MovieChat Forums > David1616 > Replies
David1616's Replies
Not a counter argument that race differences cannot be the cause for average behavioral differences. Humans and Chimps are also 98.5% genetically identical
No, all racial discriminations is not illegal. Choosing who to marry or who to invite for dinner is not illegal. White people voting for White identity politics is also not illegal. And plenty of things are illegal and were illegal in history, that doesn't mean they're moral. Making an appeal to current laws is not an argument that those laws are moral.
OK what this link you provided prove? What data did they look at? What methodology did they use and what did they control for? A meta analysis in the US has proven CJS isn't racist which puts into question the idea that UK is. Did they control for all Black behavioral differences? (likelihood of taking risks, making stupi crime choices, having worse lawyers due to being poorer, court room behavior...etc) If not, it doesn't prove injustice to Blacks.
<blockquote>Virtually every rightwinger on this board implies or states the need for white supremacy,</blockquote>
So since you can't find an example of a prominent WN who advocates White rule over Blacks, you change the topic to your unproven claim that no name losers on an obscure interne forum support it? Wow if this isn't the most pathetic argument I've come across.
<blockquote>There is no mention of the 'current' in the OP. So, goalpost moving again.</blockquote>
Current is logically implied in the post. Movements are judged by their current positions not their past ones. You are changing my original challenge because you can't name any good examples and you don't want to admit you lost.
South Africa is becoming a failed state. Plenty of Blacks themselves think it was better for them under apartheid. They didn't have a right to vote, but their streets were safer and didn't have as much corruption, blackouts and power outages. Just because a White thinks apartheid was better than current disaster the country is in doesn't mean he would favor White rules over a hypothetica racial split of the country. Show me a modern prominent WN who supports White rule over Blacks ahead of racial separation or admit you don't have an example of double standards.
Discriminatio and resentment (what you call "hate") is a result of differences in behavior and behavior differences have never been proven to be divorced from genetics. All evidence suggests they are connected.
<blockquote>All those jailed after the recent riots no doubt had t</blockquote>
They were jailed for rioting, not raising political grievances.
<blockquote>I just don't believe you cannot distinguish between hate and something clearly milder, sorry.</blockquote>
Yes you can distinguish between hate speech and legit ethnic grievances. Saying "ethnic group X are scum and they need to be expelled" is hate speech. Saying "ethnic group X are an economic and crime burden on the country and we ought to stop importing them and we ought to put pressure on their communities to improve" is a legit grievance and a valid political argument provided the data is correct.
How are Taylor's views extreme? He is a White advocate no more extreme than Ibram Kendi or Al Sharpton for Blacks. In fact he wants less for Whites that the previous two hoaxers demand for Blacks.
Why are you changing topic to groups like Proud Boys and Oath Keepers (who aren't even White nationalists). Isn't one of their leaders mixed Black and Latino? LOL. Either show me which prominent White nationalist supported Jan. 6 or admit WN don't have a double standard which is what I asked for. Hell even if they did support Jan. 6 it wouldn't be what I asked for since I asked for a double standard when it comes to RACE.
I never said that Whites are perfect. Nobody is perfect. Just because they might be a bit more moral than brown people, doesn't mean they ought to be held to unrealistic standards (practicing conquest during a time of extreme scarcity, when it was a universal ethic throughout the world). Whites were the first to free another ethnic group for slavery and they are the only group who ever fought for rights of someone else beside themselves. Yet they get no credit for it.
What good reasons? Name me a good reason why the guilt should be more directed against the West than to Arabs. If you ask me the real reason is that the West unlike Arabs is succeptable to guilt and has more riches to give them. This is what Whites get for being the only self critical race on the planet. Instead of credit, we get hated even more.
<blockquote>That is irrelevant to the guilt of the West for their part which was considerable. And as you think white culture etc is superior then we ought to hold ourselves to superior standards. Or presumable we are just as bad as 'them'.</blockquote>
How is it an irrelevant argument that almost half of Black Africa used to be slaves before Whites arrived and that Whites ended slavery in Africa? No, even if we accept Whites as superior that does not mean it's automatically justified to hold us to higher standards. An upstanding citizen will not be penalized for a crime any more than a crook. And today any notion of moral superiority of the West is vehemently denied. Even if you accept that superiors ought to be held to higher standards, this should not be applied until the West is universally accepted to be superior. Right now, lefties have their cake and eat it too. The West is not seen as superior, but is held to higher standards.
