MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Inclusive vs. Exclusive Whiteness in Census Bureau Data

Projections of minority-majority U.S. population are based on outdated and arbitrary ethno-racial Census categories.

MultiracialKidsPavelIluykinDreamstimePavel Iluykin/DreamstimeRemember when the Census Bureau was telling us the United States would soon be a majority-minority country? The bureau projected in 2015 that non-Hispanic whites would constitute less than half of the U.S. population by 2044. But this was demographic nonsense: As I explained six years ago, by the middle of this century the children of Hispanic parents will be as socially "white" as the children and grandchildren of early-20th-century Italian, Irish, Polish, Greek, Jewish, and German immigrants are today.

Sure enough, Hispanic identity is already fading away for the children and grandchildren of Hispanic immigrants. What's more, an increasing number of Americans refuse to be pigeonholed into just one ethno-racial category on their Census forms. Although the Census Bureau actually parses its ethno-racial data six different ways, the 2015 projections that it chose to highlight were based on definitions that exclude Hispanic or mixed-race Americans from the "white" category.

Now a new study by two political scientists, Dowell Myers and Morris Levy of the University of Southern California, considers what this means for the country. In a Washington Post op-ed drawing on their paper, Myers and Levy point out that using a more inclusive definition that "counts as white anyone who so identifies (even if they also identify with another race or ethnicity), the white population is not declining; it's flourishing. The Census Bureau's inclusive projections show a white population in excess of 70 percent of the total for the foreseeable future."

In their study, Myers and Levy surveyed 2,600 non-Hispanic white Americans to see how they would react to Census Bureau projections about the future ethno-racial make-up of the U.S. population:

Our respondents were randomly assigned to read one of two simulated news stories that reported the bureau's 2015 race projections. The first mimicked the conventional narrative about the decline of non-Hispanic whites. The second detailed the growth of Hispanic and Asian American populations, but it also mentioned the rise of intermarriage and reported the Census Bureau's alternative projection of a more diverse white majority persisting the rest of the century.

When asked how the story they read made them feel—angry, anxious, hopeful or enthusiastic—results were clear-cut. Forty-six percent of white Democrats and a whopping 74 percent of Republicans expressed anger or anxiety when reading about the impending white-minority status.

But these negative emotions were far less frequent when participants read the second story about a more inclusive white majority. Only 35 percent of white Democrats and 29 percent of white Republicans expressed anger or anxiousness about this scenario.

The results imply that nearly a quarter of the Democrats and two-thirds of the Republicans who might be agitated about the imminent-white-minority narrative also have positive feelings about a more inclusive and enduring white majority.

Myers and Levy also report that reading the story using the more inclusive definition of white ethnicity promoted a modest reduction in opposition to immigration relative to those respondents assigned the story using the more exclusive definition. In addition, people exposed to the inclusive version were more likely to support a hypothetical school bond that would have increased property taxes to support public schools.

They conclude:

Projections of racial demographics should reflect the great changes in the meaning of race in America. But stories about the impending demise of white America are rooted in outmoded notions of racial exclusivity. These stories of white decline obscure the ongoing changes to America's color line, and they serve only to divide. Fortunately, the white American public seems far more content with the more inclusive future that is actually destined to emerge.

I believe that Americans of whatever ancestry living in 2050 will look back and wonder why anyone cared about the ethnic makeup of the American population. America is an ideal, not a tribe.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    non-Hispanic whites

    Huh?

  • Pro Libertate||

    They mean Evil White Overlord Killers--EWOKs.

  • Agammamon||

    lub-lub!

  • BYODB||

    Well, the Ewok's did eat people so that's not far off the mark. Easy to forget they were psychotic man-eaters.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    "counts as white anyone who so identifies (even if they also identify with another race or ethnicity), the white population is not declining; it's flourishing. The Census Bureau's inclusive projections show a white population in excess of 70 percent of the total for the foreseeable future."

    Because who doesn't want to be white? I mean, come on.

    by the middle of this century the children of Hispanic parents will be as socially "white" as the children and grandchildren of early-20th-century Italian, Irish, Polish, Greek, Jewish, and German immigrants are today.

    Color is a social construct, obvs.

  • Azathoth!!||

    People from Spain are white. They ARE the 'white colonizers' that are decried on Columbus Day.

    Hispanic people are people from countries colonized by Spain. They are descendants of Europeans.

  • senglord draconis||

    Most blacks in the US share white DNA from their slave masters.

    Slavery ended 150 years ago.

    So...Princess Markle is white now?...

    *Checks memes of monkeys in wedding dresses spike during the royal wedding*

    Nope. Nothing different. Still a ______.

    P.S. Whiteness has always been defined more as "Not Black" versus "Scion of Western blood"

  • Azathoth!!||

    Most blacks in the US share white DNA from their slave masters.

    Yup--but they call themselves 'black' and pursue that part of their heritage.

    Why not pursue the other side?

    Everyone else did it. Slavs, Mediterraneans, Semites.

    Genetics is, like everything else, all about choices. You choose who you breed with.

    Princess Meghan (that's the proper form,not Princess Markle, there IS no 'Princess Markle'--when you marry into royalty, you take THEIR name) has always been white, AND black.

    See? It's not 'or'--it's AND. If you behave like it's 'AND' the world opens up. Because 'AND' is inclusive.

    And when you say something as retarded as "Whiteness has always been defined more as "Not Black" , how can you expect to be taken seriously after the piece you're commenting on AND the article both note that many people called 'white' today weren't in the past.

    The whitest can become the blackest, and the blackest, the whitest. It just requires a bit of patience.

  • DiegoF||

    *pushes up glasses*

    Technically, "Princess Markle" is exactly as correct as "Princess Meghan," in that she is not a princess at all. We're not really talking about names here, so there's no issue of "taking" them. And as for "marrying in," you don't get a royal address out of that. Even Kate Middleton, who one day will be Princess of Wales, is not a princess yet.

    Britain is extremely stingy with handing out royal (and noble--notice every single Briton is no more noble than a chimney sweep except the thousand or so who actually hold the HoL titles) stylings. No one is a "prince" or "princess" except those who are actually of royal blood (and not many of those, though they have been gradually loosening those rules over time). The exception is the Princess of Wales, which is its own thing. (And in this case, the one who actually holds the title doesn't use it! To avoid antagonizing the public and their asinine Diana infatuation.)

  • vek||

    This is not really accurate.

    Italians, Greeks, Poles etc were considered "white" back in the day. They were just lesser branches of the white family. Same as the lily white Irish. With Italians there was a BIG distinction even between northern Italians and the more southern Italians and Sicilians. The truth is southern Italians and Sicilians are in fact more mixed race than northern Italians genetically, they have a decent injection of Arab and even African blood. In any event it's not correct to say they ever were seen as non Europeans. They were just considered your lazy drunk uncle from Italy Europeans, and not the successful engineer uncle from Germany, so to speak. We basically just gave up having tiers of Europeans once most people got too mixed to make a distinction anyway.

    The truth is that the "can you pass" thing is how it has always been, and how it will be in the future. I'm part native American on my dads side, and part Mexican on my moms. Otherwise almost entirely German. Living in Washington state people ALWAYS assume I'm white, but sometimes they guess Italian. When I lived in California, owing to a tan, people guessed Italian more often, and sometimes even Mexican, but always "Are you PART Mexican?"

    In short I pass, because I probably am 90% or so northern European. But in 50 years some dark Mestizo will still very much be not "white." But if he speaks English and acts like a proper American that probably won't be a huge problem for most people.

  • Star1988||

    Duchess. Not Princess. Get your overlord terminology down!

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    "counts as white anyone who so identifies (even if they also identify with another race or ethnicity), the white population is not declining; it's flourishing. The Census Bureau's inclusive projections show a white population in excess of 70 percent of the total for the foreseeable future."

    Because who doesn't want to be white? I mean, come on.

    by the middle of this century the children of Hispanic parents will be as socially "white" as the children and grandchildren of early-20th-century Italian, Irish, Polish, Greek, Jewish, and German immigrants are today.

    Color is a social construct, obvs.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I refuse to live in a nation that considers Greek to be white.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Buh-bye

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Don't worry. I already don't live in Greece.

  • Rat on a train||

    Greeks are fine. It is the Gingers you need to worry about.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    The true purpose of the Freemasons is to eradicate all gingers.

  • perlchpr||

    Ridiculous. Gingers are about as white as it gets!

  • buybuydandavis||

    But no souls!

  • vek||

    That's a feature, not a bug :)

  • vek||

    I do have a thing for red heads... There's something about skin as pale as printer paper, fiery red hair, and even a proper sprinkling of freckles... Not TOO many mind you, just a few well placed ones. I think I've ended up dating more blondes than red heads, but that's only because red heads are too hard to come by :( They'll be damn near extinct in a hundred years if current trends continue too... Poor future generations :(

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    In a Washington Post op-ed drawing on their paper, Myers and Levy point out that using a more inclusive definition that "counts as white anyone who so identifies (even if they also identify with another race or ethnicity), the white population is not declining; it's flourishing.

    So... the country is becoming more white because we consider people white if they have one drop of white by self-identification? That's going to result in a crazy increase in White Privilege.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That would be great. All ships being lifted by white privilege.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    The good news is, you can choose not to be white. So if you want to ditch your white privilege, just claim to be Polynesian or something.

  • Rich||

    Can I choose not to have been born? Talk about "living off the grid"!

  • JWatts||

    Yes... but you still have to pay taxes.

  • RoyMo||

    But only for the current year.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    How about if I identify as a welfare recipient despite my nice income? Do I have to pay then?

  • MotörSteve||

    Check your privilege, Inclusive Whitey!

  • Rat on a train||

    Is privilege proportional to how white? Does glow in the dark wield maximum privilege?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    If I spend a lot of time in the sun, my freckles expand until they overlap. Does that make me non-white?

  • DiegoF||

    It makes you gross looking. And, being regarded as gross looking by a minority male, you clearly therefore must be non-white.

  • MotörSteve||

    I believe my privilege declines in the summer as my sun-tan darkens.

  • Rich||

    "counts as white anyone who so identifies (even if they also identify with another race or ethnicity), the white population is not declining; it's flourishing."

    Permit me: That's mighty white of you.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

  • Rich||

    "counts as white anyone who so identifies (even if they also identify with another race or ethnicity)"

    So, why does the Census "count" this crap?

    What's next? Counts as a U.S. citizen anyone who so identifies?

  • gormadoc||

    Because white people can have babies with non-white people and have been doing so for quite a long time. Mixed-race implies more than one race, you see, and 'white' is one of those choices.

  • markm23||

    The question is, why is the Census counting citizens by race? Residents of any race have counted as a whole person for over 150 years...

  • Pro Libertate||

    I have an idea. Reclassify all ethnicities and races as American.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    This is a classic example of something only a white man would say.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Yeah Pro Libertate really needs to check his white privilege.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Rhetorically a fun idea. But it damages the ability of the data to be meaningfully analyzed.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What if we didn't know what race people were? Like what if no one kept any numbers?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Then the differences in behavior, property, criminality, etc. and so-on that fall along racial lines would still exist, and most folks would still be aware of them, we just wouldn't have numbers to fall back to when trying to form policies and decide how best to allocate funds.

    Just because you don't record data doesn't mean the thing the data was about stops existing. It just means you can't as accurately characterize it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You're right. Guess the government will have to stop spending money on such things.

  • Mark22||

    Then the differences in behavior, property, criminality, etc. and so-on that fall along racial lines would still exist

    There are no "differences that fall along racial lines". Statistically, there are some correlations between self-identified race and differences in behavior, and there is no objective reason to keep track of those.

    Just because you don't record data doesn't mean the thing the data was about stops existing. It just means you can't as accurately characterize it.

    There is nothing to characterize. Race is just one arbitrary factor out of many you might keep track off. Why not compute correlations of income with people's hair color? The size of their pet dog? Their penis size? You'd find all sorts of correlations, all of them utterly irrelevant.

  • vek||

    Bullshit dude. Racial differences exist, and they're huge. Whites are over 60% of the country still, yet account for less than 20% of murders IIRC. Blacks are 12-13% and account for around 50% of murders. Hispanics are 14ish% and are 30 something percent of murders.

    You can try to play semantics with "self identified," but those people are largely composed of whatever genetic makeup they identify as. As some of his own links show most mixed Hispanics (which technically I am one!) that pass as white drop ever referring to themselves as Hispanics once it gets diluted by a few generations of breeding with non Hispanic whites.

    Whether anybody likes it or not genetics plays a part in this, mostly due to the IQ variation found IMO. As someone who IS mixed I can accept this. Google and you will even find many blacks and Hispanics who accept racial IQ differences being genetic. It's because all the data fits. It's not how I'd like it to be in a perfect world, but reality has a funny way of not caring what people want. You can ignore reality all you want, but it still plays out just the same. Crime rates will never be the same between whites, Asians, blacks, Hispanics, etc, nor will income, education level etc. Life is unfair.

  • Agammamon||

    Except that we'd still have data on *where* crime was happening. And you can allocate funding to that better than along racial lines.

    Then, of course, the Census is not the only way to collect that data and allocating money for crie fighting and 'behavior modification' are not Federal duties anyway. If the states want to do that, the states can pay for it.

  • ||

    Reclassify all ethnicities and races as American.

    Let's just put a plain-facts reading of the BOR in their.

    Does the 1A say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Yes = American, No = Other

    Does the 2A say, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Yes/No?

    Yes = American, No = Other
    ...

    Identify however you like, just be aware that you've declared to the public that you're among the group that doesn't believe individuals should think/believe freely, have a right to speak up, or defend themselves.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    To some extent, that is what scares most people about open borders. Not the interpretation of the Constitution, but the cultural ethics. Western philosophy, where a few hundred years ago an English gentleman would not think of lying.

    We have our share of grifters and deceivers, but there is still a basis of Lockeian thought relating to honor and ethics. Many immigrant cultures start from a very different place (for better or worse) and it doesn't often mix well.

    Case in point, the cold care fraud going on in Minnesota. There are plenty of generation old citizens who would and do jump at the chance for fraud, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find whole communities that support it.

  • Tony||

    Hey asshole, what American freedom means to me is the ability to believe whatever the fuck you want to believe. Lord knows you guys take that liberty and run with it.

  • Mark22||

    Hey asshole, what American freedom means to me is the ability to believe whatever the fuck you want to believe.

    American freedom also ought to mean the freedom to ostracize people like you.

  • Agammamon||

    Sorry dude, we fought a war to get out from under the thumbs of those 'English gentlemen' who you say would never tell a lie. The East India Company was formed of them.

  • vek||

    I don't know that'd I'd take all your specifics, but the general principle certainly.

    A native born white American has a completely different set of moral and cultural values than most foreigners. We've been doing our own thing long enough where we even have a completely different set from our homelands in Europe.

    The fact is that the set of morals, values, and other cultural artifacts America created have proven to be the best in the history of mankind. Mass immigration can and will alter these... If you're starting from the best position possible, any erosion is not awesome, even if you survive it.

    A little known fact is that FDR ONLY WON because of the recent immigrant vote. The native born Anglo-Saxon/Germanic immigrants that had been here for a long time refused the allure of socialism EVEN DURING THE DEPRESSION. If they had limited the speed which immigrants could move in, our entire country may never have went down the road to big government.

    Since then most of these immigrants got worked into the mix, and largely believe in smaller government etc. But it takes time to convert people. Also, blacks prove that one must pass to ever not see oneself as an other, let alone be seen as an other by whites. So tribalism will ensue for all groups that can't literally become unidentifiable within a generation or two. Many Hispanics will make this cut since they're starting out 60-70% Spanish blood to begin with, but a lot of other groups coming in will not...

  • EscherEnigma||

    Yeah, but if you can't stand by the one-drop rule, you have to admit that race is a social construct, and that makes you a SJW hippy or something.

    That said, I fear that this new study is as useless as the last. Folks that are going to be "upset" at a minority-white future aren't going to be happy about the new numbers once someone points out that Obama is "white" in the new study.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    you have to admit that race is a social construct, and that makes you a SJW hippy or something.

    The "SJW's" live on the premise that race isn't a social construct, and it must be categorized, counted, and populations are to be treated by their group identity.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Since we're all cousins, what's the big deal?

  • Agammamon||

    And the gender *is* a construct.

    Weird people.

  • vek||

    Race is definitely not a social construct.

    But what it is is fuzzy lines, with some overlap in geographic areas where major groups are near each other. Anyone who denies the multitude of biological differences between extremes is an idiot. A Kenyan IS NOT the exact same as a Japanese person. Period. They have many physical differences, differences in psychological behavior at the statistical level, different prevalence's of diseases etc.

    There's a reason Japan industrialized within a few decades of really deciding to do so, with no outside help, and that Africa still can't pull it off with billions in aide. It's no polite, but it's true.

  • lulz farmer||

    Race is a biological reality and even the early racialists have been vindicated by over a century of research. The more we learn, the more it becomes apparent. Even down to differences in medicine, in donor incompatibilities between races, and so on.

    Anyway the reason people are upset is that they can already see they're going to be treated like dirt even more than they already are (see AA, quotas, set-asides etc.) as a minority in their own country. Genocide may be on the table once they get to a small enough proportion of the population given the hatred being whipped up against them, such as what happened in Haiti, Rhodesia, and now South Africa. This is now some petty emotional trifle. I'm sure you'll try to pooh-pooh it as such, though.

  • esteve7||

    What my leftist roommate says in response to a higher percentage of latinos voting for Trump than Mitt Romney. See they arn't really latino, they've turned their back blah blah blah

  • My Dog Bites Better Than Yours||

    What about those of us who absolutely refuse to check a race/ethnicity/team checkbox for any reason?

    How about a "I ain't gonna play the game" option?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If you don't play the game, that's racist. Or so I've been told.

  • Agammamon||

    Its the only winning move.

  • Eidde||

    Has anyone observed that race, as such, has never been census category recognized by the Constitution, except in slavery days when slaves (who were all black) counted as 3/5 of a person?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    They weren't all black. Just mostly.

  • markm23||

    They counted as 3/5 of a person because they were slaves, not because they were black. Through most of history, slaves have far more often been the same color as their owners than not. Race-based slavery was only invented when planters in the New World discovered that they could not keep white hired hands or even indentured servants on their plantations for long. Workers could just down tools, walk west until they passed the last farm, and claim a piece of land as their own. Indentured servants might have a legal obligation to serve until their passage and other debts were paid, but if they also chose to go west, there were no photographs or fingerprints to identify them.

    This problem happened to arise not long after the discovery that it was surprisingly easy to kidnap and enslave west Africans - there was even an existing slave of slave raiders and traders. And once an enslaved African was brought to a "white" country, running away became futile since a two word description - "black man" or "black woman" - was sufficient for strangers to recognize him or her...

  • Ron Bailey||

    E: Yes.

  • Eidde||

    So now I have to start reading the posts?

    I knew you guys were harsh.

  • Longtobefree||

    No reason to read the article or the posts, just babble on like the rest of us.

  • creech||

    Sorry, the 1870-1900 census had "color" and beginning in 1910 "color or race."

  • Cynical Asshole||

    These stories of white decline obscure the ongoing changes to America's color line, and they serve only to divide.

    That's probably the whole point.

  • Eidde||

    + ha ha whitey soon you'll get yours

  • Longtobefree||

    Too late; we already got ours, and we ain't letting go.

  • NoVaNick||

    Isn't someone of Spanish (European) descent considered Hispanic/Latino according to the census, and for the purposes of college admissions. employment, etc? I knew a girl in college from Tunisia who was classified as African American even though she had lighter skin than me.

    Goes to show you how bogus race is as a category.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Well, that's because 'Hispanic/Latino' and 'African-American' are actually ethnicities. They don't denote race at all. They tell you what nations or continents or linguistic groupings a person--or their ancestors comes from.

    We don't use racial classifications anymore because the words are considered to be racist now.

    Because the left fuckin' loves science!

  • Mark22||

    Isn't someone of Spanish (European) descent considered Hispanic/Latino according to the census

    Spanish or Spanish emigrants to the US don't consider themselves to be "Hispanic/Latino" in my experience.

  • Drake||

    "Mark22|5.22.18 @ 1:18AM|#

    Isn't someone of Spanish (European) descent considered Hispanic/Latino according to the census
    Spanish or Spanish emigrants to the US don't consider themselves to be "Hispanic/Latino" in my experience."

    Yeah, it's more of a thing over here in the Americas. Kinda like how alot of Haitians, Jamaicans, or Dominican black immigrants don't describe themselves as 'African-Americans'. It's just not a part of their culture. I know several people from those places and and some of them are actually kinda annoyed by it, really. To them 'black' more than suffices, haha. I've also seen some data suggesting that some people from these places are a little more likely to be Republicans than native blacks, which is interesting.

  • vek||

    That's too broad and generic a category to them. They thing of themselves as being Spanish, not some generic catch all phrase that only got invented to serve a functional language purpose in the Americas.

    It's like how I would be fine with somebody calling me a WASP as a generic term, but a fresh German immigrant probably would be like "No, I'm GERMAN."

  • Drake||

    I'd define 'Hispanic' as anyone who belongs to Spanish linguistic/cultural groups, whether they're actual Spaniards straight out of Spain or people who, whether white, brown, or mixed, belong to societies shaped by Spanish culture, period. It's not necessarily a clear-cut racial definition. In fact, It actually derives from 'Hispania', which was the name of the Roman province that comprised both of what would later become Spain and Portugal.

    So-called 'Latin' culture is pretty huge given the extent of Spanish colonial dominance, especially in the Americas, and thus 'Hispanic' itself is going to cover alot of shit in its own right. Hell, you could even throw Filipinos in there, and they're neither Spanish nor Amerindian. It's too broad a description for way too many things to serve as a proper *racial* designation. 'Latino' is often used synonymously.

    As far as race goes, it's not bogus at all. 'Race' is an objective, scientific fact, just like gender is. It's not the total be-all end-all, necessarily, but its useful nonetheless. Now, whether things are always appropriately classified, such as in the cases you note, is another question entirely. You can also recognize race without being racist, of course. It's just a matter of recognizing differing groups/populations based upon phenotypic characteristics like eye color, bone structure, and melanin content, along with their corresponding regional origins. As such it's VERY useful.

  • Tony||

    Race matters demographically as long as assholes like this exist.

    There's an asshole like that in the White House, elected by assholes primarily motivated by a desire to be bigger assholes than polite society would let them before. So perhaps it's still an issue.

  • Mark22||

    polite society would let them before

    In a polite society, polite people speak the common language, English in the case of the US.

  • Tony||

    You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

    Is there anything more tiresome than internet randos inventing rules of etiquette out of thin air?

  • Mark22||

    You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

    As an immigrant whose native language isn't English, I very much know what I'm talking about, and it's the rule I have lived by: when in the US, speak English. I'm sorry you don't understand the reasons why, but it would obviously be pointless to try to explain to you.

  • Agammamon||

    So, what about the asshole who bitched at one of my Middle-Eastern coworkers for his inability to speak Spanish?

    Does that dude get a pass because he's a Mexican-American? I know my coworker doesn't because he's not Muslim, just Chaldean.

  • Azathoth!!||

    This struck me--


    When asked how the story they read made them feel—angry, anxious, hopeful or enthusiastic—results were clear-cut. Forty-six percent of white Democrats and a whopping 74 percent of Republicans expressed anger or anxiety when reading about the impending white-minority status.

    But these negative emotions were far less frequent when participants read the second story about a more inclusive white majority. Only 35 percent of white Democrats and 29 percent of white Republicans expressed anger or anxiousness about this scenario.

    Almost two thirds of Republican objectors changed their minds when 'white' was made more inclusive--but only a quarter of objecting Democrats did.

    So much so that Democrats and Republicans switched places.

    Interesting.

  • Ron Bailey||

    A: Yes. I thought that was pretty interesting too.

  • ||

    I was flipping through the comments to see if anyone else was struck by this most interesting flip in the statistical analysis.

    That white Democrats don't express less anxiety when the information is framed in terms of inclusiveness demonstrates the propensity of a sizable portion of their base for prejudice.

  • lulz farmer||

    It's a cuck narrative, though. The point here is that this is a lie and not a very noble one in the service of an ongoing democide.

  • Longtobefree||

    On the other hand, if the census was used solely for reapportioning the House of Representatives, none of this would matter. It is the necessity of doing a bazillion dollars of marketing research for the business community, and helping distribute graft as prescribed by congress that requires all the extraneous questions.
    Imagine a census that has a White House secretary sending a postcard to each state/territory asking only "how many registered voters do you have?" Then a few minutes with a ten key calculator, and TA-DA!, the reapportionment is done, the constitution is satisfied, and life goes on with lots of extra money in the treasury.
    While you are at it, imagine a unicorn publishing a paper that cites named, verifiable, reliable sources for true statements.

  • cc2||

    I have a large group of Iranian friends. They basicly do not think in racial terms, would deny that they are oppressed, and if you forced them to decide would say they are white.

  • Azathoth!!||

    and if you forced them to decide would say they are white.

    ....because they are.

    White people from that general area are among the first white people in the world.

  • vek||

    PERSIAN Iranians are essentially "white." Certainly white-ish. Other Iranians a little less so, but still close.

    Technically of course all Europeans, middle easterners, Indians etc are Caucasians. White is just a sub-group of Caucasians just as Indian is. We're all closely related genetically, but still separated by 10s of thousands of years with the bulk of our genetic makeup. But vastly closer to each other than to Africans or East Asians.

    Persians don't feel oppressed because they're not blow it case losers and do well in life. People who win don't have to play the victim game. Hence you don't ever hear East Asians bitching about anything either. People who whine about things being unfair are 99% of the time blow it case losers... Or at least people trying to pander to losers.

  • lulz farmer||

    They're brown, though. They're not Persians as described in ancient texts "tall and blonde." They were run over by Arabian rape hordes in the 7th century.

  • Rev. Arthur Ꮮ. Kirkland||

    On the one hand, this helps me adapt to the paradox that Texas has been majority-minority for thirteen years without becoming properly and correctly progressive in its politics. Obviously there are just too many reactionary white "Hispanics" there.

    On the other hand, this makes me despair of the ability to make the country properly and correctly progressive by bringing in Hispanics to outvote white racists.

    How am I to cling to hope and carry on?

  • Mark22||

    On the one hand, this helps me adapt to the paradox that Texas has been majority-minority for thirteen years without becoming properly and correctly progressive in its politics.

    Well, the Democratic "coalition" of privileged, wealthy white pricks, homosexuals, immigrants, African Americans, entitled slutty women, big corporations, relatives of illegals, and public sector union members seems to be falling apart. Maybe it wasn't such a good strategy after all. You'll just have to get used to it, I suppose.

    How am I to cling to hope and carry on?

    Same way you always cling: with bitterness.

  • vek||

    Yeah, it's mostly them long time Texans of Spanish descent that helped gain independence from a tyrannical Mexican government. And all the ones that interbred with the Anglos. It was the same in California when I was growing up, before the flood of illegal immigrants. I'm part beaner myself! Even my very tan grandpa was nothing but a cowboy shirt wearin', pcikup truck drivin', gun totin' all American guy.

    If we ever stop the flood of rapid immigration the Hispanics will probably come around once they become mixed with non Hispanic whites. So you had better hope that the globalist shit heels can keep the flood gates open, otherwise progressives may well be doomed!

  • lulz farmer||

    The numbers are already such that the resultant admixed population would be a dumpster-fire. You can't absorb that level of damage without severely compromising the genetic integrity of the largely Germanic and Celtic populations that created the country.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Myers and Levy also report that reading the story using the more inclusive definition of white ethnicity promoted a modest reduction in opposition to immigration relative to those respondents assigned the story using the more exclusive definition. "

    You can change people's reaction to what you say by lying to them. Who knew?

  • ||

    Framing the argument in terms of inclusiveness instead of exclusiveness is not lying. Unless you are a race-baiting POS. Are you a race-baiting POS?

  • vek||

    Well, MOST Hispanics are white-ish... But it's a stretch to consider most of them "white" proper. Except Argentines and people from Uruguay, who are both over 90% European genetically. Your statistically average Mexican is 60 something percent European, mostly Spanish. It varies geographically though. In the northern states it is like 70-80% European, and in the south 40-50% on average. Some individuals are almost pure Spanish, and many pure Indian still.

    Is the child of a pure Indian Mexican that breeds with a white Nebraska farm boy "white" in the strictest sense? Probably not. They're "mixed" 50/50. However if a pale skinned 80% Spanish Mexican breeds with that same person and their kid ends up 90% European, I'd probably say yes. As always, it really comes down to passing.

    It's a spectrum. And for people who are ignorant, this is exactly how it works in basically all of Latin America. There is a sliding scale spectrum, which largely depends on looks. Predominantly European blooded people own and control the most resources in every Latin American country, followed in success by those in the middle European blood wise, and lowest on the totem pole being the mostly pure Indians and blacks.

    Latin America in the real world is not a color blind world as the progressives like to believe. However it is a meritocracy, which is why you see the results you do...

  • lulz farmer||

    It is lying to them because the intent here is deceit to assuage their very real concerns about becoming a dispossessed minority in their own country their forefathers founded and built, by pushy newcomers who have been given the whip hand over them.

  • swampwiz||

    I am the grandson of an ethnic Basque natural-born citizen of Spain. Whenever I get the question "are you Spanish?", a check the box and then enter "Basque".

  • Dadlobby||

    I was going to call myself Native American as I was born here as my ancestors have since the 1700's but the Indians took that. Maybe "Scotch-Irish" as a generation was from there or "Scottish" as ancestors were there for 800 years. Perhaps I'll go with Norman as the ancestors and name came from delaHaye (does that make me French or Viking?). Of course 10,000 years ago we were in what is now Germany and migrated over the Italian Alps. I'm confused so I'll just go with Native American, maybe get free college, run for the Senate in MA or something. Maybe I'll just check other and write in American (leaving out the mutt). OK, I'm going with Mutt.

  • Ryan Frank||

    America is an ideal, not a tribe.

    Exactly - which is why we should have an interest in immigrants that agree with that ideal, whatever 'tribe' they are born from.

  • lulz farmer||

    The founding fathers didn't think so, but what do I know. I've actually read their documents, the federalist papers, and their own personal writings on such topics. It's why they made the first immigration and naturalization act limited to FREE WHITE PERSONS OF GOOD CHARACTER. And "white" wasn't subjective, and still isn't.

  • Amicus123||

    The final step before we reach "the goyim know. Shut it down."

  • vek||

    Poor delusional people. I'm a mixed mongrel American myself. Mostly German, with a touch of Scotch-English, Native American, and Mexican. But that doesn't stop me from being able to objectively look at data.

    The fact is evolution did not make us all equal in all ways. We all deserve certain basic rights of course... But there are qualitative differences between major ethnicities that are objectively quantifiable and real. In 50 years people who are mostly black will still have lower incomes than Jews, Asians, and whites. Mestizo Hispanics will still be better off than blacks, and less well off than whites. Evolution is a bitch. But some groups ended up with better/worse physical and/or mental traits. In the modern world IQ is more valuable than any of the physical traits that some groups have over the more cerebral groups. That's just life.

    That said the mix of high IQ/low IQ people in any given society at a statistical level WILL have a direct effect on how wealthy, prosperous, and well run that society is. There's a reason that throughout basically all of human history the most advanced civilization in the world at any given time was in either Europe or Asia... It's called IQ. When the middle east had its day as the highest height of civilization their IQs may well have been on par with the people living in Europe and East Asia at that time, but they too trail considerably now.

  • vek||

    We really don't know how much genetic IQ potential has changed in the last few thousand years. We do know European Jews are more than one standard deviation smarter than their relatives who remained in the middle east, so a change of that magnitude is possible within a couple millennia at least.

    All this is to say that while I don't hate any other group... I do not want to let in large numbers of people who are statistically guaranteed to bring poverty and trouble to America. I'm not a purist on the ethnic front, so I would say if we cut off low skill immigration from abroad we can and would absorb and convert the Hispanic population in the USA, and be doing pretty okay. We'd lose a lot of hot blondes and red heads in the process, and everybody would look a lot more Italian... Which is basically me! But it'd be workable.

    HOWEVER if we never stop the inflow, that homogenization can never actually happen. We'll end up with tribal warfare, and a large swath of population that isn't cut out for doing high end 21st century type jobs, because they don't have the average IQ to pull it off.

    As a practical guy I'm even okay with allowing a fair amount of Asian immigration, because I think we can convert them politically, BECAUSE they're successful. But any low IQ group that comes in that never has a real chance at becoming equal to the white majority will perpetually be an aggrieved class. And that doesn't bode well.

  • vek||

    High skill immigration only should be allowed. That's my simple, non racist answer to this looming potential shit show.

    You people who are still in denial about the genetic basis in IQ differences should REALLY go read into the science on that more deeply. Every study the progs do to try to prove it is not genetic just reinforces the genetic basis more. Twin studies, inter-racial adoption, mixed race people, etc all just show it's primarily genetic.

    BUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL HYPOTHESIS YOU SAY!!! Well, when somebody can explain to me how a half starving North Korean can have a higher IQ than a middle class black in America, THEN I might consider that. But the problem is that while environment helps raise IQ when one is coming out of extreme poverty, one very quickly reaches ones genetic IQ potential. This is why blacks in America have a lot higher IQs than blacks in Africa... But still far lower than whites/Asians.

    It's not the way I want the world to work, but it is reality. We're literally destroying Western Civilization by denying this pretty solidly proven scientific fact because we don't like the feelz of it. I don't like the feels of it either... But it is what it is. I don't want slavery to come back or anything, but I don't want to intentionally import people that will destroy my civilization either. If that makes me racist then fine, I really don't care at this point. I can always bust out my Hispanic card anyway and dodge that bullet ;)

  • lulz farmer||

    Biological clades are not a social construct. "White" means fully European ancestry. It doesn't mean a squat, brown person named Pedro with a full standard deviation lower IQ and totally alien physical features who has 56% European ancestry from Spain because it was a former Spanish colony. In real terms, such people are HYBRIDS. They are not white.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online