April 4, 2011

Barone: "GOP Shouldn't Panic If Whites Become a Minority"

Michael Barone writes about the Census results:
Finally there is an assumption -- which is particularly strong among those who expect a majority "people of color" electorate to put Democrats in power permanently -- that racial consciousness never changes. But sometimes it does. 
American blacks do have common roots in slavery and segregation. But African immigrants don't share that heritage, and Hispanics come from many different countries and cultures (there are big regional differences just within Mexico). The Asian category includes anyone from Japan to Lebanon and in between. 
Under the definitions in use in the America of a century ago, when Southern and Eastern European immigrants were not regarded as white, the United States became a majority non-white nation sometime in the 1950s.

That's just the kind of myth that springs up as people forget what really happened. Jim Crow never applied to Italians or Poles. Anti-miscegenation laws didn't apply to southern and eastern Europeans. Black people should get upset about all this "How the Irish Became White" mythmaking.
By today's definitions, we'll become majority non-white a few decades hence. 
But that may not make for the vast cultural and political change some predict. Not if we assimilate newcomers, and if our two political parties adapt, as we and they have done in the past.

Barone is vaguely picking up here on some of my arguments over the last few years that the GOP could take a number of steps to redefine the government's race/ethnicity categories to their advantage. All over the world, people (especially women) want to be described as fairer than they actually are. But in America, the government rewards ambiguous people for declaring themselves nonwhite. And you get more of what you pay for. I've argued, in short: concede that the descendants of American slaves and American Indians will always be legally privileged, but nobody else should be. So, either get rid of the category of ethnicity, which is currently reserved for Hispanics, or open it up to everybody. Don't let South Asians be a protected group. Etc.

But the first thing you've got to do is pay attention to how the race rules work. For example, Barone writes, "The Asian category includes anyone from Japan to Lebanon and in between." No, the Asian category currently ends at the Khyber Pass. It used to end in the hill country of Burma. That Barone, who has a tremendous memory for detail, can't remember stuff like that shows how outgunned Republicans are intellectually in this area because they never pay attention to it. You can't begin to win at this game if you don't know the rules.

152 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is why the Onion is redundant.

headache said...

As a white South African I can testify that Barone is talking shit. Either consciously, in order to dupe whites, much like liberals did in Rhodesia and South Africa, only to flee those countries after black takeover. Or he is an unlearning idiot.

South Africa and Rhodesia are exact laboratories for Americans to study what life after being a majority is like. Of course liberals would never dare do that. It ain't pretty. Get used to lots of crime, government-mandated racism and nepotism, endless hikes in public services prices (in order to feed the black gravy train), lots of anti-white rhetoric which does stir up the masses to loot and kill, and a see of corruption, ineptitude and waste in government and all the major companies in which blacks are injected through the oppressive AA programs.

I'm saying these things without even having a hatred for blacks. On a personal level I get on well with them and even like some aspects of their nature. But living under them is very expensive and insecure.

The best is when mostly illegal migrant laborers (there are 20 million of them in South Africa with 40 million citizens, i.e. they make up 30% by now) come looking for work at my parents place. They always say that a country without whites does not work and they fled to South Africa from "liberated" countries such as Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Zambia coz of the remaining whites in SA which provide jobs. The only thing which still works in South Africa is the informal white economy.

Whiskey said...

Barone's an idiot. The politics of race, mean taking from Whites to fund non-Whites, period. With an extra cherry on top of special privileges for non-Whites that are forbidden to Whites. That's it.

That is a recipe for fundamental conflict, in all areas. You can't become non-White. Too many are stuck, and the change is going to happen rapidly (next decade) with the White population basically akin to Jews in the Kaiser's Germany, on the upside, to Armenians in the fading Ottoman Sultanate on the downside.

Anonymous said...

"South Africa and Rhodesia are exact laboratories for Americans to study what life after being a majority is like."

Any of you out there...when's the last time you heard from any news source on tv of any problems in either of these countries?

It was just the other day I heard some ABC pundit ask, "Is there a Libyan Mandela"?

That's the only time I hear of anything related to South Africa--references to the god Mandela. No way will the media report anything that suggests black rule is working in either of these places.

Anonymous said...

All over the world, people (especially women) want to be described as fairer than they actually are.
---
You might think it's to emulate Europeans but there's an evolutionary basis. Women who look fairer in the local context also look more youthful. And beauty for females is all about looking young. However cultures in which men desire fairer appearance are colonial sychophants.

Anonymous said...

"GOP Shouldn't Panic If Whites Become a Minority"

GOP need not worry. Political parties will do anything to stay in the game. After all, both the Democratic Party and GOP changed A LOT in the past 100 yrs to adapt to new circumstances.

But white people need to worry and even panic cuz whichever party wins, America will keep becoming more like Africa and Mexico.
Who cares if GOP or Democrats run Minnesota if Somalians keep coming and runing the city?

Anonymous said...

"Southern and Eastern European immigrants" were not regarded as White.
I get really angry when I read that shit.Barone, is of course, Italian and most probably southern Italian - so it is actually fair to say his ancestors were derided as being 'swarthy'.
But by 'eastern Europeans' he means gentile Poles, Slovaks or Czechs for example, he is talking rot.Any anthropologist worth his salt will tell you that the 'whiteset' people on earth (as measured by purely scientific measures of skin reflectivity, blondeness of hair and blueness of eye) are the osteuropid of eastern Poland and north Russia where there characters reach their extreme, even beating Scandinavian s on this score.(See Baker 'Race', Oxford 1974).
Martha Stewart is pure of Polish descent.

Anonymous said...

Barone is very wrong in one regard. Eastern and Southern Europeans, though not categorized as (lily)white were indeed white-European. This can also be said for some Hispanics.
But there's no getting around the fact that many Hispanics-especially from Mexico and Central America--will never be white.
And though Asians might become honorary whites, the more they succeed, the more they will emulate the most successful elites in this country. In the past, such people used to be conservative wasps. Today, they are liberal Jews.

Barone is wrong, wrong, wrong. Wishful thinking.

Anonymous said...

Though I see Mexicans as a demographic and cultural threat, I don't see them as a biological threat like blacks, who are stronger and more aggressive.
Of course, some might see Mexicans as a biological threat in the aesthetic sense. Given that many Mexicans are short, squat, Indiasiatic looking, etc, many white people fear that mixing with large number of Mexicans will make the white race less attractive.
Even so, if Mexicans are guided and handled correctly, I don't see them as a dangerous people.

It's like in THE WILD BUNCH. Under corrupt bad leadership, like that of Mapache, Mexicans can be a bunch of brutal drunkards. But with decent community values, they can be nice people, like the folks in Angel's village.

US-Mexico relations is a complicated one, as illustrated in films like TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE, VERA CRUZ, TOUCH OF EVIL, MAJOR DUNDEE, WILD BUNCH, and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.

At any rate, if we are gonna continue to have a black problem which is gonna get worse and worse, I'd rather have lots of Mexicans to balance out the blacks than have whites slowly become minority to blacks. Better Amexico than Afromerica.

Thripshaw said...

Saw Barone on TV years ago talking about immigration. He became completely emotional and said "all 4 of my grandparents were immigrants" and nearly cried about how his italian grandpappy was supposedly called the n-word when he came over.

RS said...

Hmmm

And both Steve Friedman and Michael Barone argue that Jewish policies on intermarriage [vs preservation] should be off-limits in political debate.

Anonymous said...

But by 'eastern Europeans' he means gentile Poles, Slovaks or Czechs for example, he is talking rot.



I don't know how much the rest of the whites looked down upon the poor Polish wave in 1900 but the first generation of Irish were not part of the white team. And they are just as pale so your need purity argument isn't relevant.

eh said...

Of course Barone spouts politically correct bullshit. But he's got a nice gig as an establishment journalist, and probably wants to keep it.

The fight here is against racially sensitive political correctness. Who has won that fight in the near past? Even a giant of 20th century science like James Watson got pummelled. Despite the fact that it oozes sound social science, how many Americans have a favorable view of 'The Bell Curve' and its authors?

The list of losers is pretty long.

It would probably help if Barone would move to a sprawling, suburban Hispanic ghetto -- err, excuse me, a 'barrio' -- and send his kids (if he has any) to the schools there.

But he's not going to do that.

Anonymous said...

Look I use the word 'white' only to mean skin color, as you would measure it with a scientific instrument.I mean nothing more or nothing less.
I do not use 'white' to mean 'Anglo-Saxon' (which seems to be the practice of some people).As a 'racial term' Anglo-Saxons don't have any greater claim on the term 'white' (by which I mean the melanin content of human epidermis), than a Pole has.
Poles have never ever claimed to be 'Anglo-Saxon' though.
The same goes for the Irish.

Anonymous said...

Why do people act like inviting all those Ellis Island immigrants was a good thing? Even today, Italian-American areas are known for their political corruption and obnoxious people.

Anonymous said...

