
How Is America Going To End? - robg
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2223962
======
tokenadult
"His first idea: racial warfare. By 2050, whites will no longer be a majority
in the United States and Hispanics will make up an estimated 29 percent of the
population. 'Most violence is committed by males 18 to 35,' Schwartz explains.
'Now picture a very large, low-employed Hispanic population of males not too
pleased with their lot or their ability to control a white-dominated world. .
. . That population then becomes violent and disruptive. And now you get into
racial and identity politics--it's all those illegal immigrants we let across
the border.'"

If this did happen, it would be the result of suicidal national policies that
increase the degree of race-consciousness in American society. In my youth,
"Hispanic" was not a federally counted category, and it wasn't a category in
the MINDS of most people who lived then in the United States. (How many of you
are old enough to remember the first clumsy category of "Spanish-surnamed
Americans"?) Once upon a time, people now categorized as "Hispanic" mostly
categorized themselves as "white," with some localities being prejudicially
aware of "Mexicans," but anyway the overall aspiration was an aspiration of
assimilation, not of "racial warfare." Let me tell another story about that.

I'm a baby boomer, which is another way of saying that I'm a good bit older
than most people who post on Hacker News. I distinctly remember the day that
President John F. Kennedy was assassinated--the most memorable day of early
childhood for many people in my generation--and I remember the "long hot
summer" and other events of the 1960s civil rights movement.

One early memory I have is of a second grade classmate (I still remember his
name, which alas is just common enough that it is hard to Google him up) who
moved back to Minnesota with his northern "white" parents after spending his
early years in Alabama. He told me frightening stories about Ku Klux Klan
violence to black people (the polite term in those days was "Negroes"),
including killing babies, and I was very upset to hear about that kind of
terrorism happening in the United States. He made me aware of a society in
which people didn't all treat one another with decency and human compassion,
unlike the only kind of society I was initially aware of from growing up where
I did. So I followed subsequent news about the civil rights movement,
including the activities of Martin Luther King, Jr. up to his assassination,
with great interest.

It happens that I had a fifth-grade teacher, a typically pale, tall, and
blonde Norwegian-American, who was a civil rights activist and who spent her
summers in the south as a freedom rider. She used to tell our class about how
she had to modify her car (by removing the dome light and adding a locking gas
cap) so that Klan snipers couldn't shoot her as she opened her car door at
night or put foreign substances into her gas tank. She has been a civil rights
activist all her life, and when I Googled her a few years ago and regained
acquaintance with her, I was not at all surprised to find that she is a member
of the civil rights commission of the town where I grew up.

One day in fifth grade we had a guest speaker in our class, a young man who
was then studying at St. Olaf College through the A Better Chance (ABC)
affirmative action program. (To me, the term "affirmative action" still means
active recruitment of underrepresented minority students, as it did in those
days, and I have always thought that such programs are a very good idea, as
some people have family connections to selective colleges, but many other
people don't.) During that school year (1968-1969), there was a current
controversy in the United States about whether the term "Negro" or "Afro-
American" or "black" was most polite. So a girl in my class asked our visitor,
"What do you want to be called, 'black' or 'Afro-American'?" His answer was,
"I'd rather be called Henry." Henry's answer to my classmate's innocent
question really got me thinking.

I am appalled that forty years later, a typical college applicant has to
wonder, "What 'race' should I mark on my application form?" and "Can I just
leave that question blank?" Current federal policies are not helping us regard
our neighbor Henry as Henry. They are not helping us regard all our fellow
citizens as fellow citizens. That's an intentionally risky policy.

P.S. Does anyone else remember when all south Asian people were reclassified
as belonging to the "Asian" race rather than the "white" race? That's an
example of how arbitrary the federal categories are.

Here's the latest federal regulation on the subject:

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/fedreg/ombdir15.html>

~~~
mynameishere
_I am appalled ... Current federal policies are not helping us regard our
neighbor Henry as Henry._

I'm not sure exactly why you're appalled. You seem to think that the "Civil
Rights" movement was about bringing-us-all-together, so that we could be
judged as individuals, etc, etc. I guess that was the rhetoric.

The reason that institutions such as colleges categorize people is that it's a
necessary condition to satisfy the racial spoils system (affirmative action,
implicit quotas, etc). That spoils system is the natural result of the "civil
rights" movement. "Who, whom" is the only question in politics. No one...and I
mean no one except the truly brainwashed...wants equality when superiority is
available.

Back in 1965, it may have been possible for a large portion of the population
to subsidize a small portion in this manner. The mathematics allow the bottom
10 percent of whites to give up lawyer jobs, doctor jobs, academic jobs, etc,
so that marginal black people could have those positions. It's a despicable
crime, but not socially calamitous. But as that large majority becomes a
minority, you have the following certain events:

1\. It is increasingly difficult to supply a majority population of blacks and
hispanics with the affirmative action benefits which a portion of their
livelihood has become dependent on.

2\. The remaining whites are not only fewer in number, but much older. The old
ones themselves become tax-eaters.

3\. Via #1 and #2, the remaining young white people (and Asians) simply will
not be able to pay everyone who has their hand out.

This isn't prophecy but mathematics. The prophecy is, "Who will suffer from
this?"

