What do you think?
Rate this book
Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities
Across the West, anti-immigration populists are tearing a path through the usual politics of left and right. Immigration is remaking Europe and North America: over half of American babies are non-white, and by the end of the century, minorities and those of mixed race are projected to form the majority in many countries.
Drawing on an extraordinary range of surveys, Whiteshift explores the majority response to ethnic change in Western Europe, North America and Australasia. Eric Kaufmann, a leading expert on immigration, calls for us to move beyond empty talk about national identity and open up debate about the future of white majorities. He argues that we must ditch the 'diversity myth' that whites will dwindle, replacing it with whiteshift - a new story of majority transformation that can help lift anxieties and heal today's widening political divisions.
A bold, original work, Whiteshift will redefine the way we think about ethnic diversity and populism.
Drawing on an extraordinary range of surveys, Whiteshift explores the majority response to ethnic change in Western Europe, North America and Australasia. Eric Kaufmann, a leading expert on immigration, calls for us to move beyond empty talk about national identity and open up debate about the future of white majorities. He argues that we must ditch the 'diversity myth' that whites will dwindle, replacing it with whiteshift - a new story of majority transformation that can help lift anxieties and heal today's widening political divisions.
A bold, original work, Whiteshift will redefine the way we think about ethnic diversity and populism.
496 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2018
About the author
Eric Kaufmann
14 books49 followersEric Peter Kaufmann is a Canadian professor of politics at Birkbeck College, University of London. He is a specialist on Orangeism in Northern Ireland, nationalism, political demography and demography of the religious/irreligious.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews
May 1, 2019
I can see why this book has been controversial. Whiteshift iconoclastically targets the identity politics of the modern left and right, though most of its idol-smashing targets the former. The core argument is that Western populism today is driven more by majority ethnic grievance than economic factors. To defuse this, we should allow people to be honest about their fears of cultural submersion by rapid immigration rather than deviantizing the subject as inherently racist. This will allow a more honest and level-headed conversation about diversity and immigration based on protecting culture. It will also quell the need for hyperbolic arguments based on security and welfare pressures, pulling the sting from the anti-democratic right.
Whether you like the argument or not, white ethnic majorities have forced the discussion with their votes and activism so you can't just dismiss it. I'm not sure that Kaufmann's idea of promoting the expression of a distinct white identity will defuse racial polarization, though I can see how suppression might radicalize it. Either way, immigration or no immigration, white identity is going to change over the coming century. Barring some revolutionary ideological shift towards racial insularity, white intermarriage will mean a majority of people becoming "beige" by century end. These people may well preserve whiteness by continuing to identify with the cultural legacy of European ancestry. Think of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, or Jewish and Catholic immigrants who became culturally white over time. As the book suggests, if whites feel that the future of a non-white America will still preserve their cultural traditions, they may be less likely to reach for the tools of extreme demographic control in the present.
The book aims much rhetorical fire against the excesses of contemporary anti-racist activism. Undoubtedly it lands some blows. I would argue however that the analysis is too heavily-focused on the youthful extremism of college students and less on the broad reality of how power in society functions. I guess this is understandable since the author is an academic for whom the campus and the real-world are intertwined (I do grant however that cultural power today lies with minorities, even while political and economic power remains with the majority). The book definitely makes some questionable proposals and assertions, particularly as we enter an era of climate change in which the very meaning of national borders is likely to come under pressure. The argument hews towards indulging the right, even as its framing is liberal.
Nonetheless, I think it would be unfair to just demonize its analysis as borderline racist (or even over-the-line racist), as some have done. It is hard to talk about race and culture, but it clearly matters. If it's not discussed or discussion is forced underground, the discourse will be monopolized by extremist movements and even terrorist groups. This is already starting to happen. Personally, I agree strongly with the idea of multivocal identity. National identities can exist which incorporate both local cosmopolitanism and hereditary identity. One can be a proud Canadian nationalist of South Asian background who takes pride in the diversity of their city, an Irish-descended Canadian proud of their history in the country, as well as a First Nations Canadian whose roots and influences go deeper. All these identities can coexist and even reinforce each other. They do not have to feel like a threat to anyone. We should not indulge those who irresponsibly try and set people against each other by emphasizing divisions and grievances instead of commonalities.
