Consider two ways of saying a similar thing:
- According to the Census Bureau, people of color make up an increasing share of the US population. This will most likely benefit liberals, who will certainly try to take political advantage of it.
- Not only are non-white folks having more children than white people, but liberals are trying to increase their numbers even more by encouraging illegal immigration to America from across the border. Eventually their kids will replace white kids, which will spell the end of traditional American culture and doom conservatives at the ballot box.
Question: Do these seem like pretty much the same thing, with only a modest change in wording in order to appeal to different audiences? Do they express the same facts? Do they express the same sentiment? Can either or both be deemed racist, or are they basically just statements of demographic realities?
Who says that?
Yes this is the same way to express the trend but one want to paint the situation as being a conspiracy by "people of color" to take over the country to the detriment of deserving white.
By the way Hispanic is not a "race" just a common language. Only in America!
Very much so. When one of those statements inspires someone to shoot up a bunch of a bunch of POC, that should tell you where the "blame" is being squarely laid.
I'm hispanic and I consider myself a race. I am not Mexican, having been from the US since Texas became a state, and I sure as shit ain't white.
No one thought the Italians or Irish were white, either, until Republicans wanted their votes. If you’re not white in 20 or 30 years, your kids or grandkids will be.
I'm an Ashkenazi Jew, and I consider myself a race. We've got BRAC1 and Tay Sachs covered. Go team! We used to be considered non-white in Europe, but once most of us were killed or driven out, we were given provisional white status. Caucasian? Possibly, if you mean from the region with those mountains, but, really, where did that come from?
“ By the way Hispanic is not a "race" just a common language.”
Call it what you want, but most Republicans/conservatives and Fox Newz don’t consider me an American. And I don’t even have to say a word in Spanish.
"most Republicans/conservatives and Fox Newz don’t consider me an American"
Oh come on. There is plenty of valid criticisms of the Trumpian right wing, but this is not one of them.
Republican/Fox statements/campaigns/policies/proposals in which all Hispanics are viewed/treated as illegal aliens.
… Encouraged by the gop, cops have stopped me many times for no reason, esp. when I drove in certain neighborhoods. (Back when I made good money, I used to live in very nice mostly white neighborhoods. It was kind of a game to see if I could get home before the cops saw me.) Some businesses in same area wouldn’t serve me. (Luckily I would pass coffee shops in other neighborhoods on way to work.) Had to deal with gop policies that let cops check documents of anyone who “looks like” an illegal. Still have people who walk up to me, as if they know me, and scream at me to stop taking their jobs and go back to where I come from. (They don’t get the idea I’m illegal from msnbc.) A few other things, but I think you get idea. Essentially, I have made the mistake over the years of being where white cons believe I do not belong. That may not be “valid criticism “ to you, but I’m not crazy about this stuff. But hey! Maybe this kind of stuff is “being an American.” I suddenly feel so included.
…. For the record, my fam has been “here” since before “here” was the u.s.
Nonsense, one of the first points Trump used to get the love of his base was to publicly question Hispanics being "Real Americans". Remember his rants against Judge Curiel?
"Eventually their kids will replace a great many white kids" is not at all accurate. No one is really "replacing" anybody, and certainly not replacing "kids". You could say the future increasingly non-white generation is replacing the previous predominantly white generation, but that's generally not how people think of demographic shifts over time. Using the term "replacement" in this context at all is a dog-whistle to racists.
You could phrase the second "replacement-theory"-esque statement more accurately without the word "replace", but I would say any concern over whites becoming a non-majority is inherently racist.
The conservative party could always try to appeal to more non-whites, yet it has been their choice to remain an increasingly white-focused party, which is also racist.
" ...but I would say any concern over whites becoming a non-majority is inherently racist."
If whites had eventually become a majority in South Africa do you think black South Africans would have ben ok with it?
Do not feed the Confederate troll.
No group with power is happy to give it up. It's as simple as that
Your comment isn't really applicable but I can see why you said that. My analogy was not a good one and I almost made a follow up comment to ignore it. The English and Dutch always some degree of power over the black South Africans, especially so during Apartheid. But in modern day America whites do not have any power over non-whites /Hispanics.
