52 Movies: Week 15, Porco Rosso (Red Pig)
The Milk Carton Kids: Michigan

Sowing the Wind

We're told regularly, usually with ill-concealed pleasure, that white people will soon be a minority in this country. As the legal oppression of blacks fades further into the past, younger white people will less and less agree to accept their stigmatized position as historical oppressor...

That was me, writing in 2012 (can it really be four years ago?). It may seem otherwise, but I'm actually not very happy when my pessimistic predictions come true. But it has seemed inevitable to me that white people, especially young ones, would begin to push back against the idea that they are now and forever historically guilty, and that other ethnic groups are to be encouraged to band together to advance the interests of their group as such, while they are forbidden to do so.

This was obviously not going to hold up indefinitely, and I've long thought that the reaction might include an element of open racism. It's a predictable reaction to being blamed, denounced, and ridiculed for one's race. Well, here comes the "alt-right":

Known collectively as the “alternative right,” this amalgam includes neo-reactionaries, monarchists, nativists, populists, and even a few self-declared fascists.

The above description comes from The Weekly Standard, quoted by Neo-neocon in a post called, "Who Are the Alt-Right and What Do They Want?"

And here is Victor Davis Hanson analyzing the white-versus-white dynamic: affluent whites treating poor and lower-middle-class whites with contempt, precisely as poor and lower-middle-class whites. He postulates a connection between this and the success of Trump, and I think he's right:

In sum, the white lower and middle classes are angry, and they are tired of being blamed for the unhappiness of other tribes. In our world, in which uncouth tribal leaders can say almost anything, these whites wanted their own Sharpton or Ramos, and finally got him with Donald J. Trump. 

 They have sown the wind, and they will reap the whirlwind.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"I have a feeling, in a few years people are going to be doing what they always do when the economy tanks. They will be blaming immigrants and poor people."

That's a quote from The Big Short, the recent (excellent) movie about the 2008 crash.

Immigrants, yes, but for what it's worth I don't hear that about the poor in general in relation to that particular problem. I do hear a lot of almost crazy stuff about how much welfare is costing us, when it's really a tiny piece of the pie. But what I hear more often is people blaming the bankers, big corporations, the rich in general, and all the forces involved in the movement of jobs to other countries. In general I guess it's a specific manifestation of the general sense (justified) that the people in charge don't care what happens to rank-and-file Americans.

Did I say here that I thought that Trump was the far right's Al Sharpton? I don't remember, but I've been saying it everywhere else.


Now that you mention it, I think you may have.

Right. I think it's more the idea that the elites always seem to be able to shift the blame for these sorts of things away from themselves.

I am just putting this here because it is the most recent post on your blog, Mac. A friend of mine posted in on Facebook and I thought this group would like it. He is a retired Baptist preacher, and one of my religious mentors.

These are my own rules for conversation in social media--if one must engage in conversation in social media. I remember Paul's instructions to Timothy, a younger pastor whom he mentored.
“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.”
2 Timothy 2:23-24 NIV
Paul did not mean that Timothy should avoid controversial topics. A cursory reading of Paul or of his life, or even of his letters to Timothy, would dispel that notion.
But there are ways to discuss items and issues which may lead to further understanding. And there are ways that lead to further divisiveness. Let us sometimes disagree, but never be disagreeable.
Here are my thoughts. Maybe you have additional suggestions. Do any of these need clarification?
1. I could be wrong. It has happened before.
2. Sometimes people change their minds.
3. Name calling is not productive.
4. Opinions are not equally valid. Some are reasoned and others are not.
5. Having convictions is not necessarily tantamount to hatred, close-mindedness, or bigotry.
6. If an issue remains controversial among people of good will, it is probably because there are valid arguments on all sides.
7. We can lose the war by being uncivil in winning a point.
8. Compromise is not a dirty word.


Some time ago I saw a quote about debating/arguing which I think was from Chesterton. I've looked for it but not been able to find it. The point I remember is that you should be able to state your opponent's argument in a form that he will accept. A lot of (most?) discussions never even get to that point.

True, Rob. They're never wrong.

That's a good list, Stu.

Actually it's not entirely certain that whites will become a minority in the original timeframe. Immigration from Mexico fell sharply during the recession, even turning negative for a while, and hasn't come close to recovering.
In addition, as racial mixing becomes more common I also see - or suspect I see - a modest retreat from the concept that anyone who isn't 100% white is nonwhite. While the One Drop Rule remains in full force and effect with respect to black ancestry, a white-looking person won't necessarily become nonwhite if he or she has a bit of Latin American or Asian ancestry.

I've had a similar thought--that race-mixing might outpace the measurements involved in tracking "minority" status. If it doesn't affect the actual numbers all that much, it really ought to have some effect in getting people to take the whole question less seriously. It's certainly a growing phenomenon. Unfortunately there's a whole racial establishment based on insisting upon the differences. Sadly ironic that it's a phenomenon of the left.

My wife recalls shocking everybody as a teenager in the late '60s by suggesting that the solution to the race problem was intermarriage.

Here in a certain small area along the Gulf Coast there is an old culture in which the One Drop rule doesn't exactly apply: Creole. It's associated mainly with Louisiana, of course, but it exists in coastal Alabama and Mississippi, too. I don't know how it worked in the old days but they seem to see themselves as something different from both white and black, or at least used to. I don't know, for instance, if Vivian Figures (Mobile politician) considers herself, or is considered, Creole, but she certainly looks it.

I suppose, though, that as distinctly Creole localities have dispersed, as I think is the case, the One Drop rule tends to come into play.

My wife recalls shocking everybody as a teenager in the late '60s by suggesting that the solution to the race problem was intermarriage.

I must have said something like that a million times.


The logic is pretty sound.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)