On today’s episode of The Overton Window we debate the idea of Castizo Futurism or “bleaching”—the proposition that nonwhite and mixed race people can be genetically and culturally assimilated into America’s white majority in a way that is pro-white and is generally supportive of right wing political objectives.
Jun 10Liked by Rajeev Ram, Raising Dragon Slayers, ringleader, Walt Bismarck
I want to respond to Sunshine. Whiteness is aspirational, looking at what people do, even if it appears otherwise based on what people say. For non-whites, especially Asians but also for many blacks, a white romantic partner is a status symbol, a sign that they’ve made it in America. My dad’s family is from Puerto Rico, and (though they’d never admit this) “mejorar la sangre” is real. My paternal grandfather (75% black, 25% Spanish) upgraded to a castizo wife (my grandmother, half Irish, 25% Spanish, 25% Amerindian) and my dad upgraded to a white wife (my mother). Also, consider the effort and money people spend to look whiter. Blepharoplasty, orthodontia, diets, fillers, weaves, colored contacts. People will ALWAYS give a race-neutral for getting these procedures (“it looks nicer”). But consider that, when these procedures have a racial effect, that effect overwhelmingly tends towards creating a whiter appearance.
Sunshine makes a good point about the civil rights regime. Personally, I play up my blackness (1) to get away with saying whatever I want and (2) to benefit from racial preferences. But I’m actually 3/4 white. And, internally, I identify most with Germans and other Northern Europeans. In fact, I’m more German than I am black. However, blackness is not aspirational even if it is often convenient or strategic under the civil rights law. Despite what people say, no one looks at (a) Karlsruhe and (b) mudhuts and actually wants the mudhuts, despite what they might say. Maybe I’m too close to the issue, but I wish full-on whites could also be openly proud of themselves as whites, or at least not ashamed. I think castizo futurism, bleaching, multiracial whiteness or whatever you want to call it has a lot to offer here.
Yet, I look vaguely Hispanic and rarely pass as white. If I told people (accurately) that I am white, and frankly better at being white than they are, they would be weirded out. So, out of pragmatism, i usually tell people I’m mixed. Sunshine makes a good point about how people police the boundaries of whiteness. But I also feel like there’s something defeatist about accepting these social norms. Even in the United States, and leaving out Latin countries, the black-white boundary varies in terms of how admixed people are coded. I believe that Louisiana whites are the blackest in the country, by ancestry. Hakeem Jeffries would probably be white (or at least tan Glenn beck) in Louisiana.
Lastly, I have to disagree with Sunshine about Texas. The other participants adequately treated how Latin Texans and Latin Californians differ. But I would add that, at least in my experience, the whites also differ in how aggressively they police white purity. Maybe white Texans are more Christian than Californians or maybe they’re just better about minding their own business.
Victim status is weak. A capable person should not have to rely on quotas. I’d rather live knowing my accomplishments are a result of talent and hard work rather than a arranged outcome because some white chick feels bad about my darker skin.
I'd not vote against ending quotas if I could game it, for the simple reason that if white people are that stupid, weak and suicidal they should get what they want, good and hard.
Like I said in the podcast, my children look extremely white. 2/3 of them could pass as Northern European and one looks more Southern European. So far, they seem quite intelligent and I want them to have the best opportunities that they can have. I don’t want their trajectories squished because of how they look. Quotas delenda est.
I don't think it's aspirational for East Asians at this point, as many find whites hairy and odorous. My bigger point which everyone seems to have ignored is that Gen Z America is mostly nonwhite, which means people who are halfies like me are more likely to marry nonwhites. There's not enough of a demographic reservoir to "bleach" significant chunks of the population. Nonetheless, I see it as a non-problem: America could have the demographic profile of Brazil, and I don't see any issue with it
Well Gen Alpha already has Brazilian levels of diversity and there's no way to reverse that. Hence, you should support curtailing government power and allowing total freedom of association
Use the term bleaching. Rendering everything Castizo Futurism is too inclusive. My people invented the term and we’re gonna roll with it. Fuck it we ball
The civil rights regime is likely to be significantly curtailed by SCOTUS very soon because government mandated racial discrimination really is unconstitutional. But I do agree that “white” has too much historical baggage to reasonably expect most people who are even slightly mixed to claim. Even white Americans will often ethnically identify as *insert most recent immigrant ancestry here* rather than “white” even if their immigration history is like 150 years in the past.
