From Rachel’s Tavern:
State Sen. Denny Altes apologized Thursday for writing an e-mail saying Arkansas is overrun with illegal aliens and that “we are being out populated by blacks also.” Altes, the Fort Smith senator who serves as Republican leader of the Arkansas Senate, tearfully apologized in an interview with The Associated Press but said he doesn’t consider what he said to be a racist remark.
Well, as long as he doesn’t consider the remark racist, then what’s all the fuss about?
Altes, by the way, is said by some of his black colleagues in the state Senate to have a good record of opposing racism with his votes. Taking them at their word, that shows that pretty much all white people — including the ones who consciously try to be anti-racist — may still have internalized racism to eliminate.
So what is the racism fairy, you ask? Jenn at Reappropriate describes this deadly imp:
The Racism Fairy cannot be seen by the naked eye, but evidence of her handiwork is at once obvious. She causes a wave of racism to overtake her victim, making them spout racist slurs very much against their will. To cover her tracks, she will cause the victim of her Racism Pixie Dust to emerge from her influence claiming any one or a combination of the following defenses to remove the blame for the racism from themselves, including:
1. I had no idea what was coming out of my mouth!
2. I didn’t know what I was saying was considered racist!
3. I’m not racist — I’m a person of colour!
4. I’m not racist — I have minority friends!
5. Other minorities say it too!And if all else fails, the hapless victim of TinKKKerbell’s magic will check themselves into personal counseling.
Holy crap that’s funny.
LOL, on the fairy and pixie dust.
I’ve had a visit by an anonymous individual bitten by the racist fairy, who let’s just say will never have a future as a lyricist. But yeah, the pixie dust can be quite thick and very, very powerful.
And if all else fails, the hapless victim of TinKKKerbell’s magic will check themselves into personal counseling.
…for alcoholism.
What is this crazy fucking fear of being “outpopulated”? I have heard variations of this theme nearly my whole life, usually from my racist relatives and coworkers like the janitor who once warned me, “Don’t fool yourself, buddy. Those people are taking over.”
So? Seriously, what if that were true? What if, for the sake of the argument, all of Lou Dobbs’ and Pat Buchannans’ fears came true – that America becomes a bilingual Latino-dominated culture? What if suddenly Americans of Northern European descent became a minority?
So fucking what? Would they do any worse than the people in charge now? Last I heard, everyone south of the border opposed the US invasion of Iraq. Could be they have long memories of US meddling in their own affairs (coups, torture regimes, death squads, that sorta thing) and didn’t expect much different despite the change of venue. We could use more of that wisdom.
What is this crazy fucking fear of being “outpopulated”? I have heard variations of this theme nearly my whole life…What if suddenly Americans of Northern European descent became a minority? So fucking what?
You have put yourself in a consistency lock, Kevin.
If being a member of the minority in America isn’t terrible, then what has the left been kvelling about for the last hundred years?
You can’t spend an enormous effort making the case for why being in the minority is a horrible problem, and simultaneously think people are crazy for not wanting to slide into the minority – unless you are saying that people are crazy for listening to you in the first place.
Are people crazy for listening to you in the first place?
Robert seems to have taken Chubby Checker to heart.
Come on, Baby. Let’s do the twist.
Robert, men are a minority. So are evangelical Christians. So are the wealthy. So are whites in South Africa (a place the left had some concern for at our college). So are people from Connecticut (except, I suppose, in Connecticut).
It is being in an oppressed and marginalized group that that the left has been talking about all these years, not just the literal state of being in a minority.
Actually, I think Robert has answered the question fairly well, in a way.
The fear among conservative white folks is that if white people are out-populated, they’ll end up being treated precisely the same way they’ve been treating racial minorities all along.
Because they assume that everyone else is as awful as they are.
It’s interesting, because it contains the seeds of the truth. Whatever else they may say about the way the worlds works and the end of racism and how minorities who complain about racism are just whiners (not bare-knuckled realists like them, by god!), they know that there are chickens out there, and they’re terrified of them coming home to roost.
Although they may not admit it publicly, they do admit it to themselves.
—Myca
It is being in an oppressed and marginalized group that that the left has been talking about all these years, not just the literal state of being in a minority.
And being in an oppressed and marginalized group is what (in this case white) people are afraid of when they worry about becoming a minority. Is this foolish of them?
Myca, I don’t know what the straw-conservatives you’re having the argument in your head with are saying. I know what I say; being in a racial minority sucks. I don’t want to be in a racial minority. I want my country to keep the racial majority that it has. In part, this is because my reading of history leads me to the impression that racial minorities which become majorities are not particularly noted for their toleration and liberal humanitarian values towards their former oppressors.
Thomas Jefferson said, vis black and white relations, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.” The idea of chickens coming home to roost is not new. I can understand what underlies the roosting process, and still desire not to see it happen.
Robert,
Your response to Myca seems to merely rephrase what he stated. In other words, you appear to be calling yourself a straw-conservative.
I don’t think that’s limited to conservatives.
