Saturday, February 22, 2014

Dystopian diversity

From Pew:

The Cathedral interprets this as reflecting perceived (if necessarily nebulous, since it's seemingly impossible to ever isolate, pinpoint, and verify) irrational discrimination based on race. The assumption, at least among non-whites, is that the problems a group perceives between themselves and members of another group is the result of the latter group's hostilities towards the former group. Blacks feel more tension between blacks and whites than whites do. Ergo, whites are more irrationally racist against blacks than blacks are against whites.

In reality, however, the amount of perceived discord should be seen as a measure of hostility, bitterness, and acrimony members of one group feel towards members of another group. For ease of comprehension, the harmonious sentiments scores for non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Hispanics, computed by taking the percentages of respondents who responded "very well", adding 10 to that number to reduce the potentially bemusing high number of negatives, and subtracting from it the percentages who responded "not too well" or "not at all well" follow. The higher the score, the warmer and more affectionate the feelings of the group being examined towards members of the other two groups:

Whites' sentiments towards blacks: 6
Whites' sentiments towards Hispanics: 4

Blacks' sentiments towards whites: 1
Blacks' sentiments towards Hispanics: 13

Hispanics' sentiments towards whites: 5
Hispanics' sentiments towards blacks: -11

In sum, whites and Hispanics feel about the same about one another. Blacks have more issues with whites than whites do with blacks. That's the successful result decades of agitprop--blacks perpetrate a lot more harm against whites than whites do against blacks, but whites are persistently encouraged and coerced into feeling as though they owe something to blacks.

Finally, Hispanics are a lot colder towards blacks than blacks are towards Hispanics, by far the relationship with the least parity among the two groups concerned. In Central and South America, being black isn't something to be proud of and Hispanics don't try to associate with blackness. Many blacks may see Hispanics as potential anti-white allies, but Hispanics aren't that interested in sharing anything with blacks. As the number of Hispanics continues to grow and they become the clear senior partner in the minority coalition, blacks are going to find themselves increasingly forced into taking a backseat (heh) in the perpetual game of shaking out white concessions to non-white minorities. It will be interesting, if depressing, to see whether or not blacks take it sitting down.

Parenthetically, these are measures more of the sentiments of people on the ground, not among self-appointed NAM leaders and leading white ethno-masochists, who for self-interested reasons want to do everything in their power to see the non-white minority stay united against its white oppressors as it grows in size and shifts in composition.


Anonymous said...

Whites not liking Hispanics too much is probably that leapfrogging loyalty. It would be interesting to see a breakdown in liberal and conservative Whites. While conservatives are probably more negative to minorities of any type, their sentiment regarding Hispanics and Blacks is probably the opposite of White liberals.

Audacious Epigone said...

For those unfamiliar with the phrase, "leapfrogging loyalty" describes the phenomenon in which a person favors someone distant from him who he barely knows and has little in common with over someone who is closer to him geographically/culturally/biologically. It's not only a characteristic of the left, it's seen as virtuous. Caring relatively more about groups closer to oneself, in contrast, makes one some kind(s) of -ist, usually a nativist or racist.

silly girl said...

Once again, Asians just don't exist.

The problem with adding in Asians is that they will perform so well compared to NAM's that it shuts down the blame these pollsters wish to imply exists due to the action/inaction of whites.

Obviously Asians have far more interaction with whites than do blacks or hispanics because Asians travel/live in the same circles/areas that whites do. So, including Asians would show that other races can get along pretty darned well if both of them are high social functioning groups in their own right,

I am not Asian, and don't worship them, but the fact is you can get along with them pretty well despite some differences because they aren't very violent or otherwise highly socially dysfunctional.

Anonymous said...

re: leapfrogging loyalty

That is a biological loser. Those who have such a view have fewer children on average and therefore are biological losers.

Audacious Epigone said...


Perhaps (and I hope you're correct), but often biology and culture pull in different directions. Leapfrogging loyalty is a pretty novel thing and mostly a WEIRD characteristic, but it's been growing for multiple generations. Support for same-sex marriage has been on the rise for over a decade now, even though those opposed to it are more fecund than those supportive of it (with the new converts probably in between, on average, in terms of fertility).

Anonymous said...

The poll is a great idea, but not enough information is available at the website. They omitted non-responders and they say that total sample was N = 2,231 . They should have said more.

They also said that "hispanic" included both whites and blacks. In other words, depending on who responds to the poll, you get bupkus.

I don't think Pew is as trustworthy as they want everyone to believe. Ideology has sneaked into the interstices.

Although an atheist, I still see the wisdom in letting God sort them out. Oh, wasn't there another step just before the sorting? I forget. :>)