- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Policing The Ethnic Margins

At my old media home, Dallas Morning News editorial board member Ralph De La Cruz criticized Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for being ethnically Hispanic without being “politically Hispanic” [1] — this, because Sen. Cruz takes a conservative view of immigration. De La Cruz wrote in part:

To politically claim an ethnicity, I believe you have to be aware of the issues and challenges facing that ethnic community and show a willingness to address them.

I’m always hesitant to suggest any community is homogenous, or of one mind, on any issue. But if there is such an issue, it’s immigration for Hispanics. It brings together people of Mexican, Cuban, Chilean, Nicaraguan heritage – pretty much all Hispanics. It may not always be this way, but at this point in our history, immigration binds American Hispanics as much as our other common denominator: language.

Ted Cruz, acting white? That prompted my friend and spiritual advisor Mike Hashimoto, the world’s only Japanese-American Tea Partier, to respond like this. [2] Excerpt:

Hey, Ralph, if this is about slapping around Ted Cruz because you disagree with him politically, that’s fair game. That’s why we have this blog. Express your thoughts.

I do have to ask whether you really thought through this part:

To politically claim an ethnicity, I believe you have to be aware of the issues and challenges facing that ethnic community and show a willingness to address them.

I’ve mostly given up on editing, but I think what you meant was, “… show a willingness to address them in the way I find politically acceptable.” Cruz might not approach immigration (or any other issue) the way you might, despite your shared ethnicity, but I don’t think that means, necessarily, that he’s not addressing those “issues and challenges.”

You just disagree, kind of in the way I’d suspect many American blacks disagree with Clarence Thomas, to quote your example.

But since we’re on this path — Hey, maybe it’s part of our national conversation on race! — could you help me determine whether I’m qualified to politically claim an ethnicity like Japanese-American? Are there specific issues and challenges to our community? What, exactly, are the sanctioned positions I should take to qualify?

I think this was a great response by Hash. I’ve got a thousand problems, but one of them is not white ethnic political enforcers policing the margins of crackerdom telling us what real Caucasians are permitted to believe politically ain’t one.

And yes, Hash is not kidding when he says he can take a Pearl Harbor joke. Every December 7, I would stick my head into his office and give him the finger. And every December 7, he would respond with, “Hey, we had you guys, but then you went and cheated with that atomic bomb thing.” It’s great to be a conservative in a newsroom, because you can get away with black humor like that with each other without being referred to human resources for rehabilitation.

Advertisement
71 Comments (Open | Close)

71 Comments To "Policing The Ethnic Margins"

#1 Comment By EliteCommInc. On August 20, 2013 @ 5:35 pm

My last comment is the problem for several who equate skin color with ethnicity. The societal structure created in this country is categorized by whiteness. But really? Is there some innate trait of whiteness that bars people of other colors from behaving and thinking in like manner. One could hardly make the case for most blacks during the seventies and early sixties. Even blacks who were democrats shared smilar values.

The nexus of change for you r comments does not come from below or the middle, but rather the upper tears of (and I hate to use the term but it is relevant) post modern theory in identity studies which does not come from the streets as much as from the world of academia.

One must ask themselves, if they are honest — what changed? What shifted the loyalties of black populations in the US from a more liberal ideology?

I would contend it is not an ideology they embraced as much as tolerated for a keener ear to their issues.

#2 Comment By EliteCommInc. On August 20, 2013 @ 5:45 pm

My parents were/are bi-ligual. My mother was born in Cuba. When I was growing up I was exposed to hispanic dynamics. I spent time with relatives in places my parents were raised outside of the US. Now had I not had that. I would still be Hispanic, but generally without that exposure, that participation — the depth of being Hispanic is impacted.

I agree that the analysis could be applied to the current wh occupant and my comments in that regard make it clear that I do just that. However, he is not as light as Senator Cruz and that matters.

Unlike at one other site, I try to speak from what I believe as oppose to what I look like. Tangled web of color relational dynamics is a painful one.

#3 Comment By quaker78 On August 20, 2013 @ 6:12 pm

Except that they werent they were questioning the authencity of his Hispanicness. That’s not birther parody. But I appreciate the mendacity to defend the bad faith. You don’t quite have the glibness to pull it off though.

