Quote:

---

And "contemporary" does not mean "more correct" or "better."

---

Didn't say it does.

Quote:

---

Just because we let a bunch of Indians in to America and they want to be called American doesn't mean they are.

---

Just because you don't want them to be doesn't mean they aren't.

We've also got a guy going against the Irish and Italians now too, you're going to have discuss your 'shared lineage' argument with him.

It appears Indians have a large interest in mass migration to New Zealand. Wanna bet they feel that strong about American immigration. New Zealand's Big Move Could Hurt Indian Immigrants | Indians In New Zealand

Lance Uppercut said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Quote:

---

Because we all understand America to be a European country

---

That's not how I remember the Irish/Italians/Polish etc. being welcomed to the country. It's almost like things and definitions change over time.

---

No one ever wanted immigrants from anywhere to show up on America's doorstep, but they were always allowed under every Immigration and Naturalization Act prior to Hart Celler provided they were "free white persons of good character"

The multiracial aspect of America is entirely modern and a direct rejection of founding principles.

---

Quote:

---

Hart Celler

---

Yep, which was in 1965. Again, it's 2026.

Quote:

---

The multiracial aspect of America is entirely modern and a direct rejection of founding principles.

---

Well, it was multiracial in the fact that there were black slaves. Which is another indication that not all founding principles are good founding principles.

---

Like I said, a modern rejection of founding principles. And I would prefer the principles of the founding to what we have now, but I am actually an American. Not some paperwork citizen that spits on my nation.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

It doesn't look like those are exactly a majority of contemporary references. Just because someone 100+ years ago said Americans=white doesn't mean everyone understands it to be so now. Especially since so many of them aren't.

AI search a contemporary understanding of the term "American" now and post it for us.

---

No, because your entire assertion is subjective at this point.

There is no such thing as objective fact if it's based on consensus.

Is Jewish ethnicity or Japanese subject to popular opinion? If enough Indians decide they're Japanese, does that make it a fact?

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Quote:

---

Just because we let a bunch of Indians in to America and they want to be called American doesn't mean they are.

---

Just because you don't want them to be doesn't mean they aren't..

---

They aren't American because they are Indian. It has nothing to do with what you or I say. It is objective fact.

Indians outnumber Americans no matter how you define it. If it's a matter of votes, they could make it a fact that only people born in India are Americans.

You didn't get the memo?

All Americans are equal, but some Americans are more equal than others.

Logos Stick said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

For you Christian nationalists, who say that America is only for Christians (which is dumb and evil)....did you know that there is a long-lived population of Indian Christians in India? That's why many have Christian names.

Now you know.

---

Jesus says that heaven is only for Christians. Is he dumb and evil too?

In India, Indian Christians face violence, intimidation, legal harassment, and social pressure. That's why there are so few. "Many have Christian names"?! LOL,no.

Now you know.

---

There are two parts of the story.
India's indigenous religions are Hinduism and from that arose Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. And some minor religions. Zoroastrianism came from Persia/Iran after the Muslims drove them out. Islam came from outside via conquest. Christianity came in via missionaries.

Islam and Christianity are trying to convert the country to their own religions. They do that via proselytization, conversion events, bribe, pressure etc etc. The local Hindus do not like this as it causes demography changes much like we are upset with Indians taking over Dallas, Austin and Houston and parts of Detroit.

So there have been some attacks in some parts of the country. There is no official program against Christians, or Muslims or anyone else.

I personally am against religious conversions. I can see why people do not like it. If you go to a foreign country and try to convert people by any means, be prepared to face the consequences. If you do it in Saudi Arabia you will get your d*** chopped off.

Sweep4-2 said:

---

You didn't get the memo?

All Americans are equal, but some Americans are more equal than others.

---

On the contrary, some people aren't American at all.

Quote:

---

No, because your entire assertion is subjective at this point

---

As is yours. Which is the point. Jewish people can be Americans. Japanese people can be Americans. Japanese can describe ethnicity or citizenship. Americans could become Japanese citizens and renounce their US citizenship.

Just because someone assigned a meaning you prefer to a word in the 1800s doesn't mean it's the same thing now. Most people will understand the word American in current context to mean a person that could include a person of Indian ethnicity. You might not like that, but it's not some kind of misconception that only I believe.

Lol, yes. The majority of the world isn't American, so I hear ya' loud and clear.

