Honestly, when I heard that 70% of the Civil Rights division's staff resigned over the choice to start suing on behalf of white plaintiffs, my immediate reaction was "good riddance". People who think anti-discrimination laws should be selectively enforced on behalf of their favored ethnic groups -- especially if they're in the position to decide which cases to enforce -- are some of the most corrosive elements to the entire project of national integration.
Of course, it may very well be that Trump is simply going to replace them with the exact same kind of person, just with a different set of favored ethnic groups. I really wish it didn't feel like I'm being asked to vote for two parties full of racists who simply disagree on who to target.
I would resign not because I have some objection to suing on behalf of white plaintiffs on an evenhanded basis as everyone else, but because I don't trust the Trump administration to act in good faith. Given this administration's proneness to vice-signalling and pandering to white identity politics, I assume this has less to do with giving white people access to the same level of service as non-white people than it does with appealing to his groyper base by favoring white people.
It's just like the way I have no objection to white South Africans seeking asylum in the United States, but I do object to him providing them with favoritism just because they're white.
They didn't resign over "even handed" application of anti-discrimination law. They resigned over weaponization of the law to prosecute Thought Crimes, like "anti-semitism" on campuses. I don't blame people who left. I also hope that good ones stayed because we are headed down some serious 1984 shit right now.
The nature of DoJ is being changed under the current administration. I can't speak for any of the lawyers who resigned, but 6 months ago they were not "the President's lawyers." They were the US government's lawyers - the lawyers representing the People. Now, they are expected to be Trump's lawyers, not describing the law or advising a client to follow the law but trying to use the legal system to carry out the beliefs and desires of 1 person (2 if we're being generous and including the Attorney General). That's a structural and philosophical shift that results in a variety of changes: dropping cases that may have merit, opening investigations on the basis of conspiracy theory and crowd-sourced finger pointing, calling out investigated people who won't have charges brought but DoJ has decided are bad people anyway (that's their idea, not some spin of mine). Even specifically here, they are being turned toward, among other things, investigating purported anti-Christian bias and trans activism. All that completely apart from race (except insofar as the administration's understanding of "Christianity" may be limited to branches common among some races more than others). It is an undue oversimplification to say that lawyers leaving just don't want to prosecute cases in favor of white people.
Look, I don’t want to burst your ridiculous bubble. But actually some pretty terrible shit happens to non-white people in this country that you and I, as presumably white (or perhaps just clueless) people, would absolutely go ballistic over if it happened to you or a family member.
The cops who did terrible things to black people absolutely should have been fired and replaced with real professional police officers who could do the job well. The fact that America, as well as Noah, has decided to label this *absolutely reasonable* reaction as some kind of weird political over correction will be a source of abiding shame for you, Noah, and everyone involved with the thing. History will remember none of you kindly.
But yes, by all means write about how everything is just the same. But if you have even if you have the dimmest view of moral justice, you should have figured out that it’s not.
It’s been rather hilariously surreal, as a person of color and the descendant of slaves, the number of times I’ve been lectured about my white privilege and inability to understand the experience of people of color by smug white people on the internet in the last decade. Hate to bust your bubble, but non-white people are not a monolithic blob, we do not need wannabe white saviors to speak for us, and your condescending assumption that anyone who doesn’t share your viewpoint is malicious or stupid is not appreciated.
It is entirely possible to both understand both the historic and ongoing racial problems in this country and also think that people who believe the answer to discrimination is more discrimination are making the problem a lot worse, not better.
The trope “I’m not white and think it’s just fine for police to be ridiculously unprofessional and in some cases just murder people of color” is one of the oldest memes on the Internet. (Although it’s much funnier when it turns out to be a white dude sockpuppeting and forgetting to switch accounts.)
But honestly, who cares what color your skin is? I don’t want to live in a society where police can murder anyone and get away with it. That’s just something no society should be ok with for a second. The fact that the response to some pretty vicious and racially-motivated killings was to shrug and say “gosh, the democrats are bad too” says much more about the speaker’s personal morality than it does about whatever distraction is being offered up.
Same experience, in a pretty diverse area of the country with lots of mixed race kids. Around here boomers still talk a lot about race but it's kind of embarrassing to Gen X / Millennials, who notice it but don't talk about it. The kids don't even seem to notice it.
Once the mixed race kids start growing up to marry other mixed race kids, how could race even keep mattering?
And hopefully their generation (whatever it is) will act that way (I've seen both good signs and bad ones). When you see a generation (or a set of "kids") really not reacting to anyone's skin color or origin (and more "mixed" couples), then it starts to die down. At least in my semi-rural area, I'm not seeing it yet, but I did see more of it in the Bay Area.
I am 61. My parents were quite racist. I think I wasn’t but I had no friends that were not white. My 40 year old kids have minority friends, my 20 year old kids really don’t even see a difference so they hate DEI for the same reason. To them it seems ridiculous.
One of the things that has really crystallized for me in the Trump years is that there are two types of racism. Racism against groups perceived as "lower status than me" (typically anti-black, anti-hispanic, anti-arab racism) and racism against groups perceived as "higher status than me" (typically antisemitism, contemporary anti-asian racism, and anti-white racism). At various different times in history and for different cultures, and from the perspective of different individuals, its been different groups in each category.
Both types of racism are bad of course but the symptoms can be different.
(content notice: racist ideation, which I must emphasize that I don't sympathize with)
Racism against low status groups the story tends to be that "those bad people are not worthy of what we have, they don't share our values, they are disgusting and dangerous, we can't be friends or family, we can have to keep them out and away and fight them if we need to show them their place. They only bring problems disease, crime and immorality." In it's most extreme form it become "they are vermin and we'd be better if we just get rid of them."