I would say the book reads like a highly-accessible textbook. This is clearly the product of years of work and I credit the author with making such a detailed case. The book overflows with both qualitative and quantitative data, as well as illuminating histories of both anti-immigration and anti-racist activism. It might have benefited from more stringent editing, but I can see why he wanted to say everything that could be said about this subject. Like it or not, it's an important one for our time.
Whether you like the argument or not, white ethnic majorities have forced the discussion with their votes and activism so you can't just dismiss it. I'm not sure that Kaufmann's idea of promoting the expression of a distinct white identity will defuse racial polarization, though I can see how suppression might radicalize it. Either way, immigration or no immigration, white identity is going to change over the coming century. Barring some revolutionary ideological shift towards racial insularity, white intermarriage will mean a majority of people becoming "beige" by century end. These people may well preserve whiteness by continuing to identify with the cultural legacy of European ancestry. Think of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, or Jewish and Catholic immigrants who became culturally white over time. As the book suggests, if whites feel that the future of a non-white America will still preserve their cultural traditions, they may be less likely to reach for the tools of extreme demographic control in the present.
The book aims much rhetorical fire against the excesses of contemporary anti-racist activism. Undoubtedly it lands some blows. I would argue however that the analysis is too heavily-focused on the youthful extremism of college students and less on the broad reality of how power in society functions. I guess this is understandable since the author is an academic for whom the campus and the real-world are intertwined (I do grant however that cultural power today lies with minorities, even while political and economic power remains with the majority). The book definitely makes some questionable proposals and assertions, particularly as we enter an era of climate change in which the very meaning of national borders is likely to come under pressure. The argument hews towards indulging the right, even as its framing is liberal.
Nonetheless, I think it would be unfair to just demonize its analysis as borderline racist (or even over-the-line racist), as some have done. It is hard to talk about race and culture, but it clearly matters. If it's not discussed or discussion is forced underground, the discourse will be monopolized by extremist movements and even terrorist groups. This is already starting to happen. Personally, I agree strongly with the idea of multivocal identity. National identities can exist which incorporate both local cosmopolitanism and hereditary identity. One can be a proud Canadian nationalist of South Asian background who takes pride in the diversity of their city, an Irish-descended Canadian proud of their history in the country, as well as a First Nations Canadian whose roots and influences go deeper. All these identities can coexist and even reinforce each other. They do not have to feel like a threat to anyone. We should not indulge those who irresponsibly try and set people against each other by emphasizing divisions and grievances instead of commonalities.
I would say the book reads like a highly-accessible textbook. This is clearly the product of years of work and I credit the author with making such a detailed case. The book overflows with both qualitative and quantitative data, as well as illuminating histories of both anti-immigration and anti-racist activism. It might have benefited from more stringent editing, but I can see why he wanted to say everything that could be said about this subject. Like it or not, it's an important one for our time.
December 13, 2018
Whiteshift is an important book. Kaufmann is right, talking about race in the twenty-first century really is like discussing sex in Victorian England. He's also right that there is a feeling of a sort of identity-apartheid in the West today: native Americans arrived in the New World around the same time the first Middle Easterners settled in northern Europe -- yet the former are considered spiritually apart of the land while the white man is "just another immigrant", or even "has no culture".
Whiteshift is cathartic read, mainly because Kaufmann is so honest. He attacks both the far-right and the progressive liberals (which he calls 'left-modernists') for their discrimination and racism. What was most eye-opening to me is how dishonest conversation about immigration, race, ethnicity, and ethno-traditionalism has skewed the debate -- and may have even led to Brexit. Kaufmann points out that people never engage honestly when talking about these issues; instead genuinely concerned white Britons will point to issues like migrants driving down wages or putting strain on the NHS -- rather than actually saying they fear the rapid decline of their share of the population. Because it was too taboo to resist mainly non-white, non-EU migration, the population projected an uneven share of their frustrations on the mainly white EU migrants entering the country. This all could have been avoided if people had just been honest.
Ethno-traditionalism is the view that Europe, the US, and the Anglosphere are white-majority countries. As Kaufmann points out, a slender majority of minority-ethnics actually support retaining the white identity of both Europe and the US -- and love of one's own in-group does not mean hatred of the 'other'. It is time ethno-traditionalism was debated honestly in the West.
At the moment though, it stands that the white 'race' is on target for rapid decline and -- according to some models, even extinction -- in the next few centuries. Although Kaufmann rejects the 'white genocide' theory, there is the bitter taste that only white-majorities are dabbling in the multicultural project. In 200 years India will still look like India, China will still be China, but Europe, the US and the Anglo settler societies will be changed -- some might say 'lost' forever. And to add insult to injury, there is a progressive-liberal narrative that whites deserve their demise for the eternal sin of colonialism. No wonder populism is swelling across Europe.