~~~
jhancock
Your points on the "mathematics" point out problems with the structure of this
"spoils" system. The system requires constants readjustment, complete
replacement, or removal to satisfy the changing numbers.

In regards to: "No one...and I mean no one except the truly
brainwashed...wants equality when superiority is available."

I guess you will have to classify me as brainwashed. The desire for
superiority is an ill that should be "brainwashed" out of those that suffer
from it.

~~~
mynameishere
This is an entrepreneur-focused website, and so I doubt you would read it
without being interested in personal superiority. (Maybe that word has a bad
connotation.) _Everybody_ but the mentally-damaged wants to be better as
opposed to worse, above as opposed to under. Everyone in college is trying to
avoid waiting tables rather than sitting at them.

~~~
gjm11
Equivocation on the contrast between "equality" and "superiority". The goal of
equality claimed by the civil rights movement -- which you say was really
aiming at "superiority", which I think would be news to the white people
involved at the very least -- was not that of a society in which every person
ends up in exactly the same situation; it was of a society in which people
don't have systematically worse opportunities because they are black or
because all their ancestors were slaves or whatever.

Aiming at equality _in that sense_ is not the least bit incompatible with
hoping to succeed by being clever and working hard to do something that others
value.

If the Racism Fairy appeared before me and told me that I could have a life
that was "better as opposed to worse, above as opposed to under" by (say)
stealing half the property of all the black people in the country and giving
it to white people -- I happen to be white, so I'd gain rather than lose from
that -- then I would turn down that offer. If the Anti-Racism Fairy appeared
instead and offered to obliterate every vestige of racial prejudice, but
warned that it would make white people (including me) slightly worse off, I'd
say yes in a flash. And if you don't believe me because you think "kto kogo?"
is the only question, then fuck you and the (doubtless white) horse you rode
in on.

------
mdasen
I'd argue that America is going to simply fade as national borders become less
meaningful. We're seeing that a bit in Europe as people get the right to live,
work, vote in other places. Already I question the border with Canada whenever
I go there. I mean, if we had open immigration with Canada, it's not like we'd
see unchecked immigration there. It would probably be similar to the
"immigration" between Massachusetts and New York.

The United States is unlikely to break up. The Russian "professor" that they
reference in the article seems to know less about the United States than the
people who made the "United States of Canada/Jesusland" maps which were meant
to be humorous. We are too mobile a society. Many of us have friends and
family all across the country. I mean, you wouldn't want to cross a border to
get to a relative's house. Nor would you want to have to deal with
tariffs/importation on something you got from Amazon. If anything, the world
wants less of that as evidenced by the European Union. Now, the US might
become more localized and that would suit some, but we aren't going to see a
dramatic breakup.

And what people forget is that, through all the nonsense that's gone on in the
past decade, we aren't actually that different. We have a common culture, even
if that culture is a result of many cultures. It binds us together even
through the heated arguments of the recent past/present.

Catastrophe is unlikely as well for a few reasons. First, it's hard to replace
the US government which makes it hard to implement any sort of unchecked
policy. To replace the President takes 4 years; to replace the legislative
branch takes 6 - and it can't be done on a whim, it has to be 6 years of
people deciding to go the same way. In other governments, you can completely
switch the government in a week. Second, there are more checks and balances.
The executive isn't a prime minister, but rather separate from the
legislature. And we have a constitution that grants limited powers and yes, to
this day still provides a good check on authority despite what has happened in
the recent past. Third, US politics are local politics. Senators and
especially Representatives aren't easily replaced because they form roots in
their communities. Even beyond that, you can't appeal to fringe groups to get
elected. While 1% of the country might think that a fascist or a stalinist
would be good to have in government, they get no representation because they
aren't able to carry a district. In other countries, representation is usually
done on the basis of how much of the national vote you get which means that
radical elements have a much greater say in those governments.

