December 6, 2011

The other Pasadena

The Houston Chronicle reports on the demographic transition of the Other Pasadena, the oil refining town east of Houston that once represented the pinnacle of blue collar prosperity:
In the late 1970s, nationally renowned magazine writer Aaron Latham was captivated by a young Texan who mounted a mechanical bull in the Pasadena honky-tonk Gilley's. A few years later, Hollywood transformed Latham's report into the iconic Urban Cowboy, a film tribute to the culture of the "hard hat days and honky-tonk nights" of that era.

When I was at Rice in 1979-1980, I went to Gilley's when it was America's biggest nightclub. It was owned by country singer Mickey Gilley, who was a first cousin of 50s rocker Jerry Lee Lewis and TV preacher Jimmy Swaggart. My main memory is playing pool on the edge of the dance floor. I somehow managed to knock the cueball clear off the table. It started rolling across the world's largest dancefloor, with maybe five hundred couples on it. I scurried for maybe 50 yards after the rolling cueball trying to pick it up before some dancer fell down on it, as it accidentally got kicked around like the Indiana Jones's vial of antidote in the opening nightclub scene of Temple of Doom. I almost got punched by a few oilfield roughnecks for running into their girlfriends during my chase, and I can't say I blame them.

After that, I wasn't in the mood to ride the mechanical bull.
If Latham returned today, however, he'd have to adopt a Latin soundtrack, swap "vaquero" for "cowboy" in the movie's title and maybe even sub Antonio Banderas for John Travolta.

Funny how, after all these years, the reporter can't think of a Mexican-American movie star. (Banderas is a Spaniard.)
According to a San Antonio judicial panel - not to mention demographic studies - the Texas town that once embodied all things redneck is overwhelmingly Hispanic, a fact that no longer can be ignored in voting districts. 
Last week, two judges, with a third dissenting, adopted a voting district map that divides the city of Pasadena among several Texas House districts, all now represented by Anglo Republicans. But one district, represented by Republican Ken Legler, lost most of its Republican voters and now will be dominated by Hispanic neighborhoods. 
By all analyses, the new House District 144 now can easily be taken by a Democrat, especially if that candidate has a Spanish surname. According to political consultant Robert Jara, the new district backed former Houston Mayor Bill White over Gov. Rick Perry in the 2010 gubernatorial election by a margin of 57 percent. 
Students in the Pasadena Independent School District, he noted, are more than 80 percent Hispanic.
... "No force in the world is going to stop Houston, Texas, from becoming majority Latino," Klineberg noted. In the Houston area, over 70 percent of Anglos are over age 65 [huh?], while 75 percent of non-Anglos are under age 30. Those numbers, Klineberg says, speak to the "absolute inevitability of this transformation."

In contrast, those free enterprise-hating Vermont Democrats with their Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders don't enjoy Texas's economic dynamism. What a bunch of idiots those Vermonters are! Of course, they still get to live in their hometowns near their relatives and old friends, but that just shows how liberal they are. True conservatives know that the essence of conservatism is shattering communities and crushing ties between people and places that have grown up over the years. 

60 comments:

Let's! said...

"In the Houston area, over 70 percent of Anglos are over age 65, while 75 percent of non-Anglos are under age 30."

That's almost certainly a lie. For it to be true, the median age of Houston-area Anglos (sic) would have to be 70-something.

Since the white median age nationwide is 41 and Houston is far from being a retirement community, the nice reporterette obviously got scammed.

Justin said...

Steve, I have noticed that your tone has been shifting lately, becoming more strident, disillusioned, half a step from ideological. I used to marvel at your values-neutral, eye-in-the-sky voice. About time you took a stand, I'd say.

ben tillman said...

In the Houston area, over 70 percent of Anglos are over age 65....

What a proposterous falsehood!

Whiskey said...

Or Steve, Houston is closer to Mexico than Vermont. Rest assured Vermont will be majority Mexican just a few years after Texas. If it is all over for Whites in Texas (and it is, 3 out of every four kids born there are Mexican) it is the same in Vermont. Who do you think is having kids? Gay ski-resort owning couples? Or their Mexican 16 year old maids?

Mexicans cannot support themselves without huge and unsustainable subsidies from Mexicans. Hence ever more crushing taxes on Whites sure to provoke the most vehement response.

You can do almost anything you want to people, as Machiavelli noted, but never EVER make them poor. Not ever. A fight is coming, that is certain. People never hand over their wallets willingly.

David Davenport said...

