Sunday, June 25, 2017

Color matters, contra Shapiro

Here's Ben Shapiro's silly assertion again:


In obliterating it as decisively as possible, the insinuation of data cherry-picking was made. That's fair enough. Since Shapiro's statement struck me as so self-evidently false, the intention was to quickly show it as such.

We won't have access to the 2016 presidential election results until the Spring of 2018, but we can look back at the last Christian white male vs Christian white male and bring in browns (sample sizes are too small for yellows, unfortunately) alongside blacks and whites to see if color, while mattering during Obama's presidency, did so rather uniquely or if this is something that has been with us for at least a generation.

The same issues previously considered among whites and blacks for the 2012 presidential election follow, this time for the 2004 presidential election and with the inclusion of Hispanics.

Among pro-life voters:


Those opposed to same-sex marriage:


Those opposed to income redistribution:


Those against drug legalization:


Those who think the government is too big and does too much:


Among self-identified political conservatives:


This methodology doesn't even take into account the fact that whites are more likely than non-whites to hold all of these ideological positions Shapiro is more sympathetic to in the first place. It's not just that while 38% of whites feel the government is too big and does too much only 15% of blacks and 18% of Hispanics feel the same way, it's that members of those relatively smaller proportions of the black and Hispanic populations who feel the same are less likely to vote for the party for whom that ideological position is included in its platform and thus foundational.

Color matters. It matters more now than before because the US--and the Western world in general--is less European now than it was before. Unless the demographic transformation is halted, it will continue to matter more and more as each day passes, until we get to the point Lee Kuan Yew would've predicted, a point where ideology is completely irrelevant because color is the only thing that matters.

GSS variables used: PRES04, HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RACECEN1(1)(2), POLVIEWS(5-6), MARHOMO(4-5), ABANY(2), EQWLTH(5-7), GRASS(2), HELPNOT(4-5)

29 comments:

legateofjudea said...

Audacious Epigone - can you check urban vs. rural? The republican position on the environment is really not popular in the big cities. Pollution is an everyday issue here. I also suspect hispanics of mixed race that have assimilated are more likely to call themselves white. I knew someone whose family came from Mexico, but they looked like they might have come from Italy. She identity to herself as white. You are treating self reported racial referred as a totally independent variable. However, I think it is partially a dependent one as well. The more people of mixed race feel Americanized, the more likely they are to self report as white, which also makes them likely to vote Republican.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/

Looks like millions of illegal immigrants likely voted in the 2008 and 2012 elections. While the numbers for 2016 still aren't out yet, you have to imagine that for 2016, when amnesty is on the line, let alone the wall, there would be a surge of non-citizen voting for that election as well.

If up to 5.7 million non-citizens voted in 2016 like they did in 2008, Trump wins the popular vote and likely could flip a couple of states like Virginia, Nevada, and Minnesota. Maybe more states but definitely those could have flipped if it was only citizens who voted.

Here's hoping that Kobach is aggressive in his investigations and that his inevitable suggestions get implemented. 2020 could be horrendous for Democrats if voting was limited to US citizens only.

Handle said...

Ideologically mainstream conservatism (which is mostly Neoconservatism these days) is really backed into a corner now. It can't explicitly focus on tragic-but-true matters of identity without getting the Literally Hitler treatment, and it can't not focus on them on the level of practical democratic politics and survive the demographic transition. See: California.

All "imagined communities" - like America - require the social glue provided by a religion-like mythological narrative of foundation and purpose. It's probably indispensable. These are always false to some extent, but they are necessary falsehoods - noble white lies - and they work.

The ideological reformulation of American conservatism around an identity-indifferent and secular civic-nationalism based on legal equality, liberty, and prosperity was a long process, but like all mythologies, its operating envelope was limited to certain economic, cultural, and demographic preconditions.

