Ok. Are you a Californio old enough to remember Silicon Valley when it was mostly farmland? You’d have to be around 70-80 years old right?
If we’re talking about the conquistadors, can’t we lump them in with “Just very greedy overly ambitious and pretentious people”? They weren’t kind to the indigenous people. Even slavery wasn’t out of the question.
“Prior to contact with Europeans, the California region contained the highest Native American population density north of what is now Mexico.“
Native Americans settled in California 19,000 years ago or earlier, at least 18,500 years before the arrival of the conquistadors.
Given your own ignorance of history, I really doubt you’re even old enough to remember Silicon Valley when it was just a bunch of orchards.
If you really want to live in a place similar to California before Silicon Valley, there are plenty of states within the US that can offer that experience right now. You don’t need patience, you just need courage to experience it; that is of course if you were pining for less development and population density. Reading what you’ve previously written again, if what you really wanted was ethnic purity (which I misread as wanting to live in less developed areas) then I have other words for you. That type of post is not welcome on HN
California indigenous who settled and mestizos who colonized share the same haplogroup d dna.
They are the same people.
And for what it's worth the massive anglo/white immigration into California has been tantamount to ethnic replacement - not just in California but all over this continent.
So excuse me if I don't cry a river over fewer transplants.
So we're playing the semantics game now? Let me guess, you didn't make a racist comment. Instead you made a comment about ethnic pride? If we're playing this game, let's be clear on the definitions:
settle - to establish in residence
colonize - come to settle among and establish political control over the indigenous people of an area.
> They are the same people.
According to the Californios article you referenced, they are not the same people as the Native Americans who first settled in CA.
"Californios included the descendants of agricultural settlers and retired escort soldiers deployed from what is modern-day Mexico. Most were of mixed ethnicities, usually Mestizo (Spanish and Native American) or mixed African and Amerindian backgrounds."
Otherwise, (using your own language), the Californios wouldn't have colonized California
> And for what it's worth the massive anglo/white immigration into California has been tantamount to ethnic replacement - not just in California but all over this continent.
Thank you for confirming my suspicions of your comments being racist and no, I am not white yet I do find it ironic for one descendant of colonizers to complain about the descendants of other colonizers. I wouldn't be surprised if you considered Asians and Pacific Islanders as "invaders" as well. Also you're proving your ignorance yet again. Since you've mentioned your imagined "ethnic replacement" of Hispanics in CA (which the majority of I'm pretty sure are not as prejudiced as you - and let's not confuse ethnic cleansing with population changes from immigration & migration), let's go over CA's current or near current ethnicity statistics ordered by the largest:
* Hispanic 39.29% (This has increased from 36.6%)
* White, non-Hispanic 36.64%
* Asian 14.525
* Black 5.51%
* Pacific Islander 0.36%
* Native American 0.35% (they are not Californios, and they are still here)
* Other
> So excuse me if I don't cry a river over fewer transplants.
I'm not going to excuse and condone what I feel are posts from a racist reminiscing about ethnic purity in California. You do NOT post this type of garbage on HN.
> Why do you think there are so many posts about people wanting to leave California? Do you think it's really all about taxes? It's not.
From your initial post, I just thought it was about over-development. I didn't expect to be about demographics and ethnicity, specifically maintaining your idea of CA's racial "purity". Consequently, I was very confused when you asked me to leave CA.
> The prevailing rhetoric of California being "bad" is mostly political and has racist anti-liberal roots. By shutting down counter views you're allowing those racist viewpoints to prosper
Let me get this straight, by calling you out on your racist viewpoints, I am allowing racist viewpoints to fester? That totally makes sense.
Who cares if other racist viewpoints have white, conservative roots? Racism is bad, period, regardless of its origins, the ideology of the people holding those ideas, and whether or not it's systemic. As shown by your own comments, conservatives do not have a monopoly on racism either.
> And by the way, none of your rhetoric counters what is historical fact.
That's great counter-argument with no details or facts, other than the slivers you've previously provided that I've quickly shut down. I guess your newest comment isn't rhetoric either?
> The plurality of California are not Hispanic by pure accident.
Yes, CA promotes diversity, yet you lament not having a more homogeneous population. The only difference between your views and "America First" proponents' view is the ethnicity being supported.
> Lastly, it should be possible to have a rational discussion about demographics on this site without people over reacting and name calling.
Forgive me for pointing out thinly veiled racist comments on HN. It's a natural conclusion to assume that racists comments are made by a racist. I am not over reacting. I initially assumed good faith and gave you the benefit of the doubt for too long. You're just downplaying your BS.
Let's revisit your BS before you delete it:
"_You_ go to Idaho and Wyoming.
California is our state."
So apparently according to your view point, California is only for "Californios", Hispanics who originated from Mexico?
"My qualms are more with the demographic changes these massive migrations brought.
Just very greedy overly ambitious and pretentious people.
