Well, her performance at Princeton and Yale seems to indicate that she deserved to be admitted to those institutions. Saying she’s an affirmative action appointee to the SCOTUS is really insulting and unfounded. The people who think so are grinding a partisan axe, period.
Well, there you go. Equilibrium restored!
In the 19th century censuses under color the vast majority of entries were W, B, or M (white, black, or mulatto) with once in a while a C for Chinese. Occasionally you’d see Mx for Mexican. I have seen documents where somebody named something like (making these up) Tran Van Nguyen or Ieyasu Kabuko was listed as C (for Chinese, because Asia meant China obviously). If a person was something else- even Hispanic- they’d often get “O” for Other. Irish were counted as white but you’d see entries like this under Place of Birth:
Oregon
Florida
Canada
IRELAND
Florida
IRELAND
Arkansas
It would literally be that pronounced, sometimes double traced or underlined. Some cities and states conducted their own special censuses of the Irish (who were the Hispanics of their day in all save language since most did speak English).
The South in the 19th century was 99.99% made up of blacks and whites with only a very rare “other”. Sometimes even native americans would be counted as white or black in the later censuses (whichever they looked most like, for usually it was a biracial Indian, “pure blood” Native Americans then as now rarely encountered in most places, plus the government conducted separate censues of the Indian populations.) Chang and Eng Bunker, the Siamese twins (who were born in Siam/Thailand and of predominantly Chinese ancestry) were listed as “white” as were their many children, probably because the census taker didn’t know what the hell else to call them.
What’s interesting is that by the 1920 and 1930 censuses the nation was a lot more race and ethnicity conscious. If you look for the ones of California or NYC especially (because of their diversity) they now counted Filipino, Arab, Mexican, Spanish, Guatemalan, Argentinian, Japanese, Indochinese, Indian, etc., and again this is not under birthplace but under “Race” (not under country of origin, but under race). I suppose it was due to the flood of immigration and the explosion of Asian immigration especially. Sometimes you’ll see something weird like “Egyptian or something” (I’ve actually seen something like that written as a note to the side.)
At the same time, Germans and Brits and other Europeans were just listed as “white” (though Russians and Poles were often specifically noted as such). I have seen “Jewish” or some abbreviation (sometimes just J) listed as a race. Irish were by then more or less “normal” in the eyes of the Census bureau.
I just always thought this was interesting.
The U Lux Lan sounds like the name a networking company.
True story: Once I contracted for a year at a tech company, just before the last election the supervisor told the shift workers that Obama was the Antichrist.
He was not kidding…
Especially if said “wise and wealthy white guy” just staggered in from a binge at Fraunce’s Tavern, blotto out of his mind 
:dubious:
West of the Appalachians, it really was built by Irish. And Chinese. And a few Germans, probably. And some black folks.
Have you met the Irish? Obnoxious bunch.
No, seriously, the Irish & the English hate each other, that’s why. Sort of like India & Pakistan.
Ugh. I understand that people use literally as a placeholder to mean figuratively, it annoys me but I deal. But you actually point out the common misuse of the word, claim that you are not misusing the word in that way, then do exactly that. In order for something to literally be inconceivable in the strictest sense then it would not be able to be conceived! Ever since the creation of the SCotUS people have been capable of conceiving a porcupine holding the position. Geeze.
Apparently this was annoying enough for me to resurrect it from page one. Please continue.
I meant literally. The thought that a black person as a Supreme Court judge did not enter anyone’s head. No one would think it, ever. If anyone did think of it, it would make as much sense as a horse being a Supreme Court judge. Inconceivable.
First of all, ‘inconceivable’ doesn’t mean ‘not reasonably expected’. The definition is much broader than that. Once again this is understandable free use of the English language, unless of course you make a point to emphasize the literal truth of your words.
Secondly, even your own standard doesn’t jive with what you were saying. There is always an endless supply of crazy people who believe any number of unreasonable things are possible, you certainly cannot prove that “until very recently” nobody ever thought that it was possible the have a black SC justice.
