Trump is not the White Savior

Any time a candidate or the media claim that some demographic was won, be extremely skeptical. With so many people not voting or else among those voting choosing third party, it is rare for a candidate to win any demographic. Let us consider an example getting much attention as of late, the white demographic.

There are over 245 million white people in the US (77.7% of the population). And the vast majority of those are non-Hispanic whites (62.6%). That is about 200 million more whites in the US than in 1900 and so not exactly a shrinking population in terms of raw numbers. In fact, among children born in the US in recent years, 50.4% are non-Hispanic whites. Even the foreign born fertility rate shows that non-Hispanic whites aren’t that far below Hispanics of any race (1.94% vs 2.46%).

About 183 million non-Hispanic whites are 20 years old or older. And about 156 million non-Hispanic whites are eligible voters. That is a large chunk of the population that is eligible to vote (69% of the electorate), but a larger part of the population doesn’t vote. A little over half of all eligible voters cast a ballot. So, maybe 90 million non-Hispanics voted. Just to be on the safe side, will round it up to an even 100 million.

So, how many white people voted for Donald Trump in the presidential election? Well, 58% of registered whites voted for Trump, although I’m not clear if that includes or excludes Hispanic whites. Assuming that is non-Hispanic whites, that means Trump won 58 million non-Hispanic white votes. That is only about a third of the eligible voters in that demographic.

The vast majority of non-Hispanic whites did not vote for Trump. He is not the candidate of white people. He does not have a white mandate. Most Americans, including most most whites despise Trump, the most unpopular candidate since data was kept and now the most unpopular president (even Nixon was more popular when he was first elected). Trump hasn’t come close to being seen as a white savior.

Let’s be clear. When Trump or the media states that Trump won the white demographic, know that such claims are total bullshit. This goes far beyond his not having won the popular vote. There are those on both the political left and political right who want to push various racial narratives, along with other forms of identity politics. But such framings are some combination of false, inaccurate, misleading, and unhelpful.

Trump’s victory doesn’t fundamentally indicate or change anything within the general population. White nationalists, white supremacists, and white bigots exist. Right-wing authoritarians, alt-right loonies, and ethnocentric nativists exist. Still, they remain a small part of the total white population. The mainstream media obsesses over them to a degree that forms an exaggerated portrayal of their numbers.

Most important of all, remember this. It was that same mainstream media that promoted Trump by giving him more coverage than all other candidates combined. And we now know that some of those within the mainstream media were working directly with the DNC and Clinton campaign. As revealed in some of the leaks, it was part of the strategy of the Democratic establishment to ensure Trump got the Republican nomination. Democrats did more to elect Trump than did racist white voters. That is the sad reality.

If we don’t understand any of this, how are we going to move forward? We need new ways of understanding that offer a vision of change, not yet more division and divisiveness. Don’t rely on what is said by any candidate or media source. Look at the data for yourself. Research topics and come to your own conclusions. Be careful when you find yourself mindlessly being drawn into a narrative. Ask yourself: What exactly is this narrative? And why is it being pushed?

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “Trump is not the White Savior

  1. Here is a key issue of the campaigns: immigration. The majority of Americans are in favor of a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the country. But interestingly, as I recall, the majority of Trump supporters or voters also agree with that. Trump won because of economics, not racism. And Trump supporters aren’t wrong in their belief that big biz use undocumented immigrants to drive down wages. Even Sanders has been critical of the neoliberal strategy of using foreign and immigrant labor to weaken labor organizing.

    • Trump is a caricature of the most depraved and demented right-wing features of the GOP. But a caricature made into reality. He is doing all the kinds of things that Republicans claimed they’ve wanted to do for decades. It will be interesting to see how people respond once they finally create their utopian world.

      Republicans have avoided responsibility for their crazy worldview because so few of their ideas ever gets fully implemented. They just talk a lot of bullshit and then blame all the problems on Democrats, liberals, scientists, professors, unions, minorities, immigrants, poor people, etc. But now they have the power to implement their agenda and a president crazy enough to do it.

      For the first time in our lifetime, Republicans will be forced to take responsibility for all the sociopathy and authoritarianism they have been pushing.

      • Watching the Republicans right now is like watching a 5 year old in an unsupervised candyshop. They are grabbing at EVERYTHING they can get their hands on. If they do not exercise some self control not only are they going to hurt this country, but they are going to do some serious damage to their own party.

        Because they control the legislative and Executive branches, they own everything that happens for at least the next two years. The good, the bad, and the ugly is all theirs for the accolades and blame. While I want the progressive liberals to fight them every inch of the way, a part of me wants them to sit back and wait for the perfect time to pounce.

        Eight years ago when President Obama was elected and the Tea Party was suddenly the right wing media’s darling, I had high hopes for them. I was certain they would split the GOP down the centre, cleaving the radicals from the moderates so that the Republicans could finally divest themselves of their more hard to control folk and get back to governing. Sadly it seems the TP swallowed the GOP whole and spit out the few remaining moderates like so many pits.

