Talk:Racial purity

message: If people of ethnicity B is forbidden to marry people of ethnicity C and C is forbidden to marry B, how can one tell this is anti-B or anti-C law, since restrictions are placed on both. I do not intend to discuss where there anti-(chose group description) laws in Germany or not, but calling this anti-semitism is inappropriate.
: It's the nature of the restrictions, not whom they were placed on. Grace Note 06:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only was "miscegenation" of Germans with Jews outlawed, but also with Gypsies and Slavs.
A lot of people seem to be unaware of the view of Gypsies and Slavs in Nazi ideology.
Gringo300 06:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: I just removed this sentence:  "The successes of United States — the great "melting pot" — may provide a support for this point of view."  For one, it seems to be asserting this belief, and nobody is cited who said this.  It's also highly speculative, since there are so many factors that affect the success of a nation - natural resources, geo-strategic position, leadership policies, alliances, etc.  There are also counter examples, for example, the rather homogeneous contries of Japan and South Korea have been much more successful than the very diverse and mixed Brazil.  And even assuming that ethnic diversity has been a major advantage to the United States, there's no evidence that this hasn't been mainly from cultural diversity, rather than genetic diversity.  Also, there hadn't been much mixing of the races in the U.S. until the last thirty years or so, which means that the U.S. became successful before the main known benefit of mixing (reducing the chance of pairing potentialy harmful recessive genes) kicked in to any significant extent.  At any rate, I think it makes sense to keep that speculation out until someone can find a source to attribute it to.  Blackcats 06:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed sentence

message: Were there many suicides after the Nuremberg Laws? It doesn't sound particularly likely to me. Does anyone have a source for that? Grace Note 06:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suicides after Nuremberg Laws

message: Hitler was not the epitome of the Aryan ideal, but neither were many other Germans. He was 5'10"/5'11", dark brown hair, dark blue eyes. He was also primarily seen as the Leader/Savior of Germany, not as the prototype which Germany was looking to to "racially purify" itself. 
"Racial purification" ultimately boiled down to cultural purification. If one looks back into Richard Wagner's writing on "What is German?", it would be seen that the anti-assimilation/internationalistic tendencies of the "Other" or "Foreign element" is what was seen as problematic. Hitler translated Wagner into Politics. Simplifying the Nazi movement into a base race-based movement really misses the point. More research should be done and something should be posted by an actual professional, able to compare and contrast accurately.
Also, there's no "pure" race. The Jewish tendency to marry Jewish is more of a cultural ideal to preserve a solid identity. Ethnically, European Jews are more European than Jewish, for instance. But they identify themselves as Jews, which is what makes the difference. Although racially multi-ethnic, religious and/or cultural self-identification is what makes the difference.
S7Seven 18:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler Short and Dark-Haired? 

message: Wouldn't it be more coherent to have a single entry about miscegenation and "racial purity" in order to discuss the concepts? Lapaz 18:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with miscegenation 

message: I disagree with this term and that miscegenation is in favour of "Genetic Diversity". Miscegenation actually would in fact decrease such diversity, especially in the European populations (and more specifically, those of Nordic/Northern European types) considering: a large proportion of the genetic distinctiveness of these people (eg. lighter phenotypes) is recessive; the northern European peoples especially are vastly outnumbered by most other racial/ethnic groups, including the "non-Nordic" peoples of Southern, Central and Eastern Europe; and the worlds nations which receive the largest numbers of immigrants and refugees from around the world are European nations or those nations with large European populations (Australia, USA). When you take this all into account, miscegenation would make the outlook for the biological distinctiveness of European peoples quite bleak indeed. So called "Genetic Diversity" should be changed simply to miscegenation unless the discourse/POV I am discussing (which sources are available) can be posted in the article. Epf 07:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing stopping you including this point of view, though frankly it sounds like nothing more than traditional racialism to me. The "biological distinctiveness" of Nordics is no more worthy of preservation than anyone else's, unless of course you agree with Madison Grant and Alfred Rosenberg that they are an endangered master-race. Paul B 17:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe in preserving the disinct physical traits of all current ethnic groups and populations, but it happens to be that right now, Northern European peoples are at a great risk of losing their distinctiveness due to the reasons stated above. People have to get through their poltically sensitive fears and realize that there is obviously a difference between "ethnic preservation" and racism (i.e. hate, discrimination, prejudice, etc.). It seems that the term racist is too easily applied nowadays, especially when the people pushing to maintain their diversity happen to be Caucasian/European. Similar ethnic preservation ideologies have been present in other groups around the world for a long time, especially in very homogenous peoples such as Koreans and Japanese, but you rarely see them being accused of being "racist". The preservation of cultural and biological diversity is according to some people (e.g. User: Lapaz) automatically connected to massive exclusion/discrimination of peoples outside of the particular group in qestion and a reductoin in their liberties. Very racist movements have enacted such policies in the past (i.e. Nazism) and also in the modern world in some places but the idea of ethnic diversity and preservation obviously does not have to be itself related to such policies. The multicultural policies in nations such as Canada and Australia are examples of how diversity and ethnic preservation are carried out in a positive, non-discriminatory manner and helps protect peoples from assmilation and culturally destructive policies seen in nations such as France and China. This is a cause that needs to be realized if we wish to avoid both ethnic destruction and an increase in right-wing racist extremist movements. Epf 08:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Genetic Diversity" 

message: What's with the insane redirecting to "Racism"? Racial purity is not racism. If someone does not want to miscegenate, then they are no more a racist than someone who doesn't want to date people of the same sex is a homophobe or sexist. The vast majority of people do not engage in romantic relationships with people outside of their racial group either, I suppose they are all "racists"?! Christopedia (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial Purity is NOT Racism