Is that what I'm supposed to be reacting to?

Quote:

---

As is yours. Which is the point. Jewish people can be Americans. Japanese people can be Americans. Japanese can describe ethnicity or citizenship. Americans could become Japanese citizens and renounce their US citizenship.

Just because someone assigned a meaning you prefer to a word in the 1800s doesn't mean it's the same thing now. Most people will understand the word American in current context to mean a person that could include a person of Indian ethnicity. You might not like that, but it's not some kind of misconception that only I believe.

---

There is nothing subjective about it, you're just conflating ethnic identity with citizenship.

Jewish people can be American citizens. Just like Japanese people.

You obviously see that Japanese has both uses - it describes ethnicity and citizenship. Why is it so hard for you to understand that American does as well?

I'm not redefining the word any more than you're redefining "Japanese" but recognizing both uses.

Just clearing up your misconceptions about my position, but I know you want everyone to know you read Animal Farm in middle school so have at it.

Faulty assumption there. I didn't read your position(s).

That attempted 'cut down' also feels like it was in middle school.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

As is yours. Which is the point. Jewish people can be Americans. Japanese people can be Americans. Japanese can describe ethnicity or citizenship. Americans could become Japanese citizens and renounce their US citizenship.

Just because someone assigned a meaning you prefer to a word in the 1800s doesn't mean it's the same thing now. Most people will understand the word American in current context to mean a person that could include a person of Indian ethnicity. You might not like that, but it's not some kind of misconception that only I believe.

---

There is nothing subjective about it, you're just conflating ethnic identity with citizenship.

Jewish people can be American citizens. Just like Japanese people.

You obviously see that Japanese has both uses - it describes ethnicity and citizenship. Why is it so hard for you to understand that American does as well?

I'm not redefining the word any more than you're redefining "Japanese" but recognizing both uses.

---

Can you find me a current definition of the term American that says it's reserved for white people, and that it's understood to be this definition by most people? Or do you only assign fact status to your AI prompts that you tailored to get information from 100 years ago?

It's interesting that other countries like Africa, India and Japan are never asking for more whites or diversity.

Your ancestry is obviously a fact, but the line people keep drawing around who counts as "American" is highly subjective and inconsistent. I understand your point that "American ethnogenesis occurred on the Frontier," but why would the end of the Frontier permanently close the gate? So the descendants of white immigrants who arrived after 1890 (the official closure of the Frontier) are simply not American.

Since you brought up your Asian wife earlier in the thread, I am genuinely curious how descent works under your definition. Your kids presumably qualify through you, but what about their kids and grandkids? Is one pre-Frontier ancestor enough forever, or is there some sort of ancestry threshold?

Sweep4-2 said:

---

Faulty assumption there. I didn't read your position(s).

That attempted 'cut down' also feels like it was in middle school.

---

Man, you are stuck on middle school, huh? What are you reading next? The Outsiders?

annie88 said:

---

It's interesting that other countries like Africa, India and Japan are never asking for more whites or diversity.

---

Wrong way to look at it.

It's interesting/notable that white people aren't trying to get to those places.

Vessel said:

---

annie88 said:

---

It's interesting that other countries like Africa, India and Japan are never asking for more whites or diversity.

---

Wrong way to look at it.

It's interesting/notable that white people aren't trying to get to those places.

---

Understood, but even if they were, it would be the same sentiment.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

As is yours. Which is the point. Jewish people can be Americans. Japanese people can be Americans. Japanese can describe ethnicity or citizenship. Americans could become Japanese citizens and renounce their US citizenship.

Just because someone assigned a meaning you prefer to a word in the 1800s doesn't mean it's the same thing now. Most people will understand the word American in current context to mean a person that could include a person of Indian ethnicity. You might not like that, but it's not some kind of misconception that only I believe.

---

There is nothing subjective about it, you're just conflating ethnic identity with citizenship.

Jewish people can be American citizens. Just like Japanese people.

You obviously see that Japanese has both uses - it describes ethnicity and citizenship. Why is it so hard for you to understand that American does as well?

I'm not redefining the word any more than you're redefining "Japanese" but recognizing both uses.

---

Can you find me a current definition of the term American that says it's reserved for white people, and that it's understood to be this definition by most people? Or do you only assign fact status to your AI prompts that you tailored to get information from 100 years ago?