#4 Comment By EngineerScotty On August 20, 2013 @ 6:55 pm


Hey Engineer, why don’t you post your zip so we can look up the actual demographics of your area? You have volunteered you live in Portland, which is one of the whitest large cities in the US (and not coincidentally a city that consistently ranks as one of the best places to live).

I live in Beaverton, OR (I won’t get more specific than that). Whites are in the majority, with significant numbers of Latinos and Asians (east, southeast, and south). Blacks are about 3%. Demographics are similar to Portland–fewer hippies, more yuppies.

I live in the Portland metro area as this is where I grew up; and in Beaverton specifically because I work here. I don’t live here because it has lots of honkies (all of Portland does), and as it so happens, Caucasians are not a majority on my particular street.

As far as Portland being a great place to live, I chalk that up to our liberal (and generally non-corrupt) politics more than to a relative absence of melanin. Portland also has the attribute that our poor (and we’ve got plenty of those) are a bit more spread out; rather than concentrated in any ghetto or trailer park which becomes an unlivable hellhole.

If you hate CA so much, move up here. Our politics are every bit as liberal, so you won’t poison the well.

And your assertion begs the question — due your Somali or Indonesian neighbors identify with you.

I can’t speak for the Somali family, not knowing them as well (though the kids are all nice and well-behaved, and love to play with mine); but the Indonesian man next door (and his Japanese wife) are proud members of the community. Of course, the community is welcoming to them in return.

Given, say, the chance of importing 100,000 of their fellow countrymen, relatives, etc into Portland, would they do so even if it damaged the local economy, environment, and ambiance.

I have no idea who, if anybody, they would seek to import. Beaverton does have a growing Somali community, and has become home to many refugees from there. OTOH, Portland has managed to assimilate a rather large horde of right-wing Orange County expats over the past few decades, looking to cash in on the LA housing boom (and take advantage of cheaper housing here); not all of these were educated professionals and such. We got through that trauma just fine. 🙂

And given our northerly latitude, our placement well above sea level, our ample supply of fresh water, and a large amount of undeveloped land held in reserve (liberal land-use laws–you wouldn’t understand), planners have been preparing for the likelihood of a significant growth in our population if some of the dire climate-change predictions come true.

Any large migrations can fundamentally change a place.

As for me and my extended family, a lot of us work or have worked in construction; the Mexican immigrant that takes work and/or lowers wages is far more damaging than shipping jobs overseas. And that’s before counting the negative externalities of immigration, crowded schools and roads, higher taxes to pay for it all. At least a Chinese made computer doesn’t dilute your vote or demand bilingual education.

I worry a LOT more about my job being outsourced TO India, than someone from India coming to my employer on an H1-B. For one thing, while the H1-B may be making somewhat less than I do (for a while), he’s not making half or less than half. For another, he’s paying taxes and generally acting as an upstanding citizen. Unless a region’s economy is entirely destitute (which Portland’s is not), skilled professionals create a POSITIVE externality in most cases, not a negative one. Tech wages in Portland dipped during the Great Recession, but are back on an upward track–not a sign of a job market being diluted by unfettered immigration. I can’t speak of the construction industry locally–given the job-based nature of that work, use of illegal immigrants paid under the table seems to be a bigger problem–but we have plenty of high-tech jobs up here.

Would you give that same lecture to a non-white person? Do you object to the variety of ethnic identity based groups founded by and for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.? Do you deny the legitimacy of nation states (e.g. France, Poland, China, Japan, Turkey) based on the concept of people with a shared ethnic culture?

I didn’t say I deny the existence of “white identify”. And I certainly don’t deny the legitimacy of nation-states or their cultures or diaspora. And I don’t deny that there is, in the US, a homogenization of various European ethnicities that collectively get referred to as “white people”.

I said I don’t view whiteness (or race) as a factor in determining whether or not I care about someone, and to what extent. And I certainly don’t feel hostility to other cultures. (Other individuals, perhaps). And yes, I think that something as morally neutral as race is a thin reed to hang one’s hat on.

One can recognize that races exist (they do!) and that there are cultural differences between groups that correlate with race, without taking a position of hostility towards other groups.

My objection to racists is not that they like or enjoy white culture (hey, I like it too!) or may prefer to hang around with their own kind, however they define it. My objection is the continual position of active hostility towards others. (This applies to black racists and Latino racists as well, by the way). My objection to white racists in the GOP is not that they don’t spend enough time praying in an AME church, or hang out with more black folks at the barbecue, or attend a sufficient number of multicultural events, or any of that. My objection is that many of them seem so eager to cut of their own noses to spite the faces of their black neighbors. My objection is that many racists seem to view their own countrymen as enemies in their midst, as animals to be mocked, tamed and/or put down, or as parasites to be denied the blessings of charity and mercy.

