From my VDARE.com column:
Read the whole thing.
I’m always being asked why I study identity politics issues such as race, ethnicity, sex, and age. The implication is that those aren’t respectable topics for serious thinking.
Yet the Census form that recently arrived in your mailbox shows that the U.S. government is obsessed with those precise questions.
The Constitution defines the decennial Census as an "enumeration"—i.e., a count of everybody. Therefore, the questionnaire is kept relatively short. (The Census Bureau asks more detailed questions on a vast variety of subjects on its monthly American Community Survey sample of 250,000.)
What questions are considered so critical to the government in 2010 that the Census has to ask them of every single resident?
Of the ten questions on the 2010 form, five are concerned with enumeration (for example, asking your name and phone number) and one with whether you own your home (with or without a mortgage). The other four deal with identity:
6. What is Person 1's sex?
7. What is Person 1's age and Date of Birth?
8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?
9. What is Person 1's race?
In contrast, there are—of course—no questions asked about whether the resident is a citizen or is even in the country legally.
Personally, I believe that paying careful attention to what the state is doing is public-spirited. But it’s more fashionable to be naïve and ignorant about race. For example, liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias recently proclaimed: "My guess is that in the future the vast majority of people descended from immigrants from Asia or Latin America will be seen as white."
Yet, why in the world would they want to be white when they win money and prizes from the government for being legally nonwhite? You get more of what you pay for. And the U.S. pays people to consider themselves non-white. Thus, since the 1960s, all the movement has been away from being seen as white.
Read the whole thing.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
27 comments:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/fashion/08Brittney.html
Liberal male NYTimes writer writes some how 6'8 freak of a female basketball player is helping to "redefine beauty." Poor stupid bastard. His commenters and feminist bloggers attack him for implying that the female was less than attractive to begin with. You're right, Steve. A large part of feminism is unattractive women clamoring to be considered attractive - and I say this as an ex-feminist who's had the scales fall from my eyes.
I put white even though my grandmother was Spanish.
The "hispanic"/"non-hispanic" white question always annoys me because Spanish people are white. I find it creepy and weird asking people to choose between hispanic and white even though Spanish is a subset of white. Mestizos should be considered native American because they are. The whole ethnicity crap is nonsense.
When it comes to filling out the Census form and mailing it in, white people tend to be both the most conscientious (the town with highest response rate so far is Dubuque, Iowa), and also the most troubled by idealistic objections to counting by race and ethnicity. Some are refusing to fill in the race and ethnicity questions. Others are putting in answers for Race such as "Human" or "American."
The intention is noble. But this game was rigged a long time ago. Your every move was anticipated.
HAHA, it's hopeless.
OT, but the modern Cherokees' first female chief, Wilma Mankiller*, just passed away:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040603469.html
*Her middle name was "Pearl," not "White"
"Mestizos should be considered native American because they are. "
Dead on. The Mexican government should be pressured to grant them casinos.
I put white even though my grandmother was Spanish.
The "hispanic"/"non-hispanic" white question always annoys me because Spanish people are white. I find it creepy and weird asking people to choose between hispanic and white even though Spanish is a subset of white. Mestizos should be considered native American because they are. The whole ethnicity crap is nonsense.
Technically when hispanic was originally used as a term by the census, it did not mean people from Spain. Go to Merriam Webster and look at definition number 2.
You will note that recently the term has been expanded to include Spanish people who are actually European. You will see this especially during Hispanic History Month when stories of Hispanics (White European Spaniards) helping fight the British for American Independence are told.
What is funny is that the White Spaniards are considered hispanic for their accomplishments, but get no benefit from affirmative action policies. According to the State of New York, "New York's "affirmative action" statute for minority-owned businesses...does not include in its definition of "Hispanic" people of Spanish or Portuguese descent unless they also come from Latin America."
That is BS the census is going to count illegals. States like CA and TX will probably add more congressional districts at the expense of states like KS and MO.
Now I know why the Founders only allowed the slave states to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person.
"I’m always being asked why I study identity politics issues such as race, ethnicity, sex, and age. The implication is that those aren’t respectable topics for serious thinking."
Well, only if you're an African-American studies prof. Then it's the apex of scholarship.