Kaufmann explores the interesting concept of white identity and its sometimes fuzzy boundaries. It may be possible, he argues, that future Britain and the US will come to identify as the 'new' Europeans and even white Europeans. The new 'whites' will be darker but may still have caucasian features. And genetic lotteries may throw up genuine Anglo-Saxon archetypes every one-in-a-million births. So there is some comfort that Europe's and the West's myths, traditions, and foundations may at least survive the 'white genocide'.
Kaufmann ends the book by suggesting white interests be taken seriously, and that ethno-traditionalism should be put on the table for discussion at long last. In the end, Kaufmann's only thoughts are to slow the inevitable. Even if immigration shut off tomorrow, he argues, low white-fertility and the large minority population will still lead to white decline. But the decline will be slower, there will be more white admixture, and the future mixed-race majority may continue the European legacy.
Whiteshift is cathartic read, mainly because Kaufmann is so honest. He attacks both the far-right and the progressive liberals (which he calls 'left-modernists') for their discrimination and racism. What was most eye-opening to me is how dishonest conversation about immigration, race, ethnicity, and ethno-traditionalism has skewed the debate -- and may have even led to Brexit. Kaufmann points out that people never engage honestly when talking about these issues; instead genuinely concerned white Britons will point to issues like migrants driving down wages or putting strain on the NHS -- rather than actually saying they fear the rapid decline of their share of the population. Because it was too taboo to resist mainly non-white, non-EU migration, the population projected an uneven share of their frustrations on the mainly white EU migrants entering the country. This all could have been avoided if people had just been honest.
Ethno-traditionalism is the view that Europe, the US, and the Anglosphere are white-majority countries. As Kaufmann points out, a slender majority of minority-ethnics actually support retaining the white identity of both Europe and the US -- and love of one's own in-group does not mean hatred of the 'other'. It is time ethno-traditionalism was debated honestly in the West.
At the moment though, it stands that the white 'race' is on target for rapid decline and -- according to some models, even extinction -- in the next few centuries. Although Kaufmann rejects the 'white genocide' theory, there is the bitter taste that only white-majorities are dabbling in the multicultural project. In 200 years India will still look like India, China will still be China, but Europe, the US and the Anglo settler societies will be changed -- some might say 'lost' forever. And to add insult to injury, there is a progressive-liberal narrative that whites deserve their demise for the eternal sin of colonialism. No wonder populism is swelling across Europe.
Kaufmann explores the interesting concept of white identity and its sometimes fuzzy boundaries. It may be possible, he argues, that future Britain and the US will come to identify as the 'new' Europeans and even white Europeans. The new 'whites' will be darker but may still have caucasian features. And genetic lotteries may throw up genuine Anglo-Saxon archetypes every one-in-a-million births. So there is some comfort that Europe's and the West's myths, traditions, and foundations may at least survive the 'white genocide'.
Kaufmann ends the book by suggesting white interests be taken seriously, and that ethno-traditionalism should be put on the table for discussion at long last. In the end, Kaufmann's only thoughts are to slow the inevitable. Even if immigration shut off tomorrow, he argues, low white-fertility and the large minority population will still lead to white decline. But the decline will be slower, there will be more white admixture, and the future mixed-race majority may continue the European legacy.
June 30, 2021
Erick Kaufmann is a fascist.
I read the entire book, even after the open call for concentration camps, hoping there'd be an actual point - because reverse engineering this bullshit doesn't work without knowing what this castle in the sky is built for. Is it a defense of democracy? No. Is it a defense of Liberalism? No. Is it, somehow a defense of American Imperium as a necessary force for stability in the world? No, actually, Eric doesn't evidence that he knows anything about, or gives two shits about, the global community.
The book is an apologia for Ethno-States. Full stop. "We're losing control of the country" (we being whoever is in power, what that power is, actually, is irrelevant) "and the solution is to appeal to ethno centrism."
Dude just fucking hates immigration. And you know what, there are things I hate about it as well, actual problems to talk about (mostly around the free movement of capital and the lack of rights for immigrants, thus curtailing *everyone's* rights) -- but dude wants to put all refugees in concentration camps, give immigrants *literal* second class citizenship, without the right to vote and with increased duties to the nation, and he's a fucking fascist and fuck this book.
