This article represents the standard left-wing response to common white nationalist and other right-wing arguments concerning demographic change in the United States.
I am not a white nationalist or racialist of any kind, nor do I embrace the racial determinism that is implicit in much present day “far left” analysis concerning “whiteness” and the like. The American plutocracy will be overwhelmingly white, and to a lesser degree Jewish, for a long, long, long, time to come, plus an occasional Oprah or Chinese billionaire as American society becomes more multicultural. However, the socioeconomic position of working to middle class whites, and especially poor whites, will continue to decline. The ever growing lower classes will continue to become more and more ethically diverse due to more whites joining the lower classes, immigration, and population growth. Meanwhile, the new middle class of professionals, technical specialists, and public sector workers will likewise continue to become more multicultural due to upward mobility by advantaged members of the traditional minority groups, plus immigration by educated professionals from elsewhere. “Anti-racism” as a rhetorical and ideological tool will be increasingly used by the state as a means of managing a diverse society (see Singapore), and as a rhetorical weapon of elite minorities seeking self-advancement. Meanwhile, “racism” will be utilized as a comparable rhetorical and ideological weapon by downwardly mobile whites faced with ever stiffer competition from both traditional minorities and newer immigrant communities.
My own views of issues involving race and ethnicity are the same as those of the classical anarchists. As Larry Gambone has explained:
For Proudhon and Bakunin, all self-defined groups, ethnic, cultural or whatever, have the right to live in autonomous self-governing communities. Gustav Landauer spoke of the folk cultures of the various peasant and working class communities and how autonomy was necessary to preserve these cultures. Gary Snyder, an ex-IWW influenced by anarchism, has written and spoken at some length about the need for rootedness and a regional consciousness. Libertarian thinkers, such as Johann Huizinga, Leopold Kohr and George Orwell have also influenced anarchism. Huizinga and Orwell (like Proudhon) spoke of patriotism, contrasting it with nationalism, which they saw as authoritarian and implicitly imperialist. For them, patriotism meant love of place and one’s culture, and in the case of Orwell, this love had a class basis as well, rooted in working class sensibility. Leopold Kohr sought to break up the big states, all of which are prison houses of nations as various cultures were hammered into a centralized nation state by bloody conquest.
The Panarchist variety of anarchism expounded by P. D. de Puyd, and Max Nettlau in the 19th Century and John Zube today, even has a solution to the problem of what to do when several cultures or ethnic groups claim the same territory. Their solution is to form voluntary, non-territorial or sociological governments. There would be a minimal agreement not to engage in coercion and people would join the society or government of their choice. (Or remain independent individuals.) It would be analogous tojoining a church or fraternal association.
Census projections show that by 2042, the majority of the American population will consist of people identified as “non-white.” In other words, in about 30 years, whites will no longer make up the majority of the American population. But before we actually get to that point when whites indeed become a quantitative minority (whereby some of them will begin to claim to be the “new” racially oppressed minority group in America), let’s analyze exactly what this demographic shift entails.
Usage of the terms “majority” and “minority” has always been a misleading and inaccurate way to describe racial groups in America. These terms typically signify a quantitative phenomenon, which implies that groups with a numerical majority gain dominant status simply by virtue of their relative population numbers. Using quantifiable terms such as these actually does very little to describe and understand contemporary and future racial dynamics in America. In fact, using these terms to describe racial dynamics will invariably lead to greater misunderstandings about race and racism; which will in turn lead to greater tensions among different racial groups.