I don’t consider white people to be racists because they like country music or NASCAR or fine wines or lutefisk or Star Trek or heavy metal or riding a bicycle to work, and prefer the company of those who share their values. I consider (white) people to be racists when they prattle on incessantly about what horrible monsters the other guys are, and orient their politics around maintaining a racial pecking order. (And no matter how much you may bleat about things like affirmative action and EEOC, whites are still very much at the top of the pecking order in this country, in every state of the Union except possibly Hawaii).

#5 Comment By Don Quijote On August 20, 2013 @ 7:09 pm

Quaker78,

So why is Obama black again then? Some nerve for a person who never spent an hour in the same house with a black person as a kid claiming the mantle of blackness.

Because society decided that Obama was black, whereas Ted Cruz decided that he was Hispanic.

When Ted Cruz walked down the street 20 years ago no one gave him a second look, he was just another White guy, can the same be said about Obama?

M_Young

Yeah, he looks white like this guy.

Cervantes is a Spaniard and he is a White as I am…

Are Charlie Sheen or Emilio Estevez Hispanic? If so? Why?

#6 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On August 20, 2013 @ 8:23 pm

I saw a comedy clip once where Barack Obama intoned “After moving to Chicago I learned that I was black, and have remained so thereafter.” That puts the artificiality of race neatly in place, but also the reality that if people treat you as something defined by visible attributes like skin color, you respond to that treatment.

There was a time when more black voters leaned toward Hillary Clinton than toward Barack Obama. I recall a pompous ass from San Leandro California who wrote a letter to Newsweek or Time patronizingly announcing “Let me tell you how we in the black community look at this,” like he was authorized to speak for 100%. His notion, we know white voters won’t support anyone who looks like Obama so we’d rather vote for a friend who could win. Indeed, it was after Obama won the Iowa caucuses that larger numbers of black voters took him seriously.

There may not be much substance to it, but no matter how many black or white pundits screamed that Obama wasn’t legitimately “black” or part of the “African American experience,” it remained true that vast numbers of our dark-skinned fellow citizens assumed that nobody who LOOKS like he does would receive support from enough “white” voters to win a national election. Seeing him win Iowa, they all reconsidered that.

On the whole, this was a good thing. If we are ever going to move beyond racial voting blocs, the “white” majority has to stop being a bloc first, and by and large, we have. That frees others to begin moving more fluidly, which will in turn free more “white” voters to become even more fluid. Why “white” voters first? Because the whole notion was invented by a handful of con artists who saw big profit in calling themselves “white,” and selling everyone else on acting like it meant something.

Nobody in African called themselves “black” before some European showed up saying “Me white man, you black.” Spontaneously, Africans were more likely to refer to their first European as “The ugliest man I had ever seen.”

#7 Comment By Noah172 On August 21, 2013 @ 12:40 am

EngineerScotty wrote:

‘Tis you who have decided that one’s skin tone is a key sorting criteria, and that you have more in common with the rich white dude that just sent your job to China than you do with the Mexican immigrant down the street who is also trying to feed his family. And the rich white dude happens to like it that way, for reasons that ought to be obvious.

Scotty, do realize that you are commenting on The American Conservative, founded by a political figure famous for his advocacy of protectionism, earning him the enmity of the GOP’s economic royalists. He is also famous for his non-interventionist stance in foreign affairs, also earning him the enmity of a segment of the GOP’s top donors (One Percenters) with economic and, ahem, tribal interests in Middle East adventurism.

And for heaven’s sake, we “racist” paleoconservative immigration restrictionists are not as stupid or naive as you make us out to be: we know very well that the white middle and lower classes have been betrayed on the immigration issue by wealthy elites (a significant proportion of whom are not of European Christian ancestry anyway). Sites such as this, Steve Sailer, VDare, and so forth frequently offer criticism and condemnation of the overclass whose immigration, trade, foreign, tax, and other policies squeeze our kind of people for their enrichment.

#8 Comment By Art Deco On August 21, 2013 @ 12:38 pm

Thirty or forty years ago, he would have anglicized his name and have become Ted Cross…

You’re off by about sixty years and several thousand miles. Characteristic of Eastern Europeans with unpronounceable names or very identifiably Jewish names, not Latins.

