Author: has written 5268 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

200 Responses

  1. EG
    EG November 19, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

    But, when the white population of California falls by half, that’s “natural,” just the way it is, one of those things, could happen to anyone.

    Whoa, for real? Immigration is…like…the Rwandan genocide? Are you fucking kidding me?

    Seems to me that the problem is that white people are such vicious triablists that they vote in droves only for white people. I mean, a whole lot of Latino voters went for a non-Latino candidate.

    Up north, two centuries of constitutional evolution and economic growth; down south, coups, corruption, generalissimos, and presidents-for-life.

    Up north: genocide, slavery, oligarchy, plutocracy, Jim Crow, lynching, civil war, imperialism.

    1. macavitykitsune
      macavitykitsune November 19, 2012 at 12:08 pm |

      Immigration is…like…the Rwandan genocide?

      Yes. Yes, it is.

      I’m genociding you right now from Canada, EG, can’t you feel it?

      1. EG
        EG November 19, 2012 at 2:50 pm |

        Oh, that’s what that is!

      2. Partial Human
        Partial Human November 19, 2012 at 4:44 pm |

        Are you genociding Queen Liz too? Because UK Inc. will surely plummet further into the depths of despair if the doddering, imperialist anachronism beloved Monarch is genocided.

        F*cking immigration is like genocide, in the same way that the Iraq and Afghanistan debacle is a bit of a disagreement.

      3. im
        im November 20, 2012 at 2:44 am |

        If one uses a particualrly tortured appropriation of certain First Nations political ideas, you can make that argument… but WTF!

        1. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm |

          im,

          sarcasm. Learn you some.

    2. Confused
      Confused November 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm |

      He was using that as an example of a radical demographics shift that everyone agrees was unnatural (i.e. a result of mass murder) to prove the point that a radically larger demographics shift in the U.S. Is not a natural phenomenon, but a result of political and social change.

      1. Li
        Li November 19, 2012 at 1:18 pm |

        Demographic change is the result of… change?

        And if it’s unnatural, what would natural change look like? Change that is a result of… not change?

      2. konkonsn
        konkonsn November 19, 2012 at 5:26 pm |

        But mass murder =/ social and political change. Even if you think both are unnatural, they’re not at all the same thing.

    3. Rick
      Rick November 19, 2012 at 1:55 pm |

      Your claim of tribalist whites is flawed. See http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/06/4966431/2012-election-exit-poll-shows.html

      Whites were the least tribal of the races listed (except for the 2% “other” category). All other races voted less white than the whites did.

      It matters not, the point is still valid that American White Hegemony is coming to an end. It’s time for the paler breed to start retiring en masse and turn the country over to their betters. I’ve already recommended to my two sons to reduce their economic output to self-sufficiency and please don’t reproduce. White males and their privilege need to go away quietly.

      1. macavitykitsune
        macavitykitsune November 19, 2012 at 2:12 pm |

        Wat?

        No, seriously, what the actual wat?

        Are you, like, a sock for that guy who was arguing that men should die out on that other thread?

        1. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 2:44 pm |

          Sorry, must’ve missed that one. I’m a new poster here. I’ve been following the RSS for a few months and have been educated on how evil successful white men are. I’m just trying to help my kids not be evil.

          It’s too late for me, I’ve already followed the 20th century’s white male script and produce more than I consume, so I will continue to do so ’til “death do us part”. But there is no reason I can’t re-educate my children to the realities of the 21st century. My adult daughter (and this site) have educated me to the concepts of white privilege and rape culture. Acknowledging the problem is the first step, correct?

          White male privilege won’t go away until whites are a true minority. By encouraging them to not reproduce, I’m hastening the end of white male privilege. By encouraging my sons to not overproduce, I am helping to reduce the wage gap.

        2. Li
          Li November 19, 2012 at 3:40 pm |

          By encouraging my sons to not overproduce, I am helping to reduce the wage gap.

          It’s funny because you seem to think that the wage gap is a result of how men just are just more economically productive than women are.

        3. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 3:50 pm |

          It’s funny because you seem to think that the wage gap is a result of how men just are just more economically productive than women are.

          Nope. The 77 cent meme is based on the average incomes of all males versus the average incomes of all females. By encouraging my sons to not overproduce, they are likely to stay on the lower side of the “average”. That would reduce the male average.

          It’s all a moot point any way. The high earning males that skew the average are those that have been in the labor force the longest – the Boomers. Since the demographics of Gens X and Y are more favorable to women economically, time will do for women what politics did not. I predict that as the boomers retire the wage gap will flip. It will then not be mentioned ever again, except in history books.

        4. mxe354
          mxe354 November 19, 2012 at 5:40 pm |

          I’ve been following the RSS for a few months and have been educated on how evil successful white men are. I’m just trying to help my kids not be evil.

          White male privilege won’t go away until whites are a true minority.

          You understand nothing about our thoughts on white male privilege. Now fuck off, troll.

        5. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 6:25 pm |

          You understand nothing about our thoughts on white male privilege.

          I’m here to learn. Are you here to educate or is denigration all you’ve got?

          My premise is this: white male privilege is frequently described as systemic. In other words, because whites are the majority, they own the system. People not in the majority do not own the system and thus do not benefit from it. If there is a way for the privileged whites to lose their systemic advantage while still being a majority, please elucidate.

          Maybe I missed a previously proposed solution? Do you disagree with my proposal of rejecting privilege by voluntarily reducing participation in and thus perpetuation of privilege? Isn’t elimination of the privilege the goal?

          I didn’t expect the discourse to fall to HuffPo standards so quickly.

        6. mxe354
          mxe354 November 19, 2012 at 6:32 pm |

          I’m here to learn.

          Do you really think anyone here is buying that?

          If there is a way for the privileged whites to lose their systemic advantage while still being a majority, please elucidate.

          Recognizing their privilege, respecting marginalized groups as equals, and fighting against institutionalized prejudice through various means. Privileged groups can be privileged even if they don’t constitute the demographic majority.

          I didn’t expect the discourse to fall to HuffPo standards so quickly.

          You are even worse than the average HuffPo commenter.

        7. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 19, 2012 at 6:43 pm |

          Oh, god.

          Rick, on the (extremely generous) assumption that you really *are* just clueless, not a troll:

          Majority has fuck-all to do with systemic racism. The British, when they had colonised India, were outnumbered (at their most populous!) ten thousand to one by Indians; yet you – hopefully – wouldn’t argue that this meant the British were a beleaguered minority at the hands of horrible Indians. What matters is who’s at the top of the food chain; who’s best represented in political structures, in judiciary systems, in academia and decision-making bodies; whose transgressions are routinely overlooked or downplayed, and who the “system” backs the most. Okay?

          Getting your kids not to reproduce, or making them take low-paying jobs, does fuck-all for anything or anyone.

        8. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 6:47 pm |

          You are even worse than the average HuffPo commenter.

          Really Mellowness? You are the first commenter to lower the bar here today. Everyone else has been civil.

          Recognizing their privilege, respecting marginalized groups as equals, and fighting against institutionalized prejudice through various means.

          Sounds like we are in agreement. This is what I’m trying to do. What “various means” are you taking to reduce white privilege?

          Privileged groups can be privileged even if they don’t constitute the demographic majority.

          Sounds like a no-win scenario. So even if whites become the minority, they’re still the privileged? Is there no end?

        9. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 19, 2012 at 6:52 pm |

          So even if whites become the minority, they’re still the privileged? Is there no end?

          Well, you guys could try not being racist, that would do it.

        10. mxe354
          mxe354 November 19, 2012 at 6:54 pm |

          Really Mellowness? You are the first commenter to lower the bar here today. Everyone else has been civil.

          I have no problem with that. It’s quite clear to me that you’re being extremely sarcastic.

          So even if whites become the minority, they’re still the privileged?

          Well, if you don’t get rid of the privilege itself, then obviously they’re still going to be privileged. Not that hard to understand.

        11. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 7:21 pm |

          Well, you guys could try not being racist, that would do it.

          I’m gonna go out on limb and assume that, like the US, Feministe is majority white. Thanks for insulting a whole class of people based on their ethnicity.

          But this is Feministe, after all, so maybe we can agree to move on from race based intolerance to women’s issues. As a white male, I’m sure I have plenty to atone for there as well. Besides, I think we’ve beat this one enough, now that the name calling has started.