"I don't know how much the rest of the whites looked down upon the poor Polish wave in 1900 but the first generation of Irish were not part of the white team."

Talking about "teams" is pretty infantile. They *were* considered white-they certainly weren't considered black or Chinese.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm
(...)
The fact that Irish vividly "remember" NINA signs is a curious historical puzzle. There are no contemporary or retrospective accounts of a specific sign at a specific location. No particular business enterprise is named as a culprit. No historian, 2 archivist, or museum curator has ever located one 3 ; no photograph or drawing exists. 4 No other ethnic group complained about being singled out by comparable signs. Only Irish Catholics have reported seeing the sign in America—no Protestant, no Jew, no non-Irish Catholic has reported seeing one. This is especially strange since signs were primarily directed toward these others: the signs said that employment was available here and invited Yankees, French-Canadians, Italians and any other non-Irish to come inside and apply. The business literature, both published and unpublished, never mentions NINA or any policy remotely like it. The newspapers and magazines are silent. The courts are silent. There is no record of an angry youth tossing a brick through the window that held such a sign. Have we not discovered all of the signs of an urban legend?
(...)
We must first ask if the 19th century American environment contained enough fear or hatred of the Irish community to support the existence of the NINA sentiment? Did the Irish-American community constitute an "Other" that was reviled and discriminated against? Did more modern Americans recoil in disgust at the premodern Irish immigrants? The evidence suggests that all the criticism of the Irish was connected to one of three factors, their "premodern" behavior, their Catholicism, and their political relationship to the ideals of republicanism. If the Irish had enemies they never tried to restrict the flow of Irish immigration. 6 Much louder was the complaint that the Irish were responsible for public disorder and poverty, and above all the fears that the Irish were undermining republicanism.
(...)

Anonymous said...

Haitians are natural Republicans. If only somebody outreached to them by talking about entraprenuership and family values, the GOP could win the Haitian vote in the next election cycle. Unfortunately the Republican pary is run by Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan, so reasonable moderates like Bush, Gingrich, and Barone never get their voices heard.

Anonymous said...

GOP definitely shouldn't panic if whites become a minority. Whites became a minority in California not that long ago and the GOP is doing really well there. All the Republicans need to do is embrace diversity, talk about family values not stoping at the Rio Grande, and give more money to the Israeli government. Maybe sign a couple more free trade agreements too. Then everything will be fine.

Anonymous said...

Some 'clever' Marxist academic started this whole 'the Irish weren't White' meme a few years back and surprisingly it's caught on.
Of course for the hard-left it's a very powerful weapon, but it's rather disheartening to see others that should no better parrotting the same line.It all reminds me of George Orwell's newspeak in which obvious lies, by the magic of repition and 'official sanction' become the 'truth', but it is sad to see otherwise intelligent people voluntairly falling for this nonsense.
Anyhow, no census returns, no official govenment documents, no anthroplogical texts, no encyclopaedias, no 'man in the street', no Englishman, no 'all-American', nobody in fact 100+ years ago when this 'marxist factoid' was current ever described the 'race' of an Irishman as anything other than White, mental illness would be proscribed for anyone who did, literally argue that 'black is white'.
I concede that in the case of southern Italians, Barone's people, things *were* different.A commentator here not long ago noted the swarthiness of Italian police on Lampedusa.
Next someone will be telling me that Teddy Kennedy was, in fact, a black African - it's obvious isn't it! - his ancestors weren't regarded as 'white', by he Boston elite! and that I have a deranged sense of perception.
What a crazy world we live in!, how can outwardly 'intelligent' people actually believe in something that is as false as caiming that their automobile is made of peanut butter.

icr said...

I, for one, salute the Irish for rebelling against Lincoln's dictatorship in New York City in 1863:
http://jaredfrederick.blogspot.com/2011/01/breaking-point.html
(...)
Rather than fully acknowledging the racial tensions and class disparities which sparked the riot, Harper’s instead downplayed social anxieties and declared the violence to be a result of Irish and German stupidity and lack of civic duty. Meanwhile, newspapers such as the Detroit Free Press were perhaps more accurate in interpreting the motives of the rioters: “There is no good reason why one man should be exempt and another compelled to perform military duty, simply because one happens to have temporarily more money than another. . . . If he has wealth, he has more reason to fight for its protection than the man who has nothing.”[xxvii] Likewise, the New York News encapsulated the frustrations of the protestors and the reasons which drove them into the streets for retribution: “It is a strange perversion of the laws of self-preservation which would compel the white laborer to leave his family destitute and unprotected while he goes forth to free the negro, who, being free, will compete with him in labor.”
(...)

The Irish were "pre-modern" in those days, and thus did not appreciate the govt ordering them to abandon their families to penury while they were marched off to get their body parts blown off to preserve some abstract
nonsense called "The Union", and (a bit later) to free blacks who were living-by and large-easier and healthier lives than they(the Irish) were in the Northern slums.

Silver said...

Any country that has mentally constipated turkeys like Michael Barone doing its heavy thinking for it is basically screwed.

dearieme said...

"The fact that Irish vividly "remember" NINA signs is a curious historical puzzle." On the contrary, it's standard Irish practice in matters historical. Compare it with the Irish account of Cromwell slaughtering the whole population of Drogheda. He didn't, but nobody should let that spoil a good story.

Anonymous said...

My mother's people come from Eastern Europe. She's in her 80's now, and she used to tell me stories about how her people -- who were coal miners -- were discriminated against, how they were referred to as "hunkies," and looked down upon by old line Americans. But when I told her that some people are now routinely claiming that Eastern and Southern Europeans were not considered "white" 100 years ago, she was astonished. The idea was entirely new to her! It had never once, in her entire life, occurred to her that anyone had ever considered her people to be non-white!

There has certainly been hostility between white ethnic groups, both in Europe and in America. Distinctions were drawn, and I have no doubt some really mean things were said on occasion. But I do not believe that at any time in American history the average American (of any race) would have considered my blond, blue-eyed mother to be anything other than white. Nor do I believe that the classically educated scholars of the time, who revered the ancient Greeks and Romans, ever considered their modern descendents to be non-white. I think this is simply a fabrication of ideological anti-racists, people who care far more about discrediting racism than they do about historical accuracy, and are therefore willing to misrepresent the fringiest 19th century pseudoscience as though it were the common thinking of the average white American.

none of the above said...

As whites become a minority, the GOP will continue doing okay, because we have a political system that maintains two parties. It's just that the GOP of the future will look very different from the one of today.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the US becomes like South Africa under black rule. Brazil is our future with more racially mixed people, more corrupt government, and less rule of law. I think a lot of Mexicans, Asians, and Jews are intermarrying with European descended whites and thus assimilating to some degree.

Anonymous said...

The problem with those who argue that current non-white immigrants will assimilate just as 19th century white immigrants did, is that they don't ask the obvious question "assimilate into what?"

The current culture is anti-white, Frankfurt School cultural Bolshevik PC. Even if the new immigrants were docile and non-hostile and not anti-white before they got here, their descendants will become hostile and anti-white if they assimilate into the current dominant anti-white culture.

Formerly.JP98 said...

"That Barone, who has a tremendous memory for detail, can't remember stuff like that shows how outgunned Republicans are intellectually in this area because they never pay attention to it."

I've noticed Barone making similarly sloppy mistakes when writing about Supreme Court decisions.

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

None of the Above: "As whites become a minority, the GOP will continue doing okay, because we have a political system that maintains two parties. It's just that the GOP of the future will look very different from the one of today."

Completely correct. Since both parties cannot occupy the same ideological real estate, as the GOP moves left to be become more "moderate," the Democrats will move even further left. So we will have a semi-religious, quasi-socialist party (the GOP), and a secular, quasi-communist party, the Democrats. The Tea Party will probably at some point evolve into an actual political party with a conservative/populist orientation, which will siphon votes from both parties.

As for the "No Irish Need Apply" business, even so-called conservative pundits like Sean Hannity repeat that nonsense. Hannity is a dumbass, maybe not even as smart as the supposedly moronic Sarah Palin.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

I don't know how much the rest of the whites looked down upon the poor Polish wave in 1900 but the first generation of Irish were not part of the white team."

That's just a load of crap. They may not have been liked, but they were not thought of the same as blacks or indians. If they were, I rather think they would have been shuffled off to reservations or enslaved, don't you?

Anonymous said...

In Sweden, Russians don't count as white. When disapprovingly writing about David Duke's wooing Russians for the white cause, a (liberal) columnist in my local paper thought it was ridiculous: everybody knows the Russians aren't white.

Anonymous said...

The Irish certainly were not black. All things held constant, the Irish treated blacks more harshly than WASPs for sure. They were on the bottom of the pecking order of whites and they used their position to by taking it out on the only group below them, that is until the Italians came.

Chicago said...

More race doesn't matter nonsense from a guy who pimps out his own grandparents to bolster his career. I think his Italian grandparents would probably dispute being categorized as identical with the mass of third worlders out there. He's one more hired voice for the ideological chorus out there singing all the approved hymnals.

