Widespread ethnic consciousness: The Houston Area Survey asked Hispanics (and Asians) if they think of themselves primarily as Hispanics (or Asians) or Americans. Here are their answers:
Hispanics--percentages (N = 823)
Primarily ethnic 50.5
Equally ethnic and American 31.2
Primarily American 18.2
Asians--percentages (N = 68)
Primarily ethnic 39.7
Equally ethnic and American 44.1
Primarily American 16.2
Fewer than 20% in each group see themselves as I see myself--an American. One-half of Hispanics don't even give their American identity equal weight. I'll cut them some slack because some of these folks are immigrants. On the other hand, this is Houston, a place not known as a multicultural vanguard.
Along with blacks, these two groups are getting large enough and powerful enough that they are on the verge of forcing me, a person who doesn't want to, to feel like he must mirror them and become a white man. It's simply defensive racial consciousness. An individualist patriot surrounded by herds of racialists gets stomped.
If this happens to guys like me, the elites who are behind this multiculturalism and the non-whites who happily embrace it will have no one to blame but themselves. They will have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
And no, folks like me won't become barbarians; we'll simply organize and dominate in an explicit way, in contrast to the unintentional, spontaneous leadership we see today. And we won't feel the slightest twinge of guilt as we do it.
Are gun owners mentally ill?
Some anti-gun people think owning a gun is a sign of some kind of mental abnormality. According to General Social Survey data, gun owners ...
"An individualist patriot surrounded by herds of racialists gets stomped."
ReplyDelete*sigh*
I was just ranting the other day about how the friendless male is generally seen as having gotten his just desserts - if he doesn't have people backing him up, he doesn't deserve them, ipso facto. The mob mentality is that strong men have their friends with them - it's the exact opposite of the way I understand "strong" and "weak", but I have to admit strength in numbers isn't dead.
I'm worried that we white males don't have it in us. I remember so many occasions where the women or the NAMs or sexual minorities have pulled together and stuck up for each other - both in the news and in my own personal experience. The white males never do the same. They're too busy calling each other "redneck" and "dork" and "corporate a$$hole" and all that.
While other groups tend to identify themselves based on aspects of themselves they were born with, white males seem to identify themselves based on things they chose. Don't know why this is, and I have no idea if it really extends beyond my personal experience.
What makes it worse, is it sometimes seems like white males actually prefer to take sides against each other, just to prove they're not racist/sexist. As if that ever worked....
And of course there's the fact that to point out this problem gets you instantly labeled a weakling complainer, at least by the ur-leftists who believe the larger group is always right. Talk about how you have a huge "posse" backing you up, and no one will ask why you need it, they'll just congratulate you, because that's what hip-hop culture demands.
If you point out that lacking a posse doesn't make your position wrong, it will generally generate guffaws - people are amazed that anyone would admit that they didn't have a mob behind them. That's what makes Right nowadays.
cry me a river. i didn't always thinking about my race/ethnicity. but it kinda gets forced when your college roommates repeatedly ask why you speak english so well each weekend when they get drunk for an entire semester. or maybe you start thinking about it when walking across campus with some friends, you get asked for help with math tutoring from someone you've never seen before. or maybe it starts when kids dump snakes in your yard and the yards of other asians when they move into the neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteother ppl first refused to see me as just an american. i'm just responding to that.
I used to live in Houston, and there are a lot of well-integrated Hispanics there, people whose families have been in this country for generations. I'm sure that if you went to most of the country, you would find a lower proportion of Hispanics who considered themselves primarily American.
ReplyDeleteSteve Sailer has written about this phenomenon here, but I can't find the post right now.
You wrote: "Along with blacks, these two groups are getting large enough and powerful enough that they are on the verge of forcing me, a person who DOESN'T WANT TO, to feel like he must mirror them and become a white man"
ReplyDeleteYou're implying whites don't care about race or ethnicity, correct? You're either being sarcastic or are just naive.
It sure doesn't seem that way, when the cashier avoids eye contact and throws the change at the counter but is super pleasant to the next customer (who resembles her); or when some people yell at brown passerby "go back to your country" or tell people who are speaking in accented but otherwise comprehensible English to "speak English"
Oh wait....that's just "rough talk"
onymous, are you going to explain why saying "go back to your country" is worse than crime? Or are you just unaware of interracial crime rates? (And no, I don't believe you've witnessed a cashier throwing change at anyone - you saw someone handing change back in a manner you thought rude - which would be a valid opinion if progressives weren't so bad at reading body language. Then you decided to exaggerate the incident to make points - also very progressive.)
