Nobody still can answer this question: Why are the 1st world countries mainly overwhelmingly white populated countries? And why do every other ethnic group such as Chinese people, Mexican people, East Indians, etc all want to illegal immigrate to the U.S and Canada which are majority white populated? And why do many Africans illegal immigrate to Europe:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/european-u...rises-african-migrants-converge-italy-1450553
*Awaits more troll and gif/image respond posts because they don't want to answer it*
Why don't you answer your own question?
Are you actually suggesting that "overwhelmingly White populated countries" are supposedly better off
because of their White populations?
How do you define success anyway? GDP per capita?
| 1 | Qatar | 143,427 |
| 2 | Luxembourg | 92,049 |
| 3 | Singapore | 82,762 |
| 4 | Brunei | 73,233 |
| 5 | Kuwait | 71,020 |
| 6 | Norway | 66,937 |
| 7 | United Arab Emirates | 64,479 |
| 8 | San Marino | 60,664 |
| 9 | Switzerland | 58,087 |
| — | Hong Kong | 54,722 |
| 10 | United States | 54,597 |
How many White people do you suppose live in Qatar?
I don't suppose you're going to disagree with the "statistics or facts" now, are you?
This is like arguing that White people are lazy because, otherwise, why would all the manufacturing jobs be going to countries that aren't majority-White? You have a "fact" (or, at least, a
stat) and then you have a stereotype. Slapping one on top of the other doesn't qualify as a scientific explanation.
In your earlier post, you suggested that,
the only solution is to separate the U.S into 4 sections, each section housing Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, all separate. This will never happen, but hypothetically, which sections will come crumbling down? Economy-wise, population-wise, quality of life-wise, etc.
As appalling as is to go around promoting segregation and calling people "colored" like you're George Wallace, what's really most offensive here is the implication that, in a system of racial segregation, "certain" sections (and, just so we're not making any unfair assumptions, please point out exactly which sections you're referring to) would "come crumbling down" simply because those "types" of people are apparently inferior and incapable of self-governance.
When it comes to racism, that's about as old school as it gets. That's on some Frederick Lugard's "
The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa," Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda's "
On the Reasons for the Just War among the Indians," type racism.
At the very least, the implication there is that certain types of people are "culturally inferior," if not
genetically inferior, and could only benefit from the "benign influence" of their captors, oppressors, or subjugators.
If it was your goal to say, in essence, "don't de-humanize or stereotype White people," (a reasonable request) your strategy of dehumanizing and stereotyping people of color through implied inferiority was a catastrophically poor choice.
Once again, who is the reppin that foolishness.
The answer wouldn't surprise you. At all.
