The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Gene Expression Blog
Silicon Valley Has an Asian-people Problem

Email This Page to Someone


 Remember My Information



=>
twitterethnicitychart

Twitter workforce breakdown

diversity_brief_fig2 The above statistics on the labor force at Twitter compared to the overall labor force indicate that non-Hispanic whites are underrepresented in tech firms in Silicon Valley. This is true overall in prominent tech firms. 51% of Facebook’s employees are non-Hispanic whites.

So how to make sense of these sorts of articles:  Twitter’s White-People Problem? And what about passages such as this which seem to totally defy statistical/demographic reality:

 But while Twitter the platform is bustling with all types of racial diversity, Twitter the company is alarmingly white.

Twitter isn’t alone. Most of the biggest tech companies in Silicon Valley are overwhelmingly white and male. While blacks and Latinos comprise 28 percent of the US workforce, they make up just 6 percent of Twitter’s total US workforce and six percent of Facebook employees.

Of course this is just a lie. Very few people would say a workforce that is 50 to 60 percent white, true of both Google and Microsoft, is “overwhelmingly white.” In fact, it’s less non-Hispanic white than the US labor force as a whole. I’ve linked to statistics in this very piece. They take about 10 seconds of browsing search queries to understand this.

But you don’t need to know statistics. Eat at a Google cafeteria. Or walk around the streets of Cupertino. There is no way that one can characterize Silicon Valley as overwhelmingly white with a straight face. Silicon Valley is quite diverse. The diversity just happens to represent the half of the human race with origins in the swath of territory between India and then east and north up to Korea.

The diversity problem isn’t about lack of diversity. It is about the right kind of diversity for a particular socio-political narrative. That’s fine, but I really wish there wasn’t this tendency to lie about the major obstacle here: people of Asian origin are 5% of the American work force, but north of 30% in much of the Valley. If you want more underrepresented minorities hiring fewer of these people would certainly help. In particular the inflow of numerous international talent coming from India and China could be staunched by changes to immigration law.

But these are international companies. Though they genuflect to diversity in the American sense (blacks and Latinos), ultimately they’ll engage in nominal symbolic tokenism while they continue on with business, with an increasingly ethnically Asian workforce and and increasingly Asian economic focus. Meanwhile, the press will continue to present a false caricature of a white workforce because that’s a lot more of a palatable bogeyman than Asian Americans and international tech migrants, and the liberal reading public seems to prefer the false narrative to engaging with reality.

Addendum: The first article was in The Nation. Take a look at their masthead. Most of the names I recognize are mighty, perhaps even alarmingly, white….

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Race 

45 Comments to "Silicon Valley Has an Asian-people Problem"

Commenters to Ignore
...to Follow
Endorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. I want it on the record that I love my Asian Privilege™ and intend to keep every bit of it.

    Why people speak of privilege as a negative, almost accusatory thing is still unclear to me.

    • Replies: ,
    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Yeah, I think it’s a lot to do with whites wanting make up for their past sins and blacks demanding their “fair share.” Asians don’t have that history and are doing pretty well so they don’t count. Obviously, most here know that but I don’t here it mentioned explicitly by the people pushing for it. But how do you broach the subject of lesser cognitive ability in certain groups? I think Sailer made the 100 yd dash comparison. If you’re just not good enough, what can be said?
    Also, there is a constant churning out of “Why aren’t there more blacks in ____?” articles. I’m thinking there aren’t even enough to go around even if they wanted to be hired and were accepted by the countless “under represented” fields of work.

    • Replies: ,
  3. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Actually, ‘non Hispanic whites’ are now a minority of the workforce in California, where Silicon Valley is located.

  4. I think it might be trying to fill the holes in their ideology; cover up everything that goes against it. Rage does no good wrt IQ test data; poverty, you can be mad at society-as-a-whole, it’s systemic racism, but there’s no concrete target. But big tech companies are quite concrete and responsive.

    But yeah, totally – Asians are just a willful blind spot. Asians aren’t part of the traditional fight, and they’re an inconvenient example so, they get mentally dodged.

  5. “they continue on with business, with an increasingly ethnically Asian workforce”

    But that’s precisely what makes it feasible to pretend you have a “white people problem”. The current trend is for the tech workforce to become increasingly Asian and less white. A tweak in recruitment policies for “diversity” doesn’t have to actually cause a drop in Asian numbers, it can simply stop its rise. Meanwhile, the white workforce is set to decline anyway so it’s easy to pretend that the increase in underrepresented minorities has come at the expense of whites, not Asians.