I could sum it up better as “the fear among many normal white folks is that if those whites who hold power are replaced, the blacks in power will be as nasty as the whites in power”
I don’t think that everyone personis as awful as every other person. But I do think that every race (or similar construct) contains an equivalent %age of really horrible people as every other race. If POC are in power, they are probably going to be just as nasty, vindictive, and generally shit-headed as whites are.
I can essentially guarantee that there are people on both sides who would like to actively be racist, if they could. Can you seriously claim that any race is made up of saints?
I would fight against them being allowed to do anything, which (these days) equates to fighting racism by whites. And I’d be OK with their hatred being evenly distributed among all races, which (these days) would sort of be the equivalent of replacing racism with general malaise.
But I sure as hell don’t want to be the target of it myself. Why would I? I think it’s bad; I do stuff to stop it, but I don’t see “same thing, but in reverse” as a particularly good option. I’m far from a conservative.
Jake, I specified what I think because I don’t want to get into an argument over what Myca thinks I think. Maybe he’s got some of it right, maybe he doesn’t; I don’t care, and reject any framing of it that leaves Myca as the spokesperson for my beliefs. “Look, he got some of it right” isn’t justification for having Myca as the spokesperson. Myca’s understanding of our views is (in this context) completely immaterial.
And, what Sailorman just said.
That’s true, Robert. Except that, in this case, Myca’s understanding (or stating) of your views is precisely the same as your statement of your views.
Honestly, Sailorman’s comment is far superior as a rebuttal to Myca than is your comment in which you reworded Myca’s comment.
I’d just like to thank Sailorman and Robert for their candor, because according many folks, minorities just have it so much better than whites these days. *eye roll* I also believe that humans generally suck, and if there is a power shift, the powerless will get shafted. What I don’t understand, however, is what’s with the assumption that status as a numerical minority will be accompanied by a power shift. I can easily see an America in which whites are a dominant minority group, so why can’t ya’ll?
What I don’t understand, however, is what’s with the assumption that status as a numerical minority will be accompanied by a power shift. I can easily see an America in which whites are a dominant minority group, so why can’t ya’ll?
That could happen, but it seems politically unlikely. Places where minority groups nonetheless dominate tend to have highly illiberal political systems. We don’t have such a system, despite a certain tendency in that direction over the last 50 years or so.
Fair question. I think that, obviously, it depends on the imbalance.
Take gender as an example. Women are a majority, but only a small majority. That majority is often balanced out or entirely eliminated by the suppression tactics of men in power. But I suspect that if the country were 65% female instead of, what is it, something like 52%(?) that would be enough to seriously make a huge difference. At some point suppression becomes irrelevant.
Although POC are suppressed politically, there is a point at which (barring dictatorship) their voices will dominate in the political process. A country with 51% POC is probably going to look similar to the country now, but better. A country with 70% POC is probably going to look a lot like the country now, but in reverse.
I can easily see a country where whites are a dominant minority–South Africa, anyone?–but I just don’t think it’s as likely to happen here.
Bannana – I’d think that in an actual democracy, where votes are actually counted and not just a bunch of stuffed ballot boxes, it would be nigh impossible for a minority to remain dominant.
For example, look at microcosms within the country – like cities where minorities already are dominant. There, minorities already rule. Where votes cast are actually counted, there’s simply no avoiding majority rule. Which is why it is important always to have protections built in for minorities, so the tyranny of the majority doesn’t crush everyone else.
Robert and Sailorman have nothing to worry about, but since they both have an essentialist viewpoint undergirding their conception of race, they are scared.
I don’t think whites will ever be a numerical minority (which is different from a sociological minority–something lost on a few folks in this discussion). This won’t happen because the definition of whiteness will shift to keep whites a numerical majority. In particular, I think light Latinos are going to become white, just like Jews, Italians, and the Irish before them.
These fears of being outnumbered, which drive some anti-immigrant attitudes and racist attitudes, are nothing new. In the early 1800s, it was the WASP folks worried about the Irish, who they saw as less than white. In the late 1800s, it was the WASPs and their newly minted “white” buddies worried about the Eastern and Southern European folks, who they saw as less than white. Today it’s Latinos (and to a lesser extent Asians), many of whom actually viewed themselves white in their countries of origin and currently identify as white on Census forms. So when my children are my age, I’d venture to say that Mexican Americans are going to be as white was Italian Americans were in 1950.
For all,
I think Amp, aptly noted that to equate power and numbers can frequently be misleading. It also assumes that this country is purely democratic and socially structured inequality has little to no influence on the political system. Their are many ways that groups who are numerical minorities can maintain their position as a sociological majority/dominant group. Look at the southern US in the post Reconstruction era after the Civil War. There were numerous tactics that they used to suppress the black vote–grandfather clauses, poll taxes, literacy tests, organized terrorism, and I’m sure some others that I’m missing.
And in that democracy, Gore would be president. :-)
Rachel, could you explain the difference between a numerical minority and a social minority? I don’t know what a social minority is.