ReplyDeleteAnd if you think Ron is "naive" about racial matters, you certainly haven't been at this site very long.
One of the ways leftists shore up support for their therapeutic state is by treating their opinions as lying on a higher plane, one that is beyond reproach. If a bunch of leftists surround and humiliate someone (this is their only real tactic for political debate), they will quickly forget that the incident ever happened. If questioned about it later, they will make it clear that they believe their victim confabulated the whole thing, and eventually recommend the insufficiently leftist go visit - you guessed it - a statist therapist.
ReplyDeleteTherapists pretty much all belong to the leftist church, and will work to convince any white person that they haven't really suffered from racial persecution, convince any male that he hasn't suffered from gender discrimination, etc. Any positive attributes white males have are downplayed - whether or not they are related to being "tolerant".
The path for the nonleftist is simple: have faith in your own sanity.
White males compete with white males - it is natural to do so. Everyone competes with white males because white males have everything that everyone wants to compete for. But in democratic interest group politics, where goodies are politically allocated, white males will therefore get screwed. Organizing on the basis of white maleness will not work. Organizing on the basis of opposing political allocation of goodies is the only thing that will work.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 11:59 AM:
ReplyDelete1) I meant to say Ron's comment was naive OR sarcastic. I'm sure Ron's NOT the only one who notices racial differences in performance and jumps to the conclusion that blacks and browns are "less capable"
2) About the "going back to your country" part....are you implying then that whites have a right to verbally abuse Hispanics? (and I left out blacks, because most whites won't dare say anything remotely hostile to blacks), because minorities are more likely to attack whites than the other way around (which is true, I admit)3) Now, on the interracial crime part...I know patriotic Ron & co. won't "stoop so low" as to read Spanish-language newspapers, but attacks against Hispanics are a common occurrence in suburbs...it's only the more vile incidences that make the mainstream news.
But if you continue to feel we're the "scum of the earth bringing the nation down to ruin", that's your prerogative...just don't use the negative information and figures you read about against a random individual you meet.
The term "hispanic" is just another tool used by government to dumb down speech. It is a meaningless term.
ReplyDeleteAn educated Argentinian has little in common with an unschooled Mexican. A 6th generation Californian named Lopez is unlikely to have much in common with an illegal Salvadoran.
There is no "hispanic" bloodline, no "hispanic" ethnicity or culture. Every time we pretend there is such a thing, we lose touch with reality a bit more.
The term "hispanic" is just another tool used by government to dumb down speech. It is a meaningless term.
ReplyDeleteAgreed that it's meaningless, unfortunately it's also so deeply embedded in our culture and politics that it's likely to stick around for a long, long time.
Peter
The term "hispanic" is just another tool used by government to dumb down speech. It is a meaningless term.
ReplyDeleteAgreed that it's meaningless, unfortunately it's also so deeply embedded in our culture and politics that it's likely to stick around for a long, long time
To the surprise of many of you, I actually agree. What bugs me is that people who don't read up on these things (and I'm glad there are readers here who do!) don't know the differences. I don't see myself as having much things in common with an "illegal Salvadoran", so I'd hate to be lumped together with him.
What Ron is describing is "White Nationalism" (WN). White Nationalism is a form of identity politics, which is no different than what we currently see from blacks and Hispanics in America.
ReplyDeleteWhite nationalism is the potential fallback position for working and middle class whites in North America. Middle and working class whites will utilize WN if economic, political, and social life becomes overly hostile to whites. The current level of hostility towards whites is apparent, but still not enough to warrant political organization.
Like all politics, identity politics is about resources. If blacks and Hispanics continue to extract resources from whites, whites will be forced to protect their interests through WN. Blacks and Hispanics favor high taxation on whites, forced busing of white children to dangerous schools, affirmative action, forced diversity, removal of European cultural icons and heritage from society, and commit higher rates of violent crime against whites, compared to the opposite.
At this current time, these political actions by blacks and Hispanics are more of a nuisance. But in 25 years or so, if blacks and Hispanics start controlling real power in America, the situation is potentially more dangerous.