      • I’m with you. Part of me would like to see the GOP go entirely over the edge. It would be quite the mess to clean up. But it would clear the way for maybe finally working toward some actual progress. Just maybe.

    • They conveniently didn’t ask how many would have voted for Sanders or a third party candidate. Nor did they ask how many would like a more democratic system that led to better candidates. They didn’t ask because they knew the response they’d get and they wanted to shape a study that would confirm their biases. The study wasn’t to learn something. It is simply fodder for ideological rhetoric.

    • This is one of the many problems in our society to which we already know multiple possible solutions. The deeper problem is those in power don’t want to solve the problems. It’s not a problem to those who benefit from it.

    • That is the kind of thing I used to like doing. Challenging bigots. And if they showed no shame, then ridiculing them endlessly in order to remove any last doubts they might have that they aren’t absolute ignorant pieces of shit.

    • I looked at the comments section. I’ve never before seen in one place so many people in need of psychiatric help. They just seem like extremely unhappy, dysfunctional people lashing out at anyone that is a convenient target because they are afraid to face their own problems and take responsibility.

      They defend those in power who have created such a shitty society that makes such people so demented. They are like the beaten dog that comes cowering back to the abusive owner who beats it and then bites the innocent stranger who tries to help it. I guess it’s a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.

    • In a globalized world with looming climate change disasters, refugee crises, increasing potential for far worse terrorism, and likely a new world war, where exactly do the rich think they are going to hide? They need more than a plane. They need a rocket ship to go hide out in some secret bunker on Mars.

    • If we were to be honest with ourselves, we’d have to admit that the US has never at any point in its history have had much in the way of an actual functioning democracy. There have been brief periods where populist forces from outside of the government have forced some basic democratic reforms such as getting universal suffrage.

      But even with that, the system has never been made into a democracy. The democratic aspects of our system have always been mostly superficial. That is because few powerful people in American history have ever wanted democracy, even as they gladly used democratic rhetoric to manipulate the public and silence dissent.

      The only thing that has changed is that the lack of democracy has become too blatantly obvious to be ignored. It is an important turning point. We used to be able to pretend to be a democracy. Now we can’t even pretend. That puts us in a tough position, because American identity has always been built on an aspirational vision of democracy, a belief that we were at least moving in the right direction.

      There comes a point where aspiration becomes mere delusion.

  2. Holy crap – Obama betrayed people right before he left.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/the-obama-administration-bails-out-private-equity-landlords-at-the-expense-of-the-middle-class-government-guarantees-for-rental-securitization.html

    He just bailed out the private equity industry (the people responsible for a lot of the job destruction). I don’t know how much you know about finance, but this is very bad for a number of reasons.

    Basically these guys bought a lot of homes while people were being foreclosed after 2008 and are charging sky high rents. If you start seeing rent and home prices go up … now you know why. Also, if there is another real estate crash … don’t be surprised if the taxpayer has to bail out the PE companies (who are now in the business of driving up the price of housing).

    • It’s bad.

      It will lead to higher rents and housing prices for Americans. It may someday end up a in a situation where Americans are in a position where the PE companies demand a bailout.

      Oh, and along the way a lot of people are going to get evicted, as linked in the article:
      http://wolfstreet.com/2017/01/07/evictions-by-wall-street-mega-landlords-soar-financialization-of-rents-cause-housing-instability-atlanta-fed/

      Basically if you rent, your rental property might be owned by Wall Street not a small local landlord.

      This may go down like Clinton’s ending of Glass-Steagall. Only Obama pulled a fast one with no media coverage. Basically Wall Street can do whatever it wants now on the housing market, knowing that the government will bail them out.

      • It further supports my sense that we are quickly moving toward total systemic failure. It’s not one thing. Rather, it’s death by a thousand cuts.

        We have a corporatist system which means the problems of politics are inseparable from the problems of economics. The entire system is rigged. There is no way to reform it because reform would have to come from within the system, but there is no leverage point to force reform within the system.

        The system needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up. I don’t know what that would mean. I’ve just lost any scrap of hope about the system itself and everything within it.

    • If ethnocentrism was dominant and unavoidable, then we wouldn’t see so much patriotic nationalism in diverse countries like the US and we wouldn’t see so many ethnically diverse racial identities. The ‘white’ race formed out of hundreds of separate ethnic identities.

      Obviously, ethnicity doesn’t trump all else. It appears ethnocentrism is a far weaker force in the modern world. Non-ethnic nationalism and non-ethnic racialism (along with other non-ethnic social identities such as regionalism) have been the dominant social forces in recent centuries.