#9 Comment By EngineerScotty On August 21, 2013 @ 12:46 pm


Scotty, do realize that you are commenting on The American Conservative, founded by a political figure famous for his advocacy of protectionism, earning him the enmity of the GOP’s economic royalists.

Yes, and a political figure who is also a particularly virulent and nasty bigot, to boot. My observation wasn’t addressed to Buchanan–who certainly does frequently take on the plutocracy (though he does have the frustrating habit of phoning in columns, from time to time, that are little more than anti-Democratic screeds), but to large swaths of poor whites who nonetheless sound like Ayn Rand on the subject of economics–and seem to live in terror that a dime collected from them in taxes might wind up in the ghetto.

My post was also not, for the most part, directed towards the subjects of immigration and foreign trade. I’m not an open-borders internationalist of either the right or the left.

I’m more concerned about, in this thread, as to how we treat our fellow US citizens (and to a great extent, green card holders). Most Mexicans you will encounter are here legally–some born here, some naturalized, some lawful immigrants. Virtually all blacks in this country, outside of a small number of immigrants from Africa, are US citizens; and few blacks are illegals (there not being a common land border between the US and Africa).

Given that, on what basis do many of you seek to restrict this country’s bounty to the European diaspora? You write: “we know very well that the white middle and lower classes have been betrayed on the immigration issue by wealthy elites”. Why limit yourself to the white middle and lower classes? Haven’t the country’s black citizens been screwed at least as equally, if not for a much longer time? Our citizens from Asia, our natives, and yes–our citizens who have ancestry in Latin America? This is what I mean when I note that the plutocracy divides the lower classes on race: despite different cultures and values, a poor white guy working two crap jobs and still barely able to pay the rent, and a poor (legal) Mexican-American working two crap jobs and also barely able to pay the rent, have much in common. Why regard him as your enemy, as a threat to your livelihood, if he’s just trying to put food on his table? And if it is because you see him as a competitor in the job market, driving down wages–why not the same scorn for other poor white guys in the same boat? Why is race or culture a dividing line between who is “entitled” to participate in the economy, and who is not?

#10 Comment By Art Deco On August 21, 2013 @ 12:48 pm

Cruz doesn’t really have anything in common with most people who have come to the United States from Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, or even direct from Castile. But that just shows how bogus the category is.

Ya think a certain resident of the District of Columbia who spent his formative years in Java as the stepson of an engineer in the employ of the state oil company and the son of a Ford Foundation functionary and in Honolulu as the grandson of a pair of haolies – one an insurance salesman and one a vice president of the Bank of Hawaii – might just not have much in common with folks in Bedford-Stuyvesant or on the Carolina coast?

#11 Comment By Art Deco On August 21, 2013 @ 12:59 pm

In order to get the votes of Hispanics, blacks, Asian’s, or even Middle Easterners, you actually have to talk about the issues they care about, which might not be regulations or tax rates. It might be a institutionally racist criminal justice system.

No, Jesse, they probably should not talk about your social and political fantasies.

#12 Comment By Art Deco On August 21, 2013 @ 1:01 pm

It might be a belief in science over religion.

Jesse, you are not going to fine one person in a hundred in a common-and-garden urban slum who gives a good goddamn about what gets Eugenie Scott’s knickers in a twist.

#13 Comment By Art Deco On August 21, 2013 @ 1:03 pm

As far as Portland being a great place to live, I chalk that up to our liberal (and generally non-corrupt) politics

Bar the tolerance for pederasty.

#14 Comment By Art Deco On August 21, 2013 @ 1:10 pm

Yes, and a political figure who is also a particularly virulent and nasty bigot, to boot.

You have confounded Mr. Buchanan with Dan Savage.

==

Palaeo outlets collect a great deal of crud in the comment boxes, but with the exception of Jared Taylor’s anonymous staff of posters (and by extension Taylor), generally do not traffic in it themselves. When they do, the object is generally Israel. The moderator does not permit the obvious culprit once editor of that publication we are all familiar with to be referred to by name, nor any contributors to same. It is not the founder of said publication.

#15 Comment By Art Deco On August 21, 2013 @ 1:19 pm

Given that, on what basis do many of you seek to restrict this country’s bounty to the European diaspora?

