The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersiSteve Blog
Orlando Patterson

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

Pondering Patterson Series [ I ], [ II ], [ III ], [ IV ], [ V ]

What can we do about the government’s racial and ethnicclassification system, which is key to making quotas feasible?

As we’ve seen, a racial group is an extremely extended family thatinbreeds to some degree. This means there is a certain amount of flexibility in the scale of how racial groups are defined. For example, it would be nonsensical to group Koreans and Nigerians together in any race smaller than the human race. But Koreans could reasonably begrouped racially with all other Northeast Asians or, for that matter, with all East Asians, depending upon your purpose. So, there is nothing written in stone that says the current “Asian” and “Hispanic” categories are inevitable.

A general rule of thumb is that narrowly-defined groups, such as theCubans, are more likely to get what they want from American foreign policy than broadly-defined groups, such as “Hispanics.” That’s because the constituent nationalities in the super-groups dreamed upby the Nixon Administration – “Hispanics” and “Asians” – are generally ancient or current enemies. El Salvador, for instance, invaded Honduras in 1967 to avenge a soccer defeat (a brutal little war thatfeatured the last cavalry charge in history).

The exceptions to this rule are the not-yet-official super-groups of theArabs and the Muslims, who hate Israel even more than they hate each other, which is saying a lot.

In contrast to foreign policy, you can’t get in on the domestic racialspoils system if you aren’t part of a big group. Consider Armenian-Americans, who number only one million or so. They have induced a remarkable 96 U.S. Congressmen to join the Armenian Caucus, which dedicates itself to sticking it to the Republic of Armenia’s Muslim neighbors, Turkey and Azerbaijan. But Armenian-Americans are too isolated and thin on the ground to win affirmative action designation for themselves, outside of Pasadena, California, where they have a critical mass.

If you are Asian or, especially, Hispanic, though, you can have yourcake and eat it too. Thus, a wealthy white Cuban-American is “Cuban” when he’s demanding that his Congressmen vote for keeping the embargo on Castro going for a fifth decade, but he’s “Hispanic” when his kid is trying to get into Princeton on a quota.

As countless examples from around the world show, in the long rungovernment discrimination tends to lead to civil war. The current American system is based on the assumption that the legally disfavored non-Hispanic white majority is so large and so wealthy that it can afford to put up with these programs forever. And, indeed, white America could probably afford to subsidize indefinitely America’s two historical minorities: African Americans and Native Americans. Because whites dramatically outnumber those two groups, and the ratios will never change too much, the burden on individual whites would always be tolerably small.

Unfortunately, extending legal privileges to one group automaticallyincreases demands from other groups for the same privileges. Political opportunists quickly realize the short-term advantages of pandering to those desires.

The Nixon Administration invented racial quotas in 1969 for the notunreasonable purpose of punishing Philadelphia’s all-white, all-Democrat crafts unions for blatantly discriminating against blacks. But the Nixonites soon established two far-reaching precedents. They allowed affirmative action to be extended to immigrants and in 1973 created the non-racial category of “Hispanics.” These seemingly minorbureaucratic maneuvers transformed affirmative action from a system limited to a few tens of millions of American beneficiaries to one with billions of potential beneficiaries worldwide. Combined with the 1965Immigration Act that opened the doors to mass legal immigration (along with the mass illegal immigration that typically follows legal immigrants, because most illegals won’t make the attempt without legal relatives to help them out when they arrive in America), thisstarted us down a dangerous path.

When the Census Bureau discovered recently that there were at least six million more people in America than it had previously believed (presumably, most of them illegal immigrants), this showed that the legally disfavored non-Hispanic white majority will probably cease to be a majority significantly sooner than the Census Bureau’s earlier mid-century forecast. As the ratio of legally privileged to legally disprivileged individuals rises steadily, the second-class citizens will tend to become ever more discontented with their lot. To keep them intimidated, the government and cultural institutions will mount ever greater propaganda campaigns to badger non-Hispanic whites into agreeing that their race’s historic guilt justifies penalizing them. The side effect of this official hate-mongering against whites, however, will be to inspire more and more anti-white pogroms of the kind we’ve already seen this year in both Seattle and Cincinnati, even before the Long Hot Summer of 2001 has arrived.

How do we get America off this treadmill toward ever worsening communal violence?