Especially since America seems to pretty much go off the one drop rule, the number of “white” people is for sure going to continue to decrease but huge numbers of nominally non-white people will be culturally and phenotypically more or less identical to white people. I think rightists, even people who are pro-white, should focus more on getting people to identify as “American”
I was going to bring this up in the podcast but didn’t get the chance. White as a catch all racial term is too fraught with baggage that isn’t conducive to coalition building. A term like America or castizo (slight tongue in cheek) would work better (and you already see this in Appalachia where whites will put their ethnicity down as American when asked).
Exactly, which is why my article argues America should drop racial categories from institutions altogether instead of expecting people to want to adopt a term with so much baggage. I'd add that America's youth are already too diverse for people to even be phenotypically bleached, so instead it'll be like a Latin American country where people just look generally ambiguous
I totally agree with you on self identifying as white, I’m not sure I agree on phenotype. You even mentioned that your argument may not hold up with Hispanics because they have a significant portion of European DNA already, but they are now by far the largest nonwhite group and also the group most likely to intermarry with whites.
I think you’re talking past each other to some extent. Americans have craved exoticism for a long time and even after the civil rights regime is mostly done with there will probably still be enough residual benefit to check “mixed race” or “Hispanic” or whatever rather than white on forms so you are right about that. But when you have “non white” people who have supermajority European ancestry, wouldn’t have faced discrimination even in the Jim Crow south, and who are culturally indistinguishable from white people it gets a little ridiculous to claim they aren’t effectively white, which I think is what Walt and Dragon are getting at.
Ultimately I totally agree that it’s better to basically stop collecting racial data for most purposes, Americans already think racism is pretty much the worst thing ever, if we can eliminate the special carve out that makes it okay to be racist against white people were in a pretty good spot for a multi ethnic empire.
I agree that it doesn't make sense for people who are supermajority white to be seen as nonwhite or mixed and that most white-Hispanic mixed people will fall into that category (though some will look like George Zimmerman lol), but I think mixing will be omnidirectional due to the diversity of young people. So, there will be people who are triracial or more who just end up looking generally ambiguous
How are you going to award marginalized people government contracts, among countkess other things, by dropping racial (and sexual) categories?
In 100% 'Democrat/NGO Central Washington DC there are big fights taking place over "affordable housing." College-educated whites do not want to live and send their kids to schools with poor kids. They do not want their 2-star restaurant experience marred by vibrancy.
Hah, so am I. I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of that ever happening. White people supply something Mayor Bowser calls "opportunities" and only white people supply this, apparently.
College-educatted women will never give it up. They are now opening a new Women's Museum on the mall, near the African-American Museum of Culture and History, I guess.
I agree there's no chance in DC since it will always be run by libs given that it's federal employees and college educated. Maybe if it gets gentrified by gay guys, things couls become more libertarian
Gays gentrified DC decades ago. So did the artsy-fartsy crowd. After they moved in the bohemians-with-jobs followed. Really, the big change took place around 2000. That's when the NGOs started moving in. WaPo writers from Upper Caucasia (NW quadrant/Connecticut Ave.) even started moving to Logan Circle.
An across the pond perspective here. With the Founding fathers being almost entirely of British heritage they essentially aspired for a nation that retained as little elements as possible from the" mother "country, both contemporaraneusly and historically. The impulse extended to the assembly voting on replacing English with German as the new nation's official language. Which was defeated by just 1 vote. They looked to Ancient Greece and Rome to fill in the legal and governmental gaps (so to speak)when completing their vision of the USA. The motto on US coinage "e pluribus unum "tells a lot too. Jumping to the 1960s where the Civil rights act was essentially a settlement between white America-80 %of the population at the time and black America 10 %of the population at the time with Hispanics and Asians not really relevant. Since then the rapid increase in the number of Hispanics and to a somewhat lesser extent Asians has changed the country economically and socially if not politically. Also crucially that dynamic between white and black changed again as Hispanics competed against blacks and poor whites and whilst no one cared about the latter group there were certainly plenty who did about the former. The other significant change was the immigration act which was not to put too fine a point on it was anti white by its relegation of Europeans to the lowest quota levels. So obviously as it's the" law of the land " the civil rights is still the determining factor on American society and DEI ESG and CRT wouldn't have gained any traction without its (intentionally?)divisive forefather. Which has made so many jews so happy all this time.