Anonymous said...

But in non-white countries it's fine to talk about skin color and ancestry.

Anonymous said...

Bullshit! The GOP is like it or not "the White Party" because all the diversities are now Democrats.
If the GOP doesn't like it then to Hell with them as they can be the next Whig Party and go to the scrapheap of History right NOW!

Svigor said...

At any rate, if we are gonna continue to have a black problem which is gonna get worse and worse, I'd rather have lots of Mexicans to balance out the blacks than have whites slowly become minority to blacks. Better Amexico than Afromerica.

Huh? You left out the vvvveeeeeeerrrrrry in front of "slowly." Blacks barely outpace whites at reproducing. This is an absurd argument.

eh said...

In one sense he's right: Republicans should panic before that happens, and do something to try to prevent it. This assumes they can take being called names, which is, I admit, unlikely. It's unlikely that they could take it, not that they'll be called names -- that's a given.

Svigor said...

Saw Barone on TV years ago talking about immigration. He became completely emotional and said "all 4 of my grandparents were immigrants" and nearly cried about how his italian grandpappy was supposedly called the n-word when he came over.

So now he compensates by doing everything he can to justify the natives' behavior; given the benefit of hindsight, we can see it was clearly a mistake to let Barone's ancestors in, no?

Svigor said...

we can see it was clearly a mistake to let Barone's ancestors in, no?

Assuming we believe this convenient Ellis Island just-so story about his poor, oppressed grandpappy, of course.

I mean, how can it really be true, by leftist lights (the lights he's using)? Blacks are the gold standard of poor & oppressed hyphenated Americans, right? And they're still crippled by the effects, right? And Italian-Americans aren't. So how can their narrative measure up to that of blacks? It can't. If they want to see what real oppression looks like, etc.

Svigor said...

I don't know how much the rest of the whites looked down upon the poor Polish wave in 1900 but the first generation of Irish were not part of the white team. And they are just as pale so your need purity argument isn't relevant.

Give us details about how the poor Irish weren't part of the team.

More is better. Assuming you have any, of course.

ironrailsironweights said...

Easter Island to the Khyber Pass would be a better description of what constitutes "Asian" for racial classification purposes. Though the Khyber Pass is not the absolute western boundary, as clearly Asiatic people live farther west in places like Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.

Peter

Anonymous said...

The Irish really were white back then. But being Catholic, they weren't Christian (enough) - and that's where the trouble began.

Anonymous said...

Right, because what's important is that the GOP and its multi-millionaire clients prosper, not that a great civilization or the people that produced it survive. And contraire to Barone or Sailer, merely ending government categorization isn't going to stop the negative effects of destroying Western civilization. That's what France does, and they have Muslims praying in their streets.

Truth said...

"I'm saying these things without even having a hatred for blacks. On a personal level I get on well with them and even like some aspects of their nature."

Dude, I'm glad you're on our side!

Anonymous said...

Such revisionism. People from eastern and southern Europe are - were "not white"? Crazy self-delusionism here.

Anonymous said...

One suggestion: tear apart the "Hispanic" label.

"Hispanic" conjures up images of "cafe au lait" colored mixed race people with working class jobs. In reality, the "Hispanic" or "Latino" label has covered people who are various races (white, black, native american, mestizo, mulatto), fit into various socio-economic categorizations, and have very different cultural traits. Their only common trait is that they derive from cultures where Spanish is the primary language.Included in this constructed label are people who are fully caucasian (and who see themselves as such), and who would just as likely be grouped with, say, other "southern Europeans" like Italians and Greeks, as they would with mestizos or mulattos or blacks who just happen to speak the same language.

Campion said...

headache wrote: "...a see of corruption..."

Congrats on the most insightful typo in months.

"See: Noun, The place in which a cathedral church stands, identified as the seat of authority of a bishop or archbishop."

Just kiddin' with you man, no offense.

Dutch Boy said...

Brazil strikes me as a more likely scenario than Zimbabwe or S. Africa (whites were a small minority in the latter and a tiny minority in the former). Brazil is industrialized, has a large, relatively prosperous white minority and a large chaotic underclass living in ghettos/barrios (they call them favelas in Brazil). This is a better scenario than the African ones but still forbidding; the Brazilians have elected one Marxist president and have followed him up with a female former Communist guerilla.

Anonymous said...

"to get their body parts blown off to preserve some abstract
nonsense called 'The Union'"

So, I suppose all those Anglos who fought the War of Independence for some abstract nonsense called freedom and liberty were fools. Why believe in any 'nation', an abstract nonsense for fools. Let's all go back to McCoys and Hatfields or whatever clan you belong to.

Anonymous said...

"Why do people act like inviting all those Ellis Island immigrants was a good thing? Even today, Italian-American areas are known for their political corruption and obnoxious people."

But they make good food and have more balls than the pansy wasps.

bleach said...

Whiskey hit it on the head. What happened in earlier American history is irrelevant if the social structures that presided at that time are now gone.

Anonymous said...

Shutting off massive immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe in 1924 was a HUGE mistake. More should have been allowed to come, more would have had white children who would have more children of their own, and there would a lot more white people in this country. With all those whites, there would have been less reason to bring in non-white labor. And population pressures would have been eased in Europe, thereby lessening the likelihood of civil unrest.
WWII and the Holocuast may have been avoided. Without Holocaustianity, Jews might not be so hostile and so morally uppity.

Anonymous said...

"and nearly cried about how his italian grandpappy was supposedly called the n-word when he came over."

And then his grandpa said to him.. "come on, you little guinea, let's go to the chinks."

Anonymous said...

Barone is baloney in Italian and blarney in Irish and barren in English.

Anonymous said...

Compare it with the Irish account of Cromwell slaughtering the whole population of Drogheda.


Please link to this "Irish account of Cromwell slaughtering the whole population of Drogheda". Or admit that you're a brainless bigot.

Kylie said...

"South Africa and Rhodesia are exact laboratories for Americans to study what life after being a majority is like."

So are Detroit and New Orleans. right here at home.

"I'm saying these things without even having a hatred for blacks. On a personal level I get on well with them and even like some aspects of their nature. But living under them is very expensive and insecure."

Same here. When living in a mixed-race neighborhood, I was the only white woman who routinely socialized with blacks I was not dating or "helping". I hung out with people I liked, period.

But I can imagine that living under them is expensive and insecure since I found living alongside them to be the same.

Anonymous said...

Richard Jensen:

The NINA slogan seems to have originated in England, probably after the 1798 Irish rebellion. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries it was used by English to indicate their distrust of the Irish, both Catholic and Protestant. For example the Anglican bishop of London used the phrase to say he did not want any Irish Anglican ministers in his diocese. By the 1820s it was a cliché in upper and upper middle class London that some fussy housewives refused to hire Irish and had even posted NINA signs in their windows. It is possible that handwritten NINA signs regarding maids did appear in a few American windows, though no one ever reported one. We DO have actual newspaper want ads for women workers that specifies Irish are not wanted; they will be discussed below.

More Richard Jensen:

The fact that Irish vividly "remember" NINA signs is a curious historical puzzle.

Amazingly, the two Richard Jensens are the same person writing in the same article! That's carrying cognitive dissonance to an extreme.

JW Ogden said...

I've argued, in short: concede that the descendants of American slaves and American Indians will always be legally privileged, but nobody else should be.

Excellent!

Anonymous said...

Did the Irish-American community constitute an "Other" that was reviled and discriminated against? Did more modern Americans recoil in disgust at the premodern Irish immigrants? The evidence suggests that all the criticism of the Irish was connected to one of three factors, their "premodern" behavior, their Catholicism, and their political relationship to the ideals of republicanism.


In case you all somehow failed to notice it, Jensen answers his own questions ("Did the Irish-American community constitute an "Other" that was reviled and discriminated against? Did more modern Americans recoil in disgust at the premodern Irish immigrants?") in the affirmative. He says the Irish deserved that response.

RK said...

Have the people insisting that the Irish were always considered "white" even read the referenced book by Noel Ignatiev? References to skin tone are missing the point; plenty of non-whites, like the Ainu or Pakistani Baloch, have lighter skin on average than many "white" groups.

Luke Lea said...

"The fact that Irish vividly "remember" NINA signs is a curious historical puzzle. There are no contemporary or retrospective accounts of a specific sign at a specific location."

Try a Google image search:

http://www.google.com/images?tbm=isch&tbo=u&sa=3&q=no+irish+need+apply&btnG=Search+images

Anonymous said...

Take the long view. America may very well fail over the race - immigration issue but then we will be an object of study for coming generations.

Our Founding Fathers were deeply interested in the history and institutions of the Roman Republic. There are reportedly over a thousand books on on the Fall of the Roman Empire and/or the Roman Republic. A century hence there may very wll be a similar books about America - probably Kindle books though.

