Why the rise of what he and most others in the West call populism, a dirty word for them?
Economics can explain it to them too? But wait......
Fareed turns and admits that right wing populism has hit in places where the economists' account of rising inequality, however applicable here, still does not tellingly apply.
He admits, and he is right, that it has been immigration, not so much, for most Western advance countries, inequality.
He goes directly into talking about "culture" implicitly connecting culture in his narrative with the concept of immigration, without spelling out what he means at this point by this sequitor, and discusses countries', many countries' fear of cultural revolution.
Trust me, Fareed doesn't even like to 'wade' into this kind of discussion, much less broach the race term.
You can get a sniff of where he and other liberals are coming from by looking at Wade, p. 184, discussing sociologist Nathan Glazer, in an account very reminiscent of David Reich's discussion, of trying to get these kind of folks to smell the coffee on substantial racial differences that hard science is uncovering at blinding speed now, yet Reich elsewhere hypocritically or disingenuously objecting to Wade's defense of the use of the term race nonetheless.
So, Fareed has repudiated the economics of inequality, and moved from right populism to immigration to culture and to fear of cultural revolution.
immigrants to the West is what Fareed says next. He doesn't say this, you have to infer it, but he means immigrants of color into the white West.
The whole mostly white "West" is also what he means here, but again he doesn't say this at all like that. I am translating from Fareed Amherst Common Language Guide Speak to English.
He says the number of immigrants of color into the white West went from 5% in 1975 to 15% today, Fareed's numbers not mine.
Fareed's numbers, for today, are vastly understated. You take a look yourself at country by country statistics in the Western world. He has intentionally understated them because that is his Whig angle on the situation.
Let's take a short intermission here and give you a sense of comparison of what white migration into lands of color would look like compared to Fareed's picture of color immigration and migration into white.
If you were to get the statistics for white migration out of the West and into the Rest, 1975 to 2010, contrasted with the enormous indigenous populations of color in general, trust me, both numbers for white migration would be so microscopic, before and after, as to be almost invisible, both below 1%, in the seas of color out there.
Number of white in Africa, a tiny microscopic number of the continent of color, actually shrank with white flight from South Africa.
India, ditto, very little white influx into an enormous mulatto Hindu mass.
Asia, same scenario, any movement of whites into truly vast Asia populations, microscopic, both before and after. Always has been.
He frankly admits an enormous expansion of immigration last 50 years, and a large number coming into the West in particular. In the last 100 years, he expands it now by 50 years, hundreds of millions of people of color have moved into the US and Europe.
He is not talking here about negro slave descendants or even about black lives matter alone: they were already here a hundred years ago!
This is hundreds of millions of additional people of color, baby! And these people he admits increasingly come from places... they look different, they sound different, they worship different gods, and this causes cultural anxiety, Fareed opines, smart guy, genius pundit! That is the core part that his audience of Oxfordians needs to understand.
Why fricking candy coat it? He's proud of it. He's happy about it, baby!
And he is right there in Oxford, the home of Western Liberalism, that had made it all possible in the first place, baby!
Now he springs on them the fairytale that for most all of history most people lived out their lives within a mile or two of where born. Although there is an element of truth in this in the short run, the longer run of 25 or 50 years or especially a hundred or two, tells a different story sometimes.
It is the story of hunter gatherers who had to move sometimes, of farmers who were run off their land more often than left peacefully for even a hundred years, of nomads who moved with the requirements of geography, climate, and hostile peoples all around them everywhere. It is a story of large scale wars, encroachments, migrations, population replacements (extinctions), and cultural and genetic mixtures and population movements, often occurring over long periods of time.
"...many countries' fear of cultural revolution." see above.
Fareed admits there is some basis for this fear. Hello.
He points out the obvious, people don't move left when their culture is threatened, they move right, culturally, as he says.
You need to read, when he say culturally, you need to read racially, because that is a big part of what he means, but so far in this presentation has not used the race word.
He says "they (meaning white Westerners) have a deep unease about who they are", meaning migration of other races has made them rather mentally ill and they are acting out an illness by moving right.
This is how he puts it, because he wants to call into question the very identities of societies changing out of recognition by migration. Soften the blow of the ostensible melting away of the West into a fringe continent of color.
What it really is is they feel divided by migration into hardening racial and ethnic factions, racial factions which preexisted heavy migration but are exacerbated by it toward the right not the left which he would of course prefer.
He would like to see larger inclusive safety nets of employment and subsidized income for all migrants of color pouring into the West as government policy, of course, as if migrants inherently as humans deserve this migrational largesse from white postcolonial Westerners to blame.
Number of white in Africa, a tiny microscopic number of the continent of color, actually shrank with white flight from South Africa.
India, ditto, very little white influx into an enormous mulatto Hindu mass.
Asia, same scenario, any movement of whites into truly vast Asia populations, microscopic, both before and after. Always has been.
He frankly admits an enormous expansion of immigration last 50 years, and a large number coming into the West in particular. In the last 100 years, he expands it now by 50 years, hundreds of millions of people of color have moved into the US and Europe.
He is not talking here about negro slave descendants or even about black lives matter alone: they were already here a hundred years ago!
This is hundreds of millions of additional people of color, baby! And these people he admits increasingly come from places... they look different, they sound different, they worship different gods, and this causes cultural anxiety, Fareed opines, smart guy, genius pundit! That is the core part that his audience of Oxfordians needs to understand.
Why fricking candy coat it? He's proud of it. He's happy about it, baby!
And he is right there in Oxford, the home of Western Liberalism, that had made it all possible in the first place, baby!
Now he springs on them the fairytale that for most all of history most people lived out their lives within a mile or two of where born. Although there is an element of truth in this in the short run, the longer run of 25 or 50 years or especially a hundred or two, tells a different story sometimes.
Fareed tries to paint a picture of eternal settled farming, and racial and populational endogamy, broken up only very late by modern postindustrial life, really broken up only now, in fareed's lifetime.
Although partly true for stretches of time, that turns out not to be the big story either for Fareed's life, or for much of history or prehistory, at least according to the paleogenomic or archaeological record now emerging.
It is the story of hunter gatherers who had to move sometimes, of farmers who were run off their land more often than left peacefully for even a hundred years, of nomads who moved with the requirements of geography, climate, and hostile peoples all around them everywhere. It is a story of large scale wars, encroachments, migrations, population replacements (extinctions), and cultural and genetic mixtures and population movements, often occurring over long periods of time.
"...many countries' fear of cultural revolution." see above.
Fareed admits there is some basis for this fear. Hello.
He points out the obvious, people don't move left when their culture is threatened, they move right, culturally, as he says.
You need to read, when he say culturally, you need to read racially, because that is a big part of what he means, but so far in this presentation has not used the race word.
He says "they (meaning white Westerners) have a deep unease about who they are", meaning migration of other races has made them rather mentally ill and they are acting out an illness by moving right.
This is how he puts it, because he wants to call into question the very identities of societies changing out of recognition by migration. Soften the blow of the ostensible melting away of the West into a fringe continent of color.
What it really is is they feel divided by migration into hardening racial and ethnic factions, racial factions which preexisted heavy migration but are exacerbated by it toward the right not the left which he would of course prefer.
He would like to see larger inclusive safety nets of employment and subsidized income for all migrants of color pouring into the West as government policy, of course, as if migrants inherently as humans deserve this migrational largesse from white postcolonial Westerners to blame.
No comments:
Post a Comment