    It’s the Ivy League model — increasing Asian populations make it feasible to have policies which make things more difficult for Asian applicants, without causing an actual decline in their numbers.

    Framing it as a “white people problem” seems dishonest but seems better than the alternative.

  6. I’m curious about how many whites in Silicon Valley are jewish. Unz pointed that at top universities jews are represented more than 10 times their number and I bet that is true about Silicon Valley as well. At leadership level there are plenty of jewish billionaires in Silicon Valley: Larry Ellison, Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Larry Page etc.
    I say this because I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of people of white christian descent in tech is far smaller than their share of their labour force, but these calls for diversity will hit mainly them.

    • Replies:
  7. Very few people would say a workforce that is 50 to 60 percent white, true of both Google and Microsoft, is “overwhelmingly white.”

    From personal experience, I’d say a substantial fraction of these white people weren’t born and raised in the US either, many of them hailing from Eastern Europe.

  8. Yes, well, shocking that the Nation’s masthead is more European than the USA. Diversity for thee, but not for me.

  9. There seem to be trends on what media stories are about when it comes to particular companies or industries. E.g, most stories about Walmart are about low wages and welfare, Monsanto: GMOs and patents, etc. Why are stories about the tech industry focused on sexual harassment and diversity, why aren’t other industries (with the exception of finance and frat culture) focused on that too? Are all other industries wonderfully diverse and harassment-free?

    Speaking of diversity, a lot of the prestige press is not that diverse. Why doesn’t the media take care of the beam in its own eye first?

    • Replies:
  10. Clearly minority persons being made honorary Aryans . Who, whom?

    The Nation is very white in a sense, but it is in the same sense that Hollywood is (if not to the same extent). What I mean is a significant number of those whites at the Nation can legitimately be classed as minority .

    • Replies:
  11. Because the identification of minorities as whites is a card to be played in a power game, but not by you.

  12. They might be surprised to discover that Silcon Valley has a “bias” to hire from graduates of elite institutions where that diversity (black, hispanic) doesn’t exist in computer science, stem, and other relevant fields. These firms are all competing to hire the ones that do exist.

    This is mirrored in other institutions through differences between groups in the development of human capital i.e. everything that affects how well one does in school, quality of education, as well as self selection i.e. whatever combination of individual interests and cultural effects on academic tendencies that drive those decisions. Thus philosophy, political science and other classes with 70-90% white people and therefore the masthead of The Nation; along with computer science populated by east asians, indians, white people, mostly male – where female overwhelmingly asian

    • Replies:
  13. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Silicon Valley probably has an even greater Jewish people problem but I don’t think the media will be focusing on that either.

  14. re: jews. i think it is probably useful to note ellison’s biological father was italian american (he was adopted), while only page’s mother is jewish. and larry page has explicitly stated he doesn’t identify as a jew at all. one thing people often don’t recall, steve ballmer’s mother was of jewish background.

    and yes, my impression is that jews are overrepresented in the valley as they are at elite universities. but i have never engaged in “jew counting” so i can’t say whether it is 10% or 25%, though probably in that range.

  15. at the start-up level a lot of hiring is done through friendship networks. that excludes a lot of blacks and latinos automatically. these friendship networks often do start at places like stanford…. even at large corporations which advertise jobs there is often an inside-track candidate known to people at the firm.

  16. this is true.

  17. also, a lot of people talk about the “model minority myth.” the thing is: the myth is true. but the types who talk about the “model minority myth” are either liars or innumerate.

    • Replies:
  18. Aren’t there significant differences in terms of academic/economic achievement depending upon Asian nationality though? My general impression is that East Asians and Indians tend fit the “Model Minority” role most closely. In contrast while Vietnamese and Filipinos do fine in the U.S., they tend to slot into lower-middle class roles rather than higher-skill professional jobs, even in the second/third generation. The Hmong aren’t even doing that well, and are tending to assimilate more of the black/latino U.S. cultural norms.

    The worst part about this is to the extent places like the Ivies try to limit the Asian enrollment, it hurts these normal-achieving (or maybe even under-achieving) groups the most, who are punished due to the comparative successes of other Asian nationalities. If we engage in affirmative action policies which mess around with the levels of enrollment/employment, we should at least be careful about what groups we are lumping together.