1. The country is fairly comprehensively settled bar those areas consisting of desert and boreal forest (neither of which have equable climates or much settlement anywhere else in the world).

2. The country is not suffering a notable fertility deficit, so even if it were prudent to treat it as a hotel and slash rates to improve occupancy, there would be no pressing reason to do so.

3. The country has quite a corps of demobilized labor as is.

4. Flagitious political factions seek to use mobilize immigrant populations and their kindred for their own repulsive ends.

5. The regime class lacks the loyalty to either the country’s history or to their more vernacular countrymen to implement and enforce standards for immigrants to meet before and after crossing the border. The regime class is now fairly comprehensively insulated from democratic accountability, but they do not care for the proletariat making noise when rancid ‘multiculturalism’ is promoted in schools and patronage is set aside for recent Mexican immigrants.

#16 Comment By Noah172 On August 21, 2013 @ 4:45 pm

EngineerScotty,

Thoughtful reply. A few responses:

Most Mexicans you will encounter are here legally–some born here, some naturalized, some lawful immigrants

There were relatively few mestizos of any sort in the US before the immigration floodgates were opened in 1965 and Reagan betrayed us with the 1986 amnesty (see, I know when I’ve been screwed by a white man — the idol of conservatives, no less!); most were concentrated in the Southwest, mostly descended from pre-1848 settlers, or some exotic urban pockets (Bronx Puerto Ricans, Miami Cubans — but much smaller relative and absolute numbers than today). The 1970 census showed “Hispanics” (a just-invented bureacratic term) at less than 5 percent of the population (and the foreign-born, of all nationalities, also at less than 5 percent); even the 1980 census showed Hispanics at only a smidgen over 6 percent.

The Reagan amnesty legalized 3 million illegals (far more than promised), mostly mestizo. How many current Hispanics in this country — “born here” — are here because of this outrageous collusion of plutocratic greed on the right and anti-white aggression from the left? Surely the figure is or is approaching the millions.

What you seem to be missing, at least in this comment thread, is that legal immigration bothers us, the paleocon restrictionists, at least as much, and usually more, than the illegal. The latter is the more immediately destructive and brazenly egregious problem, but the former is more insidious and injurious in the long run.

Legal immigration, at least the kind and in the numbers that we have been getting the last half-century, has more or less the same ill effects as illegal: depressed wages; undermined social cohesion and singular American national identity; the proliferation of ethnic ghettoes; traffic, environmental degradation, exurban sprawl (a Portland liberal such as you should be especially concerned about these, no?); increased cost of living for native Americans; strain on public services; failing schools (go ahead and point out Asian valedictorians if you want — they don’t balance out the reality that any given school’s acadmic achievement tends to degrade the more black and/or Hispanic its student body becomes); and so on and so forth.

on what basis do many of you seek to restrict this country’s bounty to the European diaspora?

A nation’s “bounty” is not some fixed pot of gold whose allocation may be “fairly” distributed among however many people, of any ancestry, who are “lucky” enough to stick their paws in it. Many parts of Africa have abundant natural resources, yet are squalid, chaotic, and despotic. Hong Kong and Singapore are resource-poor, but rich and well-governed. Resource-poor Israel is far wealthier per capita than more naturally-endowed Egypt. The difference? Some people squander or neglect their natural advantages, and others create their own “bounty”.

America is blessed with an enviable wealth of natural resources and geographic advantages that are to no mortal man’s credit, no doubt about that. But if what is now known as the United States had been settled (predominantly) by some group other than British Protestants (with other assorted northern Euro Protestants in supporting roles) who, for the most part (Pocahontas aside), did not mate with the Indians — if, for instance, what is now the US had been settled, as was Latin America, by Spanish Catholic gold-seeking men who, overwhelmingly, did mate with indigenous women because they, the Spaniards, neglected to bring their own women across — then this blob on the map would be a different country, a different civilization, one with less “bounty” overall, and thus less attractive to Third World migrants in the first place.

Haven’t the country’s black citizens been screwed at least as equally, if not for a much longer time?

Yes, mass immigration and free trade screw African-Americans, in some respect even more so than white Americans. I wish that a restrictionist conservative leader would make that case to black citizens.

It’s conflicting: African-Americans, you see, are the result of an earlier, the earliest actually, wave of cheap labor non-white immigration, the painful repercussions of which still bedevil our nation to this day, four centuries after Jamestown. White Americans are moving out to St. Francisville to get away from Baton Rouge because… well, because two to four hundred years ago a bunch of ***hole aristocrats chose to import African slaves because British indentured servants were becoming restive and expensive, and the aristocrats could not or would not pay decent wages to free Englishmen to pick tobacco and whatnot. This creates an awkwardness in the restrictionist case to African-Americans: “Hispanic immigration is bad for you! [true] It will have catastrophic consequences over the generations, just like importing your ancestors did! [also true, but impolitic to say the least]”.

Why is race or culture a dividing line between who is “entitled” to participate in the economy, and who is not?

First, let me make the simple point that any sovereign state has the right to decide who may enter its boundaries, in what numbers, chosen by what criteria, under what condidtions — period. The immigration and naturalization policies of Latin American states, and your wife’s native PRC, are far, far more restrictive, race- and language-based, and even brutal than anything that America has ever enacted, even in the Bad Old Days between the 1924 immigration cutoff and the reopening in 1965. And you know what? Those other countries have every right to their policies — and we do to ours.

A longer reply:

A nation, Scotty, is not a mere “economy” or “market”. The former includes those latter aspects, but is not and should never be limited to those. Man does not live on bread alone.

The word “nation” is a cousin to “nativity” and “nascent,” with a common Latin etymology in the concept of birth. A true nation, as opposed to a state (Poly Sci 101 here), is a people united by common ancestry, history, language, religion, and sense of kinship; another way to put it, that I prefer, is a people united by a sense of a common past and a common future.

To be sure, America has never had one single church or ancestry-group and so on — but there was a sense, lost now thanks to mass non-European immigration and anti-white multiculturalism, of common peoplehood, common destiny. White Americans whose ancestors came from Scandinavia or Germany or even, after considerable difficulty involving conscious political and cultural choices (with lingering resistance to this day in parts), Ireland and southern and eastern Europe and so on and on, forgot their ancestors’ languages and histories and heroes and hatreds. A key, though not the only, reason for this was the ability of non-British-origin whites to blend in physically and assimilate biologically with founder-stock whites; you don’t have to like that reality, but try to set aside your emotions and acknowledge it.

#17 Comment By EngineerScotty On August 22, 2013 @ 3:36 am

Me: As far as Portland being a great place to live, I chalk that up to our liberal (and generally non-corrupt) politics

AD: Bar the tolerance for pederasty.

??? Are you referring to a sex scandal involving Portland’s former (openly gay) mayor and a young man who Just Turned 18 (or maybe not), a few years back? While the city is liberal when it comes to what consenting adults do, there is no popular support for pederasty.

You have confounded Mr. Buchanan with Dan Savage.

I don’t read enough of Savage to have a firm opinion of him, but yes, he too has said his share of nasty things. But other than as a “liberals have rogues too!” rejoinder (and I concur, we do), I’m not sure what DS has to do with this thread. (But when it comes to savage Savages, I’ll see your Dan and raise you Michael–compared to whom Pat, Rush, and Ann Coulter are all mewing pussycats).

[Reagan and immigration reform]

What you seem to be missing, at least in this comment thread, is that legal immigration bothers us, the paleocon restrictionists, at least as much, and usually more, than the illegal.

Oh, I haven’t missed it, and I’m well aware. Do you similarly regret the immigration to this country of the Irish (the ancestors of Patrick J.) or the Italians? Nowadays considered part of “white America”; both groups were trashed as “micks” and “dagos” (two words that, back in the day, carried nearly as much offense as “n—-r” does today). I’m sure they stole plenty of jobs from hard-working northern European Protestant stock, and they were the subject of every bit as much vitriol as Mexicans are today. They practiced a weird religion, and the Italians, in particular, often didn’t assimilate, spoke Italian at home, and had a rather nasty little organized crime syndicate. Italians, with their dark hair and Mediterranian complexion, were widely considered unwhite. And both groups of immigrants that came over were largely poor, little-educated, and bereft of middle-class values.

Nowadays, both groups are well part of the stew in the melting pot, and nobody cares any more about the Irish menace or about Italians taking over a neighborhood.

Why do you think in the long term, the Mexican experience will differ?