---

Is the current definition of what a woman is valid to you? Or did things change for the worse after the 1960s in more ways than one?

gbaby23 said:

---

Sweep4-2 said:

---

Faulty assumption there. I didn't read your position(s).

That attempted 'cut down' also feels like it was in middle school.

---

Man, you are stuck on middle school, huh? What are you reading next? The Outsiders?

---

Lol, nice one. My comment about not reading your posts wasn't an attack or anything. I was responding to a different poster (until you replied to me).

I have no idea what your positions are and wasn't addressing them either way.

Now back to my Clifford the Big Red Dog books!

So much of the discussion around Bo French's original tweet is nonsense.

He never said those kids weren't citizens. He never said their parents weren't citizens.

He never said anyone had fraudulent credentials or had scammy visas.

He never said the students were DEI admits or that they weren't assimilating.

He simply said: "The problem (meaning mass immigration from India) was obviously far worse than anyone imagined."

He isn't wrong about that. It's a topic that many Americans have been discussing for a long time as they've watched their communities be transformed.

If you are arguing that these kids are assimilated or their parents are great or they are just as American as you, you are wasting your time. You're probably right about all of it. But still ...

NONE OF THAT MATTERS.

America is for Americans, and until we have plentiful good jobs and plentiful affordable housing and a standard of living that allows our citizens to build successful lives and families, we don't need third-world immigrants.

Sure, if some Indian guy is a great cardiothoracic surgeon, let him immigrate.

Otherwise, shut the door. We don't need H1-B visa holders working at Buc-ee's or owning vape shops or even writing code at Microsoft.

Quote:

---

Can you find me a current definition of the term American that says it's reserved for white people? Or do you only assign fact status to your AI prompts that you tailored to get information from 100 years ago?

---

No one said American is reserved for white people. You are changing the claim, like you have over and over again every time you've said something factually incorrect.

The word "American" has more than one use. It can mean citizen of the US, and it can describe an ancestry or ethnic identity rooted in the historical American population.

The US Census Bureau recognizes American as ancestry / ethnic-origin category, it is one of the largest reported ancestries in the US.

The American Heritage Dictionary has an entry for Anglo American.

Words can have civic and ethnic meaning. Just like "Japanese" and "Indian" do.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Spergin said:

---

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

If I live in New Dehli my whole life, does that make me Indian? If I live in Tokyo, does that make me Japanese?

---

Is this really a novel idea?

Yes, you'd literally be Japanese if you were born there, grew up there, and spent your whole life there. Just like you literally wouldn't be an American, because you'd never been here before. You would just be Japanese of whatever descent you are...and you'd probably know and practice a lot of their cultural norms or you wouldn't have been born and brought up there.

Being white doesn't determine your nationality.

---

The Japanese would never consider you Japanese, you will forever be "gaijin" to them. It's honestly hilarious that you would think otherwise. Perhaps you should actually listen to the Japanese before opening your mouth.

---

Didn't say they would.

Some black people, Tejanos, Asians, Native Americans....but no Indians. Got it. What about Inuits and Hawaiians? Do they have to be able to do a certain amount of push ups, or is this another one of those "facts" I don't know about?

---

It is assumed that Native Americans included Inuit and Hawaiians, but you knew that.

Spergin said:

---

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Spergin said:

---

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

If I live in New Dehli my whole life, does that make me Indian? If I live in Tokyo, does that make me Japanese?

---

Is this really a novel idea?

Yes, you'd literally be Japanese if you were born there, grew up there, and spent your whole life there. Just like you literally wouldn't be an American, because you'd never been here before. You would just be Japanese of whatever descent you are...and you'd probably know and practice a lot of their cultural norms or you wouldn't have been born and brought up there.

Being white doesn't determine your nationality.

---

The Japanese would never consider you Japanese, you will forever be "gaijin" to them. It's honestly hilarious that you would think otherwise. Perhaps you should actually listen to the Japanese before opening your mouth.

---

Didn't say they would.

Some black people, Tejanos, Asians, Native Americans....but no Indians. Got it. What about Inuits and Hawaiians? Do they have to be able to do a certain amount of push ups, or is this another one of those "facts" I don't know about?

---

It is assumed that Native Americans included Inuit and Hawaiians, but you knew that.