    • Replies:
  19. Aren’t there significant differences in terms of academic/economic achievement depending upon Asian nationality though?

    Yeah, but you could do the same thing in regards to intra-White levels of academic/economic achievement….But that doesn’t seem to be an issue that concerns anyone…..

  20. The Nation is very white in a sense, but it is in the same sense that Hollywood is (if not to the same extent). What I mean is a significant number of those whites at the Nation can legitimately be classed as minority .

    I think what you are hinting at is that the Nation masthead is very Jewish. When I read the Addendum, my first thought was to snark that many of the people on the Nation masthead have only been (considered) white since about 1960, maybe back to WW2. But before hitting publish comment, I thought I should just check the masthead. I was surprised by how few of the names there look to be Jewish:

    line 7: 2 of the 3 Senior Editors, the first line with obviously Jewish names (to my eye)
    lines 10 & 11: 1 of 2 Assistant Editors
    line 20: maybe 2 of the 8 interns

    and so on. I know that at least 2 who have names that I would not recognize as Jewish have at least 1 Jewish parent but that’s because I’m fans of their writing and either they’ve referred to it in their writing (Trillin) or I’ve Wikipedia’d them (Mosely), so my count is obviously incomplete. But the masthead has about 150 names on it and I would not have been surprised before this exercise to learn that 50-75 of them are Jewish. Now I’d be surprised if it were much more than 20.

    So, perhaps a significant number, but much smaller than I would have expected.

    • Replies: ,
  21. Every so often, a public figure in the West will wonder “why do they hate us?”

    Typically, it will be about Muslims, whose lands and sovereignty are routinely violated, ending up in a lopsided murder rate of Muslims by non-Muslims (from the conventional wisdom and mainstream media, you’d think it was the opposite, no?)

    As time goes on, this “why do they hate us” will be asked about white people, as their lands and sovereignty are stripped by outsiders also masquerading as loving, tolerant people. For an e.g. just look at the coverage of Trump supporters.

  22. I think what you are hinting at is that the Nation masthead is very Jewish. When I read the Addendum, my first thought was to snark that many of the people on the Nation masthead have only been (considered) white since about 1960, maybe back to WW2.

    Jews have been regarded as White for much longer than that. Remember, being non-White frequently carried various legal penalties in the USA prior to the 1960s (restrictions on freedom of marriage, naturalization, etc). None of those applied to Jews. This was true in both the North and the South. For example, Judah P Benjamin:

    Judah Philip Benjamin, QC (August 11, 1811 – May 6, 1884) was a lawyer and politician who was a United States Senator from Louisiana, a Cabinet officer of the Confederate States and, after his escape to the United Kingdom at the end of the American Civil War, an English barrister. Benjamin was the first Jew to be elected to the United States Senate who had not renounced the religion, and the first of that faith to hold a Cabinet position in North America.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_P._Benjamin

    • Replies:
  23. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Asians have been fucked over in the US in the past as well. Examples include the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Page Act and Japanese internment camps. Asians just aren’t vocal about it. Most people don’t even know about the shit white people did to Asian Americans. The system is great at erasing white sins against Asians – that shit ain’t ever gonna stop.

    • Replies: , , ,
  24. Then Asians better stop coming in droves to Silicon Valley, if they are going to be treated like s**t there.

  25. This kind of a social agglomeration of whites and Asians in the United States is not new. See this blurb from Eugene Volokh, which he penned in 1998: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/asian.htm

    Or listen to former California Chief Justice Rose Bird. Last year, she wrote a commentary saying that, without race preferences, the UC system would be “nothing more than a group of elitist, `lily white´ institutions.” A coorganizer of Jesse Jackson’s recent march in favor of race preferences called UC Berkeley’s law school, whose entering class last year was 20% minority, including 14% Asian, “lily-white.” Asians aren’t just white: They are lily-white.

    Now, I suppose we can say that this kind of agglomeration is inaccurate and politically-motivated. True. But then there is another social angle to consider. That same year, the following article was published in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/16/magazine/the-beige-and-the-black.html

    But according to an analysis of the 1990 U.S. Census data for persons ages 25-34 by Reynolds Farley, a demographer with the Russell Sage Foundation, 31.6 percent of native-born Hispanic husbands and 31.4 percent of native-born Hispanic wives had white spouses. The figures were even higher for Asians: 36 percent for native-born Asian husbands and 45.2 percent for native-born Asian wives. (In fact, Asian wives were as likely to marry white Americans as they were to marry Asian-Americans.)…

    Thus, the old duality between whites and nonwhites is finally breaking down. But don’t cheer just yet. For what seems to be emerging in the United States is a new dichotomy between blacks and nonblacks. Increasingly, whites, Asians and Hispanics are creating a broad community from which black Americans may be excluded.