      One of the problems is that an ethnocentric view assumes that ethnicities have clear and unchanging boundaries. But the reality is most ethnicities are recent inventions that have little connection to very far into the past. And so these ethnicities are constantly shifting, including and excluding various people as conditions change.

    • Such simpleminded thinking drives me crazy.

      I’ve quoted to you in another comment from that one book that shows mistrust isn’t caused by diversity but by segregation. Since segregation is a confounding factor, if it isn’t controlled for in research, it will lead to unclear results and false conclusions.

      Plus, other research shows that people who grow up in diverse communities tend to be more socially liberal and tolerant as adults. But the problem is most studies of diversity are going to be based on communities experiencing recent waves of immigration, which is to say unstable social conditions. You can only know what those communities will be like in the following generations who grow up in that diversity.

      In order to be honest and fair about the research, it would require studying stable communities that have maintained diversity over multiple generations and, as I said, then control for segregation. The question then would be how and why do some diverse communities maintain stability and avoid segregation. That would require further research, which would require also further questioning of assumptions and prejudices.

  3. I think newness always requires adjustment. When I moved from diverse Bay Area to white mid-Atlantic town as a kid I noticed it but adjusted. As an “alternative” person I find that race isn’t always the biggest factor in “belonging.” I don’t automatically connect better to other Asian Americans and many white kids in my 85% white town felt alienated because they were alternative, didn’t like the suburban culture, what have you.

    “Neighborhoods with the greatest opportunity for residents to develop a respect for diversity (i.e. highly integrated neighborhoods, as measured by level of mixing) have the least capacity to foster a sense of community (as measured by each resident’s personal network density). Likewise, neighborhoods with the least opportunity for residents to develop a respect for diversity (i.e. highly segregated neighborhoods) have the greatest capacity to foster a sense of community. This finding suggests that, the values of community psychology notwithstanding, it is not possible to simultaneously promote respect for diversity and sense of community in a typical world where relationship formation is driven by homophily and proximity.”

    • The problem isn’t diversity. In the US, even majority white communities in many places are deteriorating from within.

      The South’s economy was total shit after the Civil War. And that was despite a large part of the black population leaving for the North. States like South Carolina went from majority black to majority white and it didn’t solve their problems. The Upper South once had large populations of blacks and yet even with their being gone the poverty has worsened.

      My dad lived in a rural sundown town that kept blacks out and the place is dying. Blacks were forced (often violently) out of rural areas all over the North, but that didn’t stop the small family farms and downtowns from disappearing. Appalachia’s economy has collapsed and poor whites there aren’t benefiting from the lack of diversity.

      Communities in the least diverse parts of the country are doing the worst.

    • And gathering them all together in one place is not making them happier. They are feeding off of each other’s mental illnesses and social dysfunction. It is warping their minds and sending them into a spiral of dark fantasies, further disconnecting them from reality and their fellow humans.

      They’d be wiser to get off the internet and get to know the people in their communities. They are not in a good place.

      They are trapped in an ideological reality tunnel. It will only further radicalize them and make them prey to those who want to manipulate them, such as happens with Islamic terrorism. This is how right-wing violence is born.

  4. “Now since I have no history here and don’t really know what the place is about I might be way off base on what the general interests are and what folks are interested in reading. But I have some comments after reading about 90% of the posts in this thread. They are somewhat in response to what I read and also to provide a bit of a viewpoint not found in the other comments.

    Since everyone seems a bit biographical here (I guess it comes with this kind of discussion). I am in my 60’s, white, male, from a deep working class background, put myself through college (am 7 figure well off), knew no black’s growing up and only a handful of Hispanics, raised Protestant (pay no attention to religion at all now), have direct ancestors who arrived in the New World on the ship which followed the Mayflower, am mostly Scott (and identify as such) with parts of Dutch, Norwegian, English and Native American, am a life long socialist, despise Capitalism, served my country for 21 years, own a lot of guns, a life long environmentalist, socially liberal, very conservative in terms of security, will give you any freedom you want as long as it does not infringe on anyone else’s freedom, have family members who are white, Hispanic, Asian, African-American, Native-American, Catholic, Protestant, Shinto, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, Progress (yes it is a religion) and I think Pagan. What a mess! Bottom line is I am a member of my tribe for life as that is what made me and what I am. It matters not how much money I have now but where I came from. We all are fundamentally what formed us. It is in our evolutionary history to be this way.

    To those who do not understand that poor and working class and maybe middle class white’s feel under attack in the US all I can say is that you are either in denial or are not paying attention. If some whacko on the street corner is spouting something you have never heard of well he is likely just a nut. But when 10’s of millions of folks say they feel a certain way or think that others are treating them a certain way you can bet your last dollar there is something going on. And it is worth paying attention to it.