I guess you don't follow Black History Month then...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_African_civilization
Funny you quote Wokey-pedia, I looked at the article on African history about 10 years ago and it literally said they had no original written language, built no 2 story buildings, never build any mechanical device, domesticated any animals or built a ship that was sea worthy. Now after Trump won the elections, society went woke, "racism" was recognize as a serious threat, anything became justified in fighting against it, suddenly Wikipedia says Africa was civilized. Funny how that works, eh? Wikipedia has been proven to have a left bias. Even it's founder says it's not trust
<blockquote>Which if true, goes against your previous claims that (black) bad behavior was based on genes...</blockquote>
How so? You said White riots in the UK are not due to diversity. How are lack of riots in ethnically homogenous countries not a valid counter argument?
<blockquote>You have an unduly deterministic view of UK history to suit an agenda.</blockquote>
This is what I said:
You think <b>current</b> UK riots would be happening if the UK was 99% White?
<blockquote> lol Make yer mind up!</blockquote>
Those were two different contexts and two different arguments
<blockquote>It is wrong to discriminate on the basis of 'intelligence' and it is an excuse for racism since we do not exclude, say whites, in favor of the 'more intelligent' Asians.</blockquote>
Yes we do. Asians are wealthier than Whites, have higher education and nobody complains about that and calls it Asian supremacy. All I propose we apply the same standards to Whites.
<blockquote>Whites and black are not 'races'.</blockquote>
A really pathetic dodge
<blockquote>But economically illiterate. However as I have shown 'legit grievance' is not the same as a hate crime.</blockquote>
How is it economically illiterate? You failed to distinguish legit grievance and hate which is what I asked.
So you admit that the legal system does not allow ANY way for indigenous Whites to raise their legit ethnic grievances? That it doesn't even attempt to distinguish irrational hate and legit concerns? Yet you still accuse the right of "irrational hat" and claim it's not about legit grievances? That pretty much proves my case that what you label "hate" is justified and that the law is unjust to it's own indigenous ethnic group. They are being replaced in their own country by worse behaving ethnic groups, they were never asked and are censored and smeared and even prosecuted if they fight back.
<blockquote>By staying within the national and international law on hate which, as I have shown, has been the basis of frequent, successful prosecutions, based on clear definitions also shown</blockquote>
Most have stayed within the law. Mark Collet or Ane Marie Waters have never been convicted or hate. They are however accused of "hate" by the media and people like you and censored and smeared under it's justification. Yet nobody cannot disguise how what they is "hate" as opposed legit ethnic grievance. How would they raise ethnic grievances for native Brits without anyone accusing them of "hate"? Give me an example or admit the accusation of "hate" against them is unfair.
Even leftist admit there is 15% genetic variation between races. No science has ever proven this difference cannot be the cause of IQ, life success and crime differences. We know from twin studies that all important human psychological traits (intelligence, antisocial behavior, conscienscousness, agreeableness, psychopathy) are heavily genetic. If thre are differences between ethnic groups in behavior this strongly suggests it's due to genes. Blacks in London are 58% of murder suspects at 13% of the population. They were never slaves and or suffered from segregation. Asians in the US were discriminated against and have lower crime rates and more successful than Whites.
So you do not deny they are more likely on benefits? I am complaining about both. All Blacks are immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. If UK born Blacks behave worse then it's a valid argumnet not to take in much more Black immigrants.
<blockquote>Which fact indicates that they are a greater burden on the public purse from immigrants say, who tend to be young.</blockquote>
No it does not. Everyone gets old. Nobody choses to get old. You chose to live off welfare and commit crime though. Minorities will get old someday too. Minorities chosing to be a burden is a valid ethnic grievance against them and a good argument to stop importing them in mass.
So even you don't deny that they are a negative contribution? The whole point of immigration is supposedly economic benefit, even if they are a cost only 1 pound it's enough to not import them. And this "slightly negative" sounds much worse if you compare them to European immigrants who are VERY good contribution:
"EEA immigrants have not only consistently had a
higher revenues/expenditures ratio than natives but have often made positive fiscal
contributions even in years when the amount of public expenditure on natives has
been larger than natives’ fiscal payments."
