How Is America Going To End?
slate.com
slate.com
If this did happen, it would be the result of suicidal national policies that increase the degree of race-consciousness in American society. In my youth, "Hispanic" was not a federally counted category, and it wasn't a category in the MINDS of most people who lived then in the United States. (How many of you are old enough to remember the first clumsy category of "Spanish-surnamed Americans"?) Once upon a time, people now categorized as "Hispanic" mostly categorized themselves as "white," with some localities being prejudicially aware of "Mexicans," but anyway the overall aspiration was an aspiration of assimilation, not of "racial warfare." Let me tell another story about that.
I'm a baby boomer, which is another way of saying that I'm a good bit older than most people who post on Hacker News. I distinctly remember the day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated--the most memorable day of early childhood for many people in my generation--and I remember the "long hot summer" and other events of the 1960s civil rights movement.
One early memory I have is of a second grade classmate (I still remember his name, which alas is just common enough that it is hard to Google him up) who moved back to Minnesota with his northern "white" parents after spending his early years in Alabama. He told me frightening stories about Ku Klux Klan violence to black people (the polite term in those days was "Negroes"), including killing babies, and I was very upset to hear about that kind of terrorism happening in the United States. He made me aware of a society in which people didn't all treat one another with decency and human compassion, unlike the only kind of society I was initially aware of from growing up where I did. So I followed subsequent news about the civil rights movement, including the activities of Martin Luther King, Jr. up to his assassination, with great interest.
It happens that I had a fifth-grade teacher, a typically pale, tall, and blonde Norwegian-American, who was a civil rights activist and who spent her summers in the south as a freedom rider. She used to tell our class about how she had to modify her car (by removing the dome light and adding a locking gas cap) so that Klan snipers couldn't shoot her as she opened her car door at night or put foreign substances into her gas tank. She has been a civil rights activist all her life, and when I Googled her a few years ago and regained acquaintance with her, I was not at all surprised to find that she is a member of the civil rights commission of the town where I grew up.
One day in fifth grade we had a guest speaker in our class, a young man who was then studying at St. Olaf College through the A Better Chance (ABC) affirmative action program. (To me, the term "affirmative action" still means active recruitment of underrepresented minority students, as it did in those days, and I have always thought that such programs are a very good idea, as some people have family connections to selective colleges, but many other people don't.) During that school year (1968-1969), there was a current controversy in the United States about whether the term "Negro" or "Afro-American" or "black" was most polite. So a girl in my class asked our visitor, "What do you want to be called, 'black' or 'Afro-American'?" His answer was, "I'd rather be called Henry." Henry's answer to my classmate's innocent question really got me thinking.
I am appalled that forty years later, a typical college applicant has to wonder, "What 'race' should I mark on my application form?" and "Can I just leave that question blank?" Current federal policies are not helping us regard our neighbor Henry as Henry. They are not helping us regard all our fellow citizens as fellow citizens. That's an intentionally risky policy.
P.S. Does anyone else remember when all south Asian people were reclassified as belonging to the "Asian" race rather than the "white" race? That's an example of how arbitrary the federal categories are.
Here's the latest federal regulation on the subject:
But it's a worse fallacy to say that broad racial groups don't exist. Beyond your lying eyes, a single glance at an SNP map will inform you of how genetic variance tends to clump.
Risky policy is relying on blank slate thinking to imagine that we can import the third world without, well, importing the third world. It's a consequence of living in a country where neither the left nor the right believe that evolutionary theory really applies to humans.
http://gustavus.edu/events/nobelconference/2008/feldman-lect...
1) The United States federal categories don't correspond to the categories he found.
2) Most phenotypical traits of interest have WEAK correlations with any of the groupings he found, as he says near the end of his lecture during the Q and A. The reason for that is that the SNP lineages that show founder effects are not subject to selection pressure, but most phenotypical traits of interest ARE subject to selection pressure, and so those gene frequencies will change over time in any population, whoever the founders are, for the fitness of descendant individuals.
On how general national policy should treat immigrants, didn't I imply clearly that it would be a good idea for all immigrants to the United States to build together a common American culture? But culture is not tied to "race" in the federal definitional sense. Some new immigrants from the Third World think like First World people, and some native-born Americans of many generations of American ancestry think like Third World people. A democratic republic needs citizens (voters) who are rational and well informed and committed to building a strong joint community, yes, but it's not clear at the outset who should be excluded from an opportunity to show that they can join that cause.
Hawks at Utah has written about Feldman on his blog, I believe.
In fact, SNP maps tend to be very detailed and show the variation one would expect plus variation we didn't know about before. Click for some pictures: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/02/npr-on-human-variation.php
Your philosophizing on immigration strikes me as informed by equality theory rather than reality and evidence.
What reality and evidence are you talking about? Have you lived in more than one country?