Just, god damn. This thing is dark.
Update: Given that our literal concentration camps have expanded to the point they've become public knowledge -- and that the public knowledge is broadly in favour of them from what I see, just, burn it all down.
Update 2: You jackasses can keep posting yer manifestos -- I'm just gonna keep deleting them. Concentration camps are concentration camps, whatever you fuckers say.
Update 2021: I'm neither surprised fascists exist nor interested in what you have to say.
I read the entire book, even after the open call for concentration camps, hoping there'd be an actual point - because reverse engineering this bullshit doesn't work without knowing what this castle in the sky is built for. Is it a defense of democracy? No. Is it a defense of Liberalism? No. Is it, somehow a defense of American Imperium as a necessary force for stability in the world? No, actually, Eric doesn't evidence that he knows anything about, or gives two shits about, the global community.
The book is an apologia for Ethno-States. Full stop. "We're losing control of the country" (we being whoever is in power, what that power is, actually, is irrelevant) "and the solution is to appeal to ethno centrism."
Dude just fucking hates immigration. And you know what, there are things I hate about it as well, actual problems to talk about (mostly around the free movement of capital and the lack of rights for immigrants, thus curtailing *everyone's* rights) -- but dude wants to put all refugees in concentration camps, give immigrants *literal* second class citizenship, without the right to vote and with increased duties to the nation, and he's a fucking fascist and fuck this book.
Just, god damn. This thing is dark.
Update: Given that our literal concentration camps have expanded to the point they've become public knowledge -- and that the public knowledge is broadly in favour of them from what I see, just, burn it all down.
Update 2: You jackasses can keep posting yer manifestos -- I'm just gonna keep deleting them. Concentration camps are concentration camps, whatever you fuckers say.
Update 2021: I'm neither surprised fascists exist nor interested in what you have to say.
February 12, 2019
This is a long hard read, but well worth the time and effort. The review by Neil Wright covers all the main points Kaufmann makes, and they are all backed up with data exploring the issues from all sorts of different angles. The starting point is that Brexit/Trump - for the most part, Kaufmann finds the same drivers throughout the Anglosphere, with occasional side glances at France and Germany - was not primarily an economic phenomenon. The standard rust-belt-left-behinds narrative just doesn't fit the facts. We should have noticed from the outset that Leave won not only in Sunderland but in the prosperous rural South and South-West too, and in America Trump voters had incomes above the US median. No, it was all about culture and identity, and often, yes, skin colour. That's the unavoidable bad news - but, as the author points out, denying the reality will only make, has only made things worse. If he is right, however, there is good news too. The acceptance of white ethnic identity, he thinks, does not have to come at the expense of any other ethnic group. The way he sees it, there is room, indeed there has to be room for white majority identity alongside existing ethnic minorities. Moreover, he cites evidence that seems to suggest there is a majority among the minorities who are only too happy to acknowledge the ethnic rights of the white majority alongside their own. That is just as well because, the author suggests, it will be impossible to get the current majority community to acquiesce in the end of its own demographic predominance without prior recognition of its current status
June 9, 2019
This is a honest book looking at the effect of the decrease of the majority of White people the West. Immigration from non-White countries decrease the White majority already in the prosperous metropolitan cities. However, when those immigrants start to move into traditionally mostly white suburbs, backlash ensued. Kaufmann was born in Hong Kong, lived in Tokyo, then moved to Canada and ultimately London. He is quarter Latino and quarter Chinese, but is identified as White by most people. Some of his relatives with the same mix are more identified as Hispanic. So he is able to perceive Whiteshift from different view points.
1. America used to be populated by protestant Whites: there were pushback against Irish Catholics, then Eastern and Southern Europeans Catholics. Then Jews. Of course the Chinese were excluded at one point. Now all Whites had been assimilated into one group, amazingly. Some Whites feel that with the dilution of their majority, the whole country’s Judeo-Christian (no longer Protestant) culture and heritage is at risk.
2. Trump voters see the change of the racial composition of their county where Whites are increasingly the minority in big cities, and wants immigration reduced. Media salience of the issue helps make this the most important issue for the Presidential election in 2016.
3. The British is also seeing immigration from EU and non-EU counties post EU membership. Interestingly no one in the UK wants to be called racist, so they hardly mention anything about non-EU immigrants. Instead they oppose the EU migrants which cannot be controlled, mainly Eastern and Southern Europeans and thus voted for Brexit.