But if what is now known as the United States had been settled (predominantly) by some group other than British Protestants (with other assorted northern Euro Protestants in supporting roles) who, for the most part (Pocahontas aside), did not mate with the Indians — if, for instance, what is now the US had been settled, as was Latin America, by Spanish Catholic gold-seeking men who, overwhelmingly, did mate with indigenous women because they, the Spaniards, neglected to bring their own women across — then this blob on the map would be a different country, a different civilization, one with less “bounty” overall, and thus less attractive to Third World migrants in the first place.

Are you blaming the Spanish here, or the natives of what is now Latin America? Is this a Protestant-vs-Catholic argument? Might the political culture of Britain (a parliamentary monarchy with partial democracy) vs Spain (a royalist dictatorship) have had something to do with it? British success against Spanish interests in various military conflicts (including a freak storm sinking much of the Spanish Navy, seriously weakening Spain)? Are you suggesting that Native American blood has somehow undermined Mexico? Any one of these things could be inferred from your theory–please be more precise as to what specifically you are implying.

Yes, mass immigration and free trade screw African-Americans, in some respect even more so than white Americans. I wish that a restrictionist conservative leader would make that case to black citizens.

I wish a conservative leader would try to make ANY serious case to black citizens. Far too many of them seem eager to portray blacks as a problem to be dealt with, rather than a constituency to be aided. That stuff gets noticed.

First, let me make the simple point that any sovereign state has the right to decide who may enter its boundaries, in what numbers, chosen by what criteria, under what condidtions — period. The immigration and naturalization policies of Latin American states, and your wife’s native PRC, are far, far more restrictive, race- and language-based, and even brutal than anything that America has ever enacted, even in the Bad Old Days between the 1924 immigration cutoff and the reopening in 1965. And you know what? Those other countries have every right to their policies — and we do to ours.

Nobody–except possibly some libertarians–disputes this; I certainly don’t. And we are debating what that policy should be. (FWIW, I don’t support “open borders”; though I don’t seek to slam the door shut like you seem eager to do). But likeitornot, accepting immigrants (preferably ones of good character) has long been part of our national culture and identity, “give us your tired, your poor” and all that. We’ve always been a nation of immigrants; even our notion of “white” is a homogenization of an ever-changing mix of the European diaspora: First Brits and Germans and French, then Nordics, then Irish and Italians and Polish, then European Jews, nowdays more and more Eastern Europeans. And my own kids would have been called “Eurasian” in another era–how will they be identified when they reach adulthood? I don’t know.

The word “nation” is a cousin to “nativity” and “nascent,” with a common Latin etymology in the concept of birth. A true nation, as opposed to a state (Poly Sci 101 here), is a people united by common ancestry, history, language, religion, and sense of kinship; another way to put it, that I prefer, is a people united by a sense of a common past and a common future.

A nation is, for better or worse, a group of people who consider themselves a nation. And our nation–not just our state–contains many folks with darker skin. As the US is not a longstanding monolithic culture, nor has been ripped asunder by war, there isn’t a “nation” as a distinct ethnic/linguistic/cultural identity that differs from the borders of the US, at least not the 50 states. (Places like Guam and Puerto Rico may be a different matter; but they aren’t the subject of this conversation). Hardly anybody recognizes a “white nation” and a “black nation” coexisting within or borders–other than a handful of nationalists whom are FTMP politically irrelevant.

To be sure, America has never had one single church or ancestry-group and so on — but there was a sense, lost now thanks to mass non-European immigration and anti-white multiculturalism, of common peoplehood, common destiny. White Americans whose ancestors came from Scandinavia or Germany or even, after considerable difficulty involving conscious political and cultural choices (with lingering resistance to this day in parts), Ireland and southern and eastern Europe and so on and on, forgot their ancestors’ languages and histories and heroes and hatreds.

As have many of our black, brown, and yellow citizens.

A key, though not the only, reason for this was the ability of non-British-origin whites to blend in physically and assimilate biologically with founder-stock whites; you don’t have to like that reality, but try to set aside your emotions and acknowledge it.

Except that it’s false. As noted above, Italians were for a long time regarded as non-white, and southern Europeans and norther Europeans generally look quite different from each other. And common skin color didn’t prevent many of these different European tribes from long hating each others guts (the continent, after all, has a long bloody history), and didn’t prevent many of those rivalries from coming across the Atlantic. I’ll readily concede that an African-American (particularly one with little European ancestry) looks vastly different, moreso than the difference between a Spaniard and a Swede, but the modern reckoning of “white” is not a phenomenon that has been around for 200 years.