And for a while, in a mostly European country, that myth and narrative of civic nationalism worked just fine. We were all in this thing together, and minorities were few enough that we could gradually treat them better, afford certain pathologies, and buy them off, and instead of breaking our banks and our spirits, it would feel like justice, and good works, and the long, moral arc of history towards a free and colorblind country of equal opportunity and without bigotry. Or something like that. Lots of folks on the right enthusiastically got behind this vision.

Too enthusiastically, it turned out. People like to blame Kennedy and the Dems for the 1965 immigration act, but the truth is that it was even more strongly embraced by Republicans. From La Wik: "The House of Representatives voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Of the Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained. In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 117 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained. One unknown representative voted yes. In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill."

The trouble now is that those preconditions have eroded and are almost entirely gone because of the demographic transition and the voting pattern you are illustrating here. So right-wing civic-nationalism is functionally obsolete and has passed its sell-by date, because its now clearly suicidal.

Well, for reasons of inertia, stubborn attachment, and not wanting to have ones reputation and life ruined by being accused of being literally Hitler, people were bound to stick with it for too long, one way or another.

But the additional trouble is that these people have no fall-back, having emphasized strict identity indifference for so long, despite every single observation showing the contrary. It seems plausible to me that there is just no way to salvage American civic nationalism as a politically viable formula given current demographic trends, but that the people that adhere to it genuinely lack for any other acceptable ideas.

So unfortunately they are going to be complicit in steering the ship into the iceberg, and go down with the ship when it sinks, all the while insisting hysterically that there is nothing wrong with icebergs, and how dare you suggest there might be!

Issac said...

legate- The Americans are a collection of Colonial Europeans and some slave descended Africans. Nobody else can be Americanized any more than they could be Israelized. Would you want more of the Arabs in our country if they agreed to vote for Likud over half the time in some election? No, of course not.

Audacious Epigone said...

Legate of Judea,

Frustratingly, the GSS only regularly asks respondents about the community type (rural, suburban, urban) they lived in at the age of 16 rather than at the time of participation.

As for identification, I've used filters that only include as white those who racially identify as white but ethnically identify as non-Hispanic. Those who identify as racially white but as ethnically Hispanic are included in the Hispanic numbers here. That probably modestly makes the Hispanic numbers a bit more favorable towards the traditional conservative position than non-white Hispanics would be if they were the only ones considered.

Random Dude,

I feel like I've mined the GSS to death, yet I still miss stuff. Like the question on citizenship. Of the 188 people the GSS identified as non-citizens, 11 of them reported voting in a presidential election. That's more than 5% of non-citizens present in the US voting. Of course the total sample size is small, but the real number is greater than zero. I'm going to do a post on it soon. Thanks!

legateofjudea said...

Audacious Epigone:
Then your data will have the both effects that I mentioned:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/05/millions-of-americans-changed-their-racial-or-ethnic-identity-from-one-census-to-the-next/

Isaac:
As I said previously, I'm not advocating immigration from low skilled counties. I think it is a bad idea because it is a drain on government resources. I think we need resources for people in the rural areas that have been hurt by globalization and need to be a greater focus of government spending. I would point out that you haven't given a description of Americans, you have given a descriptions of "African Americans" that are genetically about a quarter European after a couple hundred years of Americanization.

Issac said...

legate- Africans were the exception that broke the original rule. "White men of good character," and "for ourselves and our posterity," are unambiguously not descriptions of Africans, Asians, or Mestizos. Many Arabs in Palestine have 25% Jewish DNA as well, but they are clearly excluded despite the potential for murk in our definition of Jewish ethnicity. I can tell you know nothing of the dark peoples of the world if you can't differentiate them from the settler Americans. Perhaps you'd rather Israel was protected by Brazil? How do you think that will turn out for us?

Audacious Epigone said...

Handle,

Very well put, thanks.

That said, Shapiro is only in his mid-thirties. He has characteristically Jewish--which provides an additional layer of defense in itself--verbal adeptness and, despite this virtue-signaling nonsense, he's a smart guy. He need not go down with the neocon ship like someone like George Will or Jonah Goldberg must. There's plenty of time for him to change course.

