The passing

In 1998 Bill Clinton stated:

Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years, there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time … [These immigrants] are energizing our culture and broadening our vision of the world. They are renewing our most basic values and reminding us all of what it truly means to be American.

The year 2050, or whatever date you want, is when “whites” will become a “minority.” Both words are in quotes, since what counts as “white” and “minority” matter a great deal in terms of these quantities. Clinton, like many liberal(ish) white Americans, did not look upon that future with dread or anxiety. Rather, he was, and presumably is, hopeful. At the time many people asserted that Bill Clinton was arguably the first American president who was personally comfortable with nonwhites. After all, Vernon Jordan was one of his closest friends.

And yet here are the demographics of the town where Bill & Hillary chose to settle down after the 1990s:

. The racial makeup of the CDP was 91.80% White, 0.94% African American, 0.03% Native American, 5.62% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 0.52% from other races, and 1.07% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.55% of the population.

Bill may look forward to our bright diverse future of 2050, but he lives socially and demographically in 1950. And he’s not alone.

To me, this is the important lacunae left out in Panjak Mishra’s op-ed in The New York Times, The Religion of Whiteness Becomes a Suicide Cult. The op-ed is a testament to the fact that even a sophist must speak the truth now and then. It is certainly true that there is a discomfort and disquiet in the world as the long centuries of white supremacy, in the most literal and descriptive sense, slowly come to a close. Naturally, Mishra points the finger at figures from the past, who can’t dispute his disdain, as well as those individuals such as Donald Trump, whom the readers of The New York Times see as heralds of reaction and regression.

But the truth is that as the “the rising tide of color against white world-supremacy” begins to crest even the “good whites,” the “progressive whites,” will begin to become uncomfortable and unmoored. The noblesse oblige of progressive whites is predicated on the reality and fact of their privilege, of their dominion over the colored races. And yet the reality is that many of these progressive whites show revealed preferences which are not much different than non-progressive whites. On the whole, they live amongst other whites, socialize with other whites, and marry other whites.

Having lived in California, around white people who are politically far more liberal than I am, I have a bit of personal experience with how these “revealed preferences” work. Rather than anecdotes, I’ll just point to this article, Ghosts of white people past: witnessing the white flight from an Asian ethnoburb.

The “passing of the great race” is a far bigger story than nationalism, racial or otherwise. It is the expiration of a whole Weltanschauung. An undermining of assumptions. The death of a world civilization, and the birth of a new one.

70 thoughts on “The passing”

  1. Very perceptive article. Agree with 90% of it. Caveat being I didn’t read your links.

    Clinton was not the first President to be comfortable with non whites. Papa Bush, Reagan and Nixon were globalists who thought in global terms.

    The first President to publicly recognize the rise of the rest (including the rise of the East) was Nixon in 1971. Nixon’s 1971 speech was the watershed moment. Nixon was okay with rapid American relative decline and worked overtime on developing global institutions and systems to maintain the global commons–and to share the burden of providing said global commons. Nixon was the first President to understand the implications of the rise of Japan and what were then called the four little Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea). Nixon foresaw the long term reemergence of China, welcomed it and tried to take advantage of the opportunity it presented.

    Eisenhower worked closely with many darkies who fought under his command, including the British Indian Army and Brazilian armed forces. Eisenhower worked well with Asians on his many trips to Asia and treated Indians with respect on his trip to India. But the different was that Asia, Africa and Latin America were much more relatively poor and less powerful then. The rise of Asia was far from a sure thing back then.

    To get back to your article, I think most educated caucasions who aren’t heavily influenced by post modernists or the left welcome the rise of Asia and Latin America and think this is good for most Americans. The Hindu-ish spiritual community in the States (Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs and Sufis included) have a heck of a lot of caucasion new age or outright Hinduish (or Sufi depending on the person) people in them.

    Indian business association also have a lot of caucasions in them. Caucasion politicians (who are overwhelmingly conservative, moderate or liberal . . . these labels being mostly meaningless) love to go to Asian associations and meet Asians. Asians are considered superb fund raisers.

    The rich communities in California have a heck of a lot of Asians in them and caucasions don’t seem to mind. If anything they prefer it. Most upper middle class or rich California caucasions encourage their children to make friends with “Asians” since Asians are considered to be “nerds”, super smart, math whizzes, computer whizzes, have access to super-powerful global business and social networks . . . and very likely to become fabulously successful. Rich and upper middle class caucasion parents hope their kids grow up to be more Jewish or more Asian. Asians are also considered high quality spouse who are loyal, hard working, reliable, and rarely divorce. Of course this applies only to upper middle class Asians, genius K-12 Asian kids, or students/recent college grads from elite universities.

    I have heard that NYC is different; although even in NYC Indians and Jews are close as thieves. I have Indian Hindu friends who have married Jews. But they convert to Judaism as part of the deal.