Justin's correct, Steve. Your shrill ironic notes -- they're often weak punch lines, even if we agree with the sentiments.

Justin, on the other hand, is wrong about you being or ever needing to be "values-neutral." "Half a step from ideological"?

What do you think Steve's values and ideology are, Justin? And what's good about being or trying to be neutral? Do you want to bring back back the Fairness Doctrine, and impose it on Internet pundits?

ironrailsironweights said...

Here is a map of where in the state New Jersey's various demographic groups live. It's meant as a joke, but is surprisingly accurate.

Peter

ben tillman said...

Whoops - a typo. That should be "preposterous".

Steve Sailer said...

The map of New Jersey is great.

Puppy said...

There's two kinds of conservatism. Traditionalism, or keeping things the way they are.
The other kind, more American than European, is to conserve the engine of change.
So, American conservatism--especially in economic theory--has been paradoxical. Its argument against socialism is that socialism gets in the way of change and true progress based on freedom and production.
So, American conservatism means conserving the formula that brings forth the most amount of change.

Another paradox is that many on the 'progressive' left prefer socialism because it slows down change in accordance with their sense of cooperation/sharing and 'social justice'. Socialists believe that too rapid a change leads to some people rising too fast while 'leaving others behind'.

I personally prefer economic freedom AND demographic stability. And indeed, if it weren't for massive influx of non-whites, American conservatism would be no problem.

mr_evergreen said...

To be honest, being in a place like Pasadena might have scared me in the 1970s. I'm not blue collar, nor am I someone who is interested in bars. I'm also kind of small. I don't want to go to a place where I could get into a fight(unless it's a karate dojo, and in that case, it will be much more orderly). Description of me: Black American male, in his 20's, I'm more of a "cafe" kind of person, I don't do night clubs, product of White collar, middle class home.

Puppez said...

The problem is affirmative action. Many Mexican-Americans are drawn to Democrats for mandated quotas and other benefits. So, if there's any chance of having more Mexican-Americans join the GOP, affirmative action(at least for Mexers)must go.

Now, without affirmative action, Mexican-Americans will have fewer chances at success. But this gives Anglos an opportunity to reach out to Mexican-Americans and favor them over blacks in business deals, hiring, friendship, etc. There are many economic, social, cultural, and other ways in which Anglos can forge ties with Mexican-Americans. But as long as affirmative action for Mexers exist, Mexers will be tempted to go with Dems.

Puppimos said...

I have a solution. Since Vermonters are for open borders and 'diversity', send all the illegals to Vermont.

mr_evergreen said...

I live around alot of Mexicans. They don't bother me and I don't bother them. Some of them make good neighbors. Last time I checked, the last time I was a crime victim, it was by African-American males(I'm also African-American, so it was black on black). Prior to that, most of the violence I had ever been dealt with came from Whites(no joke). By that assessment, I should be afraid of both Blacks and Whites, but I'm not.

My only worry is illegal immigration. Other than that, my only worry is making sure I get along with everyone.

corvinus said...

... "No force in the world is going to stop Houston, Texas, from becoming majority Latino," Klineberg noted. In the Houston area, over 70 percent of Anglos are over age 65 [huh?], while 75 percent of non-Anglos are under age 30. Those numbers, Klineberg says, speak to the "absolute inevitability of this transformation."

They undoubtedly have it back-a**wards. What they mean to say is, "over 70 percent of those age 65 and over are Anglos, while 75 percent of those under age 30 are non-Anglos." Sloppy newspaper reporting strikes again.

Reg Cæsar said...

What a bunch of idiots those Vermonters are! Of course, they still get to live in their hometowns near their relatives and old friends...

Er, Vermont has suffered more immigration, proportionately, than has Texas. But it's internal immigration-- aliens from other states.

Real Vermonters move out. Like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and Chester Arthur and Calvin Coolidge.

Today's is not the Vermont of 75 years ago, when it was one of only two non-communist states.

Reg Cæsar said...

BTWWTF is an "Anglo"? Speak English, dammit!

Anonymous said...

I live around alot of Mexicans. They don't bother me and I don't bother them. Some of them make good neighbors. Last time I checked, the last time I was a crime victim, it was by African-American males(I'm also African-American, so it was black on black). Prior to that, most of the violence I had ever been dealt with came from Whites(no joke). By that assessment, I should be afraid of both Blacks and Whites, but I'm not.

Mr. Evergreen, personal observations aside, you have to look at the big picture. I am sure you will always be able to find examples of the good Mexican and the evil white criminal. But it's a numbers game and it's no accident that Mexicans and other third worlders are leaving behind their nations for white ones in Europe or North America.