The idea that whites do not have power over non-whites/Hispanics is ludicrous and disproven by any meaningful economic statistic that can be compiled. In virtually every sector imaginable in America, whites have disproportionate power and wealth.
“But what about the NBA?!!” Uh—they have what are still referred to as Owners.
It’s like saying Egyptians had no power over Jews because Moses.
That's ridiculous. Jews were literally slaves in Egypt. There are no slaves in modern -Day America. Nor are there any laws that give powers to whites over non-whites. Obviously, this wasn't always the case, but again, I'm talking about current times. Yes, on average, whites are faring better than non-whites in many ways and reasonable people can debate why that is. But whites are not bestowed with any power over non-whites. I, as a white person, do not have any power over my black neighbor.
If the cops are called reporting a black kid playing with a toy gun in a park, he will likely die.
If the cops are called reporting a white kid murdering ten people in a grocery store, he is calmly apprehended.
Your definition of “power” is bizarrely crabbed and excludes, for some inexplicable reason, economic power, which is the source of most power in America.
He's a Confederate troll. Don't bother responding to him.
No, you can't go over and make your Black neighbor pick your cotton for you any more. Point well taken. But that's not what "white privilege" means. It's generations of accumulated wealth, advantage, and access thanks to public (not just private) policies that purposely held non-whites back. You've been -- not through any initiative of your own -- the beneficiary of what was essentially been several centuries of affirmative action for whites in this country. Having benefited from that doesn't mean that you're racist. But refusing to acknowledge it or think about what we can do as a country to rectify that, well, ....
Also, there is absolutely no historical evidence that Israelites were ever enslaved in Egypt. It's a biblical myth, not a historical fact.
They're breeding...
Enough said.
nothing de-humanizing about that....nope...not at all....
I see the word “breeding” has disappeared…
Just jumped back in — it's still there...
I just want to observe that to a person who is spectrum, they probably do seem the same. The difference is in what we associate with people who say one thing versus another.
Kevin must be spectrum then, if he can’t see the dehumanizing and othering differences between those 2 statements.
Seth Meyers had a great take on this yesterday...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoHVnWmHhFU
You're talking demographics, the "Great Replacement" is portrayed as minorities replacing you directly...and immediately.
I think the issue is not the demographic reality, but that liberals are intentionally flooding the streets with new minorities expressly to overrun the "real" Americans.
Exactly--with a million immigrants per year, why, in a mere 115 years, this country will be majority immigrant!* As a conservative, I can't be arsed to care about climate change, but the thought of what this country might be like in 2137 is a critical issue to be concerned about here and now.
_____
*Presuming that the population doesn't otherwise change and that immigrants are immortal. If somehow immigrants are _not_ immortal, it will of course take longer. Say 200 years to be safe.
If you can't be arsed to care about climate change in this century, there's certainly no reason to be arsed about demographics in the next one. The shit climate change is going to cause will make any demographic shift laughable by comparison.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/012/132/thatsthejoke.jpg
I guess I should have included a sarcasm tag.
Hey, tell it to the First Nations, buddy. Flooding a continent with illegals fucking sucks.
As a counterpoint, I never felt better for our country's future than when I met an African-American woman in her mid twenties carrying the child of a Hmong-American man.
This was in 2006, by the way.
Bernie Sanders on Lou Dobbs would have condemned me.
I’m unaware of any immigrants who operate as body-snatchers.
Here’s the difference:
“We’re opening up a new office on the other side of town. It’s an exciting opportunity to expand our services and products to a population we haven’t worked with much before.”
And:
“You and your team need to clear out your desks. For the next two weeks, you’ll be training the new folks we hired from the other side of town. You can pick up your two weeks’ severance after you’ve finished training them.”
Doesn’t city versus rural play into this somehow when thinking about how people view these statements?
If Republicans were smart instead of belligerent, they’d realize that it didn’t take long for Italians, Irish, Poles, Jews, and many others to start making money, become “white,” move to the suburbs, and begin voting Republican.
Why does anyone doubt that Latinos will do the same?
Viva Cuba Libre!
JORGE MAS CANOSA DID NOTHING WRONG.