Gibbon thought that second century Rome was the best of times anytime and anywhere. Third century Rome was chaos and uncertainty. Fourth century Rome was worse yet.

Today the sun is shining and I have a new refrigerator. Every happy prosperous American frolicing in the free public parks on this glorious day will die - many in pain. Why worry about the the inevitable disasters of the future?

Albertosaurus

Corvinus said...

A hundred years ago, the English did indeed consider the Irish to be a non-white, inferior race, but that had more to do with religious snobbery and British anti-Catholicism than biology. Slavic immigrants were obviously white, but from an unfamiliar culture, so there were problems there too. Southern Italians, it might have been argued back then are nonwhite, since they are as dark as Lebanese and the less-Indian Mexicans.

The current Hispanic wave is due to high Mexican birth rates twenty and thirty years ago; nowadays they are not really that much higher than Euro Americans (especially after the housing bust). It'll be cresting, and they may even end up with birth rates lower than white Americans, if Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Spain are any indication. The latest Mexican census from this year even reported that the birth rate there is 1.7 children per woman; for white Americans, it's 1.8 and has been stuck there since about 1989 with minor oscillations

I'll say it again: the demographic problems of the future will come from sub-Saharan African and/or Muslim immigration (the "and" referring to fine folks like Somalis). This is a major reason why I insist that people demand Congress get rid of the diversity visa lottery and stop the admission of refugees of any kind.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Wow. I'm impressed with NR's readership--sharpening their knives for the 2012 gunfight.
__________________________

Serious question: why not vote Green? I vote for the other guys, I get ass-raped by Goldman Sachs and all the other plutocrats. I have to grin and bear it while all the human backwash comes here from overseas wars. I have to hear pious, condescending lectures from the Grand Old Queen Lindsey Graham, instead of being able to watch Jim Webb punch Lindsey Graham in the mouth. I can't buy beer on Sunday. I have to pay for the state to lock up marijuana users.

NAMs can't afford liberal policies--how big a problem are they for places like Vermont? And the hippies are actually becoming PRO-gun. If Green policies mean a less-crowded, less-violent, whiter place with nicer, cleaner, BIGGER national parks, somebody tell me why I should vote Republican.

Sure it's great to go in debt to China for all that cheap shit at Wal-Mart and spend two hours in the ozone driving the SUV, but has anybody looked at the non-monetary part of the ledger?

I'm really beginning to wonder...

Hail said...

Anonymous wrote:
cultures in which men desire fairer appearance are colonial sychophants.

How do you explain the traditional light-skin beauty standard among Japanese (never colonized, anti-white until 1945), Koreans (never colonized by whites), Chinese (pre-Western colonization of a few ports), Thailand (never colonized), etc.?

Hail said...

Whatever Michael Barone's ancestry, South-Italian is not a significant share...

Photos of Barone

Maybe the NW-European-looking Barone's immigrant enthusiasm is his own version of the 'Black Enough' phenomenon? Barone wants to prove, largely to himself, that he is 'Italian Enough'?

Anonymous said...

"GOP need not worry. Political parties will do anything to stay in the game. After all, both the Democratic Party and GOP changed A LOT in the past 100 yrs to adapt to new circumstances. "

I don't care if the GOP turns to dust and blows away so long as I can live in a country where public utilities are reliable, the transportation infrastructure is properly maintained, criminal violence is rare, honesty and diligence are rewarded, the average citizen is reasonably literate, the stupid citizen is discouraged from reproducing, land is cheap, and prosperity is attainable through a modest dab of talent and a whole lot of hard work.

Which is to say, 1940's White America. If I wanted to live is a cesspool of violence, corruption, and eye-watering ugliness, I'd move to Pakindiabwe, Afghinastan, or Guatamexzila.

Anonymous said...

I'm Irish-American, and even I hardly consider Irish people civilized, compared to WASPs anyway. Even though my Irish family is pretty wealthy, many indulge in the not so "finer things in life", such as crack and fighting. Just imagine Irish immigrants of that time period. They would make Black people look like angels. Don't get me wrong, I think Irish behavior is pretty cool, and wouldn't hold it against "Native" Americans not taking to kindly to them.

Also, look at these and determine if Irish were considered white.

http://www.google.com.br/search?q=thomas+nast+Irish&hl=pt-BR&client=safari&sa=G&rls=en&prmd=ivnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=lW-bTdD_JIWWtwfwlNHbBw&ved=0CCMQsAQ

Anonymous said...

Of racial consciousness not fading, Barone writes, "But sometimes it does."

Well, to put it mildly, sometimes it does not. What we are seeing in the real world is INCREASING racial consciousness by nonwhites.

Chris said...

I'd rather have lots of Mexicans to balance out the blacks

Huh? Mexicans don't particularly like blacks, but the two groups vote just about the same. When's the last time a black in congress was actually against open borders?

corvinus said...

I'm Irish-American, and even I hardly consider Irish people civilized, compared to WASPs anyway. Even though my Irish family is pretty wealthy, many indulge in the not so "finer things in life", such as crack and fighting. Just imagine Irish immigrants of that time period. They would make Black people look like angels. Don't get me wrong, I think Irish behavior is pretty cool, and wouldn't hold it against "Native" Americans not taking to kindly to them.

Possibly, although I really don't see how low-class Irish behavior would be any different from that of low-class English yobbos and chavs. (Barring the fact, of course, that H.G. Wells would likely claim that such yobbery is a result of inferior Celtic blood polluting the blond blue-eyed English gene pool.)

Anonymous said...

"Huh? Mexicans don't particularly like blacks, but the two groups vote just about the same. When's the last time a black in congress was actually against open borders?"

You don't get my point. I would like to see a white majority nation, but if such is not to be and we're gonna be outnumbered ANYWAY, I'd rather go with Mexicans than blacks. Lesser of two evils. And this has less to do with politics than sane cities. Yes, lots of Mexicans ruined LA but imagine if they were all black? LA would be Detroit.

Anonymous said...

"Which is to say, 1940's White America."

...which just pulled out of the Great Depression thanks to WWII. This myth of good ole clean White America is so funny. Anyone read GRAPES OF WRATH?
Or about urban slums in NY, Chicago, etc?

Anonymous said...

"How do you explain the traditional light-skin beauty standard among Japanese (never colonized, anti-white until 1945), Koreans (never colonized by whites), Chinese (pre-Western colonization of a few ports), Thailand (never colonized), etc.?"

Because lots of East Asians have light or even white skin. Some Japanese skin in movies is whiter than white skin.
East Asians never considered themselves a yellow race but as a white race if they thought of color at all.
Of course, our connotation for 'white' is European, but in fact, many East Asians are light-skinned than many Europeans, especially Southern Europeans.

Anonymous said...

"I get ass-raped by Goldman Sachs and all the other plutocrats."

....Ewwwwwwww.

Anonymous said...

"I've argued, in short: concede that the descendants of American slaves and American Indians will always be legally privileged, but nobody else should be."

Even 500 yrs from now?
And why should descendants of American slaves be privileged over Russian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans, and others who never did anything to them?

ben tillman said...

1. For those keeping score, Barone is Jewish.

2. The future of the Republican Party is unimportant. The future of those who vote for the Republicans *is*.

Currently, those who vote Republican are the productive people of this country, from whose pockets the government's taxes are drawn. They vote Republican in hopes of maintaining control over what they produce. Those who vote Democrat do so with the same purpose of controlling what the Republican base produces.

The GOP does not get much of the non-White vote because non-Whites (1) on average are much less productive than Whites and (2) even the more productive among them may choose to vote their ethnic genetic interests rather than their personal economic interests.

The GOP can expand its reach into non-White populations but it cannot do so and protect the interests of the productive.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey, come on, there are over two hundred million white American. They are the richest and most productive population on the planet. No one is going to displace them.

The bus boys are not going to dominate the computer scientists, pilots etc,

It ain't gonna happen in Yoorp either. It won't be long before there is virtually no non-white immigration to Yoorp.

Once the native populations realise that it is a choice between stopping immigration and civil war they will choose the former, pronto.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Lesser of two evils. And this has less to do with politics than sane cities. Yes, lots of Mexicans ruined LA but imagine if they were all black? LA would be Detroit.

As opposed to what, the Zetas in Guatemala? Beheadings in Mexico?

You have no idea what's headed your way.

Anonymous said...

"As opposed to what, the Zetas in Guatemala? Beheadings in Mexico?
You have no idea what's headed your way."

Cannibalism and General Buttnaked.

Anonymous said...

"Huh? You left out the vvvveeeeeeerrrrrry in front of 'slowly.' Blacks barely outpace whites at reproducing. This is an absurd argument."

I simply don't believe this. It may be true among black middle class but the black underclass are breeding like rabbits. I've lived and worked in white trash, black trash, and other trash communities, and I see welfare mamas having kids everywhere.

Anonymous said...

As opposed to what, the Zetas in Guatemala?

How about the Zeta-Joneses in Wales?

