No. You answered a different question. Try again.

I want you to reason logically and effectively. I would go as far as to you being lazy about your reasoning is endemic of the actual issues facing America. You think it's boring to be well-informed, but you take ill-informed positions and are willing to try to argue them. And you don't seem to update your beliefs with new information.

You don't need to be highly educated to understand that you've made a bad argument. You just need to be intellectually honest.

Please tell me what "Boomer America" is. I assumed that you were referring to the "Baby Boomer Generation" which is the collection of people born in the years following WW2, who are about 80% white and whose offspring would be strongly representative of the "non-Hispanic white" cohort that you referred to earlier. The ones that you seemed to be suggesting is the "we" whose "way of life" is not being protected.

One of the places where I part ways with many US progressives today is that I think we should try to redeem and hold onto American heritage and symbols. America was the most important nation of the twentieth century and ceding that history to our political opponents seems to me foolish. People want to be part of a winning team. Furthermore, political movements have to be built around basic passions, and using pride and hope for the future seems to me more likely to result in social comity and positive outcomes than anger, cynicism, or resentment. Basically, I still think Obama had the right political message. People identify as Americans and want their identity to be affirmed as a good thing. Given a sinful history, they want to focus on the better parts of the past and how they can change the worse parts in the future.

You would probably know better than I as you know more about sociology. But here's my view. "American" is plausibly an ethnicity, although a somewhat unusual one as it isn't based on a common lineage and so is atypically permeable. However, insofar as most Americans I know identify as "white," they understand this in racial rather than ethnic terms. That is, they understand it as meaning something like, descended primarily from Europeans and maybe Jews rather than as an subset of American.

You do have regional cultures: New England, Appalachian, Southern, California, some of which are associated with being white because of history. You also have historic white ethnic cultures that many American still identify with, eg German, Irish, Italian (or non-white ethnic cultures). But common American culture seems to me to blur these racial and ethnic lines too much to constitute a real "white American" ethnicity. For instance, that old blog "Things White People Like" was as much an identification of class as racial or ethnic differences. But in general, too much of what makes us American is bound up in the non-white experience, whether in the past or today, for there to be a coherent sense of a white American ethnicity. Our common music, sports, writers, food, TV and movies, clothes, etc are too diverse for this to really work.

In your mind, Americans should have no interest in, or preferences for, the state of the culture as long as it is in bounds of the law? In other words, is it a legitimate position to want to influence the culture beyond what is allowed by law?

There are a few things playing into this. One of them is that New York is one of those places that has strong historical roots (such as Little Italy) where country of origin (and culture of origin... or at least a version of it) still has a strong role to play.

I would suggest that the view of "White American" as an ethnic group is about as effective as "Evangelical Christian" is as a religious group in terms of its ability to distinguish features. There is a huge amount of diversity in each, and lots of groups lay claim to some aspect of it. It's not super-effective in terms of creating delineations, but it can be useful nonetheless as an identifier of some type.

Imagine a person making the following statement: "This is America. We speak English here." The most common images of the types of people who might say that live in the types of places where "White American" as an ethnic (and not a racial) category is taking hold.

My post is straight forward.

Perhaps a more efficient way of saying this is that "White American" is better understood by what it's not than what it is, much in the same way that "American Protestant" is better understood as "American Christian, but just not Catholic."

So are my questions..

Which should be answered by my post.

That would be true if we had an open border, non selective immigration policy and never change our laws which is not the case. Since our immigration policy is fluid and we live in a democracy, my questions are not answered by your post.

I'm open to prioritizing high-skill immigrants, immigrants with jobs and/or family already here, and rich immigrants. You'll have to be more specific about what you mean by culture though. The main culture I'm concerned with is whether they are willing to honestly swear to uphold the Constitution and laws of the US. Otherwise I'm skeptical of the government (or people more generally) using fair or good criteria as to what counts as a good culture to bring in.

Can you explain the distinction you are drawing here between a right-wing and a conservative position? I distinguish between them conceptually, but I don't expect others to know how I do so without clarification.

To answer your question, sure. The best way I know to do this is to try to engage with other people's ideas as fully as I can and give the best reasons I know for why and where I disagree. I don't pretend that I can tell people what to believe. If my arguments are cogent, I present them well, and I'm not talking to a complete troll, they'll have an impact. If not, then they probably won't.

dude. are you blind? i answered it three times. once for each way your question can be construed.
1) do i object to the reason they're here. yes
2) do i wish they were not here. yes.
3) would i want them to be removed in an ideal world where i make the law or w/e, etc? no.

Sure, I'm not denying that there aren't commonalities for white Americans, just that they aren't robust enough or distinct enough from other Americans to constitute a separate ethnicity.

Yeah, but here we aren't talking about white Americans as an ethnic group, but rather a subset of white Americans, perhaps bound by region or ideology or class. I guess I just don't think all these classifications make sense as an ethnicity. For instance, Asian-Americans are a distinct group of Americans plausibly with some common features. But this doesn't seem to me an ethnicity: Indian-American is very different from Japanese-American which is very different from Kazakh-American. I'm doubtful that there is a common heritage there rich enough to describe as an ethnicity. So if you want to say that say, Appalachian American is an ethnicity, I don't know, maybe you are right, I'm not really clear on the taxonomy here. But white American seems too broad to me.

Opened borders sound good.

I mean culture in the broadest definition. I consider it a win if both sides can agree on that point. I see this culture war, at least a significant portion of it, as downstream of a deeper disagreement that’s beyond politics. I’ve mentioned it sporadically on this forum, but it would take a long time for me to try to explain it in depth.

Right wing -> projecting a collection of perceived group characteristics onto an individual as a default (identity politics)

Conservative -> being cautious of making changes to systems that work well enough

I could be asking you the same thing. Here's the question in its various iterations. First, when I was asked about Muslims, you seemed to understand the question because you gave a clear answer.

Then I asked the same question of blacks:

You first answered with a statement about displacement, which clearly has nothing to do with the question. So I asked again:

And you gave some weird ramble about in-group preferences and evolution that made no sense.

Now, as to your responses:

1) This clearly has nothing to do with the questions at hand.
2) Before this point, you had not stated this explicitly about black Americans. And to be clear, you are saying this about black Americans, correct?
3) Again, this clearly has nothing to do with what is being asked.

Do you believe that America ought to be ethnically or racially "pure" in any sense?

Agreed.


I'm not sure that there's a consensus among social scientists, and since ethic, racial, and national identities are all culturally constructed, contested, and fluid I'm not sure there's an objectively correct answer. So I tend to think of it as a question about what sorts of distinctions are useful for analyzing social/cultural phenomena.

With that in mind, I think there are so many dimensions of American society which cannot be understood without taking race into account that we're basically forced to look at "white American" as distinct from "black American" (or other minority groups). I think it's worth conceptualizing as ethnicity instead of as race because the American part is also important; it's not just a question of racial differences as though they could be exported to any social context, they are racial differences in a distinctly American context. Of course it's clear that the salience of "white American" as an ethnicity (and the development of such an ethnic identity from WASP origins through the inclusion of Catholics, Jews, and etc...) owes a lot to the specific history of racism in the US and in European colonial history, and maybe that explains part of the reticence involved in recognizing it as an ethnic group. Also I think we are rightfully hesitant because it might imply some kind of essentialism about cultural differences which we're hoping to transcend in our ideal multi-ethnic society.

I think you're right that there's obviously a lot of overlap between any categories we could construct and that "white American" as an ethnic identity is going to seem somewhat thinner than some more narrowly constructed regional identities. But I also think there are phenomena in American society which would seem obscure if we only allow regional identities (German-American) but deny the possibility of a white American ethnic identity, and are clearer if we accept the latter. I contrasted your ideal of "civic nationalism" to "ethno-nationalism" before, and I think the conflation of nationality with ethnicity in the politics of issues like immigration is a good example. Think of Sarah Palin's "real Americans", or Aaron's point about movements to make English a national language. The sense of cultural identity underlying a lot of anti-immigration sentiment, or anxiety about demographic change in general, is I think plausibly tied to a sense of white ethnic identity. I think those sentiments are often unfortunately prejudicial, but they exist nonetheless and are probably worth recognizing as a kind of ethnic identification.

To some extent I think the perception of shared culture, history, and in-group boundaries is more important than the historical justification for that perception. In other words "white American" is plausible as an ethnicity (especially in comparison to other demographic groups) in part because so many white Americans act like it is -- however we should conceptualize it (i.e. as racial identity or ethnic identity).

Sure, there are evolutionary reasons why you would favor your own kin. Kin altruism is a relatively well know phenomenon. However, this rapidly breaks down once you have groups as large as a nation. "Tribalism" as evolutionary logic works for actual tribes - which are kinship groups of a few dozen or hundreds at most. When you are talking about the millions of people who constitute a nation, then it doesn't really mean very much.

However, again, this is not a matter of utopian egalitarianism. Immigration is economically beneficial for the host country: there are a few exceptions, but this is not really controversial among economists. The US has a long record of allowing in immigrants and successfully integrating them into our society.

This argument doesn't make sense. On the one hand, you argue that one party, the GOP, is the "white people" party and favors white people priorities (which you identify for no reason that I see with small government conservativism and individualism, even you yourself oppose individualism). The GOP has done well enough for itself over the last few decades, holding the Presidency more often than not and having control of the House for almost the entire time since '94. But yet you complain that white people are not supporting white people priorities. Your argument is incoherent.

Your thesis is contradicted by the facts. Look around the world and there is a robust correlation between a falling birthrate and increasing wealth. And this isn't just white people either: South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and China are also seeing this happen as they've become richer. So yeah, it isn't surprising that white people are a lower percentage of the US population than previously - they are also wealthier.

As for your conspiracy theory about Jews, lol. You can't even accurately describe the ideas you think are being promoted, so how can you claim to know where they are coming from? What you don't accept is that Americans can favor policies that benefit Americans, whatever race or ethnicity they are. A high immigration rate is one such policy. So is freedom of religion. But you think this is a conspiracy rather than genuine patriotism because you can't conceive of someone viewing their country as more important than some pallid sense of whiteness. My identity as an American is much more important to me than my identity as a white person.

Maybe that's a good stepping back point. What is your concept of "ethnicity"?

I don't really have a sophisticated understanding of "ethnicity." I'm mostly just working off the definition given by wiki:

my initial reactions are much different after hearing of the nice and paris attacks than hearing of attacks that take place in say, africa, or the middle east. i think most others would agree. i mean, there's plenty everyday tests that support this. who people tend to root for in a boxing match, how people group in lunchrooms, and churches. or pretty much any place free from govt meddling.
afa immigration being a net benefit. ok. throughout most of our history, we've taken in europeans. is this group counted in that statistic? i would also have no doubt that east asian immigrants bring more value to the country than native whites, as well a select number of the smartest within india. but trying to say bringing in unproductive, low iq people from the 3rd world, is a net positive and at the same time, a humanitarian effort, should raise some flags. you're not supposed to profit during charitable acts.
all that said, economic effects come second to societal effects (communities, families, etc). blacks move in, whites flee, koreans open shop, blacks resent and one gets shot by a "huwhite" community watchman, blacks side unanimously with travyon and oj.
we don't have problems with germans fleeing french people and forming ghettos and enclaves.
do you think no go zones in europe have no effect on societal trust?
afa the gop, **** the gop and the bush's. boomer "conservatives" on steroids. complete neo-con, war-monger, zionist shills. in fact this is where the housing crisis started in part with the gop recognizing hispanics as a much needed voting base. pretty much, "vote for us, and we'll hand you the down payment for your house". this catered to hispanics at the detriment of whites.
concerning japan, i'm referring to what is rewarded in evolutionary terms. females choose mates based on traits that revolve around the ability to gain resources. shouldn't the inability to provide for a mate and offspring be selected against? does wealth in modern terms have to correlate with procreation? i don't think so. even the poorest in modern society are extremely rich in comparison to 99% of our evolutionary history. if people in the 16th century were having 14 kids, while being, by today's standards, unfathomably poor, then a parallel correlation would be physically impossible today. this is likely the cause of high suicide rates amongst populations with shrinking birthrates. we're becoming more inward, materialistic pleasure seekers (such as valuing economy over community and family).
i don't know. maybe throughout human history, life was so hard and miserable, that the greatest and only joy in life was having children. and now life is so easy, with so much readily available instant pleasure, who needs children?
concerning your last point, it's cool. i got caught up in a tangent. people can see for themselves, the narrative the media pushes and the ideas being churned out of the universities. not exactly the most friendly attitude towards whites and very favorable for "underrepresented" and "marginalized" minorities, as well as the 2nd and 3rd world who are only failing because of colonialism. telling whites to "stop breeding for the sake of the planet. oh ****, population shortage. open the floodgates from africa!"
you're telling me you don't identify as a hyphen american? well of course, you're white. you have no in-group preference.

The know nothings tried to keep the Irish out for those and religious reasons. The Italians were thought of about the same. Which is why anyone with those ancestry's that hyphenates and is anti immigrant should have some thinking to do.



Another interesting stat would be the income and education level of immigrants throughout our history.

You dont have to look it up Aaron W. But id guess until recently it was mostly poor and the uneducated.

The cause for the reaction you describe here is overdetermined. France is a rich industrialized country like the US where terrorism is rare - thus terrorist attacks there will be covered more prominently. As a comparison, I remember the Tokyo sarin attacks in 1995 also garnering a lot of media attention even though they are not white. Second, terrorism is much more common in the Middle East and Africa and so less newsworthy - people become acclimated fairly quickly. Also, people in the US are more concerned with the kind of international terrorism you see in France than with a purely domestic terrorism because they perceive it as representing a greater threat to them.

A couple points. While empirical studies do show a positive economic impact from immigration, this positive impact is an implication of economic theory as well. In general, restrictions on labor supply (such as an immigration ban) distort the labor market away from more efficient outcomes. This can apply to low-skill immigrant workers as well, who are willing to take low-productivity jobs that native workers won't take because they are still better than the jobs available in their home country.

Second, you're just wrong about the humanitarian nature of immigration. Both the immigrant and the country to which they're immigrating can benefit, because of the returns to specialization. This is the idea of comparative advantage that says that both parties to a transaction can benefit from focusing on where they can make the most money. Immigration is not primarily about just giving money to people, which is why the business community generally are in favor of increased immigration.

A couple points. First, in the US, as has already been pointed out to you, we do not have a significant problem with Muslims integrating into general society. You keep appealing to this point, but the facts simply contradict your claim. Second, you are just wrong about the history of European ethnic groups immigrating to the US. In fact, many of them did start out with exactly the kind of ghettos and enclaves you are worried about. As their children became more assimilated, stopped speaking their home language etc., many of these enclaves fell away. Third, you keep talking about societal distrust, but I don't see what this has to do with either Muslims or even with immigrants more generally. The biggest fissure among racial/ethnic groups in American society has been between black and white Americans, both of which have been here since the founding of our country. You have no answer for this problem, just pointing out that you don't like having black people around and wish they were gone, but acknowledging you can't do anything about it. Oh well.

Again, it was your argument that the GOP was the conservative "white" supporting party. You were the one identifying its small government philosophy with white values and success. That same coalition of voters and same domestic policies are still driving the GOP now. If you want to withdraw that argument, go ahead.

You claimed that evolution rewards humans that accumulated the most resources with more procreation. That claim is false given observed birthrates among wealthier societies. Here you speculate that maybe this is the result of people's preferences in a wealthy society to not have as many children. Plausible. So much for your conspiracy about the Jews causing this.

Weird how you keep getting caught up in this tangent. People can see for themselves. You are pushing the exact same conspiratorial nonsense that Jews somehow brainwash those gullible white people into betraying their own self-interest. That nonsense led to the rise of fascism in Europe and eventually contributed to the worst war in human history and one of humanity's worst attempted genocides. Yet you say you are concerned about the ill effects of societal distrust. If that is a genuine concern of yours, then you need to look much more at the ill effects of anti-semitism and the racism and prejudice you are encouraging here.

Funny ironic thing to me about Muslim immigrants is that they are conservative comparably to immigrants from say Europe and more inline with the religious rights values/culture. Strong belief in God. Pro one man and one women marriage. Against sexual proclivity. For strong family values. About the same values as evangelicals on homosexuality. About the same views of atheism and other non abrahamic Gods. They are natural allies and are more culturally close to the right in a lot of ways then Americans on the left are to the religious right.

Having more Europeans means a bunch of leftist socialist atheists....

That's a good enough definition. I think ethnicity as a formal concept is hard to grapple with because it's very malleable and socially constructed, which also makes it historically unstable. The view of "Irish" as an ethnic group in the 1800s doesn't really exist as a ethnic group in the same way today, mostly because of shifts in cultural perspectives.

Ethnically white Americans are certainly not monolithic in their perspectives. But it seems quite clear that the category fits the reality that I observe. Using the wikipedia definition:

1) There's certainly identification with each other. (Two white Americans can agree that they're white Americans)
2) We could probably disagree over common ancestry. (I see it as "white Americans from America" but there are those that lay stronger claim to their German/Italian/whatever roots.)
3) There's definitely a shared language and history (though there may be disagreement about that history), and a shared nation.

But that's just a formal analysis of the definition.

---

It's also worth noting that the blurring of race and ethnicity has been enhanced by the lack of scientific evidence for "race" as an identifiable biological construct (even though different people groups certainly have biological differences that impact things like hair color and skin pigmentation). US Government surveys now blend the historically distinct categories into a single "race/ethnicity" question. The choice that fits me best is "Asian" and it's not often that there's any more distinction than that.

And it's really for this reason (especially as a non-white American), I see "white American" as an ethnic group (despite the diversity of white Americans), much in the same way that many people see "Asian American" as an ethnic group (despite the diversity of Asian Americans).

One of the more thought-provoking comments I ran into as a young college student was "Whiteness is an ethnic culture, too." Having grown up Chinese in a town that was mostly white, I understood my "place" as an "ethnic" person. Basically: "I am ethnic. They are not."

But after reflecting on that, it seemed odd to think that I have this type of category but most others do not. So the conclusion I came to is that the ethnic culture is there, just mostly unidentified and unexperienced by the majority white population. I would put it into a similar category of thought as the invisible knapsack of white privilege.

Of course, that was a couple decades ago, and now awareness is quite a bit higher on average, and I think the reckoning process is part of what's happening in the US. There's an threat to identity, which is why many white Americans are kind of "lashing out" in certain ways. It's like there's a search for which concept of "whiteness" will prevail.

I think in the South, whiteness is being sought for in trying to reclaim history (or at least a certain set of beliefs about history). "We weren't all racist slaveowners and we have an honorable past." I think the coasts are trying to claim whiteness differently. There's a sense of whiteness comes with responsibilities because it also comes with privilege, and that privilege is grounded in the history of whiteness in the US. There's more of a sense of responsibility associated with the past as opposed to an identification with it.

Give me your energetic, your rich,
Your select few yearning to expand their economic prosperity,
The best and brightest of your teeming shore.
Send these, the wealthy and privileged to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!