Issac,

There's a Simpsons episode where Marge is gorging herself on low-fat pudding when she remarks that she can just feel the pounds melting off. That's what the approach is like--we'll get tradcon Hispanics in. Sure, they're less Republican than whites, but they're more Republican than blacks. What we lose in margin we'll make up on volume!

Random Dude on the Internet said...

http://alphanewsmn.com/canada-pushes-back-influx-mn-asylum-seekers/

Here's another article about refugees. Looks like over 3500 refugees, primarily from Africa, have fled from Minnesota to Canada. What's interesting is that they seem to know how Canadian refugee laws work, which is that they can't cross at border checkpoints, so they have to go to the woods or swim a river or whatever.

This is something that Ben Shapiro refuses to admit: these people don't want to be Americans, they want to be Somalis who live in America. No amount of them reading the Constitution will get them to think that they are Americans. They only appreciate living in America so long as we keep giving them money for existing but other else than that, they couldn't care less about us. Something to keep in mind when the MUH PRINCIPLES set keeps thinking that indiscriminate immigration is a net positive.

Feryl said...

"People like to blame Kennedy and the Dems for the 1965 immigration act, but the truth is that it was even more strongly embraced by Republicans."

The Dems were credibly populist on many issues before the late 90's (notable exception: crime). More Dems were against NAFTA, too. Before WW-2, neither party had ownership of racialism/ethnic nationalism, and anyway, society didn't want radical changes to gov. policy regarding race. After WW-2, especially by the mid-60's, the Dems became the black party and most comfortable/older whites felt threatened by the radical civil rights movement and sided with the party more associated with stability and order (the GOP). On a local level, quite a few working stiff types remained loyal to Dems since they were the party who protected my job and pension. On a pres. level, some defected to Nixon and maybe Ford (Ford won Michigan), then Reagan actually did better with prole whites than he did with the upper class in 1980. Dems in the Rust-belt, Appalaicha, and the Lutheran Triangle, continued to dominate locally into the 80's. The GOP, however, remained just as popular if not more popular in the growing Sun-belt, the West, the Plains, and among non-Jewish elites outside of NYC/Frisco (Agnostic says that Reagan won some of the richest places in the Northeast in '84).

Business elites and Sun-belters felt much less threatened by free trade and immigrants than did proles in the warm wet summer/cold dark winter region of America that historically was the center of most of America's activity. Starting with the "centrist" philosophy that Clinton used (welfare/crime reform, while sucking up to corporate/globalist elites on economic issues), The Dems gradually shifted away from their former ideological base. Go forward several decades after the 90's, and their leadership has become so futurist and arrogant that they've managed to locally alienate one time strongholds by brashly defying prole desires.Also, when America was over 70% white, whites didn't feel pressure to adopt a "white" party. Lower class whites are in more of a defensive posture than upper class whites, seeing as how they haven't benefited recently from modernist policies. Feeling squeezed by demo. changes and crappy econ. prospects, lower class whites are clearly embracing the GOP, as indicated by the vast majority of counties going for Trump (with blue cultural elites clustered in a relative handful of counties).

Feryl said...

Point is, The Dems have increasingly become an ID politics vehicle for blacks and Jews (since the mid-60's in particular), while eventually becoming a haven for immigrants in the 90's and beyond (because the Clintons proved you could make a fortune by pushing corporate friendly immigration policies). The twin combo of cultural Marxist we can't let them clone Hitler hysterics (pushed especially by blacks, Jews, and nuts who want the Sixties to last forever) and pandering to corporate greed is how they've managed to to offend so many.

But unless the GOP actually takes greater strides to accepting their status as the party of whites and humble natives, they will continue to bring a knife to a gun fight. Remarkably, the victory and presence of Trump alone has caused many GOP/independent/Reagan Dem voters to give many GOP candidates the benefit of the doubt in spite of people like Handle/McCain/Ryan et al being pansies about allowing changes to "their" party.