And none of this is a satisfactory answer to the question as to why public policy ought to treat nonwhites differently from whites. Obviously, it has for decades–but all the past proffered reasons have proven to be nonsense.

#18 Comment By Noah172 On August 22, 2013 @ 10:35 am

Scotty,

I’ll try to curb my usual verbosity, as this thread seems to have run its course. Every point you made will reappear in future threads.

Why do you think in the long term, the Mexican experience will differ?

Books have been written in response to this question (e.g. Huntington’s Who Are We?). Nutshell:

Numbers

Multicultural ideology

IQ gap (and thus educational, economic, and political gaps) between mestizos and whites

Ease of communication and travel to native lands relative to past eras

Far fewer immigrants returning home than previous eras

Greater welfare state than previous eras, enabling immigrants to stay even if economically lagging

Dominance of mestizos and the Spanish language in current immigration relative to the past’s greater diversity

Our globalized, more unequal, less blue-collar-friendly economy

the crowding of metropolitan areas where most jobs are concentrated, relative to the past

But likeitornot, accepting immigrants (preferably ones of good character) has long been part of our national culture and identity, “give us your tired, your poor” and all that

American immigration has always, at least before 1965, been a story of waxing and waning. America had generation-long stretches of low immigration (and not coincidentally, high fertility among natives), the most important of which, vis-a-vis our debates today, is 1924-65.

And knock it off with that garbage poem. It had nothing to do with Lady Liberty, was placed on a plaque near the statue decades after the latter was built, is clear political propaganda, and was written by someone who was active in an overseas ethnic nationalist cause, what would become Zionism. Did Lazarus favor that Palestine accept non-Jewish tired, poor, and huddled masses? No, she was a hypocrite with an agenda.

#19 Comment By Art Deco On August 22, 2013 @ 12:50 pm

Engineer Scotty:

The Mayor of Spokane, Washington, a bisexual divorce, was bounced in a recall election over his occasional cruising on the QT. (The local newspapers tried to tart up their pruriency and their entrapment exercise, and their reporter’s admitted political vendetta by manufacturing a bogus charge that he had molested a youngster twenty years earlier and making a great to do about one of his pickups getting an unpaid internship with the city government).

The voters of Portland are down with 42 year olds buggering 18.0001 year olds (if there is not proof on a security camera that said youth was a 17.9999 year old). Own it.

#20 Comment By Art Deco On August 22, 2013 @ 12:56 pm

But likeitornot, accepting immigrants (preferably ones of good character) has long been part of our national culture and identity,

No, it is part of our history. The Emma Lazarus romanticism is part of the official idea promoted by members of the political class beginning around 1930.

You cannot vet your immigrants at all if you do not seal the border and allow entry only to those who meet certain criteria. The political class has a 35 year long record of contrived helplessness on this issue and you get some libertarians and gauchiste tools going and they get angry with you if you present arguments that enforcement is both possible and advisable. I have been debating people intermittently since 1996 on this issue and have been hit with that anger again and again.

#21 Comment By EngineerScotty On August 22, 2013 @ 4:44 pm


The voters of Portland are down with 42 year olds buggering 18.0001 year olds (if there is not proof on a security camera that said youth was a 17.9999 year old). Own it.

Not really–the allegation that Sam Adams did such was a rumor prior to the 2008 mayoral election (held in May), one unequivocally denied by Mr. Adams. After inauguration, further investigation by the local press revealed that the rumored affair was indeed true–at which point Adams changed his story to “yes, there was a fling, but he was 18”. The state AG investigated, found that there was some evidence that the youth in question and Adams may have consummated the relationship prior to his 18th birtday–but insufficient evidence to press charges (the young man in question was an unreliable witness). A recall effort was launched, but as successful recall of a mayor in Portland is very difficult, and did not succeed. Adams served his four-year term, but was politically wounded and ineffective as a result, and did non seek re-election.

Portland residents didn’t and don’t care a whit that the mayor was gay; they did, however, object to one who boinked teenagers (even if 18, or close to it), and then publicly lied about it to the media.

(There was also a mayor in the 1970s, later a governor of Oregon, who molested a 14-year-old girl while in the mayor’s office–a crime that wasn’t discovered or publicized until long after he had retired from politics, and the statute of limitations expired–he went from “highly popular and influential elder statesman” to “thoroughly disgraced” almost overnight).