<p>"The Election of Barack Obama is just the most startling manifestation of a larger trend: the gradual erosion of whiteness as the touchstone of what it means to be American. If the end of white America is a cultural and demographic inevitability, what will the new mainstream look likeand how will white Americans fit into it? What will it mean to be white when whiteness is no longer the norm? And will a post-white America be less racially dividedor more so?..</p>
<p>Whether you describe it as the dawning of a post-racial age or just the end of white America, were approaching a profound demographic tipping point. According to an August 2008 report by the U.S. Census Bureau, those groups currently categorized as racial minoritiesblacks and Hispanics, East Asians and South Asianswill account for a majority of the U.S. population by the year 2042. Among Americans under the age of 18, this shift is projected to take place in 2023, which means that every child born in the United States from here on out will belong to the first post-white generation.</p>
<p>Obviously, steadily ascending rates of interracial marriage complicate this picture, pointing toward what Michael Lind has described as the beiging of America. And its possible that beige Americans will self-identify as white in sufficient numbers to push the tipping point further into the future than the Census Bureau projects. But even if they do, whiteness will be a label adopted out of convenience and even indifference, rather than aspiration and necessity. For an earlier generation of minorities and immigrants, to be recognized as a white American, whether you were an Italian or a Pole or a Hungarian, was to enter the mainstream of American life; to be recognized as something else, as the Thind case suggests, was to be permanently excluded. As Bill Imada, head of the IW Group, a prominent Asian American communications and marketing company, puts it: I think in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, [for] anyone who immigrated, the aspiration was to blend in and be as American as possible so that white America wouldnt be intimidated by them. They wanted to imitate white America as much as possible: learn English, go to church, go to the same schools.</p>
<p>Today, the picture is far more complex. To take the most obvious example, whiteness is no longer a precondition for entry into the highest levels of public office. </p>
<p>My grandfather immigrated here, legally, from Ireland and he firmly passed on his views as a new American. He was very proud of being American. He made it clear he chose to be an American with the privileges and expectations that go with it, as he saw it. I never heard or heard of him referring to white America- granted he was from Ireland. I did often hear of him wanting to be American- English language, American flag, a job, American holidays, all things he felt important. He even legally changed his name from O’houlihan to Holahan to have a better melt into the pot, as the expression goes.</p>
<p>It always boggled my mind to think that in the past, Irish people weren’t considered “white.” It just goes to show how ridiculous this concept of “race” is.</p>
It boggles my mind to know that people think there are no genetic differences between groups of humans that evolved in geographically different environments under different selection pressures.</p>
<p>No one proposes that there are “no genetic differences” between geographically proscribed groups, Mr. Payne. What most geneticists acknowledge is that there are not enough disparate genetic markers that can define these groups into different “races” of humans, in the same way that other types of animals can be categorized by the scientic definition of “race”. I know it really distresses you, Mr. Payne, especially since you count yourself as belonging to a “superior” race of human beings, but wish in one hand and (you know what) in the other, and see which one fills first…;)</p>
<p>Oh yea definately. I’ve never heard Mr Payne say that Asians are more intelligent than whites and that blacks are more physically inclined than whites. (/sarcasm)</p>
<p>Gene flow between human populations, even distant ones, has always been rather maintained.</p>
<p>Asians aren’t a race. They may have a some common facial features but the DNA studies show that some Asian groups are more genetically distant to each other than they would be to whites, and common ancestry is not plausible. The Japanese genetically have more in common with the Finns that they do with most Chinese.</p>
<p>It’s not about skin colour anymore. It’s behaviour and culture, and to some extent that can still be called “racially-based”.</p>
<p>Couldn’t care less, really. A term like “erosion of whiteness” might appeal to people with alarmist leanings-- like some of those outspoken ones at those rallies that got so ugly before the election this fall.
I like to think that there’s room for everyone at the table in this country.</p>
<p>And as for Obama and other politicians-- there are SO many details that need to fall into place before one can get to that level: money, education, connections, intelligence, experience, stance on issues, character, connections, etc. etc. In most places, I don’t think race is tops on the list of what makes a candidate electable or not. I think the main appeal is whether you agree with a candidate on the issues that are important to you.</p>
<p>About time we diverge from the Eurocentric viewpoint of what is normal/best. We still use white and lump others together, I hate the term “of color” to denote anyone not white, ie of European ancestry. I don’t want the uniformity of beige- and, btw, a black/white couple, in England I believe, just had their second set of fraternal twins with one of each set matching each parent.</p>
<p>Many years ago the Irish, Belgian, Italian, Polish… Catholics each set up their own churches in this town- not far from each other. Times change and hopefully will change further with regard to ethnic backgrounds/race.</p>
<p>I was ahead of the curve when I, a European American mongrel, married an Indian (Asian) twenty some years ago. </p>
<p>Lumping all people of the Asian continent together and yet being concerned about the nuances of various groups of the European subcontinent of the same landmass- shows the narrowmindedness of the English and other Europeans who went about colonizing and conquering all over the world.</p>
<p>Globalization has helped us become more aware of noneuropean cultures in this country. Different regions of this country already have different takes on what is normal. Asians on the west coast, Hispanics in the southwest, British/European in New England… It is nice that the US is reflecting the whole world more now and not just the Europeans who dominated immigration generations ago.</p>
<p>Multicultural instead of the melting pot homogeneity of my childhood is the current, and better, trend of thought in this country. Time for those of us of European ancestry to realize that most of the world is not of European origin (nor Christain).</p>