        12. mxe354
          mxe354 November 19, 2012 at 7:29 pm |

          I’m gonna go out on limb and assume that, like the US, Feministe is majority white. Thanks for insulting a whole class of people based on their ethnicity.

          You do know that the exhortation to not be racist is directed at racist people, right?

          But this is Feministe, after all, so maybe we can agree to move on from race based intolerance to women’s issues. As a white male, I’m sure I have plenty to atone for there as well. Besides, I think we’ve beat this one enough, now that the name calling has started.

          No one has to atone for being privileged. They just need to be aware of their privilege and help bring an end to institutionalized prejudice.

        13. librarygoose
          librarygoose November 19, 2012 at 7:41 pm |

          I’m gonna go out on limb and assume that, like the US, Feministe is majority white. Thanks for insulting a whole class of people based on their ethnicity.

          \

          As a white person, don’t assume I am offended. I also think racists should just fucking stop it.

        14. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 19, 2012 at 8:00 pm |

          Thanks for insulting a whole class of people based on their ethnicity.

          *snort* Oh, sorry, did I insult the white racists by calling them racists? I apologise for all the hurt fee-fees.

        15. im
          im November 20, 2012 at 2:52 am |

          “No one has to atone for being privileged. They just need to be aware of their privilege and help bring an end to institutionalized prejudice.”

          Troll’s got a point, actually. We pay lip-service to this idea, and then have these wierd exercises, which to me even seem a little braggartly, where we talk about how tragically privileged we are and so on.

          Personally, I wish that my race collectively had choices beyond ‘surrender’ and ‘continue hurting people by being racist’

        16. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 20, 2012 at 11:40 am |

          Personally, I wish that my race collectively had choices beyond ‘surrender’ and ‘continue hurting people by being racist’

          ‘surrender’, huh.

          Surrender.

          Because those horrible, terrible, awful Others are waging WAR against you, and you’re just being racist in self-defense, you poor widdle thing you. Of course you have to surrender (tragic tear trickling and all) because otherwise the war – that the Others are waging! – is just going to continue…

          You poor thing.

        17. EG
          EG November 20, 2012 at 1:31 pm |

          Personally, I wish that my race collectively had choices beyond ‘surrender’ and ‘continue hurting people by being racist’

          Aw. It’s so hard to be white.

      2. Li
        Li November 19, 2012 at 2:16 pm |

        Those graphs do not say what you think they say.

        1. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 2:23 pm |

          How so? Basically, more whites voted for the non-white candidate than non-whites voted for the white candidate. It seems the whites were more inclusive with their vote than other races.

        2. Li
          Li November 19, 2012 at 2:46 pm |

          Well, firstly, if we’re talking about tribalism, “non-white” is not actually a homogeneous group. 0% of Asian people voted for a candidate of their ethnicity for instance, because there was no Asian candidate.

          And in every Presidential election besides the previous two, all voters voted 100% for white candidates. And it’s not like black people weren’t already totally preferring the Democrats when the choice was between two white dudes.

          Besides, extrapolating from the two candidates in a single presidential election simply doesn’t give you the sample data you need. And instead of non-white voters primarily electing non-white representatives, it’s actually demonstrably the case that it’s *white* representatives who are disproportionately elected. Now, some of that is obviously to do with who is nominated in the first place, but the broad trend is clearly that non-white people have no problem voting for white candidates. Otherwise there wouldn’t be so damn many of them.

        3. matlun
          matlun November 19, 2012 at 3:06 pm |

          I would say part of Rick’s original comment above could be seen as valid response to EG’s snark. A few points, though…

          If we are discussing these statistics it is important to note that “tribalism” is not simply “racism” in this context. For example, the black vote going for Democrats was very well established before Obama, and the phenomenon is not just there in the presidential election.

          Also, the white demographic in the US is very diverse and statistically analyzing it as a single group makes little sense to me in this context. (This could also explain why it is more evenly split between candidates)

        4. im
          im November 20, 2012 at 2:55 am |

          The diversity of the children of Europe in America is definitely very often overlooked.

          Meanwhile, it seems that when we try to deal with ourselves as a whole, we either fail at it very badly, or specifically assume that we are of British descent (I am not.)

        5. EG
          EG November 20, 2012 at 10:20 pm |

          The diversity of the children of Europe in America is definitely very often overlooked.

          No more so than the diversity of black people, people of Asian descent, and people of Latino descent. In fact, I’d say considerably less so.

      3. EG
        EG November 19, 2012 at 2:51 pm |

        You don’t think that the fact that it took until 2008 to run a non-white candidate for president has to do with white tribalism? Non-white people have been voting for white candidates in droves for quite a while now. White people? Still not sure they can handle the idea of a non-white president.

        1. EG
          EG November 19, 2012 at 3:09 pm |

          Correction: for a major party to run a non-white candidate. No slight intended to Shirley Chisholm, who was awesome.

        2. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 3:11 pm |

          I’m not claiming whites aren’t tribal. Just that they aren’t the only group that is. I’m also not defending it.

          Or is tribalism like racism – only whites are capable of it?

        3. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 3:16 pm |

          You don’t think that the fact that it took until 2008 to run a non-white candidate for president has to do with white tribalism?

          Let’s extend this to women, this being Feministe and all. The regular and correct claim of “men in power” could easily be corrected in 4 short years. Women are both the majority of the electorate, and the majority of actual voters. Run for office and vote by gender. In two years you will own the HoR, in four you’ll have 2/3 of the Senate and the Presidency. Be tribal!

        4. Li
          Li November 19, 2012 at 3:21 pm |

          Among other things, even if all things are equal, there’s a meaningful reason that people of colour might vote for a hypothetical person of colour over their identical hypothetical white counterpart: People of colour are underrepresented in institutional US politics.

          Hispanic (for instance) voters who think that there need to be more Hispanic representatives do so in the context that it would make representation more proportional. White voters who think that there should be more white representatives do so in the context that it would make representation less proportional.

        5. Brennan
          Brennan November 19, 2012 at 4:36 pm |

          Why are we feeding the baby troll? Can’t we just keep his poor daughter in our thoughts/prayers/whatever and move on?

        6. konkonsn
          konkonsn November 19, 2012 at 5:35 pm |

          I agree Brennan. Maybe it’s just me, but I’m seeing so much sarcasm dripping off his posts that you could fill a fairly good sized pool.

        7. im
          im November 20, 2012 at 3:03 am |

          @Konkonsn: I thought that everybody had realized from the start that he was sarcastic and why would anybody say he was sarcastic it would be like teaching people that the sky is blue.

          White voters who think that there should be more white representatives do so in the context that it would make representation less proportional.

          Going with the assumption that ‘racism’ is definitely bad, but ‘tribalism’ isn’t neccesarily:

          A caveat to this is the whole White Is Default thing (which I cannot wait to get rid of so I can finally freaking own my race). There may be some kind of thing where people assume that the already-in-office white reps are just people, and they see Black or Latin@ people trying to vote some of their own people into office, so then they try to vote their people into office despite the fact that they are adding even more white people to a body which is already disproportionately white AND no white person they vote for is actually going to own their race.

        8. Tim
          Tim November 20, 2012 at 11:32 am |

          You don’t think that the fact that it took until 2008 to run a non-white candidate for president has to do with white tribalism?

          I doubt that most commenters on here would deny that it “has to do with” white tribalism. But in your original comment, you said:

          Seems to me that the problem is that white people are such vicious triablists that they vote in droves only for white people.

          Which is somewhat different. You could have said “some white people” or many white people” are tribalist, etc. You may think it’s a minor quibble, but there is a difference in meaning.

        9. EG
          EG November 20, 2012 at 1:33 pm |

          No. I stand by my comment. White people in general is what I meant, not “some” or “many.”

        10. tomek
          tomek November 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm |

          A caveat to this is the whole White Is Default thing (which I cannot wait to get rid of so I can finally freaking own my race).

          i dont understand. what it mean own your race?

  2. Andie
    Andie November 19, 2012 at 12:09 pm |

    Shorter Steyn: “Wah! More brown people means we might actual have to treat them like people to get their vote! Wah! Not fair! We should be able to win by simply outnumbering them! Wah!”

  3. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve November 19, 2012 at 12:26 pm |

    But, when the white population of California falls by half, that’s “natural,” just the way it is, one of those things, could happen to anyone.