The small population of non-whites in the past meant that you didn't have to be racialists or even nationalists to succeed. But the Dems have reaped financial and electoral rewards (before Obama made the party go full retard, anyway) by pushing a form of ID politics that coincides with corporate ideology. Though the Dems have been locally battered, nationally speaking, where it really does count (tone setting, Supreme Court, etc.) the party almost rode ethnic pandering and HBD unaware whites to victory in 3 straight elections. Nevermind how many losses they've racked up locally. Hillary drank the Kool Aid about working stiff-non swpl middle class whites being irrelevant in the face of non-whites and well-educated/urban whites that it destroyed whatever chance she had. The MSM and elite peer pressure of course made the election much closer than it should have been (a recent study showed that many fence sitters would've been less likely to vote Hillary/3rd party in a do-over).

The GOP can't be just the muh small government party anymore, nor will it work to be the small town Christian ID politics party either. Not when post-Boomers just don't see the value of religion, and don't see the world in those terms (besides, what good did preachy Silents and Boomers do, anyway?)

legateofjudea said...

Feryl - populism means different things at different times. I don't think working class whites went for Trump due to a feeling of racial identity because whites are a smaller percent of the population. The problem is that what is known as affirmative action essentially came at the expense of working class whites, not rich whites. Free trade hurt the incomes of working class whites, not rich whites. If incomes for the working class had continued to rise, health care was good, and college education was affordable, I don't think you would have seen a political reorientation among working class whites just because they were a smaller percent of the population. I also don't think the working class has embraced the GOP as much as they have embraced Trump. I think there remains a belief among many in the working class that Republicans like Mitt Romney are more concerned with Wall Street than Main Street.

Feryl said...

"Here's another article about refugees. Looks like over 3500 refugees, primarily from Africa, have fled from Minnesota to Canada. What's interesting is that they seem to know how Canadian refugee laws work, which is that they can't cross at border checkpoints, so they have to go to the woods or swim a river or whatever."


He he, the need to sponge is so irresistible that it drives them to brave some of the worst whether in the world ("temperate" my ass). One MN fish-wrap had an article about rescuing crosser Africans with serious frostbite/malnutrition/hypothermia. If these people are so hard-up, how'd they manage to get here in the first place? And yes, knowledge of policies abounds. Better life? More like handouts.

Generous northern places inadvertently bring out the worst that non-whites have to offer.

legateofjudea said...

Feryl - Nationalism appears to be a winning strategy (see Trump). Political hostility towards fellow citizens of other races is a non-starter (which is what I assume you mean by political racism). This especially true among whites, less than 10% of whom view interracial marriage as a bad thing. Do you know who the head of the Senate GOP is married to?
http://americablog.com/2017/05/republicans-twice-likely-find-interracial-marriage-bad.html

Issac said...

AE- Unfortunately, I don't think it's that polite. I think they just consider you all interchangeable and haven't even considered the fallout of this mistake. Legate seems to hold this point of view and I've heard it a million times from supposedly open-minded Jews in Israel, particularly dual-citizens of America.

It sounds jarring, but I thought the same way for most of my life. We're conditioned to view the world in these terms. The us and them dynamic rarely has any nuance. My only hope is that more of us wake the hell up to what's becoming abundantly clear. We are mere decades from a total disaster. Jews will join whites in being openly hated in the new America. Israel will lose her guardian and then all bets are off with our neighbors who've only been our allies due to American hegemony.

How any Jew could look upon that nonchalantly clucking about economics is beyond me.

Feryl said...

"I also don't think the working class has embraced the GOP as much as they have embraced Trump"

Two of America's greatest centers of populism, Appalachia (which runs into Western PA) and the Lutheran Triangle (MN, Iowa, Wisconsin) are locally voting GOP to a much greater degree than they did in say, the 90's, or 80's, or 70's, or whenever. To this day, the MN Dem party is called the Dem. Farmer-Labor party, a name that now seems ironic considering that the feelings of St. Paul Muslims and Hmong now have much greater importance in liberal circles than does the needs of Karl Schmidt or Eric Dahl in St. Joseph.