Or the Zeta Males on this site?

Anonymous said...

Serious question: why not vote Green?


Check out this interview with Ralph Nader from AmConMag in 2004:

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/jun/21/00006/

He's against both legal and illegal immigration, making him better than virtually all Republicans on this topic. Actually a lot of "Green" liberals are pretty anti-immigration in general if you go talk to them. (The Sierra Club was on the warpath against immigration until David Gelbaum bought them off with over $100 million.)

I think the "Green" left and the "paleocon" right actually have much more in common with each other than either does with the mainstream party it is usually associated with. The elites are using the left/right bullshit to keep White people divided over relatively trivial matters.

Anonymous said...

"The fact that Irish vividly "remember" NINA signs is a curious historical puzzle. There are no contemporary or retrospective accounts of a specific sign at a specific location."

Try a Google image search:

http://www.google.com/images?tbm=isch&tbo=u&sa=3&q=no+irish+need+apply&btnG=Search+images


Don't be daft. Google didn't exist in the 19th century, and those NINA signs are modern "reproductions". What is alleged is the lack of original, primary source NINA signs from the 19th century USA.

Considering the Irish had no problems finding lots of jobs (even if not initially the best jobs) in the USA and were soon dominating local politics, police departments, fire departments, etc., I have no patience with this kind of pathetic ethnic self-pity/victimhood pimping. It's like Jews or Italians whining about how badly they were treated, when they are among the richest ethnic groups in the USA, whereas the actual WASPs are among the poorest. The reality of ethnic power in the USA bears little resemblance to the myth we are supposed to believe.

Difference Maker said...

"How do you explain the traditional light-skin beauty standard among Japanese (never colonized, anti-white until 1945), Koreans (never colonized by whites), Chinese (pre-Western colonization of a few ports), Thailand (never colonized), etc.?"

Light skin implies descent from the upper class i.e. from more feminine women and therefore more hetero desirable and higher status women

For a given population, males are subtly darker than females.

Anonymous said...

"The Irish certainly were not black. All things held constant, the Irish treated blacks more harshly than WASPs for sure."

The Irish creep me out. The only people who come across as more unpleasant in cinema are South Koreans whose movies are mostly about sadism, torture, abuse, and retardedness.
The more I see films from Ireland, the less I like these crazy people.

Colin Farrell is a talented actor, but something about him makes me feel sick.
And I suppose QUIET MAN is a classic of sorts, but ones gets the impression that the Irish love to fight, drink, talk shit, and treat women like horses(which is okay as far as that goes)but still come across as colorless, bland, and boring.
Same in RYAN'S DAUGHTER. Russians may be crazy, but they also come across as romantic, poetic, and etc, etc in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO.
Now, I know that Irish have a rich tradition in literature and music, but on screen, they are among the dullest and least appealing people in the world.

In a way, this scene says it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biTUyIkHumU

The Russian guy is no less boorish than the Irish, but Russians are fun when they're boorish. Irish are just ham-fisted and nasty.
And though lots of Italian-Americans and Jews were scum(especially in organized crime), they're fun to observe. They have a certain personality and style. But the Irish?
When a people remain boring even when they act crazy, something's seriously wrong with them.

Anonymous said...

"If I wanted to live is a cesspool of violence, corruption, and eye-watering ugliness, I'd move to Pakindiabwe, Afghinastan, or Guatamexzila."

Or LA, Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield, Vallejo, Richmond, or Oakland.

Formerly.JP98 said...

OT -- Steve -- A couple days ago, a commenter took you to task for writing "pay tuition" instead of "pay for tuition."

That comment intrigued me, since I used to be an editor and don't recall ever coming across that particular rule.

I've since checked seven usage authorities, new and old. This issue is mentioned in none of them. Moreover, the OED indicates that "tuition" has been used in the U.S. to mean "tuition-fee" since at least 1828.

So I think you can safely ignore that criticism, if you were not already inclined to do so.

Anonymous said...

Actually a lot of "Green" liberals are pretty anti-immigration in general if you go talk to them.

Behind closed doors, of course, they will admit that Third World and non-western people have little ecological consciousness, and that Germans and Swiss have the most, and that most developing countries have the same "industromania" that conservative Americans did in the 1960s.

And if you examine "green" ideology closely enough, you will see that it is not necessarily left-wing, and could just as easily be bundled with rightist politics.

SouthernAnonyia said...

"I don't know how much the rest of the whites looked down upon the poor Polish wave in 1900 but the first generation of Irish were not part of the white team. And they are just as pale so your need purity argument isn't relevant."

First generation of Irish were regarded as white in the south and I suspect other areas as well. Source: testimony of my great grandparents who lived on the gulf coast. Although there was some degree of animosity towards Catholics in a religious sense, they were never subject to Jim Crow laws or any of that. They never experienced "no Irish need apply" signs or really any prejudice at all related to their national origin.

dearieme said...

"the English did indeed consider the Irish to be a non-white, inferior race": inferior - of course; non-white - baloney. You're projecting an American obsession onto foreigners.

Kylie said...

"'to get their body parts blown off to preserve some abstract
nonsense called "The Union"'.

So, I suppose all those Anglos who fought the War of Independence for some abstract nonsense called freedom and liberty were fools."


Do you really not understand the difference between choosing to fight and risk your life for your liberty and being coerced into fighting and risking your life for someone else's liberty?

Anonymous said...

"In Sweden, Russians don't count as white."

This is pure nonsense. I am Swedish, and we are not idiots. Russians are visually indistinguishable from Swedes.

Russians don't count as Swedes, but that's another matter.

SouthernAnonyia said...

"So, I suppose all those Anglos who fought the War of Independence for some abstract nonsense called freedom and liberty were fools. Why believe in any 'nation', an abstract nonsense for fools. Let's all go back to McCoys and Hatfields or whatever clan you belong to."

Hatfields and McCoys are Scots-Irish, not regular Irish. And their ancestors probably did fight in the war of independence, so your comment about that is pretty irrelevant. And while some abstract concepts are admirable- others are not, and there can be destructive aspects involved. After all, many white americans and especially wealthy WASPS seem to have been duped into believing in abstract concepts such as "white privilege" and "racism" and "diversity".....A dose of earthy pragmatism would do these people some good.

Truth said...

"Huh? Mexicans don't particularly like blacks,"

I read this particularly ridiculous inference here almost every day, but I, being black, don't see it; amd I have all Mexican neighbors.

Projection anyone?

Rohan Swee said...

Some 'clever' Marxist academic started this whole 'the Irish weren't White' meme a few years back and surprisingly it's caught on...it is sad to see otherwise intelligent people voluntairly falling for this nonsense.

No kidding. I'm surprised to see someone regurgitating this here. White trash? Yes. Not white? Uh, no.

Anyhow, no census returns, no official govenment documents, no anthroplogical texts, no encyclopaedias, no 'man in the street', no Englishman, no 'all-American', nobody in fact 100+ years ago when this 'marxist factoid' was current ever described the 'race' of an Irishman as anything other than White...

We no longer casually use "race" in everyday speech as it was used in earlier centuries. People may have said "race" for what we'd now call ethnic group or ethnicity ("the race of Chinese", "the race of Irishman"), or to delimit any kind of human category ("the race of women", "the race of politicians"). That could confuse a dim historically illiterate modern reader, or be misrepresented by a dishonest one.

But it was also understood, and used, pretty much the way we use it now - to specify the major, long-distinguished continental groupings. My grandmother, for example, was taught "the five races of man: white, yellow, brown, red, and black". The only fuzzy one here was "brown", and, as you say, swarthier Mediterranean types may have been oddly lumped in with other unrelated "not-white, not-black, not-red, and not-yellow types". (Now that I think about it, "brown" even today gets used as a sort of "miscellaneous people-of-color with nothing in common but resentment of whitey" category.) But she wouldn't have furrowed her brow trying to figure out what race the Irish belonged to.

"How group X became black, or stopped being black" might make more sense, what with the confusing British habit (then and now) of calling everybody who isn't white or yellow "black", but, as you say, nobody, but nobody, if asked to classify the Irish in one of these "five races" would have said anything but "white".

elvisd said...

All this "celtic" and "Irish" stuff is bullshit. The vast majority of people who claim that either partially have British ancestry, or had ancestors who were Anglicized long ago. It's some way for WASPs to claim something "ethnic", since they're the only people who aren't supposed to claim ethnicity. Seriously, name one person you can think of who over called themselves an "English-American".

There's plenty of complaint about whites not getting to talk about heritage, ethnicity, etc., but every sub-category (Irish, Italian, Polish, etc) gets to hyphenate except the ethnicity that dare not speak its name.

Rohan Swee said...

Amazingly, the two Richard Jensens are the same person writing in the same article! That's carrying cognitive dissonance to an extreme.