4. Europe’s asylum policy let them obtain citizenship. This led to a surge of economic migrants, on top of the Migration Crisis due to war in Syria. The more the immigration, the harsher the backlash, allowing far right parties to get votes. But with low birth rate, Europe needs migrants, thus ensuring ever more votes for the far right. Merkel’s ‘free-for-all’ policy led to her loss of support and rise of the AfD.
5. Canada is unique with the least opposition to immigration. First, they have the settler mind set. Second, French-Canadians are most anti-immigration and vote for separatist Quebecois. This makes joining votes with English-Canadian who support Tories difficult; conservative Tories work with minorities instead. Third, Canada does not have a conservative tabloid unlike America or Australia. Canada is likely to remain
6. He then discussed liberal goals and classify them into: negative ones which is accept diverse groups and let others do their thing; positive ones force diversity upon everyone (which had reached extreme level in some liberal minded colleges, until some professors are boycotted and prevented from giving lectures, requiring police protection). 95% of all psychology professors are of liberals/far left ideology. This is preventing free speech and academic debate, especially for conservative staff. In the end, the ‘religion of anti-racism’ emerges, whereas just being White becomes an original sin. He thinks if every race treat a certain race worse, Whites should not be singled out; nobody complains about he over-representation of Asians in tech industries; too much focus on racism and sexism diverts attention from all forms of discrimination, for example against the disabled, ugly and the old. Also the extreme left requires minorities to retain their cultures but Whites to embrace multiculturalism.
7. Charlottesville demonstrates the clash between the left-modernists and populist right. Kaufman felt that the left modernists had overreached and contributed to the rise of the far right, because they make even reducing the level of immigration and cultural integration taboo and people advocating them racists. There is now a chasm between the educated city who celebrate diversity, and everyone else who cherish White culture and promote integration into the host countries. Even Merkel had declared multiculturalism had ‘utterly failed’. So all the political parties are moving right. Clever studies using list experiments allow subjects to hide their real support for immigration to zero in America: the educated are far more likely to hide. Trump had realised this hidden preference and thus succeeded in the election. This further embolden Whites to express their wish and allow shame avoidance from deviation from taboo.
8. We need to acknowledge White’s feeling about loss of racial and cultural loss. The lack of an outlet push them to mask it as fear of immmigrant crime or Muslim extremisim. Kaufman thinks this is essential to stem the rise of the far right. Minorities generally have similar feeling towards racist behaviours as Whites, except for racial quotas in universities. However, Clinton and Trump voters feel different about preserving racial ‘purity’; however both agree that not wanting a neighbour or boss of another race is racist. Unfortunately Clinton voters think that Whites, as compared to other races, are more racists compared to other races should they want more immigration of their own race and reduced immigration to preserve their ratio. Kauffman differentiate ‘racism’ from ‘racial self-interest’.
9. White people in US, UK and Netherlands move to suburbs with more whites. White move their children to schools with more White people. Whites have mostly White friends, even in diverse neighbourhoods. Ideology does not matter. When asked, liberals answer that they do not want their children to compete with Asians. Diversify decreases trust, even for a White’s attitude about another White. However diversity did not really affect solidarity; economy did. When immigrants are poor, Whites support less redistribution policies; however there is no effect if immigrants are rich.
10. However, as long as the rate of change of ethnicity slows down, White gets more tolerant of immigrants over time. Marrying a non-white obviously makes Whites much more tolerant and unlikely to move to White areas. Over time, majority in the West will be of mixed race. However, some will look more ‘White’ than others (such as Kaufman himself; his cousins look more Latino). Kaufman thinks that in future pure Whites will congregate in rural areas (especially religious fundamentalists such as the Amish, Mormons and Orthodox Jews, who will grow exponentially as their birth rates are 3 times higher). Also cultural icons will feature pure Whites, especially those with British names. He thinks while it was easy for non-British Europeans to assimilate, it is far harder for other races to be considered ‘White’.
11. Kaufman thinks left-modernists do discriminate against Whites, by keep harping on past colonialist sins. Descendants of colonists should not bear the perpetual sin of their grandfathers. He thinks Whites should be allowed to band together to protect their rights, just like minorities. He also thinks that immigration should be point-based with preference given to potential immigrants with good cultural fit to the recipient country. This would of course favour races that intermarry more.