That is the real plan. Ignore the noise. I can confirm with my sight, rural communities are more mixed than in 1990. It's just not a urban(sub) thing. Mexican American people were Democratic supporters during the Civil War. Democrats used to get 90% of this group until Reagan, who made the first olive branch.
But obviously that’s not the plan, because white supremacy is more precious to right-wingers than strategery.
Pete Wilson blew it big time in California. W. Bush tried to make up for it, but Republicans prefer a racist goon like Trump brown facing over a $23 taco salad to actually making the tent bigger.
Right-wingers may pick up the snake-handlers who have abandoned the Catholic Church, but Republicans have no plan to build a majority. They’re comfortable with an autocracy ruling from a minority.
Indeed. There are plenty of Hispanics in the Republican Parties of New Mexico and Texas, for example.
And I have longtime gay and lesbian friends in New Mexico who are officials in that state’s Republican Party, a group that believes those gay and lesbian officials should not have the same rights as the other Republican officials. I’m sure my friends have their reasons for being in the party, but don’t expect me to explain it.
Bush and Rove we're onto that and that was the plan, but the base said no f'ing way and picked Trump.
The argument is idiotic in both cases. First, most of the trend is driven by 'Hispanic'. WTF is a Hispanic race? I know many 'Hispanics' who, unless they speak Spanish, would never be identified as being a race other than 'white'.
Of course it was also idiotic when democratic leaning intellectuals made the case that racial demographics would guarantee democrats majorities in the 21st century. I thought at the time they were clueless and have since met enough 'minorities' to confirm that they were/are. From my experience, cultural Hispanics are pretty darn conservative and it is only the racism of the right that keeps a majority with the dems.
Lets note by the 2030's this will no longer be true. Hispanic population growth is slowing rapidly. Replacement nonsense is more bourgeois hangups. It's more of a Malthusian nightmare meets Marx's overconsumption. Capitalism is debt based ponzi scheme. White's partly must take blame as they overconsume, but keep their birthrates low. While nonwhites overbreed in part because of deportation of this technology. Thus we got overbred, coloreds, who If ever consume like whites, would destroy the ecosystem quickly.
If you want to be a "Green Nationalist" , understanding the removal of capitalism will remove many a problem. The detox could get ugly, especially with spoiled white women. But births would collapse globally, famine would cull the herd and cO2 emissions would sharply decline.
Please do not feed the troll.
i'm just gonna assume that's a rhetorical question.
The bit in (2) about how "liberals are encouraging them to immigrate to America from across the border" seems like a rather critical difference. It implies a counterfactual nefarious and conspiratorial intentionality.
As far as I can tell, the only way that liberals are encouraging immigration is through the pretty attenuated mechanism of attempting to make this country a better place that, inter alia, would make it a more desirable place to live. I guess you can say that the average Republican is trying to do the opposite.
So which liberals are saying we need to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration? The democratic party as a whole (not just "liberals") completely removed ay mention of border security from their official platform.
Biden . Indeed he is criticized by some people for carrying out too many deportations and expulsions. That said he is pushing immigration reform, which George W. Bush tried to enact too. So who blocked it ? Who wants o make this a political football to get out their voters ? Could it be the party that had absolutely no platform whatsoever in 2020 ?
Look , there's only one thing I want GOP apologists to say out loud right now and that is this: Trump lost, he helped to incite an insurrection at the Capitol which was an attempt to overturn a democratic election and many in the GOP aided and abetted him and almost none of them, with very few exceptions, are willing to call that out as the most dangerous thing to our democracy right now. Can you own that "Atticus" ?
"Look , there's only one thing I want GOP apologists to say out loud right now and that is this: Trump lost, he helped to incite an insurrection at the Capitol which was an attempt to overturn a democratic election and many in the GOP aided and abetted him and almost none of them, with very few exceptions, are willing to call that out as the most dangerous thing to our democracy right now."
You and me both. I 100% agree with this. You must not know me very well if you think I disagree.
So is Biden going to ask the DNC to put language regarding a secure border back into the party's platform? Do you think that would happen if he did suggest it? Or do you think there'd be charges of racism thrown at him?