Oh come on Rachel, that’s more than a bit insulting.
While I acknowledge that those racist views exist, I specifically stated that I think they exist with equal frequency in pretty much every group. In other words, I think that they are NOT unique to people of ANY race.
Politely put, I’m not sure why (or how) you could characterize that as “essentialist,” other than as an attempt to insult me. What I said was pretty close to the opposite. Nor do I, personally, feel any fear about the changes–because of my age and occupation, it’s unlikely to have a significant effect.
The rest of your post is interesting and I’m inclined to ask more, but now I’m worried that you’ll misinterpret that.
I can. After all, I’m from California.
Sailorman, as I understood it, Rachel said that you (among others) had made the error of assuming that the standards for what consititutes “white” would not change; this is, according to Rachel, racial essentialism.
It is true that your analysis seemed to assume that the definition of white will not change to keep “whites” in the majority; it doesn’t seem unreasonable to call such an assumption a sort of essentialism regarding race. I don’t see how that’s insulting to you.
For what it’s worth, my own thinking, as I read this thread, had been essentialist (as Rachel uses the term); and when I read Rachel’s comment, I thought “oh, I am being essentialist. I should think about that.” I really don’t think that in this context it’s an insult; it’s just pointing out a potential illogical flaw in our thinking.
Amp, I appreciate the explanation. That’s not a use of “essentialism” with which i’m familiar. It makes much more sense in that context. rachel, sorry I misunderstood you.
Even with that understanding, i’m still a bit confused by what rachel is saying. If “whites” expand to include other people who are not currently viewed as “white,” then it seems circular to think that “whites” will remain anything. It’s a bit like saying “no, there’s not a lot of new red in that painting; we prefer to refer to that color as blue now.”
But I’m probably reading it wrong. Rachel, let me try to confirm. I think you’re basically saying that there won’t be a reversal. Rather, the same basic “ranking” of people will remain, but that the “upper level” of people (e.g. the people in control) will expand its membership just enough to remain in control.
In other words, I think you’re suggesting that the people in power are rational and able to modify their behavior to get what they want: If forced, they would rather have less power (by adding folks who disagree or who they dn’t like to their party) than the complete lack of power which would result in a reversal. Because their interests are better served by avoiding a reversal, and because they are in power, no such thing will ever happen.
Is that what you’re saying?
Wow. Just wow, Robert.
Anyhoo, Rachel S makes the strongest analysis so far, and I too am interested in hearing the distinction between a numerical and social minority. Yet her summary of the history of dominant group attitudes toward past waves of immigrants should give pause to current bad case scenario prognostications from the today’s culture warriors. Unless, that is, someone wants to argue that Italians, Jews, the Irish and the Polish have been bad for American society.
As for the assumption that belonging to a dominant majority saves one from oppression, that’s very much the fish not noticing the water.
Amp, In sociology we use the term minority group as a reference to power. So a group is a minority group if they are not the group who holds the most power–i.e. women, lgbtq folks, Blacks, the disabled, and so on. So minority group is a synonym for marginalized group, subordinate group, oppressed group, etc. Of course, the term majority group is the opposite–whites, men, non-disabled, heterosexuals, and so on, and that would be a synonym for dominant group, oppressor group, and so on.
When a group is a numerical or statistical minority, we are just looking at their percentage of the population in a given place. So the groups you listed above (women, South African blacks, etc.) are good examples of statistical majority groups, but they are sociological/social minorities.
Unfortunately, most folks don’t even know that there is a difference in how those terms are used, and I think if they did understand the distinctions it would bring the nuance that is needed into these discussions. To me what is important is the power issue, and their is very common assumption that greater numbers equals greater power, which is just not the case. I think the social group that best exemplifies this is the wealthy; there ain’t very many of them, but they sure run the show.
Hey, thanks, Rachel. That was educational.
To me what is important is the power issue, and their is very common assumption that greater numbers equals greater power, which is just not the case.
I think it is in fact the case in our society, by and large. Not that great numbers = great power, but greatER numbers = greatER power, ceteris parabus. You’re right that the first isn’t the case, and your example of the wealthy is on-target – but if the wealthy became 10% of the population instead of 5%, would this be likely to raise, or to increase, their relative power? The answer seems rather obvious.
Similarly, changes in demography can be the causal factor between real changes in power – because numbers DO matter. When particular ethnic groups have voter identification patterns that put 90% of their members into one party’s column, changes in demography can be everything.
And of course you are right that numerical minority and power minority aren’t the same thing. But people who are afraid of demographic shifts aren’t worried that the number will go from 51 to 49; they’re afraid that the power will go from one group to another one. They might be wrong that the power will shift places, but they aren’t irrational to think that such shifts occur, or that they would be bad for them if they did occur. “White farmer in Zimbabwe” used to be a career path with a future.
For all of our problems, the U.S. is not Zimbabwe. And to my knowledge, the Latino and Hispanic diaspora in America – a truly multicultural array of groups not well encapsulated by either of those terms – are not led by a Mugabe. Ditto for African-Americans.