Racism against high status groups the story tends to be that "those bad people are to blame for everything that doesn't go my way, they cheat and the collude and they use underhanded methods to rise to top, they have no sympathy or understanding for people like us, and that's why they deliberately let all this bad stuff happen to us. They only bring war, oppression, debt, and propaganda." In it's most extreme form it becomes "any violence we do to them is justified because they rigged the game and left us no other choice. Only by fully destroying them can we ever be truly free."
So long as white people form a majority of rich and influential people in the country, they will be subjected to the second type of racism more than the first.
Of course we see the concepts blend depending on context. There are fully two stereotypes about Indian people, which see them put them into both categories but (in the US) increasingly the second category. And the stereotypes about poor white people increasingly trend towards the first category, who themselves often experience a lot of resentment against white city liberals (which blends with anti-semitism of course). Hispanics as we know well from latin american countries, are themselves a spectrum of ethnic backgrounds, relative statuses, and identifications.
Indeed, racists seem to collect as many racisms they can and combine them in every which way. Some create elaborate hierachies, some throw them into a incoherent catchall bucket of "bad other", a lot of conspiracies abound.
White supremacists, in particular shade into antisemitism so frequently I think in part because they need someone to blame. If everything is terrible and white people are on top of everything, that doesn't work. So even if there were no jews to be found, their role in the hateful ideology would still be needed (filled by catholics, illuminati, foreigners or whoever it may be).
I would agree that creating a stable, multiracial society is a tricky but worthwhile thing to do. I just have absolutely no faith in the Trump administration's interest in or ability to do it. His actions in favor of white people come across more as performative vice-signalling than a well-thought out attempt at building a colorblind society.
Just for an otherwise not worth mentioning comment, I'm 68 and have lived in Iowa with an almost zero percent black population and only intermittent otherwise population. I was raised as a Christian: people are all people ( a new commandment i give you: love others as I have loved you). I don't know the difficulties and problems of minorities in this country as I have not grown up with or lived them. But I have watched them all my life and I as an American abhor them. The person standing next to me is no better nor worse than me unless they prove it. I spent 1985-86 in mainland China teaching science and came away very impressed. I was of course mostly (though not exclusively) exposed to the upper percentage of intellectuals, including XI JinPing.
When I travel now (I'm preparing to move to Canada because this, my birth nation, the one I worked on nuclear weapons guidance systems for, disgusts me) I always wear my hat that says " Make Racism Wrong Again". No one has ever had the guts to tell me they don't like my hat! My last trip I had eight young women compliment me on it and one man my own age tell me he hoped I didn't have trouble crossing the border back INTO the US with it.
To me, on a truly gut level, that says something about the US that discourages me very deeply.
I thought we fought that war but apparently the south (I can't put that in lower script) isn't dead.
My USAF career! I then studied Psych, Sciences, and Math, but ended up with degrees in asian languages and literature ( wanted to read laotzu etc in original text) and went to China in 85-86 to teach and "perfect?" my language skills? I was the only non-chinese in the "village" of Shi Jia Juang (a million or more souls). I learned much about racism. I learned much about many things, including that Americans are not the most intelligent people on the planet simply because there aren't that many of us.
Meeting Xi Jin Ping was just part of being the only non-chinese in a very large area and any and all parties thrown in "my honor" were attended by high party officials. My greatest regret was not meeting Deng Xiao Ping. Without him there would be no "modern China".
just another american dude. There are a lot of us out here that are perhaps exceptional but have no taste for the "viewability" that you make a living at.
Xi Jin Ping was not so important in 1985! Thankfully, I'm no more important now than I was then. I like making furniture and growing food and once in a great while surprising someone from China by speaking to them in their native language.
I grew up in Iowa myself and always thought that the low level of racial strife was because few blacks had ever moved there. But there's a considerable amount of black history of Iowa that is "lost, stolen, or strayed", considerable effort was expended to keep blacks out at various times and to encourage the ones that were there to move on. I don't know the details, but it's on my to-do list to track down some decent information on the subject.
Noah I appreciate your thought process on many topics and it’s why I’m subscribed but everytime you discuss “woke” or race it grates.
“Nor do I look forward to a future where white Americans engage in the kind of violent collective minority behavior that typified the Black Power movement half a century ago.”
Like this quote. This lacks all the context of why the Black Panthers existed and the difference in having explicit discrimination in our laws and what black communities were subjected too.
Framing the remedies to change the explicit discrimination against black Americans as equally to anti discrimination is disingenuous.
Isn't the point that we have already seen a white version of the Black Panthers in the KKK and other White Power movements? The US didn't have white minority sectarian violence only because it had white majority sectarian violence. I largely agreed with your post, but I thought it an omission to say we don't want to see a violent white power movement in America rather than to say we don't want a resurgence of violent white power movements.
I would dispute this. Obv. not standing up for the KKK as I'd be happier if they either 1) renounced everything they believe & enter normal society, or failing that 2) all died. But my grandmother *still to this day* speaks fondly of them because they bought & distributed shoes & groceries in her area during the Depression. They absolutely did actively engage in social outreach in order to whitewash (pun intended) their image.
It's a good point but ... that photo was taken in Olympia, Washington, which didn't have Jim Crow. And for that matter, it was in 1969, so there were no longer "explicit discrimination in our laws and what black communities were subjected too". The difficulty with XXX Power movements and even moderate affirmative action is that the places where they exist tend to be the ones where the group in question is least trodden-upon.