12. Multiculturalism is rich and inclusive, but excludes the majority. Ethnic nationalism has richness, but exclude minorities. Kaufman proposed ‘multivocalism’: different people can look at nationhood differently, and politicians can talk to different groups differently.
This is a difficult book to read because it is packed with so much research, data and analysis, and left modernism had made any discussion of White ethnic identify, the Judeo-Christian tradition taboo. What is important, however, is for us to start talking about this, or else populism will remain the only way out, and extremism will certainly increase.
1. America used to be populated by protestant Whites: there were pushback against Irish Catholics, then Eastern and Southern Europeans Catholics. Then Jews. Of course the Chinese were excluded at one point. Now all Whites had been assimilated into one group, amazingly. Some Whites feel that with the dilution of their majority, the whole country’s Judeo-Christian (no longer Protestant) culture and heritage is at risk.
2. Trump voters see the change of the racial composition of their county where Whites are increasingly the minority in big cities, and wants immigration reduced. Media salience of the issue helps make this the most important issue for the Presidential election in 2016.
3. The British is also seeing immigration from EU and non-EU counties post EU membership. Interestingly no one in the UK wants to be called racist, so they hardly mention anything about non-EU immigrants. Instead they oppose the EU migrants which cannot be controlled, mainly Eastern and Southern Europeans and thus voted for Brexit.
4. Europe’s asylum policy let them obtain citizenship. This led to a surge of economic migrants, on top of the Migration Crisis due to war in Syria. The more the immigration, the harsher the backlash, allowing far right parties to get votes. But with low birth rate, Europe needs migrants, thus ensuring ever more votes for the far right. Merkel’s ‘free-for-all’ policy led to her loss of support and rise of the AfD.
5. Canada is unique with the least opposition to immigration. First, they have the settler mind set. Second, French-Canadians are most anti-immigration and vote for separatist Quebecois. This makes joining votes with English-Canadian who support Tories difficult; conservative Tories work with minorities instead. Third, Canada does not have a conservative tabloid unlike America or Australia. Canada is likely to remain
6. He then discussed liberal goals and classify them into: negative ones which is accept diverse groups and let others do their thing; positive ones force diversity upon everyone (which had reached extreme level in some liberal minded colleges, until some professors are boycotted and prevented from giving lectures, requiring police protection). 95% of all psychology professors are of liberals/far left ideology. This is preventing free speech and academic debate, especially for conservative staff. In the end, the ‘religion of anti-racism’ emerges, whereas just being White becomes an original sin. He thinks if every race treat a certain race worse, Whites should not be singled out; nobody complains about he over-representation of Asians in tech industries; too much focus on racism and sexism diverts attention from all forms of discrimination, for example against the disabled, ugly and the old. Also the extreme left requires minorities to retain their cultures but Whites to embrace multiculturalism.
7. Charlottesville demonstrates the clash between the left-modernists and populist right. Kaufman felt that the left modernists had overreached and contributed to the rise of the far right, because they make even reducing the level of immigration and cultural integration taboo and people advocating them racists. There is now a chasm between the educated city who celebrate diversity, and everyone else who cherish White culture and promote integration into the host countries. Even Merkel had declared multiculturalism had ‘utterly failed’. So all the political parties are moving right. Clever studies using list experiments allow subjects to hide their real support for immigration to zero in America: the educated are far more likely to hide. Trump had realised this hidden preference and thus succeeded in the election. This further embolden Whites to express their wish and allow shame avoidance from deviation from taboo.
8. We need to acknowledge White’s feeling about loss of racial and cultural loss. The lack of an outlet push them to mask it as fear of immmigrant crime or Muslim extremisim. Kaufman thinks this is essential to stem the rise of the far right. Minorities generally have similar feeling towards racist behaviours as Whites, except for racial quotas in universities. However, Clinton and Trump voters feel different about preserving racial ‘purity’; however both agree that not wanting a neighbour or boss of another race is racist. Unfortunately Clinton voters think that Whites, as compared to other races, are more racists compared to other races should they want more immigration of their own race and reduced immigration to preserve their ratio. Kauffman differentiate ‘racism’ from ‘racial self-interest’.
9. White people in US, UK and Netherlands move to suburbs with more whites. White move their children to schools with more White people. Whites have mostly White friends, even in diverse neighbourhoods. Ideology does not matter. When asked, liberals answer that they do not want their children to compete with Asians. Diversify decreases trust, even for a White’s attitude about another White. However diversity did not really affect solidarity; economy did. When immigrants are poor, Whites support less redistribution policies; however there is no effect if immigrants are rich.