I want to respond to Sunshine. Whiteness is aspirational, looking at what people do, even if it appears otherwise based on what people say. For non-whites, especially Asians but also for many blacks, a white romantic partner is a status symbol, a sign that they’ve made it in America. My dad’s family is from Puerto Rico, and (though they’d never admit this) “mejorar la sangre” is real. My paternal grandfather (75% black, 25% Spanish) upgraded to a castizo wife (my grandmother, half Irish, 25% Spanish, 25% Amerindian) and my dad upgraded to a white wife (my mother). Also, consider the effort and money people spend to look whiter. Blepharoplasty, orthodontia, diets, fillers, weaves, colored contacts. People will ALWAYS give a race-neutral for getting these procedures (“it looks nicer”). But consider that, when these procedures have a racial effect, that effect overwhelmingly tends towards creating a whiter appearance.
Sunshine makes a good point about the civil rights regime. Personally, I play up my blackness (1) to get away with saying whatever I want and (2) to benefit from racial preferences. But I’m actually 3/4 white. And, internally, I identify most with Germans and other Northern Europeans. In fact, I’m more German than I am black. However, blackness is not aspirational even if it is often convenient or strategic under the civil rights law. Despite what people say, no one looks at (a) Karlsruhe and (b) mudhuts and actually wants the mudhuts, despite what they might say. Maybe I’m too close to the issue, but I wish full-on whites could also be openly proud of themselves as whites, or at least not ashamed. I think castizo futurism, bleaching, multiracial whiteness or whatever you want to call it has a lot to offer here.
Yet, I look vaguely Hispanic and rarely pass as white. If I told people (accurately) that I am white, and frankly better at being white than they are, they would be weirded out. So, out of pragmatism, i usually tell people I’m mixed. Sunshine makes a good point about how people police the boundaries of whiteness. But I also feel like there’s something defeatist about accepting these social norms. Even in the United States, and leaving out Latin countries, the black-white boundary varies in terms of how admixed people are coded. I believe that Louisiana whites are the blackest in the country, by ancestry. Hakeem Jeffries would probably be white (or at least tan Glenn beck) in Louisiana.
Lastly, I have to disagree with Sunshine about Texas. The other participants adequately treated how Latin Texans and Latin Californians differ. But I would add that, at least in my experience, the whites also differ in how aggressively they police white purity. Maybe white Texans are more Christian than Californians or maybe they’re just better about minding their own business.
"I think castizo futurism, bleaching, multiracial whiteness or whatever you want to call it has a lot to offer here."
Would you vote for a candidate that wants to end racial quotas? If I were you I wouldn't. Why lose victim status?
Victim status is weak. A capable person should not have to rely on quotas. I’d rather live knowing my accomplishments are a result of talent and hard work rather than a arranged outcome because some white chick feels bad about my darker skin.
Most likely. I also feel that I have the capability to compete on my own. Someone who doesn’t have that, would want quotas.
I'd not vote against ending quotas if I could game it, for the simple reason that if white people are that stupid, weak and suicidal they should get what they want, good and hard.
Like I said in the podcast, my children look extremely white. 2/3 of them could pass as Northern European and one looks more Southern European. So far, they seem quite intelligent and I want them to have the best opportunities that they can have. I don’t want their trajectories squished because of how they look. Quotas delenda est.
Yes, perceived kinship is what matters.
Very admirable, but I think you are in a very small minority.
I don't think it's aspirational for East Asians at this point, as many find whites hairy and odorous. My bigger point which everyone seems to have ignored is that Gen Z America is mostly nonwhite, which means people who are halfies like me are more likely to marry nonwhites. There's not enough of a demographic reservoir to "bleach" significant chunks of the population. Nonetheless, I see it as a non-problem: America could have the demographic profile of Brazil, and I don't see any issue with it
Many see Brazil as a catastrophe to arrive at.
Well Gen Alpha's already there, and there's no way to change that
How sad it is when you realize that you are living through the end times.
"many find whites hairy and odorous." LOL. Indians call us sharabi kabobi, drunken meat eaters.
Brazil is literally a dystopian model... No thanks.
Well Gen Alpha already has Brazilian levels of diversity and there's no way to reverse that. Hence, you should support curtailing government power and allowing total freedom of association
Use the term bleaching. Rendering everything Castizo Futurism is too inclusive. My people invented the term and we’re gonna roll with it. Fuck it we ball
The civil rights regime is likely to be significantly curtailed by SCOTUS very soon because government mandated racial discrimination really is unconstitutional. But I do agree that “white” has too much historical baggage to reasonably expect most people who are even slightly mixed to claim. Even white Americans will often ethnically identify as *insert most recent immigrant ancestry here* rather than “white” even if their immigration history is like 150 years in the past.