Is illegal immigration one of the most pressing problems right now as you and others seem to think ? If it is, are bigger border walls and even more border surveillance and more deportations the best or only way too address it ? There is a long discussion to be had , one longer and more complicated than we can resolve here in a blog. But I think that some sort of immigration reform, as Bush tried to bring about and which Biden is pushing, is going to need to be part of any solution. But the right wing , actually just about all of the GOP simply won't engage with that. All they want to talk about is walls and surveillance cameras and evil rapist illegal Mexicans. This suggests they really aren't serious about addressing a complicated issue but just want to use it, just as Orange Caligula did in his campaign, as a way to rile up their base.
I do appreciate your agreeing that Trump was and is a danger to our Republic, if we can keep it.
Yeah, if this was white Canadians coming over the border this wouldn't even be an issue.
As I recall it, many called President Obama “the deported in chief”. “Illegal Immigration” was a issue made up by Trump to further his appeal to racists.
“ These figures demonstrate the Obama administration’s focus on formal removals instead of returns, with formal removals under Obama far outpacing those of the Bush and Clinton administrations even as returns were far lower. This policy to ensure that removals have a lasting legal consequence likely reduced the number of unauthorized immigrants attempting to cross the border multiple times: Overall, recidivism along the border fell from 29 percent in FY 2007 to 14 percent in FY 2014, and was much higher for migrants given voluntary return (31 percent) than for those subjected to formal removal (18 percent), according to CDS data.”
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not
Trump made up a border crisis to appeal to racists. If you listen to his early speeches he is specifically talking about “Mexicans”. But the numbers of Mexican illegal crossing were going down. He didn’t really have a clue.
Sigh, “The Deporter in Chief”
"Illegal Immigration” was a issue made up by Trump to further his appeal to racists."
What are you talking about? Illegal immigration has been an issue for many decades.
Yes, Obama was called the "deporter in chief" by some. That was a long time ago. At that time Obama, Hillary and almost all democrats were also against gay marriage. Having a secure border was an official part of the party's platform. The party has moved moved very far to the left since then.
It was invented by Trump as a wedge political issue to appeal to racists. His commercials showed footage of mass border crossings that had actually occurred during the Bush Administration and had been addressed at that time. The commercials made it seem to be an ongoing problem
There have been problems with illegal crossings over the years but those were addressed by both political parties. Trump, with his border hate wall and horrible mistreatment of immigrant families along with his supporters calls for murder made the issue poison.
The Democratic Party has not moved far to the left. It’s just that the Republican Party has moved so far to the right that even a person like Liz Cheney is seen by the Party as a RINO.
Oh my.
You asked who on the left was taking immigration seriously and when reminded that 100% of recent Democratic presidents have taken it seriously, you can only insist that 'the party has moved far to the left since then'?
Lol, ok. 'The party has moved far to the left since then' is a pretty meaningless evergreen complaint that is made by unserious people at all points in time. As a response to a reminder that the recent Presidents disprove your argument.....its a bit funny, isnt it?
It’s right-wingers who entice and pay illegals to come and remain here: farmers, construction contractors, meatpackers, and golf course owners.
Democrats want these workers to have labor protections and not to be abused, which of course defeats the entire purpose of right-wingers exploiting them for slave labor.
In Europe, hiring is strictly regulated, borders not as much. Immigrants go to where the jobs are. No jobs, no border problem (remember the recession?).
In fact, a “strong border” is a problem. In decades past, migrant workers came here for the season, then took their earnings home to build a house and school their children. They had no restore to move to crappy slums in America.
When the border was hardened, they were forced to stay here, and brought their families here to be reunited so they wouldn’t have to risk being caught at at the border and deported permanently.
Loose border, strong labor protections are the policies that make sense.
An objectively ridiculous “wall” that is easily defeated with $100 hand tools or scaled with a rope ladder is so stupid it’s amazing that even slack-jawed yokels believe it works.
The border already is sufficiently secure. No country has ever been able to entirely stop infiltration or exfiltration. Even back in the days of walled cities people managed to sneak in and out without being noticed by the gate guards. CBP does an adequate job.
The distinction is that the Great Replacement theory would have it that 'elites' are purposely contriving and orchestrating it, that natural phenomena requires intelligent design.