There is no cognitive dissonance in that article. There are the imaginary "no Irish need apply" signs blanketing the land that everyone's Irish grandfather "remembers", and there are the few documented instances of employers seeking maidservants specifiying that they weren't interested in Irishwomen. The widespread existence of "no Irish need apply" signs in 19th-century American is about as likely as your finding 21st-century meat-packing plants plastered with "no Guatemalans or Somalis need apply" signs.

Anonymous said...

I think we'd all be a lot better off if the Kennedys hadn't come to America.

Anonymous said...

Italian and Irish ethnics do have a street thug culture in their neighborhoods even today. A lot of NAMs are even scared to walk around Southie or Staten Island.

Anonymous said...

"This is pure nonsense. I am Swedish, and we are not idiots. Russians are visually indistinguishable from Swedes."

But Swedes will soon become virtually indistinguishable from AFricans.

Anonymous said...

Barone wants to pretend that White Americans-this includes Italian Americans-won't notice the fact that they have become a racial- national minority in America and the there is now a new dominant racial-national majority.

And of course,the majority nonwhite new nation state-that's right:a new race-based nation state-will go out of its way through racial discrimination and violence-codified into the law of he land-to let White Americans know that their racial-national identity that is no longer welcomed in the new "America".

Maybe Barone seriously believes that this won't happen. But here is the point:what Michael Barone believes is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what millions of White Americans believe. Millions of White Americans already believe that LA is nonwhite and foriegn...and they have voted with their feet against it....and then there is bowling alone...White Americans are most definetely panicking.

And I haven't even mentioned the ecological collapse that is an inevitable consequence of the racial transformation of the United States.

An easy thought experiment refutes Barone:What if the Chinese colonized North America instead of Europeans? It would be a nation called America with all its unique Euro-American cultural traditions such as the Celtic based music of Appalachia...and it would of course be English speaking... Right?

Here is what I would say to Michael Barone:why do hate the Euro-American majority to the point that you want to replace them with Muslims,Hmong,Hindus,Sihks,Mexicans,Nigerians...and other non-Eurpean racial groups. Do you think White Americans would have voted for their demographic replacement back in 1965 if they knew with 100 percent certainty what things would be like in 2011? Barone, you and I both know the obvious answer to this question:an emphatic no!!! If Barone answered yes to this question we would be justified in calling him a liar.

Anonymous said...

And if you examine "green" ideology closely enough, you will see that it is not necessarily left-wing, and could just as easily be bundled with rightist politics.


The split between "green" and mainstream liberals is very similar to the paleocon/neocon divide: primarily an ethnic conflict, with the mainstream left and right both being Jewish-dominated, and the frustrated and politically powerless Whites congregating in the fringes.

Anonymous said...

There are the imaginary "no Irish need apply" signs blanketing the land that everyone's Irish grandfather "remembers"

The real myth, being promulgated by people like you, is that "everyone's Irish grandfather remembers 'no Irish need apply' signs blanketing the land".

My own Irish grandfather had no such memories. Mind you, he was a bank manager.

Anonymous said...

There's plenty of complaint about whites not getting to talk about heritage, ethnicity, etc., but every sub-category (Irish, Italian, Polish, etc) gets to hyphenate except the ethnicity that dare not speak its name.

Sounds like somebody needs a testicular transplant. Speak!

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

Truth said:"Huh? Mexicans don't particularly like blacks,"

I read this particularly ridiculous inference here almost every day, but I, being black, don't see it; amd I have all Mexican neighbors.

Projection anyone?


Actually, there was a big study that came out of Duke in the mid 00's. Google "duke study latinos racist towards blacks". Or here is a contemporary write-up

icr said...

A hundred years ago, the English did indeed consider the Irish to be a non-white, inferior race

Less than one hundred years ago, the English ruling elites considered the working class (white) English to be an alien and inferior people.

Read (for example)Evelyn Waugh.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey, come on, there are over two hundred million white American. They are the richest and most productive population on the planet. No one is going to displace them.

The bus boys are not going to dominate the computer scientists, pilots etc

You're living in a fantasy world. Whites are already being displaced as computer scientists. "Rich and productive" is no substitute for being politically powerful, and those white people are political pygmy's.

Anonymous said...

The current Hispanic wave is due to high Mexican birth rates twenty and thirty years ago; nowadays they are not really that much higher than Euro Americans (especially after the housing bust). It'll be cresting, and they may even end up with birth rates lower than white Americans, if Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Spain are any indication.

More non-white babies were born in America last year than white ones. Regardless of what happens in the future with respect to Hispanic fertility rates, they WILL make whites a minority in this country.

Anonymous said...

The widespread existence of "no Irish need apply" signs in 19th-century American is about as likely as your finding 21st-century meat-packing plants plastered with "no Guatemalans or Somalis need apply" signs

A good point. Signage and other formal indicators of prejudice need not be present, and rarely are. Besides, in the 19th century when many of the Irish immigrants were illiterate, a "no Irish need apply" or "no dogs and Irish" sign would be useless.

Anonymous said...

"Today the sun is shining and I have a new refrigerator. Every happy prosperous American frolicing in the free public parks on this glorious day will die - many in pain. Why worry about the the inevitable disasters of the future?"

Everyone may have to die and many may have to die in pain due to no fault of their own, but for the short time people have on this Earth, no one has to live a subsistance existance, die prematurely due to curable diseases, live their lives saddled and spurred by other people, bite their tongue and censor their own true thoughts - unless the political system they live under is crap.

elvisd said...

I never met a Green who was anti-gun on principle. Sure, a lot of them don't have guns, but I've never heard one pontificate on gun control, and I've know my share who own them, with no apology.

Svigor said...

There's plenty of complaint about whites not getting to talk about heritage, ethnicity, etc., but every sub-category (Irish, Italian, Polish, etc) gets to hyphenate except the ethnicity that dare not speak its name.

I just solved the problem some folks complain about, not having a name for old-stock Americans. My answer has always been to tell them to just call themselves American but they're never satisfied by that, because the word is meaningless any more. And they're right, I suppose.

I have a new suggestion:

American-American. I has a nice eff-you ring to it, doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

"Is there a Libyan Mandela"?

This is funny because Mandela and Gadaffi are great pals. We're talking about a kiss on each cheek and another man hug for good measure.

Re S. Africa versus Brazil: They are becoming more similar. But South Africa is a smaller, Protestant version of Brazil. (This is a bit deep to go into right here but readers of Keuhnelt-Leddihn would get the idea, and might deduce that Brazil has more redeeming features)
Gilbert Pinfold.

Anonymous said...

"There's plenty of complaint about whites not getting to talk about heritage, ethnicity, etc., but every sub-category (Irish, Italian, Polish, etc) gets to hyphenate except the ethnicity that dare not speak its name."

The ethnicity that dare not speak its' name is German. Eventhough German-Americans have been the largest ethnic group in the United States for the better part of 150 years, how many people are aware of it. I hear endless bullshit about Irish and Italians, but apart from New England and the New York Metro Area, German-Americans predominate in the entire northern half of the country.

ATBOTL said...

"1. For those keeping score, Barone is Jewish."

Huh? Seriously?

Why do some imbeciles feel the need to say that anyone they don't like is Jewish?

elvisd said...

"Sounds like somebody needs a testicular transplant. Speak!"

Ok, I'll swap my British balls for a pair of Whiskey's Pride of Ulster.

Anonymous said...

Inductivist, a few years back, used self-reported GSS data to statistically evaluate ethnicitys for their quality as citizens ... honesty, civic participation, etc.

He concluded that "WASP's Rule!". Next came much as you might expect: scots, germans, italians, irish, jews, hispanics, blacks. Don't remember Asians.

So things really have been getting worse all along, as people have always been saying. They weren't wrong then and they aren't wrong now.

Robert Hume

corvinus said...

More non-white babies were born in America last year than white ones. Regardless of what happens in the future with respect to Hispanic fertility rates, they WILL make whites a minority in this country.

Data from the CDC: first number is total births, second is non-Hispanic white births.

2005: 4,138,349; 2,279,768 (55.1%)
2006: 4,265,555; 2,308,640 (54.1%)
2007: 4,316,233; 2,310,333 (53.5%)
2008: 4,247,694; 2,267,817 (53.4%)
2009: 4,131,019; 2,211,960 (53.5%)

ben tillman said...

And if you examine "green" ideology closely enough, you will see that it is not necessarily left-wing, and could just as easily be bundled with rightist politics.

Thorstein Veblen made that association 100 years ago.

Anonymous said...

The ethnicity that dare not speak its' name is German. Eventhough "German-Americans have been the largest ethnic group in the United States for the better part of 150 years, how many people are aware of it. I hear endless bullshit about Irish and Italians, but apart from New England and the New York Metro Area, German-Americans predominate in the entire northern half of the country."

That's true, but we have so utterly assimilated with the British-Americans that there is no practical difference these days and we don't think of ourselves as anything other than Anglo/WASPs (and where were the Anglo-Saxons originally from anyway :))

ben tillman said...