10. However, as long as the rate of change of ethnicity slows down, White gets more tolerant of immigrants over time. Marrying a non-white obviously makes Whites much more tolerant and unlikely to move to White areas. Over time, majority in the West will be of mixed race. However, some will look more ‘White’ than others (such as Kaufman himself; his cousins look more Latino). Kaufman thinks that in future pure Whites will congregate in rural areas (especially religious fundamentalists such as the Amish, Mormons and Orthodox Jews, who will grow exponentially as their birth rates are 3 times higher). Also cultural icons will feature pure Whites, especially those with British names. He thinks while it was easy for non-British Europeans to assimilate, it is far harder for other races to be considered ‘White’.
11. Kaufman thinks left-modernists do discriminate against Whites, by keep harping on past colonialist sins. Descendants of colonists should not bear the perpetual sin of their grandfathers. He thinks Whites should be allowed to band together to protect their rights, just like minorities. He also thinks that immigration should be point-based with preference given to potential immigrants with good cultural fit to the recipient country. This would of course favour races that intermarry more.
12. Multiculturalism is rich and inclusive, but excludes the majority. Ethnic nationalism has richness, but exclude minorities. Kaufman proposed ‘multivocalism’: different people can look at nationhood differently, and politicians can talk to different groups differently.
This is a difficult book to read because it is packed with so much research, data and analysis, and left modernism had made any discussion of White ethnic identify, the Judeo-Christian tradition taboo. What is important, however, is for us to start talking about this, or else populism will remain the only way out, and extremism will certainly increase.
April 17, 2019
This book was a mixed bag for me. The author speaks with clarity on some issues of identity, nationalism and ideology, while also paradoxically seeming overly obtuse about some of the issues related to such. To my point; he seems to speak about identity in a matter-of-fact way, but then goes on to label opposition to mass muslim migration to western countries as "racist"... He also strawmans concerns related to such as no more than overblown fears of terrorism and primitive xenophobia, conveniently forgetting all his previous talk about how ideology and identity are central social factors in most people, and that the mass importation of people who hold incompatible ideologies could likely be a recipe for disaster long-term. He is either deliberately speaking inconsistently, to avoid being the target of a witch hunt, or is unaware of his own cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure which one is worse...
Another criticism of the book was it's length; the audiobook version came in at ~24hrs, the print version; 624 pages. Much of what he wrote could have probably been condensed and benefited from more rigorous editing. In it's current form, I found my attention wandering, and found much of the reading tedious.
Overall, it was an interesting read, though, and might be the only contemporary book that broaches this topic.
Another criticism of the book was it's length; the audiobook version came in at ~24hrs, the print version; 624 pages. Much of what he wrote could have probably been condensed and benefited from more rigorous editing. In it's current form, I found my attention wandering, and found much of the reading tedious.
Overall, it was an interesting read, though, and might be the only contemporary book that broaches this topic.
December 30, 2019
I bought this book on Kindle after seeing a glowing recommendation from Tyler Cowen on MarginalRevolution, where he described it as one of the best books he's read all year. Buying the ebook, I drastically underestimated the length of Whiteshift, but it was insightful and challenging enough to keep me interested. Kaufmann is blunt and data-driven. He is willing to wade into the politically toxic waters of race and immigration and keep his head above the waves. Whether we like it or not, white majorities are responding to globalization and immigration in ways that do not impress the coastal elite, and we would be doing ourselves a tremendous disservice if we failed to appropriately appreciate and respond to their grievances. Whiteshift gives us a lens to interpret and understand these changes, and proffers potential solutions to solve the problems we face. I just wish it'd done so in a few less pages...
November 18, 2019
Whiteshift is a deep-dive into why the rise of white populism is as much a result of racism as it is the radicalization of the left. Kaufmann argues that the last fifty years have seen political correctness, and the rise of negative liberalism whereby multiculturalism should not be merely respected, but promoted, as the reasons for white anxieties. There is a generous use of quantitative data from various data sets in addition to his own research that expose the fragile logic and psychologies of those on the right, left and moderate sections of the spectrum. Kaufmann believes that the polarization of the left, whereby anybody not accepting multiculturalism as a self-evident upward moral trajectory is a racist or fascist. This sentiment, he argues, nullifies dialog and exacerbates gaps between the two camps. The text is well organized by how whites respond to immigration and multiculturalism through fight, flight or joining other groups. I felt that some chapters were long-winded, and much of the data seemed redundant and therefore could have benefited from a hard edit. This is a much needed, cleared-eyed, non-partisan view of the culture wars that define our political landscape.
