A couple of other quick points:
1. The notion that white Americans are not allowed to be proud of their heritage is mythological. In the United States, whites quite often engage in open celebrations of their ethnic heritage. The Irish and Italian communities are especially vocal, and many others are heard quite frequently (ex: Jews, Greeks, etc). European heritages are also honored on a daily basis due to their having been interwoven into the fundamental components of our society (place names, our education system, our history lessons, most of our holidays, the organization of our military units, the names and mottos of said military units, our language, our political system, our architecture, etc, etc, etc), and we are often reminded (in school and elsewhere) of precisely where and how different European groups were able to influence each of these things.
Nobody growing up in the United States is under the illusion that this is not, first and foremost, a nation largely created by and for peoples of European descent, and this country is really not at all ashamed of that fact. It is acknowledged and celebrated regularly by most.
2. Views on interracial relationships vary substantially between different groups. Xenophobia is universal, but openness to the embrace of foreign DNA (and of the foreign men who would put it in local women) varies substantially.
Most groups across the planet privilege European features and admixture. In black communities world wide (but particularly i the western hemisphere), European blood is an asset - the fairer skin, lighter eye colors and "better" hair it provides are very often used by blacks to rank other blacks and have long signified status within the black community. In Asia, the worship of European features has gotten to a point at which they've resorted to outright mimicry, even creating animated Japanese characters with European features. Asian, like Africans, are known to frequently modify their appearance (hair dying, extensions, inserts, skin lightening, eye/nose surgery, etc) in order to appear more European. In Latin America, there has long been a hierarchy in which those with the most substantial amounts of European blood sit at the top of the heap.
European blood is strongly desired by non-white groups the world over, but non-European blood is not as strongly desired by Europeans. Europeans with non-European features are not put on the same pedestal within European society that non-Europeans with European blood occupy in non-European societies.
This does impact the nature of any discussion about different racial groups and their "openness" to having "their women" intimately involved with outsiders. The identity of the outsiders and the women in question greatly influences the severity and controversy associated with the reaction.
The severity and controversy of given reaction reaction is generally maximized when the outsiders are black. This is often true even when the women in question are non-European (ex: East Asian). All groups generally prefer to keep their women away from outsiders, but they do not view all outsiders equally. Since many non-Europeans privilege access to European blood and European features, you will often find that they are generally less hostile to European "outsiders" than they are to others. Europeans have their biases as well with regard to which "outsiders" are most intolerable in association with their women.
3. There is a double standard with regard to the need for "diversity" in European lands but not in others. That double standard is the product of a few factors: historical reality, white guilt, and economic necessity.
First, the historical reality. Europeans, in the process of conquering most of the planet, created the most diverse and globalzed polities man had ever seen. They brought most of the non-European world under their dominion, and integrated them quite heavily: European religion spread across several continents, European languages were soon spoken on every inhabited continent, European laws are followed on every continent, and (thanks to the prolific activities of adventurous European men) European blood has spread through non-white populatons on many continents and is quite extensive in parts (ex: the average Afro-Caribbean is around 20-25% European by blood, if not more). This influence is key in discussing why so many feel it natural for Africans, Asians and Mestizos to migrate to European lands en masse, but not to places like Japan. West Africans (to use on example) speak European languages (generally French or English), worship European gods (most are Christian), abide by European legal systems and carry European names. This is why people often assume that they could "belong" in France or the UK, as opposed to Japan. The same goes for East Indians, Filipinos, and many other migrant groups. That cultural link is crucial to promoting the greater feasibility of "diversity" in Europe relative to other places.
Second, the white guilt. Long story short, Europe took over the world and some bad things happened in the process. White Europeans who understand the history of their expansion are aware of these bad things, and feel very guilty about it. Many of those who possess this guilt are in positions of influence and power (they are often the guiltiest, actually), hence the tendency for white guilt to manifest itself in the policies and broader mainstream norms of societies dominated by Europeans. This also is crucial to the promotion of diversity in European dominate lands relative to others.
Third, the economics. Globalization and the mass importation of cheap foreigners benefits the economic elite. By encouraging the notion that their nations need the "diversity" provided by these foreigners, one can ensure a steady supply of this cheap labor and the higher profit margins it can help guarantee. Europeans pioneered the concept of globalization and European-dominated nations are the most common amon the global economic elite, hence the tendency for this idea to be more prominent in Europe than it is elsewhere. That being said, they're not alone in this (Arabs and East Asians are also known to import laborers; black Caribbeans do it occasionally as well).
None of what I have written above will change any minds here, but the facts are what they are.