"Huh? Mexicans don't particularly like blacks,"

I read this particularly ridiculous inference here almost every day, but I, being black, don't see it; amd I have all Mexican neighbors.


I think you've been in New Mexico too long, Truth. And "not particularly lik[ing] blacks" isn't the same as expressing virulent hatred. It's an understated way of acknowledging that there is some ethnic conflict there.

"Huh? You left out the vvvveeeeeeerrrrrry in front of 'slowly.' Blacks barely outpace whites at reproducing. This is an absurd argument."

I simply don't believe this. It may be true among black middle class but the black underclass are breeding like rabbits.


Svigor is right. You must be experiencing some severe sampling error; presumably, you don't live around Mexicans. Mexicans have more than 50% more children than blacks. In fact, blacks commonly remark on the extraordinary number of children Mexicans have -- and they're right!

Hail said...

Corvinus,
They count births "to white mothers". 1-in-10 White mothers these days bear children to Nonwhite fathers, resulting in Nonwhite children, so yes "white babies" are a minority.

Anonymous said...

"Re S. Africa versus Brazil: They are becoming more similar"

Brazil is on its way up,up ,up. Brazil will be an economic powerhouse behind only the USA, India, and China. Behind the latter two only because of population size. On the other hand S. Africa is in rapid decline, and might possibly dissolve into some kind of monkey fest.

I see lots of Isteve comments using Brazil as an example to describe America's future. Despite the demographics being the same, that is about it. Brazil's mass immigration ended about 1930, so every one is fully integrated and pro-Brazilian. Unlike the post-1965 wave fifth columnists. Also, Brazilian blacks have no "us vs. them" mentality that American blacks have. OJ Simpson, in Brazil, would more likely have been lynched by blacks than have been let off. America's white minority=fractured and unrecognizable , Brazil's demographics=cohesive nation.

The saying should be "As the GOP goes, so goes the nation".
From a patriotic Brazilian-American.

Truth said...

"I think you've been in New Mexico too long, Truth. And "not particularly lik[ing] blacks" isn't the same as expressing virulent hatred. It's an understated way of acknowledging that there is some ethnic conflict there."

I lived in L.A. for 11 years, never had any particular problem. Maybe, that's just my lovable nature, though.

I think you miss the basic point; there is NO ethnic group that has any particular large-scale love for same-sex members of ANY other particular group. Go ahead, name one...

Anonymous said...

I'm not even sure what Barone means. The bottom line is if that fore every 1% decrease in white population the country is that much closer to becoming a third world country. Even if we only let PHD's from Asia come here this would still be true. If we were to deport all non-white citizens and non-citizens and replace them with uneducated white Eastern Europeans we'd be far better off than if we replaced them all with PHD's from Asia. The fact that Charles Murray, many conservatives, and the vast majority of American's don't realize that simple fact spells doom for America. My guess is that America will split up into several different countries by the end of this century. I'm sure the neocons will be very happy about that.

Anonymous said...

"live their lives saddled and spurred by other people, bite their tongue and censor their own true thoughts - unless the political system they live under is crap."

Or live in places that you don't want to live in and be around large groups of people you don't want to be around.

Kylie said...

"we[German-Americans] have so utterly assimilated with the British-Americans that there is no practical difference these days and we don't think of ourselves as anything other than Anglo/WASPs (and where were the Anglo-Saxons originally from anyway :))."

We who? My ancestry is 1/4 German,1/4 British and 1/2 Slavic. I think of myself as German-American or Slavic. True, I have an affinity for some British things (movies, literature) but I don't identify with them, I just like them.

TGGP said...

"Under the definitions in use in the America of a century ago, when Southern and Eastern European immigrants were not regarded as white, the United States became a majority non-white nation sometime in the 1950s"
Sounds wrong. Razib has noted that the majority of Americans were still descended from Albion's Seeds until about the 90s.

Anonymous said...

I believe it was Charles De Gaulle who said,
"Brazil is the nation of the future, and always will be."

Killer quote.

Anonymous said...

We who? My ancestry is 1/4 German,1/4 British and 1/2 Slavic.

Interesting. I'm of essentially the same ethnic composition (more English than German though in my case), but I tend to identify with "WASP" Americans more than Slavs. Really there are few barriers to being thought of as an Anglo if you are (partly) Slavic - someone has already mentioned Martha Stewart, a good example.

Steve Sailer said...

To my mind, the word that comes to mind regarding Irish culture is "anhedonia."

Listening to "Shipping Up to Boston" by the Dropkick Murphys is like getting punched in the head for 3 minutes. But, I gotta say, it's kind of to my taste.

Anonymous said...

"We who? My ancestry is 1/4 German,1/4 British and 1/2 Slavic. I think of myself as German-American or Slavic. True, I have an affinity for some British things (movies, literature) but I don't identify with them, I just like them."

My point is not that German-Americans like British things but that Americans of German and British (and others) ancestry have melded into a generic American ethnicity. I don't think of myself as a German in the same way that Italians and Jews (and Irish to a lesser degree) think of themselves. Perhaps two wars against Germany hastened the assimilation. Similarly in Argentina, the mainstream population is a mixture of Spanish and Italian and I don't think anyone distinguishes between them anymore.

Rohan Swee said...

The real myth, being promulgated by people like you, is that "everyone's Irish grandfather remembers 'no Irish need apply' signs blanketing the land".

My own Irish grandfather had no such memories.

Neither did mine. (I always thought it was great to have Irish genes because the Irish are the least likely people in the world to turn out literal-minded, humorless gits. Guess a few always slip through, though.)

dores said...

"1. For those keeping score, Barone is Jewish."

I don't like that tendency either, but in this case it's relevant, as I've come to see. I have never considered Jews to be anything other than a type of white ethnic with a bit more of the middle-eastern genes that most Europeans also have to some extent, as well. However, SOME people are prone to see them as actual or honorary, non-whites, which their history does sort of encourage. The initiator of that "When the Irish Became White" nonsense, Prof. Ignatiev, was Jewish, and of a "Marxist" sympathy. If his views had just been dismissed as an eccentric way of viewing the world, I wouldn't mind. But when people take it seriously, I must protest. The Irish, as we all know, were always white (according to color-measurements, the whitest of the white) and never seen as anything else; they were just seen as undesirable whites if they were of a certain religion or social class. The Italians were never seen, seriously, as non-white. Sometimes Sicilians of my parents' acquaintance would use the term "white Italian" to describe a blond type from northern Italy, but this non-whiteness-identity was fairly shallow--southern Italians were culturally European to the core. They were not subjected to Jim Crow laws, never proscribed from marrying northern Europeans, nor were they ever forced into non-white, segregated areas. By the 1940s, Irish-Italian an marriages were common (and usually quite successful.)
So it is sort of "oh, that explains it" when you hear Barone is Jewish. Too bad, but that does sort of figure.
They really need to get a grip. If they want to "go colored" in their own heads, let them. But please leave other ethnicities out of it. They already know who they are.
Geez, just let whites be white. If you want to go around thinking it's an illusion, please include browns, blacks and yellows (and reds), in that fantasy.

dcite said...

"Truth said:"Huh? Mexicans don't particularly like blacks,"

I read this particularly ridiculous inference here almost every day, but I, being black, don't see it; amd I have all Mexican neighbors.

Projection anyone? "


My best friend's Mexican husband did not like them in general, but took people as individuals and of course there were blacks he liked very much. I'm sure he would have seemed the soul of charm to you. He worked with a Colombian who spoke with relief of moving to a neighborhood that was mostly white and had no blacks, but that guy was more in the white spectrum of "hispanic" so maybe that's why he was so racist as to want to live in an area where he not only felt safer, but was safer? Just maybe?
So yes, I think that's true in general. How deep it goes, I really don't know being myself, neither black nor "hispanic." One thing --"hispanics" (mostly central Americans) have changed black neighborhoods to "hispanic" in a decade, and I am talking huge areas of DC and the suburbs. Whether they "hate" each or not, they do not meld together particularly. I suspect by and large, there's no love lost.
A black co-worker, quite smart w/only two kids from a previous marriage, was critical of the over-breeding hispanics. She claimed the blacks had stopped having so many babies, but everytime she went to the hospital for dialysis, she saw lots of "big bellied" hispanic women. She did not approve.

Kylie said...

"I'm of essentially the same ethnic composition (more English than German though in my case), but I tend to identify with "WASP" Americans more than Slavs."

I might, if I weren't so passionate about late Romantic music, which is basically dominated by Germans and Slavs. I think the passion for music itself is more German and/or Slavic than English.

"Really there are few barriers to being thought of as an Anglo if you are (partly) Slavic - someone has already mentioned Martha Stewart, a good example."

Yes, but looking "foreign" (i.e., Slavic) is one of them. I look somewhat as if Paderewski could be my great-grandfather.

Has to be said...

"I think the "Green" left and the "paleocon" right actually have much more in common with each other"

That's because they are both socialist movements.

Anonymous said...

