4 ms·

> by non-Anglo immigrants i believe these now make up the majority of the elite white liberals. > and both they and Hispanics support big government see http

> by non-Anglo immigrants i believe these now make up the majority of the elite white liberals. > and both they and Hispanics support big government see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Historical_data_for_all_races_and_for_Hispanic_origin_(1610%E2%80%932020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d... Looks like one particular party is a beneficiary and drafter of immigration policy. > But that doesn’t mean they necessarily support the social and cultural rituals around race advanced by white liberals, What about black professors and activists like Ibram Kendi? Blacks appear to support racial quotas in respect to Prop 16. White liberals are certainly part of it, but not all of it. I don't see any reason to say that black elites are being led by whites and not speaking on their own accord. Brandon Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, is a good example of a radical race activist. He was most popular in areas with highest black population and won the black community by the widest margin. That suggests that radical agendas are not just shared by white liberals but have support in the black community. > Racial preferences, and similar policies such as “diversity requirements” (i.e. quotas) are a core approach for white liberals that most minorities reject. If there was really such opposition to racial quotas and other racial preferences, why do they continue to support the party who puts race at the center of everything they do? Several attempts recently have been made at establishing quotas for medicine, grants, etc. but challenged in court. This was no surprise. It's contradictory to support that party especially since the party seems to focus particularly on black issues and expects other non white people to act along.

rayiner 3y ago
[flagged]
- onetimeusename 3y ago
  > The people selected to be “representative” of the group aren’t actually a representative sampling of the group. I believe white liberals are involved in it yes. But I also believe elite black radicals have their own goals and can sustain their own power. In general the elite don't reflect the norm so black elites have different goals than the average black person. A similar pattern is seen in South Africa. Black elites run the country while the norm is impoverished. It would be hard to argue that SA is run by white liberals though. The majority of large cities have black mayors and a number of teacher's unions are run by blacks. It's hard to see how white liberals even can benefit from things like not enforcing laws and taxes targeted at wealthy whites https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/01/chicago-mayoral-election-police-reform-policies https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/01/chicago-mayo.... Right now the relationship is symbiotic with white liberals. But in my opinion this is a strange relationship. Speaking of SA, racial retribution is a politically popular narrative demagogues can take advantage of. It's not unprecedented and happened repeatedly in ethnically diverse African countries in the last few decades. I think this is the general pattern ethnic conflict in a democracy leads to which I think the US is headed towards. A lot of the Hispanic and Asian population came in the last 30 years or so and it would be hard to argue they are a victim of racism in the US but it is disappointing that they are siding with the pro ethnic conflict side. > This is the white-liberal-dominated selection process at work. This can happen in a selection process because the white american mind is propagandized to believe it is subconsciously racist and an evil oppressor so generally white people give deference to outspoken blacks to avoid being accused of racism. A small number of radicals can overpower a majority in that sense.

rayiner 3y ago

[flagged]

onetimeusename 3y ago
> The people selected to be “representative” of the group aren’t actually a representative sampling of the group. I believe white liberals are involved in it yes. But I also believe elite black radicals have their own goals and can sustain their own power. In general the elite don't reflect the norm so black elites have different goals than the average black person. A similar pattern is seen in South Africa. Black elites run the country while the norm is impoverished. It would be hard to argue that SA is run by white liberals though. The majority of large cities have black mayors and a number of teacher's unions are run by blacks. It's hard to see how white liberals even can benefit from things like not enforcing laws and taxes targeted at wealthy whites https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/01/chicago-mayoral-election-police-reform-policies https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/01/chicago-mayo.... Right now the relationship is symbiotic with white liberals. But in my opinion this is a strange relationship. Speaking of SA, racial retribution is a politically popular narrative demagogues can take advantage of. It's not unprecedented and happened repeatedly in ethnically diverse African countries in the last few decades. I think this is the general pattern ethnic conflict in a democracy leads to which I think the US is headed towards. A lot of the Hispanic and Asian population came in the last 30 years or so and it would be hard to argue they are a victim of racism in the US but it is disappointing that they are siding with the pro ethnic conflict side. > This is the white-liberal-dominated selection process at work. This can happen in a selection process because the white american mind is propagandized to believe it is subconsciously racist and an evil oppressor so generally white people give deference to outspoken blacks to avoid being accused of racism. A small number of radicals can overpower a majority in that sense.