To me they make terrible neighbors and have zero regard for the land, nature or the people here.
Some I assume are good people but I haven't met any."
I don't even have to comment on this one. It speaks for itself, especially the last line. Since you're really into semantics, let's define racist:
racist - a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group with the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance
What does this non-sequitur have to do with anything written so far? With you alluding to be a liberal, you've just proven that racism transcends American politics of left and right.
> I hate racists too which is why I prefer not having them in my state.
I am sorry that somewhere along the way you were hurt so much that it would push you to blame all of your misfortunes on another race or ethnic group, similar to poverty stricken members of neo-Nazis and the KKK; but you need to have a hard look in the mirror and do some serious self-introspection.
Let's re-read your comments.
"_You_ go to Idaho and Wyoming. California is our state."
I didn't understand it at the time, but you were telling me that CA only belonged to members of your own ethnic group.
"My qualms are more with the demographic changes these massive migrations brought. Just very greedy overly ambitious and pretentious people. To me they make terrible neighbors and have zero regard for the land, nature or the people here. Some I assume are good people but I haven't met any."
Your comments in just a single thread, really just this specific comment, already meet the textbook definition of a racist. In fact, I can attribute what you just wrote to a white supremacist, and it wouldn't seem out of place.
racist - a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group with the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance
If you can't reconcile this and change, then I agree with your statement. I also prefer not having racists in my state and I like diversity because life is richer with it, so it would be nice if racists like yourself left California or the United States entirely, regardless of whether they think they are conservative or liberal. In fact, please leave HN. People with your ideology need to either change or leave.
Liberal by definition is anti-racist. A major tenet of liberalism is egalitarianism and it's what allows free market capitalism.
Maybe you should go educate yourself about what Liberalism is before appointing yourself the racism police on Hackernews.
I'm a liberal and I've said I prefer not having more racists in California with illiberal sentiment. That is the opposite of racist.
There is a long history of America enforcing white racial integrity which you seem to be naive to. As a native Californian I think it's fair to be weary.
I stand by not wanting more transplants in my state and it's not just me.
Tit for tat flamewars like this are not welcome on HN. Worse, you've been using the site exclusively for political battle for a long time now. The site guidelines explicitly ask you not to do this, and you've been posting so much of it that I've banned the account. I hate to ban a 10-year-old account, but the pattern here is egregious.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
1. Just because you feel that you're liberal does not mean that you are actually a liberal.
2. You can identify as a liberal and still be a racist. e.g. your ideals of "egalitarianism" only seem to apply to you fellow "Californios" and no one else
> Maybe you should go educate yourself about what Liberalism is before appointing yourself the racism police on Hackernews.
I've already proven based on your comments alone that you hold racist views. Let me remind you the definition of a racist again, since you keep forgetting and ignoring it.
racist - a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group with the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance
How do you not fit the definition of a racist based on your previous comments? Let me remind you that your very first comment for me was essentially, "Leave my home, it only belongs to my people (who are racially / ethnically similar to me)". How is that much different from "Go back to your own country?"
Maybe we should have HN decide who is right and who is wrong? Your views do not belong here.
> There is a long history of America enforcing white racial integrity which you seem to be naive to. As a native Californian I think it's fair to be weary.
You're not wrong that America has a long history of racism in favor of white Anglos. I'm not disputing that. However, I think you're the one who needs a history lesson, instead of believing in your revisionist version. While the Calfornios were mixed, being multi-generational descendants of both conquistadors and indigenous people, they were by and large culturally still the same as their conquistador ancestors. They served European royalty to take and subvert land and native peoples for the Spanish crown by any means necessary. The first Calfornios were soldiers. All of this is well documented.
"Spanish and Mexican rule were devastating for native populations. 'As the missions grew, California’s native population of Indians began a catastrophic decline.' Gregory Orfalea estimates that pre-contact population was reduced by 33% during the Spanish and Mexican regimes. Most of the deaths stemmed from imported diseases and the disruption of traditional ways of life, but violence was common, and some historians have charged that life in the missions was close to slavery."
The Spanish conquistadors' descendants were no better than their English counterparts when it came to colonization and brutality. "Californios" are also not the same people as California's native population.
> I stand by not wanting more transplants in my state and it's not just me.
The popularity of a belief does not guarantee that it's actually moral or ethical. Your views are not acceptable on HN and they do not belong on HN.
Please do not get involved in tit-for-tat flamewars on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Arguments like this are against the site guidelines and, when people get stuck banging their heads against each other like this, it's extremely tedious for everybody else. The only thing that works is to let go and walk away. I know that can be hard (believe me I know) but adding more mass to the pile only makes it harder.
The place this thread really went off the rails is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25482753. Your first comment was obviously in good faith, but when you got an obviously bad faith reply, you should not have fed it. This is in the site guidelines: "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." When flames aren't fed, they quickly die out.