Excellent point. Today's white Americans would have to have suffered a long run of extremely discriminatory policies to find themselves in a situation as dire compared to the rest of the population, as black Americans were in in the 1960's. If that actually happened (I mean actually happened - something which is almost impossible to imagine), then a White Panther movement which aimed to protect white people from the kinds of discrimination and depredations black Americans suffered, would be entirely understandable and yes, justified. But that is a truly planet-sized 'if': Jim Crow, segregation, lynchings in recent memory and the ever-present threat of them, almost complete exclusion from Federally subsidized housing, police attacks, covert discrimination under criminal and civil law. De-platforming, cancellation and even the most radical DEI policies are not even close to being the modern-day, moral equivalents of these things.
Noah, I want to thank you first off for your work in producing this format for understanding and discussion. I also read Cox and Krugman (along with many others including FoX: know your enemy) for their historical and economic perspectives, but your more "sociological?" approach adds dimension to the factual aspects of current affairs. I may not always agree 100% with your analysis of the world, but I found your comparison of current American policy to Ming China very relevant. The isolationism and profoundly weird attempts of the current administration to distance us from the inevitable future developments of technology (none of which I am proficient with though I am cognizant of them) are exceptionally accurate and profoundly saddening. Thanks again. Keep it up.
"...But on the other hand, I think it’s also possible to see Trump’s anti-discrimination lawsuits and investigations as the beginning of something healthier — a shift of white identity politics toward a focus on individual rights and away from traditional strategies of “white supremacy”..."
While I understand that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, I find it discouraging that there are so few who are cognizant of the inevitable future. The races will mix. The religions will mix. The BELIEF SYSTEMS will mix and if we don't exterminate ourselves, our divisiveness will be over much more miniscule elements. We are already beginning to see this in social media. It's not color or hair texture, it's body morphism or some other equally inane aspect of what being human is. Do you have big xxx or small? Do you like X or Y? Our brains are based on neurons that are on or off and I fear we may always look for differences.
The interesting question isn't that we spot differences, but what we as people do about that. Humans are tribal (and we see it all the time - think sports fan of all things). The question is whether we act in the tribal way to see anyone outside our immediate tribe as "other" and not worthy - or whether we just treat them the same way because they are humans.
Over time, our "tribe" identity has gotten bigger (growing up in the South, it really was awful when I was a kid and has improved). But still far from "encompassing" for most people.
I still feel that the "tribal identity" is biologically preceded by a "me vs not me" paradigm. We are organisms with a biology that operates on an "on/off" basis. It may be that our real struggle is to attempt to overcome our individual need to define "them" as different from "me". There is of course always a difference between the two, but the weight we place on that difference is perhaps selective but not definable? I'm not religious or actually even philosophical, just a woodworker now, but sometimes I find one piece of wood that better fits a project than another. It is purely momentary and subjective, but I do find differences and I utilize them for artistic purpose. Is it possible that this, larger, more homogenous society will result from nothing more that these sorts of artistic choices made billions of times by billions of different peoples for "artistic (genetically though not consciously speaking) reasons?
America's relatively happy multiracial society in, say, the 1990s and 2000s, was based on white noblesse oblige. Minorities were allowed to enjoy communities based on ethnic solidarity within the framework of the nation, but white people couldn't do that. In effect, *white* people were the nation, and anyone one who wanted to be part of the mainstream was like an honorary white person. White people's traditions and folkways were simply the basis of national solidarity, and everyone had to be included in them. If white people didn't like that, strong moral pressure was brought to bear to make them be inclusive, since only that enabled the nation to have enough solidarity to be stable and fairly just.
Unfortunately, a growing list of groups sought to benefit from this anomalous phenomenon of antidiscrimination law, and the other legal and policy outworkings of social-engineering a more inclusive society. None of them had anything like the special claim of blacks on the nation's sympathies, but because the special arrangements that had been adopted to overcome the legacy of the nation's sins against blacks were not viewed as a special case, but misinterpreted as general moral principles, America left the list of "protected classes" be extended. After gay marriage won in in 2015, it looked like victimology just beat everything else, hands down as the way to power. The essential impetus of the MAGA movement is, if you can't beat them, join them. Whites need their own victim complex. But a nation splintered into groups with their own rival victimologies can't really work very well.
The best thing would be to reinculcate in whites that old sense of noblesse oblige. But you probably can't really do that unless you can roll back some of the other extensions of the list of protected classes. Only blacks really have a valid claim on the special arrangements that were used to social engineer a more inclusive society. Otherwise, freedom of association should rule.
"white people’s transition to minority status is now inevitable"
Not true. As you point out, a new, selective immigration program could reverse the trend.
But more likely is what is already happening: more people identify as white. I can't find it, but I've seen research that found latin identification as white to be growing, especially among youth. This will keep white-identified in the majority for many decades to come.
It's happened before. Irish used to be an outgroup. Italians used to be an outgroup, etc. But now they're all simply white. With latins in full transition, I would expect to see south asians next.
Yep, almost always useful for people to identify as the group that has power and wealth - as you noted with the Southern European immigrants eventually.
That's undoubtedly a strong incentive, although whites aren't the wealthiest group. However I think cultural and later social assimilation are at least as important.
I have a problem with the 'white' designation, I don't know who it includes and excludes. I am in tech (50+ years) and I work with people from everywhere. A lot of your Latinos (Central / South Americans) could pass for Americans on the street if not for their names or accents. Many of the others could pass as American Indians if not for the names or accents. Northern Indians could pass for Americans on the street if not for their names or accents. The Southern Indians (who are rather more common in tech) are darker but many could pass as Southern Europeans. And many if not most of the Middle Easterners could pass as Southern Europeans as well. And that doesn't begin to deal with children from intermarriage. The East Asian immigrants have been intermarrying into the 'white' population at a significant clip for several generations now and the South Asian immigrants are starting intermarriage now, although I think at a somewhat lower level than the East Asians. The Jews are essentially a Roman patrilineal line blended with local women. Cerainly we tend to count the Askenezai and Sephardic Jews as 'white'.