What puzzles this Swede is your obsession with labeling people out of “race” or “ethnicity”
The U.S. Census Bureau considers race
and ethnicity to be two separate and distinct concepts
The Census Bureau defines race as:
“a person’s self-identification with one or more social groups. An individual can report as White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, or some other race survey respondents may report or multiple races”
Okay ,so far is it quite simple. Race has during history been registered in many places, it has commonly been used as a mean to persecute minorities. Ethnicity is a little harder to grasp for someone not used to the concept
“Ethnicity determines whether a person is of Hispanic origin or not. For this reason, ethnicity is broken out in two categories, Hispanic or Latino and not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanics may report as any race”
We don’t register either in my Sweden, although most Americans would be surprised over the diversity one can find walking down High Street in my little town.
Our queen was born in Brazil. Should she register as “Latino”?
But the real puzzle to me is that Americans who’s ancestors arrived on slave ships during the 17th century still mostly are defined as “African Americans “ , for some reason not just Americans.
The ones who’s ancestors arrived on the Mayflower isn’t defined as “British Americans “ ,just Americans
Trump isn’t defined as “German American” but it’s extremely important to state Mrs Harris race
For how long will the ancestors to Mrs Harris parents be labeled Indian-Afro American?
Might this custom make it harder to unite as one single country?
.....not that racism doesn’t exist in all countries, definitely also in my Sweden but isn’t your system making “differences” permanent
Sweden has:
1.The most segregated labor force in Europe.
2. Extremely high levels of anti-semitic incidents
3. Extremely high levels of Islamophobia.
Tend to your own kitchen.
1. Source please
2. Compared to who ?
3. Source please
I will not accept “so I’ve heard” as a source or a single article by some badly informed non-Swedish journalists who are describing a single incident and who are drawing his/her own conclusions out of that incident.
If you care to check ADL Global 100. will you find a scientific study that says Sweden is one of the least anti-Semitic countries on this planet, but that’s science not rumors and I guess you are more of a rumor person…
I could provide more facts on your other statements but it’s getting late over here. I will check your answer tomorrow
I see denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the way that Sweden cozied up to Nazi Germany in WWII and that the third largest party in Sweden has extensive neo-Nazi and white supremacist roots.
But y'all are sooo busy telling yourself how super awesome you are and being snotty about other people that you haven't bothered noticing.
Still no answer to my questions?
I would be happy to discuss Swedish politics and history but that’s not the topic of today.
Still no answer to my questions?
Trolls don't ask questions in good faith. Please don't feed it.
Now, now -- I don't think sturestahle is a troll, despite the fact that he's asking the questions.
He's referred to himself with that word on multiple occasions. I'd say it fits. Do you honestly get "good faith" vibes from his screeds? I don't. He basically comes to a discussion board where the vast majority of commenters: 1) are liberal/progressive 2) are well aware of the shortcomings of US society/governance/history etc 3) desire to have meaningful discussions involving policy/politics/etc and so on with an eye toward remedying some of the country's problems...and then he...dunks on the United States in gratuitous fashion?
I could kinda get the point if he did that on right wing sites. But at Drum's site he just comes across as boorish and graceless. A Nordic Archie Bunker. Honestly, were I Swedish I'd be embarrassed. (And sure, I'm well aware he's not representative of the typical resident of that country, or any of the Nordics, most of whom—in my experience, at least, and I've met a fair number as an expat—are perfectly lovely, sensible, cosmopolitan people.)
Fair enough -- and I like the "A Nordic Archie Bunker" line.
Oh, how sad, are you discovering that you don't get to control the conversation? I love when people are shocked by the fact that they don't get to order people around -- perhaps in your case an example of Sweden's Nazi undercurrent.
And I *also* forgot to mention that Sweden has had its leader assassinated much more recently than the United States. What the heck is wrong with your country?
Our friend came up with three unfounded statements on Sweden and I just asked him to verify them since they wasn’t totally off topic in order to be able to continue the discussion. I could have killed them immediately but my experience from this fora is that many (most?) contributors usually gets very “annoyed” when I am doing that. He chose to disregard it but continued to discuss Sweden in a very ignorant way and I decided not to answer it .