What do you think is going to happen if and when Mexicans become the dominant group in an area? Look at what has happened to Detroit, Birmingham and other cities that have become overwhelmingly black. As the white tax base flees, for good reason, the city dies.

The same is happening in many parts of the Southwest. The flood of Mexicans and Central Americans is causing hospitals to close and is going to turn those areas into little Detroits.

The irony is that most Mexicans, blacks and other third worlders realize that they need to live among Europeans to have the best possible living conditions, but because of their mass migratory patterns, are threatening to destroy those very places in which they so desperately want to live.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

"'No force in the world is going to stop Houston, Texas, from becoming majority Latino,' Klineberg noted."

Something tells me the forces that conducted the War with Mexico and the Indian Wars and Operation Wetback could do so, if we wanted them to.


"In the Houston area, over 70 percent of Anglos are over age 65, while 75 percent of non-Anglos are under age 30."

That's something I might be willing to half-believe if Houston were more like Denver, with the vast majority of metro area residents living outside of the city limits. But Houston has over 2 million residents, with another 4 million in the metro area. It isn't possibly true.

As it is the real numbers are bad enough. Only 26% of Hosutonians are white. Estimates put the metro area illegal population at 400,000, with the total foreign born population at 1.1 million.

Hosuton is now 44% Hispanic, and famously the fattest city in the United States (reporters never mention the large black and Hispanic populations when mentioning Houston's obesity problem).

Reading the history of Houston is like reading the history of the establishment's war against middle class white Americans. In a single school year in the early 70s the school district population fell by over 16,000 students. To counteract white flight, the city annexed many of the areas whites had fled to into the city - you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

Also in the 70s, the feds brought in the Vietnamese to compete in the shrimping business. Using aggressive tactics, including violation of child labor laws, the Vietnamese drove white shrimpers out of business.

Texas Hispanics are proof positive that George "Hispanics Are the Future of the Republican Party" Bush doesn't know shit even about what's even happening in his own back yard. Over 80% of Hispanics in the Texas legislature aree Democrats.

Anonymous said...

Texas will be mexicanized just as surely as California has.
Add to that Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada etc have.
The word 'reconquista' is more than just a cliche.

eh said...

overwhelmingly Hispanic

That's OK; after all, Mexico is also "overwhelmingly Hispanic", and that's not such a bad place, right? Anyway, I'm sure they're all good 'citizens'. Or you can talk them into becoming so.

I used to marvel at your values-neutral, eye-in-the-sky voice.

That makes one of you.

jody said...

the map of new jersey is awesome

and eh, don't give mr evergreen such a hard time. yeah mexicans make thing sucky, but i would agree with him that the average mexicans, at least the legals, are mostly live and let types in day to day life.

i'm not talking about kind of large scale effects they have on an area. of course that all sucks. just that they mostly won't bother you. i've definitely had some run ins with illegals, but the legals are mostly low key unless they are living in some high density mexican ghetto, in which case the crime rate does go up some.

guest007 said...

When the elite attend schools like Trinity, St Albans, or Punahou; just like their parents and grandparents, it is hard for them to understand the phenomenon of middle class whites having attend schools that were majority white when those middle class whites attended them but are now overwhelmingly non-white.

What percentage of whites in the U.S. attended a public high school that they would never let their own children attend.

Anonymous said...

I feel much the same as you do, steve, with respect to the invasion ripping apart this nation, and in particular, stealing our memories. The places that we grew up are gone, our neighborhoods have been replaced, transmuted into mexican neighborhoods. Our past is wiped out.

But this is in large part what america always has been--that is how Capital ensures cheap labor in america. From the start, Capital used america to get indentured servants, most of whom were really slaves. Then it was more mass immigration, irish, chinese, italians, central europeans. The only reason it stopped for a while in about 1920 was because the mind virus of socialism was so rampant in the immigrants at the time that Capital thought it a good idea to stop mass immigration for a while. Go see the 'red scare' cartoons that ginned up propaganda that eventually stopped mass immigration here in america.

That moratorium eventually helped lead working class americans to their highest point--the 1950s, where one man's salary could purchase a high standard of living. THen Capital ended all that with the "Civil Rights Movement," which was actually born of education, specifically the elite colleges, which had been molded via rich philanthropists and their nonprofit foundations and grants to academia. Pro-minority feelings about educated whites are Capital-favorable because they eventually lead to racial integration, mass immigration, and thus lower wages.
We americans of a certain age missed the arrival of pro-immigration, pro-minority propaganda, so we are relatively unmolded in that respect. So we are free to see things as they are with respect to the invasion. But this is really nothing new for america--neighborhoods being transformed by immigration and racial integration.