    Whoa, for real? Immigration is…like…the Rwandan genocide? Are you fucking kidding me?

    His statistics don’t even bear out the white population falling by half conclusion.

    He says:

    According to the Census, in 1970 the “Non-Hispanic White” population of California was 78 percent. By the 2010 census, it was 40 percent. Over the same period, the 10 percent Hispanic population quadrupled and caught up with whites.

    It should be pointed out, the term ‘Hispanic’ as it applies to the census, merely refers to Spanish Speaking people. He doesn’t give us the number of ‘Hispanic Whites’ so for all we know, the overall white population may have increased. All this shows is more people are speaking Spanish as a first language.

    1. miga
      miga November 19, 2012 at 1:17 pm |

      Not to mention that interracial marriage has been increasing since the 70′s, and the 2010 census was the first to allow people to claim multiple races. Of course that’s going to affect how many people self-identify as non-hispanic white.

    2. Noadi
      Noadi November 19, 2012 at 2:37 pm |

      His statistics don’t bear out for another reason: the non-hispanic white population DIDN’T fall by half. It’s just increased at a much slower rate than the hispanic population. Comparing a slower rate of population growth to genocide is beyond ridiculous.

      As for the unnatural bit of it, migration is one of the biggest driving forces in human history. It’s about as natural as it gets, the only difference now is that we can move a lot faster and more easily in cars, planes, and modern ships than we could on foot, horseback, or sailing ships.

  4. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve November 19, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

    The short history of the Western Hemisphere is as follows: North America was colonized by Anglo-Celts, Central and South America by “Hispanics.”

    How long does the history have to be to include the Africans who put in the labor?

    1. RoryBorealis
      RoryBorealis November 19, 2012 at 8:26 pm |

      Not to mention the various indigenous peoples who were by turns enslaved and are still subject to ongoing genocide.

      I guess he believes in Manifest Destiny, too.

    2. scrumby
      scrumby November 20, 2012 at 1:33 am |

      I don’t think he understands what the actual definition of “Anglo” is. That or the Vikings and French got thrown down the same memory-hole as everyone else who has ever gotten to this continent from somewhere that wasn’t a certain group of Islands in the North Sea.

      1. im
        im November 20, 2012 at 3:09 am |

        Yeah, what about me, also? I am not mostly Anglo. Even Angle-land is not entirely Anglo by a long shot.

    3. im
      im November 20, 2012 at 3:05 am |

      Well, they didn’t exactly colonize.

  5. Confused
    Confused November 19, 2012 at 12:39 pm |

    So should we not enforce immigration laws? What is your position on that, Jill? Serious question. Should people from central America freely be allowed in with no means testing?

    1. Fat Steve
      Fat Steve November 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm |

      Is this question only for Jill? I, for one, am completely in favor of open borders.

      1. (BFing)Sarah
        (BFing)Sarah November 19, 2012 at 7:28 pm |

        + 1

    2. matlun
      matlun November 19, 2012 at 1:11 pm |

      I think most can agree that we should enforce immigration laws. The interesting questions are
      - What should these laws be?
      - How should they be enforced?

      These are hard questions. Anyone who claims to have easy answers are mistaken or lying.

    3. Andie
      Andie November 19, 2012 at 1:38 pm |

      The idea that certain people should be barred from the opportunities and resources available in a particular country solely by virtue of being born outside of an arbitrarily drawn invisible line unless they can prove themselves as being somehow ‘deserving’ of crossing that boundary gives me a giant sadface.

      1. Rick
        Rick November 19, 2012 at 2:07 pm |

        Wow. Let’s remove all boundaries that separate people from resources and opportunity. State lines – gone; county lines – gone; door locks – gone.

        1. Beatrice
          Beatrice November 19, 2012 at 2:13 pm |

          State lines [...] county lines [...] door locks

          1. One of these things is not like the others.

          2. Letting people move more freely across borders doesn’t mean erasing borders

        2. Andie
          Andie November 19, 2012 at 2:27 pm |

          One of these things is not like the other indeed.

          Rick, your argument implies that since you were born in {particular country} that you are by very virtue of your birth, owed those things that are available within and that those born outside of {particular country} who are trying to relocate here are thereby trying to “steal your stuff.”

          What, aside from the geographical luck of the draw, makes you more worthy of your country’s ‘stuff’ than someone who was born elsewhere?

        3. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 19, 2012 at 2:35 pm |

          How tragic for my poor American brothers and sisters, who need immigration papers to move from one county to another! And you guys claim us brown people are oppressed.

          *sheds womanly tear*

        4. matlun
          matlun November 19, 2012 at 2:47 pm |

          What, aside from the geographical luck of the draw, makes you more worthy of your country’s ‘stuff’ than someone who was born elsewhere?

          In some philosophical sense, the nation state is similar to a family or tribe. A group of people who have decided to work together and pool their resources.

          Should someone from outside the family or tribe be allowed to just walk in and take part in what that group has built together?

          When bringing this principle up to the larger scope of the nation state, things become more complicated. Membership in the group (citizenship) is regulated by complex rules and regulations, and the group has grown much larger and complex than a “natural” tribe of a few hundred people.

          But there are still common resources such as infrastructure, social entitlement programs, public health care etc. Who should be given a part in these resources? The basic type of question is the same and needs to be answered in some way.

        5. EG
          EG November 19, 2012 at 2:54 pm |

          In some philosophical sense, the nation state is similar to a family or tribe.

          But only in that philosophical sense. In any actual real world sense, not so much.

        6. Andie
          Andie November 19, 2012 at 2:54 pm |

          Should someone from outside the family or tribe be allowed to just walk in and take part in what that group has built together?

          This type of view seems to avoid the possibility that the outsider might have as much or more to offer than what they would take?

        7. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 2:55 pm |

          @ Andie, 2:27

          Your implication is incorrect. My “country” owes me nothing. I prefer John Kennedy’s view of the relationship between a country and its citizens. I also wasn’t born here, but that is a mere technicality, since both of my parents were.

          Without borders, there is nothing to defend. No need for a military at all. Without borders, where do you draw the lines for taxation and distribution? I’m sure Canada would love to extend their taxing authority a bit south.

        8. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 3:06 pm |

          What, aside from the geographical luck of the draw, makes you more worthy of your country’s ‘stuff’ than someone who was born elsewhere?

          As indicated in my other posts, I don’t consider my self “worthy of my country’s stuff”. I feel guilty that I produce more than I need. What makes me so special that my family “deserves” to be above the poverty line? Nothing. Unfortunately, I was born white, and wasn’t aware of my privilege early enough to reject it. I’m still learning.

        9. EG
          EG November 19, 2012 at 3:08 pm |

          Given that Canadian taxes seem to net Canadians a lot more than US taxes net US citizens, I say bring it on, Canada! I’d like some of that health insurance and social safety net you guys have got.

        10. Beatrice
          Beatrice November 19, 2012 at 3:09 pm |

          Without borders, there is nothing to defend. No need for a military at all.

          … which would be a good thing. No?

        11. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 3:25 pm |

          … which would be a good thing. No?

          Sure. We’ve already established that the USA is the source of all the world’s problems, so the sooner a foreign army comes in to take over the better. Right?

          Of course the new owners might not be so keen on women’s rights, but that remains to be seen.

        12. matlun
          matlun November 19, 2012 at 3:35 pm |

          @Andie:

          This type of view seems to avoid the possibility that the outsider might have as much or more to offer than what they would take?

          Not at all. Modern immigration law typically recognizes this and try to allow “wanted” immigrants (who we believe have much to offer) while keeping “unwanted” immigrants out. There are also limited intakes on other principles such as for asylum seekers, spouses for existing citizens etc.

          It is most certainly not a perfect system, but there are some sort of rhyme and reason behind the principle.

        13. Beatrice
          Beatrice November 19, 2012 at 3:36 pm |

          *facepalm*

          Since this has turned into a more general discussion about countries opening their borders, I was commenting on the fact that erasing borders and no military wouldn’t be a bad thing for the world in general.

          Since you’ve started the useless wankery about destroying borders (while the rest of us talked about opening them); I might as well get all starry eyed and dream about countries without need for military, no?

        14. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 19, 2012 at 6:45 pm |

          Oh, man. Rick. Trolldude. Sweetie. Go away. I replied to you upthread hoping you were for serious, but this post leaves me in no doubt you aren’t.