    Since Hispanics tend to be economically down scale, it means that the upscale population, especially in major tech-oriented metros, is increasingly an amalgamation of whites and a small, but significant minority Asian population that is heavily intermarried with the former. In that social context, it makes sense why pro-black “social justice warriors” would see Asians as white-like, if not actually white in the biological sense. Indeed, when one looks at the residential pattern in many metro areas, one sees that Hispanics are increasingly replacing blacks on the “wrong side of the tracks” (essentially the service population for the upscale areas nearby) while Asians tend to live intermingled with whites on the “right side of the tracks.” Meanwhile, the displaced blacks are concentrating in the South as well as black ghetto cities in the North.

    • Replies:
  26. 1) As I said, snark.

    2) What I was thinking of was things like the explicit and implicit quotas at Ivy League schools, which ended around 1960, and attitudes reflected by Groucho Marx’s statement My daughter’s only half Jewish, can she wade in up to her knees?: also see this book.

    My understanding is that esp. outside of the south, racial beliefs and attitudes were much more complicated than is currently the case; that the one drop rule only became the norm outside the south during the interwar period or later (or was at least much more widely and complexly applied: Madison Grant’s statement that “”The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew,” reflects this complexity.) Before WW2 or thereabouts, what was standard throughout most of the nation was a view of race that can be seen as an elaboration of the right side of the March of Progress. We project our understanding of post-WW2 racial attitudes back on an earlier time.

    The explanation I’ve seen for why this changed is a combination of factors:

    1) the perhaps deliberate response of elites to anti-German sentiment during and after WW1, which had severe consequences if only because German immigrants and their descendants were among the 2 or 3 largest ethnic groups in the US.

    2) reaction to the horrors of Nazi racism in Europe (and perhaps less so to the racist atrocities on both sides in the Pacific war, especially the racially based war crimes of the Japanese Army toward POWs and civilian populations)

    3) assimilation of the descendants of European immigrants that was made easier by
    * the decline in immigration following the Immigration Act of 1924
    * the unifying consequences of a foreign war, i.e., WW2
    * post-WW2 prosperity

    So, yes, before WW2, Jews (unlike identifiable descendants of sub-Saharan Africans) were white, or perhaps off-white; that is, whiteness was a more complicated concept then than now (but without intending to give the Grant quote more weight than it deserves, don’t then give it less).

    • Replies:
  27. In the USA, sometimes it is informative to look at the situation as if there are only two groups: black and not-black.

  28. It is all about the Democrat party ginning up the ethnic resentment that keeps it going. It does not bear serious thought.

  29. It does looks that way although for a leftie publication they are pretty pro Israel. The editorial policy seems to be to skewer the national majority for being overrepresented in an industry, where they clearly are not unless the definition of “white” is bespoke.

    • Replies:
  30. Yes, why did/do they keep on coming to the lands of evil? And it’s not just whites who are evil and unwelcoming!

    https://understandingevil.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/chinese-girl-in-the-ghetto-a-gifted-young-woman-in-the-slum-of-oakland/

  31. Asians have been fucked over in the US in the past as well.

    In what way have Chinese been “fucked over” by either the Page Act or the later Chinese Exclusion Act? In the former we tried to exclude people in a state of indentured servitude. I would think that right minded people would be all for the hindrance of that practice. In the latter legislation where is the harm in restricting immigration? It seems to me that it is the existing native born population that is harmed by open borders not foreign residents who feel they ought to have some sort of right to come here. Does China have an open border? No, it is quite selective and generally restricted to a few cities like Shanghai.

  32. By “privilege” they mean something that was inherited rather than earned.

  33. If white people have been so horrible to Asians then why do so many Asians want to migrate to a country where the majority population is white?

  34. My understanding is that esp. outside of the south, racial beliefs and attitudes were much more complicated than is currently the case;

    Sure. In the South, the primary focus was on the demarcation between Blacks and Whites. Intra-White differences caused much less tension. In the North, with its massive immigrant populations, things were rather different.