    Razib, which part of the country do you see rich/upper middle class caucasions uncomfortable living with fabulously successful Asians? [Not disagreeing. I have heard that this is so in some parts of the country.]

    1. Clinton was not the first President to be comfortable with non whites. Papa Bush, Reagan and Nixon were globalists who thought in global terms.

      there’s a difference. it just isn’t true that these other presidents were personally comfortable with nonwhites as part of their inner circle of *intimates*

      The rich communities in California have a heck of a lot of Asians in them and caucasions don’t seem to mind. If anything they prefer it. Most upper middle class or rich California caucasions encourage their children to make friends with “Asians” since Asians are considered to be “nerds”, super smart, math whizzes, computer whizzes, have access to super-powerful global business and social networks . . .

      not my experience. i had plenty of friends who grew up in places like irvine in the 1990s and 2000s. white people are OK with *some* asians, but too many asians, and the schools get too ‘grindy.’

      the example of cupertino is instructive:

      1. Have you noticed this with caucasion conservatives? I have not. A caucasion friend talked to me about your article. He said that post modernist caucasions behave this way because they raise their kids like marshmallows. Conservatives caucasions like Asians because they don’t raise their kids to be marshmallows. I also think that very successful caucasions try to raise their kids to be very rugged, durable and successful. Middle class caucasions are more likely to raise marshmallow kids.

        But you have opened my eyes to something. I will be more observant going forward.

        In general I find post modernist caucasions to be increasingly anti Asian.

        1. Have you noticed this with caucasion conservatives?

          only very close friends will admit inner motivations to me. only a few white ppl have ever been candid with me about this issue.

          that being said, cupertino was/is liberal. irvine was/is conservative. the same thing happened in both places.

          1. I will ask my Irvine and OC friends. You might be on to something. Jealousy and resentment towards Asians is on the rise.

            Jealousy and conservatism are contradictory oxymorans. A jealous conservative is a conservative in name only or a CINO.

            Unless Ben Shapiro isn’t considered a conservative anymore. Is Ben Shapiro still considered a conservative? Why would conservatives locked in a death match with post modernists who are trying to destroy the last remnant of America’s deep culture want to open another front with upper middle class Asians who share their values and interests?

            PS. Many of my closest friends are caucasions. And they do share their feelings with me. There is a rising tide of anti Asian sentiment in general. Perhaps this is hope rather than fact; but my hope is that this mostly comes from post modernists and the caucasion intelligentsia rather than from non post modernist upper middle class caucasions. I might be wrong. “Caucasion” is a meaningless term. There are many sub ethnicities inside it. Many caucasions feel closer to Asians than many of the sub ethnicities within the caucasion grouping. There remains less anti Asian sentiment than anti Jewish statement among caucasions for example. By a long shot.

          1. Apparently not Caucas-Asians.

            But for sure Aryans and again not the Nazis who embraced the swastika or the gypsies/roma who originated from India.

  2. Just read:
    Very interesting. Now I understand. This is not discussing upper middle class and rich caucasions in California (who generally welcome partnerships with Asians) as much as middle class caucasions. Among middle class caucasions anti Asian sentiment and resentment is rising. I have noticed that it is most intense among post modernist caucasions, followed by leftist middle class caucasions (most of whom are not post modernist). It is least intense among conservative, moderate and liberal upper middle class caucasions. For that matter I don’t see much of it among small c conservative (many of them call themselves leftist, liberal, moderate while being small c conservative) middle class caucasions either. Rather small c conservative middle class caucasions see Asians as their natural allies against post modernists.

    This said several of my caucasion, latino and black friends have told me that Asians cause resentment by gentrifying communities, sharply increasing the cost of living.

    Caucasions, Latinos, Blacks without college degrees is another matter. One I don’t have enough visibility to assess.

    Why do post modernist caucasions have so much resentment against successful upper middle class and rich Asians? Many Asians have asked me this question. I don’t understand it. Most Asian high school and college kids (who come from upper middle class homes or are academically at the top of their classes) are scared to death that their post modernist caucasion classmates will turn on them and call them Nazi, fascist, supporter of the patriarchy, sexist, racist, bigot, prejudiced, oppressive, exploitative etc. They feel like they have no freedom of thought or speech; and need to continually walk on egg shells. Why is it like this?

    1. If someone doesn’t want to be called racist or sexist, then one shouldn’t act in racist or sexist ways. It’s really not that hard.

      1. Who defines “racist” are “sexism”? Only post modernists? Shouldn’t European Enlightenment and Eastern philosophy define these terms? These are far deeper and richer philosophical traditions.

        Post modernists don’t have a clue what racism, sexism, bigotry and sectarianism mean. Post modernists might be the most racist, sectarian, bigoted and sexist people on the planet. At least the Takfiri Islamist Jihadis are only sexist, bigoted and sectarian; they are less racist. At least Jihadis are idealistic and want to help all life on earth by conquering the world and making it perfect . . . so the whales can swim, the kittens are loved, the rabbits are fed and all humans are happy. What is the post modernist excuse?