Seems to me like we have made well case to import more White immigrants and less brown ones.
So you do not deny they are more likely on benefits? I am complaining about both. All Blacks are immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. If UK born Blacks behave worse then it's a valid argument not to take in much more Black immigrants.
<blockquote>Which fact indicates that they are a greater burden on the public purse from immigrants say, who tend to be young.</blockquote>
No it does not. Everyone gets old. Nobody choses to get old. You chose to live off welfare and commit crime though. Minorities will get old someday too. Minorities choosing to be a burden is a valid ethnic grievance against them and a good argument to stop importing them in mass.
So even you don't deny that they are a negative contribution? The whole point of immigration is supposedly economic benefit, even if they are a cost only 1 pound it's enough to not import them. And this "slightly negative" sounds much worse if you compare them to European immigrants who are VERY good contribution:
"EEA immigrants have not only consistently had a
higher revenues/expenditures ratio than natives but have often made positive fiscal
contributions even in years when the amount of public expenditure on natives has
been larger than natives’ fiscal payments."
Seems to me like we have made well case to import more White immigrants and less brown ones.
<blockquote>There is no correlation between IQ and 'peace'.</blockquote>
Yes there is a correlation between IQ and political stability and low crime.
<blockquote>There is no reason to discriminate on reason of 'intelligence' in whole groups since differences within groups are more than without them.</blockquote>
Yes there is a reason to discriminate on the basis of intelligence as long as we don't have the ability to read other people's minds. Employers tend to give IQ test to candidates.
<blockquote>On this basis, using your novel logic, they ought to be sent back to Europe where they came from.</blockquote>
Where are Whites swarming into East Asian countries? Where are Whites rioting and demanding stuff from Asians in East Asian countries?
<blockquote>Which sort of sums up the depth of your reasoning.</blockquote>
Not my reasoning. Common sense.
<blockquote>we sometimes offer hatred and inequality to them.</blockquote>
It has never been proven minority inequality is a result of White racism as opposed to minority behavior and all the evidence is against this. And even it was, we don't owe then any "equality" just as no ethnic group owes any other ethnic group anything but to leave them alone.
And how do you know those "small" (human and chimps are 98.5% genetically the same) aren't very important? All data shows Black and brown people are less sucessful than Whites werevery they live. The burden of equality is on you since you are importing them here and blaming Whites for their failures.
There is no world concensus on non existance of race among experts. It's just a popular political trend in the West steming from a tendancy to see yourself as a "moral" and "progressive" person.
In 2004 Leonard Lieberman reviewed several surveys of anthropologists and found that 31% of physical anthropologist in N. America regonize race and 43% recognize race in Europe. Specifically, they found that 50% of biological anthropologists accepted the concept of race, while 42% of biological anthropologists rejected it1. In 2009 Kaszycka survey of pyhs antrhopologists in Europe found that in E. Europe overwhelming recognize race, while in W. Europe about a third do.
In 2001 Štrakalj and Li Sun looked at 779 articles in the only Chinese anthropological journal and found overwhelming acceptance of race. The more West you go (the more individualistic and racially diverse society) the lower the recognition of race. Race denial seems to be a Western ideological tendancy steming from individualism as well as fear of what race recognititon would do to those diverse societies, rather than an objective socientific conclusion.
The argument from popularity could just as easily be applied to your supposed concencus of non existnace of race in the West. And the West (unlike China) has a political incentive to deny race
Again distinguish "hate" (ie resentment) from legtit ethnic grievances or shut up about hate. Every political movement has violence.
How is losing your homeland without ever being asked if you approve it not a legit grievance? How is being discriminated by DEI and AA as well as being labelled oppressor by media and universities not also?
Vice versa? How? White advocates generally don't want to forbid Black Identity politics provided White identity politics is allowed. They don't advocate censorship of Black identity politics or cancel culture on Black identity politics. They don't oppose Black sovereignty provided White sovereignty is allowed. Black advocates or the left on the other hand do demand censorship of White IP and don't want to allow White sovereignty. The left has double standards, not WN.