In my grand parents day a big disctinction was made between Northern European, Southern European, and Eastern Europeans. Not so much anymore.
I have a cousin whose father was African American. He makes no attempt to pass as white - but he easily could.
It seems likely to me that 'white' will be redefined into a larger tent.
Let's not forget that in the early 1900s there was a huge division between Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. Even if you were classified as "white" (and not all Europeans were), if you were Catholic you weren't quite accepted. And Jews were more or less defined not to be white.
But as someone said, "Han Chinese" is an artificial ethnicity as is "white American".
It seems to me that we need to stop attempting to define people by race/subrace/color/linguistic tendencies and start defining people as.................... "people" and attempt to find common ground, not reasons in which we are different.
Yes, but that literally isn't what happens. Of course, skin color is a totally stupid separation biologically. Or most any other human feature - but we see that kind of tribal separation all over the world (not just the US). As you noted, any kind of easily recognizable distinction will work. My experience is that in both Japan and Korea (and probably China), people there very quickly pick out different "races" that I might not even spot.
I am in tech - and I don't really remember or pay much attention to people's ethnicities, I am far more sensitive to intelligence and competence in my area of interest - both of which are highly relevant to my job.
You are lucky and probably from a far more cosmopolitan place than I am. I have to do with making the conscious decision to not be an idiot and prejudge someone based on any one particular aspect of their being. But at least I'm aware of my disability.
I mostly like this, but white ppl are hardly a “minority like any other” when they’re still twice the size of the next biggest minority. White people also have incumbent advantages and social, economic and cultural power in excess of their numbers.
Again, I like the piece and also hope we emphasize individuality. But not all minorities will be equal in the future. White ppl will still have pretty commanding plurality
Is(n't) Preetraj (Raj) Grewal "white"? Why any less so than if their ethnicity were Sicilian or Turkish or Jewish or Iranian? If not, what's their (so-called) "race"?
(Not sure what race has any "incumbent advantage" in Silicon Valley [or at Harvard or UC Berkeley] these days.)
And what the heck is "brown"?
If anything, “white” is more meaningless than it has been in the past.
No I’m not white. I don’t think South Asians are white. I get the categories are blurry sometimes.
You picked three institutions where Asians thrive in greater proportion than our numbers (SV, Harvard, Berkeley). What abt the entire rest of society? Even those institutions have a lot of white legacy bias
I happen to be Jewish -- and (especially after the killings in DC yesterday, or at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh [or among many "progressive, anti-gentrification" circles in Oakland]) I'm certainly always watching my back for antisemitism, and (after 2,000 years of declaring "Next year in Jerusalem") for being told (by "Black Lives Matter" types) that there are places (especially "Palestine" or parts of Oakland) where I can't expect to feel safe, because these are places where (as a "colonizer") I simply don't belong.
And what did "whiteness" have to do with the sacking of Oakland Chinatown (and the destruction of many mom-and-pop businesses there) during the Summer of Floyd?
Back in the day, the town where I grew up (Jericho, Long Island) was 85% Jewish and 15% Italian. Now it's 80% Asian. I hear tell something similar is also true of Sugar Town (or Plano), Texas. As for South Asians, ever been to Milpitas, CA?
Have you noticed the (increasing) extent to which Latinos occupy the same socioeconomic niche in California as Italian Americans in, say, New Jersey (complete with dominance in horticulture, contracting firms, and family-style "red sauce" restaurants)? So how on earth does anyone come up with such ridiculous formulations as "black and brown"?
FWIW, at age 75, I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing “Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud to be -- as an individual, simply and uniquely -- myself. But I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" in the name of some Brave New World.
Meanwhile, I can attend a Passover seder with my family without getting all bent out of shape if someone on the street wishes me a Merry Christmas.
None of this is about some sort of dreadful "assimilation." It's about live-and-let-live!
I agree with most of this but the "Intercommunal Violence" thing is a little too pat. Groups like the Black Panthers formed when "intercommunal violence" = state sanctioned repression. People in the 60s had living memory of KKK lynchings and could see abusive police in any town in the South. The original "segregated communities" were majority white communities where whites held political power and thus coercive power. They didn't need to form "militias" because their militias were the police, not to mention lawyers and doctors playing dress up. Things are better today but it's foolish to think that this dynamic is completely gone. The "Constitutional Sheriff" movement in the US is basically a reinvigoration of this idea: "If my community elected me to enforce the law, I can do whatever the fuck I want." So no, we shouldn't have racialized militias on either "side" (white or otherwise), and it's pretty much always a losing strategy for minorities to pursue the strategy of domination-through-marjority-rule that historically worked well for white in America. But that's why you need state and federal governments actually committed to upholding civil rights.
Honestly, when I heard that 70% of the Civil Rights division's staff resigned over the choice to start suing on behalf of white plaintiffs, my immediate reaction was "good riddance". People who think anti-discrimination laws should be selectively enforced on behalf of their favored ethnic groups -- especially if they're in the position to decide which cases to enforce -- are some of the most corrosive elements to the entire project of national integration.
Of course, it may very well be that Trump is simply going to replace them with the exact same kind of person, just with a different set of favored ethnic groups. I really wish it didn't feel like I'm being asked to vote for two parties full of racists who simply disagree on who to target.
I would resign not because I have some objection to suing on behalf of white plaintiffs on an evenhanded basis as everyone else, but because I don't trust the Trump administration to act in good faith. Given this administration's proneness to vice-signalling and pandering to white identity politics, I assume this has less to do with giving white people access to the same level of service as non-white people than it does with appealing to his groyper base by favoring white people.