        An example. One of my best friends is in med school. 80% of the blacks in his med school are immigrant blacks. Yet he is afraid to even mention it for fear he might be accused of being racist or be targeted.

        No Asian high school or college kids I know will publicly mention the regular bullying and beating up of African heritage immigrants in America; even though they all quietly concede it happens and is a huge problem.

        I don’t know a single Asian kid who is willing to publicly write about the beating up of nerds and geeks in America. Their eyes open up in sheer fear and terror if I mention this subject.

        1. “Racism” and “Sexism” are fairly self-explanatory. People who don’t act in ways that are anti-minority or anti-women generally have very few problems.

          But keep blaming “post-modernism” if it makes you happy.

          Also, “blacks” is not an acceptable term in 2018. You are supposed to say “African-Americans” or “people of color”.

          1. Also, “blacks” is not an acceptable term in 2018. You are supposed to say “African-Americans” or “people of color”.

            that’s not true. it depends on who you talk to. the same thing with native americans/american indians.

            (here is APA in 2018,, but current surveys i’ve seen show a decline in popularity of african american since the 2000s among black/african americans but it’s usually an even split though a plural majority are OK with either)

          2. Is it anti minority to say that black nerds and geeks shouldn’t have the crap beaten out of them? Many post modernists think so.

            Is it sexist to say that males and females have genetic differences? What other explanation is there for why 95.4% of the humans in California prisons are male? Yet many post modernist regard this argumentation as sexist.

            Love is what matters. Racism, bigotry, sectarianism and sexism don’t.

            Kabir many American blacks find being called African Americans to be offensive. I don’t fully understand why they think so.

            I used the word “black” because I was differentiating between immigrant American blacks and three or more generation American blacks.

            There is a growing movement against American immigrant blacks by many post modernists (both black and caucasions.)

          3. Yeah, I wouldn’t talk about genetic differences between males and females. That leads to some very problematic arguments.

            “Love is what matters”– Again, with the mystical mumbo-jumbo. I can’t even respond to this completely irrational statement.

            In the circles I move in “blacks” is considered a racist term (as is Anan’s other favorite “darkies”). “People of Color” is the preferred term. I wouldn’t get especially upset about it, but if I were called a “darkie”, I would not be particularly happy.

          4. Many members of the community you are describing prefer “black” to “African-American” because the latter

            A) Ties them to an African identity they have no connection to
            B) Dilutes their “American-ness” by hyphenating it.

          5. Neil,

            If members of the African-American community want to refer to themselves as “black” that is their right. Growing up in the States, I was taught that calling someone “black” was racist and we were always supposed to say African-American.

            As for “diluting their Americanness”, many of us have hyphenated identities (Indian-American, Pakistani American, Italian-American). I don’t really see the issue here.

  3. Now that I am thinking about it, some post modernist influenced caucasions in Hinduish communities are suspicious of orthodox Hindus and Buddhists being right wing Hindu/Buddhist fundamentalists or Nazis. This too is very recent. I never noticed this before 2015 or so.

    In general, however, caucasians who are part of Hinduised communities are quite concerned about and opposed to the demonization of Hinduish peoples (including Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Sufis, Taoists.) They seem more concerned and aware of this than actual Asian Hinduish peoples (including Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Taoists).

    I anecdotally find that Sufis are well aware of the death threats against them from Jihadi Islamists and are suspicious of most modernist nonmuslims. Many Sufis participate in Hinduish communities–seeing them as their natural allies. Many Hindus and Hinduish caucasions (like the Hare Krishna crowd) attend Sufi events too.

  4. Didn’t the Clintons choose Chappaqua so that Hillary could be elected to the Senate from New York? It seems a stretch to deduce from this that they don’t want to live among non-Whites.

    Your post seems to have given Anan an opportunity to engage in the battle against his favorite enemy: the “postmodernists”. They are always to blame. At this point, I just find this deeply amusing.

    1. Kabir, this phenomenon of anti Asian racism seems more concentrated among post modernist caucasions than among non post modernist caucasions.

      Razib, have you seen a difference in the way college educated caucasions treat muslim Deshis versus non muslim Deshis. I have (nonmuslims are treated better). This is even true among Hinduised caucasions. Maybe especially true among them. Although they seem to like Sufis and don’t consider Sufis to be muslims. Is this because Jihadis target Hinduized peoples and cute lovable Sufis and LBGTQ? I don’t know. However I rarely see any post modernists defend Al Qaeda, Daesh or any Islamist period anymore . . . very much unlike before 2014. Instead they now blame America, Israel and Jews for backing “evil” Islamists and Jihadis. This is progress.

      How are Chinese treated versus Deshis (SAARC countries plus Tibetans), Burmese, Thai, Chinese, Indonesian, Malay, Korean, Japanese? Educated caucasions who live and work (or go to school) in heavily Asian venues know the difference between various Asian groups and treat all of them differently.