        15. Past my expiration date
          Past my expiration date November 19, 2012 at 8:45 pm |

          In some philosophical sense, the nation state is similar to a family or tribe.

          But the US is not a nation state.

        16. im
          im November 20, 2012 at 3:17 am |

          US not a nation state – How so? Individual States more like nation states? Colonial / high diversity / young (i.e. European countries are nation states?)

          Borders are very much an issue, and I have to say that I really dislike people who act as if we can just vanish them without any negative consequences. On the other hand, it seems like the utilitarian ethics favor the US opening its borders more than they are now (and possibly providing some form of amnesty to people who have already immigrated illegally.)
          Although maybe a better idea would be to provide that amnesty, close the borders more tightly, and then spend the money saved by avoiding negative consequences of mass immigration on foreign aid to the countries where most immigrants come from. I am not sure.

          The US is a pretty rich country, so it will attract a lot of immigrants in any event.

        17. im
          im November 20, 2012 at 4:43 am |

          Totally would still need a military. Although it might be called the police.

      2. Confused
        Confused November 19, 2012 at 2:38 pm |

        Okay. But this strikes me as one of those areas where idealism clashes head-on with reality. What you say is plausible on its face. But carried to its logical conclusion it would mean letting every person who wanted the benefit of our welfare state in. That’s obviously not sustainable. Hence the need for arbitrary boundaries based on where you were born.

        Unless you only let people in with the caveat that they do not have access to entilements (which you and most people here would probably say is cruel).

        What am I missing?

        1. Miss S
          Miss S November 19, 2012 at 3:49 pm |

          Welfare state? Entitlements? In the US???

          An astonishing amount of Americans are living in poverty, in food insecure households, and/or without healthcare. The U.S has far less “entitlements” than most other developed nations. I don’t think that our pitiful welfare state needs protection.

      3. Confused
        Confused November 19, 2012 at 2:39 pm |

        Okay. But this strikes me as one of those areas where idealism clashes head-on with reality. What you say is plausible on its face. But carried to its logical conclusion it would mean letting every person who wanted the benefit of our welfare state in. That’s obviously not sustainable. Hence the need for arbitrary boundaries based on where you were born.

        Unless you only let people in with the caveat that they do not have access to entilements (which you and most people here would probably say is cruel).

        What am I missing? Is the argument that by having totally open borders the benefits of having all the human capital woul outweigh the strain on our resources?

        1. Andie
          Andie November 19, 2012 at 2:52 pm |

          How many resources would be freed up if governments were relieved of the need to enforce laws against so-called ‘illegal’ immigrants?

          The issue of the welfare state you cite can be greatly relieved by recognizing the education and credentials of people immigrating from other countries.

          Also, the straw-people you mention who are coming here for the benefit of our welfare state would, I assume, be confined by the same restrictions that those born in said country are confined by.

          Also, if people were able to move freely across borders, what makes you assume they would all come to the U.S.?

        2. im
          im November 20, 2012 at 3:19 am |

          The US is a richer country, so of course it will be attractive. It’s also immediately adjacent to a country that is both poorer and which is having breathtaking violence problems in some areas.

          I think the main problem with nearly open borders or even closed but leaky ones is the tragedy of the commons.

        3. Li
          Li November 20, 2012 at 5:17 pm |

          Maybe in the hypothetical open borders scenario the US is also hypothetically not systematically fucking over Mexico through its War on Drugs.

      4. Andie
        Andie November 19, 2012 at 3:27 pm |

        Not enforcing immigration laws is not the same as not having any borders ever at all.

        My point is that people should be able to move across borders unfettered without having to prove themselves ‘worthy’ of crossing them. Once someone crosses a border, they are subject to the taxation laws based on their means as any resident would be, especially should they desire to partake in social nets available. As any given resident should be, whether having been born or having relocated here.

        In my own, admittedly simplistic view, the red tape and convoluted arbitrary application processes involved in legal immigration is in itself a contributor to illegal immigration, then the fear of deportation leads to immigration fraud.

        Would it not be easier to come from an ‘If you can get here, you can live here, and once you are here you’ll be subject to our laws’ standpoint?

    4. roro80
      roro80 November 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm |

      Oh Confused and Rick, it seems that it’s time for you to go Galt. We here at feministe obviously don’t deserve the awesomeness of your wisdom. Time for you to look for a Gulch and deprive of us of your amazingness.

  6. matlun
    matlun November 19, 2012 at 12:58 pm |

    But, when the white population of California falls by half, that’s “natural,” just the way it is, one of those things, could happen to anyone.

    Actually, yes. History is “naturally” moving towards a more globalized world. With increased mobility, increased immigration is very much to be expected.

    1. Li
      Li November 19, 2012 at 1:26 pm |

      This is why I think the term “natural” is just completely nonsensical when used to describe any kind of social phenomena. What even does that mean?

      1. matlun
        matlun November 19, 2012 at 2:00 pm |

        Good point.

        Regarding the immigration question, it is not even clear why we should consider the nation state concept (or the associated concepts of citizenship and immigration) as “natural” in any significant way.

        This also ties up in the whole naturalistic fallacy of thinking “natural” = “good”. Which is false as anyone knowing biology or history should know. Most obviously: The strong dominating or killing the weak is certainly not necessarily good, but I would still call it natural.

      2. im
        im November 20, 2012 at 3:29 am |

        Although when you replace ‘natural’ with ‘acceptable’ or ‘good’
        I can sort of see where he might be coming from. While genocide is nothing like mass immigration or being outbred, there is one effect that they have in common.

        2 situations.

        1: Country has two races. One of them commits genocide against the other, severely reducing it’s overall proportion of the population and thus its power. Not only are millions dead, but race B has been turned into a minority and has lost a whole bunch of power without its consent, esp in any kind of winner-take-all democratic contest.

        2: Country has two races. Race A reproduces faster than Race B and/or many outside members of Race A immigrate. Incentives may be high for individual members of Race A to do this but not for individual members of Race B to match their growth. Nobody dies, but now Race B is turned into a minority and has lost a whole bunch of power without its consent, especially in winner-take-all contests.

        One of my own problems with modern politics is the inability to choose what boundaries you draw your winner-take-all borders around.

  7. DonnaL
    DonnaL November 19, 2012 at 1:04 pm |

    It should be pointed out, the term ‘Hispanic’ as it applies to the census, merely refers to Spanish Speaking people. He doesn’t give us the number of ‘Hispanic Whites’ so for all we know, the overall white population may have increased. All this shows is more people are speaking Spanish as a first language.

    I’ve never really understood the assumption by people throughout the political spectrum that speaking Spanish is a racial category, and automatically means that the person speaking it isn’t white (as if that were an objective rather than a socio-political category in the first place.) There are, I believe, more people of Italian descent in Argentina than there are in the USA. My Polish-Jewish cousins in Cuba and my German-Jewish cousins in Brazil didn’t magically acquire a different race from mine because their families took a left turn once they crossed the Atlantic in 1910 and 1940, respectively.

    It’s almost as if people like Steyn are trying to whip up fear and paranoia by making non-Hispanic white people feel like a persecuted minority!

    And I won’t even touch the immigration = genocide rhetoric. Wow.

    1. DonnaL
      DonnaL November 19, 2012 at 1:21 pm |

      OK, I do know that people in Brazil speak Portuguese, not Spanish, but I think they’re still generally lumped together for demographic purposes, at least in this country.

    2. Noadi
      Noadi November 19, 2012 at 3:01 pm |

      It’s actually a more arbitrary category than that. In general immigrants directly from Spain (instead of via Latin America) are considered white not hispanic. What it really means is people with ancestry in central or south america which is generally a mix of European and native people (and African in some areas). Which really puts into perspective just how ridiculous such categories are.

    3. karak
      karak November 19, 2012 at 3:27 pm |

      I found this one out: Brazilians are not considered Hispanic. Which makes sense, given that they usually don’t speak Spanish, but leads to interesting quandaries, like my Brazilian-American professor being informed he was not eligible for a scholarship for a Latin American student because he was not Hispanic.

      1. EG
        EG November 19, 2012 at 3:35 pm |

        But he is Latin American! Portuguese is a romance language! Now I want to go bang my head against a wall.