I wrote this post about the Census, minority outreach, and the parallels to the "Southern Strategy":
Minority Outreach and the Census
Sailer sez:
Yet, why in the world would they want to be white when they win money and prizes from the government for being legally nonwhite? You get more of what you pay for. And the U.S. pays people to consider themselves non-white. Thus, since the 1960s, all the movement has been away from being seen as white.
1-- Sailer’s question here seems misdirected although one realizes it is rhetorical. First, there is no personal benefit in checking off “white” on the census form as the above quote seems to imply. There are no money and prizes flowing personally to say a Hispanic checking off white. The Census Bureau isn’t cutting checks and mailing them to “non white” people because they checked a certain box. What has made primarily America less white since the 1960s is immigration, not manipulation of census form categories by people.
2-- An argument could be made that the greater number of “minorities” will help keep funding for various gubment programs going. This may be so partially, but it should also be borne in mind that a large segment of beneficiaries of such programs are themselves white- from assorted white administrators and miscellaneous processors of paper, to white clients who also qualify for said programs because of income. Welfare for example is not a “black” program. Millions of whites qualify for it and take advantage of it. Reputedly “wasteful” tutoring programs for low income youth are another case in point. School districts can pull in a lot of cash by providing such services, but WHO are the primary service providers that chew up most of the cash? You got it- white female teachers. As Tom Sowell pointed out a long time ago- the poor are a gold mine, for others claiming to "administer" things on their behalf.
3—It could be argued that being “a non white minority” will help job prospects. But is this really so? Employment data for black and Hispanic men (Census 2000) seem to suggest this is not so at all. It may be true that in certain “politically correct” job settings non-whiteness will help, but the jobs available in these sectors (university professors for example) are laughably trivial in number compared to the larger economy. Nor should it be necessarily assumed that white employers, once they identify the race of an applicant, welcome that applicant. In fact, it may be just the opposite. Discriminatory shennigans by supposed “equal opportunity employers” are documented in numerous EEOC case files and appeals well into the 21st century.
4—There are clear social, economic and cultural benefits to being classified as white- too many to list here- particularly for those individual minorities who can more easily change their physical appearance than others- Hispanics being a clear case in point. The advantages of a white appearance or identity have hardly disappeared and has a centuries history of privilege connected with it- from employment, to marriage to societal esteem. By contrast Mildred Loving had no such option. The famous Loving interracial couple got a jail sentence pronounced for being an interracial couple a scant 40 years ago.
One white writer in the link below lists 50 advantages associated with being white. A number of these are mere rhetoric, but a significant number of her 50 are true. With advantages such as these, it is unclear why anyone would want to “run away” from being seen as white.
http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf
5-- The problem is not “running away” from being seen as white. The problem for whites is to stop the “white” category from expanding too much. That is what whites view as the main threat. There is no mad rush for the exits as regards whiteness. The exact opposite is the case.
White people most definitely are running away from being white. My best friend in high school was a dark-haired and rather tan person of mixed Mediterranean descent, and refused to identify as white in many various situations when the subject came up. I've heard similar comments from other whites, including my own family ... generally those of northern descent show evidence of guilt in their anti-white rants, while southern Europeans seek to avoid the guilt by implying they themselves are not white. I take this as evidence that southern Europeans (not all of us of course) are unwittingly helping America become more hostile to whites in general.
With reference to the Unpacking the Knapsack list of 50 white privileges: is she serious? The first one on the list makes the other 49 moot. If white people are so horrible, why would whites be so eager to live among other whites? Shouldnt we be wanting to move into black neighborhoods so we can abuse and exploit them? Some of the others are jokes: 9) If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege. So the fact that publishers are eager to publish essays about how terrible white people are is an example of white privilege? Come on. I seriously would assume this list was a subtle prank if it werent for the notice at the bottom that it's an excerpt of a university publication from 1988.
I hope no one seriously suggests that the Census should ask about citizenship or immigration status. If it did, response rates among those communities would plummet. Better to get an accurate count of their demographics, and then target future investigations using different tools.
Britteny Griner certainly doesn't fit any definition of "beauty" I'm familiar with. Now, ex-MVP Lauren Jackson (6'5"), who posed topless in Australia, THAT'S beauty.
http://www.baylorbears.com/sports/w-baskbl/mtt/griner_brittney00.html
(NOT topless)
http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/swimsuit/image/2005/05_ljackson_02.jpg
Actually the Duke of Wellington defended rotten boroughs; they were abolished by the Whigs under Earl Grey.