White privilege is not a legit social grievance. All examples of "White privilege" are natural social mechanism. All examples of Black/minority privilege are of artificial social mechanisms. The argument of WP is essentially Whites behave better therefor tend to get treated better. If they behave better how is their treatment (even if truly better) unfair? The same applies and bad behavior of Blacks.
No ethnic groups deserves "equality" if they do not behave equally. Either make ethnic differences in behavior go away, invent and implement mind reading or shut up about discrimination. Hell, even if Whites were discriminating against Blacks entirely due to irrational tribal reasons, they would have a right to, since they are a people and every people has a right to intergroup preference. Nobody is forcing Blacks to live with Whites.
Why are you linking me leftist biased opinion pieces? The left plays explicit and direct Black identity politics, but then wants to forbid (censor, stigmatize or otherwise artificially suppress) reactionary White identity politics. Hypocrisy on steroids.
No, riots are an inevitable cause of unnatural demographic replacement (especially from much worse behaving ethnic groups) which the people were never asked about. Why are there no referendums on immigration? Please answer.
<blockquote>It is a truism that those who have less investment in society and less education, achievement etc are more likely to commit crime.</blockquote>
Ok so you admit it.
There is tremendous reasons to be skeptical about data that minorities are oppressed. Data shows less educated Blacks claim they were victims of racism more than more educated ones. Also that older Blacks report less racism than younger ones. That does not fit with common sense and fits perfectly with modern woke society TELLING Blacks they are oppressed.
Also any discrimination even when proven real has to be controlled for THEIR BEHAVIOR. You can't have a society where a visible ethnic minority behaves much worse than the majority and expect no discrimination. People can't read other people's minds and we live in a world were people have to fend for themselves. Why aren't Chinese discriminated as much as Blacks? If Blacks get discriminated due to their behavior, then they - at least on a collective level - aren't victims which is what the left alleges.
No, non White immigrants (non EEA) are a cost, while White ones (EEA) are a benefit. This fits perfectly with White nationalism. You lose.
<blockquote>Legal definitions given already but thank you. If something is found illegal it cannot be 'legit' can it? QED </blockquote>
Again with a dodge. If WHOEVER (you or the legal system) claims that the so called "far right" is engaging in irrational hate and not legit ethnic grievances, YOU or the LEGAL SYSTEM has to distinguish these two behaviors. How is what the far right does "irrational hate" as opposed to legit ethnic grievance? How would native White Brits raise legit ethnic grievances without being accused of "hate"? You have to make that distinction in order to accuse them of hate. Just like if you accuse someone of murder and claim it was not self defense, you have to distinguish murder from self defense. If you can't make that distinction you can't condemn their behavior. In a democratic society ethnic groups HAVE TO be able to raise ethnic grievances.
David Reich is a Jewish American geneticist and a liberal. He writes in NYT in 2018:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
"I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”
"I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of <b>substantial</b> biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science."
Not a single affluent Black society in the world despite them living on 5 continents, in 50 different countries with differen histories and cultures. If you group different world regions by historic economic growth, there is almost a perfect correlation with skin color (race). The darker the skin, the worst the economic growth (India is the only exception). It is BURDEN ON YOU to prove there is no important differences between the races, because YOU are the one importing them.
Riots wouldn't happen if government only imported good behavin ethnic groups or at least listened to the working class or IDK maybe had a referendum on immigration. You know thing called democracy.
There will always be inequality among ethnic groups. Even if someone would prove genetics aren't the cause there is still culture, habits, family structure and skills...There is no benefit to try to artificially level them as it will just cause political problem, cause inefficiency and injustice to individuals. I don't see even any benefits of ethnic equality. The only problems are caused by society LYING to less successfu ethnic groups that they are oppressed.
So if Whites would move to a brown country like Sri Lanka, became a huge burden, refused to respect the host nations, it wouldn't be fair to say to them "either respect Sri Lankans or go back"?
What do you mean chose to accept? Shouldn't data be accepted? Shouldn't we live in reality? It's not a fallacy in the context of our debate. The context is weather we should be importing certain ethnic groups. In this context there are good behaving and bad behaving ethnic groups. You judge ethnic groups based on how they behave on the aggregate and how they behave compared to other ethnic groups who we could be importing instead. Imagine you are in the business of importing eggs and eggs come in packets. One type of egg pack has only 1% rotten eggs while another type has 10% rotten eggs. If someone deliberately knowingly imports the 10% rotten egg pack instead of the 1%, wouldn't it be fair to say that he is importing "rotten eggs"?