      2. DonnaL
        DonnaL November 19, 2012 at 4:46 pm |

        How could people from Brazil not be considered Latin American? My son has a good friend from high school whose mother is Brazilian, and she certainly was able to put down that she was from a Latin American/Latina background on her college applications.

    4. Rick
      Rick November 19, 2012 at 3:40 pm |

      Nice post. I dream of a day when we don’t officially categorize people at all. I think the good Reverend Doctor King had it right with that “content of character” thing.

      Regardless of original intent, the effect of categorizing people by ethnicity or gender has done more to divide us than integrate us. There is no “we”, only “me and others like me that aren’t like you”.

      1. EG
        EG November 19, 2012 at 4:57 pm |

        Regardless of original intent, the effect of categorizing people by ethnicity or gender has done more to divide us than integrate us.

        Are you comparing today a time when people weren’t categorized by ethnicity or gender? When was this utopian era?

        1. Rick
          Rick November 19, 2012 at 5:20 pm |

          You have a very good point EG. There has never been any. What I meant, but didn’t properly communicate is that US culture has moved from melting pot, where all ethnicities tried to assimilate to a common culture, to multiculturalism. Less assimilation, more divisiveness. Instead of celebrating commonalities, we now celebrate differences.

          Thanks for the correction.

        2. DonnaL
          DonnaL November 19, 2012 at 5:39 pm |

          US culture has moved from melting pot, where all ethnicities tried to assimilate to a common culture, to multiculturalism

          And by a remarkable coincidence, the common culture to which people were expected to assimilate just so happened to be a white European Christian culture, largely Protestant. Not so wonderful.

      2. mxe354
        mxe354 November 19, 2012 at 6:00 pm |

        Regardless of original intent, the effect of categorizing people by ethnicity or gender has done more to divide us than integrate us. There is no “we”, only “me and others like me that aren’t like you”.

        Categorization isn’t the problem; institutionalized prejudice is.

      3. Rick
        Rick November 19, 2012 at 6:08 pm |

        And by a remarkable coincidence, the common culture to which people were expected to assimilate just so happened to be a white European Christian culture, largely Protestant. Not so wonderful.

        I’m not sure if you are denigrating assimilation and whites, or just whites?

        No matter. My assimilation has already been addressed in previous posts. I’m on board.

        1. DonnaL
          DonnaL November 19, 2012 at 6:15 pm |

          Just Christianity, mostly. War on Christmas, here we come!

        2. mxe354
          mxe354 November 19, 2012 at 6:17 pm |

          She’s doing neither; she’s just saying that being expected to assimilate to a bigoted culture is a bad thing. You would know that if you actually read what she’s saying.

        3. samanthab
          samanthab November 20, 2012 at 8:13 am |

          I’m not sure why that’s so much denigration as a fact of history.

      4. im
        im November 20, 2012 at 3:37 am |

        I dream of a day when we don’t officially categorize people at all.

        NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

        -About multiculturalism: I’m not quite sure how much we really have changed, but some kind of vague European culture is definitely still the default, but only gets noticed when it does something wrong.

        - What’s so wrong with European Vaugely-Protestantism?

        - Dude. About MLK: Point of advice. If you are white, and you are saying that MLK was good, and focusing on him not discriminating compared to modern social justice, you have a point but are probably falling into a very common and often kind of racist trap.

        1. EG
          EG November 20, 2012 at 1:28 pm |

          What’s so wrong with European Vaugely-Protestantism?

          The way it has treated every-fucking-body else.

        2. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 20, 2012 at 2:47 pm |

          - What’s so wrong with European Vaugely-Protestantism?

          The same thign that’s wrong with a bazooka; what people usually did with it.

  8. Nicole
    Nicole November 19, 2012 at 1:19 pm |

    Wow! This is awful! He completely ignores the fact that there are “reasons” why non-white people don’t like voting for Romney…instead their choices are purely based on their race. Funny- I thought that my friend’s in the states voted for because of his stance on gay marriage, health care, and immigration. But nope- they voted for him because they were immigrants. This gets Romney off the hook for every doing anything to actually ATTRACT voters who aren’t white. But hey- I’m not complaining. That means it will get harder and harder for republicans to win every year. And not because of tribalism- because of racism. And people losing because they are racist is fine by me!

    1. EG
      EG November 19, 2012 at 3:36 pm |

      He completely ignores the fact that there are “reasons” why non-white people don’t like voting for Romney…instead their choices are purely based on their race.

      I think that when conservatives make this kind of argument, they reveal an awful lot about their own voting practices.

      1. TomSims
        TomSims November 19, 2012 at 4:31 pm |

        “I think that when conservatives make this kind of argument, they reveal an awful lot about their own voting practices.”

        You seem to imply that conservatives = racists

        1. EG
          EG November 19, 2012 at 4:44 pm |

          Well spotted.

        2. Partial Human
          Partial Human November 19, 2012 at 4:57 pm |

          Wow, you’re a sharp one little buddy!

          Several gold stars for your awesome powers of deduction, Sherlock Sims.

        3. (BFing)Sarah
          (BFing)Sarah November 19, 2012 at 7:35 pm |

          GASP! [clutching at my pearls]

        4. im
          im November 20, 2012 at 3:39 am |

          Yeah pretty much.

          Although if you are white, and you are comparing the two parties, and trying to figure out which one makes you feel less like a Norse God at the finale of Gotterdammerung, you would probably go for Romney. Not that he would help you.

        5. TomSims
          TomSims November 20, 2012 at 9:11 am |

          Thanks for validating my point. So there you have it. On the one side we have the Liberals who are perfect. On the other we have the GOP, lily white ,beer drinking, Nascar watching, racist, sexist rednecks.

        6. Andie
          Andie November 20, 2012 at 9:53 am |

          Now now, I’m sure not all of them watch NASCAR.

        7. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 20, 2012 at 10:01 am |

          Yes, TomSims, liberals are all perfect in every way.

          Also, since when was racism NOT a guiding light for the social conservatives of any country? I mean, seriously, ANY country?

        8. (BFing)Sarah
          (BFing)Sarah November 20, 2012 at 10:12 am |

          Yup and everyone that voted for Obama is a secret Muslim and Black Panther that has 4 babies (in addition to the 4 abortions that she had for fun) by different parents and we all just want hand outs from the government as well as to turn this into a communist country where no one has to work but the white men. In other words: Perfect.

        9. EG
          EG November 20, 2012 at 10:16 am |

          On the one side we have the Liberals who are perfect. On the other we have the GOP, lily white ,beer drinking, Nascar watching, racist, sexist rednecks.

          If your standard for perfection is “not as racist as the Republican party,” your standard is low indeed.

          Rest assured, though, I save my true hatred for the multi-millionaire, white, home-foreclosing, job-destroying, racist, misogynist financiers of the GOP.

        10. miga
          miga November 20, 2012 at 10:17 am |

          To be fair to Tomsims, I have several PoC relatives who, while very conservative (teetering on fundamentalist), I wouldn’t call racist. Homophobic? Christian-centric? Sexist? Anti-science? Yes yes and yes. But not racist. They’re usually quite progressive in issues of race (it’s one of the relatively safe topics of conversation), actually.

        11. EG
          EG November 20, 2012 at 10:29 am |

          To be fair to me, I never claimed that all conservatives were racist. I specifically referred to the ones who can’t imagine any other reason non-white people might vote for Obama except that he’s black.

        12. TomSims
          TomSims November 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm |

          “Rest assured, though, I save my true hatred for the multi-millionaire, white, home-foreclosing, job-destroying, racist, misogynist financiers of the GOP.”

          Thanks for the clarification

          “To be fair to me, I never claimed that all conservatives were racist.”

          Most comments I’ve read posted here tells another story.

          “To be fair to Tomsims, I have several PoC relatives who, while very conservative (teetering on fundamentalist), I wouldn’t call racist. Homophobic? Christian-centric? Sexist? Anti-science? Yes yes and yes. But not racist. They’re usually quite progressive in issues of race (it’s one of the relatively safe topics of conversation), actually.”

          You appear to out of lockstep with your sisters here.

          “Yes, TomSims, liberals are all perfect in every way.”

          Thanks for the confirmation

          “Now now, I’m sure not all of them watch NASCAR.”

          Yes true, but they watch the NFL, NBA, NHL, UFC, and go to strip bars etc. NASCAR is like the umbrella group for all redneck pursuits.