Dismantling the government’s “Asian” and “Hispanic” demographic classifications would be a good start. Prudent dominant powers normally wield a “divide and conquer” strategy toward potential rivals. But the Nixon Administration’s 1973 demographic labeling guidelines instituted what’s turned out to be a “unite and surrender” policy. The sheer massiveness of these synthetic pressure groups is one of the prime culprits in the Balkanization of America.

Here’s a seemingly symbolic first step:

  • Change the imperialistic name “Asians” to the more accurate “East Asians.” Asia is an enormous place, and it makes no sense for the people who used to be called “Orientals” to monopolize the nameof an entire continent that they share with over one billion Caucasians.

Once that eminently reasonable step is taken, it would become obvious that the South Asian Indians don’t belong with the EastAsians, with whom they share practically nothing other than a tendency to eat a lot of rice. For the sake of American unity, Indian immigrants are too fast-growing, too smart, too hard-working, and too articulate in English to be allowed in on the racial spoils system. Weneed them on the Caucasian side, officially legally unprivileged along with the rest of the non-Hispanic Caucasians.

While it may seem ridiculous for higher-IQ Asian groups to supportquotas that benefit lower IQ groups, it makes perfect sense to self-interested “Asian activists” who see the racial racket as the royal road to cushy jobs for themselves. Check out this amazing article from for vivid examples of “leaders” selling out their peoples for their own benefit. Imagine how utterly entrenched quotas would be without the long Jewish neoconservative assault on them. Well, the Indians are going to be the Jews of the 21st Century, and we’ll all be better off if, like Jewish-Americans, Indian-Americans are classified as unprivileged Caucasians.

If Indians, however, remain officially favored, then all sorts of otherbad things will also eventually happen. Their racial cousins, the Pakistanis, will have a perfectly reasonable claim to be legally protected. Privileging the Pakistanis would then lead to demands for anon-racial pan-Muslim classification, similar to the non-racial Hispanic category. By sponsoring pan-Muslim consciousness in the U.S., the government would be undermining Jewish interests, such as support for Israel.


  • the “East Asian” category should be deconstructed into its constituent nationalities, such as the Japanese, Koreans (ruled by Japan until 1945), Chinese (invaded by Japan 1931-1945), Vietnam (invaded by China in 1979), and Cambodia (invaded by Vietnam in 1979).

Most importantly, though,

* the Hispanic category has got to go. There are plenty of ways tojustify this. There’s no single coherent rationale behind this category other than to lump together the largest hodgepodge of people for the purpose of raising the loudest clamor for special privileges from the government.

The definition of Hispanicness is often thought to have something to dowith the lands where the Conquistadors raped and pillaged (although why America would want to commemorate those events, or offer privileges to descendents of the conquistadors and conquistadeesalike, is baffling).

But nobody knows how far “Hispanic” extends. Are Portuguese-speaking Brazilians “Hispanic?” Nobody seems to know. How about Spaniards? Well, Antonio Banderas is always being celebrated as a”Hispanic” actor. What about the “Spanish-surnamed” but All-American blonde actress Cameron Diaz? What about my friend Steve Valles,who is sometimes offered advantages in bidding for contracts because of his Spanish surname, which he inherited from an admiral in the Spanish Armada who was shipwrecked on the coast of Ireland, where he found a wife among his fellow Catholics? (Steve turns down suchoffers on ethical principles.) How about non-Hispanic women who take their husband’s Spanish surnames? In fact, you don’t even have to have a Spanish surname, as shown by a Polish-born man named Liberman, who won a substantial tax-break when buying a radio station because some of Senor Liberman’s ancestors were Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain in 1492.

“Hispanic” is not a racial category. It allows the occasional immigrant from the ruling white castes of Latin America to become an affirmative action hire at an American university, where he can pretend to be an intellectual spokesman for the darker masses that his family backhome would only employ to sweep up after their polo ponies.

Nor is “Hispanic” a language category. It lassoes in millions of American-born citizens who speak no Spanish. It also seems to include millions of New World Indians who speak only indigenous languages.

Hispanics should be divided up by both nationality and race. IfNicaraguans want their own quota, well there should be separate ones for white Nicaraguans, Indian Nicaraguans, black Nicaraguans, and all the various combinations. Obviously, this would render many discrimination lawsuits laughable. No employer smaller than Wal-Martwould have to worry much about being sued for not filling its quota of Nicaraguan zambos (black-Indian mixes).