It was discovered in 2020 that Black people are up to 20% unknown homnin (most likely Homo Ergaster), White people are about 4% Neanderthal.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2072X9/
Whites and Blacks are to a small extent different species.
So even you admit Blacks on the aggregate behave worse? Yet you still support their immigration and blaming Whites for their behavior? When a given ethnic group one the aggregate tends to behave worse, it is perfectly rational (and even moral) to oppose the importation of that ethnic group unless you can show that their behavior is going to change and change soon. Blacks in the UK behave much worse despite never being slaves or Jim crow. The government didn't EVEN TRY to increase birth rates, and they didn't even try to first import better behaving ethnic groups like other Europeans, Chinese or Indians. They immediately took in Africans or Muslims. And now that these groups turned out to be problematic, they blame "raycisum" instead of themselves for taking them in and those communities or cultures.
<blockquote>Did Ash Sarkar went on a sticker campaign did she?</blockquote>
No need for her. She isn't becoming a minority. Her ethnic group aren't losing her homeland.
<blockquote>https://www.gbnews.com/news/matt-goodwin-white-britons-minority-2070</blockquote>
<blockquote>Is this guy about to be arrested?</blockquote>
I've searched for a word of every effective grievance against White becoming minority in this article: "crime", "welfare", "IQ", "benefits", "cost", "Islam", "terror"... and nothing came up. You're allowed to oppose it, as long as you aren't bringing up productive reasons why. You're allowed to play football and try to score as long as you're playing poorly.
<blockquote>And what did that have to do with the UK government?</blockquote>
So general society suppressing dissent out of political beliefs is somehow better than government doing it? He won so that means they did it illegally. The suppression of dissent is coming from everywhere. And the government DID go after Sam Melia.
<blockquote>How has he been smeared specifically.</blockquote>
He has been called racist
<blockquote>wasn't him saying Eastern Europeans are **worse** than commonwealth members.</blockquote>
The point it he virtue signals against racism.
<blockquote>You made the point about welfare differences, but government data doesn't seem to suggest what you're saying.</blockquote>
Yes it does. Blacks are significantly more likely (24% vs 15%) to be on income related benefits than Whites. They also get more tax benefits and housing benefits. Blacks as well as Asians also get more child benefits. Then there's crime and terrorism.
>https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/benefits/state-support/latest/#by-ethnicity-and-type-of-support
<blockquote>And Chavs have a sordid reputation in the UK and its a major underclass involved in a lot of criminality.</blockquote>
In London Blacks as whole are 58% of murder suspects at 13% of the population. Chavs are s subset of Whites, not Whites as a whole. And they still don't behave bad as Blacks. Every ethnic group has some bad people.
<blockquote>Finetuning specifically for political and precise definitions is not remotely abnormal. The formal definition of many terms is different and more specific than its use in casual interaction</blockquote>
So you admit the definition of racist is so inpercise, the ADL itself was forced to change it several times? Then I win. Which other terms so vital to our ideological zeitgeist were changed as much?
<blockquote>Strongly disagree. For one "unwarranted tribalism" has breadth associated with "bigotry". It could apply to any form of assumed prejudice or stereotyping against anyone for a variety of reasons.</blockquote>
I strongly disagree. With a term that that has "unwarranted" in it, this allows the conversation on weather or not the deed is <b>warranted</b> to go forward even if there is disagreement. With "racism" there is no conversation. A leftist would say it's racist, while a conservative would say it's not and that will be the end. The term "racist" is thought/conversation stopper.
<blockquote>I think most conservatives would find the battle utterly pointless, a waste of time, and simply that language doesn't work that way. Look at how the left has tried to implement LGBT terminology onto wider society, or nonsense terms like "latinx".</blockquote>
The left has embraced Latinx and other woke term like chestfeeding and birthgivers that suit their ideology. I see no reason why the right wouldn't embrace terms that would serve theirs like "unwarranted tribalism" instead of racism. Unlike those leftist term "unwarranted tribalism" actually makes sense.