It's just like the way I have no objection to white South Africans seeking asylum in the United States, but I do object to him providing them with favoritism just because they're white.
They didn't resign over "even handed" application of anti-discrimination law. They resigned over weaponization of the law to prosecute Thought Crimes, like "anti-semitism" on campuses. I don't blame people who left. I also hope that good ones stayed because we are headed down some serious 1984 shit right now.
The nature of DoJ is being changed under the current administration. I can't speak for any of the lawyers who resigned, but 6 months ago they were not "the President's lawyers." They were the US government's lawyers - the lawyers representing the People. Now, they are expected to be Trump's lawyers, not describing the law or advising a client to follow the law but trying to use the legal system to carry out the beliefs and desires of 1 person (2 if we're being generous and including the Attorney General). That's a structural and philosophical shift that results in a variety of changes: dropping cases that may have merit, opening investigations on the basis of conspiracy theory and crowd-sourced finger pointing, calling out investigated people who won't have charges brought but DoJ has decided are bad people anyway (that's their idea, not some spin of mine). Even specifically here, they are being turned toward, among other things, investigating purported anti-Christian bias and trans activism. All that completely apart from race (except insofar as the administration's understanding of "Christianity" may be limited to branches common among some races more than others). It is an undue oversimplification to say that lawyers leaving just don't want to prosecute cases in favor of white people.
Look, I don’t want to burst your ridiculous bubble. But actually some pretty terrible shit happens to non-white people in this country that you and I, as presumably white (or perhaps just clueless) people, would absolutely go ballistic over if it happened to you or a family member.
The cops who did terrible things to black people absolutely should have been fired and replaced with real professional police officers who could do the job well. The fact that America, as well as Noah, has decided to label this *absolutely reasonable* reaction as some kind of weird political over correction will be a source of abiding shame for you, Noah, and everyone involved with the thing. History will remember none of you kindly.
But yes, by all means write about how everything is just the same. But if you have even if you have the dimmest view of moral justice, you should have figured out that it’s not.
It’s been rather hilariously surreal, as a person of color and the descendant of slaves, the number of times I’ve been lectured about my white privilege and inability to understand the experience of people of color by smug white people on the internet in the last decade. Hate to bust your bubble, but non-white people are not a monolithic blob, we do not need wannabe white saviors to speak for us, and your condescending assumption that anyone who doesn’t share your viewpoint is malicious or stupid is not appreciated.
It is entirely possible to both understand both the historic and ongoing racial problems in this country and also think that people who believe the answer to discrimination is more discrimination are making the problem a lot worse, not better.
The trope “I’m not white and think it’s just fine for police to be ridiculously unprofessional and in some cases just murder people of color” is one of the oldest memes on the Internet. (Although it’s much funnier when it turns out to be a white dude sockpuppeting and forgetting to switch accounts.)
But honestly, who cares what color your skin is? I don’t want to live in a society where police can murder anyone and get away with it. That’s just something no society should be ok with for a second. The fact that the response to some pretty vicious and racially-motivated killings was to shrug and say “gosh, the democrats are bad too” says much more about the speaker’s personal morality than it does about whatever distraction is being offered up.
fwiw, my kids view themselves as pretty post-racial and find all the haranguing about race really annoying
Same experience, in a pretty diverse area of the country with lots of mixed race kids. Around here boomers still talk a lot about race but it's kind of embarrassing to Gen X / Millennials, who notice it but don't talk about it. The kids don't even seem to notice it.
Once the mixed race kids start growing up to marry other mixed race kids, how could race even keep mattering?
This is Richard Alba's thesis in action!
His book is a bit dry, but really good:
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Demographic-Illusion-Expanding-Mainstream/dp/0691201633
And hopefully their generation (whatever it is) will act that way (I've seen both good signs and bad ones). When you see a generation (or a set of "kids") really not reacting to anyone's skin color or origin (and more "mixed" couples), then it starts to die down. At least in my semi-rural area, I'm not seeing it yet, but I did see more of it in the Bay Area.
Understandable.
Yep
I am 61. My parents were quite racist. I think I wasn’t but I had no friends that were not white. My 40 year old kids have minority friends, my 20 year old kids really don’t even see a difference so they hate DEI for the same reason. To them it seems ridiculous.
I think that's the future. And it's a good one!
One of the things that has really crystallized for me in the Trump years is that there are two types of racism. Racism against groups perceived as "lower status than me" (typically anti-black, anti-hispanic, anti-arab racism) and racism against groups perceived as "higher status than me" (typically antisemitism, contemporary anti-asian racism, and anti-white racism). At various different times in history and for different cultures, and from the perspective of different individuals, its been different groups in each category.
Both types of racism are bad of course but the symptoms can be different.
(content notice: racist ideation, which I must emphasize that I don't sympathize with)
Racism against low status groups the story tends to be that "those bad people are not worthy of what we have, they don't share our values, they are disgusting and dangerous, we can't be friends or family, we can have to keep them out and away and fight them if we need to show them their place. They only bring problems disease, crime and immorality." In it's most extreme form it become "they are vermin and we'd be better if we just get rid of them."
Racism against high status groups the story tends to be that "those bad people are to blame for everything that doesn't go my way, they cheat and the collude and they use underhanded methods to rise to top, they have no sympathy or understanding for people like us, and that's why they deliberately let all this bad stuff happen to us. They only bring war, oppression, debt, and propaganda." In it's most extreme form it becomes "any violence we do to them is justified because they rigged the game and left us no other choice. Only by fully destroying them can we ever be truly free."
So long as white people form a majority of rich and influential people in the country, they will be subjected to the second type of racism more than the first.