      1. Razib, have you seen a difference in the way college educated caucasions treat muslim Deshis versus non muslim Deshis.

        must be why i fucked so man kawkayjunz! 😉 [joke]

        i have no idea about such things.

      2. Like I said, your obsession with “postmodernism” is deeply amusing at this point. With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about.

    2. Didn’t the Clintons choose Chappaqua so that Hillary could be elected to the Senate from New York? It seems a stretch to deduce from this that they don’t want to live among non-Whites.

      i don’t think it’s explicit. but older white ppl tend to settle among their own kind. you can’t know about individual choices, but white people live amongst each other and marry each other at way higher than random rates. i could lay out the math, but you’ve indicated you aren’t a fan of that sort of thinking 😉 so take my word for it.

      as you may know there are plenty of areas of new york that are much more diverse that they could have lived. bill clinton’s office was in harlem for 10 years:

      (and i think chelsea still lives in the city though they have a place elsewhere)

      1. There is nothing wrong with wanting to live among and marry your own kind.

        I quite understand the choice to live in an upper-income area rather than in Harlem.

        1. There is nothing wrong with wanting to live among and marry your own kind.

          i never said there was.

          I quite understand the choice to live in an upper-income area rather than in Harlem.

          that was then. today harlem is getting to be upper income….

          1. Not as upper income as Westchester County 🙂

            I grew up in Bethesda, another upper-middle class White suburb. The “desis” who lived there all were with the World Bank or in some other prestigious profession. I quite understand why that type of life appeals to people.

        2. “I quite understand the choice to live in an upper-income area rather than in Harlem.”

          100% agreed about the right of the Clintons to live in a rich area. The question is why did the Clintons choose to live in a rich area with so few Asians, Latinos and Blacks. Most American rich areas have a higher percentage of [Asians + Latinos]. I think Razib asks a legitimate question. He has got me curious.

          Kabir, how do you think the caucasion intelligentsia will react when Asians (who live in Asia or other parts of the world) represent over 50% of the world’s millionaires and billionaires? That day is approaching fast.

          1. Sorry, I can’t take people who use words like “Caucasian intelligentsia” seriously.

            I am out of here.

          2. Kabir, how do you think the caucasions will react when Asians (who live in Asia or other parts of the world) represent over 50% of the world’s millionaires and billionaires?

  5. What in God’s name does “people of color” mean? I haven’t the slightest clue. Hindus have far higher socio economic outcomes in America measured by median and mean than any other religion including Jews.

    1. “People of color” is fairly obvious. It means people who are not White.

      Why are we talking about Hindus? How is that in any way the topic?

      1. I prefer the phrase “darkies” since I don’t like using post modernist language. “Darkies” rock! Although not as much as beautiful Stan specimen. So jealous. 🙁

        Stan in the Hood#

        Do you think so many “people of color” are successful because of their privilege? If so, where does this people of color privilege come from?

        1. “Darkies” is an extremely problematic term which is associated with slavery. If you don’t want to be considered racist, I’d recommend you stop using it.

          1. Kabir, aren’t you proud to be a darkie? Suspect most Brown Pundit readers would be if asked.

            Darkies rock. Darkies rock. Darkies rock. Darkies rule. Go Darkies. Darkies will own an increasing majority of the world’s income and wealth over time. I learned this term from Bill Maher. Loved it when Maher said that the world couldn’t give a crap about WWIII in Africa during the 1990s [6 million Africans died] because the six million humans killed were only “darkies”. So true and so disgraceful for our species.

          2. i think anan is right on this one, we’re “darkies” too. i would avoid using it cuz in the american context it’s black…but if you are one the norm is you can use the term even if it’s pejorative.

          3. When you mention slavery are you referring to how Islamists converted much of the population of Asia, Europe and Africa into slaves after the passing of the holy prophet, may peace be upon him?

            Much of Europe’s population was converted into slaves by Islamists. Are they “darkies”?

          4. I would never use the word “Darkie” to describe myself and would be quite displeased if someone called me one.

            I would call myself Pakistani-American or South Asian-American. For what it’s worth, I have relatively fair skin for a Pakistani (It’s the Kashmiri-Punjabi heritage).

            My remark about slavery had nothing to do with “Islamists”. You are bringing in something that is completely irrelevant. It should have been clear from context that people who used the term “darkies” were White slaveholders in pre Civil War America.

      1. Didn’t see this. The data here is old. Hindu Americans are now “elite class”. Higher per capita income and wealth than Jewish Americans.

  6. Kabir, why do you think Asian Americans are more likely to be in the upper middle class or rich than caucasion Americans?

    1. Because the ones who moved to the US were doctors, lawyers and engineers and they encouraged (or forced) their children to pursue similar high-paying professions?

      The US immigration system did not reward low-skilled people from India or Pakistan coming to America. That’s not to say that we don’t have our share of Pakistani taxi drivers. But this was not my milieu.