Probably nothing we can do about it. The education machine has molded the youth so thoroughly that immigration can only be slowed by the economic decline of america.

BTW, when are you going to write about emma west and her copycats?

Hapalong Cassidy said...

For anyone ever thinking of moving to Houston, a word of advice: live in either Sugar Land or Woodlands. Those are the only two "safe havens" demographically, that are also reasonably affordable. Steve would probably concur.

Pupp said...

If the Southern Strategy played on white fear of blacks, Southwestern Strategy seems to play on white reliance on cheap brown labor.

Anonymous said...

I have a solution. Since Vermonters are for open borders and 'diversity', send all the illegals to Vermont.
actually some self -rigtheous, dumb liberals are advocating just that - Vermont now has somali and bantu refugees in places like Burlington and surprise! rape increased... further shocking liberals, a somali raped a prepubescent girl and the somalis blamed the girl!
It must be the legacy of colonialism.

also white nyc liberals have been tweaking laws, etc so they can use their lefty votes in conservative counties like Dutchess and Columbia (Upstate NY) and enrich them..

Many 'get it' that they don't REALLY want diversity etc, but some REALLY don't and EVERYONE is afraid to oppose them.

Anonymous said...

I remember a few years ago elite media (like the boston globe ) were shocked that gang violence broke out on nantucket.. i mean they needed to safe a few bucks on labor and hired mexicans.. what could have gone wrong??

Puppo said...

What Texas is doing has a long pedigree, and it's rooted in American imperialism. American nation is a product of imperial expansion, and one of the problem of imperialism is 'lots of lands and not enough hands'. Today, US may have sufficient number of workers, but old habits die hard.
Texas has traditionally been a pioneer/frontier nation, and that mentality still lingers to this day. Vermont, as one of the first New England states, is older, thus more conservative in its outlook(if not ideologically, but then political correctness is a form of neo-puritanism). Though it was the first 13 colonies that broke from the Old World, it is also New England that region that was closest to Europe culturally and politically(and set down deep cultural roots in the new soil; Western America, in contrast, has been defined by movement: 49ers, Texicans, Okies, etc). If America had not expanded beyond its 13 colonies, it might have been more like a European nation. It was imperialist expansion westward that created a need for a different Americanism. Of course, the first 13 colonies were also the creation of imperialism(British). And the shortage of labor and lots of land(at least all those areas were settled)required importation of black Africans. Lots of them, which dogs us to this day. As the white man moved out west, Anglo population wasn't enough. And so America imported other Northern Europeans from places like Sweden. But when US began to industrialize, there weren't enough Northern Europeans to do the job. So, Anglos imported cheap Chinese labor to build railroads and lots of Eastern/Southern Europeans to man the factories and slaughter houses. So, what Texas is doing is in the grand old tradition of American imperialism--lots of land, not enough hand.

Though we think of Japanese economy as 'run by Japanese, made by Japanese', this is because Japanese failed at their imperialist enterprise. When Japan had extensive imperialist holdings in Asia, Japan(like Americans)relied heavily on Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, and other laborers(and even tried to Japanicize them). Needless to say, Japanese didn't treat them very well, but Japanese imperialist economy could not run on Japanese labor alone.

Anglos who conquered America were impatient with big plans but not enough hands. So, they got blacks, Eastern Europeans, Asians, Jews, etc. And in the SW, American business still look for cheap labor. The difference is, in the past Anglo enterprisers could nastily exploit non-Anglo labor. Blacks were slaves, Chinese got a pittance, and Mexicans were only given lowly labor. Today, cheap laborers must be given a 'fair shake at life and liberty'.

Another difference between Texas and Vermont is geography. If Texas didn't border Mexico but Vermont did, it could be Vermont that is teeming with Mexicans regardless of its politics(while Texas might have far fewer Mexicans). After all, Montana and Alaska are ideologically closer to Texas than to Vermont, but not too many Mexers there. California is ideologically very different from Texas, but tons of Mexers there; again, geography.
Also, Texas has lots of oil, which means it needs a lot of ready hands. Rules of capitalism says 'cheaper the better'.

Anonymous said...

