> there's certainly a chunk of Trump supporters who would like to go back to the 40s and 50s version of US "not talking about race" (or the 1910s for not talking about women).

This is a relatively small number in comparison to the chunk of Harris supporters who would call color blindness “racist.” In my own experience, “brown” ethno-narcissism and ethnic tribalism is more accepted, and even encouraged, among liberals than white ethno-nationalism is tolerated among conservatives.

This is a result of the political incentives of the respective parties. Republicans don’t need white nationalism, they can win when minorities are assimilated into the what the dominant Anglo-American culture (what the left might call “multiracial whiteness”). That’s basically what’s happened in Florida: Hispanics retain their culture in the way Irish and Italian Americans do, but don’t have a strong ethnic identity that is politically motivating.

▲

ethbr1 3 days ago | parent [-]

Republican's don't need white nationalism, and it undoubtedly hurts them on the whole, which is why it's surprising they continue to let those voices speak for them.

E.g. it's hard to get more racist than Stephen Miller, but I suppose that's normalized when you're on Jeff Sessions' staff.

▲

rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-]

White nationalists are people who dislike Usha Vance because she’s Indian. Stephen Miller is an ordinary nationalist who wants to slow down immigration enough so that everyone assimilates into Anglo-American culture and norms, instead of of changing U.S. culture.

Let me ask you this: you acknowledge that India is different from Vermont, right? And you acknowledge that ethnic enclaves of recent Indian immigrants (say in New York), are culturally different from Vermont? Is there any way in your world view for someone to say that they think the culture of Vermont is better, and they oppose immigration that would change the culture and make it more like India (or Latin America)?

Put differently, what could a non-racist version of Stephen Miller do while seeking to maintain the Anglo-American character of the U.S.? Or do you think that race and culture are so intertwined that non-racism requires us to accept Vermont becoming more like India or Latin America?

▲

CyberDildonics 3 days ago | parent [-]

Stephen Miller is an ordinary nationalist who wants to slow down immigration enough so that everyone assimilated into Anglo-American culture and norms, instead of of changing U.S. culture.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stephen-mi...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stephen-miller-is-what-we-thou...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/stephen-millers-racist-email...

https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/stephen-miller...

There are dozens of similar articles.

▲

rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-]

Those articles are all sourced from the same SPLC hit piece, and are laundering someone’s accusations of “racism” without defining the term, or engaging in guilt by association.

The folks at SPLC are cultural relativists. They think culture is just superficial things like food, and doesn’t contribute to material circumstances. The only reason India or Mexico are poorer and more disorderly, in their view, is oppression from whites. In that worldview, any opposition to immigration can only be based on skin-color “racism.” Is that your view?

▲

CyberDildonics 3 days ago | parent [-]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/us/politics/stephen-mille...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/us/politics/stephen-mille...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/after-stephen-miller-s-w...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/stephen-mi...

▲

rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-]

Each of those articles is sourced from the same SPLC hit piece, and SPLC embraces cultural relativism.

I’m curious why you won’t answer my question. Does non-racism, in your view, require people to accept immigration that changes America’s culture? Is there a non-racist lane for people who want Vermont or Salt Lake City to remain culturally Anglo-American (regardless of ethnicity)?

▲

kristjansson 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

This whole line of reasoning is underpinned by such a fundamentally dim view of American[1] culture that it's hard to believe you and others who espouse it think yourselves its advocates. The unique, defining feature of our culture is precisely its ability to incorporate every other, and reproduce itself among them and their children.

The consistent lane you're looking for is "let come those that will. give them all the freedoms and all the burdens of being American, and that's what they'll become. The character of our places might change, as they have in the past and as they will again in the future, but they will be no less American as long as they're full of people seeking liberty, justice, and the opportunity to better themselves and their families."

[1] and it is _American_ culture, not Anglo-American.

