« Overshoot | Main

February 16, 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I don't dismiss white majoritarianism as trivial, but I, as a white, oppose its morphing into an American superiority that trivializes other, more world-centric views as somehow irrelevant or heretical.

If whites become a "minority," so what? Not only is it because whites aren't breeding, but, more importantly, it's a biological adaptation to the sun, not some "ethnicity" or religion. Too many whites are, to quote my friends of color, "stuck on stupid" over this alleged "cultural" inanity.

That we in "uhhhmuhhrriKKKuh" haven't yet gotten beyond this is proof how petty some of us are.

The author makes a number of excellent points. More on those shortly. Meanwhile, here are some interesting, and in some cases counterintuitive, insights from the New York Times. Note that Hillary Clinton lost voter share, compared to Obama, not only among Latinos and African Americans, but also among Whites, in key swing states.

That Obama is Black, yet scored better among Whites than Hillary, says something about an election dynamic which must have transcended race (though racism, whether borderline or fundamental, certainly features as a trait among a significant number of Trump supporters).

That Obama outperformed Hillary among Hispanics, in an election year when the anti-Hispanic rhetoric by Trump and his supporters reached heights of crudity alien to contemporary mainstream American culture, again suggests a dynamic which transcends ethnic calculus.

From the New York Times:

A comparison of national exit polls from 2008, 2012 and 2016 shows that Hispanic turnout grew slightly, from 9 percent of the total vote in 2008 to 10 percent in 2012 to 11 percent in 2016. But any gain that might have accrued to Clinton from the increase was eliminated by the fact that her margin of victory among Latinos, 66 percent, was 5 points below Obama’s haul in 2012.

A detailed analysis of exit polls in four key states that helped deliver the election to Donald Trump — Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — produced interesting findings not only about Hispanics, but also African-Americans — who are less supportive of liberal immigration policies than other core Democratic constituencies — and whites. In each of these states, opposition to immigration was higher than the national average.

Take Clinton’s performance in Florida. She should have benefited from the drop in the white share of the state’s electorate from 67 percent in 2012 to 62 percent in 2016. She did not, however, because her margin among whites, 32-64, fell significantly below that of Obama, 37-61. Black turnout grew modestly from 13 percent in 2012 to 14 percent in 2016, but Clinton’s margin among African Americans, 84-8, fell well below Obama’s, 99-1.

The same pattern held for Michigan, where the white share of the electorate fell from 77 percent in 2012 to 75 percent in 2016, but Clinton lost the white vote in Michigan by 21 points, 36-57, while Obama lost it by 11 points, 44-55.

The patterns are not the same in all the Trump states. In Pennsylvania, for example, the white vote, which went 56-40 for Trump over Clinton, increased from 78 percent in 2012 to 81 percent in 2016. This boosted Trump’s statewide totals so that he carried Pennsylvania by 68,236 votes out of 5.97 million cast. An additional factor in Clinton’s defeat there was a decline in black turnout from 13 percent of the electorate in 2012 to 10 percent in 2016.

Wisconsin stands out because there the racial and ethnic makeup of the electorate remained virtually the same from 2012 to 2016. The state shifted from blue to red for one reason: the swing among whites toward Trump. Trump won 53 percent of white Wisconsin voters to Clinton’s 42 percent, an 11-point margin, compared to the 3-point spread between Mitt Romney and Obama, 51-48.

Overall, public opinion on immigration — particularly the views of those opposed to immigration — played a crucial role in the outcome of the 2016 election. Among the 13 percent of voters who identified immigration as the most important issue, Trump won, 64-33.

This data demonstrates a key element in the politics of immigration.

National polls show majorities in support of granting legal status or citizenship to undocumented immigrants. The problem for those calling for the enactment of liberal policies, however, is that immigration is a voting issue for a minority of the electorate. And among those who say immigration is their top issue, opponents outnumber supporters by nearly two to one. In this respect, immigration is similar to gun control — both mobilize opponents more than supporters.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/opinion/the-democrats-immigration-problem.html?referer=http://news360.com/article/390813497">http://news360.com/article/390813497">https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/opinion/the-democrats-immigration-problem.html?referer=http://news360.com/article/390813497


Sorry, that link was poor. This should work:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/opinion/the-democrats-immigration-problem.html

Thank you for this post, Rogue. I've been thinking about racial sovereignty and it feels like you hit the nail on the head.