.. "No force in the world is going to stop Houston, Texas, from becoming majority Latino," Klineberg noted.
klineberg forgot to mention that many of his scots irish bretheren WANT it that way.
I love the way media talks about these things as if they were natural forces, and not intentionally engineered.
They claim globalism is inevitable, but that hasn't led to people squating in their private homes, has it? It has led to cheaper maids though..(subsidized by benefits scams)

mr_evergreen said...

"I personally prefer economic freedom AND demographic stability. And indeed, if it weren't for massive influx of non-whites, American conservatism would be no problem"

Well, here is a question: Why do non-Whites want to be here so badly in this day?

mr_evergreen said...

"Mr. Evergreen, personal observations aside, you have to look at the big picture. I am sure you will always be able to find examples of the good Mexican and the evil white criminal. But it's a numbers game and it's no accident that Mexicans and other third worlders are leaving behind their nations for white ones in Europe or North America.

What do you think is going to happen if and when Mexicans become the dominant group in an area? Look at what has happened to Detroit, Birmingham and other cities that have become overwhelmingly black. As the white tax base flees, for good reason, the city dies"

But this is the difference: Blacks are US citizens. They are coming from the USA. They aren't immigrants. They are here because of the slavery that existed 400 years ago. Why is it that Blacks went to Detroit at all?

My point is that when any people feels like there are better opportunities elsewhere, they will most certainly go somewhere else.

You are saying to look at the big picture. Isn't there a way to look at the big picture, and at the same time, remember the individual? If all that is focused on is the group, the individual gets left out. What is good for "the big picture" is not always good for the individual.

Puppismo said...

Maybe conservatives should accept affirmative action as a social necessity BUT on the basis that racial differences are real. Thus, affirmative action could be renamed 'affirmation action'. What is affirmed in the bargain is that blacks and brown need special help because they generally do have lower IQs.

This is better than nothing.
Also, it absolves whites of the problem of black/brown failure. Without the race-ist affirmation of truth, black/brown failure is entirely blamed on history(of white oppression), paranoia(white discrimination), economics(poor kids just can't make it, blah blah). But in fact, rich black kids are favored over poor white kids who do better on tests. So, it is racial after all.

If there's a community where 70% are black, 20% are brown, and 10% are white, BUT all the policemen and firemen are white because whites did better on exams, then we do have a problem. If trust or identification between community and its representatives is important, then it may be necessary to have some blacks and browns on the force and in the fire department. (After all, many white nationalists make the same complaint about there being too many Jews in power positions in a nation that is majority gentile white. White gentiles don't feel properly represented by the Jewish elites. Same dynamic occurs with local elites. Where most people are not white but whites dominate local elite positions, there's gonna be distrust and resentment.)

So, how about blacks and browns do get a piece of the pie, BUT the new bargain is 'affirmation action is necessary BECAUSE racial differences DO exist.' AffirmATIVE action was predicated on the notion that racial preferences were necessary to bridge the gap between whites and non-whites. But affirMATION action would be predicated on the notion that the gap cannot be bridged.

It would at least be a partial victory. And if race-ism is given legitimacy, it has greater implications(on such things as immigration. If some races are indeed less intelligent, why bring so many of them here?)

Puppy said...

Another problem is Affluent Action, whereby rich whites and Jews rig the system so that working class and poor whites(with conservative leanings)must pay the price of 'white guilt' and move aside to make room for blacks and browns while rich whites and Jews enjoy the best privilege.

SFG said...

Have any paleocons thought about the tradeoff between conservatism and non-diversity? Seems traditional conservatism tends to arise in racially split places like the American South--if you have a state (like Vermont) or country (like Sweden) with just white people, it tends to go socialist. Steve should do a bit on this.

Anonymous said...

So long white racists!

You will not be missed!

Anonymous said...

What is interesting is Texas isn't doing that great economy it has a high poverty even with the rential adjustment its 17 percent and creating more jobs at low wages. in fact, Iowa is a better ecnomony lower unemployment and under the adjustment poverty at around 8 percent. New Hampshire beats Texas hands down it has the highest income in the States and one of the lowest poverty rates. Vermont also has a low poverty but being leftist too many people get welfare in a state with low pvoerty. Both the blue and red state models are outpeform by small states in the middle. Texas isn't even the first in job growth little North Dakota is.

Geoff Matthews said...

I'm sure the author meant that 70% of 65+ are Anglos, and that 75% of non-Anglos are under 30.

As I tell my class, never trust a reporter to get the numbers right.

Anonymous said...