Well, this has been a fun fantasy. Is any political will out there to carry out any of these reforms? The first step is to think clearly about them – something that Orlando Patterson, and The New York Times, have not yet begun.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Orlando Patterson 
🔊 Listen RSS

Pondering Patterson Series [ I ], [ II ], [ III ], [ IV ], [ VI ]

Considering that the American descendents of Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans have been interbreeding to some degree ever since 1619, why are the government’s racial categories of “white” and “black” still highly useful to medical researchers, forensic scientists, educational researchers, athletic coaches, criminologists, and the like? Haven’t we all just blended together so much that drawing racial linesbetween people is meaningless?

Many argue that there’s no biological reality behind calling African-Americans “black” since most are some shade of brown, reflecting their mixed race heritage. The usual guesstimate over the years has been that African-Americans average about 25% to 30% white orAmerindian genes. Indeed, there tend to be notable visual differences between African Americans, especially well-educated ones, and Africans. While I was at UCLA in 1980-82, I spent a lot of time hanging out with my Cameroonian friends. I could soon fairly reliably distinguish UCLA’s Africans from UCLA’s African-Americans by sight (and, interestingly enough, sometimes by smell, although I never got to the bottom of whether that was caused by different kinds of soap orcologne, diet, or more permanent physical differences between Africans and African-Americans).

The theory of the social construction of blackness is particularly popular among intellectuals, in part because many famous black intellectuals are quite white in appearance. My hero, Thomas Sowell, is quite dark, though. Sowell, who is acutely aware of the long history of discrimination by African Americans who could pass the “paper bag test” against dark people like himself, suggests that the reason middle class African Americans tend to be fairer in color than lower class ones is because much of the black middle class is descended from the offspring of slaves and masters. Since keeping their own children as slaves raised awkward issues and embarrassing questions, plantation owners would often free their mulatto kids and send them off to the big city with enough money to set themselves up in some kind of trade. This process gave mulattos a several generation head start over their black slave cousins in learning how to support themselves. Sowell’s theory certainly sounds plausible, although you could certainlycome up with a simpler explanation.

Recent genetic data, however, suggests that African Americans and whites – overall – really do form two quite distinctly different groups, just the way everybody who isn’t an intellectual has always figured. Indeed, the government’s categories of “white” and “black” appear to be, well, good enough for government work. Although early estimates claimed that Africans Americans were 1/4th or even 3/10th white, amajor study using sophisticated genetic tools found that those who identify themselves as African American appear to be only about 1/6th white. People who call themselves white seem to average under 1% black.

A 1998 study of genetic markers that appeared in the American Journal of Human Genetics looked at 1022 self-identified African Americans from nine big cities. The study found a weighted average level of European genetic admixture of 16.4%. In other words, if this sample is demographically representative (and it lacked rural Southern participants, who are usually assumed to be the blackest of African Americans), then African Americans are about 5/6th black and 1/6th white.

Earlier estimates of higher degrees of white admixture were based on cruder blood type studies done before the advent of genetic testing. The highest white mixture was found in New Orleans African Americans (22.5%) and the lowest in Charleston (11.6%). That New Orleans was the most mixed is hardly surprising because for many years it followed the Latin model of a Color Continuum rather than a Color Line.

The researchers didn’t find any examples of American Indian genes within their African American sample, although if they had looked in Florida and Oklahoma, they no doubt would have found some.

They also looked at 125 self-identified whites in three locations. They found a weighted average African admixture of 0.7%, with a large margin for error. If that holds up, that would be consistent with, say,nearly one/fourth of the white population having one black great-great-great grandparent. But, the sample size was so small that few conclusions should be drawn yet.

This huge statistical difference won’t convince most intellectuals that race is reasonably real because they suffer from Plato’s disease: the assumption that reality fundamentally consists of abstract essences best described by words or geometry. (In truth, reality is largely a probabilistic affair best described by statistics.) Postmodernism is the result of intellectuals being shocked to learn that reality is not Platonic (e.g., races are only somewhat more sharply defined than are extended families) and thus deciding to give up believing in reality rather than in Platonism.

NEXT: Responding To The Reality Of Race

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Orlando Patterson 
🔊 Listen RSS

Pondering Patterson Series [ I ], [ II ], [ III ], [ V ], [ VI ]

Orlando Patterson’s article claiming that whites shouldn’t have toworry about losing their majority because 48% of Hispanics are supposedly white, tendentious and misleading as it was, does reflect a valid concern with the government’s current racial and “ethnic”classifications.

How individuals define their group is something politicians canmanipulate to some degree. So it behooves us to pay attention to thisintricate subject.