Racial sovereignty of white Americans seems to provide a better analytical frame than "racism" or even "white supremacy"--at least from the side of voters. As much as Clinton was "business as usual," that also implied a racially-integrated government which pursued policies which undermine white sovereignty (by ameliorating concerns of marginalized colored communities).

I think we will soon see the shortcomings of white nativism; I am intrigued to see how it will evolve in a new white majoritarianism. It all just feels so cyclical.

Regarding the previous comment, I think that "racial sovereignty of White America" provides a better analytical component than analytical frame.

Undoubtedly it shouldn't be ignored. But 63 million out of 136 million popular votes (including 7.8 million cast for neither Trump nor Clinton) were cast for Trump. Were the majority cast by racial sovereignty advocates?

What about those who voted Republican out of party solidarity? Those who voted for Trump simply because they hated Hillary Clinton rather than loved Trump (quite common among the thousands of Republicans I've contacted as a political fundraiser)? Those who voted against the status quo and for change? Those taken in by Trump's populist economic message? Those who consider illegal immigrants primarily as economic competitors rather than as ethnic threats?

In the 13 swing states that actually decided the results, Trump won the popular vote. In 2012, at the height of the Great Recession, a Black presidential candidate won the popular vote in those swing states by 3.6 percent. In 2016 Hillary Clinton lost those states by -1.8 percent; a shift of -5.4 percent And more voters participated in the 2016 election.

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174


P.S. The Wasserman PDF provides the most succinct and easy to read format for the data referenced above.

P.P.S. Okay, 2012 wasn't quite the "height" of the Great Recession, but unemployment in the month preceding the presidential election was about 8 percent. And Mitt Romney was about as White as they come; and if his comment about the supposedly feckless 47 percent was imbued with racist overtones, it should have motivated America's White majority to vote Romney. Instead, Obama won by a landslide.

Romney too ran as a successful businessman. So he shares several Trump attributes: he's conspicuously White, a wealthy businessman. And he took a "far right" position on illegal immigration, sharply criticizing Rick Perry; he promoted the "Arizona model"; and he advocated building a high tech fence along the entire 2,000 mile southern border:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Mitt_Romney_Immigration.htm

Trump even called Romney's self deportationn policy "mean spirited" and "crazy":

https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/12/trump-romneys-self-deportation-policy-was-mean-spirited-doesnt-support-restricting-legal-immigration-further/amp/

Yet, when Trump briefly considered Romney for a cabinet position, many Trump supporters I talked to said that if it happened, they would no longer support Trump. This was a big deal for them!

I don't think liberals should underestimate the populist economic component of Trump's platform, however specious and inconsistent, in his appeal. At one point Trump was publicly promising to welcome Bernie Sanders supporters. Many Trumpsters hate the Republican establishment and don't even consider Trump to be a Republican, despite the fact that he ran as one and put RNC Chairman Reince Priebus in as his chief of staff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_massacre_of_1871

Not sure of RC's source, but immigrants as a percentage of the U.S. population were higher in 1870, 1890, and 1910, according to Census data:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time?width=1000&height=850&iframe=true

Not trying to nitpick, just wanted to put the "unprecedented" comment in historical context. Besides which, if you go back early enough, you find that nearly 100 percent of Americans were immigrants. Trump is fond of saying that a nation can't exist without borders, but for roughly the first 150 years of America's history, immigration was as simple as getting on a boat and (part of the time) passing a basic medical exam. There was no visa system or general immigration quotas until after WW I, the 19th century ban on Chinese immigrants notwithstanding.


None of these comments address Rogue's question: who can give an argument for multiculturalism working using historical facts. The question wasn't about the election.

Multiculturalism denies society common norms to agree on such as: are we in favor of monotheism or democracy? Try running any organization with multiple bosses.

Trump is as legitimate as any president we have had???
You and many news feeds are all the same. Such BS!!
Remove me from your "new feeds" left wing propaganda.

Jim, the point is that an eagle cant fly with just one "wing".
And just reading "Trump's breaking news" site is like trying to fly with just a "Right Wing".

"Buzzard capitalism" -- excellent line in another perceptive column. MAGA was a prominent example of an intrinsically racist movement.

The complete and utter evisceration of the Democratic Party at the state level since '08 is best explained as a reaction to the Obaman presidency. You can't convince me its policy which keep republicans in charge. They stopped engaging in that years ago. The shit which conservatives argue wouldn't stand peer review-not because academics are liberal but because it's bad science.

Part of the problem with "racism" or "white supremacy" is it implies intent. I don't think it really matters why people voted for trump because, in the end, their vote granted authority to the Republican Party to implement its right-wing agenda. At some point outcomes have to matter more than intentions.

Oh, and what is there right wing agenda? Is it inflected with ethnic-nationalist Christian identity? In the same way that trumps "populism" will very clearly target marginalized communities to bolster social privileges held by cishet white American men? Yeah. It is.

Which explains why white voters (collectively) were way more excited about Trump than Romney. One would protect white men from neoliberalism and the other wouldn't. Which also explains why he won a higher percentage of minority votes--left-wing voters from marginalized communities didn't show up for Clinton like Obama.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/amp/?client=safari

Finally, to Rogue's point: yeah, we're facing a crisis about the future of America. But, just like in 1865, or 1933, when white Americans finish their in-fighting over how to run the country, we'll return to a new concensus on the limitations of "multiculturalism." At least a quarter of muslims in this country are of african descent and yet the "Muslim ban" is (primarily) about Arab nations. They used to be seen as white and, collectively, we're not sure anymore. Once these concerns are settled we'll come up with new definitions which include the descendants of some non-WASP immigrants and excludes those deemed as permanently colored.

Or, maybe we'll get lucky, and the end of white sovereignty is really upon us. Because if the demographic transition which is supposed to occur actually does, there is no way this country survives as a republican democracy and keeps white political sovereignty.

Fun fact: the Democratic Party hasn't won a majority of the white vote in an election since (at least) 1976--at what point can we call the Republican Party a white majoritarian party? Since they can only win by having a majority of white voters support them? The only black folks elected in the Republican Party depend on white voters for elections in a way no democrat does.

Which party is actually representative of the future of America? Not that the dems are great--but stop defending people who perpetuate structural racism unless you're ready to defend structural racism.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/04120035/Demog2.png

I believe in what I call "cultural Darwinism" that one could compare to the cuisine in New Orleans or the intermixing of the races in Hawaii.

When a culture or ethnicity starts to wall itself off from outside influences, it stagnates, withers, and eventually dies off. This is because the walling off creates an environment in which the "recessive" and negative influences within that culture or ethnicity create and reinforce a negative "downward spiral" where nothing new or invigorating occurs--and the cultures or ethnicities that embrace diversification and sophistication from outside influences then grow and prosper from these "new ideas."

My version of Cultural Darwinism has its basis in something I read 25+years ago in Chicago that dealt with the difference between Tolerance and Acceptance and has informed my thinking ever since. As best I can remember, it goes like this...

Tolerance means that if one had a chance to change a person, condition, or situation, they would.

Acceptance means that one would change nothing about a person, condition, or situation.

The difference between open-minded and closed-minded is both small and a very slippery slope, indeed. Intolerance often comes from the best of intentions.


I see that Colin Woodward's "American Nations" book was brought up here a couple years ago http://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue_columnist/2015/10/where-arizona-fits.html I recently read it and it seems to make sense, even if some cities seem to be outliers or enclaves (Cincinnati and Milwaukee were cited to me when I asked the author about it).

