« A Good Day | HomePage | HOWTO: Batch Download a Book in PDF Pages from NetLibrary »

Wednesday, January 30, 20081201702387

Legalize Dope, Annex Mexico

An excellent article by George Friedman...

This leaves the option of treating the issue as a military rather than police action. That would mean attacking the cartels as if they were a military force rather than a criminal group. It would mean that procedural rules would not be in place, and that the cartels would be treated as an enemy army. Leaving aside the complexities of U.S.-Mexican relations, cartels flourish by being hard to distinguish from the general population. This strategy not only would turn the cartels into a guerrilla force, it would treat northern Mexico as hostile occupied territory. Don’t even think of that possibility, absent a draft under which college-age Americans from upper-middle-class families would be sent to patrol Mexico — and be killed and wounded. The United States does not need a Gaza Strip on its southern border, so this won’t happen.

...

The likely course is a multigenerational pattern of instability along the border. More important, there will be a substantial transfer of wealth from the United States to Mexico in return for an intrinsically low-cost consumable product — drugs. This will be one of the sources of capital that will build the Mexican economy, which today is 14th largest in the world. The accumulation of drug money is and will continue finding its way into the Mexican economy, creating a pool of investment capital. The children and grandchildren of the Zetas will be running banks, running for president, building art museums and telling amusing anecdotes about how grandpa made his money running blow into Nuevo Laredo.

It will also destabilize the U.S. Southwest while grandpa makes his pile. As is frequently the case, it is a problem for which there are no good solutions, or for which the solution is one without real support.


.. confirms what I said before.

Comments

I agree completely with the title, but is the tdaxp solution to everything to re-define the problem as an enemy army?

Posted by: Adam | Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Adam,

Friedman's article is that the War on Drugs is even less winnable if we redefine cartels as enemy armies, so that's probably a bad idea.

Better to redefine them as businesses.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Serves me right for not reading the entire article.

Posted by: Adam | Wednesday, January 30, 2008

I agree with legalization (of just marijuana), but I'm not sold on accepting Mexican state failure and incorporating its northern states into our Union. A more promising course might be to seriously engage with Mexico (since we've been ignoring them diplomatically in recent memory) and try to find some rapprochement and long-term, intensive engagement. We should work to strengthen Mexican federal institutions so state failure does not happen. As they build new state capacity, we would have another partner in ensuring the development of Central and South America.

Posted by: Stephen Pampinella | Thursday, January 31, 2008

Stephen,

The incorporation of Poland, Hungary, and other eastern European states into the EU is not a sign of eastern European failure, but eastern European success. Likewise, it is precisely because of the most successful Mexican states (those near the American border) that the country as a whole would be worthwhile to incorporate.

Adam,

Always remember; tdaxp is not just a /read/, it is an /experience/ :-)

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, January 31, 2008

The incorporation can be done de facto if not de jure. Already, our cultural tentacles are seeping down there through trade and personal exchange. Perhaps development deals with the northern states, exchanges, etc.; anything to increase contact and reliance.

Posted by: ElamBend | Thursday, January 31, 2008

ElamBend,

Absolutely.

Ultimately, the question is if we want our continental ruleset to be some new creation (a North American Union, perhaps -- or just a toughed-up NAFTA) or the Constitution. I go for the Constitution.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, January 31, 2008

Seems to me it's a bit early to tell. If Canada and/or Mexico start breaking up, and some or all of their states asking to join, Constitution is it (there may not even be a NAFTA afterward, depending on how people in the non-joining sections feel).

If all three countries are intact when formal union becomes a possibility, an NAU becomes the more realistic option. May even be a better option if the NAU's Constitution is handled right.

Posted by: Michael | Thursday, January 31, 2008

I agree that culturally, things are changing in our direction (although I did have Taco Bell the other day...), but I still assume some form of lingering resentment south of the border that wouldn't be supportive of the annexation of pieces of Mexico. If we get to the point where integration is possible, I think it will be on the scale of states (international) and not states (American).

Posted by: Stephen Pampinella | Thursday, January 31, 2008

Taco Bell recently started opening stores in Mexico.

Also, I can't believe the results as illustrated by this map[1] of the 2006 Mexican Presidential elections are coincidental.

[1]
http://electionresources.org/mx/maps/president.php?election=2006

(Blue/Purple is for the pro-American capitalist Calderon)

Posted by: ElamBend | Friday, February 01, 2008

Stephen
Exactly. The worst thing at this moment would be for the PTBs to decide one approach WILL be the one and push too hard for it-- especially since there's some resentment north of the border too.

Probably the best thing in the short run would be lots of little steps that reduce the flows of drugs and illegal immigrants, force the gangs to adopt a lower profile and encourage cooperation.
Some ideas:
A customs union where the three NAFTA countries cooperate to secure their respective ports (air and sea) and coastlines and to get Mexico's southern border closed.
An article I read someplace suggested turning a 30 mile wide ribbon of territory along the border into wilderness preserve. Aside from making greenies like myself happy, it produces a desert that would be hard to cross without getting spotted. Obviously, this would be viable only in desert areas without border crossings.
There are communities straddling the border that aren't on major trade routes, but have been disrupted by efforts to control the border in their area. They might be amenable to taking responsibility for the border themselves in return for the pay, training and equipment they currently lack.

The first idea reduces the amount of merchandise available to smugglers; the second and third force them to either use brute force (which we can counter easily) or smuggling via the trade routes themselves (which attracts less attention and limits amounts coming through). Visible and controversial fences would only be needed in urbanized border areas where none of the above options are viable. Combined, they're no where near a perfect solution, but they might buy time for better solutions (legalisation comes to mind) to happen.

Posted by: Michael | Friday, February 01, 2008

Stephen Pampinella,

We've both accepted and rejected petitions by individual Mexican states within Mexico before. (Texas got in; Yucatan didn't). Hopefully we will be again, soon.

ElamBend,

FANTASTIC map of electoral results from Mexico!

I was thinking of something similar earlier today. Great link!

Michael,

Agreed on the need for a full-spectrum approach.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Friday, February 01, 2008

If such a union takes place then the constitutional right of freedom of association will need to be reimplemented. Allow people to have the micro communities they choose to have within the greater economic union. This will be built on a system of property rights where people can choose to sell or rent property to who they choose. People can build "resilient communities" and keep the cultural-ethnic ties that make them comfortable. People won't have to worry about offending someone with their Christmas Tree and social problems can be solved at the local level. People could organize themselves at the county or town level.

Any other way of attempting this North American Community will be a disaster. Allowing people the freedom to associate will end this immigration debate yesterday. People will live near the people they wish to live near and all will be happy. If a town falls into economic despair because they don't want to let in workers, then they can't expect the federal government to help them out. In fact, the federal government would worry only about the big stuff; national defense, social security, medicare. The other stuff would be taxed at the local level and taken care of by local folks.

This system of local "resilient" communities would spread through North America. This is real diversity, a way of life which would feature a mosaic of communities similar to the China towns and little Italy's seen in the major cities of the Northeast but on a continental level. High speed transportation and communication would flow through the major nodes and branch off to the smaller ones. When a North Americaner went to war he/she would be fighting for the local community in which he/she lived. Local communities could form their own corporations in which they had a comparative advantage in. The community wouldn't fear the factory shutting down, as they would be the factory's owners. They feel a sense of pride in their products, place, people that the modern corporation fails to deliver.

Allowing the people to keep the customs, laws(within reason), and neighbors they want, will keep the people happy and at the same time, help keep North America powerful.

Posted by: Seerov | Sunday, February 03, 2008

Seerov,

You're thinking of effectively overturning Shelley v. Kraemer [1], yes?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, February 03, 2008

Shelley v Kraemer: As Wikipedia describes it, it wouldn't need to be overturned; you'd just have to pass laws allowing the property owners some measure of ability to self-enforce their own covenants.

Posted by: Michael | Sunday, February 03, 2008

Dan tdaxp,

I didn't know the actual law behind this but yes, it would appear that this very unconstitutional law would have to be overturned. The problem is though, the power structure doesn't care much for that particular "damn piece of paper" anymore. Michael says it wouldn't need to be overturned, but lets face it, as soon as the first minority in this country is denied something, the race racketeers will be down there in a New York minute.

But this is to be expected. Multi-ethnic States can only exist under totalitarianism. A state can exist fine with a small minority. But a State where several ethnic groups try to "share" power, will eventually lead to either fragmentation, or a police state to keep it together.

This is the real reason we see the so called Patriot Act and Homegrown Terrorism Bill today. If the power structure really feared "imminent attack" from "IslamoFacists" they certainly wouldn't have the relaxed borders we see. The real purpose for the laws I just mentioned is for the demographic transition that will occur in the next 20-30 years. You can also expect to see "hate speech" laws similar to Europe and Canada, and an increase in indoctrination in the schools as well.

I predict in the next 10-15 years we'll see the beginning of whites forming their own ethnic lobbies and taking part in identity politics. The Republican party is already starting to unravel, and I don't see it existing in 20 years. What we'll see is basically a "White" party and a non-white party. The non-white party will push for "Land redistribution" as seen in Zimbabwe and reparations of all sorts.

Its too bad, because a multi-ethnic state can work under the conditions I posted earlier. The problem is, the big players in the power structure won't have it. Big business sees true diversity as a problem for a couple reasons. The first is, with so many communities and cultures, the price of market research will be very high. The second regards to culture. If people are allowed to celebrate their own distinct cultures, there's a good chance it can't be sold to them. Big business would prefer one kind of person with one kind of culture; that being popular culture. If people are left to their own devices, they may produce their own cultural artifacts (dream catchers) and not buy them at the store (posters of Britney Spears).

Next consider the Wilsonian/neoconservative/socialist idealists. They get very nervous at the thought of any type of sovereignty and see it as their divine right to rule the earth. This idea of many resilient communities would be a step backward to them. They were chosen by God to rule the untermenschen and will not tolerate any sort of community that eclipses their divine authority.

Third, think about the thousands of government bureaucrats who would be out of the job if local folks took over the social welfare role. They would have to leave Washington, and ever since they did their summer semester internship back in school, have really took a liking to the feel they get when walking through the capital. The love they have for the phallic symbolism of DC is too great to allow the untermensch to take over for them at the local level.

So while localism would guarantee a better way of life for the majority of people, it would negatively affect the people who really matter; that being the big three I just described. I would love to see a localism party form. People would vote at the national level to benefit local level. Southern Evangelicals would stand next to gay San Franciscans as both would vote for each others right to live as they see fit.

Posted by: Seerov | Sunday, February 03, 2008

Seerov,

As you mention, undoing Shelley v. Kraemer is impracticably hard.

I agree that multiethnic states are trouble. They tend toward plural monoculturalism -- your suggestion would compound this.

America does a remarkably good job integrating immigrants. I don't see the need for an "American Renaissance" [1] white identity politics, nor how it would help the country.

America's policy with regard to her Mexican border is a legacy of our strategy of importing low-cost workers combined with paying lip-service to low-income constinuencies who are hurt by this immigration. The quickest way of securing our border would be a McCain-Kennedy-style "Z visa" program.

The general thrust of your post made me think of this study:

"To begin, we see that, as usual, being married is the single biggest factor in increasing happiness. The next biggest factor is family income (which I previously determined to be more important to happiness than either wealth or the respondent’s own income).

Having Asians in the neighborhood has neither a positive or negative effect on happiness, so I left them out.

Having just a single black neighbor still results in a negative effect on happiness.

The extremely surprising result has to do with Hispanic neighbors. Having 6 or more Hispanic neighbors lowers happiness by an amount similar to having a black neighbor. This is not too surprising. If you have a lot of Hispanic neighbors, it probably means you live in a lower class neighborhood. " [2]

[1] http://www.amren.com/
[2] http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/11/hispanice-neigh.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, February 04, 2008

Dan,

No kind of identity politics helps the country. Please don't take my comments as advocacy for white identity politics. But if we're going to have a multi-ethnic country, I can't see how it won't happen? I'll read the study you posted and post later.

Posted by: Seerov | Monday, February 04, 2008

Seerov,
the answer is that people self-segregate anyway when all land is fungible and completely alienable. Not allowing restrictive covenants allows individuals the choice to choose the manner of their neighborhood. I live in a city where there are clearly delineated ethnic enclaves, a few zones of encroachment/retreat, a few neutral zones (downtown core) and a very few mixed zones that seem to be static in their make-up (as opposed to encroachment/retreat). Most interesting is a neighborhood near me the is being encroached upon by two separate groups, while the original group is under-going a renaissance of its kind moving back in [it is an Italian/Irish neighborhood being encroached on one side by Chinatown and the other by 'Pilsen' a Mexican neighborhood (despite the name)].

All this happens with a (mostly) free market of rentals and sales. Restrictive covenants promote stasis and discourage redevelopment.

Posted by: ElamBend | Monday, February 04, 2008

I wonder if half-sigma tried looking for a correlation with the number of races in a given neighborhood?

I live in a neighborhood with whites, blacks AND hispanics present; it's working class, but not a slum. The neighborhoods people get twitchy about, by contrast, tend to be monocultural. That would seem to suggest the following formula: for neighborhoods below middle-class, happiness is inversely proportional to monoculturality. That is, the more fearful and angry people are, the more likely they are to congregate in neighborhoods where the same "tribe" dominates.

Posted by: Michael | Monday, February 04, 2008

Michael,
What that it were true, unfortunately, a recent study has shown that the more mixed a neighborhood is, the less people trust their neighbors. Of course monolithic neighborhoods may seem sketchy to outsiders, but that is precisely because it's monolithic and outsiders stand out. (Personal anecdote, I've found that being the oddball in a monolithic neighborhood can afford you a bit of respect from the neighbors, for roughing it, I guess - but you'll have no privacy).

PS - I'm sorry for asserting a study that I don't link to, but it's late.

Posted by: ElamBend | Monday, February 04, 2008

But where does that trust come from? I don't trust all of my neighbors, but I also know I'm able to go for walks in the neighborhood without being accosted. How many poor monoethnic neighborhoods can say the same?

To be fair, though, degrees of poverty might also be involved. Some of the older residents have enough wealth to have customized their houses over years and decades; my next-door neighbor is in that process right now. Some live in tiny houses-- but have relatively new and well cared-for cars and trucks parked out front (For a while, my car WASN'T the nicest in the neighborhood!). There's more than one neighborhood in the city which cannot make the same claims.

Posted by: Michael | Monday, February 04, 2008

ElamBend, how many times do we hear about Nativity Scenes being taken down or holidays being canceled because someone is "offended." As this country continues to diversify, more of this can be expected. This will take place as people hold on to their identities even tighter as the demographics change. As the working and middle classes continue to experience financial hardship, the concept of identity will be the center of people's self-image and self respect.

Dan, the link you gave to the organization called "American Renaissance" is exactly the type of organizations we will see more of. I also recently found a peer reviewed journal called "The Occidental Quarterly." The white identity politics of old (ie. Neo-Nazis, KKK) , are being replaced by people capable of intellectual thought. Many of the major political movements in history began as intellectual endeavors. This white identity political movement is most likely in its intellectual phase.

Michael, the study you talk about was written by Robert Putnam. He was so terrified by the results of that study that he didn't release it until he could find some information that countered it. Despite looking for two years, he couldn't find any counter information and was forced to release it. White talking about it on NPR's "ON Point" all he could do was make lots of normative statements how "diversity is strength" and took his verbal lashings from horrified callers.

Localism seems to be the only hope this country has? Perhaps Localism needs to enter its intellectual stage?

Posted by: Seerov | Monday, February 04, 2008

Excellent comments!

Seerov,

"As the working and middle classes continue to experience financial hardship, the concept of identity will be the center of people's self-image and self respect."

What we've seen over the past years are issues of morality growing in power as the financial differences between the parties shrink.

Unless we encourage ethnic splintering, why do see identity (in-group/out-group markings [1] ) taking that role over from morality?

"I also recently found a peer reviewed journal called "The Occidental Quarterly."

Thanks for the link! [2]

Re: Putnam, I don't know about him personally, but such censorship and self-censorship in academia is common.

"Localism seems to be the only hope this country has? Perhaps Localism needs to enter its intellectual stage?"

Why?

Michael,

"But where does that trust come from? I don't trust all of my neighbors, but I also know I'm able to go for walks in the neighborhood without being accosted. How many poor monoethnic neighborhoods can say the same?"

It appears that people hold those they instantaneously judge to be "better" (more beautiful, look like them, etc), so higher standards, so they both begin trusting more but also retaliate more when the social norm is broken. This may be how ethnically homogeneous welfare states survive -- and why they tear apart when they begin allowing in immigrants.

ElamBend,

Agreed on self-segregation. To me, the biggest criticism against Shelley v. Kraemer is that the decision seems to be unconstitutional (freedom of association), rather than being wrong policy.

[1] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2007/11/27/identity.html
[2] http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Dan,
I don't see that court case as infringing upon the freedom of association. Any individual property owner is free to sell or not to sell to whom he sees fit. However, these covenants were limiting of the alienability of the property for subsequent property owners, indeed limiting their freedoms (of property and association). I know this argument is a bit strained, but past the first transaction, it injects the maker of the covenant into each subsequent contract.
On a policy angle, besides the social reasons, it is important to keep property as fungible as possible for economic reasons. Allowing covenants like this to run into perpetuity hinder this and encourage stasis.

Under the current legal regime, folks can self-segregate at will and then leave the neighborhood for the burbs and allow a completely different group self-segregate.

Posted by: ElamBend | Tuesday, February 05, 2008

"Unless we encourage ethnic splintering, why do see identity (in-group/out-group markings [1] ) taking that role over from morality?"

Its a matter of group interests. Look at how hispanic and black politicians vote. They generally support income redistribution, increasing social programs, affirmative action, racial quotas, and the removal of white cultural icons. Also, look at how the black leadership reacts to issues such as "police brutality" or incidents like the Jena six.

In Jena, we basically seen the 5 on 1 assault by 5 blacks on one white. The white had no relationship to the noose hung on the tree and the main instigator of the attack had prior violent convictions. The blacks stomped on the white kids' head and the white kid suffered a concussion. A few months later, BET gave two of the kids awards at one of their award shows. Blacks and hispanics always take the side of their own regardless of what happens. In fact, the National Black Caucus is calling for the Jena six to be pardoned. If you want to know more about the truth of the Jena incident check this out.
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/589bfhgz.asp?pg=1

So as the country becomes less white, whites are going to start pursuing their own interests. The Republican party, which currently acts as the "white party" in skin only, has leadership which would rather not deal with issues relating to race. So, leaders will emerge who are not afraid to do so. At first, the cries of "racism" will be loud, as even the Sean Hannity's of the world will see "no place in America for hate groups." But as time goes by, mainstream politico's will either start addressing the race issue or be forgotten.

The morality politics that arose after the Democrats embraced Social Marxism will seem less important to whites, who will have new concerns. Whether or not a girl can abort a baby will seem trivial compared to increased affirmative action, land redistribution, and violence directed towards whites in the school systems and beyond.

"Why" Localism you ask?

The reason Localism is the only hope is that it allows people to live with who they wish. The root of ethnic conflict is very simple; its the result of two or more ethnic groups competing for resources. These groups come with different visions of what society should look like and different perspectives on the conflicts involving each other. Allowing people to live, work, and learn around who they wish, alleviates many of these issues. Groups will interact because they NEED to or WANT to and not because some demagogue-who lives in a gated community-thinks its a good idea. Over time, the groups will eventually integrate but it will happen naturally based on reciprocal reasons and not social and demographic engineering.

Localism also will allow communities to build the "resiliency" that will be needed to defend against the modern threats that large systems are open to. I'm basically talking about the John Robb argument here.

In time of national crises the national Mosaic will come together and defend their "local" as Gay San Franciscans will stand with Southern Evangelicals. Localism allows people to live how they wish (within reason) and with who they wish, while keeping the nation together as one loose polity.

Posted by: Seerov | Tuesday, February 05, 2008

ElamBend,

Freedom of association implies freedom of dissociation -- if I can join a club of Catholics, that means I can join a club of non-Protestants. Taking away the ability of groups to exclude and calling it free assembly is indeed strained.

Note that land convenents are widely used -- the court merely differentiated between suspect and non-suspect victims of the convenents.

Seerov,

You need to explain why you're lumping in the political history of immigrant groups with that of American blacks. Immigrant groups, from Germans, to Italians, to Hispanics, to Afro-Carribean blacks, appear to integrate into the broader political system, leading to a breakdown of ethnic voting blocs.

The attack on "white cultural symbolbs" you're talking about was done with and through white liberals. Prayer was not removed in schools because of Catholic immigrants who were upset about common tongue prayer -- it was removed by liberals who wanted to elevate the Eastern Establishment "white cultural symbol" (to use your phrase) of Ceremonial Deism above the rural conservative "white cultural symbol" of common prayer.

Your view of localism as a solution to ethnic voting power only works if one locale cannot redistribute wealth away from others. So do you plan on dissolving the states, or creating thousands more states, or instead creating a federal system comrised of various minorities (as in the old Ottoman Empire), or something else?

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Seerov, you'll get a kick out of this [1] (hat-tip to Drudge):

"Jena Six" Member In School Arrest
Cops: Bryant Purvis choked, slammed fellow student's head on table

[1] http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0207082jena1.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 07, 2008

Dan, if you look at Hispanic, Afro-Caribbean, and Asian immigrants even after 3 or 4 generations, they seem to vote for the Democratic party. The Cubans are the exception, but the Cuban Hispanics are largely made up of "white" Hispanics who are descendants of the Spanish.

Yes, white liberals have lead the attack on WCS. Just think about how it will be when the country is 50% non-European American. There won't be a school named after a "dead white men" left. After all, how can we honor people who owned slaves? European Americans are watching their streets, schools, and buildings being renamed to MLK and Cesar Chavez in the South West all the time. The Confederate Battle flag will have to go as well. People are very attached to these symbols, future "white" identity politicians will use these issues.

Blacks in California are being ethnically cleansed by Hispanics in LA. Why doesn't Jesse or AL go down there? If white people killed blacks and told them to get out of LA it would be no time before the National Guard was sent in. Do you know why Jesse and Al don't say anything? Because their willing to look the other way to save their alliance. Because no matter how much blacks and Hispanics disagree on things, the main thing they do agree on is taking whitey out of power. They have an agreement to look the other way in order to displace the white population at a later time. While the blacks demand land redistribution, the hispanics will jump on board as well crying about "Operation Wetback." And if you think the hispanics are going to care for the gringo in old age with social security; you might as well forget it.

The same white liberals who once championed the poor helpless minorities will be some of the most radical racialists. After their little brown or black pets start getting out of order, and start demanding REAL power then you're going to see some true intolerance. White liberals are totalitarian to the bone. No people hate like white liberals and when these people start to see their power diminish, look out! Besides the white former liberals, I just don't see the white population allowing itself to be displaced. They would be first people in history to do so.

I'm pretty sure the Ottoman Empire organized by religion instead of ethnicity, but regardless no, I would not dissolve the 50 states. Not at first anyway. Overtime though, a county may have more in common with a bordering county in a neighboring state and they may merge if they see fit. I see pretty much two kinds of taxes for two different roles. The federal government will tax for defense, social security, and medicare. The local level will tax for everything else. Its important to remember that this can't happen over night. The States will need to keep up the highways and have state police for long while. But the final goal will be the two tax system.

As for me, I think I got about 30 years before it gets real ugly in this country. By then I hope to have a cabin somewhere in Northern Canada or even my ancestral homeland of Finland. That is, unless my 401K or mutual funds are seized by a Mugabe like dictator.

Posted by: Seerove | Thursday, February 07, 2008

Hmm. I'm white, liberal (Dan can attest to this), see blacks and hispanics as human beings, would be quite willing to marry a black or hispanic woman if such proved to be the best option (not that I'm overwhelmed by options of any color:P) and wouldn't mind seeing them become the majority. I'm not particularly totalitarian.

Seerove says white liberals are totalitarians who see other races as pets or enemies.

Conclusion: I don't exist.

Posted by: Michael | Thursday, February 07, 2008

"and wouldn't mind seeing them become the majority. I'm not particularly totalitarian."

You may not be totalitarian but this statement does prove some sort of negative pathology. Its one thing to say that you accept them becoming a majority due to demographic reality, but what kind of lunatic "wouldn't mind" becoming a minority to a group of people who blame every and all problems in life on your geo-genetic cluster? Seriously, does this make you feel better as a person saying these things? I'm not trying to insult you, I really want to know? Why don't you mind becoming a minority anywhere? Espeicially to a people who hold such hatred in their heart for you? Do you realize these people believe the AIDS virus was invented by your fellow devils just to "bring them down?" What kind of a person would ever want their children to grow up in this situation? It would be one thing to be a minority under the Japanese or Koreans but blacks and Hispanics? Especially blacks, I mean come on? Do you really believe these things you say? Please explain this to me. Why shouldn't I mind becoming a minority under blacks and Hispanics? Tell me, I can't figure this out? The only time I could ever think its good to be a minority is when there's lots of the opposite sex around. So tell me why I'm wrong, why shouldn't I mind becoming a minority under blacks and Hispanics?

Posted by: Seerov | Thursday, February 07, 2008

Simple, I grew up (and still live in) a town that's nearly 50% hispanic. The racial bs crops up occasionally, but not very often and usually among the older generation that remembers when the older generation of whites heaped racial bs on them.

I'm not saying that everything's guaranteed to be hunky-dory when us anglos become a minority. There is a possibility that your negative predictions will come to pass. There will certainly be demagogues, idiots and assholes on both sides. Such is humanity. But as I sit here eating enchilada casserole I paid an African-American herbalist for and remember a former student of mine (Sioux Indian, speaks Spanish, obsessed with anime and Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals) I can't help but think that things will probably turn out ok.

Posted by: Michael | Friday, February 08, 2008

Michael,

Well, to look at the Half Sigma, articles, maybe it's because Hispanics make people happy? ;-)

This seems to tie into Obama winning in areas that are less than 15% black and more than 50% black [1], somehow...

[1] http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/02/my-published-articles-are-archived-at.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Friday, February 08, 2008

"I can't help but think that things will probably turn out ok."

I hope you're right. But I will not be taking any chances. Your answer regarding "not minding" becoming a minority sounded more like acceptance rather than "not minding" but fair enough.

Please keep in mind that I am in no way wishing things to turn out this way. My analysis is not based on my own experiences with non-whites, as for the most part, they've been acceptable. Instead, for this futurism I'm laying out I've tried to separate myself from any emotional or social hang ups. We've all been socialized in this country to regard anything short of espousing multicultural paradise to be "hate-speech." So I understand how awkward this vision may seem.

Dan, thank you for the link. I want to say that I really enjoy this blog and now have it bookmarked. It would seem as if you don't mind people pushing the envelope. That "America Renaissance" organization you linked also has been helpful to my studies. They run news stories on racial and ethnic topics and have an archive too. The Anti-Defamation League doesn't seem to hold them in high regard but they certainly have a different perspective on things.

Posted by: Seerov | Friday, February 08, 2008

Dan, I think it's the women: How many times has a latina won the Miss Universe pageant?*grin* Ok, there is the food as well. . .

Seerove, I'll readily grant my life's been spent in more of a cultural mixer (often set on puree) than most people are used to and that colors my thinking. There are other things to keep in mind, though:

1) As poor blacks compete with immigrants for the same low-level jobs, a variety of coping strategies can be employed. One of them is getting serious about education.
2) As the hispanics change America, America is changing them. Assorted surveys I've heard over the years say they tend to learn english by the second or third generation, same as other groups. Their circular migration between the US and Mexico allows American ideas and cultural traits to be carried south even as they carry Mexican ideas and traits north. Modern telecommunications and American businessmen, tourists and retirees also carry pieces of America with them.
3) Hispanics aren't the only immigrants coming to America these days; last I heard, the second highest source of illegal immigrants after Mexico was China. These immigrants bring their own cultures to the table and their own numbers to the totals.
4) Improved education tends to correlate with lower birth rates.

And 5) . . . All these demographic trends- good and bad- aren't meteors plunging inexorably forward drawn by gravity. They can and probably will change direction as they're effected by the decisions and actions of policy makers here and abroad.

Posted by: Michael | Friday, February 08, 2008

"As the hispanics change America, America is changing them."

Not according to this report:
http://www.amren.com/Reports/Hispanics/Hispanics.htm

While this Renaissance organization obviously has a political bias, I see no reason to doubt it. They also have a report about interracial crime which I found shocking. I've been spending a lot of time at that site, I wonder if I'm on some sort of DHS list now? Here's the link to the crime report:
http://www.amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=color_of_crime

Posted by: Seerov | Saturday, February 09, 2008

I glanced through it. Did I miss where it talks about adjusting for income of all compared groups? That is, are poor hispanics in a category all their own, or are they just acting like poor native-born Americans (whites and asians included) do?

Posted by: Michael | Saturday, February 09, 2008

Seerov,

A "snapshot" is a good term, because it does not capture motion. Consider, for instance, just one of the findings:

"From 1992 to 2003, Hispanic illiteracy in English rose from 35 percent to 44 percent."

The obvious explanation or this is that the foreign-born Hispanic population suddenly rose. Which is of course acknowledged by everyone. If you want to argue that hispanics are not on the same track toward integration as other immigrant groups, you need to find evidence that supports that: such as relative illiteracy after three generations, etc.

Michael,

Excellent comment!

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Post a comment