Posted by sirrealpolitik on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 01:41 | #

‘At the same time,’ [Price] added, ‘it seems unrealistic to expect perfect integration and it’s unclear if we should want that anyway. It’s great that our cities have vibrant ethnic neighbourhoods.’

In other words, white neighborhoods are “enclaves” whereas those of non-whites are “vibrant.”

I am sure it’s also racist that while Detroit has 16.0% unemployment, the jobless rate of a mostly white town like Salt Lake City tips the scales at 4.8%

It’s clear that Detroit’s problems could be solved if only they could “perfectly” integrate into the snow white slopes of the Wasatch front.

If it weren’t for those racist enclaves, the world would be damn near perfect, I guess.

Posted by JImmy Marr on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 01:50 | #

To me, the color choices in these graphics seem designed to obfuscate rather than illustrate.

I’m OK with orange for Hispanics and green for Asians, but what’s going on with blue for Blacks and pink for Whites? What’s wrong with black for Blacks and white for Whites? Would that be racist?

Aren’t blue and pink traditional color choices for masculine and feminine?

Posted by sirrealpolitik on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 02:52 | #

I too thought the light blue or “baby blue” was an odd choice. Color specialists say blue in general carries associations of loftiness, dignity, calmness, serenity. Light blue in particular is said to be the calmest, most tranquil, least aggressive of all colors.

Posted by PM on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 14:03 | #

I suppose tha absolute perfect scenario would be if whites could be evenly distributed across the globe so as to be as far away as possible from other whites—say one white every square mile or so. This would yield Maximum Diversity for every white person, and would massively decrease the odds of another Holocaust, as scientists have estimated that one you have three white people, for every white person that is then added to a square mile, the odds of a Nazi genocide increases by 20%

Posted by PM on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 14:09 | #

“And there’s the question: why do educated whites interpret behaviour understood as normal in other races as “xenophobia” and “racism” in whites? “

There’s no such thing as a double standard, only a hidden single standard.

Posted by coupla answers on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 01:25 | #

I’m OK with orange for Hispanics and green for Asians, but what’s going on with blue for Blacks and pink for Whites? What’s wrong with black for Blacks and white for Whites? Would that be racist?

Those aren’t the Daily Mail’s maps, if that’s what you were thinking.  They were put together by some “nobody” American blogger who explains that he stuck with the color scheme employed by the person he originally got the idea for them off.  You can see the rest of the maps here.

I’d say those maps are encouraging.  New York is still fantastically segregated. (Gotta hand it to those Jews sticking it out in Crown Heights!)  What you’ll find if you access the raw data, though, are some ten to fifteen percent of census tracts where people claiming “Two or more races” make up around 15% of the population.  Yes, people naturally segregate—but they also naturally mix despite rampant segregation.

And there’s the question: why do educated whites interpret behaviour understood as normal in other races as “xenophobia” and “racism” in whites?

Really?  That’s still a question?  Fifty years and you’re still wondering?  Seriously?

What’s wrong with: Because they like their lives; they like the non-whites in their circles; and they don’t want to rock the boat by okaying a sentiment which can only possibly lead to the boat being severely rocked?  Doesn’t that sum it up if it’s “educated whites” you’re talking about.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:40 | #

why do educated whites interpret behaviour understood as normal in other races as “xenophobia” and “racism” in whites?

This article, in itself, provides an egregious example of the type of “education” in question.

Gotta hand it to those Jews sticking it out in Crown Heights!

Eureka! If Jews were considered white in this study, then pink was the appropriate designator.

By visually acknowledging that neighborhoods occupied by Negroes experience the Blues, the authors of this study have increased their credibility.

Posted by Armor on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 03:14 | #

What’s wrong with: Because they like their lives; they like the non-whites in their circles; and they don’t want to rock the boat (—Coupla Answers)

What’s wrong: The boat is being rocked now, it already affects the lives of Educated Whites, the rocking is going to intensify and will destroy the lives of their children. It is also a complete betrayal of their ancestors. So, your answer is inadequate. The problem cannot come from educated Whites. They are only going with the flow.

I don’t think that high-status whites have any particular liking for the non-whites in their circles. They certainly don’t like non-whites as a group, but they don’t want to harm anyone. They don’t enjoy the vibrancy, they endure it.

Liking people doesn’t mean much anyway. I’m sure many non-whites like us a little, but they are only loyal to their own people. They wouldn’t lose any money, and even less sacrifice their children for us.

If you like your exotic cook, it doesn’t mean you want to import the whole of the third-world into the West. Sending him back to the third-world won’t break his heart either. He’s here for the money, not because he loves you. Apart from you, most Whites understand that.

Posted by sirrealpolitik on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 03:45 | #

Because they like their lives

their lives—of trendy dinner parties where their roommate’s asian girlfriend cooks tofu and their sociology prof, who looks like this , makes hummus dip—that they like so much will not be liked nearly so much when their double standard of enclave-hate leads to their neighborhood’s devolution into this.

Posted by GoyAmongYou on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:10 | #

Posted by sirrealpolitik on September 26, 2010, 01:52 AM | #

I too thought the light blue or “baby blue” was an odd choice. Color specialists say blue in general carries associations of loftiness, dignity, calmness, serenity. Light blue in particular is said to be the calmest, most tranquil, least aggressive of all colors.

LOL

For the same reason Microsoft came up with the unfamous “Blue Screen of Death”
You don’t want to upset the peasants.

You know the danger is great when a disgusting Trotskyst piece like that can appear in a supposedly bigoted rag without rising eyebrows.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:05 | #

And there’s the question: why do educated whites interpret behaviour understood as normal in other races as “xenophobia” and “racism” in whites?

This is part of why I tried out the “liberal white supremacy” thing, to try and explain apparent contradictions like this.

I think it’s a manifestation of white tribal identity.  White tribal identity is implicit, submerged, and highly pathological, but it seems to indeed exist.  Whites know instinctively (or rather, implicitly) that they aren’t to hold non-whites to the same standards they hold themselves.  I think “the narrative” (the mass of just-so stories and myths we’re bombarded with and refer to as liberalism, leftism, etc.) is the main factor in white tribal identity.  Many thoughtful people, the sort who think through their own politics, “anthropomorphize” this narrative and try to “think it through.”  But there really aren’t any rules to the narrative, other than the interests and passions of those who narrate it.  It has no rules beyond care for the suspension of disbelief (part of why incrementalism is so important).

Posted by U.R. on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 23:00 | #

Despite the evidence in this Web site, the fact is that racism (White > colored) still overwhelms anti-racism.

There is no universal and overarching implementations that can cure racism. Neither are there similar cures for anti-racism, nor should there be such attempts. The solution lies in the conduct of individual persons, and that’s where it should be.