Note: While the article does allude to this, it isn't all  that clear.
However, something like 1/4th or even a third of Hispanics
in America regard themselves as "white," and many of them are
Castilian and are white in actual fact.
 
There also are the descendents of intermarriage with Spanish names.
I don't know the statistics but would guess that the number is now
in the 15 % range and will only grow in the coming decades.
Just about all "Hispanics" in this group will self-identify as white.
 
In short, by 2040 or so it seems safe to predict that about half of
all Hispanics in the USA will have the same status as Italians have  today.
This throws out various projections about white minorities in the 
near future and discounts (slightly) rising numbers of eastern  Europeans
entering the population.
 
Finally, many Asians are "functionally white" already. They may look  
different
than the conventional white majority but that is pretty much the only  
difference
unless you count different tastes in food. But lots of "whites" eat all  
kinds
of non-European foods and so what? And lots of Asian-Americans 
eat European foods.
 
Really fine article, but a few details that matter might have been 
discussed a little differently.
 
Billy
 
 
------------------------------
 
 
Slate
 
September 4, 2015
 
 
White Fright
 
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/donald_trump_and_white_nationalism_does_the_candidate_s_rise_represent_the.html#)
  
 
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/donald_trump_and_white_nationalism_does_the_candidate_s_rise_represent_the.html#)
  
(http://twitter.com/search?q=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/p
olitics/2015/09/donald_trump_and_white_nationalism_does_the_candidate_s_rise
_represent_the.html) 
 
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/donald_trump_and_white_nationalism_does_the_candidate_s_rise_represent_the.html#comme
nts) 
Does Donald Trump represent the ascendancy of white nationalism on  the 
American right?
By _Reihan  Salam_ (http://www.slate.com/authors.reihan_salam.html)  

 
 
Fear of “white nationalism” is very much in vogue. To Thomas Edsall, 
writing  in the New York Times, the rise of Donald Trump is a _predictable  
consequence_ 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/opinion/what-donald-trump-understands-about-republicans.html)
  of the fact that the Republican Party is “the 
home of an often  angry and resentful white constituency,” which fears that 
discrimination against  whites is a growing problem. Evan Osnos of the New 
Yorker, in a similar  vein, seeks to _explain_ 
(http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-fearful-and-the-frustrated)   
the Trump phenomenon by 
viewing it through the lens of radical white  nationalists, who warn that 
white Americans face cultural genocide as their  numerical majority shrinks. 
Ben 
Domenech, publisher of the Federalist,  _argues_ 
(http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/21/are-republicans-for-freedom-or-white-identity-politics/)
   that 
Republicans face a choice: They can build their coalition around a more  
inclusive libertarian vision, the path that he prefers, or they can follow 
Trump 
 and redefine themselves as the defenders of white interests in a bitterly  
divided multiracial society.
 
Does Donald Trump represent the ascendancy of white nationalism on the  
American right? I’m skeptical, for a number of reasons. While anti-immigration  
rhetoric is certainly a big part of Trump’s appeal, it is also true that he 
 fares _particularly  well_ 
(http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/85775b52-ec99-4ad3
-bbee-14826bdf86e5.pdf)  among the minority of Republican voters who 
identify themselves as  moderate or liberal. As a general rule, moderate and 
liberal Republicans are  more favorably inclined toward amnesty and affirmative 
action than their  conservative counterparts. Moreover, as Jason Willick of 
the American  Interest has _observed_ 
(http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/09/03/trump-and-the-white-resentment-theory/)
 ,  the leading 
second-choice candidates are Ben Carson, the black neurosurgeon, and  Ted Cruz 
and 
Marco Rubio, both of whom are senators of Cuban descent, the latter  of whom 
played a leading role in crafting immigration reform legislation.  Granted, it 
could still be true that Trump is benefiting from white racial  resentment. 
It’s just not clear to me that Trump is anything more than Herman  Cain with 
an extra billion or so dollars in the bank and over a decade’s worth  of 
experience as host of one of network television’s most popular reality  shows.





Nevertheless, I believe that white identity politics is indeed going to  
become a more potent force in the years to come, for the simple reason that  
non-Hispanic whites are increasingly aware of the fact that they are destined 
to  become a minority of all Americans. According to current projections, 
that day  will come in 2044. Non-Hispanic whites will become a minority of 
eligible voters  a few years later, in 2052. According to States of Change, a 
_report_ 
(https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/SOC-report1.pdf)   
by Ruy Teixeira, William H. Frey, and Robert Griffin, 
California and Texas are  set to join Hawaii and New Mexico in having 
majority-minority electorates in the  next few years, and several other states 
will follow 
in the 2030s.
 
Why does it matter that in the near future, non-Hispanic whites will become 
a  minority in one state after another? The most obvious reason is that  
non-Hispanic whites might lose their sense of security. They will be 
outnumbered  and outvoted. If they remain wealthier than average, as seems 
likely, 
they might  fear that majority-minority constituencies will vote to 
redistribute their  wealth. Over time, they might resent seeing their cultural 
symbols 
give way to  those of minority communities—which is to say the cultural 
symbols of other minority communities.
 