Hopefully, it won't come to this point, and we can all hold hands under the homo-multi-cult rainbow. The next 20 years or so will be critical for "integrating" the various ethnic groups of North America. If we fail to "integrate" the various ethnic groups of North America (or if its not possible to do so), then we're fairly likely to see the rise of white ethno-politics.
Proposition: politicians who care about reelection are going to help those races whose members tend to be racially-conscious. As politics becomes more and more a zero-sum game, this inevitably means hurting those races whose members tend not to be racially conscious.
ReplyDeleteDo critics of white nationalism deny this?
Now count how often you see white nationalist symbols ... and how often you see t-shirts with Malcolm X on them.
But don't stop there. Count how many colleges have affirmative action programs. That oughta 'bout seal it up.
James A Donald --
ReplyDeleteThe Klan was organized as a White Male interest group, with explicit enemies: Blacks, Jews, and Catholics. It was amazingly popular, It held power (as documented in "Notre Dame vs. the Klan: the True Story of How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Klan") in Indiana and many northern states as well as the South (indeed the Klan had two periods of power and influence, first in the post-Civil War period of Reconstruction, in the South, and second in the Tweens and Twenties, in the Midwest).
While the Klans means (at times ultra violent) were odious as were it's aims, much of it was "normal" and as the book makes clear, the parties and picnics and so on organized by the Klan's man in Indiana (a former traveling salesman) brought it great popularity. During a time when White Male Protestants feared both northern immigration from Blacks and the growing influence of Catholics in South Bend. [The Klan invaded South Bend to kick the crap out of the Notre Dame students and the reverse happened.]
With the hyper-racial identity of Obama (and more and more demands for racial reparations and special treatment during a long-lasting recession) there is no reason at all that an alliance of White Men could not be productive. Indeed the Democratic Party is writing articles such as the Atlantic's "So Long White Boy" lauding the ability of the Democratic Party to exclude White Men. So too Robert Reich's desire in testimony to exclude White Men and both skilled White men and blue collar White Men.
Single Women voted for Obama 70-29, and of course women in general HATE the average White men, so there is a sexual divide among Whites that does not exist in other ethnic groups. Single (White) women prefer men of other races to White men, for a variety of reasons related to status, relative testosterone, and so on.
We now have a perfect storm: White women prefer men of other races, either as sex partners or as leaders etc. [See any female-dominated forum like TMZ, or Dlisted, or other gossip sites and the attitudes towards average white guys]. Meanwhile the economy is contracting, and a brutal fight for patronage resources is a matter not of status displays but absolute survival. Add to that a brutal political fight for ethnic/racial dominance and a message of exclusion to a formerly dominant majority who are now told they must suffer for past sins by others of their sex and race.
I would be shocked if we did not see this, and likely it will be led by someone like Palin. It won't be the Klan of course and it should not be, but neither is the NAACP or Urban League or MALDEF part of a plan to provide brutal racial violence either. It's basically Jacksonian politics, mostly but not exclusively White. Definitely exclusively CULTURALLY White. Example: Michael Steele is a Black man, but he's culturally White, far more White than say, Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean, who are part of the elites that hate the White middle-working classes, culturally as well as politically.
There is no need for "White Nationalist" symbols and politics when the American Flag, Country Music, NASCAR, the NFL, etc. already serve and are largely detested by Jacksonian enemies: Women, Gays, non-Whites, etc.
"And as much as some Hispanics and Asians want to be American, many white Americans will simply not accept it, like you and the anonymous above." (Anon)
ReplyDeleteThis person is great example of the non-thinking TV educated American. He/she cannot even read at a beginner level. The blog owner wrote a post showing data on non-white ethnocentrism. The other "anons" wrote posts explaining how non-white identity politics may lead to white identity politics. But all this person can come up with how "you won't accept people."
This person may be totally functional in every other part of life but when it comes to race, or the idea that white people might start looking out for their own interests, he/she becomes unable to process thought beyond the down syndrome level.
"you no accept people"
"diversity be strength"
"u so ignant"
And that's why the situation is becoming more dangerous in this country. Identity and ethno-politics are a serious matter, but when dealing with this issue the average American has the thinking ability of a hamster with ADHD.
WE better start having a real discussion about race and ethnicity in this country (didn't Obama suggest this?), becuase things will start to get ugly!