9 times out of 8 possible are Americans, both “progressives” and right wing extremists, ranting about WW2 if I state I am Swedish , claiming we happily cooperated with the Nazis . … and I am so fed up with it . Check facts before you post on another country . You are just confirming my opinion on Americans . Badly informed on what’s happening outside of your borders
I enjoy reading Mr Drums blog but my perspective is , for oblivious reasons since I am “foreigner” , totally different but it’s not “popular “ to be different in this crowd . You have to understand that a left leaning Swede is way to the left of mainstream Democrats and I am frequently a little “dumbfounded” over what you are accepting
If you wish to name me a troll is that okay
"9 times out of 8 possible are Americans, both “progressives” and right wing extremists, ranting about WW2 if I state I am Swedish , claiming we happily cooperated with the Nazis . … and I am so fed up with it ."
Well, I see Swedish math skills are unparalleled.
And yes, I would be fed up too if my country -- like Sweden -- cooperated with Nazi Germany in WWII.
WW2?
I am so tired of always getting this comment, and it’s a stupid one
Let’s remember history correctly my friend.
When the war started was Sweden a tiny country, population 5m and a nonexistent military.
France was subdued in weeks, Denmark in less than 24 hours and Norway in days.
What did you expect us to do ?
Send the few outdated bombers we possessed to bomb Berlin?
We could not provide them with fighter escort since our old double deckers was in Finland helping them to fight Stalin who unprovoked attacked them
We were the only ones who assisted them
We tried to buy modern fighters from USA but you refused to sell and we didn’t get any help from anyone else either.
We could have acted differently if we had been a superpower…but we wasn’t!
We gave protection to the Danish Jews when the resistance managed to ship them across the straight of Öresund and we did the same with most of the Norwegian Jews (+ 50 000 other Norwegians)
USA denied Anne Frank asylum
USA weren’t that eager to participate either. An influential political group of right wing extremists with the device “ America first” made sure you stayed out until Japan attacked and Hitler declared war.
The only countries that “stood up” to Hitler was France and Uk/the Commonwealth . All other countries involved sure wasn’t do so voluntarily
"What did you expect us to do ?"
I expect you not to cooperate with the Nazis -- like Denmark, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and lots of other small countries with tiny militaries, who nonetheless did not act like cowards during WWII.
That's what I expect.
To answer your last somewhat thoughtless comment down below :
They had no choice since they were attacked. It’s safe to assume that they had acted like we did if given the opportunity… just as the US of A probably also had acted if given the opportunity
"It’s safe to assume that they had acted like we did if given the opportunity… "
"They would have been cowards too" is not quite the defense you imagine, but in any case, I'll note that what you're talking about is imaginary and didn't happen. If you have to fantasize a result to defend your country's cowardice, more power to you.
Two countries confirming my statement are The US of A and Soviet
FOAD troll.
What, several hundred words later and still no cites or any other sort of evidence? I'm shocked, I tells ya, shocked.
FOAD, you nasty little mess.
You talking to me? Or just the voices in your head?
Nope, no cites or other support for its assertions. The fuck-trumpet thought that gets to control the conversation; is now all butt-hurt that it doesn't BAAAAANT! Thank you for playing.
Voices in your head. Got it.
Yep, that's all from a voice in my head. A voice I don't credence since it can't back up it's words.
its words.
True.
That's actually a pretty good point. Out of curiosity, in your country if you are describing to a third party someone you is "Latino" or black (African Swedish?), what terminology would you use to convey that the person is black or "brown" (i.e. from a Spanish-speaking country)?
In 1619, America began classing certain humans as property based on race. Our Constitution enshrined certain principles of race-based chattel slavery. Racial categorization continued in formal American law until at least 1964.
You really are not aware of this? America has long based immigration (and the prohibition of immigration) on racial and ethic categories. Is this new to you?
Would it surprise you to know that in early 20th century Seattle, Swedish immigrants were considered dirty and ignorant?
African Africans as a group have had many names over the years, most far less respectful. Are you truly ignorant of this?
Perhaps when our leading right-wing politicians stop rubbing elbows with white nationalists and their murderous acolytes stop slaughtering people on the basis of the color of their skin, we can move away from such categories.