Dem pandering to immigrants and weirdos (tranny bathrooms) has reached such a level of manic self-parody that great swathes of America have been ejected from the show. Collectively, the Dems still have a formidable base of white status striving urbanites and white conservative hating non-whites that spots them with 200+ electoral votes no matter how putrid their candidate is. Texas, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida are the only heavily minority states that the GOP has a chance in due to conservative Mestizos/Cubans and/or heavily aged and therefore conservative white populations.

You're right that the GOP lucked into Trump, nationally speaking. McCain and esp. Romney let winnable elections slip thru their grasp by promoting out-dated crap that the Rust-belt has lost interest in (or in the case of the Lutheran triangle, never was interested in in the first place).

Feryl said...

" Do you know who the head of the Senate GOP is married to?"

That vast majority of white fathers would sooner light their hair on fire than see their daughter get fleas from a black dog. And this applies to Jews as much as anyone, BTW. Black bucks get white prole fucks. Jews know better than to shack up with the most violent race on the Earth (some troll riled campuses up by posting true stats about black domestic violence)

People don't publicly acknowledge what they know in their bones to be true. Not anymore. It was in the 80's that people became averse to telling the truth, not matter how their thoughts/feelings/actions betrayed their knowledge of the truth.

We don't want to lose friends/jobs/powerful acquaintances. Even though we drive and walk faster when several young blacks intrude into our consciousness. And good school means less than 15% black/dark skinned hispanic student demos. A French article about changing demographics put it poignantly: "the battle of the eyes". White French (in nearly every non-Slavic Western country, whites in general) are told to not feel threatened by the presence of aliens, yet said aliens insolently glare at any native white male who dares make eye contact for more than 3 seconds in a non-verbal encounter.

It's not just the changing demographics that are alarming, it's the sense that you must stoically accept something you know to be tragic and horrible. It's like a home invader has tied you up, and is now forcing you to watch your spouse get raped and beaten.

Feryl said...

Dating studies have shown that females are more HBD aware than males. Women are choosier. Some of this is status based; black men are overwhelmingly status and money insecure (for obvious reasons), or just plain in jail, thereby rendering a substantial population of black men off-limits to many white girls.

Black females aren't attractive (physically or personality-wise), and among white men they mainly seem to attract a certain kind of wigger or liberal doofus looking for brownie points (like Robert "cuck" Deniro). Most white men will opt for other races.

legateofjudea said...

Isaac - I am supporting the same immigration policy as Trump and the Republicans. I would go father than them in reducing refugee admissions.

Feryl - I think the GOP has had greater appeal to the middle class and Trump has more appeal to the working class. Obviously these are generalizations. I think the perception that the Democrats are more concerned about helping non-Americans that Americans has hurt them more than they realize. The rich liberals don't use social services or public schools, so they miss the costs they are imposing on those who aren't high income.

I actually think the GOP could have done much better than it did. Trump won because he understood a problem that many of the American elite missed. However, if a certain tape with him making crude remarks hadn't surfaced, I think he would have won many more votes. Compare that to someone like Mitt Romney that has personal likability with inferior policy understanding, and Trump wins.

However, the Republicans are going to start looking for candidates that have policy ideas closer to Trump, with likability similar to Romney. I think those types of candidates will do much better with a wider swath of the electorate. The one wild card is the economy. The stock market is really in bubble territory, and it looks like their will be a major downturn. There are some huge problems brewing in the European banking system. It is not clear who will get the blame when there is an economic shock.

Feryl said...

The stock market is really in bubble territory, and it looks like their will be a major downturn. There are some huge problems brewing in the European banking system. It is not clear who will get the blame when there is an economic shock.