Conservatives increasingly believe that if we could simply rewrite howthe Census Bureau defines people by race and ethnicity, we could hamstring the affirmative action scam. Ward Connerly, no doubt frustrated by years of Mississippi-style “massive resistance” bybureaucrats to his successful 1996 Proposition 209 initiative outlawing racial preferences in California, is now trying to strike at the racial classifications that are the lifeblood of quotas. His upcoming “RacialPrivacy Initiative” will say, “The state shall not classify any individual by race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the operation of public education, public contracting or public employment.”

By counting people by race and “Hispanic ethnicity,” the government makes possible the current system of legally privileging members of some hereditary groups and – because affirmative action programs are essentially a zero sum game – discriminating against members ofdisfavored groups.

Why is counting crucial to running the modern American affirmativeaction system? Most job quotas are not imposed by the government directly, but by employers as defensive measures to prevent being sued by the government. The government uses a simple-minded statistical test in determining whom to sue. The EEOC and the JusticeDepartment simply assume – despite infinite evidence to the contrary – that in the absence of irrational discrimination each “protected” group would be hired at least in proportion to its share of the workforce. The government then puts the burden of proof on the employer to show that it is not discriminating. The employer must demonstrate that groups actually differ on average in skills and that there is enough “business necessity” to justify caring about those skills that cause”disparate impact.”

Not surprisingly, faced with this assumption of guilt, many firms justimpose quotas upon themselves to prevent endless litigation.

In theory, therefore, it’s true that undermining current federalgovernment demographic categories could bring down thesuperstructure of quotas. But keep in mind that we are playing against professionals. Getting the government out of the race racket is for the vast majority of us merely a patriotic pastime. For our opponents, though, manipulating these bureaucratic guidelines for power and profit is what they do for a living.

They’ve outsmarted us before. Consider the fate of the Multiracialcategory in the 2000 Census. Many conservatives were quietly pleased that the Census for the first time allowed individuals to identify themselves as belonging to more than one race because the NAACP and other race racketeers were aghast that the size of their quotasmight be diminished. Well, the last laugh was on us. Clinton’s Office ofManagement & Budget quietly announced, “Responses that combine one minority race and white are [to be] allocated to the minority race.” In other words, the notorious “One Drop Rule” was re-instituted and even extended to races like the American Indian where it had not previously applied.

So, allowing multiracial responses actually made quotas larger.

The problem with getting rid of racial categories is that some (althoughnot all) of these labels describe fairly coherent human lineages, which differ in important ways. Connerly’s Racial Privacy Initiative, for example, exempts a variety of uses of racial classifications. The use of racial classifications in government funded medical research would be allowed: “The classifying of medical research subjects shall beexempt.” This is highly prudent because scientists are increasingly discovering racial differences in responses to medicine. The Food & Drug Administration, for instance, recently issued a “letter ofapprovability” for a new heart medicine intended to be prescribed only to blacks. The Financial Times reported, “Human trials of BiDil showed the drug reduced mortality in 66 per cent of African Americans, butproved of little benefit to whites.”

Further, when a skeleton is found in the woods, police forensicanthropologists would still be allowed to fill in the Big Four categories of forensic science: race, sex, age, and height: “Nothing in this section shall prevent law enforcement officers, while carrying out their lawenforcement duties, from describing particular persons in otherwise lawful ways.”

Penitentiary wardens could still segregate prisoners by race to halt race riots and police lieutenants wouldn’t have to be colorblind in assigning undercover cops to infiltrate racially-based gangs: “Otherwise lawful assignment of prisoners and undercover law enforcement officers shall be exempt from this section.”

These may, or may not be, minor exceptions to Connerly’s admirablevision. But they do show that – for at least some purposes – race actually is a highly useful and reasonable classification. While “officialcolorblindness” may very often be the best tactical response to racial diversity, it still is a form of blindness, a self-imposed denial of potentially relevant information.

I don’t want to come out against the Racial Privacy Initiative, but I dowant to point out that race is such an important fact of human life that it does have legitimate uses.

Why is race so important? In the next two columns I’m going to look at the genetic data that helps explain why the seemingly crude “black” and “white” classifications, which are still based on the old One Drop of Blood criterion, still turn out to be relevant to a host of issues.

NEXT: The Reality Of Race

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

June 08, 2001

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Orlando Patterson 
🔊 Listen RSS

Pondering Patterson Series [ I ], [ II ], [ IV ], [ V ], [ VI ]

How did the Census come up with this claim that 48% of Hispanics in America were white?