---

Based on his other posts in this thread, I actually highly doubt that.

annie88 said:

---

It's interesting that other countries like Africa, India and Japan are never asking for more whites or diversity.

---

They'll never do that because they don't want multiculturalism. They don't want it because they know it doesn't work. There is not a more divided nation on the planet than America. It won't survive in its current form.

Quote:

---

The word "American" has more than one use

---

Exactly. We agree.

Vessel said:

---

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Quote:

---

Because we all understand America to be a European country

---

That's not how I remember the Irish/Italians/Polish etc. being welcomed to the country. It's almost like things and definitions change over time.

---

They may not have been welcomed at first but they still fit seamlessly in to America because they looked and acted like everybody else for the most part. This was made simple by the fact that they had a shared lineage and shared cultural experience which included the Enlightenment and every philosophical/technical advancement in just about the history of the world.

The Americans who had an issue with Polish/Irish/Italians based this on ethnic and religious grounds. Imagine how they'd feel about Indians lol.

---

They were considered white but even these groups, as close as they are to Anglo-Saxons took more than 100 years to integrate with numerous problems along the process.

It takes 5+ generations to integrate, it's not a quick, easy, or painless process. It will take even longer if the people are from a completely alien culture and religion and in that case it may never happen unless they interbreed with Americans like the Asians did.

Logos Stick said:

---

annie88 said:

---

It's interesting that other countries like Africa, India and Japan are never asking for more whites or diversity.

---

They'll never do that because they don't want multiculturalism. They don't want it because they know it doesn't work. There is not a more divided nation on the planet than America. It won't survive in its current form.

---

Yup. Only certain countries are expected to do this.

As unfair as it may be, posts like what Bo French made are why some people think the GOP is full of racists. It was completely out of line

rsf0626 said:

---

As unfair as it may be, posts like what Bo French made are why some people think the GOP is full of racists. It was completely out of line

---

I would rather be a racist than replaced.

Spergin said:

---

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Spergin said:

---

Lance Uppercut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

If I live in New Dehli my whole life, does that make me Indian? If I live in Tokyo, does that make me Japanese?

---

Is this really a novel idea?

Yes, you'd literally be Japanese if you were born there, grew up there, and spent your whole life there. Just like you literally wouldn't be an American, because you'd never been here before. You would just be Japanese of whatever descent you are...and you'd probably know and practice a lot of their cultural norms or you wouldn't have been born and brought up there.

Being white doesn't determine your nationality.

---

The Japanese would never consider you Japanese, you will forever be "gaijin" to them. It's honestly hilarious that you would think otherwise. Perhaps you should actually listen to the Japanese before opening your mouth.

---

Didn't say they would.

Some black people, Tejanos, Asians, Native Americans....but no Indians. Got it. What about Inuits and Hawaiians? Do they have to be able to do a certain amount of push ups, or is this another one of those "facts" I don't know about?

---

It is assumed that Native Americans included Inuit and Hawaiians, but you knew that.

---

Uh oh! The census has a separate category for Hawaiians. We're going to have to circle up to get our definitions matched up again.

rsf0626 said:

---

As unfair as it may be, posts like what Bo French made are why some people think the GOP is full of racists. It was completely out of line

---

I like it when the lines are very clear and stark. When people actually say what they think and they don't hide what they think. If you are a white nationalist running for office, that person should make sure to tell everyone.

BharatAg said:

---

Your ancestry is obviously a fact, but the line people keep drawing around who counts as "American" is highly subjective and inconsistent. I understand your point that "American ethnogenesis occurred on the Frontier," but why would the end of the Frontier permanently close the gate? So the descendants of white immigrants who arrived after 1890 (the official closure of the Frontier) are simply not American.

Since you brought up your Asian wife earlier in the thread, I am genuinely curious how descent works under your definition. Your kids presumably qualify through you, but what about their kids and grandkids? Is one pre-Frontier ancestor enough forever, or is there some sort of ancestry threshold?

---

I don't have an Asian wife, what are you talking about? My wife and kids are white. My wife can trace her ancestry back as far as mine.

As for ethnogenesis and why I define it with the Frontier? Because that's how everyone defines it. It's where the American identity and community was formed. It's where all of our culture originated. Everything that came after this is merely a derivative of that.

All of Texas culture is Frontier in origin. It's where Americans paid for their nation in blood, sweat, and tears. My family has graves on property going back to the mid 1800s.