Now, some of what I've mentioned above can come off as bad things - they
certainly mean that it's hard to implement good, new policies. But that also
means that it's hard to implement bad, new policies.

Plus, for all the crap that I'll give the US government, they are genuinely
responsive to big things. I mean, unemployment is around 10% right now. In
many highly developed places (like Europe), that's not even bad. And everyone
on television is calling this the worst crisis of our time. Where I grew up,
unemployment was, during good times, about 20%. Now, the US doesn't have the
social services that make unemployment more livable so it's very harsh on
those who are unemployed, but we've seen the government take steps to make
sure that things, generally speaking, run smoothly. I mean, Argentina a little
while back had a huge crisis that really wiped out the middle class - robbing
them of the vast majority of their money (cash money). While one might not
like some of the steps that the US government has taken, it has meant that no
one's bank account has been lost (at the very least).

And Americans aren't radicals. I mean, I have friends who call themselves
radical, but what they mean by that is that they have a CSA (community shared
agriculture) and would like European-style socialism. Oh, and maybe taking a
year off somewhere to work on a hippy farm. No guns, no violence, no death to
people that don't think like them. No looting, no riots. . . We sure as hell
yell about things and have strong opinions (like the Professor Gates incident
in Cambridge, MA), but has there been mass violence in response or whatnot?
No, life has gone on as normal.

Even when one looks at immigration, the US is one of the most immigrant
friendly countries. That might be hard to believe given some of the rhetoric,
but we're one of the few countries that still has "born on a rock, citizen of
that rock". Even beyond that, what's our anti-immigrant policies? The biggest
seems to be the national language debate which, while possibly symbolically
important, wouldn't have a practical impact. I mean, anywhere that currently
provides foreign language assistance would continue to. Laws are already
written in English. English is the lingua franca. And yes, there is a dislike
of "illegal" or "undocumented" immigration (depending on the side of the
debate you come from) and there have been (in some places) harsh measures
taken. But the attitude toward legal immigration is much better than in many
places in Europe. France just a few years back had huge riots over this issue
with wonderful flaming cars and all. Heck, the right-wing position in this
country tends to be "well, smart people are always good to have coming in and
the dumb ones are taking jobs no one wants anyway."

\--

There are simply too many nice practicalities to staying together (like
currency, ease of travel and commerce, etc.) and too few radical elements. And
the US has a great history of absorbing immigrants and facing the problems
that have befell it. I mean, we got through a civil war, two world wars, and
the cold war. While we might have problems now, they aren't of the same
magnitude. Yes, we need to face the challenges of today. However, the
challenges of today aren't so bad when you compare them to sending your kids
to Vietnam - or being sent there yourself. A touch job market != being plopped
down in south asia with an automatic weapon expecting to survive a few weeks.

~~~
jhancock
"but has there been mass violence in response or whatnot? No, life has gone on
as normal."

There has been quite a bit of mass violence. How many have we killed in Iraq
and Afghanistan these last 8 years? Depending on who's numbers you believe its
in the several hundred thousand to well over a million range. Just because we
have sanitized the killing so we don't see the dead bodies on TV doesn't mean
its not happening. This violence is a direct result of our energy policies. I
classify those policies and the general American's attitude as "radical"
(assuming I can bend the term radical to apply to what is the majority).

~~~
fatdog789
I believe he met domestic mass violence, i.e., riots.

The only major US riots of the past few years are the LA and Detroit race-
riots, neither of which was related to overarching policy.

~~~
jhancock
I am very aware he meant domestic. Its not a valid argument to only select
violence in your own neighborhood/state/country when you are discussing if
someone exhibits radical behavior. It just makes you a wealthy radical.

------
aidenn0
...From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it
had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction
ice Is also great And would suffice.

~~~
gjm11
<http://xkcd.com/312/> (see also the alt-text).

------
dan_the_welder
Aw crap. I thought this was how the world was gonna end.

[http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/global/the-second-
amendm...](http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/global/the-second-amendment-in-
iraq-combat-robotics-and-the-future-of-human-liberty-820)

Now I have to worry about Skynet and La Raza?

And I was just finishing up all the Yoder's Canned Bacon I bought when Cobol
was going to kill us all.

------
asciilifeform
Anyone else see a credit card ad ("Approval in 60 seconds!") on the top right
corner of the article? Ironic?

------
dmm
Somebody should tell this guy about the infinite robot brains we're all going
to have by the 2030s.

------
leif
I got a high y value close to the y axis.

------
hipsterelitist
Via self-fulfilling pessimism.

------
tybris
By electing George Double You Bush.

... 3 times.