I bring this up because it does seem to explain a lot of what's going on politically and culturally, even if it's a bit rough around the edges. In the "Where Arizona Fits" post most people were arguing about superficial reasons why particular cities or states don't fit together in the same "nation" while ignoring that the whole book's premise is cultural. It's about the values people have and pass on to their children and neighbors, and how they vote, not what their buildings look like or the food they eat. The entrenched established colonial culture persists to this day, and it's becoming more self-selecting due to better information about what the people and places are really like.

At the request of "e Draco":

RC: "History shows no example of a nation that survives long as the kind of polyglot entity for which many progressives long. It shows many examples of the unsustainability of such experiments."

I would probably have stopped the sentence earlier: "History shows no example of a nation that survives long."

That's perhaps an exaggeration, but not far off. Nationhood is defined by governmental framework, not geography. England isn't a country, since it merged in 1707 to become part of the United Kingdom (unquestionably a melting pot of several once distinct cultures). France became a Republic after the United States came into existence. Russia was once ruled by Vikings.

Foreign invasions are common. Every incorporation into a new empire changes the culture of both the empire and the newly incorporated nation. Every change of governmental framework, whether imposed from without or from within, is evidence of instability. Today's cultural honogeneities resulted from the mix and assimilation of foreign elements, as territory was added and immigration and intermixing occurred.

Multicultural empires are the norm, rather than the exception. That includes the Roman, Persian, and Ottoman empires, outside the main seats of power. Even early Islam, at its most militant, fundamentalist, and expansionist, was multicultural.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation

Damn, I hate this text editor.

"e Draco" = e dravo

"honogeneities" = homogeneities.

Etc.

How about giving back all the stolen territory to the Mexicans? Seriously, there is no reason,in my opinion, to cater to white racist and cultural chauvinism.

Incidentally, while America has always been a majority White nation, the cultural definition of White has changed.

For example, Italians weren't always considered White:

https://www.google.com/amp/fusion.net/story/213123/on-columbus-day-lets-remember-that-italians-werent-always-white-in-america/amp/

The Immigration Act of 1924 enacted severe quotas on Italian immigrants, and the advocates of the law used racist eugenics arguments to justify that:

"In the 10 years following 1900, about 200,000 Italians immigrated annually. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, 4,000 per year were allowed."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

Note that given the smaller population of America in the first decade of the 20th century, the hordes of Italians were an "invasion" on a scale to compare with Mexican immigration in the last decade of the century. The same complaints of failure to assimilate, linguistically and culturally, were made then, too.

Hattie wrote: "How about giving back all the stolen territory to the Mexicans?"

Except that "the Mexicans" were originally the Spanish, who stole it from the Indians. And the Indians stole it from each other, as empires expanded and dissolved. The original owners, if there were any, no longer exist.

Any one care to predict what will the United States look like in 2027?

U.S. stole Mexican territory. Mexico is not Spain.

There are many in their white majoritarianism, enjoying the many benefits of white "privilege," who both actively and passively support the various "white power" movements and their ideologies. Many support these under some banner (cloak) of "religion."
You all know how I despise such hypocrisy.

What's more than ironic is that most "white" ethnicities came from Barbarians, Vandals, Goths, Huns, etcetera--who came from Asia. Tose Asians came from Africa.

As for the science many of these evangelicals abhor, a great deal of that came from the Islamic world.

But in their ideologically-addled and handicapped state, many of these white "culture" storm-troopers willfully ignore how interconnected and interdependent this planet truly is.

LoL, nobody talks about the elephant in the room. The entire discussion of white minority is predicated on the current acceptance of the Mexican illegal and central american illegal populations remaining and continuing to grow through pull along immigration and natural growth.

If 12-15 million of them are gone, this will be a different country.

Interestingly, it will severely damage the low end housing market in Maricopa County, and indeed in a lot of rural America and inland California.

But whatever, the die is cast.

As Jon likes to notice, immigration moved from here to the heartland, and the heartland is now in the process of rejecting the new settlers.

Pence kissed the ring, and took up the anti mantle, and Sessions confirmation essentially finalized it.

All that it awaits is the exit by millions in a gradual and unsettling fashion.

But without real legal standing, all of those Maldef lawyers are wasting their time.

And so it goes.