1. The notion that white Americans are not allowed to be proud of their heritage is mythological. In the United States, whites quite often engage in open celebrations of their ethnic heritage. The Irish and Italian communities are especially vocal, and many others are heard quite frequently (ex: Jews, Greeks, etc). European heritages are also honored on a daily basis due to their having been interwoven into the fundamental components of our society (place names, our education system, our history lessons, most of our holidays, the organization of our military units, the names and mottos of said military units, our language, our political system, our architecture, etc, etc, etc), and we are often reminded (in school and elsewhere) of precisely where and how different European groups were able to influence each of these things.
Nobody growing up in the United States is under the illusion that this is not, first and foremost, a nation largely created by and for peoples of European descent, and this country is really not at all ashamed of that fact. It is acknowledged and celebrated regularly by most.
2. Views on interracial relationships vary substantially between different groups. Xenophobia is universal, but openness to the embrace of foreign DNA (and of the foreign men who would put it in local women) varies substantially.
Most groups across the planet privilege European features and admixture. In black communities world wide (but particularly i the western hemisphere), European blood is an asset - the fairer skin, lighter eye colors and "better" hair it provides are very often used by blacks to rank other blacks and have long signified status within the black community. In Asia, the worship of European features has gotten to a point at which they've resorted to outright mimicry, even creating animated Japanese characters with European features. Asian, like Africans, are known to frequently modify their appearance (hair dying, extensions, inserts, skin lightening, eye/nose surgery, etc) in order to appear more European. In Latin America, there has long been a hierarchy in which those with the most substantial amounts of European blood sit at the top of the heap.
European blood is strongly desired by non-white groups the world over, but non-European blood is not as strongly desired by Europeans. Europeans with non-European features are not put on the same pedestal within European society that non-Europeans with European blood occupy in non-European societies.
This does impact the nature of any discussion about different racial groups and their "openness" to having "their women" intimately involved with outsiders. The identity of the outsiders and the women in question greatly influences the severity and controversy associated with the reaction.
The severity and controversy of given reaction reaction is generally maximized when the outsiders are black. This is often true even when the women in question are non-European (ex: East Asian). All groups generally prefer to keep their women away from outsiders, but they do not view all outsiders equally. Since many non-Europeans privilege access to European blood and European features, you will often find that they are generally less hostile to European "outsiders" than they are to others. Europeans have their biases as well with regard to which "outsiders" are most intolerable in association with their women.
3. There is a double standard with regard to the need for "diversity" in European lands but not in others. That double standard is the product of a few factors: historical reality, white guilt, and economic necessity.
First, the historical reality. Europeans, in the process of conquering most of the planet, created the most diverse and globalzed polities man had ever seen. They brought most of the non-European world under their dominion, and integrated them quite heavily: European religion spread across several continents, European languages were soon spoken on every inhabited continent, European laws are followed on every continent, and (thanks to the prolific activities of adventurous European men) European blood has spread through non-white populatons on many continents and is quite extensive in parts (ex: the average Afro-Caribbean is around 20-25% European by blood, if not more). This influence is key in discussing why so many feel it natural for Africans, Asians and Mestizos to migrate to European lands en masse, but not to places like Japan. West Africans (to use on example) speak European languages (generally French or English), worship European gods (most are Christian), abide by European legal systems and carry European names. This is why people often assume that they could "belong" in France or the UK, as opposed to Japan. The same goes for East Indians, Filipinos, and many other migrant groups. That cultural link is crucial to promoting the greater feasibility of "diversity" in Europe relative to other places.
Second, the white guilt. Long story short, Europe took over the world and some bad things happened in the process. White Europeans who understand the history of their expansion are aware of these bad things, and feel very guilty about it. Many of those who possess this guilt are in positions of influence and power (they are often the guiltiest, actually), hence the tendency for white guilt to manifest itself in the policies and broader mainstream norms of societies dominated by Europeans. This also is crucial to the promotion of diversity in European dominate lands relative to others.
Third, the economics. Globalization and the mass importation of cheap foreigners benefits the economic elite. By encouraging the notion that their nations need the "diversity" provided by these foreigners, one can ensure a steady supply of this cheap labor and the higher profit margins it can help guarantee. Europeans pioneered the concept of globalization and European-dominated nations are the most common amon the global economic elite, hence the tendency for this idea to be more prominent in Europe than it is elsewhere. That being said, they're not alone in this (Arabs and East Asians are also known to import laborers; black Caribbeans do it occasionally as well).
None of what I have written above will change any minds here, but the facts are what they are.
Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.