      1. Is part of the reason Asian Americans socio economically so outperform caucasions, Latinos and Blacks because Asian Americans oppress caucasions, Latinos and blacks?

  7. “end of civilization”, “great white race” . I always felt religion,national identities to be the bigger part of identity. I could be wrong about this to neglect this aspect of “race” , If this is important than future of humanity is difficult indeed. One problem with atheism for me has always been that by destroying religion it might push humans down the path of identifying with their race. I believe the enlightenment in part did this and led to this. Weakening of Christianity led to a more race conscious society. I see new atheists like sam harris speaking to charles murray doing something similar. Act of overcoming bias is not possible without fictions of some kind and postmodernism played a positive part to this degree. Infact , i do not necessarily see it wrong on part of postmodernists to look beyond race,gender because even if it is fiction for now, perhaps in 100 or 200 yrs with advances in genetics we could live in a world this becomes a reality where women are as strong as men and race/iq etc wont matter. That leaves me with religion and other kinds of belief as the major problem.

    I hope we as humans have the wisdom to pick the battles that need to be fought now and not battles we cannot overcome now.

  8. “Yeah, I wouldn’t talk about genetic differences between males and females. That leads to some very problematic arguments.”

    Why? Aren’t there large genetic differences between males and females? In eastern philosophy males and females can never be equal. Females are far superior. In Gita 10.34 Krishna says females have 7 qualities:
    – kirtih—fame;
    – srih – beauty;
    – vak—beautiful speech;
    – smrtih—memory;
    – medha—intelligence;
    – dhrtih—faithfulness;
    – ksama—patience;
    Men ain’t got these things. Woman are superior to men. Oooh. Am I sexist now?

    Woman can have children and men can’t. Does that make woman genetically superior to men? Oooh. Am I sexist now?

    Girls significantly academically outperform boys K-12. Does that make girls genetically superior to boys? Oooh. Am I sexist now?

    In what alternate universe are females and males genetically identical? Males and females appear to be the same in meditation and consciousness. But consciousness isn’t DNA.

    1. Of course, there are genetic differences between males and females. Women can bear children. However, this is not the definition of womanhood. It is problematic to imply that there are differences in men and women’s intellectual ability. Implying that women weren’t naturally good at computer science is what got the Google guy in trouble.

      I’m not a scientist so I’ll leave the genetics to those who are experts. In the Liberal Arts, we agree on the socially constructed nature of gender. Given the same opportunities, there is nothing that men can do that women cannot do (Not speaking of biology here, but of intellectual ability).

      If you are concerned about being considered sexist, I would refrain from the kind of remarks you have made above. If you don’t care, go for it.

  9. The post has the pic of A Study of History by Toynbee. In Toynbee’s view , all civ other than Western are dead or on the last gasp, that includes Islamic, Hindu, Sinic and Russian Orthodox. Even about Western civ, he is not sure. He saw parallels between outbreak of 1st WW and Peloponnesian War in 431 BC and he Civilizations break down due to major wars like that. Anyhow, two major sins of Western civ are African Slave trade and Holocaust. Western civ has been tainted by Racism , by racism he does not mean ordinary prejudices based on colour, but a strong conviction that those other ‘white’ are not capable of civilization. As a deeply convinced Christian , he did not like the Secularization tendencies of the last few centuries in the western world. He saw that one mission of western civ in the present day is to bring together physically all other civilizations i.e. people of other civilizations. That IS happening under our own eye . Old style white racism is dead in the water or on the sidelines. Attitudes to races and other cultures have undergone a sea change in the last 60 years. I would attribute this sea change in attitudes to the 1968 Youth spring and youth revolts in the western world , in fact all over the world. The generation which came of age in 1968 questioned all the ingrained attitudes of the previous generations which brought all kinds of hideous social discriminations and wars . The sexual revolution of that age broke the sexual boundaries between races and made racial mixing respectable and acceptable.

  10. Is it just me or are ‘Asians’ in the West who whine and complain unbearable? No one likes a victim or loser so why are Asians fighting so hard to be cast as victims? With all our socio-economic success surely we should be basking at the top of the social food chain. My lack of the lived experiences of Indian-Americans is probably a factor as to why I just cannot sympathise with those of them who whine and complain. They live far happier, more prosperous and self-actualised lives than the teeming masses of their relatives back ‘home’. They have access to all the ingredients for success and happiness, yet rant about racism, etc etc. Whites are self-segregating away from Asian neighborhoods – who gives a shit? How is this racist? It’s ok for Asians to want to be among their kind, to use their nepotistic connections to get ahead in high-trust societies and milk the system but when white families choose to move away it’s racist! Goddamn…

    Back in the UK now, was at a house party the other day and met a Punjabi (it maybe Gujarati) girl who was doing a PhD, funded by the government no less, to investigate the lack of representation of minorities in the media and the BBC. I basically called it all BS, and said that there is no such problem as I see it the BBC goes out of its way to have an Asian radio station, feature Asian comedians on shows, etc. Didn’t go down too well. I wanted to say that the UK government chose to invite her parents and others of that generation who were fleeing East Africa to the UK and give them home here, and here she was shitting on the porch of that home. But instead I complimented her on her Hindi (which was actually terrible) and moved on. Gotta pick one’s battles and all that..