It will slow down growth in America, but as was noticed by a hero of the environment, Ed Abbey, unlimited growth is the method of a cancer cell.

He thought unlimited immigration from points south would be a disaster as well.

So much ruin in this nation.

Abbey wanted to stop Mexicans at the border give them a gun and send them back into Mexico for a revolution against political corruption.

Reading Ken above makes me think the political evolutionary process suggests as I indicated before. Putin let's Donald have half.

And when the rest of the world understands the intolerance and hate in "uhhmurriKKKuhh" from the white majoritans, these same white majoritans will have to pay higher wages to get those menial, grunt-level jobs done. The big question is, how many of these "fiscal conservatives" will embrace this shot to their collective wallets? That will be amusing....

Whites are projected to remain the largest single race in America long after they constitute less than 50 percent of the population. That's because the minorities who will constitute a majority of the population are composed of different groups.

For example, even by 2060, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that Whites will number about 285 million. The next largest group will be African Americans, at 182 million. Latinos are projected to be a distant third place, at 119 million. So, local variations notwithstanding, most of the faces associated with any single race will be White ones. See Table 2 of the PDF available here:

http://www.census.gov/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.html

Sorry, it's hard to read wide tables on a cellphone. By 2060 the projections are:

Whites, 182 million
Latinos, 119 million.
African Americans, 60 million.

The point remains the same, except that Latinos, not African Americans, are in second place.

Incidentally, Whites in 2014 numbered 198 million. So the Census Bureau projects a slight decline in absolute numbers.

Incidentally, when I write "White" I refer to single race non-Hispanic Whites. There are plenty of White Latinos. But it's less complicated to use the term in its common, everyday, sense.

This leads to a further conclusion: the claim of pending minority status for Whites depends on the exclusion of White Latinos.

For example, in 2016, Census projects a total population of 417 million. Of that, 182 million, or 44 percent, are non-Hispanic Whites. But if you include Hispanic Whites as well, then Census projects 285 million Whites, or 68 percent. So Whites remain a majority of the population as far as the Census Bureau projects.

Does this settle the matter? Not quite. Census polls use the racial self-classification of respondents. There are an indeterminate number of individuals classifying themselves as White even though they are technically Mestizos -- mixed Spanish (White) and Indian.

Academic studies attempting to analyze the racial makeup of Mexicans vary widely in the percentage of the population classified as White. The Mexican Census has not asked the race of respondents since 1921.

https://lobertrindsay.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/races-of-mexico/

And the children of Spaniards (Hispanic?) recently from Spain and Black Americans?
It's all psychotic bullshit. We are earthlings, or "manunkind" things left behind by Aliens. And Walls are about killing. The Hunger Games are here. RU ready? Get your Survivor Manuel at B&N.


The Roman Empire was multicultural in that once they defeated the local major domo the defeated tribe was allowed to keep their customs and keep their gods as long as they upheld Roman Law and at least public acknowledged the supremacy of Roman deities and, of course paid Rome its taxes. Otherwise the locals were in complete control… It was good colonial policy, used quite successfully by the British to manage their empire.

The story of Jesus is illustrative. When the Pharisees wanted to rid themselves of a trouble maker they needed the approval of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who was responsible for seeing Roman law was carried out and served as the chief judiciary authority of the province. Capital offenses needed Roman approval.

Rome brought about a remarkable transformation of the western world because they made laws uniform throughout the empire, reduced the authority of local kings and made enforcement of laws more consistent and more equitable- a boon for commercial trade because it reduced uncertainty which is risk and carries a high cost. The Roman Empire succeeded as well as it did because it crushed multiculturalism.

Concern Troll wrote: "The entire discussion of white minority is predicated on the current acceptance of the Mexican illegal and central american illegal populations remaining and continuing to grow through pull along immigration and natural growth. If 12-15 million of them are gone, this will be a different country."

According to Census, in 2014 there were 121 million minorities in the United States. If there are 15 million illegals, that's only 12 percent of minorities. (See Table 2 at the link above.)

Even assuming that they have a higher average reproductive rate than other minorities, their removal would only push back the day when non-Hispanic Whites become a minority of the population.

