1/ The right claims the left wants to "replace" white Americans w/immigrants of color, but if it were up to the left, the global economic order would be more equitable, reducing misery in poor nations, thus reducing migration. Right-wing economics ensure misery and migration...
2/ Ironically, if the left got our way, folks of color in the global south would be better off right where they are, less desperate (and thus less likely to migrate) and wouldn't see coming to the US as the last best hope. But trade policy supported by neo-libs in both parties...
3/ ...along with militarism, support for authoritarianism in the global south, and resource extraction for the benefit of the global north, causes desperate folks to take desperate measures. Left policy would diminish that suffering (global labor standards, etc)...
4/ Additionally, the other factor driving demographic change (a larger factor than immigration) is differential fertility. Not because women of color are particularly fertile but bc white women have median age of around 43, thus ensuring a declining % of white babies...
5/ But here too, it is the right whose policies and ideology ensure differential fertility. When women have more access to good education and jobs they have fewer kids. The left wants all women (and these women of color who are younger, on average) to have that access...
6/ It is the right that would limit their opportunities in the name of traditional families, patriarchal dominance, etc. So ironically, if we did what the left wants, women of color would get more education, have fewer kids, and the demographic shift would actually slow...
7/...while following the course set by the right (less opportunity for women of color) will ensure higher birth rates & faster demographic shifts. Bottom line, if you're worried about "replacement" (which is racist & absurd), right wing policies are the best way to guarantee it..
8/ Proving that racists are not just, well, racist, but also stupid as hell and don't understand how things work...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ There are 2 Oscar-nominated films this year that involve 60s activism in Chicago. One features inspiring resistance & organizing in the face of oppression. The other is about the Chicago 7. Sorry, but any comparison between Fred Hampton and Abbie Hoffman, et al is grotesque...
2/ I knew Abbie, Tom Hayden & William Kuntsler. I had real respect for the latter two and felt genuine empathy for the first of these, bc of his personal demons. But what Hampton was doing was far more revolutionary than anything the 7 dreamt of, let alone did at the DNC in 68...
3/ It bothers me that when we think of activism we tend to gravitate more towards the epic protest model (like the action at the DNC) rather than the more difficult, day-to-day organizing that Hampton was doing w/the Panthers (not to mention the cross-racial class analysis)...
1/ If you attack critical race theory, singling out Ibram Kendi & Robin DiAngelo (who actually aren't crits & whose arguments differ), then Derrick Bell (who was a crit but differed from both of them) you show you don't understand CRT...
2/ And likely haven't actually read any of the work you're critiquing closely or considered the nuances of antiracist argumentation. Kendi is not DiAngelo is not Bell is not Oluo is not McIntosh is not Crenshaw is not hooks is not Anderson is not Dyson is not West is not Davis...
3/ ...is not Darity is not Bonilla-Silva is not Feagin is not Lopez is not Rankine is not Wilkerson is not Yancy is not Glaude is not Delgado and Stefancic is not Kelley is not Sue is not Horne...
1/ If there's no evidence of voter fraud in GA (and there is none) then what 'problem' is being addressed w/new voter restrictions there? It can only be the 'problem' that the 'wrong' people are voting. Not illegally mind you (again no evidence of that), but just voting at all...
2/ And who are these people? Black folks and white city folks and students mostly. There is NO anti-fraud reason for limiting early voting, ending it on Sundays, or banning handing out food or water. But this is a good way to limit voting by POC and working class folks...
3/ Bc early voting helps them if they can't get off work on election day, or don't want to stand in long lines that day (bc their precincts don't have enough machines to handle demand). So too Sunday voting (Souls to the Polls) and giving water to folks waiting long times...
But Matt, by your standard we would never discuss racial inequity at all for fear of upsetting white people. Why not use the race/class combo framing of @IanHaneyLopez and get at both issues. You are throwing in the towel on solidarity altogether so as to pander to white racism..
I wrote a book on this, Colorblind, which shows why class centric, race-phobic messaging actually doesn't work the way many think. It never has. And in this case it is once again telling POC to be quiet about their issues so we can attend to the needs of Joe Sixpack...
And yes, I agree that @IanHaneyLopez doesn't advocate front loading with race, but showing the interest convergence of race and class. But it seems like you really want to avoid race altogether, which is both morally and strategically absurd
1/ If you bash cancel culture & scream about free speech but support states/school districts banning material they deem influenced by Critical Race Theory (or really anything that says racism has been a central feature of U.S. history--an inarguable truth btw), you're a fraud...
2/ A committee in NH just passed out a bill to do this. One proponent of the bill cited a lecture of mine being used in some classes as the reason why. What was the offending material that hurt this snowflake's feelings so much? Let's see. He cites three points in the lecture...
3/ First, he was mad bc I said, "Rich white people telling working-class white people that their enemies are Black and Brown...That's the whole history of America." Well, it's true. That's been a constant since the colonies...
1/ If you need proof that racism harms white folk too, just consider the trajectory of COVID deaths and what it tells us...
2/ In April of 2020 when whites had only been 30% of C19 deaths, and headlines announced disproportionate Black death rates, the administration and the right demanded opening everything back up, ending lockdowns, etc...
3/ Coincidence? Of course not. If the data had shown disproportionate white death (or wealthy death, or younger folks dying or healthier folks), no way are people clamoring for "getting back to normal" or showing up at rallies with guns and camo, screaming about 'tyranny...'