Amy Wax’s “White” Race

  
Via:  john-russell  •  5 months ago  •  11 comments

Amy Wax’s “White” Race
Wax informed the audience “that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.”-----I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely, in the top half.” She later admitted that she had no data to support this statement.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Amy Wax’s “White” Race




by   LINDA CHAVEZ  

 
JULY 23, 2019   7:32 AM





professor-wax-amy-2-0-1-1522187389-e1563







University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax caused a stir last week with her  comments  during a panel on immigration at the National Conservatism Conference. Wax informed the audience “that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.”

This was not the first time Wax has made unpleasant declarations about race. In 2017 she told Glenn Lowry on the video chat site Bloggingheads: “Here’s a very inconvenient fact, Glenn: I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely, in the top half.” She later  admitted  that she had no data to support this statement.

Wax may be brilliant—she graduated summa cum laude in molecular biophysics and biochemistry, earned a medical degree from Harvard, and a law degree from Columbia—but when it comes to race, she is, to be generous, myopic.






The definition of what it means to be “white” in America has always been fraught. Unlike ethnicity, which has at least some basis in shared DNA, the quality of “whiteness”—or “non-whiteness”—is both amorphous and transitory, defined differently at various points in our history, usually depending on who was doing the defining.

The eugenicists who pushed through broad-scale immigration restriction in 1917 and 1924 were obsessed with classifying races. Madison Grant’s influential book  The Passing of the Great Race  defined a hierarchy of European races, with “Nordics” at the apex, “Alpines” in the middle strata, and “Mediterraneans” on the lowest rung. Grant and other restrictionists of the era argued that the United States was being flooded with inferior peoples from Southern and Eastern Europe, who were diluting the stock of native-born Americans, namely from the British Isles and Northwestern Europe. He argued that native-stock Americans “will not bring children into the world to compete in the labor market with the Slovak, the Syrian, and the Jew,” who, he claimed “adopt the language of the native American, they wear his clothes, they steal his name, and they are beginning to take his women, but they seldom adopt his religion or understand his ideals, and while he is being elbowed out of his own home, the American looks calmly abroad and urges on others the suicidal ethics which are exterminating his own race.”


Wax and her fellow travelers among nationalist conservatives make the case that today’s immigrants are culturally unfit to become Americans. Using a metaphor associated with the alt-right, Wax dismisses the idea that the “magic dirt” of American soil will transform immigrants into Americans—a straw man argument not made by any serious immigration proponent—and claims that there is no reason to believe that “people who come here will quickly come to think, live, and act just like us.”

This is an odd argument for Wax, who is Jewish—or any grandchild or great-grandchild of immigrants—to make. Yet the restrictionist right is filled with examples of individuals (Wax, John Fonte, Mark Krikorian) who would apply standards to today’s immigrants that would have kept their own forebears from immigrating to America had they not made it in before restrictions were imposed in 1924. The early 20th century restrictionist legislation was intended to keep out Jews, Italians, and Armenians (among others) on the grounds that they were culturally, if not actually physically and intellectually inferior.

Yet those early 20th century immigrants  did  assimilate, despite being in many cases far more “culturally incompatible”—as Wax phrases it—than today’s newcomers. Assimilation took time, usually three generations to be fully realized, but it not only occurred for the progeny of Yiddish-speaking arrivals from Russian shtetls but for illiterate Italian peasants and millions of others.

The assimilation process was not always smooth. It took Italian-Americans until 1971—some 60 years after their peak immigration—to catch up in average education and earnings with other Americans, and many German-Americans continued to insist their children attend German-language schoolsin Wisconsin, Colorado, and elsewhere well into the 20th Century.

But assimilate they all did—as second-generation Hispanic- and Asian-Americans are assimilating today. They  universally  learn English, graduate from high school and college in increasing numbers, and marry outside their own groups—often more quickly than previous immigrant groups did. Moreover, even among Hispanics, who seem to arouse the greatest anxiety among the restrictionists, ethnic identity  fades  in successive generations, with only half of 4th-generation Hispanics self-identifying as “Hispanic.”

But qualifying as American, much less as “white” to Amy Wax, is all in the eye of the beholder. It might surprise Wax to learn that a majority (53 percent) of self-identified Hispanics in the last  census  listed their race as “white.”

And Wax’s cultural argument isn’t any more persuasive than her racial one. In an  article  last year in the Georgetown Law Review, Wax points to race-baiters  Enoch Powell , Laurence Auster, and John Derbyshire to bolster her arguments and bemoans that “thoughtful discussion of these positions is effectively banished from public fora and relegated to obscure corners of the internet on independent blogs or at online sites such as VDARE, The Journal of American Greatness, Taki’s Magazine, and Jacobite.”