Of course we see the concepts blend depending on context. There are fully two stereotypes about Indian people, which see them put them into both categories but (in the US) increasingly the second category. And the stereotypes about poor white people increasingly trend towards the first category, who themselves often experience a lot of resentment against white city liberals (which blends with anti-semitism of course). Hispanics as we know well from latin american countries, are themselves a spectrum of ethnic backgrounds, relative statuses, and identifications.
Any Chua wrote a book about this!
But MAGA is combining both forms in saying that elites are conspiring to use the lower status minorities against “Real Americans “
Indeed, racists seem to collect as many racisms they can and combine them in every which way. Some create elaborate hierachies, some throw them into a incoherent catchall bucket of "bad other", a lot of conspiracies abound.
White supremacists, in particular shade into antisemitism so frequently I think in part because they need someone to blame. If everything is terrible and white people are on top of everything, that doesn't work. So even if there were no jews to be found, their role in the hateful ideology would still be needed (filled by catholics, illuminati, foreigners or whoever it may be).
I would agree that creating a stable, multiracial society is a tricky but worthwhile thing to do. I just have absolutely no faith in the Trump administration's interest in or ability to do it. His actions in favor of white people come across more as performative vice-signalling than a well-thought out attempt at building a colorblind society.
Just for an otherwise not worth mentioning comment, I'm 68 and have lived in Iowa with an almost zero percent black population and only intermittent otherwise population. I was raised as a Christian: people are all people ( a new commandment i give you: love others as I have loved you). I don't know the difficulties and problems of minorities in this country as I have not grown up with or lived them. But I have watched them all my life and I as an American abhor them. The person standing next to me is no better nor worse than me unless they prove it. I spent 1985-86 in mainland China teaching science and came away very impressed. I was of course mostly (though not exclusively) exposed to the upper percentage of intellectuals, including XI JinPing.
When I travel now (I'm preparing to move to Canada because this, my birth nation, the one I worked on nuclear weapons guidance systems for, disgusts me) I always wear my hat that says " Make Racism Wrong Again". No one has ever had the guts to tell me they don't like my hat! My last trip I had eight young women compliment me on it and one man my own age tell me he hoped I didn't have trouble crossing the border back INTO the US with it.
To me, on a truly gut level, that says something about the US that discourages me very deeply.
I thought we fought that war but apparently the south (I can't put that in lower script) isn't dead.
You work on nuclear guidance systems, and they let you meet Xi Jinping???? :-o
My USAF career! I then studied Psych, Sciences, and Math, but ended up with degrees in asian languages and literature ( wanted to read laotzu etc in original text) and went to China in 85-86 to teach and "perfect?" my language skills? I was the only non-chinese in the "village" of Shi Jia Juang (a million or more souls). I learned much about racism. I learned much about many things, including that Americans are not the most intelligent people on the planet simply because there aren't that many of us.
Meeting Xi Jin Ping was just part of being the only non-chinese in a very large area and any and all parties thrown in "my honor" were attended by high party officials. My greatest regret was not meeting Deng Xiao Ping. Without him there would be no "modern China".
Wowwwww
I also find that there is sometimes more influence being in the background and whispering than being in the foreground and talking.
but i do thank you
just another american dude. There are a lot of us out here that are perhaps exceptional but have no taste for the "viewability" that you make a living at.
Xi Jin Ping was not so important in 1985! Thankfully, I'm no more important now than I was then. I like making furniture and growing food and once in a great while surprising someone from China by speaking to them in their native language.
1
I grew up in Iowa myself and always thought that the low level of racial strife was because few blacks had ever moved there. But there's a considerable amount of black history of Iowa that is "lost, stolen, or strayed", considerable effort was expended to keep blacks out at various times and to encourage the ones that were there to move on. I don't know the details, but it's on my to-do list to track down some decent information on the subject.
Noah I appreciate your thought process on many topics and it’s why I’m subscribed but everytime you discuss “woke” or race it grates.
“Nor do I look forward to a future where white Americans engage in the kind of violent collective minority behavior that typified the Black Power movement half a century ago.”
Like this quote. This lacks all the context of why the Black Panthers existed and the difference in having explicit discrimination in our laws and what black communities were subjected too.
Framing the remedies to change the explicit discrimination against black Americans as equally to anti discrimination is disingenuous.
Well tell me this, Winston. Would *you* like to see a white version of the Black Panthers??
Isn't the point that we have already seen a white version of the Black Panthers in the KKK and other White Power movements? The US didn't have white minority sectarian violence only because it had white majority sectarian violence. I largely agreed with your post, but I thought it an omission to say we don't want to see a violent white power movement in America rather than to say we don't want a resurgence of violent white power movements.
Others have replied but I will add that the framing of the Panthers as an organization specifically for violence against white people is incorrect.
Ok but can you answer my question???
We have them - a number of the white militias are exactly that - except without the public service portion that the Panthers actually did locally.
Jeez, isn't there a limit to the mileage they can get out of that breakfast program? And since when do you need a machine gun to serve kids breakfast?
I would dispute this. Obv. not standing up for the KKK as I'd be happier if they either 1) renounced everything they believe & enter normal society, or failing that 2) all died. But my grandmother *still to this day* speaks fondly of them because they bought & distributed shoes & groceries in her area during the Depression. They absolutely did actively engage in social outreach in order to whitewash (pun intended) their image.
“Would” implies a hypothetical. Have you not heard of the KKK?
We did. They're called the KKK.
There was a white version of the Black Panthers - they worked with Fred Hampton and the Puerto Rican Young Lords in Chicago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Patriots_Organization
It's a good point but ... that photo was taken in Olympia, Washington, which didn't have Jim Crow. And for that matter, it was in 1969, so there were no longer "explicit discrimination in our laws and what black communities were subjected too". The difficulty with XXX Power movements and even moderate affirmative action is that the places where they exist tend to be the ones where the group in question is least trodden-upon.