    I certainly think that over the course of my life the intensity and depth of racism has gone down for a time (say the late 60’s to the 80’s) and then sort of plateaued and then started a slow rise which has continued to this day. But much of the conflict and stresses we see can also be attributed to class conflict which is manipulated into racism by those to whom that works to be an advantage. I have an idea which I think is a major factor in this (but as always it might just be a correlation and not a causation). I’ll get to that below.

    First a story which I think exemplifies a sentiment seen in some of the posts. My son, who is an anarcho-syndicalist, a deeply committed environmentalist, is deeply committed to leftist identity politics, (and was raised in some affluence) and I were having a conversation about the election some months ago. The triggering point in this conversation was that the day before Hillary had made her “deplorable” comment and it was all over the news. I made the comment to him that she very likely just gave away the election to Trump as that comment was unforgivable and would galvanize the white working class vote and some small percentage of the Black and Hispanic vote to vote against her. He went ballistic over this opinion and was all over the fact that what she had said was actually true. Given my background you can imagine my surprise at this opinion. I tried to explain to him that those ‘deplorable’s’ have rights just like anyone else and that they want all the regular things like a home, family and future for their children just like everyone and they see it going away. He was having none of it and that they were racists, bigots and deserving of no real consideration. I said to him that poor people and working class people are all in the same boat no matter what their color and that they have far more in common with each other than than those who run the Democratic and Republican Parties and that they should be for each other not against each other. Poor people are poor people no matter their color. At this point he started screaming at me that this was just not true and that was the end of the conversation. We have not spoken since. I have sadly come to the conclusion that he is actually a pretty intense racist and bigot, and that the modern Left is deeply flawed and I am no longer a part of it.

    Causation correlation. On many other blogs out in the intersphere much of the reason for what is going on right now would be attributed to the ongoing and slow collapse of our global civilization due to the effects of exceeding the Earth’s carrying capacity, ongoing and worsening climate change and the declining net energy available to us to use for building and maintaining the civilizational infrastructure. I think this is dead on as a major factor. There are way too many people on the planet and the amount of resources available per capita is going down and has been for some time. Empires like the US and its wealthy supporters like the EU can only exist at their level of affluence by continuing the colonial stripping of resources and wealth from the 3rd and developing world. This results in a slowly tightening noose which results in increasing inequity and the leaving behind of increasing numbers of people around the world. One can see this effect especially strongly in the effects of globalization on the working class in America where it is not just white working class who have been left behind but all working class. We are in a long slowly accelerating global decline triggered by a declining net energy. This is going to get rapidly worse when climate change worsens to the point where the high net energy fossil fuels have to be abandoned. In this situation many of the normal civilizational stresses alleviated by the wealth we found when we discovered vast pools of oil (stored solar energy) are once again becoming more troublesome. Tribalism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, anti-immigration and such are easy to deal with when everyone is getting richer, but quickly become flash points when everyone is getting poorer. Identity politics in this situation will likely fall by the wayside no matter what you think of it. And there is not much reason to think we are not going to get much poorer going forward in time resulting in declining metrics across the board – except perhaps for those who can hang onto power. So I expect these kinds of problems to be unsolvable and we will return to cultural and political norms more in tune with what prevailed in say the 1800’s. Your mileage may vary”

    • I agree with much of his comment. Here is one thing I thought was confused:

      “I have sadly come to the conclusion that he is actually a pretty intense racist and bigot, and that the modern Left is deeply flawed and I am no longer a part of it.”

      The Democratic Party, in terms of partisans and leadership, is fairly far right. It certainly is further right than the average American. And so I don’t even know what it means when someone assumes that the Democratic Party represents the political left.

      In response to such claims, I’d suggest that one should pay more attention to public opinion and pay less attention to empty rhetoric.

  5. “Probably the most effective argument for the “Alt-Right” (whatever that term has come to mean these days) is that with continued immigration there will one day be no white countries. That is: there will be black countries (in Africa or the Caribbean), there will be Asian countries (I suppose “yellow” is un-PC), there will always be India, and there will be Arab countries but there will be no white countries (in Europe or America).

    I’m not unsympathetic to the spirit of this argument, in the sense that I very, very strongly don’t want to see people who look like Rembrandt pictures (or Larry Bird, or for that matter the Swedish volleyball team) disappear from the face of the earth. Any more than you or M_Young does. That being said, there are some big factual challenges to this argument as far as it goes. I don’t actually think that “Rembrandt Girls” are going to vanish from the planet, and I think that’s a less likely outcome today than I might have thought ten years ago. (I am not white, for the record). Here are a few reasons why.

    1) Western Europe and North America have thus far been fairly open to mass immigration, as have Australia and New Zealand and to a lesser extend Russia. The rest of Eastern and Central Europe, on the other hand, have absolutely not been open to mass immigration, and are becoming less open in reaction to the Muslim migrant crisis. Eastern Europe is in the middle of a supermajority swing towards ethnic nationalism, and there is essentially zero chance that they’re going to embrace large immigrant populations any time soon. (More likely they will encourage the minority populations that already exist, Muslims and Roma alike, to leave).