With these publications as her models for discussion, it’s no wonder Amy Wax comes off sounding like a bigot.






Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    5 months ago
Yet the restrictionist right is filled with examples of individuals (Wax, John Fonte, Mark Krikorian) who would apply standards to today’s immigrants that would have kept their own forebears from immigrating to America had they not made it in before restrictions were imposed in 1924. The early 20th century restrictionist legislation was intended to keep out Jews, Italians, and Armenians (among others) on the grounds that they were culturally, if not actually physically and intellectually inferior.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  seeder  JohnRussell    5 months ago
At the big nationalism conference last week Penn laws professor Amy Wax had some interesting things to say about immigration. Here’s  Vox   reporting  on a panel she was on:

In a panel on immigration, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax claimed that immigrants are too loud and responsible for an increase in “litter.” She explicitly advocated an immigration policy that would favor immigrants from Western countries over non-Western ones; “the position,” as she put it, “that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.” (She claims this is not racist because her problem with nonwhite immigrants is cultural rather than biological.)

We don’t have the full transcript yet but we have some  surrounding context  and this looks … not great?

There are a couple of things going on here that are worth unpacking, first with Wax’s remark and second with the conservative reactions to it.

So let’s get this out of the way right off the bat: When Wax says that “our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites” it’s simply not true in any way.

First, what does she mean by “better”? Are we talking about economics? Increased family stability? Stronger community associations? “Better” is such an imprecise word that there’s no real way to pin it down. But let’s just pretend, for a moment, that we can all agree on some slippery, subjective sense of what “better” means and that it means something close to “more like a community in which I can raise my family with a mix of economic prosperity, safety, and liberal (in the Western sense) values.”

With that out of the way we can point out the obvious fact that immigrants from different sending countries have different outcomes in America. For instance, immigrants from Mexico start out with different socio-economic resources and cultural mores upon arriving in the U.S. than do immigrants from Korea or Ghana or Afghanistan or India. They all have radically different starting points in skills and education, different cultures, and different experiences in terms of assimilation.

By the same token, the number of “white” immigrants is so small that we wouldn’t even really notice whether or not they were causing “problems.” The largest “white” sending country is Canada and we have only  778,000 Canadian-born immigrants  here in America, total. Would they cause problems if there were 25 million of them and we were forced to integrate hockey into American culture? Who knows.

If you want to talk about total levels of immigration, fine. That’s a very real and very important discussion. If you want to talk about the education and skill-level of immigrants from country X versus country Y, fine. Those education and skill rates have a lot to do with whether or not the immigrants succeed and also in their effects on the native-born labor market.

If you want to talk about cultural effects such as the importation of honor killings or female genital mutilation, fine. Europe’s experience with migration from North Africa and the Middle East is a cautionary tale we should all pay attention to.

But to reduce these questions about wildly disparate groups as a singular choice of “white” versus “nonwhite” is either lazy or stupid. Or, you know, racist.

https://thebulwark.com/newsletter-issue/amy-wax-and-the-trouble-with-nonwhite-immigrants/
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    5 months ago

s about wildly disparate groups as a singular choice of “white” versus “nonwhite” is either lazy or stupid. Or, you know, racist.

Which is why she didn't.  What a lazy straw man argument, which is par for the course. 

She thinks America would be better off admitting more immigrants from first world countries that are culturally aligned, like Japan, than third world countries. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
3.1  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    5 months ago

Are Japanese "white" ?

Sorry, you can't spin this, no way.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @3.1    5 months ago

No, they aren't. 

That's the point.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4  Bob Nelson    5 months ago

Smiling racism.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
5  livefreeordie    5 months ago

i Started to write a condemnation of this woman and then my brain kicked in and I decided to investigate to see if she actually made these remarks.

turns out this comes from a known liar who made this up. And there are no audio or transcript records to back up his claim.

as usual leftists assume all conservatives are racist bigots without any substance to back up their propaganda nonsense 

Vox’s slur against Wax is both lazy and dangerous. It’s lazy because Beauchamp simply assumes that any policy that harms some minority communities is white supremacy, which is absolutely absurd. It’s like saying that the testing standards at New York City’s elite public schools that lead to extraordinarily disproportionate admission of Asians is “Asian supremacy.” He badly confuses disparity with discrimination and barely even tries to defend his salacious and fallacious argument.

It is also dangerous because it waters down the concept of white supremacy to an extent that renders it almost meaningless. This makes it much harder for society as a whole to focus on actual, egregious white supremacist ideas that focus on the concept that white people are inherently better than others because of their whiteness.