According to political consultant Robert Jara, the new district backed former Houston Mayor Bill White over Gov. Rick Perry in the 2010 gubernatorial election by a margin of 57 percent.


Uhh, was that a misprint?!?

Assuming negligible support for third party candidates & assuming negligible numbers of write-ins [i.e. assuming D + R = 100], that gives you


D + R = 100
D - R = 57
-----------
   2D = 157
    D = 78.5
    R = 21.5


Yikes.

Paging Karl Rove.

Paging Karl Rove.

Karl?

Anyone?

Hello?

Anonymous said...

"'No force in the world is going to stop Houston, Texas, from becoming majority Latino,' MacKlineberg noted."

Would that be the Aberdeen MacKlinebergs or the Edinburgh MacKlinebergs?

Seismic Puppy said...

"So long white racists!
You will not be missed!"

And in the new order dominated by Negroes, Mexican Illegals, and Eskimos(those people who run Hollywood and Wall Street), you wont't be welcome.

Seismic Puppy said...

"I personally prefer economic freedom AND demographic stability. And indeed, if it weren't for massive influx of non-whites, American conservatism would be no problem"

"Well, here is a question: Why do non-Whites want to be here so badly in this day?"

Non-whites wanna be with whites cuz whites are richer, treat them better(than people back home), and offer more opportunities and/or benefits.
After all, Sweden is social-democrat, but tons of Africans and Muslims would love to go live there.

eh said...

...are mostly live and let types in day to day life.

That's not the issue.

I know that the "average" Mexican is not e.g. a criminal -- a 'live and let live type', whatever. The issue is that too many of them are criminal, i.e. when compared to native Whites. And they're gross academic underachievers. You cannot have an orderly, prosperous, first world country full of Hispanics. The proof is all of Central and South America. Including Mexico.

And that's aside from the WN perspective -- that a majority white America has value and is worth preserving. Which I believe. So I would not care were you to wave a magic wand and transform all of those problematic Hispanics into high-achieving Indians and Asians. I still would not want them here. Nothing against those nice folks mind you. They are free to become as happy and prosperous as they are able. They'd just have to do it back where they came from.

And I did not address my comment to mr evergreen. Maybe a couple of times on another site, but not here.

corvinus said...

Er, Vermont has suffered more immigration, proportionately, than has Texas. But it's internal immigration-- aliens from other states.

Real Vermonters move out. Like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and Chester Arthur and Calvin Coolidge.

Today's is not the Vermont of 75 years ago, when it was one of only two non-communist states.


Reg Caesar, are you Mormon? Most Americans are rather embarrassed by the Mormon religion, although we might find them likable individually.

Even so, I too feel a need to defend the natives of the area (both my parents are partially descended from colonial Yankees). Racially aware white natives blame an influx of Ashkenazis and other rich liberals from New York City looking for a quiet place to settle. (This isn't totally bad; I do appreciate Bernie Sanders' willingness to be the Ron Paul of the left. And there's Ben & Jerry's; absurdly liberal, but good ice cream.)

New Hampshire has kept more of a conservative bent, although that is helped by being fairly close to Boston (suburbs are more conservative; witness the Red ring around the Twin Cities and Milwaukee in otherwise Blue MN and WI). I just wish the people in Lewiston, Maine were more forceful about not wanting Somalis to settle there, as the townsfolk of Holyoke, Mass. and Cayce, S.C. were.

Kylie said...

"'So long white racists!
You will not be missed!'

And in the new order dominated by Negroes, Mexican Illegals, and Eskimos(those people who run Hollywood and Wall Street), you wont't be welcome."


No, but your tax dollars and technological know-how will be. Someone has to keep the lights on and pay the electric bill.

Anonymous said...

You are saying to look at the big picture. Isn't there a way to look at the big picture, and at the same time, remember the individual? If all that is focused on is the group, the individual gets left out. What is good for "the big picture" is not always good for the individual.

I don't see how. Yes, there are individuals that buck the trend, and you seem to be an agreeable sort. But the bottom line is that once a certain percentage of blacks or hispanics populate an institution, state or town, things start to go south. I don't know what that magic number is, but you can get a pretty good idea by doing the following exercise.

Assuming one has the means to move or put their kid into a private school, ask yourself the following:

Would you put your kid into a school in which blacks/hispanics comprised over 50% of the students?

What about 40%?

What about 30%?

I have asked people I know this question and invariably they all quietly admit that anything over 10% would cause them to look for a new school.