Excellent point. Today's white Americans would have to have suffered a long run of extremely discriminatory policies to find themselves in a situation as dire compared to the rest of the population, as black Americans were in in the 1960's. If that actually happened (I mean actually happened - something which is almost impossible to imagine), then a White Panther movement which aimed to protect white people from the kinds of discrimination and depredations black Americans suffered, would be entirely understandable and yes, justified. But that is a truly planet-sized 'if': Jim Crow, segregation, lynchings in recent memory and the ever-present threat of them, almost complete exclusion from Federally subsidized housing, police attacks, covert discrimination under criminal and civil law. De-platforming, cancellation and even the most radical DEI policies are not even close to being the modern-day, moral equivalents of these things.
Noah, I want to thank you first off for your work in producing this format for understanding and discussion. I also read Cox and Krugman (along with many others including FoX: know your enemy) for their historical and economic perspectives, but your more "sociological?" approach adds dimension to the factual aspects of current affairs. I may not always agree 100% with your analysis of the world, but I found your comparison of current American policy to Ming China very relevant. The isolationism and profoundly weird attempts of the current administration to distance us from the inevitable future developments of technology (none of which I am proficient with though I am cognizant of them) are exceptionally accurate and profoundly saddening. Thanks again. Keep it up.
Wow.
"...But on the other hand, I think it’s also possible to see Trump’s anti-discrimination lawsuits and investigations as the beginning of something healthier — a shift of white identity politics toward a focus on individual rights and away from traditional strategies of “white supremacy”..."
While I understand that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, I find it discouraging that there are so few who are cognizant of the inevitable future. The races will mix. The religions will mix. The BELIEF SYSTEMS will mix and if we don't exterminate ourselves, our divisiveness will be over much more miniscule elements. We are already beginning to see this in social media. It's not color or hair texture, it's body morphism or some other equally inane aspect of what being human is. Do you have big xxx or small? Do you like X or Y? Our brains are based on neurons that are on or off and I fear we may always look for differences.
The interesting question isn't that we spot differences, but what we as people do about that. Humans are tribal (and we see it all the time - think sports fan of all things). The question is whether we act in the tribal way to see anyone outside our immediate tribe as "other" and not worthy - or whether we just treat them the same way because they are humans.
Over time, our "tribe" identity has gotten bigger (growing up in the South, it really was awful when I was a kid and has improved). But still far from "encompassing" for most people.
I’ve always thought sports was a means of training people to be tribalistic.
I still feel that the "tribal identity" is biologically preceded by a "me vs not me" paradigm. We are organisms with a biology that operates on an "on/off" basis. It may be that our real struggle is to attempt to overcome our individual need to define "them" as different from "me". There is of course always a difference between the two, but the weight we place on that difference is perhaps selective but not definable? I'm not religious or actually even philosophical, just a woodworker now, but sometimes I find one piece of wood that better fits a project than another. It is purely momentary and subjective, but I do find differences and I utilize them for artistic purpose. Is it possible that this, larger, more homogenous society will result from nothing more that these sorts of artistic choices made billions of times by billions of different peoples for "artistic (genetically though not consciously speaking) reasons?
There’s some uncomfortable intellectual honesty here. Not sure I’m on board, but good for you for putting it out there Noah.
America's relatively happy multiracial society in, say, the 1990s and 2000s, was based on white noblesse oblige. Minorities were allowed to enjoy communities based on ethnic solidarity within the framework of the nation, but white people couldn't do that. In effect, *white* people were the nation, and anyone one who wanted to be part of the mainstream was like an honorary white person. White people's traditions and folkways were simply the basis of national solidarity, and everyone had to be included in them. If white people didn't like that, strong moral pressure was brought to bear to make them be inclusive, since only that enabled the nation to have enough solidarity to be stable and fairly just.
Unfortunately, a growing list of groups sought to benefit from this anomalous phenomenon of antidiscrimination law, and the other legal and policy outworkings of social-engineering a more inclusive society. None of them had anything like the special claim of blacks on the nation's sympathies, but because the special arrangements that had been adopted to overcome the legacy of the nation's sins against blacks were not viewed as a special case, but misinterpreted as general moral principles, America left the list of "protected classes" be extended. After gay marriage won in in 2015, it looked like victimology just beat everything else, hands down as the way to power. The essential impetus of the MAGA movement is, if you can't beat them, join them. Whites need their own victim complex. But a nation splintered into groups with their own rival victimologies can't really work very well.
The best thing would be to reinculcate in whites that old sense of noblesse oblige. But you probably can't really do that unless you can roll back some of the other extensions of the list of protected classes. Only blacks really have a valid claim on the special arrangements that were used to social engineer a more inclusive society. Otherwise, freedom of association should rule.
"white people’s transition to minority status is now inevitable"
Not true. As you point out, a new, selective immigration program could reverse the trend.
But more likely is what is already happening: more people identify as white. I can't find it, but I've seen research that found latin identification as white to be growing, especially among youth. This will keep white-identified in the majority for many decades to come.
It's happened before. Irish used to be an outgroup. Italians used to be an outgroup, etc. But now they're all simply white. With latins in full transition, I would expect to see south asians next.
Yep, almost always useful for people to identify as the group that has power and wealth - as you noted with the Southern European immigrants eventually.
That's undoubtedly a strong incentive, although whites aren't the wealthiest group. However I think cultural and later social assimilation are at least as important.