    ”The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew,

    Note, though, that Grant suddenly goes all ultra-nuanced in his reference to Jews. With Indians, Hindus, and “Negroes,” his language is purely bipolar in nature (“white men” crossing with various non-Whites). When Jews are referenced, he starts talking about the “three European races” crossing with Jews.A very different mindset.

    And, while we are on Grant, note that no laws prohibiting Jewish-Gentile intermarriage were ever passed in the USA.

    What I was thinking of was things like the explicit and implicit quotas at Ivy League schools, which ended around 1960,

    Which were far less stringent than popular mythology would have it. For example, after Harvard implemented its de facto Jewish quota, Jews still made up around 15% of the students attending Harvard.And Jews in 1930 made up 3½ percent of the population of the USA.Which means that a group that made up 3½ percent of the population of the USA only made up 15% of Harvard.

    and attitudes reflected by Groucho Marx’s statement “My daughter’s only half Jewish, can she wade in up to her knees?“: also see this book.

    Yeah, the country-club exclusion legend. Of course, Jews had their own clubs, from which Gentiles were excluded. Cf how Danny Thomas was the first non-Jewish member of the Hilcrest Country Club*.Jack Benny famously quipped that they could have at least selected a Gentile who looked like a Gentile.And, as Stephen Birmingham notes in his histories of elite Jewish families (Our Crowd, The Grandees, The Rest of Us), German-Jewish clubs used to discriminate against the Ostjuden prior to WW2. Indeed, the word “Kike” originated as a slur used by German-Jews to refer to Jews from Eastern Europe.

    So, yes, before WW2, Jews (unlike identifiable descendants of sub-Saharan Africans) were white, or perhaps off-white; that is, whiteness was a more complicated concept then than now

    Which essentially means that Jews, Italians, Slavs, etc, endured social prejudice. But that is a very different thing from the legally imposed racism that Blacks, East Asians, and Amerinds faced.

    *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillcrest_Country_Club_(Los_Angeles)

    • Replies:
  35. It’s okay Twink. Pick up a share of the white man’s burden. We can use a good man like you on our side.

    • Replies:
  36. Which essentially means that Jews, Italians, Slavs, etc, endured social prejudice. But that is a very different thing from the legally imposed racism that Blacks, East Asians, and Amerinds faced.

    Yes, of course. I never meant to imply anything different, and if you thought so, you have magnificently misunderstood me. And despite that, it is worth keeping in mind that several people of southern European ancestry were lynched, mostly but not exclusively in the South (I don’t recall whether these were immigrants or native born; one Jew that I know of was also lynched): orders of magnitude less than the number of members of any of the 3 groups you list, as well as of people of Mexican ancestry. All I meant to say was that once upon a time, pretty much unlike now, there were degrees of whiteness rather than its being a binary yes/no condition, and Jews did not achieve full whiteness until sometime after WW2.

    And, as I said, snark!

    • Replies:
  37. It does looks that way although for a leftie publication they are pretty pro Israel. The editorial policy seems to be to skewer the national majority for being overrepresented in an industry, where they clearly are not unless the definition of “white” is bespoke.

    As for The Nation’s editorial policy, I will take your word for it: I have read less than 1 article/year since the beginning of the Reagan administration, and am not sufficiently interested one way or the other to verify this: trust but (don’t bother me to) verify.

    “Bespoke” is not part of my active vocabulary, only barely part of my passive vocabulary, and I cannot figure out a meaning of “bespoke” that lets me make sense of the last clause of your 2nd sentence.

    • Replies:
  38. Yes, of course. I never meant to imply anything different, and if you thought so, you have magnificently misunderstood me. And despite that, it is worth keeping in mind that several people of southern European ancestry were lynched,

    Yeah, and so were lots of people who were of Northern European ancestry. Cf, for example, the lynching of the Norwegian Hans Jakob Olson in Wisconsin in 1889…

    mostly but not exclusively in the South

    Lynchings in the US were heavily concentrated in the South and West

    (I don’t recall whether these were immigrants or native born; one Jew that I know of was also lynched):

    The Leo Frank case. For an informative account, try:

    The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs (Dreyfus, Beilis, Frank) 1894-1915 Revised ed. Edition
    by Albert S. Lindemann

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Jew-Accused-Anti-Semitic-1894-1915/dp/0521447615

    In terms of Frank’s lynching, it’s very important to note the degree to which his Jewishness worked in his favor. The prosecution, for example, made a point of engaging in pro-Jewish rhetoric. What really worked against Frank was the fact that he was a Northern capitalist.