So I am going to guess that once an area hits 10% minority, regardless of the few wonderful individuals among them, things are going to take a turn for the worse. Anything over 20% is going to be really bad and anything approaching 50% is going to be a disaster.

David said...

>True conservatives know that the essence of conservatism is shattering communities and crushing ties between people and places that have grown up over the years.< [/excellent sarcasm]

"Creative destruction" is the relevant euphemism for destruction.

Anonymous said...

Steve,

you might be interested, in a heated debate Winnetka,IL voted down a affordable housing law. Citizens against had by 2 to 1 margin so why it even came to council is ridiculous. They can now look forward to a lawsuit from Holder's justice department

Anonymous said...

"The education machine has molded the youth so thoroughly that immigration can only be slowed by the economic decline of america."

Both will happen. Just you wait.

mr_evergreen said...

"I don't see how. Yes, there are individuals that buck the trend, and you seem to be an agreeable sort. But the bottom line is that once a certain percentage of blacks or hispanics populate an institution, state or town, things start to go south. I don't know what that magic number is, but you can get a pretty good idea by doing the following exercise.

Assuming one has the means to move or put their kid into a private school, ask yourself the following:

Would you put your kid into a school in which blacks/hispanics comprised over 50% of the students?

What about 40%?

What about 30%?

I have asked people I know this question and invariably they all quietly admit that anything over 10% would cause them to look for a new school.

So I am going to guess that once an area hits 10% minority, regardless of the few wonderful individuals among them, things are going to take a turn for the worse. Anything over 20% is going to be really bad and anything approaching 50% is going to be a disaster."

I don't know what the tipping point is personally. I do know this. There is a community outside of Houston called Missouri City. From what I know, it is around 40% Black. It was voted one of the top 100 places to live. I looked at the crime statistics. Relatively low crime rate. It's also an area of high incomes, so that makes a difference. If alot of low income people flood an area, then of course it will strain resources. If alot of high income minorities move to an area(such as Cascade Heights in Atlanta, quite an expensive place from what I know), then more money will be brought in.

I have gone to a school where it was around 90% White. I actually suffered from getting bullied alot. A few times my watch got stolen,and one time I found it in a toilet. A few kids tried to hurt me when I was injured. In my middle school, the vast majority of the persons who bullied me were White. I have a hard time answering this without getting personal because for many things, it is personal to me. Being in a predominantly White area didn't guarantee that I would get the best education or be free of harrassment. My father wanted to put me in a private school, but there were none where we lived.

Where I live now, there are private schools. There are also good public schools I could put my any kids I have in. I don't have kids, nor am I married. I am a single male who is in college and a few months from getting my bachelor's degree.

I could put children in a school that is around 50% White, provided that the school has high marks and has good programs. I know that Marietta High School(Marietta,GA) is 60% minority and has an International Baccalaureate program. Wheeler High School has alot of minorities and has a magnet program. The schools in Cobb County that have a bad reputation are Osborne, South Cobb, and Pebblebrook. These are also in relatively low income areas too.

Reg Cæsar said...

Reg Caesar, are you Mormon? --Corvinus

Er, no... I don't trust any church so modernistic it holds services in the vernacular. I just chose the first Vermont expatriates that came to mind. (And Smith and Young didn't even grow up there.)

Are you the former Governor of New Jersey? How's the hedge-fund business working out?

Anonymous said...

Corvinus is right about Vermont. I do business there, and I think 80% of my Vermont clients are Jewish expats from Manhattan.

Bernie Sanders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield being examples of "Vermont" natives! All three are NY natives.

Kylie said...

"Maybe conservatives should accept affirmative action as a social necessity BUT on the basis that racial differences are real. Thus, affirmative action could be renamed 'affirmation action'. What is affirmed in the bargain is that blacks and brown need special help because they generally do have lower IQs."

The generally lower IQs of black and brown people is already affirmed by many people, even on the left. But the official line is that the reason for their lower IQs is not genetic but cultural or environmental, i.e., due to racism*, institutional or otherwise. You won't see that changing any time soon, if ever.

*By "racism", I mean, of course, white racism since the official line is that only whites can be racist.

ATBOTL said...

The GOP is going to be in for a rude awakening in the near future when Texas flips from being reliably Republican to a battleground and then to reliably Democratic.

"Seems traditional conservatism tends to arise in racially split places like the American South"

Traditional conservatism in America arose everywhere but the South. The modern Conservative movement began essentially with zero participation from Southerners or support from Southern voters and politicians. Southerners began moving towards conservatism much later as a result of the "Civil Rights" issue.