Problem One: although the Census form provided checkboxes for 14different races, including “Guamanian or Chamorro,” it did not mention either “Latin American Indian” or “mestizo” (a mix of Latin American Indian and white). Something like 8% of the U.S. population is mestizo, but the Census chose to ignore their existence. Nor did the Census offer “mulatto” (a mix of black and white) as a choice. In the fine print, the Census says that “mestizo” and “mulatto” fall under “Some Other Race,” presumably along with the little yellow-brown tongue-clicking Bushmen of the Kalahari and the tiny but fierce black Pygmy Negritos of the Andaman Islands near Indonesia.

Problem Two: the Latin American racial system discriminates severely in favor of whites. This encourages Hispanic mestizos and mulattos to label themselves “white.” If you are not familiar with the depths of favoritism toward whites in Latin America, watch the Mexicantelenovelas on Univision, the dominant Spanish-language channel in the U.S. Judging by the extraordinary numbers of blonde actresses featured, you would have to assume that Mexico is located on the Baltic Sea, somewhere between Latvia and Sweden.

Racism in Latin America has always been more insidious than in the U.S.. While the U.S. traditionally defined anybody with visible evidence of African heritage as “black,” the Latin method is to allow anybodywith a hint of white blood to call themselves white.

Fat lot of good it does them, though. By letting mixed race people call themselves white, the Latin system tricks mestizos and mulattos into imagining the game isn’t rigged against them personally – just against those poor bastards who happen to be a little darker than they are.And by allowing a few of the most dynamic dark-skinned men to obtain blonde wives, and thus have lighter skinned children, the natural leaders of a potential revolt of the darker masses are co-opted into the white establishment.

In contrast, our “One Drop of Blood” rule enabled African Americans to enjoy extraordinarily formidable spokesmen. Most black leaders were part white. For example, Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington had white fathers. W.E.B. Dubois looked like a Portuguese count. The fact that Thurgood Marshall was African-American is not immediately obvious from his photographs. Malcolm X was nicknamed “Red” after the color of his hair. Lani Guinier, whose mother was Jewish and father was a famous African American Communist Party official, looks like the sister of Gilda Radner. I called my wife in to watch Shelby Steele on TV so I could ask her what ethnic group he came from. She guessed Greek.

In Latin America, however, all of these impressive figures would havebeen admitted to the white power structure and encouraged to leave their darker cousins behind.

In Brazil, however, all of these impressive figures would have been admitted to the white power structure and encouraged to leave their darker cousins behind.

Sounds liberal. But this system inspires so much racial denial and self-loathing among the tens of millions of blacks and near-blacks in Brazilthat, until only a few years ago, hair care products formulated specifically for African hair were largely unavailable – because few black Brazilian women would admit they didn’t have straight Portuguese hair.

NEXT: Why We Can’t Get Beyond Race.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Hispanics, Orlando Patterson 
🔊 Listen RSS

Pondering Patterson Series [ I ], [ III ], [ IV ], [ V ], [ VI ]

Is Orlando Patterson correct in saying in The NY Times that half of all Hispanics resident in the U.S. are actually white (as the term is understood here)?


The majority of American Latinos trace their roots to Mexico. According to the CIA World Factbook, only 9% of the residents of Mexico are white. The CIA says that 30% of Mexicans are predominantly Indian and 60% are mestizos (white and Indian mixes).

And the percentage of Mexican immigrants who came from the white ruling caste must be far less than their 9% proportion of the total. After all, why would the whites want to leave? Life is sweet in Mexico if you are born into the race that is in charge of the other 91% of the population.

In fact, the only white Latin American population that has immigrated to the U.S. in large numbers are the Cubans. (Click here for a page of pictures of leading Miami Cuban citizens if you don’t believe that they are overwhelmingly white.) And that would never have happened except that a Communist dictator threw them out. Indeed, Miami’s Cubans have claimed vociferously that they can’t wait to get back to Cuba and take up the life they used to live. (Whether, post-Castro, the current inmates of Cuba will want their old masters back, is, however, very much unknown.)

In fact, although Patterson doesn’t understand it, the example of Miami shows that a big influx of white Latino immigrants would pose a more immediate threat to American culture than the same number of mestizo or mulatto immigrants. White Cubans were able to Hispanicize Miami in a generation. In contrast, in three generations the mestizos of San Antonio still haven’t been able to get themselves organized enough to take over that city politically. The white Cubans of Miami appear quite capable of succeeding economically without any English-speaking Americans, but the same can’t be said for the mestizo and mulatto immigrants in other cities.

