The key to understanding the left is to realize that they are petulant children. These are not the people who said, “We lack bread, so we will find a way to make more.” These are the people who decided others should provide the bread for them.
Much like irritable children who do not want to go to bed at bedtime, the primary method of the left is inversion. They take what is true and give it a spin in the opposite direction. Thus when the left says they are oppressed, they are in fact oppressing; when they claim the opposition is lying, what they mean is that the opposition opposed a leftist lie.
For this reason, reading Pravda-on-the-Hudson The New York Times provides a glimpse into a world turned upside-down: many of the articles, especially in the science and gardening sections, are actually true, but inevitably Agenda rears its ugly head and you find yourself reading liberal inversion of truth. Such is the case with a recent article, “The Myth of a White Minority,” in which Richard Alba argues that America is not becoming majority non-white because some of these non-whites are part white.
You can see the clever inversion there. He wants you to stop noticing the real problem, and focus on the imaginary problem of how we measure race, which is nonsense since once a group is mixed, they never revert back to the original. We have seen years of white admixture into Asian/Amerind and African-American populations, and the result is that within a few generations the white influence disappears. This is not the case with influences into white groups, as you can easily see when you compare a Spaniard, Italian and Russian to an indigenous Briton. The admixture stands out even twenty-five generations later.
Alba writes in a style popular at the Times which is both erudite and incoherent, often hiding its arguments behind idiosyncratic language and backward-facing explanations. This style works for that paper because it convinces readers that by reading gobbledegook they are in fact smarter than others who “just couldn’t understand” (say that while riding a fixie, smoking an American Spirit and drinking a Pabst tallboy). The underground truth is that much of the writing at the Times is terrible but because it uses the right vocabulary and conventions, seems “educated” so the audience nods and repeats what the headline said, even if they did not really understand the mash between the dateline and the copyright.
Here is the core of his argument:
Take, for example, the claim that â€œminority babies are now the majority.â€ […] For much of our racist past, all partly white, partly black individuals were socially and legally defined as black. The â€œone dropâ€ rule was absurd, of course, yet it has effectively returned, with a vengeance, via statistical categories. There is no justification for viewing as not white all children who are partly white and being raised in a family that includes a white parent and two white grandparents, to say nothing of aunts, uncles and cousins.
As stated above, his incoherent argument boils down to this: people who are mixed-race should be counted as white. He makes a small exception for those who are visibly mixed with African-Americans, who apparently (according to studies funded by liberal benefactors) still suffer discrimination. But in this we see his fundamental inversion.
Alba’s argument returns to social construct thinking. He argues that race is a social construct because if an individual is viewed as white and thinks of himself as white, that is more important than the genetics involved. By Alba’s estimation, someone who is one-half Chinese or Mexican indio but otherwise “white” — and who knows what that nebulous term means, although we are expected to think of friendly suburban WASPs offering us lemon bars and iced tea at block parties — is just as white as someone of unbroken Swedish, German, Dutch or English ancestry.
As usual, the leftists spin truth 180 degrees from actual truth to what we might call “ideological truth” or that which must be true for the ideology to be true. Alba writes his article to disprove the idea that minority babies are now a majority, and based on some of them being mixed-race, concludes that they are in fact white. This serves the leftist narrative of whites being in power and will continue to work as America becomes 90% white like Italians or Spaniards, then 75% white like Russians, then finally 50% white like your average resident of the Muslim middle east. All that matters is that whites are still to blame.
Here is the social construct in action:
Some of the mixed children now classified as minorities surely will think of themselves mainly as whites when they grow up; researchers have already found a significant group of American adults who declare themselves as non-Hispanic whites to the census, but acknowledge having some Mexican ancestry. Others may have mixed or even minority identities, but will be â€œsociologically white,â€ integrated into white communities and family networks and seen as essentially no different from anyone else.
If they “think of themselves mainly as whites,” which is an ethic of convenience if anything, they might be white so we should consider them white, Alba argues. Further, many people lie about the fact that they have a Mexican indio (Hispanics, like all Amerinds, are essentially low Asians) in the woodpile, which means that they must be white, because they took the time to lie about it. This unintentional commentary on leftist values might catch you by surprise with peals of laughter.
Alba goes on to perform the favorite trick of circus magicians and snake oil salesmen both, which is to bring out the numbers and wave his hands to create confusion, hoping to leave you with the assumption that hard statistical proof emerged:
Analyzing data from the 2013 American Community Survey, I found that it identified only about half of infants (children under 1) as non-Hispanic whites â€” though 60 percent had at least one non-Hispanic white parent.
[…]Among infants with a Hispanic parent, about 30 percent also had a non-Hispanic parent â€” and for two-thirds of them, that parent was white. The percentages were similar for infants of Asian parentage.
The survey mis-identified the number of infants with Mexican parents, and almost a third of Hispanic/Asian (these groups will become unified in the future, since they are genetically similar, with a color bar from Hispanic/Vietnamese on the low end to Japanese/Korean on the high end) had white parents. Look at those numbers! Just look at that hard science, facts and stuff. What does it mean? Well, nothing really: some of the babies counted as minorities had a white parent. That does not make them white; it makes them mixed. He wants to argue that because the survey incorrectly counted mixed babies as non-white, it should incorrectly count them as white instead.
In deftly avoiding the truth and presenting a contrary vision, Alba reveals the leftist endgame on race: African-Americans will continue to play the victim, and all other minorities will inherit that role and the attendant pity. Then, the Asiatic assault of Hispanic indios and Asians will slowly be mainstreamed and mixed into the white population, producing something a lot like the population of Russia or Southern Italy. Leftists are already laying the groundwork for keeping their most lucrative franchise ever, race guilt, open by identifying these non-whites as whites so they can still be guilty, and still pay, even though it will not help anyone now or at that time.
Ah, liberals! It must be a difficult existence inside those neurotic minds. It reminds me of the early days of a drug or alcohol abuse treatment program, when it slowly dawns on the participants that while they have been lying to others, they have mostly been lying to themselves. Liberals invert this, too. They lie to themselves so that they can lie to others, and then demand that those who do not consider the lie as truth be punished for “micro-aggressions.” It is thus far from surprising that their logic (and writing) is this bad.