Especially since America seems to pretty much go off the one drop rule, the number of “white” people is for sure going to continue to decrease but huge numbers of nominally non-white people will be culturally and phenotypically more or less identical to white people. I think rightists, even people who are pro-white, should focus more on getting people to identify as “American”
I was going to bring this up in the podcast but didn’t get the chance. White as a catch all racial term is too fraught with baggage that isn’t conducive to coalition building. A term like America or castizo (slight tongue in cheek) would work better (and you already see this in Appalachia where whites will put their ethnicity down as American when asked).
Exactly, which is why my article argues America should drop racial categories from institutions altogether instead of expecting people to want to adopt a term with so much baggage. I'd add that America's youth are already too diverse for people to even be phenotypically bleached, so instead it'll be like a Latin American country where people just look generally ambiguous
I totally agree with you on self identifying as white, I’m not sure I agree on phenotype. You even mentioned that your argument may not hold up with Hispanics because they have a significant portion of European DNA already, but they are now by far the largest nonwhite group and also the group most likely to intermarry with whites.
I think you’re talking past each other to some extent. Americans have craved exoticism for a long time and even after the civil rights regime is mostly done with there will probably still be enough residual benefit to check “mixed race” or “Hispanic” or whatever rather than white on forms so you are right about that. But when you have “non white” people who have supermajority European ancestry, wouldn’t have faced discrimination even in the Jim Crow south, and who are culturally indistinguishable from white people it gets a little ridiculous to claim they aren’t effectively white, which I think is what Walt and Dragon are getting at.
Ultimately I totally agree that it’s better to basically stop collecting racial data for most purposes, Americans already think racism is pretty much the worst thing ever, if we can eliminate the special carve out that makes it okay to be racist against white people were in a pretty good spot for a multi ethnic empire.
I agree that it doesn't make sense for people who are supermajority white to be seen as nonwhite or mixed and that most white-Hispanic mixed people will fall into that category (though some will look like George Zimmerman lol), but I think mixing will be omnidirectional due to the diversity of young people. So, there will be people who are triracial or more who just end up looking generally ambiguous
How are you going to award marginalized people government contracts, among countkess other things, by dropping racial (and sexual) categories?
In 100% 'Democrat/NGO Central Washington DC there are big fights taking place over "affordable housing." College-educated whites do not want to live and send their kids to schools with poor kids. They do not want their 2-star restaurant experience marred by vibrancy.
https://dcist.com/story/23/08/08/dc-homeless-shelter-gw-dorm/
I'm from DC interestingly enough. I'm for abolishing these categories in part because I don't want people to aspire to be "marginalized"
Hah, so am I. I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of that ever happening. White people supply something Mayor Bowser calls "opportunities" and only white people supply this, apparently.
College-educatted women will never give it up. They are now opening a new Women's Museum on the mall, near the African-American Museum of Culture and History, I guess.
I agree there's no chance in DC since it will always be run by libs given that it's federal employees and college educated. Maybe if it gets gentrified by gay guys, things couls become more libertarian
Gays gentrified DC decades ago. So did the artsy-fartsy crowd. After they moved in the bohemians-with-jobs followed. Really, the big change took place around 2000. That's when the NGOs started moving in. WaPo writers from Upper Caucasia (NW quadrant/Connecticut Ave.) even started moving to Logan Circle.
An across the pond perspective here. With the Founding fathers being almost entirely of British heritage they essentially aspired for a nation that retained as little elements as possible from the" mother "country, both contemporaraneusly and historically. The impulse extended to the assembly voting on replacing English with German as the new nation's official language. Which was defeated by just 1 vote. They looked to Ancient Greece and Rome to fill in the legal and governmental gaps (so to speak)when completing their vision of the USA. The motto on US coinage "e pluribus unum "tells a lot too. Jumping to the 1960s where the Civil rights act was essentially a settlement between white America-80 %of the population at the time and black America 10 %of the population at the time with Hispanics and Asians not really relevant. Since then the rapid increase in the number of Hispanics and to a somewhat lesser extent Asians has changed the country economically and socially if not politically. Also crucially that dynamic between white and black changed again as Hispanics competed against blacks and poor whites and whilst no one cared about the latter group there were certainly plenty who did about the former. The other significant change was the immigration act which was not to put too fine a point on it was anti white by its relegation of Europeans to the lowest quota levels. So obviously as it's the" law of the land " the civil rights is still the determining factor on American society and DEI ESG and CRT wouldn't have gained any traction without its (intentionally?)divisive forefather. Which has made so many jews so happy all this time.
I haven’t given up hope for anything. I’m just not a Nordicist. My point is that they will get bleached.
How many South American countries tried these exact policies and failed?