        13. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 20, 2012 at 2:51 pm |

          Behold the TomSims of the field! It braineth not, nor doth it sarcasm.

        14. EG
          EG November 20, 2012 at 3:32 pm |

          Most comments I’ve read posted here tells another story.

          But the one you quoted was mine.

          I like the idea that liberals don’t watch the NHL or the NFL or the NBA, though. I guess we just sit around in our tweed jackets, watching PBS documentaries.

        15. TomSims
          TomSims November 21, 2012 at 7:51 am |

          “But the one you quoted was mine.

          I like the idea that liberals don’t watch the NHL or the NFL or the NBA, though. I guess we just sit around in our tweed jackets, watching PBS documentaries.”

          I quoted you because I was replying to you.

          You left out sipping expensive wine while watching PBS documentaries. Actually I watch PBS documentaries , but without the alcohol. I know it seems strange, but I don’t drink at all and I’m not even a member of the GOP or a liberal. I actually think independently. I guess I have modern science stumped. I must be from Mars. :D

        16. EG
          EG November 22, 2012 at 12:04 pm |

          I quoted you because I was replying to you.

          No kidding. So why are you suddenly bringing up other comments?

          I’m not even a member of the GOP or a liberal. I actually think independently.

          Well, congrats. I’m not a member of the GOP or a liberal either. Those are not the only two options in life.

          I do drink though. Because I like it.

      2. TomSims
        TomSims November 23, 2012 at 11:29 am |

        “Those are not the only two options”

        I never said they were.

        “I do drink though. Because I like it”

        Go for it. Life is about choices. I only mentioned I choose not to drink, because I get the impression that feminists consider all NON liberal white men to be beer guzzling, sexiest, racist, homophobic and violence prone scumbags.

        1. EG
          EG November 23, 2012 at 11:48 am |

          I get the impression that feminists consider all NON liberal white men to be beer guzzling, sexiest, racist, homophobic and violence prone scumbags.

          What’s wrong with guzzling beer? It can get a bit messy, I guess, as opposed to sipping or swallowing, but as long as the guzzler cleans up after him/herself, that’s not my problem.

          You need to do some work to connect your impressions of things with what people here are actually saying. You’ve been spending a lot of time making assumptions that are not borne out by other people’s comments.

        2. TomSims
          TomSims November 23, 2012 at 3:37 pm |

          “You need to do some work to connect your impressions of things with what people here are actually saying. You’ve been spending a lot of time making assumptions that are not borne out by other people’s comments.”

          Ok, I apologize for not making a clearer statement. What I meant to say, is that I get the impression from browsing many feminist’s blogs and websites that NON liberal white men are considered to be alcoholic, sexist, homophobic, violent racist promoters of the rape culture.

          And I am not saying all feminists on this site or any other are all saying that, but many do say some of the things I described and some others on other sites have said exactly as I described.

          And I support their right to say that or anything else for that matter. I choose not to get into name calling, but if others choose that course, that’s fine. But for anyone to deny these these are said, is completely disingenuous .

        3. mxe354
          mxe354 November 23, 2012 at 5:42 pm |

          Impressions can be misleading, so maybe you should stop relying on them and instead pay attention to what feminists are actually saying. I’m not saying that you’re guaranteed to find only people who are pleasant, but regarding only impressions as important (at least in practice) can seriously distort your views.

        4. EG
          EG November 23, 2012 at 11:13 pm |

          I really can’t be held responsible for what other people have said, and neither can anybody else on this site. So…fire away, I guess, but be aware you’re shooting at a straw man.

          Personally, I don’t care what right-wing men are; I’m not their shrink, their wife, or their confessor. I care what policies they support, and the policies they support are indeed racist, misogynist, and homophobic.

        5. TomSims
          TomSims November 24, 2012 at 3:53 pm |

          “pay attention to what feminists are actually saying.”

          I do.

          “I’m not saying that you’re guaranteed to find only people who are pleasant,”

          That’s an understatement.

        6. TomSims
          TomSims November 24, 2012 at 3:55 pm |

          @EG

          “I really can’t be held responsible for what other people have said, and neither can anybody else on this site.”

          Never said you were.

          “I care what policies they support, and the policies they support are indeed racist, misogynist, and homophobic.”

          Thanks for the confirmation

        7. EG
          EG November 24, 2012 at 5:47 pm |

          Never said you were.

          Then why did you bring it up in conjunction with one of my comments?

          If you want to talk about whether or not a given policy is racist, misogynist, homophobic, etc., bring up the policy in an appropriate thread. If you want to talk about what’s in people’s hearts, go to a philosophy course.

        8. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve November 24, 2012 at 6:23 pm |

          I get the impression from browsing many feminist’s blogs and websites that NON liberal white men are considered to be alcoholic, sexist, homophobic, violent racist promoters of the rape culture..

          Utter nonsense and little more than slander. I would never use the term ‘considered to be.’

        9. TomSims
          TomSims November 24, 2012 at 6:59 pm |

          “I would never use the term ‘considered to be.’”

          I wasn’t suggesting that you do. But I did use it.

          I’m no lawyer, but I’m fairy sure you need to use specific individuals’ names for a slander suit to take place.

  9. Lolagirl
    Lolagirl November 19, 2012 at 3:18 pm |

    Can I just say that I hate the National Review? Racism, sexism, classism, xenophobia and every other sort of ism imaginable all wrapped up in one shrill and alarmist package.

  10. pheenobarbidoll
    pheenobarbidoll November 19, 2012 at 3:36 pm |

    ok seriously. The use of the word tribalism is getting pretty damn annoying.

    1. Li
      Li November 19, 2012 at 3:44 pm |

      Sorry pheeno. I really should have been scare quoting it or using different terminology. I’ll try to be more on top of that.

      1. pheenobarbidoll
        pheenobarbidoll November 19, 2012 at 5:07 pm |

        Thank you :)

    2. matlun
      matlun November 19, 2012 at 6:00 pm |

      I honestly do not know any good synonym for the word in this context. Since I am not a native English speaker, this is perhaps due to my limited vocabulary.

      Suggestions?

      1. RoryBorealis
        RoryBorealis November 19, 2012 at 8:33 pm |

        Ethnocentric factionalism?

    3. im
      im November 20, 2012 at 3:43 am |

      Umm what is the objection?

      Is it the whole ‘Black people have tribes, white people have nations’ thing?

      Or a First Nations thing?

      Would prefer a one word answer, also a ‘tribe’ is often something other than an ethnicity. For example, people have often used ‘tribalism’ in discussions about, for example, nerds or other countercultures.

      Just factionalism might be good.

      1. pheenobarbidoll
        pheenobarbidoll November 20, 2012 at 4:06 am |

        The term is racist and (in the context of US history) colonialist.

      2. im
        im November 20, 2012 at 4:50 am |

        Ummm, if you are not going to be any more detailed than I was in the question….

        So basically you are saying that the first reason I suggested was correct?

        1. tmc
          tmc November 20, 2012 at 11:00 am |

          Christ, Pheeno already told you that it’s racist and colonialist. If you still don’t understand, Google. It’s not that hard.

        2. Esti
          Esti November 20, 2012 at 11:15 am |

          I’m going to assume you were asking a good-faith question, but pheeno doesn’t have an obligation to explain things to you. The reference to U.S. colonialism should have clued you in that her objection was about Native Americans.

          (And a tip from one Canadian to (I assume) another: First Nations is a term that refers to (some) aboriginal peoples in Canada. In the U.S., I believe the preferred term is still Native American — apologies if I’m wrong about that — with aboriginal and indigenous as less widely used alternatives.)

        3. Angel H.
          Angel H. November 20, 2012 at 11:15 am |

          What tmc said. Also, didn’t you say that you “Would prefer a one word answer”? She gave you 11 more for free.

        4. pheenobarbidoll
          pheenobarbidoll November 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm |

          Esti- Yes, typically First Nations is a Canadian title (though it doesn’t bother me when it’s used for US indigenous since it’s respectful and I can think of a lot worse things than to be grouped with FN)

          Angel H- right?!

        5. EG
          EG November 20, 2012 at 1:30 pm |

          You said you wanted a one-word answer. How much detail, precisely, did you expect?

  11. Rhoanna
    Rhoanna November 19, 2012 at 5:49 pm |

    There is no city government, few community leaders, and little community.