    2) Even Western Europe and North America are becoming much more conscious of ethnic identity as they become more diverse. In this sense, increasing ethnic and cultural diversity is largely self-correcting. At some point, a large enough immigrant population triggers a reaction in the broader society that says “no more”.

    3) It’s a mistake to extrapolate current birth rates indefinitely into the future. Muslim and Roma birth rates are quite a bit higher than native European birth rates right now, but who knows if that will continue into the future? In America right now, for example, the time frame for ‘demographic replacement’ of white people is much further away than one would have thought in, say, 1990 or 2000. In 1980, white Americans had a lower fertility rate than African Americans, Native Americans, or any Latino group. Today white Americans have a fertility rate much higher than Native Americans, about tied with African Americans and Asian Americans, ahead of Puerto Ricans and Cubans, and only about 0.6 children per woman below Mexican Americans. Fertility rates do not stay constant, and that’s one of the things that helps keep different groups in equilibrium. As various minority groups have become more prosperous, their fertility rates have also fallen.

    4) At the risk of going into creepy biotechnology realms (and giving Rod cause to tear his hair out), we are close to the point now where we will able to maintain genetic diversity (and actually increase it) artificially. In the future we will know how to engineer traits into human offspring, including the traits that M_Young loves so much (e.g. blue eyes, pale skin, etc.). Maybe we’ll even be able to generate new kinds of human genetic variation. In any case, I suspect that if parents have the option to make their children look more like the Swedish volleyball team, a lot of them will take it.

    5) Finally, just as a note: there is no “Indian” race, as the modern day Indian population is a mix of a couple different racial groups. The original group that populated India is in fact almost extinct now: their last quasi-pure remnant is the Andaman Islanders, who are rapidly disappearing (although their genes persist in the bulk of the Indian population today). If you’re concerned about disappearing genetic and phenotypic groups of people, and I certainly share your concern there, there are groups which are disappearing much faster than ‘white people’ and deserve at least equally as much oconcern.

    • The earliest Europeans were dark-skinned. They disappeared and I don’t hear any alt-righters complaining.

      Europeans have always been a mix of genetic populations. There are common genetics with Asians and Native Americans in Northern Europe, mixed in with the various mixed genetics of Scandinavians, Germans, and Russians. There are the separate genetic populations of Basque and Celts.

      Then there are the the mix of genetics in Southern Europe with a long history of genetic mixing in the Mediterranean .Throw in Semitic, Romani, etc genetics Plus, Neanderthal genetics. Combine that with all of these populations moving around Europe for Millennia.

      There are no pure genetic populations left in Europe, whatever pure is supposed to mean. All Europeans are mutts. African genetics are found in Britain from Roman times. If one wants to save European tradition, that could only be done by encouraging more diverse mixing, as Europeans have been doing since time immemorial.

      We Americans took the art of ethnic and racial mixing to a whole new level. We are the muttiest of the mutts. Any ‘white’ American who has ancestral lines going back to the colonial era probably has some non-European ancestors, whether African or Native American.

    • It really doesn’t tell us anything. There is some data that shows one thing. Then there is other data that shows other things. The conclusions based on the various data contradict each other.

      All that proves is how ignorant we are and that we don’t know jack shit. Pretending we can be certain about any conclusions is willful ignorance, deserving of ridicule.

      We are still barely even realizing how complex it all is and how many confounding factors are involved. But we do know that plenty of recent data undermines nearly every assumption and belief we’ve had up to this point.

  6. For me personally, trust is more influenced by crime. If a place is known for being high crime then I feel more temptation to avoid others.

    “Let me explain to you how profiling actually works: Police pay attention to areas with higher crime because it is more necessary. In efforts to prevent violent crime, they may profile (such as NYC’s stop and frisk) to limit people from carrying dangerous weapons. Its similar to airport security searching millions of innocent people every year in the name of safety.

    Furthermore, most of the people kept safe? Other minorities.

    So the question for you is: Why does the safety of minority populations matter so little to you?

    You’ve yet to explain what racism means to you by the way :).
    3 Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Carick
    3 years ago
    As I mentioned before, everything about you is disingenuous.

    The notion that you’re just “expressing concern for the residents of minority communities” is laughable. Your sole objective in commenting here is to dispel any notion of what “liberals” believe, which is that people of differing backgrounds can coexist harmoniously and without incident, and furthermore your aim is to stigmatize and alienate minority communities, with special emphasis on black and Hispanic communities (no doubt in large part due to the fact that they are the largest minority demographics where you reside in the US).