Most Americans born after 1954 are in dreadful financial shape to begin with. Even a lot of the younger cultural elites derive status more from their degree and the company they keep than they do from their actual financial back-stop. The now elderly set that established a foothold in privilege due to starting out in a time of great equality and prosperity is basically set for life. Where does that leave younger people? Virtually nothing has been done to support younger Americans over the last 40 years. Many Boomers and the vast majority of X-ers keep having stupid bubbles get inflated and then popped in their faces, as opposed to securing good paying jobs with generous benefits and pensions; ya know, what G.I.s and Silents understood to be the norm when they were in their prime working years.

legateofjudea said...

Feryl - I think your answer to my question was no. He's married to Elaine Chao, Trump's transportation secretary. There are a huge amount of Jews marrying non-Jews. It is mostly people of similar educational levels, which is typically Asians and other Whites. There are ton of Hispanic and Black relationships. There are tons of Hispanic and White relationships. There are tons of White and Asian relationships. I only think White / Black relationship remains somewhat rare, but only somewhat. I think you identified part of the reason, but there is another part you might not be aware of.

Certainly not all white men find all black women unattractive. I think one of the reasons Harlem became less welcoming to white people was the stereotype that white men were getting poor young black women pregnant and abandoning them in the 40s and 50s. There was a fair among of interracial dating then, if not marriage. (Although some of that might be true today as well)

I'm not sure if these types of relationships are now more or less common, I think the newspapers avoid talking about it because its considered racially inflammatory. They are still occurring. I kept running into a very successful man I knew who retired at his young age (well 50, I think of it as young). He seemed to always be accompanied by women thirty or so years younger than him of a different race. After this happened a few times with different women, I asked him about the age difference. I found out he was meeting these girls on a website that matched young women with men who were willing to take care of them financially. I don't think physical attraction to other races was a problem for him.

Audacious Epigone said...

Of potential interest.

White women are 3x more likely to shackle up with black men as white men are with black women.

White men are 3x more likely to shackle up with Asian women as white women are with Asian men.

Numbers for W/H pairings are similar by sex.

This leaves black women and Asian men out in the cold, while black men and Asian women are in relatively high demand.

legateofjudea said...

Hi Audacious Epigone - I agree with your interpretation about the desirability of women. I don't think you have data to present a strong claim about the desirability of men. Births to unmarried women are about 40% of births. Of those, the most recent number I have seen is that 58% of those are to cohabiting couples. I think some of the reported paternity is suspect, but lets be conservative and say that only 17% of births are to unmarried couples that are not cohabiting. Your data only covers (if you believe all the reported paternity) 83% of births.
https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/births-to-unmarried-women/

I remember a story of a poor girl who showed up at the door of a politician to confront his wife. I think he got her pregnant and she had thought he would leave his wife. She showed the wife all the love letters he had sent her, thinking that the wife would be enraged and divorce him. The wife signed one of the letters with her full name and closed the front door.

I will be impressed if you can find data to cover the paternity of the remaining 17% of births. There is a lot of self censorship and group censorship of inflammatory social science data associated with class or racial tensions. I witnessed this first hand. Charles Murray has reported that many social scientists complement his 1994 book the Bell Curve in private, but they do not want to do so in public.
http://www.aei.org/publication/bell-curve-20-years-later-qa-charles-murray/

legateofjudea said...

PS - Although you probably already know about the self censorship.

Audacious Epigone said...

Legate of Judea,

We have to work with what we have. Getting reliable information on the bottom 17% of the population is inherently challenging. But while the total number of interracial relationships are larger among those who are cohabitating than among those who are married, the M/F ratio aren't much different (i.e. white women are more likely to both marry and cohabitate with black men than with Asian men, while white men are more likely to both marry and cohabitate with Asian women than with black women). Why would we assume that it would change among the remaining 17%?

Feryl said...

Feryl - I think your answer to my question was no. He's married to Elaine Chao, Trump's transportation secretary. There are a huge amount of Jews marrying non-Jews.