<p>A topic I can be passionate about and go on forever about…</p>
You’d be surprised. I spent another thread just trying to explain that West Africans were faster sprinters than everyone else (due to genetics) and I was practically crucified as a heretic. </p>
<p>
Princeton dictionary:
</p>
<p>Lets say the word “race” doesn’t fit the bill. What word would you like me to use to describe people which have different genetics as dictated by geographical selection pressures? It seems like the word “race” fits that description rather well.</p>
<p>
Quote me where I’ve insinuated that Caucasians had any sort of “moral” superiority in <em>anything</em>.</p>
I guess you don’t believe that some cultures can be worse than others? It seems quite obvious to me that emphasis on education should be something of very high value, yet that trait on an individual & societal level varies significantly. I’d rather have a homogeneous culture that values education than a multicultural one that does not. Obviously I’d also prefer a multicultural one that values education to a homogeneous one that does not.</p>
<p>Man I’d really hate to live in those hellholes of cultural and ethnic homogeneity, like Japan, Italy, and Spain. God those peoples’ livse must be horrible.</p>
<p>On a related note, why must multiculturalists downgrade the superiority of Western Civilization (not Western people!!! and yes I’m aware Western Civ has MANY faults). Why do these people attempt to denigrate the current zenith of human civilization, the paragon of individualism: America. Cultures are not inherently equal and this egalitarian delusion is absurd.</p>
<p>Cultures that haven’t progressed with the lessons of the secular Enlightenment, that persist in superstition and myth, that value the collective not the individual, that demand statist conformity and not individual liberty, these are the societies that liberal multiculturalists glorify.</p>
<p>America’s norm is Eurocentric due principally to its founding and its relation to the European enlightenment. America was foudned as the ultimate realization of that time period, the realization of John Locke’s ideas and his philosophical and political heirs amongst the Fouding Fathers. This is a country that owes its system to notions born of European and Western thought.</p>
<p>I’m going back and forth. but I’d rather have a CULTURAL melting pot that stresses the importance of IDEAS and personal industry, not arbitrary cultural institutions like skin color, food, and language.</p>
<p>This probably isn’t a surprise but I just finished reading 50 pages of an Ayn Rand book.</p>
<p>Do, pray tell, enlighten us as to which race(es) are a sub-species of homo-sapiens sapiens (modern human)? It is widely acknowledged that the variation in modern human DNA is so minute, compared to that of other animal species, that the physical differences between us (skin color, hair texture, shape of facial features) are literally just skin deep, and represent no significant genetic divergences that can be scientifically divided into races. Yes, while traits such as skin color, facial features, hair color/texture, etc., are indeed genetically determined, these genetic differences no more herald the presence of scientifically legitimate racial sub-divisions, than the difference between blue and brown eyes within the same family. I know that you’re heavily invested in the notion that some “races” (particularly your own) are better than others, and that fundamental genetic differences account for it, but the facts just don’t bear that out.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I read your oh-so-scholarly theory as to why certain black athletes are faster than the rest of the world’s sprinters, and all I could do was marvel at how an otherwise intelligent man (one with an engineering degree, no less!) could show pride in exhibiting such simplistic thinking. Is it also your considered opinion that whites are inherently better skiers? Hockey players? Rock Climbers? Tennis players and Golfers?----(Dohhh!..) You know, it wasn’t that terribly long ago when blacks weren’t considered suitable as quarterbacks in the NFL—not enough brain cells, it was posited, for such a cerebral position…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quote me where I insinuated that you believed Caucasians have “any sort of moral superiority”?</p>
Can you respond to my actual text? I asked for an alternative word that would be accepted as describing the physical differences between groups of humans that evolved in geographically isolated environments.</p>
<p>
Ummm, the scholarly position of realizing that no Caucasian/East Asian has ever broken 10 seconds in the 100 meters? That only those of West African descent have ever broken 10 seconds. Yeah, I’m gonna have to say genetics has something to do with that.</p>
<p>
Laughable. That is what you are doing right here:
The word “better” is a “moral” judgment. When I state that West Africans are “better” at sprinting I’m somehow building up Caucasians? Are you joking?</p>
<p>I most certainly did read what you wrote and responded within context. You posted the definition of “subspecies”, and suggested that this definition applied when speaking of the physical differences commonly attributed to the different “races” of human being. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Genetics, undoubted has something to do with many a talent or ability, but it is almost never the sole explanation for said phenomenon. Again, you’re being much to simplistic in your argument. But, apparently, since the belief handily reinforces your world paradigm, you are loath to admit that correlation and causation are very often mutually exclusive. Answer me this, Mr. Payne: Why is it that there’s never been a black or Asian player in the NHL who has even come close to rivaling the brilliance of the best white players—say, like “The Great One”? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The word “better” is a quality judgment. The plum assignation of “smarter”, which you most happily claim to be characteristic of your own race, for instance, carries with it no moral imperative. The fact that you’re willing to magnanimously leave, “faster” to the black race, reminds me of a common historic belief about AfAms—that belief being, that they were a species of “lesser humans”, closer to the great apes, and thereby “stronger of body”, but less agile of intellect. Those who claimed this were invariably those who valued intellect over what they saw to be the more “bestial” trait of brawn/physical prowess, and what’s more, determined that they were the ones most happily in possession of the former. This belief also placated any vestigial sense of guilt over the slave trade, in that it posited that blacks were most suited for work which used their “natural abilities” to best advantage, while sparing them the strain of attempting to call forth intellectual abilities which they did not posssess.:rolleyes:</p>