    If your alleged black “friend” was arrested trying to get into his own home similar to what happened to Henry Louis Gates you would likely shrug, not caring at all how insulting and undignifying that is. Friend or sociopath?
    1 Reply

    Avatar
    Carick Guest
    3 years ago
    Let’s go over several problems with your analysis: I am expressing genuine concern for minorities because I do care about people. Young black males being profiled is because criminals tend to be young, black and male. its unfortunate, but I rarely see anyone angry at the criminal black males who make profiling justifiable. If the black crime rate lowered to the white crime rate, you would see less need for profiling.

    Its interesting you bring up blacks and Hispanics. You see, black people resent the Hispanic influx into the United States. They are forced to live in neighborhoods that don’t resemble the ones they grew up in, forced to embrace a foreign culture and forced to compete for jobs with a population group that will do them for far less. Black people are the ones most affected by Hispanic immigration, yet you will not hear this in the national new because, well “Diversity is our strength!”.

    My black friends are people with common sense, unlike professor Gates. They would more than likely calmly answer the officer’s questions, produce identification and go about their day. Unlike Mr. Gates who made a scene when there need not have been one.
    see more
    5 Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Carick
    3 years ago
    With any luck, the day will come that the police will show up at your door unannounced wanting to search your hard drive for evidence of kiddie porn – you know, for the protection of the children, and all – and when that day comes, I trust that you will just “calmly” let them in.
    1 Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Carick
    3 years ago
    The irony of course is that I can certainly see rational arguments for slowing the rate of immigration particularly in Canada where it is highest, but you’re not concerned with pragmatic discussions about economics; you’re concerned with expressing your racism towards people-grace and delighting in talking about why you think it’s justified.
    1 Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Carick
    3 years ago
    Of course you would sneak in a comment about “Hispanics taking over”; I would expect nothing less.

    Your objective is to encourage a stop to immigration and increasing diversity and to uphold white supremacy, and you’ll use whatever tools are at your disposal towards this end. If that means stigmatizating whole groups of people on the basis of their race, (saying that all “Africans” worldwide are the biggest criminals, which you actually blatantly did), you’ll do that. If it means an appeal to empathy (the plight of the po’ black American being “displaced” by Hispanic immigration), you’ll do that.

    I would expect nothing less than such manipulative tactics from a racist sociopath. But like all sociopaths, you truly feel nothing.
    1 Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Carick
    3 years ago
    See note above.
    Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Carick
    3 years ago
    I can see that you’re typing. There’s no point. You’re racist. You clearly think your racism is justified. You’ve already admitted to being the hypocritical (worst) kind.

    I have nothing further to say to you. Please consider playing in traffic. Goodbye.
    Reply

    Avatar
    Carick Guest
    3 years ago
    A serious question: What is racism to you? And how have I displayed racism in our conversation?

    And…why is it that you seem so prone to hate and violence, despite being against racism? I have been nothing but cordial and polite, you have been nothing but rude.
    3 Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Carick
    3 years ago
    I don’t know how to be more plainspoken: do not talk to me. Thank you.
    Reply

    Avatar
    Carick Guest
    3 years ago
    And yet you consider on the conversation throughout this thread :).
    1 Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Carick
    3 years ago
    Or is it the “politeness” you claim to show that leads you to patronize anyone with a diverging opinion as “needing to grow up?”
    Reply

    Avatar
    Carick Guest
    3 years ago
    I’m merely telling you the truth. Many young people (I’m still pretty young myself to be honest!) carry these silly ideas (almost religious in a way) in their head until they mature and realize how foolish they were all along. I’ve done it, everyone’s done it.
    4 Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Carick
    3 years ago
    Oh, this must be the same “politeness” and “amiability” you show to the minorities you claim to keep as friends while privately feeling that their prescence is “not a strength” and launching internet campaigns for their forced removal from the vicinity, or in defense of their street harassment by police.

    Kindhearted, indeed!
    Reply

    Avatar
    Carick Guest
    3 years ago
    “Internet wars”? “Forced removal”? What on earth are you talking about?

    Many of these same friends acknowledge the very things I have said here today. In fact, no one is more open about black crime and black dysfunction in general than my black friends and co-workers!
    2 Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Carick
    3 years ago
    “I’m not racist, I have black friends!”
    Reply

    Avatar
    Carick Guest
    3 years ago
    How can someone who hates someone based on their skin color have a friend of that skin color?
    1 Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Carick
    3 years ago
    Precisely. You’re not really their friends.

    Everything about you is disingenuous. Hence why I called you a hypocrite.
    Reply

    Avatar
    Carick Guest
    3 years ago
    Except I am their friend. We get along quite well. Just because I acknowledge (and to be honest, they acknowledge) the truth about group differences, doesn’t make me a racist and doesn’t make my friendship with them any less meaningful. If anything its better because we’re all speaking honestly rather than sidestepping the truth like liberals tend to do :).
    2 Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Carick
    3 years ago
    If your idea of “meaningful friendship” is that everyone sits around and stereotypes one another in a dehumanizing fashion, I can only assume sociopaths gravitate towards one another.
    Reply

    Avatar
    Carick Guest
    3 years ago
    So I provide a source that shows Black males are more likely to commit violent crime in Canada than any other group and you refuse to see it as legitimate. Meanwhile, you take one instance (out of 22!) and somehow that confirms…what?