    1. The whiners are a distinct minority in my experience. Some people feel entitled to more status than what they are accorded, and US society values many things above academics and wealth, like charisma, strength, athleticism, courage, and loyalty. This is not good for entitled nerds, and a lot of neurotic energy goes into accounting for the status deficit, and writing is their therapy.

  11. “I would never use the word “Darkie” to describe myself and would be quite displeased if someone called me one.”

    To be called “Darkie” is a point of pride 🙂 Others have the right to be jealous of you (us). We shouldn’t call it racism, bigotry, sectarianism, prejudice or sexism but call it jealousy.

    “My remark about slavery had nothing to do with “Islamists”. You are bringing in something that is completely irrelevant. It should have been clear from context that people who used the term “darkies” were White slaveholders in pre Civil War America.”

    They are inextricably linked. The reason the anti slavery movement took off in Europe and among caucasions in North America is because caucasions were outraged that their people were being taken as slaves by Islamists. This powered the anti slavery movement which lead the freeing of slaves in the US civil war 1861-1865 and the freeing of slaves in Europe, Canada, African continent and British India in the 1800s. As late as the 1700s Portuguese, Spanish, Eastern Europeans would be kidnapped by Islamists and converted into slavery. Do you remember the war against the Barbary Pirates? Why was it fought?

    “It is problematic to imply that there are differences in men and women’s intellectual ability.” There are absolutely differences between men and woman in the distributions of physical health, mental health and intelligence. My anecdotal observation is that on average females are slightly smarter. However males have a higher standard deviation in intelligence. The secondary observation is more or less universally accepted by economists. Making the second observation is what got Larry Summers fired from Harvard and sent ripples through the economic profession.

    “Implying that women weren’t naturally good at computer science is what got the Google guy in trouble.” This is not what got him in trouble. Please study his memo directly and draw your own conclusions. Nothing in his memo is remotely controversial among economists, geneticists or neuroscientists.

    “I’m not a scientist so I’ll leave the genetics to those who are experts. In the Liberal Arts, we agree on the socially constructed nature of gender.” Do you even understand what this means?

    “Given the same opportunities, there is nothing that men can do that women cannot do (Not speaking of biology here, but of intellectual ability).” This statement is unclear. There are many things that the vast majority of men “AND” woman cannot do [without increasing their intelligence through meditation/brain therapy, sound therapy, gene therapy, stem cell therapy, computer brain interface etc.]. This said on average men and woman excel in different types of intelligence; albeit the differences in the averages are modest. Woman also have a smaller standard deviation of intelligence; which results in big differences in the tails.

    “If you are concerned about being considered sexist, I would refrain from the kind of remarks you have made above. If you don’t care, go for it.” In what alternet universe have sexist comments been made? How can discussing facts, data and statistics be racist. This makes zero sense.

    1. I have already said that I do not like the word “Darkie”. Please refrain from putting me in that category. I find it a racist and offensive term. The appropriate term to describe me is Pakistani-American.

      I studied Liberal Arts so yes I do understand Social constructionism. It is what we are taught. Basically, the idea is that while sex is biologically determined, gender is a construct. Society ascribes different roles to men and women and those who deviate from these roles are punished. Certain colors are assumed to be “masculine” and others “feminine”. There is no inherent reason why baby boys should be dressed in blue and baby girls in pink. Gender roles also vary across societies.

      You don’t believe in the center-left liberal arts worldview, while I do. Our worldviews are just too different. There is no point in continuing this back and forth.

      1. Discussing the differences between men and and women’s intelligence is considered sexist. That’s the way it is. But by all means discuss away. I will not violate the center-left consensus. That’s not how I roll.

  12. Siddharth, my observation is that only a very small fraction of Asians complain about being victims and that the vast majority of Asians don’t like them. Sadly the post modernist establishment promotes only victim Asians as “legitimate” and demonizes all other Asians as some combination of sexist, racist, bigoted, prejudiced, sectarian, oppressive, imperialist, hegemonic, exploitative, colonialist, collaborator etc.

    Why didn’t you dress down the Desi girl with horrible Hindi? Was it because she was a girl and might have accused you of supporting the patriarchy?

    1. Ah yes, the “post modernist establishment”. When in doubt, we know who to blame.

      You are really something else.

  13. Hello brown pundits, white Australian here. I got here because someone approvingly tweeted Mishra’s op-ed, and I went in search of discussion.

