None of the ones I know even think about >it, it's just racist bastards

you that >do.

Just for kicks tell them you read an article that said that their race is

danger of disappearing in about 100 years, see the look of horror that you

from them.

woodswun@tepidmail.com

I've never seen anyone other than White >Supremacists post stuff about

their race "pure".

Evidently, Tony has something against "poor" people, seeing as how he just
assumes that mentioning a likelihood of being at the low end of the
socio-economic scale is "poor' *and* is >"something against" being poor.

TonyZ2001 wrote:

victor"

wrote:

Though I disagree with Tony's politics and >stand on races; there

following >which is part of the article argued over:

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/0017

20.html

Here is what the headline says for all the lazy Liberals who think

have all the answers in their fat heads.

"Census Bureau Projects Tripling of Hispanic and Asian Populations

Non-Hispanic Whites
May Drop To Half of Total Population "

How do we account for this persistent pattern of misinformation?

from the intellectually lazy journalistic tendency to overemphasize
race, two influences are playing into the discussion.

One is the policy of the Census Bureau itself. Though on the one

the census has taken the progressive step of allowing citizens to
classify themselves in as many racial ways as they wish, breaking up

traditional notion of races as immutable categories, on the other

it is up to its age-old mischief of making and unmaking racial

As it makes a new social category out of the sociologically

collection of peoples from Latin America and Spain, it is quietly
abetting the process of demoting and removing white Hispanics from

"true" white race native-born non-Hispanic whites.

There is a long history of such reclassification by federal

In the early decades of the 20th century, the Irish, Italians and

were classified as separate races by the federal immigration office,

the practice was discontinued only after long and vehement protests

Jewish leaders. In 1930 Mexicans were classified as a separate race

the Census Bureau which reclassified them as white in 1940, after
protests. Between then and the 1960's, people from Latin America were
routinely classified as whites; then, when vast numbers of poor
immigrants began coming from Latin America, the Hispanic category

The first stage of racial classification, now nearly successfully
completed for Hispanics, is naming and nailing them all together

disingenuously admitting that they can be "of any race." Next, the
repeated naming and sociological classification of different groups
under a single category inevitably leads to the gradual perception

reconstruction of the group as another race. Much the same process of
racialization is taking place with that other enormous sociological
non-group, Asian-Americans.

The other influence on perceptions of who is "white" originates among
the so-called Hispanics.

For political and economic reasons, including
the benefits of affirmative action programs, the leadership of many
Hispanic groups pursues a liberal, coalition-based agenda with

Americans and presses hard for a separate, unified Latino
classification.

This strategy is highly influential even though nearly
half of Hispanics consider themselves white.

For African-Americans, the nation's major disadvantaged minority,

tendencies are problematic, although African-American leaders are too
shortsighted to notice. Latino coalition strategies, by vastly
increasing the number of people entitled to affirmative action, have
been a major factor in the loss of political support for it. And any
fear of a "white" group that it might lose status tends to reinforce
stigmatization of those Americans who will never be "white."

In this volatile transitional situation, where the best and worst are
equally possible in our racial relations and attitudes, the very

thing that journalists, analysts and commentators can do is to

the white majority that it is losing its majority status something

recent surveys indicate it is already all too inclined to believe. We
should stop obsessing on race in interpreting the census results. But

we must compulsively racialize the data, let's at least keep the

straight and the interpretations honest.

-A

TonyZ2001 wrote:

victor"

wrote:

Though I disagree with Tony's politics and >stand on races; there

following >which is part of the article argued over:

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/0017

20.html

Here is what the headline says for all the lazy Liberals who think

have all the answers in their fat heads.

"Census Bureau Projects Tripling of Hispanic and Asian Populations

Non-Hispanic Whites
May Drop To Half of Total Population "

How do we account for this persistent pattern of misinformation?

from the intellectually lazy journalistic tendency to overemphasize
race, two influences are playing into the discussion.

One is the policy of the Census Bureau itself. Though on the one

the census has taken the progressive step of allowing citizens to
classify themselves in as many racial ways as they wish, breaking up

traditional notion of races as immutable categories, on the other

it is up to its age-old mischief of making and unmaking racial

As it makes a new social category out of the sociologically

collection of peoples from Latin America and Spain, it is quietly
abetting the process of demoting and removing white Hispanics from

"true" white race native-born non-Hispanic whites.

There is a long history of such reclassification by federal

In the early decades of the 20th century, the Irish, Italians and

were classified as separate races by the federal immigration office,

the practice was discontinued only after long and vehement protests

Jewish leaders. In 1930 Mexicans were classified as a separate race

the Census Bureau which reclassified them as white in 1940, after
protests. Between then and the 1960's, people from Latin America were
routinely classified as whites; then, when vast numbers of poor
immigrants began coming from Latin America, the Hispanic category

The first stage of racial classification, now nearly successfully
completed for Hispanics, is naming and nailing them all together

disingenuously admitting that they can be "of any race." Next, the
repeated naming and sociological classification of different groups
under a single category inevitably leads to the gradual perception

reconstruction of the group as another race. Much the same process of
racialization is taking place with that other enormous sociological
non-group, Asian-Americans.

The other influence on perceptions of who is "white" originates among
the so-called Hispanics.

For political and economic reasons, including
the benefits of affirmative action programs, the leadership of many
Hispanic groups pursues a liberal, coalition-based agenda with

Americans and presses hard for a separate, unified Latino
classification.

This strategy is highly influential even though nearly
half of Hispanics consider themselves white.

For African-Americans, the nation's major disadvantaged minority,

tendencies are problematic, although African-American leaders are too
shortsighted to notice. Latino coalition strategies, by vastly
increasing the number of people entitled to affirmative action, have
been a major factor in the loss of political support for it. And any
fear of a "white" group that it might lose status tends to reinforce
stigmatization of those Americans who will never be "white."

In this volatile transitional situation, where the best and worst are
equally possible in our racial relations and attitudes, the very

thing that journalists, analysts and commentators can do is to

the white majority that it is losing its majority status something

recent surveys indicate it is already all too inclined to believe. We
should stop obsessing on race in interpreting the census results. But

we must compulsively racialize the data, let's at least keep the

straight and the interpretations honest.

-A

Absolute Zero

wrote:

You think Tony has it in him to use that >data in support of his argument?

You're a moron who is out of touch with what is going on in this world, but
you've got a lot of company, most Liberals are just like you.

This data proves my point.

Damn this new Google format.

They asked me for a nickname. I didn't know they meant screen name.

Your evoking of the 'you cannot prove a negative' was inappropriate.
That only applies when there is an extraordinary claim that almost
totally defies science or reason; or includes myths or the
supernatural. For instance, if Tony claimed there were four giant
invisible tortoises at the South Pole responsible for rotating the
earth and prove him wrong, you could respond with taunts and 'you
cannot prove a negative'.

Debates or court cases often involve proving a negative. There is a
claim for the affirmative and you can if you wish counter by proving