But our current (Black) Secretary of Defense attended segregated schools until he graduated. The Alabama State Constitution continues to require that schools be segregated by race.
When racist whites are ready to relinquish their racism, then maybe we can begin to heal.
We’re a long (long) way from that. As Trump has shown.
I do think this is where the left profoundly confuses the issue. If we removed the concept of "race" entirely from the conversation and saw it for what it is, a clash of culture, we could have far more constructive conversations.
The problem is that it's far easier to just point to the most radical right wingers and then label them all White Supremacists for experiencing what would be considered pretty normal majority culture anxiety in Japan or any other country.
It's the difference between "those jeans do not flatter your figure" and "you have a fat ass."
Well said.
The first version is Ruy Texeira & John Judis' argument from "The Emerging Democratic Majority" and has been the belief in Democratic circles for the past 20 years. The second is the racist and toxic framing of the same issue that the GOP has put on it.
Get this,
https://old.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/uqlrph/neighbor_taped_this_to_my_door/
The "replacement" and "dark people peril" talk is furthered by the wingnuts' belief in the "one drop" theory of "race." That is, if a black person and a "white" person have children, ALL the children are by definition "black." And the same for all of their children. Ditto for Hispanics, Asians, etc. of course.
The simple fact is, it's totally normal and frequent for people of different "races" to find one another attractive and to marry. If your definition of "white" means that all your ancestors had to have been "white", you are defining your people out of existence. Smarter to run a "big tent."
Funny fact: several years back, a guy who headed up a white supremacy organization decided to do the "ancestry.com" thing, to show his genetic purity. Surprise! He was an octaroon.
And that happened so often they decided consumer DNA testing was part of the conspiracy.
Hispanics and Middle Easterners are technically Caucasians. Just start calling them "white people" and -- problem solved! We did it for the Irish and Italians back in the day...
I think that will eventually happen but will probably be several decades away. However, we don't have a border with Ireland or Italy so their citizens are constantly trying to sneak into our country.
**are NOT constantly
Did you know in the 1980s the largest "illegal" nationality was Irish? They were the huge beneficiaries of the amnesty. They dominated the undocumented folks into the 1990s. After the economy got better in Ireland the numbers declined but for the most part the largest population of undocumented in the US are folks who overstayed visa and came via plane.
Lol. Check out a history of the latter half of the 19th century some time. Half of Ireland and Italy emptied into this country. A solid majority of the "white" people in this country are descended from people who fled poverty and famine in Ireland or Sicily. Oh, but if you flee poverty in famine in Guatemala to come here with only the shirt on your back looking for a better life, then you deserve to be shot on sight.
You not wrong about vast number of folks fleeing from Italy and Ireland but by far the largest ethnic group is the Germans.
Wikipedia says, "Average European admixture among self-identified white Hispanic Americans is 73% (the average for Hispanic Americans regardless of race is 65.1%), contrasting to that of non-Hispanic European Americans, whose European ancestry totals 98.6% on average."
So based on gene studies, most Hispanics are bi-racial, but they are mostly white.
For Hispanics in the US, their cultural inheritance is part of Western civilization, and they are majority white. So singling them out as somehow much different than American whites doesn't make a lot of sense. Note the left does this as often as the right, but for very different reasons.
New Americans are replacing old Americans. Thus has it ever been. Who cares what color their hair, eyes or skin is?
If the majority Japanese (or almost any other country's) culture was suddenly over 40 years dropping like the graph above, while Hispanic culture in Japan was rising at the same rate, would you say the same thing? Would the majority Japanese culture freaking out be written off as disgusting Japanese Supremacy, or would their freak out about preserving their culture be a predictable human reaction?
America isn't a white ethno-nation state, no matter how much you or the Tucker Carlsons of the world wish it were. It's a democratic republic whose citizens swear allegiance to a Constitution, not a particular culture, religion, or ethnic identity. That's the difference.
When almost 80% of your country was white in 1980 it seems a little crazy to say to people who lives in that time that we are not a white country. Obviously not all white, but the vast majority is. When that % is almost cut in half that is a huge jolt to how people perceive our nation’s culture.
Then those jolted folks should grow up and quit whining.