    Of course Langley Park doesn’t have a city government, it’s not an incorporated area. Most of Maryland isn’t incorporated (and so has no local government beyond the county level); it’s hardly remarkable or indicative of anything that Langley Park isn’t.

  12. Jadey
    Jadey November 19, 2012 at 5:52 pm |

    I’ve been trying to comment on this and just cannot think of anything to say. How do you respond to someone who will appropriate a genocide that was the result of colonialism in order to insinuate something similar in the demographic shifts caused by birth and geographic movement in California while simultaneously erasing the (even more) colonial genocide that is the only reason that region was ever white-dominated at any point?

    There is no response. Except maybe “predictable”. And “douchebag”.

    1. pheenobarbidoll
      pheenobarbidoll November 19, 2012 at 6:20 pm |

      Yup

    2. im
      im November 20, 2012 at 3:51 am |

      Ummmmm

      Three things I would like to say…
      First, I don’t think that Ritualistic White Apologies For Long Past Genocides really are a good idea and certainly seem a bit ridiculous to be required for every discussion about US politics and race. I don’t think that even has a bearing on this, frankly, although I could be wrong. It could happen just the same if the US really had been an empty wilderness.

      Second, I’m a bit frustrated by the fact that ‘ignoring deliberate genocide against indigenous Americans’ has been replaced by ‘ignoring massive and completely utterly accidental and not-really-preventable epidemic that preceded the Europeans’. Neither of these is a good state.

      Third, I don’t think that the appropriation of the Rwandan genocide really makes sense. It certainly is an only barely sensical ‘One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other’ (for my analysis of the part that does make sense, see my comment above) but it almost sounds like you are saying that it’s wrong to make analogies between things.

      1. pheenobarbidoll
        pheenobarbidoll November 20, 2012 at 4:14 am |

        ‘ignoring massive and completely utterly accidental and not-really-preventable epidemic that preceded the Europeans’

        So you’re suggesting the Spanish Invasion was accidental? That they brought disease with them when they decided to conquer was an ooopsie so that whole conquering thing can be safely diminished to..what? Nothing?

        And that Columbian Exhange was all the result of consensual sex and not, oh…rape.
        Sorry we accidentally killed you with disease while we we’re forcing you to convert to Christianity and slaughtering you for gold! whooops!

        1. RoryBorealis
          RoryBorealis November 20, 2012 at 8:57 am |

          Plus policies like Manifest Destiny which less to mass laughter of indigenous North Americans, federal termination policies (“Oh, you guys don’t rtust the US government on account of how we’ve been committing mass murder and you don;t want to go on the rolls? Okay, then you no longer exist.”), “residential schools” that effectively stole children and at which rampant abuse was the exception and not the norm, laws like the Dawes Act to further break up remaining Native territories, and that’s barely scratching the surface.

          Genocide and conquest of the Americas is not merely a series of discrete events that is long past. It is ongoing and has as much to do with policy as with weapons, deliberately-spread disease, and forced relocations. This is 101 stuff.

        2. RoryBorealis
          RoryBorealis November 20, 2012 at 12:18 pm |

          Pseudo-edit: that should be “mass slaughter” not “mass laughter.”

      2. pheenobarbidoll
        pheenobarbidoll November 20, 2012 at 4:15 am |

        For Long Past Genocides

        I don’t even have the fucking patience.

        1. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 20, 2012 at 12:47 pm |

          Ugh, pheeno, you have all my sympathies. Hugs if you want ‘em.

          …on a totally unrelated note, I want to put the avatar you made me up as my avatar on this site, but I have no idea how…. -_-

        2. Li
          Li November 20, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

          Mac, you can set up your preferred avatar through gravatar.com.

        3. pheenobarbidoll
          pheenobarbidoll November 20, 2012 at 3:19 pm |

          Mac- I use gravatar, too. It’s easy and free.

      3. im
        im November 20, 2012 at 5:01 am |

        My impression of the sequence of events is as follows. Is it wrong?

        ~1000 ce: North America is very populous.
        ~ 1400s – 1600s: First contact is made in limited coastal areas with Spaniards mostly who decided to enslave everyone. Disease is spread both ways, but the Europeans get a disease that is only spread sexually while the Americans get smallpox.

        Smallpox races ahead of any European incursion and destroys a lot of cultures. Is partly responsible for fact that Europeans only recently discovered empires on the scale of the Central and South American ones like the Aztecs, Inca, et. al: They existed, but were wiped out by the disease (which would have happened even with totally peaceful first contact, that’s my point) before any white man or woman encountered them.

        ~1600s: Colonization of the east coast and eastern part of the interior of North America begins in earnest. Mostly British, I think, not Spanish. Smallpox is still killing people, is sometimes used as a biological weapon after this point.

        1. Li
          Li November 20, 2012 at 6:12 am |

          Yes. It is wrong. Please cultivate some quiet-time now.

        2. matlun
          matlun November 20, 2012 at 8:14 am |

          Evan better: Read up on the history. I would recommend starting with Cortes since you seem to have missed the whole conquest of the Aztecs.

          Also, smallpox was far from the only disease the Europeans brought to the Americas. A main reason that the effect was so devastating was that many times multiple new diseases hit the population at the same time.

      4. konkonsn
        konkonsn November 20, 2012 at 3:25 pm |

        Long Past Genocides

        Oh no, the US government (and media) is still working hard at that one.

        1. pillowinhell
          pillowinhell November 20, 2012 at 4:07 pm |

          Long past genocides…

          I have yet to meet even one person of colour who demands I apaologize for my white ancestry or what my ancestors have done.

          What I have encountered are people of colour who ask that I learn the actual history of my people and theirs. That I try to form some understanding of how history and current events affect them and a little bit of their cultural practices so I understand the world a bit better.

          Its not like learning these things is going to white people the slightest harm. And no one ever died of shame because they said they were sorry for something.

      5. pillowinhell
        pillowinhell November 20, 2012 at 3:30 pm |

        I’m, you’re a fucking idiot. Stop and think about this for a few moments. A few white men show up and totally conquor a highly developed civilization whoi had plenty of strong, brave men to defend it. Some of the disease was spread accidentally. And some, like small pox was deliberately traded under false pretenses of friendship. Cortez and his ilk traded blankets, clothing and other goods handled by small pox victims back home knowing full well what the outcome would be. Small pox had a ninety percent kill rate on the people of the Americas because it was a disease they had no immunity to.

        Now, how much work do you think those few men had to do in conquoring and battle once they finished handing out their parcels of invisible death?

        1. matlun
          matlun November 20, 2012 at 6:19 pm |

          This appears to bear no resemblance to the actual history either, so I will give you the same advice as im. Please read up on the history.

          The main explanation as to how Cortes small army managed to fight the Aztec is that he allied with the Tlaxcala and other local enemies of the Aztec.

        2. amblingalong
          amblingalong November 20, 2012 at 8:07 pm |

          The main explanation as to how Cortes small army managed to fight the Aztec is that he allied with the Tlaxcala and other local enemies of the Aztec.

          As much as citing Wikipedia articles as evidence makes me flinch, yeah, pretty much.

        3. Donna L
          Donna L November 20, 2012 at 8:52 pm |

          Cortes was guilty of a hell of a lot, but the deliberate infection with smallpox, so far as I’ve read, began with the British in the French and Indian War. Andrew Jackson apparently did it too. I’m not sure that most people had any idea back in the 1500′s how smallpox was transmitted.

      6. Jadey
        Jadey November 20, 2012 at 4:31 pm |

        Other people have already replied, but I just wanted to make a few more points:

        First, I don’t think that Ritualistic White Apologies For Long Past Genocides really are a good idea and certainly seem a bit ridiculous to be required for every discussion about US politics and race.

        First of all, a sincere acknowledgement and apology for both past and on-going violence (especially when said violence is consistently ignored and erased) is fine in my books. Better than what we currently have, which the the Ritualistic White Slap in the Face for Things We Prefer not to Think About.

        Second, I’m a bit frustrated by the fact that ‘ignoring deliberate genocide against indigenous Americans’ has been replaced by ‘ignoring massive and completely utterly accidental and not-really-preventable epidemic that preceded the Europeans’. Neither of these is a good state.

        I am not even sure what the hell you mean by this, but see above for explanations of how drastically poor your understanding of the colonization of the Americas is.