In a 1916 _essay_ 
(http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1916/07/trans-national-america/304838/)
   in the Atlantic, Randolph Bourne, at the time 
one of America’s leading  left-wing intellectuals, attacked the melting-pot 
ideal, in which immigrants to  the United States and their descendants were 
expected to assimilate into a  common culture. He saw instead America 
evolving into “a cosmopolitan federation  of national colonies, of foreign 
cultures, from whom the sting of devastating  competition has been removed.” 
Instead of forging a common American identity,  the country he envisioned would 
be 
one where members of minority ethnic groups  preserved their cultural 
separateness.
 
To fully realize this ideal, however, it was vitally important that  
Anglo-Saxon Americans not assert themselves in the same way as the  members of 
other ethnic groups. Why? Because if Anglo-Saxon Americans were to  celebrate 
their identity as a people with longstanding ties to their American  
homeland, it would implicitly discount the American-ness of those from minority 
 
ethnic backgrounds. For Bourne, and for those who’ve advocated for his brand of 
 cultural pluralism since, it is the obligation of Anglo-Saxon Americans, 
and  other white Americans with no strong ties to a non-American homeland, to 
be  post-ethnic cosmopolitans. But what if being a post-ethnic cosmopolitan 
is not  actually that satisfying?

 
 
 
In his highly inventive 2004 book _The Rise  and Fall of Anglo-America_ 
(http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674013032) , the sociologist 
Eric Kaufmann calls this  bargain “asymmetrical multiculturalism.” Under 
asymmetrical multiculturalism,  minority ethnic groups are encouraged to assert 
their group identities and to  defend their group interests while the 
majority ethnic group is strongly  discouraged from doing the same. Overt 
expressions of Jewish, Mexican, Laotian,  or Bengali pride are very welcome. 
Overt 
expressions of WASP pride, however, are  not. Kauffman maintains that 
because WASPs, and to a lesser extent other whites,  are denied the option of 
celebrating their ethnic heritage, they instead  champion essentially 
ideological ideas, like individualism or a vague,  ill-defined belief in 
“American 
exceptionalism” that is bereft of any real  cultural content.    
 
It should go without saying that white Americans have been quite effective 
at  advancing their interests, even without overt expressions of ethnic 
pride. You  could cynically suggest that it is all well and good for Bengalis 
to 
have their  Bengali pride as long as whites have all their power. The 
majority does not need  to assert itself, as members of the majority can be 
serenely confident that  their interests will always be served. The trouble is 
that this serenity is much  harder to maintain as majority-group status slips 
away.





So what form might white identity politics take as whites become a minority 
 group? We don’t have much experience with this dynamic at a national 
level, yet  there are cities and other communities where whites are already 
conscious of  themselves as a minority group. By 2020, Americans under the age 
of 
18 will be  majority-minority, and the attitudes of these young whites will 
tell us a great  deal about the future. For now, we can imagine a number of 
different  possibilities.

 
 
In its most extreme manifestation, white identity politics could take the  
form of outright racial separatism. For example, Osnos interviewed radical  
white-nationalist thinkers who hope to establish a sovereign ethno-state  
exclusively for people of European origin. These thinkers are marginal for 
now.  But radical white nationalists are betting on the possibility that as 
whites  become a minority, ethnic conflict will intensify and more whites will 
wish to  extricate themselves from diverse environments. (To some extent, 
this already  happens: As white Americans age and form families, it is not at 
all uncommon for  them to leave diverse cities for less diverse suburbs or 
indeed less diverse  regions.) You can also imagine a far milder form of 
white identity politics, in  which whites accept ethnic diversity yet insist 
that they secure a fair share of  resources and respect as members of a 
cohesive ethnic bloc of their  own.
 
But this turn toward white identity politics is not  inevitable. The 
boundaries separating majority groups from minority groups are  fluid. We can’t 
reliably anticipate future rates of intermarriage, or whether  Americans with 
one or two Mexican-born grandparents will identify as Mexican  Americans. It 
could be that just as America’s Anglo-Protestant cultural majority  gave 
way to a more inclusive “white” cultural majority, which over the course of  
the 20th century came to include southern and Eastern Europeans and  others 
who might have once been excluded from the dominant group, our sense of  who 
counts as white will expand to include many Americans we’d now think of as  
Latino, Asian, or black. This desire to blur boundaries lies at the heart 
of the  melting-pot ideal, and it is why at least some conservatives, _myself 
 included_ 
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/10/american_melting_pot_how_slowing_down_immigration_could_help_us_build_a.htm
l) , believe that we ought to embrace a more melting pot–friendly  
immigration policy. Essentially, this view holds that America’s diverse groups  
can 
over time blend into a new “American” ethnicity. To get there, however, we’
d  have to moderately reduce immigration flows that both put economic 
pressure on  immigrants who already live and work in the U.S. and that 
reinforce 
their ethnic  ties to their ancestral homelands. Whether this view will 
prevail is very much  in doubt. Anti-immigration rhetoric tends to frame high 
levels of immigration as  a threat to natives, not as a barrier to integration, 
assimilation, and upward  mobility for the tens of millions of immigrant 
families that have made their  homes in the U.S. over the past several 
decades. There is no major politician I  know of who is offering a robust case 
for 
the melting-pot ideal. And that is a  shame.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  • [RC] Th... BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community

Reply via email to