Being A Member Of The Honorary White Club

Commenter Dragnet offers some keen and sage insights on the Great American Skin Game, in this way:

(Quoting commenter Escarondito): When the group of “minorities” become the majority in America, which is coming in my lifetime (I can’t wait!!!:P), they need to still feel their superiority somehow.”

DRAGNET: “I am not as sanguine about the prospect for this as you are. If we’ve seen anything over the few hundred years of American history, it’s that the definition of “white” is amazingly protean. The Irish weren’t “white” when they got here—but they are now, etc. I think it is entirely possible that Asians and eventually Latinos will assimilate so thoroughly into SWPL culture that they will be considered white and, in time, come to look at themselves that way.

White people will do whatever they can to maintain power—even assimilate other groups. This isn’t just endemic to those of European descent—it’s what any majority anywhere does to maintain itself, and it’s power. Being “white” in this country has always been defined in opposition to black people, and with time the definition of “white” will come to mean “not black”. Black people are really the only group that cannot be assimilated, and it’s largely because we refuse to (in addition, of course, to being so culturally/physically distinct). I think this is also true of Jews, but to a lesser extent.”

Tru dat, Brotha. Tru dat.

From Prof. Andrew Hacker’s Two Nations:

“Becoming White

From the colonial period through the Jacksonian era, most white Americans were of English ancestry. Alexis de Tocqueville, during his visit in the 1830s, felt he could characterize the country and its free citizens as “Anglo-Americans”.

Given the changes in the population, this epithet could not last. Even so, the Anglo-American model has remained remarkably durable, with most subsequent immigrants adapting to its canons. They not only learned English, the single national language, but also adjusted their lives to the economy and technology associated with that prototype. This does not mean that the majority of white Americans regard themselves as “English” in a literal sense. They can and do identify with other origins. Even so, it could be argued that most contemporary citizens associate themselves to a greater degree with Anglo-American culture than with their ancestor’s country of origin.

To say this would seem to resurrect the conception of the melting pot, which argued that immigrants would shed their older identities and assimilate to the new culture they encountered. That view has been challenged in many quarters. Rather than as a cauldron, many commentators today prefer to see America as a mosaic or even a lumpy stew. At best, the pot still contains plenty of unmelted pieces. Hence the renewed emphasis on “ethnicity”, with its focus on the country’s racial and national and religious diversity.

Even so, assimilation has taken place, and it continues apace. One of the earliest examples was the Germans, who in terms of sheer numbers once made up the nation’s largest immigrant group. Yet for at least a generation, it has been hard to find many people who qualify as “German-Americans” in any serious sense. Soon after their arrival, which gained momentum after 1848, Germans quickly learned English and studied the customs of their new land. Many were merchants or farmers, familiar with the rules of a market economy. In addition, it became evident that they were not particularly committed to the country they had left behind. (In fact, there was no unified Germany at that time.) Each generation saw more intermarriage, accompanied by moves to mixed neighborhoods. Service in the Union army during the Civil War speeded the assimilation process, which was effectively completed during the First World War. With the suburbanization of Milwaukee and Cincinnati, there are no longer any neighborhoods with a German flavor.

What also eased acceptance of the German immigrants was the realization by Americans of English origin that they needed an ally. For one thing, their own stock was not being renewed by immigration. And, as often happens with groups that arrive early, the offspring they produced began to feel they should no longer have to do society’s less pleasant chores. German-Americans could see why they were being co-opted, and they welcomed the chance to show their ambitions and skills. The English had a further motive: encouraging the Germans, who were mainly Protestant, helped to hold the Catholic Irish at bay.

It took the Irish longer to shed an alien identity. Although they arrived already knowing English, rural folkways slowed their adjustment to an urban world. Furthermore, at the time of their arrival, Catholics were not regarded as altogether “white”. (Thomas Nast’s political cartoons gave Irish immigrants sub-human features.) Italians may have been less fervently Catholic than the Irish, but their acceptance was hampered by peasant habits. Many decided to return to Italy after brief sojourns here; and some of those who chose to stay took their time learning the new language.

Jews, who arrived in large numbers at the turn of the century, were at first kept at the margin of “white” America simply because they were not Christians. Still, by a generation after their arrival, they had set themselves to mastering the tests for college admission, civil service posts, and many professions. The Second World War speeded the process of assimilation. At its end, people from every corner of Europe were considered fully “white”. Two Americans of Irish extraction have been President, and being a Catholic was seldom a bar to promotion or preferment. The Chrysler Corporation had a Lee (from Lido) Iacocca for its chairman, while an Irving Shapiro headed Du Pont, and Ivy League universities have routinely appointed Jewish presidents.

By this time, it should be clear that the question is not “Who *is* white?” It might be more appropriate to ask, “Who *may* be considered white?”, since this suggests that something akin to permission is needed. In a sense, those who have already received the “white” designation can be seen as belonging to a club, from whose sanctum they ponder whether they want or need new members, as well as the proper pace of new admissions.

Despite-or perhaps because of-their race’s dominance, the two hundred million Americans who carry the majority pigmentation seldom think of themselves as “white”. (Indeed, about the only times they do are the infrequent occasions when they find themselves in or driving through a black neighborhood.) While they have no objection to checking the “white” box on a form, they say they give more thought to specific aspects of their identity, such as their Italian or Scottish or Jewish origins, than they do to their whiteness. The white designation, they add, may fit egregious exceptions like the the neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. But they would be quite unhappy if, say, a group of stations sought to bill themselves as “White Entertainment Television.” And they would also object were it proposed that “white” were added to the way we describe Yale University or General Motors.

Indeed, CBS would certainly reply that its 60 Minutes gives ed Bradley equal billing with Mike Wallace, or cite Bryant Gumbel’s popularity with predominantly white audiences. Given the nation’s mosaic, it would be odd indeed if we encountered an out-right refusal to hire a Connie Chung or a Geraldo Rivera.

Moreover, those who see the world through white eyes assert that they are unable to think of any traits or attributes that all Caucasians have in common. Where there is still some agreement that the nation’s dominant antecedents are European, as is its reliance on Western literature and learning, this is seen as a cultural, not a racial heritage. Just as most white Americans protest that the charge of racism does not apply to them, so they also deny the centrality of their race. Nor does it occur to them that there might be a connection between these two disavowals.”

pp. 9-12