Under Beauchamp’s ridiculous definition of white supremacy, any policy that disadvantages any people of color is white supremacist solely based on the outcomes. By this rubric, one could argue that welfare and affirmative action, policies that have not succeeded in uplifting all non-white U.S. residents, are two of the most white supremacist policies ever.“

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/22/no-amy-wax-not-white-supremacist-wanting-immigrants-support-american-norms/

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @5    5 months ago
It is fair to say that Wax’s theory is controversial, and there are plenty of good arguments to be made against it.

That is from your link, which by the way does NOT prove , and does not claim to prove, that Vox made up quotes from her. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2  Split Personality  replied to  livefreeordie @5    5 months ago

Penn Law Condemns Amy Wax's Comments as Racist and Says She's Taking a Sabbatical

Hundreds of University of Pennsylvania students and alumni called for the law professor to be removed from teaching following her remarks on immigration at a national conference for conservatives.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6  Split Personality    5 months ago
A RECENT   Washington Post article began, “Jews and non-Jews are drawn to debates about whether Jews are white. It’s the sort of question that  captivates  academics and activists, roping in everyone from Israeli ‘Wonder Woman’ actress  Gal Gadot  to African American literary luminary  James Baldwin .”

When I was growing up in the 1950s and ’60s, my Lithuanian-born mother always told me that Jews were different, that we weren’t like other Americans, that we should be wary of goyim . This displays a distance from the national culture that seems like an historical oddity, but it also raises questions about how different were we. What was the racial status of Jews in earlier eras? When did Jews become white? What are we today?

For most of their existence in America, Jews held a middle ground in the standard racial categorizations. Being workers, poor, and city-dwellers, they epitomized a marginalized group, and wound up neither black nor white. As the anthropologist Karen Brodkin put it ( How Jews Became White Folks & What That Says About Race in America , 2010), we were, like many immigrant groups, “members of a less-than-white race” that had been “assigned to the not-fully-white side of the racial spectrum.” Noel Ignatiev ( How the Irish Became White , 1995) described this status as “an intermediate race located socially between black and white.”

As Ignatiev notes, color lines for immigrants in an earlier period were far from distinct; the Irish, for example, were referred to in the 19th century as “niggers turned inside out” and blacks were labeled “smoked Irish.” One black workman complained, “My master is a great tyrant….He treats me as badly as if I was a common Irishman .”

https://jewishcurrents.org/when-did-jews-become-white/

 
 
 
Split Personality
7  Split Personality    5 months ago
I Don’t Care if Amy Wax Is Politically Incorrect; I Do Care that She’s Empirically Incorrect

Jonathan Klick, University of Pennsylvania Law School

I was one of the 33 members of the University of Pennsylvania Law School faculty to sign a letter criticizing Amy Wax’s (joint with Larry Alexander) op-ed and subsequent comments regarding the decline of bourgeois culture and its role in America’s perceived social ills. Was this the predictable response of a morally squishy, politically correct, ivory tower academic lefty who is unwilling to endorse unspeakable truths for fear of being bounced from faculty cocktail parties? I can understand this presumption, but, in my case, I prefer going to my kids’ football games to chatting about Derrida over wine and cheese anyway.

As someone who has faced the left’s wrath for questioning the received wisdom that racial healthcare disparities are caused by racism , and who has been heckled during presentations for receiving money from the dastardly Koch Brothers (heck, I’m even a dyed in the wool George Mason public choice school economist, an intellectual tradition that apparently is responsible for the entire modern right-wing agenda ), one might think I am a natural ally in Wax’s crusades against feel good academic nonsense that undermines American society. I am all for such crusades, but for someone about whom Heather MacDonald writes “ No thinker in the law or social sciences is more rigorous ,” Wax’s arguments come up lacking when judged by rigorous empirics.

For starters, in defending her claims regarding the superiority of Anglo-Protestant norms, Wax stated “ Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans .” This might be surprising to the hundreds of thousands of Chinese immigrants to African countries over the last two decades. While it is true that numbers 1 and 2 on the list of top destination of immigrants are the US and Germany, they are followed by those well-known WASP enclaves of Russia and Saudi Arabia . Number 5 on the list (the UK) fits Wax’s claim, but it is closely followed by that modern-day Mayberry the United Arab Emirates. Of course, there are all sorts of explanations for why the numbers for Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are high that have nothing to do with the cultural norms (my kids told me before I made a teaching trip to the UAE that the internet says everybody gets a Ferrari when you arrive in that country, for instance), but it is also the case that there are lots of potential explanations for immigration to those countries ruled by white Europeans.

read more at...

https://heterodoxacademy.org/i-dont-care-if-amy-wax-is-politically-incorrect-i-do-care-that-shes-empirically-incorrect/
 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Greg Jones
It Is ME
loki12
Sunshine
zuksam
PJ
Kathleen
jungkonservativ111


44 visitors