Anonymous said...

But this is the difference: Blacks are US citizens.


Actually, there are lots of black immigrants. 1 in 8 blacks is an immigrant, child of an immigrant, or grandchild of an immigrant. Look at the Obamas. Michelle's family has been here a long time but her husband and children are the child and grandchildren of a black immigrant/migrant. Don't forget that Barack has extended family here in the US illegally.

Anonymous said...

I have gone to a school where it was around 90% White. I actually suffered from getting bullied alot. A few times my watch got stolen,and one time I found it in a toilet. A few kids tried to hurt me when I was injured. In my middle school, the vast majority of the persons who bullied me were White.


Okay, but crap like that happens to white kids who are bullied by white kids. It is just that when you are not white, you imagine that everything is racially motivated rather than just the fact that some kids are a-holes. Black kids in black schools bully black kids and it isn't racially motivated. Not everything is about race. Some kids are just a-holes.

Anonymous said...

What is interesting is Texas isn't doing that great economy it has a high poverty even with the rential adjustment its 17 percent and creating more jobs at low wages. in fact, Iowa is a better ecnomony lower unemployment and under the adjustment poverty at around 8 percent.

Are you high?

I will take your respective numbers as accurate.

Texas has low poverty at 17% because about 50% of its people are NAM's.

Given the demographics in Texas, one would expect much higher poverty, probably twice as high. So, a 17% poverty rate is spectacularly good for such a demographic profile.

Whereas Iowa has high poverty at 8% because its NAM population is tiny.

Given Iowa's demographics, its poverty rate should be near 2%. So, at 8%, it is 400% higher than it should be.

mr_evergreen said...

"Okay, but crap like that happens to white kids who are bullied by white kids. It is just that when you are not white, you imagine that everything is racially motivated rather than just the fact that some kids are a-holes. Black kids in black schools bully black kids and it isn't racially motivated. Not everything is about race. Some kids are just a-holes."

But the thing was, most of the bullies who were White would bully ME and wouldn't mess with other kids for some reason.

In high school I got threatened alot. There were kids threatening "to lynch" me or "hang me by their noose".

I won't lie. Middle school and high school has left me quite cynical in some ways.

Anonymous said...

"It is just that when you are not white, you imagine that everything is racially motivated rather than just the fact that some kids are a-holes."

I imagine this is the explanation for a lot of accusations of racism. Black, Hispanic or Indian man gets treated rudely on the street, in a restaurant, or at work by a white guy, and suspects it's due to racism (and often subconsciously wants it to be). White guys navigating white cities don't have that luxury.

But black people especially don't understand or appreciate the differences in racial behavior. Blacks are a lot more gregarious with strangers than are whites. Whites generally ignore each other or at most say hello. But even in busy cities half the black men you walk past want to strike up a conversation.

mr_evergreen said...

"I imagine this is the explanation for a lot of accusations of racism. Black, Hispanic or Indian man gets treated rudely on the street, in a restaurant, or at work by a white guy, and suspects it's due to racism (and often subconsciously wants it to be). White guys navigating white cities don't have that luxury.

But black people especially don't understand or appreciate the differences in racial behavior. Blacks are a lot more gregarious with strangers than are whites. Whites generally ignore each other or at most say hello. But even in busy cities half the black men you walk past want to strike up a conversation"

My particular case, what was happening to me was not happening to other kids. I don't know any other kid who got put in a sewage drain or got shot with a paintball gun in broad daylight. I don't know if any of that was racial for a fact. What was beyond a shadow of a doubt racially motivated was when some kids were threatening me with "we're going to hang you by our noose". I remember when I went to the principal, three times and got nothing for it. The first time I turned two kids in for kicking the crutches from underneath me, and I was in a cast. Basically, they got away with it because thye lied their way out. The second time it was a girl saying stuff of a racial nature. She lied her way out of it. The third time someone broke into my locker and left a threatening note. Not much of a punishment for that person.

What happened to me in middle school had nothing to do with me being gregarious with strangers.

Anonymous said...

"Would you put your kid into a school in which blacks/hispanics comprised over 50% of the students?

What about 40%?

What about 30%?"

I'm a middle-aged white professional man with two children who now attend elite private colleges.

They both attended the same old-suburb public high school. It was 40% Hispanic, 30% African-American, 25% white, and 5% other (south Asian and African immigrants, mostly).

My boys did just fine, thank you.

I'm sure that you and many others are racists and willing to act on your racism. But don't assume that every other white person is as racist as you are.