You may be confusing this with Wellington's actual accomplishment, Catholic Emancipation.
Too Tall Jones writes:
"it should also be borne in mind that a large segment of beneficiaries of such programs are themselves white- from assorted white administrators and miscellaneous processors of paper, to white clients who also qualify for said programs because of income."
True, but the summary statistic I would like to see would be the average total tax: income, SS, Medicare, sales paid by whites versus the average total paid by NAMs.
Then the average payments personally directly benefiting whites ... public education, welfare, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, as compared to the average payments to NAMs.
The difference would give the average white to black flow of tax dollars.
And let's not forget that the whole "Hispanic" classification and bilingual education were intiatives of the Nixon administration. Up until then (and the Ford Foundation's decision to grant funding to MALDEF), Mexican Americans mainly wanted to be considered as "white." Nixon's bet, politically speaking, was that he could splinter the Democrats by creating a division between blacks and Latinos. How's that worked out for us?
Great work Steve, this deserves to have more than the current number of documents. It's amazing that NO ONE has touched on some of the very important issues that you have discussed.
Dear James:
You are right. Thanks.
"I've heard similar comments from other whites, including my own family ... generally those of northern descent show evidence of guilt in their anti-white rants, while southern Europeans seek to avoid the guilt by implying they themselves are not white. I take this as evidence that southern Europeans (not all of us of course) are unwittingly helping America become more hostile to whites in general."
I've observed this same thing happening!! White people are trying to get identified as something else if they can pass for it, simply because the whole white guilt thing is drilled into their heads again and again. After all, who wants to be associated with "the evil guys?" I am only partially southern european but I look completely southern euro. As a result I've noticed NAMS are actually nicer to me at restaurants, check-out lines etc than they are to more stereotypically northern looking whites (who is pretty much everyone I hang around) ! I'm not kidding. I wouldn't identify as non-white though...it actually really annoys me when people in similar situations do that. Some kids are even already brainwashed into believing that ancient Rome/Greece were not white western civilizations because of this weird new perception that southern euros aren't totally "white" or whatever. I think this is just a strategy to try to demonize whites even more by turning them into an even smaller group.
The intention is noble. But this game was rigged a long time ago. Your every move was anticipated.
No, to the extent that any single person can affect a census counting over 300 million people there is one way to rig it in your favor: LIE. Add 2-4 white adults to your household.
Depending on your age they can be your siblings, your kids, or your friends. If a census worker stops by tell him your brother and his wife are temporarily staying with you. It's a tough economy, he'll believe you.
Adding whites to the working age population increases the number of jobs that whites "deserve" to have.
You have the right to fight back against a government that is fighting against you.
Stopped Clock said...
White people most definitely are running away from being white. My best friend in high school was a dark-haired and rather tan person of mixed Mediterranean descent, and refused to identify as white in many various situations when the subject came up. I've heard similar comments from other whites, including my own family ... generally those of northern descent show evidence of guilt in their anti-white rants, while southern Europeans seek to avoid the guilt by implying they themselves are not white. I take this as evidence that southern Europeans (not all of us of course) are unwittingly helping America become more hostile to whites in general.
Dubious. I have yet to see this "running away". Can you cite any credible sources to back up your point? What you also fail to realize is that various other groups, including southern Italians at various times have in fact been PUSHED AWAY from identifying themselves as white. Its not that they ran away, but in fact were pushed away by certain other whites deeming themselves to be "superior." (Sowell 1981).
BamaGirl said...
I've observed this same thing happening!! White people are trying to get identified as something else if they can pass for it, simply because the whole white guilt thing is drilled into their heads again and again.
Sheer fantasy. Last I saw Brittney Spears, Nicole Kidman or AL Gore wasnt trying to become black, nor Sarah Palin.