But isn't this fantasy anyway?

"The notion that raids have been stepped up under Trump has been advanced both by the White House, to show that Trump is keeping a promise, and by advocates of those who have been targeted, to illustrate what they call the new president's heavy-handed tactics. But statistical evidence has not come in to show that enforcement has surged under the new Trump administration or that actual deportations are up. A similar series of raids under Obama in March 2015 resulted in the arrest of more than 2,000 criminals, the government said at the time."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sfgate.com/news/politics/amp/AP-FACT-CHECK-The-audacity-of-hype-10942483.php

Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, 2.5 million from the start of his first term through 2015. But the illegal population remained the same because more arrived to replace the deportees.

The record year for deportations was 2013, when 435,000 were removed. The number of apprehensions at the border that year (which was well below the record for border apprehensions) was 414,000. But presumably, many more came in undetected that year.

http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/

And how many of Obama's deportees were caught at the border? How do you track down 15 million illegals whose physical presence is lacking and who have furthermore camouflaged themselves in a society to which they have at least partially assimilated?

e dravo wrote: "The Roman Empire was multicultural in that once they defeated the local major domo the defeated tribe was allowed to keep their customs and keep their gods as long as they upheld Roman Law and at least public acknowledged the supremacy of Roman deities and, of course paid Rome its taxes. Otherwise the locals were in complete control…"

Good points. Usually, the local aristocracy intermarried with Roman provincial administrators, also. This encouraged parallel/hybrid multiculturalism. And while the aristocracy may have learned Latin, most of the local population didn't (there was no compulsory general education). Instead of replacing the local language, a slow process of bastardization occurred. Certainly the later spread of Christianity, and the concentration of learning among monasteries (where Latin was the de facto written language) had more to do with the eventual romanization of the local language than Roman provincial government did.

But e dravo then concluded; "The Roman Empire succeeded as well as it did because it crushed multiculturalism."

Huh? You already enumerated freedom of worship, freedom of customs, and local control. To that I added polyglotism.

If customs, religion, language, and local control were allowed, how did Rome crush multiculturalism? The enforcement of a Roman code of laws doesn't, any more than American jurisprudence can be said to"crush multiculturalism".

A side note: Trump and Putin will not let McCain continue his assaults on them. They will find a way to neutralize him.

I just think this continued emphasis on keeping some kind of "white" heritage is rather useless, unless this "heritage" has to do with respecting others rights to be who they want to be. Whites saying "Just follow the laws" is often a convenient excuse to control others. I'm talking about accepting others as they are and learning from them because we all can learn something from each other no matter what our nationality, ethnicity, or legal status.

The ones exercising their right to be who they want to be should have every right to do that as long as they, in exercising said right(s), do not infringe, impinge, or prevent others expression of freedom. Laws often only begin to address the above because things like intolerance, ostracism, scorn, and hate can't be legislated or codified as illegal.

Statistics are only numbers and don't reflect attitudes about the emotional and mental barriers we humans create against each other as some sort of bad one-upmanship and pompousness charade.

While traditions are good, when they are used to build walls between different races, ethnicities, and groups, the effect is to control, which I believe is the true antithesis of love and goodwill.

So all of this idea about whiteness is really just a method of dividing us as a species.

Bradley Dranka wrote: "Whites saying "Just follow the laws" is often a convenient excuse to control others."

All statutory laws are an attempt to control behavior. Their purpose is to restrict behavior, to discourage deviations, and to further restrict the liberty of those who violate the norms which the laws are supposed to embody.

Bradley Dranka wrote: "The ones exercising their right to be who they want to be should have every right to do that as long as they, in exercising said right(s), do not infringe, impinge, or prevent others expression of freedom."

Very libertarian. But how then do you justify the taxation and redistribution of income?

How do you justify laws that prevent private businesses from determining which customers they cater to? If someone wants to withhold a wedding cake made with their own hands, rather than put dolls of two men in tuxedos holding hands on the top, because it isn't who they want to be and offends their values, well, can't the customer find a business that will cater to them or else do their own cake decorating?