This all may seem like nitpicking, that’s because it is. I’m not the person to call everyone out on their word usage, mainly because I’d be a hypocrite to do so. But it irks me when someone one makes a point of defending that misuse as valid, and now you continue to maintain that your original sentence was correct. So here we just have to disagree about what words mean.
So are you saying that nothing is literally inconceivable?
There are plenty of things, the absence of a list is a testament to exactly what the word means.
Say If someone were to say that the origin of the universe with matter coming from nothing were literally inconceivable, that wouldn’t create objections.
Generally we shouldn’t pair the two words together if we go to pains to emphasize exactly how literally we mean literally.
For a third time, I wouldn’t care at all if it weren’t for the fact that attention was drawn to the trickiness of the word and then still misused.
Wow. You guys suck at quoting The Princess Bride.
Anybody want a peanut!
Speaking from the perspective of a resident Brit and reasonably experienced world traveler the most extreme cases of racism IME are from ethnic groups other then white Caucasian.
In the U.K. Indians and Pakistanis loathe each other not just because of religion or politics but deep down at gut level.
West Indians despise people from the Indian subcontinent and African immigrants.
Ethnic Chinese look down on white people,who they call barbarians.(And to be honest you can see their point to a degree)
In the far East I have seen Thais taunting Phillipinos,calling them “Dog Eaters”.
Obviously this is not true in all cases,there are no doubt members of ethnic minorities who look on people from other ethnic minorities as being ethically and culturely their equals and no doubt love and respect them.
But in the U.K. rampant racism from ethnic minorities is looked on as “Oh its just part of their culture” and a very,very blind eye is turned to it.
In Britain every white person has to be extremly careful of any actions or speech which may be unwittingly interpreted as racist or they are quite likely to find themselves on criminal charges,rightly so in my opinion.
But the police tend to ignore out and out racist bigotry from ethnic minorities because ironically they lay themselves open to charges of being racist if they act on the bigots behavior.
I hate racism from every quarter,I despise the far right Nationalist parties and their doctrines,I despise anyone who believes in some sort of racial superiority but I find it extremly racist that there is some sort of cosensus that only white people can be racist.
I have read GG&S, but it was quite awhile ago and I really can’t comment on its citation, but it it’s anything like Diamond’s Collapse, which I’ve read more recently, and has absolutely dreadful citing, it could use some work. There are NO footnotes or endnotes - there is a bibliography for each chapter, but it’s impossible to figure out what goes with what. He’ll provide some statistic and the reader (okay, I) will say “what? Where are you getting this?” And it’s a mystery. Overall, I thought it was a good book and recommend it, but this was amazingly frustrating.
That said, I still highly recommend GG&S. It’s good and not, IMO, Eurocentric at all.
Of course. White guilt is getting old. I grew up having it indoctrinated into me from a very young age, despite the fact that I’ve never owned a slave or been to a segregated place or even used an ethnic slur, I sometimes feel like I am paying for those things all the time.
That’s one reason I was sort of pleased by the Sotomayor racism “controversy”. I think the Republicans took that single comment much too far, and I don’t believe that she is genuinely racist or that she shouldn’t have been confirmed. But it highlights the fact that we are not going to tolerate racism going in any direction. Since whites will soon be a minority in the U.S., it’s important to establish this precedent lest we let our guilt-ridden selves get trampled and maligned all over the place. It’s not OK.
What a bunch of bullshit. Her comment wasn’t racist and the Republican complaints were yet another case of white people bitching and moaning that everybody is racist against them - only white people are able to ignore race, don’t you know. Those colored people are consumed with it. There’s actual racism against white people in the world, but it’s dwarfed in comparison to the whining by white people (almost always rich ones, to boot, like these Senators) that somebody someplace is oppressing them.
It’ll be a couple of decades before white people are no longer the majority in the U.S., but it’s likely they will always be a plurality.
I think you are mistaken on this point.
I suspect that most of the complaints about the oppression of whites originates among poorer whites who are, themselves, struggling and see any aid to other people as a threat to zero-sum resources.
Those rich whites who express their concern for anti-white oppression are more likely to be using those comments to garner support from poor whites, (in trade or law), so that they can engage in discrimination against all poor more easily under the cover of treating all the poor “equally.”