Keanue Reeves. I just saw a scene from a late 80's movie, that, go figure, actually showed mono-racial youth sub-cultures. Keanue and his mostly jock (white) friends form kind of a high school "gang" to get back at the people they're feuding with. At one point, they cruise through a Mexican area late at night with a gun to "prove" their power and bravado, but the sheer number of Mexican street kids is unnerving and they comply with a "request" to leave the area and not come back unless they have a better attitude. It's not something the movies get right; the nature of "ethnic" neighborhoods and youth sub-cultures, and the subtle dynamics at play involving race, class, bravado, and numbers. Whites born after, oh, lets say the mid 1950's are accustomed to growing up in safe, comfortable, suburban, monoracial (at least until circa 2000) neighborhoods with no need to form gangs. Blacks of that cohort mostly grew up in terrible areas and usually have to at least get to know a particular gang if not necessarily outright join them. Hispanics (largely Mexican, especially in the 60's and 70's) are somewhere in between.

Attitude wise, whites largely take security and safety for granted, being that most of them were able to just move further and further away from increasingly idiosyncratic/provincial blacks (contrary to what liberals believe, it's blacks who won the battle of the eyes that followed the 1960's dissolution of trad. American race relations). Running, hiding, and liberal bleeding heartism make it very difficult to confront and handle blacks; we let cops, lawyers, judges, politicians, etc. deal with them. I actually think that blacks were mentally better off when good ole boys and even other blacks quickly and informally punished bad blacks; these days, it's men in uniform (who often don't live anywhere near the neighborhoods they patrol) driving around, stopping/searching blacks, checking for warrants, mostly trying to abide by post 1960 civil rights laws, who are tasked with dealing with blacks. In the good ole days, it really wasn't even the state government's business how a local community dealt with most types of bad actors, let alone the federal governments.

Mexicans, on the other hand, tend to be much less distressing for whites to deal with, though there can be tension (more pronounced with huge waves of immigration). On YouTube, a poster said in reference to the movie scene that basically, you white boys mind your own business and we'll mind our own too. And genetically/psychologically, it seems like they used to be even more easy to deal with when quite a few of them born during the mid-century looked like Eric Estrada or hell, um, Richard Ramirez (a serial killer, sure, but had he not become a life-long criminal, he could've easily won the approval of many white fathers). Note also how many mid-Century Mexican-Americans had generic white guy names, as did many Asian-Americans of that time. Blacks, even in the conformist mid-Century, still got somewhat distinct names and circa 1970 they totally went off the deep end with goofy ass names.

Perhaps it was easier for screen writers to handle middle-class whites vs Mexicans since, well, America doesn't have that much baggage in that match-up. When blacks get involved, though, movie makers lose 20 IQ points to make every body feel better about being in denial.

legateofjudea said...

Audacious Epigone - stereotypically, when a woman allows a man to get her pregnant without a commitment he is usually:
1.) Of much higher social status ( girl / politician, girl / business man, girl / already married man, poor / rich )
2.) More attractive ( overweight / skinny, unhealthy / healthy )
Essentially men that women wanted to get a commitment from, but could not.

Typically in committed relationships, people are more closely paired. We see a similar effect in nesting birds, where the most fit male birds don't feel the need to spend as much time making nests to attract willing females.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Most whites are scared of blacks. They're not scared of Hispanics.

Does the SS administration have top names for blacks by year laying around anywhere? I suppose even now they're probably conventional names even though as a percentage of total names conventional Euro-derived names for blacks are way down, there's no way La`quanisha is going to make the top 10 because it's not being grouped with Le'deranisha.

Legate of Judea,

That's generally descriptive, though less so the further down the social ladder we move. Among the underclass where no one is of conventional higher status, it's not as big a factor. Think of the joke about Father's Day in the hood. A lot of women legitimately don't know who sperm donor is with certainty.

A Texan said...

Why does anyone listen to Ben Shapiro? He is an armchair warrior Jew who his Anti-American and cowardly passed up his chance to help win the Iraq war by joining the Army.

But his comment is kind of stupidity one can expect from a cuckservative.

As native to South Texas, not every Mexican American wants the illegal hordes over here lowering wages and loafing off the welfare system even if they vote Democrat.