You made lots and lots of general statements that would make my kindergarten teacher's heart glad, but don't present any actual facts. That makes me think that you argue based on the world you'd like to exist, not the one that actually does.
I'm not sure exactly why you're appalled. You seem to think that the "Civil Rights" movement was about bringing-us-all-together, so that we could be judged as individuals, etc, etc. I guess that was the rhetoric.
The reason that institutions such as colleges categorize people is that it's a necessary condition to satisfy the racial spoils system (affirmative action, implicit quotas, etc). That spoils system is the natural result of the "civil rights" movement. "Who, whom" is the only question in politics. No one...and I mean no one except the truly brainwashed...wants equality when superiority is available.
Back in 1965, it may have been possible for a large portion of the population to subsidize a small portion in this manner. The mathematics allow the bottom 10 percent of whites to give up lawyer jobs, doctor jobs, academic jobs, etc, so that marginal black people could have those positions. It's a despicable crime, but not socially calamitous. But as that large majority becomes a minority, you have the following certain events:
1. It is increasingly difficult to supply a majority population of blacks and hispanics with the affirmative action benefits which a portion of their livelihood has become dependent on.
2. The remaining whites are not only fewer in number, but much older. The old ones themselves become tax-eaters.
3. Via #1 and #2, the remaining young white people (and Asians) simply will not be able to pay everyone who has their hand out.
This isn't prophecy but mathematics. The prophecy is, "Who will suffer from this?"
In regards to: "No one...and I mean no one except the truly brainwashed...wants equality when superiority is available."
I guess you will have to classify me as brainwashed. The desire for superiority is an ill that should be "brainwashed" out of those that suffer from it.
Yes, so I think many participants here would consider it beneath their dignity to use the political system to gain benefits that they can gain by trading in the free market. Some people do indeed use the political system as a spoils system, but I wouldn't title someone an entrepreneur who does that.
Aiming at equality in that sense is not the least bit incompatible with hoping to succeed by being clever and working hard to do something that others value.
If the Racism Fairy appeared before me and told me that I could have a life that was "better as opposed to worse, above as opposed to under" by (say) stealing half the property of all the black people in the country and giving it to white people -- I happen to be white, so I'd gain rather than lose from that -- then I would turn down that offer. If the Anti-Racism Fairy appeared instead and offered to obliterate every vestige of racial prejudice, but warned that it would make white people (including me) slightly worse off, I'd say yes in a flash. And if you don't believe me because you think "kto kogo?" is the only question, then fuck you and the (doubtless white) horse you rode in on.
Affirmative action isn't about giving up the bottom 10% to unqualified minorities. It's about giving qualified candidates an opportunity they would otherwise have been denied. If the institution chooses to waste those spots on unqualified minority applicants, it's the fault of the institution and not affirmative action in general.
BTW, you appear to be conflating welfare with affirmative action in #1, 2, and 3. They aren't even remotely the same thing.
I can see how policies can make things worse. So how would you recommend doing it different? My best guess is that not doing anything ensures problems get worse or stay the same.
My perspective is from growing up in a small town in south Georgia. I left in '87 and am visiting here at the moment. 22 years after I left, the racial divide is exactly like it was. What will happen in 2050 if that "Hispanic" population still has things then just like they are now? I can certainly see a tipping point towards violence.
Your anecdote as seeing Henry as Henry is spot on the way it should be. But how do we get there? Its not that way today with the policies implemented. It wasn't that way prior to the policies being implemented. So I'm guessing it won't get there by doing nothing or removing the policies.
National leaders and government policies have to tend consciously and intentionally toward reminding people who share a country that they are more alike than different, and that "race" categories are arbitrary. The United States Census officials who post the official definitions
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68176.htm
already acknowledge this when they write, "These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature." But the federal officials who have academic training in demography and who know about all the failures of definitions and ambiguous cases need a lot more back-up from elected officials and everyday members of the general public in insisting that we are all mostly Americans here, and terms describing a person's general pattern of physical appearance and presumed ancestry may say nothing about the person's ability to get along with his or her neighbors or to be an active contributor to free, democratic, free-enterprise society. In earlier days, there were race-conscious policies of a different kind in the United States, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Jim Crow policies of legally enforced segregation. If we stay race conscious for too many more years, the segregationists will have won, as their corrupt thinking will have spread all around the country, to regions that formerly didn't know it.
While in my home town in south Georgia, I listen some to the talk radio which I assume much of the locals listen to. Most of it is various forms of veiled posturing for 2010 elections. I hear undertones of racism and classism in most of the chatter. We seem to have evolved from being openly racist (20++ years ago) to being racist without having to talk about it directly.
You probably hear it because it's mostly in your head. A common problem with "intellectuals" who expect southerners and "rednecks" to be racists.
The United States is unlikely to break up. The Russian "professor" that they reference in the article seems to know less about the United States than the people who made the "United States of Canada/Jesusland" maps which were meant to be humorous. We are too mobile a society. Many of us have friends and family all across the country. I mean, you wouldn't want to cross a border to get to a relative's house. Nor would you want to have to deal with tariffs/importation on something you got from Amazon. If anything, the world wants less of that as evidenced by the European Union. Now, the US might become more localized and that would suit some, but we aren't going to see a dramatic breakup.
And what people forget is that, through all the nonsense that's gone on in the past decade, we aren't actually that different. We have a common culture, even if that culture is a result of many cultures. It binds us together even through the heated arguments of the recent past/present.
Catastrophe is unlikely as well for a few reasons. First, it's hard to replace the US government which makes it hard to implement any sort of unchecked policy. To replace the President takes 4 years; to replace the legislative branch takes 6 - and it can't be done on a whim, it has to be 6 years of people deciding to go the same way. In other governments, you can completely switch the government in a week. Second, there are more checks and balances. The executive isn't a prime minister, but rather separate from the legislature. And we have a constitution that grants limited powers and yes, to this day still provides a good check on authority despite what has happened in the recent past. Third, US politics are local politics. Senators and especially Representatives aren't easily replaced because they form roots in their communities. Even beyond that, you can't appeal to fringe groups to get elected. While 1% of the country might think that a fascist or a stalinist would be good to have in government, they get no representation because they aren't able to carry a district. In other countries, representation is usually done on the basis of how much of the national vote you get which means that radical elements have a much greater say in those governments.
Now, some of what I've mentioned above can come off as bad things - they certainly mean that it's hard to implement good, new policies. But that also means that it's hard to implement bad, new policies.
Plus, for all the crap that I'll give the US government, they are genuinely responsive to big things. I mean, unemployment is around 10% right now. In many highly developed places (like Europe), that's not even bad. And everyone on television is calling this the worst crisis of our time. Where I grew up, unemployment was, during good times, about 20%. Now, the US doesn't have the social services that make unemployment more livable so it's very harsh on those who are unemployed, but we've seen the government take steps to make sure that things, generally speaking, run smoothly. I mean, Argentina a little while back had a huge crisis that really wiped out the middle class - robbing them of the vast majority of their money (cash money). While one might not like some of the steps that the US government has taken, it has meant that no one's bank account has been lost (at the very least).
And Americans aren't radicals. I mean, I have friends who call themselves radical, but what they mean by that is that they have a CSA (community shared agriculture) and would like European-style socialism. Oh, and maybe taking a year off somewhere to work on a hippy farm. No guns, no violence, no death to people that don't think like them. No looting, no riots. . . We sure as hell yell about things and have strong opinions (like the Professor Gates incident in Cambridge, MA), but has there been mass violence in response or whatnot? No, life has gone on as normal.
Even when one looks at immigration, the US is one of the most immigrant friendly countries. That might be hard to believe given some of the rhetoric, but we're one of the few countries that still has "born on a rock, citizen of that rock". Even beyond that, what's our anti-immigrant policies? The biggest seems to be the national language debate which, while possibly symbolically important, wouldn't have a practical impact. I mean, anywhere that currently provides foreign language assistance would continue to. Laws are already written in English. English is the lingua franca. And yes, there is a dislike of "illegal" or "undocumented" immigration (depending on the side of the debate you come from) and there have been (in some places) harsh measures taken. But the attitude toward legal immigration is much better than in many places in Europe. France just a few years back had huge riots over this issue with wonderful flaming cars and all. Heck, the right-wing position in this country tends to be "well, smart people are always good to have coming in and the dumb ones are taking jobs no one wants anyway."
--
There are simply too many nice practicalities to staying together (like currency, ease of travel and commerce, etc.) and too few radical elements. And the US has a great history of absorbing immigrants and facing the problems that have befell it. I mean, we got through a civil war, two world wars, and the cold war. While we might have problems now, they aren't of the same magnitude. Yes, we need to face the challenges of today. However, the challenges of today aren't so bad when you compare them to sending your kids to Vietnam - or being sent there yourself. A touch job market != being plopped down in south asia with an automatic weapon expecting to survive a few weeks.
There has been quite a bit of mass violence. How many have we killed in Iraq and Afghanistan these last 8 years? Depending on who's numbers you believe its in the several hundred thousand to well over a million range. Just because we have sanitized the killing so we don't see the dead bodies on TV doesn't mean its not happening. This violence is a direct result of our energy policies. I classify those policies and the general American's attitude as "radical" (assuming I can bend the term radical to apply to what is the majority).
The only major US riots of the past few years are the LA and Detroit race-riots, neither of which was related to overarching policy.
http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/global/the-second-amendm...
Now I have to worry about Skynet and La Raza?
And I was just finishing up all the Yoder's Canned Bacon I bought when Cobol was going to kill us all.
... 3 times.