<blockquote>No reason to believe this. You could argue by this logic that white Brits and Americans "have the same culture".</blockquote>
I didn't say UK and US Blacks are culturally the same, I said Blacks in the US have their own unique culture. And probably in the UK as well
<blockquote>And your data does not show this.</blockquote>
Ummm yes it does.
<blockquote>Give me a link of a Jew, who apparently now speaks for all Jews, boasts about how they infiltrated and controlled entertainment post-1950s to change western culture.</blockquote>
It would be stupid of them to brag considering they're a small minority, so one would think there weren't any examples, but still...
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-dec-19-oe-stein19-story.html
https://forward.com/opinion/185543/jews-shape-american-culture-more-than-ever-even/
<blockquote>Do you know of any mainstream conservatives that would defend, or have defended any of the white nationalist writers you seem to derive your ideology from?</blockquote>
They don't. They run from them like kryptonite That's my point.
<blockquote>Everyone knows that birth rates are in decline. In every country. It doesn't change anything.</blockquote>
Not an argument against my argument that they couldn't be raised with incentives and cultural encouragement
<blockquote>Any direct evidence for this?</blockquote>
What else could it be? Western culture/Youtube/TikTok, atheism, individualism YOLO is everywhere.
<blockquote>Ah yes, people from the Middle-East are notable pro-LGBT, into porn, atheist etc.</blockquote>
Yes, they are into porn LOL. Google it. You'd be surprised how the young in those countries are also influenced by Western culture.
<blockquote>LGBT people are not responsible for straight people choosing to have less kids.</blockquote>
More LGBT = less children. Not a huge difference compared to feminism, atheism...etc, but some.
<blockquote> I don't see why pornography would be directly relevant here.</blockquote>
Young men have less desire to pursue women when they have all the porn available to them
<blockquote>Individualism? I guess. This has as much association with capitalism as it does liberalism. Do you want to live in a totalitarian country if it has higher birth rates?</blockquote>
The West in the 50s had the perfect balance. It wasn't North Korea, but also not tatooed pronoun cat ladies that we have today.
<blockquote>Atheism? Poland and Greece say hi with their shoddy birth rates, amongst the worst in the UK. Also Islamic world again.</blockquote>
Religion is high among the older ones. Old people aren't having children. The youth is influenced by Western culture
<blockquote>I am not censoring anything.</blockquote>
The left censors information regarding race differences which leads to false beliefs races are equal and interchangeable which leads to political agreement with immigration
If all those Western cultural reason aren't a reason for low births, then what is it? It's not economic prosperity. Even you said poor countries still have low births.
<blockquote>You: "Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Native Americans are all hypocrites for having intergroup preference</blockquote>
LOL that's not what I said. I said they're hypocrites for demanding intergroup preference for themselves and then being outraged when Whites also demand it.
<blockquote>You seem obsessed with one ethnic group. Sometimes an African name or just skin colour can be enough.</blockquote>
The left is obsessed with labelling Blacks victims. My views are a reaction to that.
<blockquote>The cause of the riots, the murderer who was allegedly an immigrant was a false claim. </blockquote>
That wasn't the cause. That was just the dip over the edge. The cause as dissatisfaction to what is happening to the UK
<blockquote>As for the more general view of yours, it is entirely unevidenced and just unfortunate prejudice and is just more stereotyping.</blockquote>
Do you deny data that (most) memories in the UK commit more crime are more likely on welfare, have less economic and educational success and are costing the taxpayer more?
<blockquote>Which I have done, over several links. Since the claim that they could all be lying is yours, you need to show it so.</blockquote>
No just just provided a poll. Asians in the US don't generally make fuses of discrimination.
<blockquote>taxes too hight but not due to immigration</blockquote>
Non EEA (black and brown) immigrants are an economic cost
https://cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
<blockquote>while 'loss of political power' I imagine here equates to underlying fear of loss of white privilege.</blockquote>
Ok so the US government were to flood Cherokee and Navajo reservations with Whites, the complaint about tribal chiefs would be rightfully labelled just "loss of Native American privilege" in those reservations.
<blockquote>those who wish the freedom to hate without legal consequences.</blockquote>
You still haven't provided a distinction between "hate" and raising legit ethnic grievances.