I have a problem with the 'white' designation, I don't know who it includes and excludes. I am in tech (50+ years) and I work with people from everywhere. A lot of your Latinos (Central / South Americans) could pass for Americans on the street if not for their names or accents. Many of the others could pass as American Indians if not for the names or accents. Northern Indians could pass for Americans on the street if not for their names or accents. The Southern Indians (who are rather more common in tech) are darker but many could pass as Southern Europeans. And many if not most of the Middle Easterners could pass as Southern Europeans as well. And that doesn't begin to deal with children from intermarriage. The East Asian immigrants have been intermarrying into the 'white' population at a significant clip for several generations now and the South Asian immigrants are starting intermarriage now, although I think at a somewhat lower level than the East Asians. The Jews are essentially a Roman patrilineal line blended with local women. Cerainly we tend to count the Askenezai and Sephardic Jews as 'white'.
In my grand parents day a big disctinction was made between Northern European, Southern European, and Eastern Europeans. Not so much anymore.
I have a cousin whose father was African American. He makes no attempt to pass as white - but he easily could.
It seems likely to me that 'white' will be redefined into a larger tent.
Let's not forget that in the early 1900s there was a huge division between Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. Even if you were classified as "white" (and not all Europeans were), if you were Catholic you weren't quite accepted. And Jews were more or less defined not to be white.
But as someone said, "Han Chinese" is an artificial ethnicity as is "white American".
It seems to me that we need to stop attempting to define people by race/subrace/color/linguistic tendencies and start defining people as.................... "people" and attempt to find common ground, not reasons in which we are different.
Yes, but that literally isn't what happens. Of course, skin color is a totally stupid separation biologically. Or most any other human feature - but we see that kind of tribal separation all over the world (not just the US). As you noted, any kind of easily recognizable distinction will work. My experience is that in both Japan and Korea (and probably China), people there very quickly pick out different "races" that I might not even spot.
I am in tech - and I don't really remember or pay much attention to people's ethnicities, I am far more sensitive to intelligence and competence in my area of interest - both of which are highly relevant to my job.
You are lucky and probably from a far more cosmopolitan place than I am. I have to do with making the conscious decision to not be an idiot and prejudge someone based on any one particular aspect of their being. But at least I'm aware of my disability.
I mostly like this, but white ppl are hardly a “minority like any other” when they’re still twice the size of the next biggest minority. White people also have incumbent advantages and social, economic and cultural power in excess of their numbers.
Again, I like the piece and also hope we emphasize individuality. But not all minorities will be equal in the future. White ppl will still have pretty commanding plurality
and power and wealth.....
"White ppl will still have pretty commanding plurality"?
Depends on whom you count as "white."
I mean, it’s always depended on that. If anything, “white” is more cohesive than it has been in the past when it didn’t include Italians or Irish
Is(n't) Preetraj (Raj) Grewal "white"? Why any less so than if their ethnicity were Sicilian or Turkish or Jewish or Iranian? If not, what's their (so-called) "race"?
(Not sure what race has any "incumbent advantage" in Silicon Valley [or at Harvard or UC Berkeley] these days.)
And what the heck is "brown"?
If anything, “white” is more meaningless than it has been in the past.
No I’m not white. I don’t think South Asians are white. I get the categories are blurry sometimes.
You picked three institutions where Asians thrive in greater proportion than our numbers (SV, Harvard, Berkeley). What abt the entire rest of society? Even those institutions have a lot of white legacy bias
I happen to be Jewish -- and (especially after the killings in DC yesterday, or at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh [or among many "progressive, anti-gentrification" circles in Oakland]) I'm certainly always watching my back for antisemitism, and (after 2,000 years of declaring "Next year in Jerusalem") for being told (by "Black Lives Matter" types) that there are places (especially "Palestine" or parts of Oakland) where I can't expect to feel safe, because these are places where (as a "colonizer") I simply don't belong.
And what did "whiteness" have to do with the sacking of Oakland Chinatown (and the destruction of many mom-and-pop businesses there) during the Summer of Floyd?
Back in the day, the town where I grew up (Jericho, Long Island) was 85% Jewish and 15% Italian. Now it's 80% Asian. I hear tell something similar is also true of Sugar Town (or Plano), Texas. As for South Asians, ever been to Milpitas, CA?
Have you noticed the (increasing) extent to which Latinos occupy the same socioeconomic niche in California as Italian Americans in, say, New Jersey (complete with dominance in horticulture, contracting firms, and family-style "red sauce" restaurants)? So how on earth does anyone come up with such ridiculous formulations as "black and brown"?
FWIW, at age 75, I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing “Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud to be -- as an individual, simply and uniquely -- myself. But I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" in the name of some Brave New World.
Meanwhile, I can attend a Passover seder with my family without getting all bent out of shape if someone on the street wishes me a Merry Christmas.
None of this is about some sort of dreadful "assimilation." It's about live-and-let-live!
What's "white" got to do with it?
I agree with most of this but the "Intercommunal Violence" thing is a little too pat. Groups like the Black Panthers formed when "intercommunal violence" = state sanctioned repression. People in the 60s had living memory of KKK lynchings and could see abusive police in any town in the South. The original "segregated communities" were majority white communities where whites held political power and thus coercive power. They didn't need to form "militias" because their militias were the police, not to mention lawyers and doctors playing dress up. Things are better today but it's foolish to think that this dynamic is completely gone. The "Constitutional Sheriff" movement in the US is basically a reinvigoration of this idea: "If my community elected me to enforce the law, I can do whatever the fuck I want." So no, we shouldn't have racialized militias on either "side" (white or otherwise), and it's pretty much always a losing strategy for minorities to pursue the strategy of domination-through-marjority-rule that historically worked well for white in America. But that's why you need state and federal governments actually committed to upholding civil rights.