    Mishra concludes with James Baldwin, warning that if the white imperialists of the world don’t change their ways, we face a global race war. Well, it seems to me that already happened, it was called decolonization. For a while America and Russia stepped in, but Russian power disintegrated long ago, and American power went the same way in Obama’s second term.

    So the real problem may be that the Anglosphere is having an identity crisis since it isn’t running the world any more. Obama was the final stage of Anglosphere imperialism, the face of a ruling class more representative of the multicultural empire they endeavored to rule, while Trump is a return to pre-imperial nationalism, bitterly opposed by the one-worlders who still think they are in charge of everything.

    Now maybe some peaceful synthesis of these opposites is possible, like a post-imperial multiracial nationalism, but I don’t believe Mishra’s specifically anti-white prescription is viable. Whites are still the majority within the former imperial core, and white identity is a natural organizing principle for those countries, in a world that reverts to racial and civilizational multipolarity. Either we allow white ethnic identity alongside the other ethnic identities that now inhabit the west, or else Mishra should follow up with essays on blackness, Jewishness, etc, as also being “suicide cults”. (In practice it seems his main targets are white identity and Hindu identity.)

    1. Interesting perspective Mitchell. I don’t think decolonization was anti English. Gandhiji, Jinnah and Nehru were pro English and pro European. Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan were also not anti western.

      If not for WWI and WWII likely decolonization would have followed a more natural gradual course. With the English colonies becoming increasingly self reliant and self governing dominions and with the colonies socio-economically dominating Europe. Eventually the Europeans would have seperated themselves from the colonies since the colonies would have economically dominated Europe.

      “identity crisis since it isn’t running the world any more.” Wow. Many people think this way in Washington, Canada, Europe and Asia. Trump is in some ways the first prominent global leader who understands the changes that have already happened.

      Isn’t it more likely that the definition of “white” expand to include Latin Americans and Asians? The stickier issue is that happens between people of African heritage around the world and people of non African heritage around the world. This is a ticking time bomb if current trends continue.

      For example why do you think Indians (about 2.5% of the population) have almost twice as many millionaires as black South Africans (76.4% of the population)? How can the rest of the world socio economically empower Africans?

      How would you deal with global Jihadi Islamism? While it is mostly an Islamic civil war (14 centuries long); what can the world’s 6 billion nonmuslims do to help good reasonable muslims solve the problem? [Personally I am optimistic that the trend lines in the Islamic world are moving positively.]

      1. And “Islamism”– Trust you to always go on about “postmodernism” and “Islamism”, neither of which you seem to understand. Who are you to determine who is a “reasonable good” Muslim and who isn’t? You are too sure of yourself.

        Honestly, you are really starting to rub me the wrong way now.

          1. How right u are razib. Do u also have C Asian dna bro?

            I describe myself as a big fan and khadim (dogsbody) of Kabir bro. I will rub him right for sure in the memory of ata babur-e azam.

            ba raye khidmaat-e kabir aghaie hamishay haazir

            always ready for the service of sir kabir – could almost be my tagline in brown bandits.

            i would love if kabir miyan comes to my gharibkhana in windsor and introduces me to a kashmiri girl. Would love to have a kashmiri muslimah gf. Muslimah GFs motivate me for pious Islamic causes.

          2. Jaggu Saab, it is very kind of you to offer to help Brown Pundit contributor Sir Kabir miyan out. Stans are the best lookers on the planet and always willing to a help a sister or bro out.

      2. AnAn: Words mean different things in different places, but in future racial politics of the west, I would expect “white” to mean “of European descent”, and not just “light-skinned”. White identitarians say whites are the inventors and protectors of European civilization, that’s the mythic identity they offer whites.

        I sometimes think that however things work in South America, is also how North America and western Europe are going to be. South America is, I guess, culturally and ethnically dominated by a European element, but it is strongly mixed with other ingredients.

        You ask about Africa and Islam. My philosophy with respect to the Ummah is, that’s for Imran Khan, Erdogan, Khamenei, and bin Salman to sort out. Africa’s a similar story – there are strong indigenous powers, anyone who wants to “help” should work with sovereign Africa and within whatever frameworks it employs when dealing with significant external partnerships (like Belt & Road, the India-Japan rival project, Saudis’ Red Sea Region, the developing countries D-7, etc).

        1. Michtell, asking people of subsaharan African ancestry to sort it out on their own is a nonstarter. Their socio economic problems are the world’s socio economic problems and the rest of the world has to help.

          China is the largest investor in Africa. US is the second largest investor. India the third largest investor. The same is increasingly true of trade of goods and services. Unfairly, post modernists are trying to blame all the problems of Africa and people of African heritage on the misdeeds of Asians, Europeans, North Americans and Latin America. And increasingly the global discourse is getting dominated by these inaccurate narratives. If these inaccurate irrational narratives become widely believed they could lead to global conflict between people of subsahharan African ancestry and everyone else in the world.

