Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The End Of White America?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Leo The Cleo Donating Member (352 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-29-09 02:20 PM
Original message
The End Of White America?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/end-of-whiteness

"Civilization’s going to pieces,” he remarks. He is in polite company, gathered with friends around a bottle of wine in the late-afternoon sun, chatting and gossiping. “I’ve gotten to be a terrible pessimist about things. Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?” They hadn’t. “Well, it’s a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be—will be utterly submerged. It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.”

He is Tom Buchanan, a character in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, a book that nearly everyone who passes through the American education system is compelled to read at least once. Although Gatsby doesn’t gloss as a book on racial anxiety—it’s too busy exploring a different set of anxieties entirely—Buchanan was hardly alone in feeling besieged. The book by “this man Goddard” had a real-world analogue: Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy, published in 1920, five years before Gatsby. Nine decades later, Stoddard’s polemic remains oddly engrossing. He refers to World War I as the “White Civil War” and laments the “cycle of ruin” that may result if the “white world” continues its infighting. The book features a series of foldout maps depicting the distribution of “color” throughout the world and warns, “Colored migration is a universal peril, menacing every part of the white world.”

As briefs for racial supremacy go, The Rising Tide of Color is eerily serene. Its tone is scholarly and gentlemanly, its hatred rationalized and, in Buchanan’s term, “scientific.” And the book was hardly a fringe phenomenon. It was published by Scribner, also Fitzgerald’s publisher, and Stoddard, who received a doctorate in history from Harvard, was a member of many professional academic associations. It was precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man of Buchanan’s profile—wealthy, Ivy League–educated, at once pretentious and intellectually insecure—might have been expected to bring up in casual conversation.

As white men of comfort and privilege living in an age of limited social mobility, of course, Stoddard and the Buchanans in his audience had nothing literal to fear. Their sense of dread hovered somewhere above the concerns of everyday life. It was linked less to any immediate danger to their class’s political and cultural power than to the perceived fraying of the fixed, monolithic identity of whiteness that sewed together the fortunes of the fair-skinned.

From the hysteria over Eastern European immigration to the vibrant cultural miscegenation of the Harlem Renaissance, it is easy to see how this imagined worldwide white kinship might have seemed imperiled in the 1920s. There’s no better example of the era’s insecurities than the 1923 Supreme Court case United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, in which an Indian American veteran of World War I sought to become a naturalized citizen by proving that he was Caucasian. The Court considered new anthropological studies that expanded the definition of the Caucasian race to include Indians, and the justices even agreed that traces of “Aryan blood” coursed through Thind’s body. But these technicalities availed him little. The Court determined that Thind was not white “in accordance with the understanding of the common man” and therefore could be excluded from the “statutory category” of whiteness. Put another way: Thind was white, in that he was Caucasian and even Aryan. But he was not white in the way Stoddard or Buchanan were white.

The ’20s debate over the definition of whiteness—a legal category? a commonsense understanding? a worldwide civilization?—took place in a society gripped by an acute sense of racial paranoia, and it is easy to regard these episodes as evidence of how far we have come. But consider that these anxieties surfaced when whiteness was synonymous with the American mainstream, when threats to its status were largely imaginary. What happens once this is no longer the case—when the fears of Lothrop Stoddard and Tom Buchanan are realized, and white people actually become an American minority?

Whether you describe it as the dawning of a post-racial age or just the end of white America, we’re approaching a profound demographic tipping point. According to an August 2008 report by the U.S. Census Bureau, those groups currently categorized as racial minorities—blacks and Hispanics, East Asians and South Asians—will account for a majority of the U.S. population by the year 2042. Among Americans under the age of 18, this shift is projected to take place in 2023, which means that every child born in the United States from here on out will belong to the first post-white generation.

Obviously, steadily ascending rates of interracial marriage complicate this picture, pointing toward what Michael Lind has described as the “beiging” of America. And it’s possible that “beige Americans” will self-identify as “white” in sufficient numbers to push the tipping point further into the future than the Census Bureau projects. But even if they do, whiteness will be a label adopted out of convenience and even indifference, rather than aspiration and necessity. For an earlier generation of minorities and immigrants, to be recognized as a “white American,” whether you were an Italian or a Pole or a Hungarian, was to enter the mainstream of American life; to be recognized as something else, as the Thind case suggests, was to be permanently excluded. As Bill Imada, head of the IW Group, a prominent Asian American communications and marketing company, puts it: “I think in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, anyone who immigrated, the aspiration was to blend in and be as American as possible so that white America wouldn’t be intimidated by them. They wanted to imitate white America as much as possible: learn English, go to church, go to the same schools.”

Today, the picture is far more complex. To take the most obvious example, whiteness is no longer a precondition for entry into the highest levels of public office. The son of Indian immigrants doesn’t have to become “white” in order to be elected governor of Louisiana. A half-Kenyan, half-Kansan politician can self-identify as black and be elected president of the United States.

As a purely demographic matter, then, the “white America” that Lothrop Stoddard believed in so fervently may cease to exist in 2040, 2050, or 2060, or later still. But where the culture is concerned, it’s already all but finished. Instead of the long-standing model of assimilation toward a common center, the culture is being remade in the image of white America’s multiethnic, multicolored heirs.

For some, the disappearance of this centrifugal core heralds a future rich with promise. In 1998, President Bill Clinton, in a now-famous address to students at Portland State University, remarked:

Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years, there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time ... are energizing our culture and broadening our vision of the world. They are renewing our most basic values and reminding us all of what it truly means to be American.

Not everyone was so enthused. Clinton’s remarks caught the attention of another anxious Buchanan—Pat Buchanan, the conservative thinker. Revisiting the president’s speech in his 2001 book, The Death of the West, Buchanan wrote: “Mr. Clinton assured us that it will be a better America when we are all minorities and realize true ‘diversity.’ Well, those students are going to find out, for they will spend their golden years in a Third World America.”

Today, the arrival of what Buchanan derided as “Third World America” is all but inevitable. What will the new mainstream of America look like, and what ideas or values might it rally around? What will it mean to be white after “whiteness” no longer defines the mainstream? Will anyone mourn the end of white America? Will anyone try to preserve it?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/end-of-whiteness
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-29-09 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. The "Third World America" derided by Pat Buchanan is almost an exclusively white America
Best represented by Sarah Palin and parodied by George Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-29-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Buchanan is SUCH a dinosaur
Edited on Thu Jan-29-09 04:03 PM by Terran
President Obama is the best proof yet that race doesn't matter, it's class and environment. Buchanan's utterly blind to the fact that millions of poor white Americans are already as low-down as his worst fantasies of a 'colored' America. Sure, if we somehow handed the running of our nation over to a class of poor and under-educated people, we would have one messed-up third-world-like country. But that's not what we do, nor have we done. We just handed the place over the best and brightest that we have, and he just happens epitomizes the very fears that the real Buchanan and the fictional Buchanan seem to have in common.

I can almost guarantee that virtually no one in America under the age of 21 gives a crap about whites becoming a minority. That is sooooooo 20th century!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
screembloodymurder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-29-09 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Trends and the Fourth Turning.
We are witnessing the Republican Party's death throws. A whole slew of angry, old white men in denial. Compromise is not possible. These men want no part of an America that is not under their control. Sara Palin is their Joan of Arc come to save the white race and AK is their promise-land. It's what's left of their vision for America ... it's big, it's unspoiled, it's white. I predict AK, TX, OK, and others will succeed before our economy turns the corner. We underestimate the depth of their resolve. They will not relinquish power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-29-09 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. "Largely because of immigration". How did these white dudes get here in the first place?
lol

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AspenRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-29-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Thank You!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-29-09 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. I've spent my entire life in Hawai'i and California. Diversity is fine by me. However...
... I have tried to put myself in the shoes of those whose lives have been different from mine, and what it must feel like to experience great change.

The best illustration I ever saw for discomfort with diversity was a post-election red-blue map in the LA Times (2000? 2002? It's been a loooong 8 years) that I then juxtaposed in my own mind with an article on the Boy Scouts' decision to bar gays from their organization and what parts of the country opposed/supported it and why.

One map could have done for both articles: the demographic split was by population density.

Half the country lives in small towns with, historically, little diversity. Everywhere you look, you see white people of roughly the same ethnicity -- like Lake Wobegone, some might be of Norwegian descent and some of Swedish descent, some might be Lutheran and some might be Roman Catholic, but other than that, everywhere you look, people reflect your own values and folkways and color. Diverge too much from that (like being born gay) and you need to go to the Big City or die of loneliness.

The Big City is both coasts and the industrial region around the Great Lakes. At least half the country lives there (lots of empty space in the middle). It's not that everybody is a Democrat, but their next-door-neighbors, their co-workers, and those they ride the subway with are likely to be different from themselves: Asians and African-Americans and Jews and Zoroastrians and GLBT and everything in-between. The residents learn to live with difference. Urbanites learn that different people can be lived with, and while everyone doesn't have to be best friends, most conclude that everyone should be treated fairly, by the same standards.

The US is experiencing some major changes in this century -- but we've been down this road before with tidal waves of the Irish, the Italians, and the Eastern European Jews. I'm Irish-American, and my people weren't exactly welcomed with open arms either. The face of America will change -- again. America will renew itself -- again. Those who can't adjust will be left behind -- again.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-30-09 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. I have to disagree with you here. It's not an either/or situation
when it comes to our culture, and I think that the media have portrayed this in a very simplistic respect. Our popular culture likes to think of life that way because it is easier to think of it that way (two sides, either/or), but it's not an accurate representation. Half and half (either/or) is not what's going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-30-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Of course it's not either/or. If I made it sound that way I apologize...
But what I was trying to express was how that map gave me a way to understand some of the deep resistance in this country to changes that liberals/progressives/Dems think are natural, necessary, and right. The map is changing, even in just the past decade. There's a lot of interpenetration of cultures taking place with successive waves of immigration and in-migration.

Hekate


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-29-09 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. Good read. "Race" as we know it is dying slowly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lilith Velkor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-29-09 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. Good riddance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-30-09 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
10. It goes even deeper actually. It's called fear of genetic
annihilation. Has nothing to do with the idea of one race superior to another although some racists think this way too. What really binds them together is the fear of genetic anihilation. That's why they fought against integration. When a white mates with a nonwhite, another nonwhite is produced. If there were true and complete integration, whites as a "race" might melt away into the gene pool. There are a lot of whites who do not care about this, but there are a lot of whites who do. At the end of the day, whether you believe in superiority or not, the only way to insure preservation of whites as a "race" is to dominate the non-white peoples of the world.

If you listen to white supremacy groups, it's all about preserving the white "race" and not so much superiority/inferiorty crap.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 11th 2024, 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC