I had never heard of this before the other day, as I doubt many had. And suddenly the left is all over it as a strawman for what their opponents must believe and support. This is in line with what I've seen re other "conspiracy theories" as well, the majority of the people talking about them or believing that the theories really have proponents beyond a few nutters are all doing so to try and dismiss their political opponents.
> I had never heard of this before the other day, as I doubt many had.
You must be an exception then, because even NBC has joined in on the fear-mongering:
Soon, more than one-third of Americans will live in states where ethnic groups outnumber whites. Such demographic shifts are fueling criticism that the word ‘minority’ is increasingly inaccurate, obsolete or even offensive. - https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna9001157
This is interesting phrasing, implying that there are two kinds of people -- people with "ethnic groups" and "whites" which apparently don't have ethnicities?
I'm pretty sure that "Russian" is an ethnic group (and "German" and "Irish" and ...), and yet the "Russian" ethnic group is going to get called "white", so it's weird not to consider whites as having ethnic groups (which any statement that compares the number of "ethnic group" members to the number of "whites" is implicitly doing).
Right, but my point is that the word has multiple common meanings.
Also, to your point, the usage section of the entry encourages using more specific terms:
"Ethnic is sometimes used in a euphemistic way to refer to non-white people as a whole, as in a radio station which broadcasts to the ethnic community in Birmingham. Although this usage is quite common, more specific terms such as ‘black’ or ‘Asian’ are preferable."
In Charlottesville there were marchers with "Jews will not replace us" signs, and this was years ago.
This stuff has been floating around for a while, it's not exactly new. I remember my mom telling me back in the 90s that at some point we'd be a majority-minority country, which she framed as a positive thing.
White racists in the south have been trying to start a race war for more than a century.
It's also spelled out in The Birth Dearth[1], but yes, the idea is much older. It is a synthesis of Hobbes and race to arrive at a conception of racial power which constructs a "looming crisis" extrapolated from a decades-long demographic trend toward racial pluralism. In so far as Wattenberg is concerned, the stakes are western civilization itself by way of an implied western chauvinism.
"I had never heard of this before the other day, as I doubt many had."
I've been aware of this for a while, and its not just something 'the left' concocted, nor is it new, and has been a bogeyman of reactionary nutjobs going back decades. I remember hearing it as a post-Jim Crow trope in the 80s, and I thought it was stupid then, and it's stupid now...but stupid and violent paranoia is what gets you things like the recent Buffalo shooting (among other things), which is likely why its getting a lot of news ink now, and justifiably so.
It's not limited to the US either, but we're just really good at giving it a fresh coat of double-speak paint via buffoons like Tucker Carlson and any available Trumpkin du jour.
Replacement theory seems to just be the lightly sanitized version of the long-standing "white genocide" theory, which is a central pillar of white supremacist ideology. The difference is that replacement theory doesn't go so far as to call for a "self-defence" genocide. It's comparable to the difference between an unarmed bomb and an armed bomb.
This is also why they're freaking about about "critical race theory". There has been genocide in the US - by white colonizers against Native Americans. They don't want to admit this because it would require too much self-reflection, but fundamentally they think that someone else wants to do it to them because they did it first.
> they think that someone else wants to do it to them because they did it first.
No, it's because they're racists and xenophobes. Most of the "whites" in the US, and particularly the poor and uneducated class which comprises the majority of white supremacists, are relatively recent immigrants who have little connection to the genocides of the past.
>The difference is that replacement theory doesn't go so far as to call for a "self-defence" genocide. It's comparable to the difference between an unarmed bomb and an armed bomb.
It's a distinction without a difference in practice. As the article mentions, the Buffalo shooter was motivated by replacement theory, as was the Christchurch shooter and the El Paso shooter.
does this mean gop is no longer allowed to talk about democrats cheating census by insisting that it must include undocumented immigrants? i am not a big consumer of conservative news but that is the only thing they are pushing that comes close to nyt claims
The census has ALWAYS counted everyone, regardless of immigration status. Formal immigration processes are extremely new compared with the age of this country. Right-wingers are just playing into racist fears as they've done for centuries.
Well, mass illegal immigration wasnt ALWAYS a thing. We are talking about political issue of whether some states should receive more seats in congress due to number of undocumented immigrants they host. It is not a racist thing, it is a political thing.
Sure it was. It was how the whole of North America was colonized. White settlers broke treaties and settled on land they weren't supposed to. This was mass illegal immigration too.
It's correct that people moved around since forever. But I think applying the the concept of illegal immigration to colonization of Americas doesn't make sense.
The indigenous Americans didn't organize their societies as nation states.
> Well, mass illegal immigration wasnt ALWAYS a thing.
It has been for the whole time since entry policy shifted from default-allow to default-deny (a change itself largely based in racism, notwithstanding that there are good reasons to want to avoid a large, permanent, non-citizen population); when the US had open immigration and only restrictive rules for naturalization, yes, mass illegal immigration wasn't an issue. [0]
> It is not a racist thing, it is a political thing.
That's like the “it was not about slavery, just states rights” line about the civil war; and just like that it sets up a false dichotomy to pretend that the (true) more general description falsifies the (also true) more specific description.
[0] I want to emphasize that this is not advocacy for a return to such a policy, only noting that the US has never, for any significant time, had a working restrictive immigration policy without significant illegal immigration.
Interesting. Since everyone insists that that everything about the US should also be about racism I will argue that getting a seat in congress due to bloated census to represent people who cannot vote is a form of political enslavement.
We should probably try to not label political opponent's positions as conspiracy or disinformation. You're not going to convince them away from their position if you refuse to discuss it.
Here in Canada we are similar to the USA in accepting around 1% boost to our population per year. So 30 million / 400,000 immigrants per year.
So what year does white people become a minority? 2036.
HEre's the thing. If we don't do this. We are going to have insane population decline. The worker shortage of 2030 is set in stone. Immigration can't possibly cover it, but it can at least help. You cant magic teenagers into existence.
This is the consequence of World War 2, but you can also see why some people are freaked out. You have major population decline, we're below replacement fertility rate and seemingly nobody is even considering trying to fix that problem. Hence replacement theory is completely legitimate.
But also why are they not looking into fixing our histortical low fertility? Shouldn't that be a fundamental job of the government akin to borders or military?
31 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 83.1 ms ] threadHow about some "fringe nutters" rambling in the NYT? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/13/books/review/francis-fuku...
Or https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/apr/21/the-great-expe...
Or https://www.cfr.org/book/great-experiment
Aaaand so on...
edit: or, an excerpt from German TV, about a minute:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bqjwvfe4jA from 2018
edit: related https://duckduckgo.com/?q=weapons+of+mass+migration
You must be an exception then, because even NBC has joined in on the fear-mongering:
Soon, more than one-third of Americans will live in states where ethnic groups outnumber whites. Such demographic shifts are fueling criticism that the word ‘minority’ is increasingly inaccurate, obsolete or even offensive. - https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna9001157
This is interesting phrasing, implying that there are two kinds of people -- people with "ethnic groups" and "whites" which apparently don't have ethnicities?
"ethnic: Relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition."
(from an online version of the Oxford dictionary: https://web.archive.org/web/20200108002157/https://www.lexic...)
Also, to your point, the usage section of the entry encourages using more specific terms:
"Ethnic is sometimes used in a euphemistic way to refer to non-white people as a whole, as in a radio station which broadcasts to the ethnic community in Birmingham. Although this usage is quite common, more specific terms such as ‘black’ or ‘Asian’ are preferable."
This stuff has been floating around for a while, it's not exactly new. I remember my mom telling me back in the 90s that at some point we'd be a majority-minority country, which she framed as a positive thing.
White racists in the south have been trying to start a race war for more than a century.
1. Wattenberg 1987 (ISBN-13: 978-0345343994)
Here's an article from last year detailing dozens of instances where "a few nutters" endorsed this replacement conspiracy theory on one of the largest cable news shows in America: https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/tucker-carlson-fully-e...
And that's just from one week.
When mass murderers are quoting Tucker Carlson I don't think you can, in good faith, place the blame on the liberals.
I've been aware of this for a while, and its not just something 'the left' concocted, nor is it new, and has been a bogeyman of reactionary nutjobs going back decades. I remember hearing it as a post-Jim Crow trope in the 80s, and I thought it was stupid then, and it's stupid now...but stupid and violent paranoia is what gets you things like the recent Buffalo shooting (among other things), which is likely why its getting a lot of news ink now, and justifiably so.
It's not limited to the US either, but we're just really good at giving it a fresh coat of double-speak paint via buffoons like Tucker Carlson and any available Trumpkin du jour.
The Turner Diaries are basically classic literature to the extreme right wing and have been around for well over 40 years now.
No, it's because they're racists and xenophobes. Most of the "whites" in the US, and particularly the poor and uneducated class which comprises the majority of white supremacists, are relatively recent immigrants who have little connection to the genocides of the past.
It's a distinction without a difference in practice. As the article mentions, the Buffalo shooter was motivated by replacement theory, as was the Christchurch shooter and the El Paso shooter.
Not really. Colonization is a very different phenomenon. So is conquest.
The indigenous Americans didn't organize their societies as nation states.
So, I doubt that they had "borders" in the sense used here. Supporting this is the fact that their cartography wasn't very advanced. Here's how their maps looked like: https://www.archaeology.org/issues/338-features/maps/7549-ma...
It has been for the whole time since entry policy shifted from default-allow to default-deny (a change itself largely based in racism, notwithstanding that there are good reasons to want to avoid a large, permanent, non-citizen population); when the US had open immigration and only restrictive rules for naturalization, yes, mass illegal immigration wasn't an issue. [0]
> It is not a racist thing, it is a political thing.
That's like the “it was not about slavery, just states rights” line about the civil war; and just like that it sets up a false dichotomy to pretend that the (true) more general description falsifies the (also true) more specific description.
[0] I want to emphasize that this is not advocacy for a return to such a policy, only noting that the US has never, for any significant time, had a working restrictive immigration policy without significant illegal immigration.
Here in Canada we are similar to the USA in accepting around 1% boost to our population per year. So 30 million / 400,000 immigrants per year.
So what year does white people become a minority? 2036.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-politics-o...
HEre's the thing. If we don't do this. We are going to have insane population decline. The worker shortage of 2030 is set in stone. Immigration can't possibly cover it, but it can at least help. You cant magic teenagers into existence.
This is the consequence of World War 2, but you can also see why some people are freaked out. You have major population decline, we're below replacement fertility rate and seemingly nobody is even considering trying to fix that problem. Hence replacement theory is completely legitimate.
But also why are they not looking into fixing our histortical low fertility? Shouldn't that be a fundamental job of the government akin to borders or military?