A day after I read it, I’m still puzzling over the significance of George Will‘s observation that "there are now 100 million nonwhites in America:"
Although the compromise was announced the day the Census Bureau reported that there now are 100 million nonwhites in America, Americans are skeptical about the legislation, but not because they have suddenly succumbed to nativism. Rather, the public has slowly come to the conclusion that the government cannot be trusted to mean what it says about immigration.
I can’t think of any exculpatory reason why he would have considered that a relevant setup to his point that "Americans are skeptical…." Would they be skeptical if there were not 100 million nonwhites? Would their skepticism be assuaged by there being fewer, or more, nonwhites?
A colleague to whom I raised this question speculated that "Americans aren’t just riled up about this b/c they’re against foreigners; or something." To which I could only respond, yeah, he’s saying they don’t like black people, either.
Or something.
I wouldn’t ascribe racist intent to Mr. Will. Nor would I think he would mean that Americans in general … oh, I don’t know what he meant.
Related Posts
I wouldn’t ascribe racist intent to Mr. Will. Nor would I think he would mean that Americans in general … oh, I don’t know what he meant.
-Brad
Why not? If John Edwards wrote this would you have ascribed racist intent? I bet you would have. After all, you were all over his anti-Catholic bloggers.
At the risk of putting words in Mr. Will’s mouth, my interpretation of his statement is that opposition to the immigration bill is not because many white Americans believe that they’re losing their majority status, but rather because they don’t trust the government to enforce the new rules should they become law.
That is, opposition’s not based on racism but on hard learned cynicism.
By the way, I thought the State did a pretty good job by publishing both George Will’s and David Brook’s articles. The contrast between Brook’s optimism and Will’s skepticism and was thought provoking.
First – thanks for asking my question of Senator McCain.
On Will – it sounds like his point is “America is a multi-racial (1/3 nonwhite – non Euro if you prefer) and multicultrual so the 74% opposed to this bill probably aren’t nativists who think America needs to be a monocultural country like Sweden or China or something, but its an unwieldy sentance to be sure. Don’t know that he really needs us to clear him of blame for using the stat.
I liked the column and feel like this is part of what I was saying about the lack of need to do an overarching bill.
Actually, bud, no I wasn’t.
I did write a post complaining about other people being all worked up about it, and citing the whole mess as an example of the kind of pointless Kulturkampf that drives me crazy.
I don’t like Edwards, because I see him as a big phony. I’ve been straight about that. But in the case you cite, I was just as critical of the Catholic mouthpiece who was giving him hell about the thing.
As for the two bloggers at the center of it, I basically just dismissed them as silly. Which they were.
Anybody doubt my characterization? Go back and read it.
You have to twist logic and common sense into a pretzel to rationalize away the obvious racist implications in Will’s statement.
What those anti-Catholic bloggers wrote for public consumption was not merely “silly”. Many of us Catholics find it personally offensive to deeply held beliefs. It adds fuel to the fire of prejudice against Catholicism.
If their writings were directed towards gays or blacks, the outrage would be immense. Edwards would champion the rights of these victims and rise up in their defense.
I interpret Will’s comments as connecting the rise in “non-whites” and immigration because of the Hispanic population involved in both.
Brad, you didn’t directly attack Mr. Edwards for his anti-Catholic bloggers but you did bring it up and opened the door for others to attack him for that. And you referred to him as a “faux populist” which is a bit of a smear in itself.
As for the George Will article, that is a flagrant bit of racism. As RTH points out, there is simply no other logical way to interpret the 100 million non-white statement.
I don’t like Edwards, because I see him as a big phony. I’ve been straight about that.
Well, that certainly elevates the level of debate.
Randy E, c’mon. I haven’t noticed any raging fires of prejudice directed against Catholics lately.
Although the compromise was announced the day the Census Bureau reported that there now are 100 million nonwhites in America, Americans are skeptical about the legislation, but not because they have suddenly succumbed to nativism. Rather, the public has slowly come to the conclusion that the government cannot be trusted to mean what it says about immigration.
That is a rather . . . strained locution. I think what Will was trying to say was something like this: “Although there are now 100 million nonwhites in America, that is not the reason Americans are skeptical about immigration reform. Have I mentioned that there are now 100 million nonwhites in America? Because there are. 100 million nonwhites. In America. Now. But let’s just ignore those 100 million nonwhites in America, ’cause that doesn’t have anything to do with the immigration debate.”
Actually, that figure seems low, IF — and he’s unclear on this — he is including Mexicans. And he probably is.
The country is 2/3 white, counting out blacks, nonEuropean Hispanics, Asians, a few Pacific Islanders, and folks from the subcontinent?
100 million just sounds low. Or at least, not high…
Why would 100 million sound low, Brad? Given that you say that “the country is 2/3 white” (-> the other 1/3 is non-white) and given that we just passed the 300 million population mark this year, shouldn’t 100 million be exactly right? Aaah, innumeracy strikes again, it seems.
Brad, if you use absolute authenticity (as opposed to “phoniness”) as a litmus test then I certainly don’t see how you can support any of the candidates– including Sen. Straight Spinning himself, John McCain.
As someone pointed out, there’s an element of “phoniness” to every politician. This may be a shock to you since you apparently try to remain ignorant of the world of politics.
I thought McCain was pretty straight up with his F-bomb comment on immigration recently. I guess civility only applies to Brad Brother’s Blog.
KC, prejudices are ok as long as they are not of the “raging fire” variety? You are the one to determine this?
The animosity is not as explicit, but it exists. I’ve seen first hand people state that Catholics worship idols and others proclaim the pope is a heretic. Having my Faith belittled, especially in person, is not something I take lightly.
Regarding Will, I don’t see the racism in what he wrote. Having such a large population of nonwhites (who are more likely to be Hispanic) should be taken into account in how this legislation directed towards nonwhites is viewed.
His writings and commentary on This Week have shown him to be a very rational and unemotional pundit. Yes, he is conservative but unlike another conservative he’s not one to use terms like “halfrican American”.
Exactly, bud — McCain was being VERY authentic. I admire the (bleep) outta the guy.
Well, if by “authentic” you mean totally losing his cool when he get’s called on his presidential ambitions trumping his senatorial duties– yeah, I guess so.
There are a number of ordinary guys like that. And, some of them manage to stay out of jail, too.
Being a ticking time bomb isn’t exactly a quality that most people look for in the guy with his finger on the nuclear trigger, though. He’d probably go into meltdown at his first G8 summit when the French start jamming him and Putin started pushing his buttons.
RTH, I have been diametrically opposed to nearly everything you’ve uttered over the last 6 months, but when it comes to McCain, you and I are kindred spirits. McCain is a profane, doddering old bag of semi-controlled emotions. He explodes with alarming regularity at the slightest provocation, and he needs to retire to Arizona to wear loud shirts, drink vodka from a sippy cup and drool on himself. That Brad likes him is incomprehensible to me. That I agree with you on something is even more puzzling. Ed
Count me in on the anti-McCain bandwagon. With each passing day his demeanor, mental accuity and stamina diminish. Whatever you think about his views on the issues he simply does not have what it takes to be president.
Bud – It is a fact that there are 300 million Americans, of which 100 million are non-white. The government has released statistics proving this. How does Mr. Will stating a fact make him a racist? I have read Mr. Will for years and have never connected him with racism. Mr. Will always presents a conservative viewpoint with little or no personal emotion into his articles.
I have seen forms asking for nationality where Hispanic, nonwhite has been listed. Is that racist? If we are supposed to be a color-blind society then why does the government ask such questions? And why are colleges still using it as a basis for admission?
Methinks George was doing the sort of thing that I often do: citing in an outrageous manner something that’s not controversial or evidence of racism, racial hatred, or whatever motivation opponents might cite in light of the poll results. His point was simply that the most folks are skeptical of the immigration bill not because they are nativist — after all, “whites” are still the majority — but because their assessment of such laws in the past is that they have been followed by weak enforcement and noncompliance, with the result that today emergency rooms, classrooms, and courtrooms are crowded with folks who wandered across the border without permission.
I guess my problem was that the US Senate was ready to rush the bill through. Having read the legislation and various commentaries on it, my main objection is that it is not fair to those who have followed or are stuck with the rules. In particular, I’m thinking of friends and others of the Canuckistani persuasion: they don’t qualify for the visa lottery and therefore find it harder than even the French to work and, eventually, get on the path to US citizenship.
But I digress.
We still are not at the point where we can discuss “race” without seeking to delve into the motivations of any controversial white participants. I recognize that there are white supremacists, but there are also folks of good will (some named “George”) who want to get beyond the tribal notion of race to the more important notion of culture and interpersonal economic, rational relationships: what’s accepted, acceptable, proven its worth over millennia, and the like. That’s in part what concerns conservatives, and that’s why I describe myself as anglospheric.