	▲	rayiner 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> The unique, defining feature of our culture is precisely its ability to incorporate every other, and reproduce itself among them and their children. First, you're conflating America's effectiveness in Anglicizing immigrants with absorbing foreign cultures, which has happened surprisingly little. Our national institutions remain quite Anglo, even though there's pockets of different cultures all over the country. Second, most good things about American culture trace back to its Anglo roots: https://scholarworks.brandeis.edu/esploro/outputs/book/Albio.... Legalism, orderliness, disposition towards freedom and free markets, entrepreneurialism, egalitarianism, etc. Areas where we've seen cultural change have been negative. For example, one thing we've lost is the WASP austerity. I know some older folks from New England who grew up learning that "food is for fuel, not enjoyment." Amazing! It's a downgrade that we lost that! > and it is _American_ culture, not Anglo-American. No, it's Anglo-American culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tINJhf1Zs1Q&t=618s. The Anglo countries remain incredibly similar to each other culturally and economically despite the U.S. breaking off from England almost 250 years ago. America is different from England in many ways, but in more or less the same ways it was always different from England.

▲

jacquesm 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

All immigration changes culture. And the United States is probably the best proof of that that you could possibly wish for. Anglo-American culture is a very tiny slice of American culture. Your position is essentially statist: you want the world to stay the way you found it. But the world evolves and it does so on a timescale that that is noticeable on a single human life span. Like that whole groups of people have to sit at the back of the bus (if they're allowed on in the first place), write books on how to survive while driving in certain parts of the country and like that they suddenly have rights. And the countries they were forcibly imported from had cultures noticeably different from the one where the Anglo-American (and Dutch, and German and other countries besides) owners (or so they claimed) people came from.

If you want to emigrate to a place that is static then you will quickly find out that you can't, not really. Switzerland has been trying to do this since forever and is failing badly at it, other experiments in the same direction have led to civil wars and ugly offshoots like apartheid. You either accept that any immigration at all will change culture or you will have to drastically reduce your exposure to the world around you to maintain the illusion.

Capital loves immigration: it provides for cheap labor. That's the end of your static culture. And good thing too.

▲

rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-]

> And the United States is probably the best proof of that that you could possibly wish for. Anglo-American culture is a very tiny slice of American culture.

On one hand, this isn't true. At the national level, our laws and institutions are still predominantly Anglo, because all the Dutch, Germans, Irish, and to a lesser extent, Italians and Eastern Europeans, assimilated into that culture. On the other hand, the places where that is the least true, like Chicago and New York City, only underscore my point. Governance in those cities is terrible because much of the political bandwidth is consumed on issues of fairness and redistribution between groups that are at odds with each other instead of building subway lines or cleaning the streets.

> Your position is essentially statist: you want the world to stay the way you found it

Not at all, I want to iterate on the culture that produced the United States, instead of doing a massive "git pull" from the cultures that produced India or Mexico. If you worked at Google, would you hire tens of thousands of Kodak or GE lifers en bloc? Of course not.

> You either accept that any immigration at all will change culture or you will have to drastically reduce your exposure to the world around you to maintain the illusion.

If that’s the choice, I’d choose the latter.

But I don’t quite agree with the dichotomy. Our H1B cap is just 65,000 people. If you spread them around the country, we could maintain an economic edge while minimizing foreign influence. High-skill immigrants who came to the U.S. pre-H1B, and ended up by the handful in small town america here there was a nuclear research lab or whatever ended up highly assimilated.

> Capital loves immigration: it provides for cheap labor. That's the end of your static culture. And good thing too.

Putting aside that this reads like a right-wing parody of WEF talking points, do you really believe that the result of these changes will make American culture more orderly, efficient, functional, and democratic than say Massachusetts in 1950? (Or your own homeland of the Netherlands prior to its experiment with mass immigration?)

	▲	jacquesm 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> On one hand, this isn't true. Ask the native Americans whether or not this isn't true. > Not at all, I want to iterate on the culture that produced the United States That culture is built on violence, slavery, racism and oppression. Iterating on it seems to have brought out its worst elements rather than its best elements. Half the country, including you, voted for a caricature of what a decent human being should be like as president. And you are now 200 days into an assault on your economy and freedoms and you still refuse to see what the end game looks like. That culture? The 1950's are not coming back. And that's not a bad thing. > Our H1B cap is just 65,000 people. That's just one form of immigration, why stop there? What about refugees? Oh, right, the USA is good at waging war but then ignores the refugees that inevitably are created, that's for the rest of the world. Handy, being a continent sized country an ocean away. > If you spread them around the country, we could maintain an economic edge while minimizing foreign influence. Foreign influence is minimized by limiting the use of money in politics which is an easy avenue into the heart of the political system. Immigrants - as a rule - do not have the vote. > High-skill immigrants who came to the U.S. pre-H1B, and ended up by the handful in small town america here there was a nuclear research lab or whatever ended up highly assimilated. Small town America is a lot more racist than you think. They didn't so much end up assimilated, they ended up scared to go out of their houses. If you think you are assimilated and that small town America is accepting and nice you should try to live in the places with < 10,000 inhabitants where the White Master Race is the dominant majority. You'll see - very quickly - how they look at you. Your USA experience is for the most part informed by living in the larger cities. I've spent a lot of time in rural America (~ a year in total) , easy for me to do since I'm white. What people say in private is hair raising, and really opened my eyes to how deeply embedded racism is in the United States. > do you really believe that the result of these changes will make American culture more orderly, efficient, functional, and democratic than say Massachusetts in 1950? I don't know about that. But I also don't think that the current political mainstream in the United States cares about orderly, efficient, functional, and democratic elements of the USA unless it benefits the 'in-group' to the exclusion of everybody else. This whole discussion reminds me of a guy sitting on a branch cutting the live side with a saw while sitting on the dead side. All of those elements that you wish for have been put in place against massive pressure from the people that you support. And they'd love to go back to Massachusetts, 1950. But without you, and your kids. Your wife is - probably - safe. But you can bet that ICE showing up at your door - or your parents, for that matter - at 4 am is going to be very bad news. And they won't care who you voted for either. As for that 'Dutch Experiment': it isn't limited to the Netherlands, and by and large the Surinam immigrants have disappeared into background noise on account of their relatively low numbers. But when they first came here (just before Surinam became independent) there was a lot of outcry about this. Now, so many years later there is still a fairly large number of people that identify as such here, most of them live in the three big cities, because of small town racism. The predominantly Turkish and Moroccan immigrants have set up their own regional presence, some of them have held very strongly to their original identity and stepping into their homes is like stepping into a time/space displacement machine. But they - as a rule - are friendly, incredibly hard working and because they value family a lot more than the original inhabitants and their offspring tend to do, have a fantastic social network around them. Again, due to racism and very overt discrimination their kids have - for some fraction anyway - grown up frustrated. They see all this wealth around them and the skin color based ceiling is so strong that only very few of them manage to break through. The end result of this is that a fraction of them rather than being 'kept in their place' by the whites here - who think these people will never be successful and who deserve to work in crap jobs no matter how intelligent or capable they are. It will take many generations until this has reduced, but there is some - very slow - progress over time. I see more and more people with such backgrounds in positions of influence and some power and wealth and they are the beacons that the next generation will hopefully set course by. It will take many more decades until they are no longer pushed down as a group, and, unfortunately, they are not usually helping and neither are their parents. Intermarriage is rare, which would be one way to reduce the barriers between the various groups. Romanians, Poles and other people from Eastern Europe have moved here in fairly large numbers. As a rule they are doing fine, even though the newspapers love to magnify the few cases where they are involved in legal or traffic issues. Syrians and other refugees have not integrated well at all. They have been here only a very short time and are slowly displacing the older immigrant groups for the lowest income jobs. I've had very little interaction with them. But the various asylum seeker places that are dotted across the country are best compared with open air prisons where our bureaucratic engine driven by overt hatred tries to discourage them from staying here. There are far better ways of dealing with this but unfortunately my vote is only just as heavy as that of the racists. It will be decades more before these people too have made this place our home. Ukrainians, who are here in surprisingly large numbers have integrated in record time. They have learned the language and have assimilated very quickly, to the point that you have to have an ear for it to spot them. They are everywhere and they seem to love it here. It helps that their culture and ours was already closely parallel, besides the Orthodox Church component which quite a few still formally subscribe to (religion, in NL, was on the way out until immigrants brought it back).