Both of these examples demonstrate that the core of your argument revolves around the concept of rights. Not moral rights, but legal rights as defined by federal and state constitutions, statutory law, and the case law which interprets and accepts or rejects them.

Is unregulated immigration a right? Not according to the laws of most nations. It used to be, in America and elsewhere. Contrary to Donald Trump's assertion, you can have a country without borders. America was such a country for its first 150 years. There was no visa system and (the Chinese Exclusion Act notwithstanding) no immigration quotas, until after WW I.

Now personally, I think very good arguments can be made supporting taxation and redistribution of income. Jim Crow laws are a very obvious example of government infringement of constitutional rights.

But there is (please forgive me I'm not trying to be provocative) something oddly inconsistent in your comments. On the one hand, you make a vague generalization impugning the motives of Whites as Whites. On the other hand, you say that the concept of race shouldn't divide us. Yet, your language uses race as a wedge to divide and criticize. Can you have it both ways?

Ken Atherton, you wrote: those who violate the norms which the laws are supposed to embody.

I believe the whites create "norms" that are NOT norms for other races, ethnicities, etc., to perpetuate whites' "calling" the societal shots. This is social "hegemony" and is a fair-weather, self-serving bullying exercise of freedom that impinges on "others" freedom to be themselves.

You then write: But how then do you justify the taxation and redistribution of income?
How do you justify laws that prevent private businesses from determining which customers they cater to? If someone wants to withhold a wedding cake made with their own hands, rather than put dolls of two men in tuxedos holding hands on the top, because it isn't who they want to be and offends their values, well, can't the customer find a business that will cater to them or else do their own cake decorating?

Taxation and redistribution are the price, I believe, to be paid by us for living in a nation SO THAT everyone CAN have the opportunity to express their freedom--and the price the wealthy should "give back" to those who made them so wealthy--a tithe, if you will.

You then wrote: Both of these examples demonstrate that the core of your argument revolves around the concept of rights. Not moral rights, but legal rights as defined by federal and state constitutions, statutory law, and the case law which interprets and accepts or rejects them.

My argument revolves around MORAL, HUMAN rights, not LEGAL rights which I contend that are employed by the controlling white majority to control behavior they disapprove of. Moral and humanistic rights should be there for everyone, but, in our intolerant and bigoted society, are seen as threats to be controlled by legislation and executive fiat. Moral and humanistic rights being available to everyone are products of acceptance, whereas tolerance, in eyeing to change things in a negative, backward way, seeks to roll back rights--both moral and enshrined.

You follow with: Is unregulated immigration a right? Not according to the laws of most nations. It used to be, in America and elsewhere. Contrary to Donald Trump's assertion, you can have a country without borders. America was such a country for its first 150 years. There was no visa system and (the Chinese Exclusion Act notwithstanding) no immigration quotas, until after WW I.

America proclaims itself the "shining light on the hill." We also loudly tout "American Exceptionalism." HOW MUCH of that "exceptionalism" is directly due to immigration? Comparing the U.S. open borders--and the need to make them parallel "other nations" immigration policies while simultaneously pounding our chests over our "exceptionalism" is disingenuous and deliberately misleading. While there may need to be "protections" about immigration, those absolutely need to be fair and moral--or America is hypocritical and a liar about being some "exceptional," "shining light on the hill," "one nation under GOD."

I made MY case, and I think it's morally sound, about redistribution of income.

You close with: But there is (please forgive me I'm not trying to be provocative) something oddly inconsistent in your comments. On the one hand, you make a vague generalization impugning the motives of Whites as Whites. On the other hand, you say that the concept of race shouldn't divide us. Yet, your language uses race as a wedge to divide and criticize. Can you have it both ways?

There is no passive-aggressiveness or inconsistencies in what I say. You're exactly right that I condemn the immorality of whites (which I don't call a race because of the polyglot of ethnicities that they came from and continue to be made up of) in trying to "save" their heritage by continuing the charade of some kind of existential "threat." I don't believe in "races," or being racist, because there is only ONE race--the human, worldwide RACE.

Statistics can be helpful, but using them up and down, back and forth, inside-outside, and left to right often doesn't address the "gut check" issues of morality and decency we need to employ when dealing with our fellow man.

Ken Atherton, you wrote: How do you justify laws that prevent private businesses from determining which customers they cater to? If someone wants to withhold a wedding cake made with their own hands, rather than put dolls of two men in tuxedos holding hands on the top, because it isn't who they want to be and offends their values, well, can't the customer find a business that will cater to them or else do their own cake decorating?

These businesses are in the public forum serving the general public. They are NOT private clubs. Thus, they are subject to the non-discrimination laws of the United States that govern public entities.

Ken Atherton, I am a socialist at heat because I believe many of the ills of the United States--and the world, as well--have been perpetuated by a white American brand of capitalism that glorifies and rewards greed, avarice, mean-spirited one-upmanship and brinkmanship macho bullying, malicious Machiaveliianism, and a general taking before giving mentality.

Morality, decency and goodwill have seldom been at the forefront of our dealings with the world, being all too often accorded places well down the list in our overly profit-oriented motivations.

I also strongly feel a much more cynical and chauvinistic leadership will only make this dog-eat-dog attitude more insidious--and will ultimately presage disaster for the U.S.

Moral rights must certainly be the basis for legal rights, otherwise laws would be arbitrary, wouldn't they? But that begs the question: whose moral rights, as defined by whom?

There is at least a faint whiff of the Orwellian in proclaiming a libertarian definition of rights in which everyone is free to act as they wish provided that their actions do not constitute fraud or coercion, only to follow this up by proclaiming that these rights are actually subject to restriction on the basis of a nebulous "public good", enforced against some to the benefit of others, by whatever political faction (right or left) happens to hold power at the time.

While I respect the libertarian view, I regard it as naive, insofar as it fails to take into account the coercive factors of "free market" economic systems. When concentrated economic power allows a small group of owners to dictate the basic terms of existence (e.g., food, shelter medical care, wages, working conditions) to others, that too is a form of coercion.

Collectively blaming "Whites" (which ones?), which you explicitly define as those sharing a particular skin color, is surely every bit as discriminatory as anything you criticize.

It's also not very practical, from a political view, in a society where any progressive political solution to social ills will require the good will and cooperation of the largest groups, including Whites.

Slavery and wars of aggression based on nationalist or tribal loyalties are by no means historically limited to Europe and America.

They have been perpetrated by the Chinese, Japanese, Mongols, Africans (both northern and sub-Saharan), Indian (Aztec, Inca), and many more. Every inhabited continent has seen slavery and wars of aggression, imposed not only by foreign powers but by those native to the region.

The largest currently existing bastion of slavery is in India and African countries, not Europe or America:

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/17/world/la-fg-wn-slavery-africa-20131017

While profit from capitalism has some good, way too much (the love of money is the root of all evil) creates problems as well. That's why I believe in taxes--and a bit more.

Maybe this encapsulates my feelings perfectly...

And everybody wanted to be free
Laws and rules should keep it that way
Hey hey hey

Everybody wants to be happy
Everybody wants to be warm
And be loved and liked and wanted
And have some kind of home
But getting it is work
And keeping it is tough
But destroying it's the easy bit
We've all got the magic touch.

It's from a song called "The Rainmaker," by a KC rock group called the Rainmakers.

I didn't use either of the terms "fraud or coercion" to describe one's exercise of freedom. My sentiment was exercising one's freedom while having the self-control and respect (as well as acceptance) for others so that your exercise of rights DID NOT IMPINGE OR RESTRICT the others' right(s) to their freedom. Live and let live. Act responsibly and accountably when exercising your freedom.

As far as my condemning whites, I condemn those who try to define white heritage as some kind of nirvana that they use to act as if other cultures are inferior and less relevant. I think everyone knows of the "white power" groups that employ this as some sort of justification for their hate. That they wrap themselves in God only adds to my detesting them. These ideas are present (in varying degrees) in virtually every conservative state in the U.S.--and these ideas have insinuated themselves into their politics. Just look on the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate group listing.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz