Book of the Month

Why 2012 Matters

By Garry Wills, New York Review of Books Blog, June 9, 2012

[....] hasn’t the plutocracy already won?

Not yet. There is help racing up over the horizon. The US Census for the year ending in July 2011, showed that white births in America were for the first time a minority compared to those of “minorities” (blacks, Hispanics, Asians). The state legislators seated by the 2010 elections have been fighting this drift with draconian immigration measures and new voter ID laws aimed at blacks and Hispanics, the young and the elderly. This slashing of the voter rolls may give them the edge of victory in 2012. But time is not on their side. It will get harder and harder to disqualify a growing majority of voters from non-plutocratic ranks.

That is why this election matters so much. It can give the plutocrats a seal on their accomplishments. New appointees to the Supreme Court can support drastic reduction of labor rights, voting rights, citizen rights. Further protections for corporate and lobbying power can be fixed by national and state legislators in laws difficult to undo or dislodge. The whole corporate superstructure of our economy can be made “too big to fail,” beyond retrospective regrets or futile tinkering. Finally, the plutocrats given power in 2012 can use their great ally, war or the threat of war [....]

Read the full article at http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/jun/09/why-2012-matters/

Combine this with your previous news item, and the path to disenfranchise the non-white majority seems obvious.

The whole corporate superstructure of our economy can be made “too big to fail,” beyond retrospective regrets or futile tinkering. Finally, the plutocrats given power in 2012 can use their great ally, war or the threat of war [....]

Which serves only the plutocrats - the elites and bourgeoisie - at the expense of those below them. The common people.

You have probably already read Michael LInd's Salon essay, "The Future of Whiteness".  I thought about posting it here in the news section but did not really want to engage on the subject then.  Also thought you might post it.  Anyway, here is an excerpt about a key demographic point that should, but has not yet, dampened the hip-hip-hoorah-ing over declining whiteness, a sentiment as racist and unbecoming as any of the worst Imperial Wizard, imo:

In the 1970s, the federal government came up with the bizarre “non-Hispanic white” label, lumping together Arab-Americans, Norwegian-Americans and Irish-Americans into a single government-created pseudo-race. To compound the absurdity, at the same time the federal government invented a category of “Hispanics” who, as government forms invariably note, “may be of any race.” The artificial “Hispanic” category is even more preposterous than the “non-Hispanic white” category, including blond, blue-eyed South Americans of German descent as well as Mexican-American mestizos and Puerto Ricans of predominantly African descent.

These government racial labels are increasingly out of touch with America’s fluid demographic reality. But for the sake of argument, let us take America’s official racial classifications, all too reminiscent of Soviet nationality labels, at face value. According to polls, a slight majority of Hispanics (or Latinos) identify themselves as “white.” Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of government-labeled Hispanics who identified as “other race” dropped in percentage from 42 to 37 while those who identified as white rose from 48 to 53 percent.

If Lind is right and the future is beige, practically everyone will have some whiteness about them.

So someone brilliantly thinks that Hispanic doesn't exist, despite people self-identifying with Latin America, Hispanic, Chicano, etc. Or that because there are a few Latinos originating from German stock, that the vast majority aren't brown?

How disingenuous. 

I'm not sure Iunderstand where the rest of this is trying to go, so no more comment.

Hopefully, we are going post racial.

Are you sure those the census bureau and other demographers classify as Hispanic self-identify that way among themselves?  Do you not think further subdividing the category between Hispanic-White and just Hispanic, presumably black, makes a difference in future of whiteness calculations?

 

 

How are we going "post-racial" when Hispanics push Hispanic unity based on ever increasing numbers? Has the Congressional Black Caucus dissolved itself? Should it?

Hispanic is not a race; its an ethnic group.  I suppose the same could be said of White and Black but then they are not subdivided racially as Hispanic is. 

I think it would be a good thing if the Congressional Black Caucus either dissolved or at least renamed itself.   Identity politics are probably inevitable but maybe an advocacy group should not be racially based especially not if one of the goals is to eliminate racism.

 

At least you're consistent. I think the black Congressional caucus is still needed - just disheartened that it's not more effective these days.

As for Hispanic, is both closely correlated with a color/race as well as a shared cultural background.

If Lind is right and the future is beige, practically everyone will have some whiteness about them.

Or brownness. Depending on your point of view.

Well the article talks about non-Black as the key marker. So it ain't what you are it's what you ain't.

Whatever they talk about, it's long been "white, brown, black" as our 3 major categories. Obviously "black" means African-origin, not an absolute color, as white & brown have their own fairly obvious interpretations (European-origin whites; Hispanic new world native-mixed browns).

I'd rather discuss, "whatever they talk about," than whatever you think.

Lemming?

Well, of course, but given the recent gloating over a demographic projection about declining whiteness, it seemed more apt to point out that white is not disappearing so much as blending.

As you pointed out above, the plutocrats are about class and control.  They really do not give damn about race except as a means to divide and conquer. What I really have trouble figuring out is why the progressive left assists or enables them.

No, not blending - it's just being taken over by Hispanic immigration and a larger birthrate. White of course is not "disappearing" - it's just not breeding as fast and losing influence due to our immigration policy.

I know it's an easy thing to do, but I wish there was a way we didn't have to make 'white' synonymous with 'plutocracy' ... 

Me too.

I get into two different modes.

The apocalypse is upon us.

Nothing really changes.

The Supreme Court following the death of what I thought was pure Evil (Renquist) has sunk to newer lows.

Where are we gonna be following another two or three NAZI's on the Supreme Court?

 

Let the blending begin:

The US Census for the year ending in July 2011, showed that white births in America were for the first time a minority compared to those of “minorities” (blacks, Hispanics, Asians).

Does that mean that the die is cast? Or, that the dye is cast? Hmmmm.

I am never going to live that one down, am I?   LOL

I am not teasing at all. I thought it was quite interesting that the phrase, 'The die is cast', could be used with alternate meanings for 'die' and for' cast, both. When you used the word 'dye' the other day I googled it and found that using 'dye' is an archaic way to use the expression but it is the way some have done. I was tickled to find that your usage, even if an error, was another valid way to use the phrase.

"The dye is cast, meaning: the tint has been poured, and the water cannot be clear again."  

  “But once the dye had been cast, there was no washing it out.”

"Once a cloth has been dyed darker it cannot ever be dyed back to a lighter shade".

  In this particular case it just seemed to fit using any of the two [so far] meanings applied to the words 'die' and 'cast' or using their homonyms. There cannot be another phrase in the English language quite like this one.

New appointees to the Supreme Court can support drastic reduction of labor rights, voting rights, citizen rights. 

As a Plutocrat might think 

Step 1 .... get the people and the government to  turn a blind eye to enforcing the existing immigration laws and you open the border, so workers can put pressure on indigenious labor;  rights. Decent pay with benefits.

the more workers than jobs  and the wages go down.

Besides with an unemployment rate of ++8 1/2 % ; workers will be glad for a job and they wont even think about making demands upon the Corporations. Push for amnesty. 

Maybe those corporations that located overseas might consider returning, once the American worker learns to accept less?   

Step  2 .... create fear and panic, so you can put in place, LAWS  that you were always trying to implement any ways, but didn't have the basis for attempting  until; you could get the Nation to cut their own throats first.

The plutocracy, (the minority)  didn't speak up...... why should they? 

The blind working class wont see, they were manipulated to do what the plutocracy wanted them to do.

Like leading sheep to the slaughter. 

First you let em all in.... then you reign them all in.

Further protections for corporate and lobbying power can be fixed by national and state legislators in laws difficult to undo or dislodge.

NAFTA, WTO ...  FREE TRADE 

"The thing about tariffs is, they do the trick". Keynes.

As to the black caucus, when Bloomberg stops  concentrating on arresting 17 year old blacks it will be time for it to dissolve. Don't hold your breath.

"Not until the late 1800s did the public begin to question that policy. After the Civil War, some states started to pass their own immigration laws, which prompted the Supreme Court to rule in 1875 that immigration was a federal responsibility. 

Immigration continued to rise in the 1880s,

 bringing an "avalanche of cheap labor."(1) With this" influx of foreign cut-rate workers", (2)        "economic conditions began to deteriorate in some areas," (3)

So Congress passed a series of immigration laws

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/about/history/legacy/ins_history.xml

At every opportunity, the exploiters of labor, have tried to overturn or ignore the will of the people.

1) WE THE PEOPLE don't want  an "avalanche of cheap labor."

2) WE THE PEOPLE don't want this "influx of foreign cut-rate workers," 

Lincoln didn't go to war to free the slaves; he did it to contain slavery's economic advantage 

3) WE THE PEOPLE don't want "economic conditions to deteriorate in some areas". 

WE ABOLISHED THE SLAVE STATES FOR ECONOMIC REASONS. 

Why do we want to return to those days? So Corporations can make more profits? 

The more Mexicans in a region, the better for manufacturing to relocate there?

Corporations and manufacturing leaders: "Screw you in the N.E. and Rust Belt regions; relocate to the Southwest where there is plenty of cheap labor, besides TACOs are delicious.

Frijoles and free cheap labor; kind of a good thing; NO?

"Si Senor manufacturing patron (boss) ; I work real cheap and so does my brothers, cousins, uncles, sisters, and their brothers, cousins, uncles, sisters, and their brothers, cousins, uncles, sisters, "

"Si Senor you'll make mucho denario;  more than you will with American workers.

See my new comment below, Resistance.

Still hot news for some participants on this thread even though it's from more than a month ago--could be it's time to find someone else to argue about:

Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero—and Perhaps Less
by Jeffrey Passel, D’Vera Cohn and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera,

Pew Hispanic Center, April 23, 2012, updated May 3, 2012

The May 3 update includes the full methodology appendix and a statistical profile of Mexican immigrants in the United States.

Latest Comments