    Again, I’m not sure what your point is. I’m merely pointing out that MOST hate crimes are not that serious and not that different than a lot of other silly crimes.
    2 Reply

    Avatar
    Evil Racist Bigot Guest
    3 years ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C

    According to the wiki entry it was 76.7% white as of the last census.

    On top of, the larger the share of the population whites account for, the more likely they would be to be perpetrators relative to victims of hate crimes, and the greater the over representation of minorities as victims you would expect, simply due to whites being a majority.

    For example, if they were 84% of the population, and minorities thus 16% of the population, that is a 21:4 ratio, significantly larger than a 3:1 ratio, and consequently you would expect whites to be more than 5 times as likely to be offenders as victims simply due to being a majority, and minorities to be victims of hate crimes over 25 times as often per capita simply because they were a minority.

    So if whites are 84% of the population, that strengthens my point.
    3 Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Evil Racist Bigot
    3 years ago
    I’m not sure what your point is, though. My point is merely that “Diversity, it seems, leads to an increase in the “knockout” game where young urbanites attack naive white folks” – this statement is not categorically true in all places, as white people are not likely to be “attacked” here at all; interracially or otherwise.

    Our crime rates are quite low.
    Reply

    Avatar
    Carick Guest
    3 years ago
    Wrong again AG. White Canadians are actually only 76.7% of the population and given trends, probably closer to 75% these days!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D
    2 Reply

    Avatar
    Guest Carick
    3 years ago
    OK, I utilized the 2006 census http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C….
    Reply

    Avatar
    Harumphty_Dumpty
    3 years ago
    “On a more positive note, it may be possible to have such sorting by neighborhoods and still have diverse cities.”

    Dang! If only we in the segregated South had thought to call our system “diversity”!
    15 Reply

    Avatar
    MooTieFighter
    3 years ago
    We want to live around those that share the same morals, religious views and ways of life. Diversity is what will finally destroy America. The diversity is great mantra is feel good non-sense.
    22 Reply

    Avatar
    Vinnie
    3 years ago
    Sigh. Political correctness rots the brain.

    “Diversity” is not desirable in and of itself. I know many are conditioned to believe that, but no one has shown better social outcomes of anything based purely on diversity (race, class, gender, whatever). Its just a talking point.

    The point has always been ACCESS. It is an injustice to deny access to outgroups for the sake of the comfort of ingroups, and we heap praise on “diverse” areas because they have put into practice (either through action or inaction) a social system that allows outgroups access to fill-in-the-blank (educational institutions, neighborhoods, parks, etc.) available to ingroups.

    The real question is — can access by all outgroups in a system be maintained despite the fact that, even with sufficient access, both outgroups and ingroups choose to sort themselves separately? My hunch is “yes”, but allowing for class or race “self-segregation” in today’s cities may just replicate the same problematic urban dynamics of the 50s and 60s, once that sorting has become entrenched for a generation. And that would be a shame.
    14 Reply

    Avatar
    So CAL Snowman Vinnie
    3 years ago
    There are “ingroups” and “outgroups” for a reason. People have ACCESS to the communities THEY create. If a community refuses to work and educate themselves and decides to let the federal government support them, then you will get a community which reflects those lifestyle choices. If a community values hard work, education, and self reliance you will get a community which reflects those lifestyle choices. Good schools are reflective of good students and bad schools are reflective of bad students. This idea that “outgroups” lack access to good schools is laughable. If Harvard had the same acceptance rate as a Detroit community college, Harvard would not be considered a good school.
    24 Reply

    Avatar
    RagnarDanneskjold
    3 years ago
    Consider how much diversity has been forced on the country by social policy and immigration from non-Western countries. This was sold as a strength, but now we’re realizing it’s a cost. Diversity breaks down communities and drives up the cost of doing business, as there are a myriad of laws and programs designed to foster diversity. This all applies within a business too as well, where companies deemed too “X” are forced to add employees from groups “Y” or “Z.” The programs themselves are costs, but if the resulting diversity is an even bigger cost, the economy is saddled with a lot of non-economic policies that are hurting growth.
    44 Reply

    Avatar
    kmihindu RagnarDanneskjold
    3 years ago
    Of course, any change has costs as well as benefits, but what the article doesn’t address is the changing definition of diversity. If you look at newspapers from the 1800s, Catholics were considered “other” to the Protestant majority and there was not much mixing between the two. Now, most American would laugh if you described American Catholics as “other”. I think more research into how “other” becomes assimilated would make more sense.

    Also, if you look at the mixing of races by age, there is more mixing among youth (working together, friendships). Going forward, it is quite possible that black/white relations will become more like Protestant/Catholic relations in this country – especially given the growth in interracial marriages between all racial combinations.
    16 Reply

    Avatar
    George Williams RagnarDanneskjold
    3 years ago
    Agree. Look what became of Yugoslavia. Our biggest mistake was to not insist that English be the common, official and legal language of government, education and commerce.
    9 Reply

    Avatar
    whoistobi
    3 years ago
    this just in: the sun is going to rise tomorrow
    32 Reply

    Avatar
    tsol
    3 years ago
    Social engineering for the fail, once again.
    26 Reply

    Avatar
    Gnapp
    3 years ago
    Why is this called a “paradox”? That’s based on the moral assumption that “diversity is strength”, which has no real foundation outside Jew science.
    25 Reply

    Avatar
    hailexiao
    3 years ago
    While the model presented is a decent first-order approximation of the relationship between diversity and cohesiveness, there are quite a few flaws. One is that the model assumes that people are either completely alike or completely different, which is far from true in real life. Even when we look at only culture and national origin there are many degrees of differentness. All other things being equal, two Germans are more alike than a German and a Briton, who are in turn more alike than a German and an Italian or a German and a Saudi Arab. As for diverse communities, the model rates a white/east Asian neighborhood and a white/African American neighborhood equally diverse, even though in reality the former tend to be more homogeneous because the cultures are more similar. The relationship still holds, but the identity parameter needs to be more flexible than a kronecker delta function.

    In addition, personal links may not be the best indicator of social cohesion. If you and I aren’t friends but we still have obstacles and issues in common as well as a basic common culture (something America is really good at), we can still get a lot accomplished. We might even do better than friends because we don’t have past emotional baggage to deal with. Of course, this requires a high degree of rational and logical thought, which not every culture emphasizes equally.

    P.S.: I’m tired of the word ‘diversity’ being abused. It’s a measure of the skewedness of identity distributions, a discrete Gino coefficient for identity rather than income, if you will. A public school that is 98% black and 1% Latino is not ‘diverse’ no matter how hard or how many innumerate liberal arts activists insist on it.”

  7. “The Democratic National Committee will choose its next leader on Saturday, and when it does it should choose a leader who will resist the pressure to pursue the wrong white people. Hundreds of articles have been written about the imperative of attracting more support from white working-class voters who supported Barack Obama in 2012 but then bolted to back Donald J. Trump.

    “The far more important — and largely untold — story of the election is that more Obama voters defected to third- and fourth-party candidates than the number who supported Mr. Trump. That is the white flight that should most concern the next D.N.C. chairman, because those voters make up a more promising way to reclaim the White House. The way to win them back is by being more progressive, not less.

    “To be clear, all white voters matter. But Democrats must make tough, data-driven decisions about how to prioritize their work. Right now, too many are using bad math and faulty logic to push the party to chase the wrong segment of white voters. For example, Guy Cecil, who spent nearly $200 million as head of the progressive “super PAC” Priorities USA, urged the party to rebuild trust with the “millions of white voters who voted for President Obama and Donald Trump.”

    “The math underlying that conclusion is incorrect (Mr. Trump picked up not “millions,” but only 784,000 white votes in the 10 battleground states he won by single digits). And it misses the bigger — and more fixable — problem of white Democratic defections to third- and fourth-party candidates.

    “Hillary Clinton lost the decisive states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan by 77,744 votes; the number of Democratic votes dropped significantly from 2012 levels, and the Republican total increased by about 440,000 votes. The third- and fourth-party surge, however, was larger than the Republican growth, with 503,000 more people choosing the Libertarian or the Green candidate than had done so in 2012. When you look at the white vote in those states, the picture is even more stark.

    “In Wisconsin, according to the exit poll data, Mrs. Clinton received 193,000 fewer white votes than Mr. Obama received in 2012, but Mr. Trump’s white total increased over Mitt Romney’s by just 9,000 votes. So where did the other 184,000 Wisconsin whites go? A majority went to third and fourth parties, which, together, received 100,000 more white votes than they did in 2012.

    “In Michigan, where 75 percent of the voters were white, Mrs. Clinton received about 295,000 fewer votes than Mr. Obama did, but the Republican total increased by just 164,000 votes. The ranks of those voting third and fourth party leapt to more than 250,000 last year from about 51,000 in 2012, and Mrs. Clinton fell short by just 10,704 votes.

    “In Pennsylvania, the Democrats’ problem was not with white voters, but with African-Americans. Mrs. Clinton actually improved on the Democratic 2012 results with whites, but over 130,000 unenthused black voters stayed home, and she lost by about 44,000 votes.

    “If Democrats had stemmed the defections of white voters to the Libertarian or Green Parties, they would have won Michigan and Wisconsin, and had they also inspired African-Americans in Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton would be president.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s