    All I meant to say was that once upon a time, pretty much unlike now, there were degrees of whiteness rather than its being a binary yes/no condition, and Jews did not achieve full whiteness until sometime after WW2.

    I’m an academic.In the humanities. Hence, I’m very familiar with notions of “qualified Whiteness.” Indeed, I once had to listen to a colleague try to argue that the Irish didn’t really become fully White until the election of JFK….

    However, I find the whole concept rather risible.It’s ahistorical. Jews, Italians, Slavs, etc, were all defined as White by the law. Anti-immigrant groups in the 19th century spoke in terms of birth (“nativism”) and religion when attacking the Catholic Irish.Even when racial language was employed during the late 19th and early 2oth century, it revolved around notions of “Nordicity,” not degrees of Whiteness.

    • Replies:
  39. Pick up a share of the white man’s burden.

    What I believe in, and have taught my children, is noblesse oblige. My children have grown up with prosperity and status, thanks to their mother and me. They are also bright, attractive, and athletic people. Really, the world is their oyster, as the saying goes. I often marvel at how good they have it. What mom and dad have taught them, therefore, is to use all these gifts from God for something meaningful, beyond their own well-being and satisfaction. So they have been reared with a strong ethos of patriotism and community service – I’ve been taking them to West Virginia to build homes for poor folks since they were very little, for example.

    A significant problem I see in our “meritocratic” and materialist society today is that many elites seem to think that they earned all they have and owe nothing to others, specifically their socio-economic inferiors. I have aimed to raise my own children differently and infused them with a sense of service.

    It is definitely a harder road to take – life is easier in many ways when one is selfish. But when one believes in the Ultimate Judge, it is not as hard.

  40. The Nation definition of white is not off the shelf in meaning (because it includes Asians) so being tailored to a specific purpose it is bespoke.

  41. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    I want it on the record that I love my Asian Privilege™ and intend to keep every bit of it.

    I think the term you’re looking for is something normal people call Success™ :-)

  42. I’m an academic.In the humanities.

    I am not sure exactly what information this conveys. Some consider history to be one of the humanities. Do you, and if so, are you a historian? A blurb for the book I linked to above says that the author uses critical theory in her analysis of whiteness; are you signaling that you could go mano-a-mano with her in that? No one by any definition would consider me to be trained or a specialist in the humanities, so …

    However, I find the whole concept rather risible.It’s ahistorical, ….

    Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. I have a question for you to clarify your argument or position. The dominant notion of whiteness is that it has no internal structure. It is an absolute; a person is either white or not.* But this has not been the case throughout the United States nor for its entire history. In the first part of the 20th century it was not the dominant notion at least outside the South. It has become so pretty much everywhere except perhaps Hawaii, only since the mid-1960s. Before that, it had internal structure, with degrees of whiteness.** Since then it has not. Do you disagree with this, either the issue about structure or my dating? Do you think that there were no changes between, say 1910 and 1970, in the mainstream view of what it means to be white? Please elaborate; a simple yes or no will not be at all illuminating.

    *It seems to be breaking down in recent years with the rise of the notion of being multi-racial (kids these days!). My sense is that this is due to both slowly increasing rates of intermarriage and the changes to immigration law in the 1960s.

    **And it was not merely “social prejudice” that those who were less white experience. There were economic consequences involving jobs, housing and education. Rarely matters of life and death, unlike the situations facing the 3 groups you mentioned above, but not inconsequential either. But I am hoping that these footnotes do not derail my question.

  43. In addition to this merging of asians and whites into ‘evidence’ of white over-representation, there’s a related blind spot which I rarely see mentioned. Older Americans are predominantly white, owing to the 89/10/1% split of white/black/other demographics prior to the 1965 immigration law change. Whites were still 80% as recently as the 1980 census. These older cohorts will be reflected in upper management (“leadership”) jobs, which take decades to obtain and are generally filled by over-40′s. Rather than ‘structural racism,’ the white numbers in upper mgt should be assigned to structural demographics.

    There is a particularly ignorant, reactive strain of public intellectual which observes modern population numbers, forgets the < 30 year history of most POC (apart from black and native Americans), and goes on scapegoating campaigns against the former white majority.

Comments are closed.