        Third, I don’t think that the appropriation of the Rwandan genocide really makes sense. It certainly is an only barely sensical ‘One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other’ (for my analysis of the part that does make sense, see my comment above) but it almost sounds like you are saying that it’s wrong to make analogies between things.

        It is when the analogy is fucking offensive. Here’s an analogy for you: Steyn’s statement is akin to a skinhead complaining about being treated like a Jew in the Holocaust.

        Rwandan genocide: Colonialism-fuelled mass murder which a fuck of a lot of white people in white-dominated countries dismissed while it was happening as regular and totes natural and acceptable “tribal warfare” (seriously, look at news coverage from the time) while doing plenty to continue to destabilize the region and fuck-all to support the people in the country who were trying to stop it from happening in the first place.

        Demographic changes in California: White people not having as many babies. Some more brown people moving in. Some white people mad at what they perceive as encroachments on their entitlement to white privilege. Also, NO ONE WAS FUCKING MURDERED.

  13. igglanova
    igglanova November 19, 2012 at 6:35 pm |

    This man is a national embarrassment and easily one of Canada’s worst exports.

    1. Andie
      Andie November 19, 2012 at 8:29 pm |

      Damn, for some reason I thought he was from the UK.

      Nickelback, no, but I will apologize for this guy.

      So, so sorry.

      1. Jadey
        Jadey November 19, 2012 at 8:56 pm |

        Well, we hung on to Ezra Levant and Tom Flanagan, so our neighbours can be grateful for that at least…

        1. Andie
          Andie November 19, 2012 at 9:42 pm |

          Oh yes. Ezra.

          Blargh.

        2. im
          im November 20, 2012 at 3:52 am |

          Wasn’t this the newspaper that had the guy who thought that white people usually give their children long, ultra-racist talks about how to avoid being killed by black drug dealers or something?

  14. macavitykitsune
    macavitykitsune November 19, 2012 at 6:50 pm |

    Well, I for one thoroughly look forward to the enslavement and subjugation of whites in coming days. I’ve made a good start on it myself already! Today, my 11yo actually had to tidy her room and bring her tea mug upstairs so I could wash it. I feel practically conquistadorial. Conquistadorical? I’m not sure what the term is.

    Anyway, I feel that I’ve done my part. Maybe I’ll even exceed my quota by making my wife get me coffee on her way home from work! That’ll teach her to be melanically challenged. *evil laugh*

    1. mxe354
      mxe354 November 19, 2012 at 7:09 pm |

      All right, that’s it; I’m leaving Feministe forever. You are proof that all you ladies want is total domination. I should have known that this place was infected with hatred when someone called me out on a bigoted comment I once made here.

      1. macavitykitsune
        macavitykitsune November 19, 2012 at 7:56 pm |

        *hahaha* Mine is an evil laugh!

    2. Alexandra
      Alexandra November 19, 2012 at 7:26 pm |

      melanically challenged

      SAVE THE PEARLS!!!

      1. macavitykitsune
        macavitykitsune November 19, 2012 at 7:55 pm |

        I clutch mine daily.

        1. Bagelsan
          Bagelsan November 19, 2012 at 9:53 pm |

          Is that what the kids are calling it nowadays?

        2. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune November 19, 2012 at 11:29 pm |

          *leers* Language is a lovely thing….

  15. king ten butts
    king ten butts November 19, 2012 at 7:21 pm |

    hi it’s me rick i’m new here but trust me i’ve already figured out feminism is wrong and racism is A-OK so let me tell you about it in every thread possible please give me attention

    1. king ten butts
      king ten butts November 19, 2012 at 7:24 pm |

      also if you insult me my ignorance is automatically your fault for not teaching instead cos like don’t expect me to do research before opening my mouth that takes time and i have to reply now now now

    2. im
      im November 20, 2012 at 3:54 am |

      He has been on other threads? Oh dear.

  16. amblingalong
    amblingalong November 20, 2012 at 7:49 am |

    Can Rick please be gone now? The whole fake-ignorance shtick is getting absurdly obnoxious.

    1. Andie
      Andie November 20, 2012 at 9:10 am |

      That and the “Allow me to prostrate myself upon the altar of Feminism for I am but a poor unworthy privileged white male!” thing. Ugh.

  17. macavitykitsune
    macavitykitsune November 20, 2012 at 10:17 am |

    Okay, so, another thought on this:

    I’ll buy that every non-white person who voted for Obama was voting because they’re racist, if you’ll agree that every white person who’s ever voted for a white guy before him is racist too.

  18. roro80
    roro80 November 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm |

    It is a pretty brazenly ugly and racist idea that South and Central America’s history of corruption was caused by it’s poor luck to be settled by Spanish speakers, while North America’s history of TEH AWESOME (which includes no corruption and no slavery and none of all that unpleasant business of sitting around taking naps during the day) was caused by it’s extreme luck to be settled by non-Spanish speakers. That someone like this — someone who can exhibit this almost shocking level of racism — goes on to talk about the “tribalism” (=reverse racism) of the non-white people in the US, with no hint of understanding the irony, takes a pretty advanced level of self-dilusion and outright stupidity.

  19. Tancred
    Tancred November 22, 2012 at 7:55 pm |

    Sorry, racism is just for white people.

    1. mxe354
      mxe354 November 23, 2012 at 2:48 pm |

      Uh, nothing about this article says that racism against white people is impossible.

  20. Rayuela23
    Rayuela23 November 22, 2012 at 9:42 pm |

    The whole Nkomo/Mugabe thing seems to be a special bugbear of racists for some reason? Anyway, I’ll bite, Joshua Nkomo was not, in fact, Ndebele.
    http://www.amazon.com/Rise-up-walk-An-autobiography/dp/0237503670

    But it’s the second time I’ve heard that mixed in with a pile of racist b.s. It’s almost like… racists are ignorant or something

  21. Jenny Griffin
    Jenny Griffin November 23, 2012 at 3:44 am |

    The United States is richer by far than its southern neighbours because it was settled by the English who are also responsible for the liberal laws that later immigrants took advantage of, the high standard of living envied by the ingrates who presently denigrate the nation, and last but not least, the freedom of speech that allows this anti-Anglo drivel to be posted here. The US was made possible by the first English immigrants who set up stable and prosperous colonies. Accept it and get over it.

    1. EG
      EG November 23, 2012 at 11:51 am |

      Your comment makes no sense. The US was made possible by genocide and slavery. It has exercised imperial and military interference to keep itself far richer than its southern neighbors. Your fantasy of good solid English yeoman doing good, solid things and being justly rewarded by a fair universe is a grade-school Disney story.

    2. macavitykitsune
      macavitykitsune November 23, 2012 at 1:03 pm |

      HAHAHAHAHAHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHA
      HAHAHAHAHAHA
      no.

    3. Lolagirl
      Lolagirl November 23, 2012 at 2:05 pm |

      What is it with the troll influx as of late? Are these voices of offensiveness in the guise conservatism all so bored now that the election season is over that they have nothing better to do with their time?

    4. mxe354
      mxe354 November 23, 2012 at 2:32 pm |

      The United States is richer by far than its southern neighbours because it was settled by the English who are also responsible for the liberal laws that later immigrants took advantage of

      “took advantage of”…hmm…nah, surely that doesn’t reflect your bigotry against immigrants.

      the high standard of living envied by the ingrates who presently denigrate the nation

      Yeah, it’s not like it’s envied because they are being denied it for no good reason or anything. Clearly they’re just “ingrates.”

      and last but not least, the freedom of speech that allows this anti-Anglo drivel to be posted here.

      That’s some amazing reading comprehension you have there. Calling out someone for being racist is clearly “anti-Anglo drivel”. Jill, what’s up with that?

      The US was made possible by the first English immigrants who set up stable and prosperous colonies. Accept it and get over it.

      Obviously, the native society was unstable and not prosperous at all because, y’know, they were all savages. It’s not like they could possibly be prosperous and stable! Incidentally, I’ve been hearing some silly folks tell me that the overall condition of the native people here worsened profoundly as a direct result of colonialist exploitation and racism. I’ve even heard that native people were systematically murdered, raped, and enslaved. What nonsense!

      Get the fuck out, you bigoted asshat.

      1. mxe354
        mxe354 November 23, 2012 at 2:41 pm |

        Correction: the native people are still being oppressed. I didn’t mean to say that it only happened in the past, as many colonialist apologists say.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.