No, the unexplored problem with massive mestizo immigration is that by creating in America a beige servant caste, mass immigration slowly turns the wealthier native-born Americans into a white master caste.

Maybe we’ll be able to withstand the temptations inherent in this kind of society better than the whites of Latin America, who were thoroughly corrupted by them. The history of the American South, though, suggests that rich white Americans aren’t immune to the sinister blandishments of luxurious living based on a surplus of cheap laborers of dusky hue.

Next: Anglo America vs. Latin America on race

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Orlando Patterson 
🔊 Listen RSS

Pondering Patterson Series [ II ], [ III ], [ IV ], [ V ], [ VI ]

VDARE note: we thought this was going to be the first of six articles,but Steve is still working on his conclusion.

“In recent weeks, reporting and commentary that misinterpretearly census results have been persistently misinforming the nation about its ethnic and racial composition. Themisinformation is dangerous, since it fuels fears of decline and displacement among some whites, anxieties that are not only divisive but groundless. … These articles and too many others have failed to take account of the fact that nearly half of the Hispanic population is white in every social sense of this term; 48 percent of so-called Hispanics classified themselves as solely white, giving only one race to the census taker. … Even with the most liberal of assumptions, there is no possibility that whites will become a minority in this nation in this century. The most recent census projections indicate that whites will constitute 74.8 percent of the total population in 2050, and that non-Hispanic whites will still be 52.8 percent of the total.”

Orlando Patterson Race by the Numbers The New York Times, May 8, 2001

Orlando Patterson, a Jamaican-born Harvard professor of sociology, has been getting a lot of mileage lately out of the claim that whites are so going to remain the majority in the U.S. – because Hispanics are really white!

Although Patterson often has interesting things to say, this assertion is obviously wrong on a factual level. No doubt the majority of the Hispanics that Patterson runs into at the Harvard Faculty Club are of pure Spanish descent. Perhaps Patterson vacations in Miami, whereCastro exiled Cuba’s wealthy whites. But to take this 48% number seriously, you have to be as oblivious to Latin American racial patterns and attitudes as our Census Bureau is.

Patterson is peddling the dubious Census numbers because, as withmany politically centrist blacks, he is offended by Hispanics horning in on affirmative action:

The other influence on perceptions of who is “white” originatesamong the so-called Hispanics. For political and economic reasons, including the benefits of affirmative action programs, the leadership of many Hispanic groups pursues a liberal, coalition-based agenda with African-Americans and presses hard for a separate, unified Latino classification. This strategy is highly influential even though nearly half of Hispanics consider themselves white. For African-Americans, the nation’s major disadvantaged minority, these tendencies are problematic, although African-American leaders are too shortsighted to notice. Latino coalition strategies, by vastly increasing the number of people entitled to affirmative action, have been a major factor in the loss of political support for it.

I’m sympathetic to his general argument. The Nixon Administration’s 1973 creation of a large “Hispanic” pressure group out of disparate nationalities such as Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban is turning out to be one of the subtle disasters in American history.

Patterson’s reading of the political dynamics, however, is cockeyed. Few opponents of racial quotas have even noticed that Hispanics are eligible for preferences.

Consider this: It’s bizarre that legal immigrants who choose America –presumably warts and all – are often legally preferred for jobs and college admissions over native born Americans who were born into a country they didn’t choose. And it’s absolutely ludicrous that employers can use illegal aliens to meet the racial quotas they must fill to avoid being sued by the EEOC for not employing enough Hispanics. Yet, how often have you ever heard anyone complain about that? No, almost all the moral arguments about affirmative action, pro and con, revolve around African Americans.

On the other hand, the supposedly unstoppable rising tide of Hispanicsplays a huge role in politicians’ calculation over whether to oppose quotas. Standing athwart the path of history, yelling “Stop!” is not part of the job description of the modern Republican office holder. The voters of both California and the state of Washington, two quite liberal states, recently outlawed quotas, but you haven’t seen many Republican politicians jumping on the anti-quota bandwagon lately, now have you?

The Republican Establishment (Motto: “Who you gonna believe? Us oryour lying eyes?”) constantly talks about how socially conservative Hispanics really are once you get to know them. Yet, it acts as if Hispanics are utterly allergic to much of the traditional conservative social agenda, such as opposition to quotas.

NEXT: OK, How White Are Hispanics?

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Orlando Patterson 
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.

The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?