"I believe it was Charles De Gaulle who said,
"Brazil is the nation of the future, and always will be."

Killer quote"

De Gaulle also said " Brazil's not a serious country"

Maybe that was once true, but it no longer is. I have dual citizenship and am fluent in both languages and quite frankly have no interest in testing out the American job market. In Brazil, if you have a degree you are hired immediately out of college, or more likely one year into college you're hired as an intern. Much better in my opinion.

Also, I couldn't live in a Police State that America has become. America has become as totalitarian as the USSR, but with less jobs. Quite a predicament.

TomV said...

Truth:

I think you miss the basic point; there is NO ethnic group that has any particular large-scale love for same-sex members of ANY other particular group. Go ahead, name one...

General envy and resentment notwithstanding, I don't think Asian parents would mind a white son-in-law or daughter-in-law very much.

Truth said...

"General envy and resentment notwithstanding, I don't think Asian parents would mind a white son-in-law or daughter-in-law very much."

And what about white parents?

Svigor said...

Also, I couldn't live in a Police State that America has become. America has become as totalitarian as the USSR, but with less jobs. Quite a predicament.

I've read a few pieces (One by Fred Reed) that lead me to believe that a dirty little secret Americans don't want to know is that "Latin America" is freer than the US. We're supposed to love big government, as long as it's a "benevolent" nanny.

Svigor said...

My best friend's Mexican husband did not like them in general, but took people as individuals and of course there were blacks he liked very much.

No no, that's impossible. Just ask T. Your Mexican friend harangues elderly black men on the street, and steals candy from black babies.

JSM said...

"I have a new suggestion:

American-American. I has a nice eff-you ring to it, doesn't it?"

LOVE IT! I'm going to start using it, if you don't mind. I'll credit you.

Anonymous said...

"Also, I couldn't live in a Police State that America has become. America has become as totalitarian as the USSR, but with less jobs. Quite a predicament.

I've read a few pieces (One by Fred Reed) that lead me to believe that a dirty little secret Americans don't want to know is that "Latin America" is freer than the US. We're supposed to love big government, as long as it's a "benevolent" nanny."

Anyone that thinks that America is free has been totally brainwashed. South America is generally a safe haven for liberty lovers. They vote for big government maybe more so than Americans, but there government is so ineffective that the result is a Libertarian society.

Svigor said...

LOVE IT! I'm going to start using it, if you don't mind. I'll credit you.

Have at it, and do as you please on the credit part. I doubt it's original.

Anonymous said...

>It would probably help if Barone would move to a sprawling, suburban Hispanic ghetto -- err, excuse me, a 'barrio' -- and send his kids (if he has any) to the schools there. But he's not going to do that.<

Nor will his ilk ever HAVE to do that. Even after America goes majority brown. For the Baronites will simply do what many starry-eyed idealists (so-called) did in South Africa after whites became a minority there...namely, emigrate. Flee the mess their political orientation or advocacy helped to make.

Believe me, such mess-makers rarely reap the consequences personally. There is always some other sucker country, or social niche within such, where they can be perfectly protected from the consequences of their actions. They merely stuff their jewelry in a sock and stuff the sock up, and take the next plane bound for their relatives in country x, y, or z.

>[Barone] became completely emotional and said "all 4 of my grandparents were immigrants" and nearly cried<

Maybe we should gag.

corvinus said...

Anyone that thinks that America is free has been totally brainwashed. South America is generally a safe haven for liberty lovers. They vote for big government maybe more so than Americans, but there government is so ineffective that the result is a Libertarian society.

Hmm, good point. In this day and age of nanny-statism, having a highly effective government nowadays WILL be stifling. Just ask any unbrainwashed German.

IHTG said...

Shutting off massive immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe in 1924 was a HUGE mistake.

Most interesting comment I've seen here in a long time.

Marlo said...

American whiteness is a pretty flexible concept. Always has been. It more or less includes any group that white Americans are willing to intermarry with. That said, there was a time when the Irish were not considered "white".
Part of becoming white in America involves disassociating with blacks. Blacks are the "out group" and the color line is such that, with time, any group that isn't black is legally defined as white. It's probably hard for some Hbders to swallow, but this is the historical pattern--when the white population gets "small", the definition of whitness is simply broadened.

"I see lots of Isteve comments using Brazil as an example to describe America's future. Despite the demographics being the same, that is about it. Brazil's mass immigration ended about 1930, so every one is fully integrated and pro-Brazilian."

Really? No doubt, large scale miscegenation resulted in Brazil being a more unified country than America but to say that everyone is fully integrated is a stretch. Brazil still maintains large enclaves of people of shared phenotype, and Euro-looking citizens there have many privileges not granted to their darker skinned countrymen, especially the black ones.

"Also, Brazilian blacks have no "us vs. them" mentality that American blacks have. OJ Simpson, in Brazil, would more likely have been lynched by blacks than have been let off."

Right, and that's most likely because they don't see themselves as black in the first place. They're just "whites with tans" or "really dark indians". Hell, black Brazilians would probably lynch ANY black if it meant that they might appear more white to their brethren. Everyone there is fixated with being white, and you know this. And since you love it so much, have you considered moving back?

Btw, every group in America has an us vs them mentality. Some are more vocal about it.

Anonymous said...

Ivanka Trump is partly Slavic (Czech) and it really shows in her foreign appearance.

http://thestarceleb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ivanka_trump_2.jpg

On the other hand you'd never guess that David Caruso is half Sicilian just by looking at him.

http://www.thirdage.com/files/david-caruso-csi-miami.jpg

So let's not make silly generalizations.

enough already said...

"Part of becoming white in America involves disassociating with blacks. Blacks are the "out group" and the color line is such that, with time, It's probably hard for some Hbders to swallow, but this is the historical pattern--when the white population gets "small", the definition of whitness is simply broadened."

And some people just can't get it through their skulls that Europeans are white. Virtually all of them. Even the Jews. So it wasn't a huge leap to calling them white on the U.S. census. Get it?
I've seen this slippery argument elsewhere and it has never seemed to make any sense or to be historically accurate. The only people who "became" white were people who WERE white, but who were from backgrounds considered a bit alien in culture or religion, not race.
Even in the belabored Sicilian example, one seldom sees any types approaching black or even the eponymous "middle eastern" type. And I am thinking of a slew of mug-shots of mob bosses through the century, not to mention my classmates back in the day, in a school named in a local newspaper as having no blacks. So I guess the Italians didn't qualify according to the inspectors. After all, that would include Dante and Galileo.

Europeans, whether they came from Ireland, Sweden, Russia, Serbia, northern Italy, Asturia, Basque country, Andalucia or even Sicily, experience a certain recognition, a core of shared history, culture and genetic affinity. The feeling of affinity will be stronger between two persons from the same "stock", or nationality than between widely separated countries, but an Irishman and a Serb, once culture and language are homoginized, will not make much distinction between them, racially. However, throw a Chinese or Indian or African in the mix, and no, none of those three groups will ever be "white." Nor would they want to, presumably.

You may feel awkward defining "white" as a race, but you know it when you see it and you will never see it in most of the world's population. We're a minority and always will be. Your assumption that whites will incorporate other races and still remain "white" depends entirely on the non-white element remaining trivial, genetically speaking. Nobody is ever going to see a copper skinned indigenous American, looking like an Aztec carving, as "white." I'm sure the copper skinned individual doesn't see himself that way. Ain't happening. Nobody would ever see the late, great Michael Jackson as white. If they did, their lyin' eyes would be deceived.

Anonymous said...

"Really? No doubt, large scale miscegenation resulted in Brazil being a more unified country than America but to say that everyone is fully integrated is a stretch. Brazil still maintains large enclaves of people of shared phenotype, and Euro-looking citizens there have many privileges not granted to their darker skinned countrymen, especially the black ones."

What does it matter if there are enclaves of people of a shared phenotype? Because they are white doesn't change the fact that they think of themselves as Brazilian, where in America blacks and Mexicans view themselves as outsiders and openly dislike America.

Privileges are granted to Blacks through "cotas" or quotas via university, federal jobs among other things.


"Right, and that's most likely because they don't see themselves as black in the first place. They're just "whites with tans" or "really dark indians". Hell, black Brazilians would probably lynch ANY black if it meant that they might appear more white to their brethren. Everyone there is fixated with being white, and you know this. And since you love it so much, have you considered moving back?"

Wrong, they have a very strong black identity, similar to black Americans. Pele sees himself as a black Brazilian not a dark Indian. They're South Americans, not blind and retarded.

My whole point was Brazilian demographics work in Brazil because everyone fully view themselves as Brazilian and want the betterment of Brazil. American non-whites, be that black, mexicans, and certain white leftists have hatred for America's historic nation, and population. So, if America does reach Brazilian demographic levels it won't resemble Brazil. It'll resemble 1865, or whites being sent off to gulags.

"And since you love it so much, have you considered moving back?"

In conclusion, I think you are a mongoloid.