Bama also said:
Some kids are even already brainwashed into believing that ancient Rome/Greece were not white western civilizations because of this weird new perception that southern euros aren't totally "white" or whatever.
lmao... There is no "weird new" perception that southern euros are not white. In fact the charge is over a century old, as various northern European writers denigrated "lesser breeds" of the south. More towards our time, "'aryan" Adolf Hitler considered white eastern Europeans to be sub human and murdered several million of them. Perhaps the people who you call "brainwashed' want nothing to do with the ideologies above... (or 'whatever' as you so perceptively say... lol)
Sgt. Joe Friday said... And let's not forget that the whole "Hispanic" classification and bilingual education were intiatives of the Nixon administration. Up until then (and the Ford Foundation's decision to grant funding to MALDEF), Mexican Americans mainly wanted to be considered as "white." Nixon's bet, politically speaking, was that he could splinter the Democrats by creating a division between blacks and Latinos. How's that worked out for us?
Good point. And it was white conservative Richard Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan" that ushered in the era of "affirmative action"..
Dubious. I have yet to see this "running away". Can you cite any credible sources to back up your point? .TTJ
Where are TTJ's "credible sources"? TTJ regurgitates data-free POMO neo-Marxist "whiteness studies" pseudo-analysis.Inserted within the drivel are a few little factoids and legends about US history pre-Sixties Cultural Revolution.*
*For example, the Lovings were arrested 52 years ago(not 40) and were convicted 51 years ago. They were given suspended sentences on condition they leave the state. The judgment was vacated when SCOTUS struck down state laws against interracial marriage 43 years ago.
In any case, there is no evidence for an American Reign of Terror against interracial couples in the Fifties and Sixties, while there is incontrovertible evidence for a contemporaneous Communist reign of terror in East and Central Europe. The latter episode has gone down the memory hole in the West, while we are reminded numerous times a day of the injustices of Jim Crow.
The popular version of the history of the West presented by our rulers to the masses consists of nothing but slavery, racism and genocide.
Nixon's bet, politically speaking, was that he could splinter the Democrats by creating a division between blacks and Latinos. How's that worked out for us?
Good point. And it was white conservative Richard Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan" that ushered in the era of "affirmative action"..
"Latinos" were a trivial percentage of the population when Nixon launched the first major AA program. Nixon's actions were a case of bowing to the Zeitgeist. You can find plenty of documentation on the internet showing how Nixon continued the Great Society and governed as a liberal. He was a "conservative" for those who still bore a grudge over Alger Hiss and didn't like his occasional "law and order" rhetoric.
@he Anon who doubts the trend of Meds trying to disclaim whiteness, I heard an explicit example just yesterday. It was Ralph Barbieri, a sports talk-show host in San Francisco. For about two minutes he strenously denied being white. "I'm Italian, not white." This really is an amazing new thing. It stems mostly from the meme, now about 45 years in the making, that cool=black. Norman Mailer lives.
"lmao... There is no "weird new" perception that southern euros are not white. In fact the charge is over a century old, as various northern European writers denigrated "lesser breeds" of the south. More towards our time, "'aryan" Adolf Hitler considered white eastern Europeans to be sub human and murdered several million of them. Perhaps the people who you call "brainwashed' want nothing to do with the ideologies above... (or 'whatever' as you so perceptively say... lol)"
Okay, so a few nordicists in the early 20th century claim that southern euros/meds aren't white, and that means that they uniformly aren't? The percentage of "teutonic" peoples who consider themselves superior to the medish" peoples is pretty low from my personal experience and much less of a problem than the constant attribution of all the world's evils as the sole responsibility of whites. I wouldn't want anything to do with those antiquated Nordicist ideologies either, but they have nothing to do with the founding of Western civilization or the fact that Mediterranean Europeans are whites too. And most of the people I know who claim that Rome and Greece are not white civilizations are usually typical brainwashed WASP liberal kids, not actual Italians/Greeks. I am a white of Mediterranean descent, and I think it's quite foolish to try to claim yourself as non-white when you are of ethnic European descent. These new trends are a weird ploy, it's not like darker whites like myself are actually going to get some mythical "ethnic spoils" by merely declaring themselves non-white for various reasons, mostly to look cooler sadly.
"I hope no one seriously suggests that the Census should ask about citizenship or immigration status. If it did, response rates among those communities would plummet. Better to get an accurate count of their demographics, and then target future investigations using different tools"
Wouldn't this give states with large illegal alien populations more representatives than they should get?
Post a Comment