          My view is that the only way to head this off is for the rest of the world to do what can be done to socio-economically empower Africans. Yes this will lead to rage and resentment on the part of people brainwashed by post modernists nonsense. But isn’t the alternative worse?

          The world has another major problem. Extreme Jihadi Islamists want to conquer and rule the world and unless Africans are socio economically empowered they might be conquered and ruled by Jihadis. This almost happened in 2014 (most of Nigeria nearly fell under Daesh control) before the rest of the world intervened to stop Daesh and Al Qaeda. The international community can’t militarily protect Africa forever. The only out is the surge the capacity of African militaries. And the only way Africans can pay for this military capacity is if their overall societies are socio-economically empowered. Currently most African countries are extremely dependent on international grants. This is why post modernists accuse every African country of being a protectorate of the international system. This accusation isn’t completely inaccurate.

          How to reduce dependency except by increasing capacity, competence and merit?

          There is also the challenge that Latin Americans, Europeans, Asians, North Americans and North Africans of subsuharran African heritage are socio-economically much less successful than the general global population. If this isn’t addressed then these peoples might be seduced and converted into Jihadi Islamists. Surely we do not wish this.

          Finally, are we all not one human family with one heart, one soul, one culture and one civilization? Why should the world have one standard for subsaharan Africa and another for the world. Is it right to help our own sister but refuse to help African sisters?


          For 14 centuries the world’s nonmuslims have tried to stay out of the Islamic civil war. Nonmuslims have stayed quiet while Islamist Jihadis have murdered over a hundred million reasonable muslims. How has this worked out for nonmuslims? Many good historians have estimated that over 100 million nonmuslims have been killed as a collateral affect of the Islamic civil war. In my view the world’s 6 billion nonmuslims cannot silently watch Jihadis mass murder tens of millions of muslims and try to conquer the world.

          My view is that a coalition of the world’s muslims and nonmuslims have to clearly state that all muslims have human rights, including the right of art, thought, intuition and feeling. And that the world will protect these human rights of muslims. If this happens, dialogue with extremists will happen. And the 14 century Islamic civil war will dissolve into the sweetness of love. The reason this hasn’t happened over the last 14 centuries is because muslims who engage in dialogue with Jihadis have gotten assassinated. The vast majority of muslims do not have freedom of art, thought, intuition and feeling. Including European muslims.

          1. As Mitchell is implying, mind your own business.

            You are not capable of solving the “Islamic Civil War” or even of deciding who is a “reasonable” Muslim.

            Your “one heart one soul” mystical claptrap is becoming annoying as hell.

      1. It’s actually a pretty normal first speech for an Australian senator. It might be the first time that Urdu was entered into Australian Hansard, but e.g. her remarks about acknowledging traditional custodians of the land, actually follow a standard formula called “Acknowledgement of Country”. The exact same formula is used at numerous public events.

        Irony is fun. Senator Faruqi gave a speech that was very much what you’d expect from a Greens senator, and meanwhile the real radical in last month’s intake of senators was Fraser Anning of Queensland, because he explicitly called for a rejection of multiculturalism and a return to a European and Christian identity for Australia. So she got hate mail for being Muslim, and he got hate mail for being anti-Muslim.

        I waver on how much extra friction diversity per se is going to cause Australia. It seems clear that there is more than there would have been in a more homogeneous society, but that change is done. I worry more that the price of coexistence is general deculturation, that the void left by lack of common tradition is being filled only by left-wing progressive collectivism and right-wing economic individualism.

        1. Mitchell Porter, isn’t diversity generally positive? Isn’t the real issue post modernist ideology that sows divisions between peoples?

  14. “You are not capable of solving the “Islamic Civil War” or even of deciding who is a “reasonable” Muslim.” Agreed. My view is that all muslims and nonmuslims have the right to freedom of art and freedom of thought. If this happens the Islamic Civil War will take care of itself and muslims can determine who is a reasonable muslim on their own.

    “mind your own business.”
    Do you think the world should mind their own business when genocide takes place? Do you think the world (nonmuslim, muslim, Arab) should mind their own business on Israel/Palestine and let them sort it out their own way?

    1. You don’t know enough about Islam to solve any “civil war”. Please stick to your area of professional expertise. Presumably you are more competent at that then you are at understanding Islam or “postmodernism” (one would hope).

      1. Do you think that muslims deserve free art and free thought? Do you think Americans deserve this right? Indians? Asians? Nonmuslims?

        Do oppose universal rights as a matter of principle? Or do you believe in universal rights but define them differently?

        On the question of “mind your own business”? Do you think non-Palestinians should mind their own business and not interfere in the Palestinian Israeli question?

        You are completely correct on one thing. I know almost nothing and am not smart.

  15. I keep seeing “lacunae” pop up in BP and GNXP articles, so I thought I’d mention that “lacuna” is singular and “lacunae” is plural. Not trying to be a douche.

Comments are closed.

Brown Pundits