people to join based on physiological attributes rather than psychological interests.

with the case of wise, i think it's very warranted. i'm in physics, and the guys can be pretty big douches here. women often don't have access to a support group at all. wise benefits only women, but there's so few women in engineering and physics especially, that i'd say it's almost necessary...

Edited August 4, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[CyborgZeta]

The right's reputation didn't suddenly materialize out of nowhere, guys.

And the Democrats were also once the party of slavery and Jim Crow.

There's a history of racism in both parties.

[Augestein]

with the case of wise, i think it's very necessary. i'm in physics, and the guys can be pretty big douches here. women often don't have access to a support group at all. wise benefits only women, but there's so few women in engineering and physics especially, that i'd say it's almost necessary...

Might just be where you went/are going to school. There were less women at my school, but rude people were rude regardless of your background. Quite a few of my peers were women though. And I think that's some of the issue though. When someone is rude, there's this weird assumption that the person would somehow NOT be rude if you had more in common for appearances, when I don't see anything to support that notion.

[Phoenix Wright]

well by douches, i mean treating them like that cause they're women, or saying sexist things, etc.

i'm at uc santa cruz, which is generally more hippie than most of the united states universities. also happens to be very good for astrophysics (and lots of people come here for that). the lack of women (and minorities in general) in stem is not a local issue, it's a national (and in some cases global) issue.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Augestein]

Ah, I see. Although I'd ask if the lack of women wanting to do the major is a problem. I mean maybe they just aren't interested.

For colleges, I suppose it depends, our school actually had overseas students all of the time so we were never short of any sort of minority. The biggest problem there was a cultural shock one where sometimes the students wouldn't talk for fear of being put down by their peers I found. Locally my area might not have this problem, but I'll admit that I haven't looked at many other colleges in this regard.

[Phoenix Wright]

i think that's an area of interesting study. i haven't read much on it, not really aware if any exists, but i am curious to know if women simply aren't interested (majority of women, or even sizable minority, i mean) in stem. it's a difficult question to answer because most people are taught science poorly for years and so stem suffers greatly from that.

[Lord Raven]

^ Would also be nice to see an article about shifting attitudes towards gender roles and whether or not the next generation will be affected by it. I know growing up we've had somewhat of a gender role focus in our education, probably much less than before, but it was still there. Because people stifling women for reasons related to gender roles could also be a contributing factor, considering I know I've met some girls who were told that their choice in being a science major wasn't "lady-like," but it could also be my experience from being from a culture who is quite far behind in gender roles stuff.

The second you feel the need to have a completely unnecessary medical procedure in order to change your sex because "you don't feel comfortable in your body", you have forfeited your right to be treated as a human being. Full fucking stop. It is a perversion of the animal kingdom.

You're saying that this is

a) unnecessary

b) it is a perversion of the animal kingdom

c) you've forfeited your right to a human being

Explain why a) is true, b) is necessary for humans to hold up, and how c) is even remotely relevant. b) may not even be true, because nobody has proven that animals cannot be transgender. If you can find the scientific literature that states that transgenderism is exclusive only to humans then go on ahead.

Then you go and say this:

First of all, I am not shouting down the other side and I am not stifling debate. You want to prove me wrong? Go ahead. I welcome an open debate where I can learn from the content.

Unpopular view but whatever. It is my informed opinion of the matter and I won't attempt to convince you because it sounds so evil.

It sounds like you just did right here, at any rate.

When your only argument is an ad hominem attack that these people have forfeited their right to be a human being for an ill-defined reason. How do you define being a human being?

EDIT: I'd respond to more but I gotta go to lunch with my dad

EDIT 2: Oh fuck I think most people did what I was going to do for me. I'm curious why people think white privilege is a myth in the US.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Tryhard]

They set up specific support groups, events and scholarships/grants to offer to female computer science students at my university. It struck me as kind of odd that it could be seen as them having to bribe women in order to being comfortable/willing to go into STEM fields.

I think from what I've read of studies women just generally aren't interested in STEM, and I'm not sure anything could be done to change that.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

I dunno, but from my understanding there's been a mentality of not including women/looking down on women in science. What Phoenix Wright is saying was accurate to a few of my female friends who were in grad programs in Boulder and at A&M. I know one of my female friends (she is a black computer engineer) was actually never invited to any study sessions ever and she had to get a few of her male friends to get stuff for her. I know a few professors in my department also said shit like "well at least women are good for baking!" I mean, this is university culture which is filled with old white dudes so it makes sense to a certain extent, but it's not any less pervasive.

I'm curious to see these studies though, I'm wondering if the lack of any female icons in STEM is a contributor to that mentality. Because when we talk about stem we gloss over the Marie Curies and instead focus on the Einsteins, Plancks, Teslas, and Hertz's. EDIT: And don't forget in the modern day how there's a focus on Michio Kaku (who I don't care for) and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. It's the same idea with minorities too; it's harder to be interested in a subject where your demographic isn't featured or celebrated in any way, shape, or form. This is also a reason why my professor pulled my friend aside (she is kind of lazy and she messes around a lot but she gets her shit done) and lectured her on how we need women in physics and how she needs to pave the way for it.

I know for a fact that there were a ton of black people I grew up with and knew closely that idolized Ben Carson and looked to him as a role model and inspiration to become a doctor, and now they're disenfranchised with him completely. They pretty much want to throw him out the window, but they're still pursuing their dreams of being a physician. It's kind of that idea.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Lord Raven

[CyborgZeta]

To be honest, the idea of "white privilege" sounds silly to me.

The US was founded by white people, and white people have been the majority since then. Of course the majority is going to be more privileged.

Would you go to China and complain about "Han Chinese privilege"? How about Russia and "Russian privilege"?

It's even stranger to see it in Europe, because Europe is basically the "homeland" of white people, and the countries there are comprised of white ethnic groups. Why would you go into someone else's country and complain about the people who predominately live there?