Not a fan of Brazilian immigration to Japan, eh?
“Eventually their kids will replace a great many white kids…”
This is the difference. This incorporates a bunch of straight-out racist ideas:
1. That because of the one-drop rule, mixed-race children aren’t white (to the extent that’s a thing);
2. Races are clearly definable, not malleable, and have inheritable characteristics that outweigh learned behavior;
3. Immigrants from “white” countries are more “American” than immigrants from non-white countries (again, to the extent that’s a thing; and
4. American culture is “white” (just giving up, this fundamental racism is inherent to that clause.)
The first statement, OTOH, just states a fact: people that identify as not white tend to vote Democratic right now and so relative increases in that population should help Democrats in the near term.
“White” is such a bizarre construct it would be more honest to use “Couldn't plausibly pass as Black.”
Back in the day, there would also be an asterisk: “Also not Jewish, Catholic, or anything else that isn’t Protestant”—but their dwindling numbers no longer permits them to insist on such purity.
If there eventually are enough non-whites to make the current Republican strategy of appealing to racism ineffective, this will not "doom" conservatives or even the Republican party. The parties would presumably trim to the left and this would shift the "center" somewhat. Republicans would probably change strategy. Maybe they would rely on religion even more - would this be a way of appealing to Catholic immigrants?
But there is little prospect of capitalists and big business being replaced. They have the money and it will be very hard to take it from them. They can use the money to influence politicians in both parties, of all colors. So unless there some catastrophe like another Depression so that the economic system is completely changed there will still be economic conservatives and they will still have political power. Even if there is another Depression or major financial meltdown, it would be just as likely to lead to rightist dictatorship as to a leftist system, depending on who is President at the time.If there eventually are enough non-whites to make the current Republican strategy of appealing to racism ineffective, this will not "doom" conservatives or even the Republican party. The parties would presumably trim to the left and this would shift the "center" somewhat. Republicans would probably change strategy. Maybe they would rely on religion even more - would this be a way of appealing to Catholic immigrants?
But there is little prospect of capitalists and big business being replaced. They have the money and it will be very hard to take it from them. They can use the money to influence politicians in both parties, of all colors. So unless there some catastrophe like another Depression so that the economic system is completely changed there will still be economic conservatives and they will still have political power. Even if there is another Depression or major financial meltdown, it would be just as likely to lead to rightist dictatorship as to a leftist system, depending on who is President at the time.
When they can’t attack Blacks, they’ll always be able to attack gays.
And the entire Utah Legislature turned out to enact a law addressing the gravest problem facing that state: banning a single trans female from competing in high school sports, thereby ensuring the purity of the other 74,000 high school athletes.
(Something tells me right-wing goons will always find another scapegoat. Potato Head! Dr. Seuss!)
Why not be proactive? Isn’t it better to put a law into place to make sure it can’t happen again?
You think they'd be looking at what's making white women not want to have as many children. Of course, those people suffering racial anxiety think of women as being of another race, and not a white one.
P.S. Does anyone else remember National Lampoon's Shockley's Chart of Evolution? I think women descended from squirrels.
'Modest change in wording' is doing an awful lot of work in the original post.
Obviously you change many of the words in a message and dramatically alter how it is perceived. Thats the point of using different words.
I never knew all those Texans, relying on all that undocumented domestic labor to keep everything there cheap, were actually liberals! We should start with arresting the employers of “illegals” if #2 is a genuine concern.
Of course the second statement is racist. It takes it as a given that the traditional 'white' culture is superior to the coming 'colored' culture. That's the very essence of racism.
"According to the Census Bureau, people of color make up an increasing share of the US population" is a statement of demographic realities. Everything else is partisan commentary.
The presupposition of a changing political landscape and how you apply it is what separates the two questions and makes the first one seem modest and the second appear blatantly political.
I'm guessing that question is rhetorical...
The fact that demographic drift hurts the political right isn't the primary reason America should allow robust immigration inflows. But it's certainly a nice side benefit.
As another poster said, how do you think the Japanese would feel if immigration resulted in Japan being about 40% Hispanic.
I have no idea and couldn't care less. And needless to say the United States isn't Japan.