Shelved as 'noted'
December 9, 2018This interview with the author on Radio 3's Free Thinking is better than any of the press reviews I've seen of the book as it interrogates a number of the author's assumptions and fuzzy definitions. Makes it sound rather less sharp than many of the positive reviews, and attacks it on less predictable grounds than current negative characterisations of it online: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000...
Although oddly for a British interview about a book first published in Britain it doesn't go too much into how it seems that here whiteness is an American concept being applied to a country where the tension around immigration displayed in the Brexit vote and in rising discrimination is in part about white European people, who are audibly different by language and name, not only about people who are not white by skin colour. (There was no mention of the 'how the Irish became white' idea either of cultural whiteness.)
Although oddly for a British interview about a book first published in Britain it doesn't go too much into how it seems that here whiteness is an American concept being applied to a country where the tension around immigration displayed in the Brexit vote and in rising discrimination is in part about white European people, who are audibly different by language and name, not only about people who are not white by skin colour. (There was no mention of the 'how the Irish became white' idea either of cultural whiteness.)
April 27, 2021
A compelling book, one you have to think about over and over even if you don't agree with everything. This is one of the more serious and rigorous attempts to think through the present and future of race, immigration, and national identity issues that I have come across. The thesis at a minimum should be well known among scholars in these areas, even if they don't read the book.
Let's start with the term WhiteSHift. This refers to when a majority white population (although the concept could apply to any majority group) expands its identity and blends through intermarriage/reproduction with non-white or non-WASP groups. A new majority forms that largely identifies with the dominant group's identity/history/culture, in a form of assimilation by amalgamation. This happened in US history as whiteness shifted in the early 20th century as southern and eastern European immigrants groups became white. Of course, those groups were never seen as fully non-white. Now, with rising immigration and higher birth rates among immigrants, combined with lower birth rates among the white majority, the whiteshift will be a mixing with Hispanic, black, and Asian groups.
Whiteshift is in a sense a goal and a prediction. It would mean a successful transition through our current moment of tremendous cultural and racial anxiety/backlash on immigration/cultural change/demographic change in which white majorities fear they are losing their countries/cultures. You can see this in the Trump, Brexit, and populist far-right movements in the West, which Kaufmann convincingly shows are much more about culture and race than economic anxiety or even class. These right wing groups have arisen as the establishment parties have failed to consider white fears about the loss of majority status, taking advantage of a latent political resource. These groups threaten to abandon democracy and liberalism themselves in response to these changes, and WhiteShift is designed to reassure them that change will be more gradual and less final than the demagogues imagine. To reassure them, he argues, we have to change the anti-racist norm about white identity, which basically preaches that white people have to be ashamed of their past, their ancestors, and their culture and "deinvest from whiteness" while other races should be proud of their heritage/identity. Political correctness and a "left-modernist" anti-white hostility is used to police this norm. Kaufmann is right that the anti-racist inflation of the definition of racism, and its vigilance in calling out every little thing as racist, feeds the right wing, ethno-traditional backlash.
Where I got off the train of this book was the idea that white majorities, as they blend with minorities, should be encouraged to openly identify with their group and be treated as another ethnic interest group, like Hispanics or AAs. We need to find a way for whites to say they are proud of their past, their ancestors, and even their cultures (however that is defined), I'm not sure if you can do that in a way that cleanly separates the benign aspects of this identity from the fact that so much of white identity in the past has been defined by a sense of superiority and dominance over non-whites. For example, with a figure like George Washington, whites want to be proud of him, and there are reasons to be proud, but minorities rightfully question whether a slaveowner should be the symbol of a modern, diverse nation. Kaufmann largely ignores these "rubber-meets-the-road" identity clash questions that make his politics of ethnic accomodation less feasible.
In short, Kaufmann seems to think white majorities, who are willing to vote for someone like DJT to alleviate these concerns about change, will suddenly become more rational as their shift to minority status approaches. I struggle to see how this will happen or how these groups will accept a status as "just another ethnic interest group" with no inherent status vis a vis the nation itself. Trumpism and its European forms are all about the idea that the white culture and the nation are synonymous, and they arne't about to give that up for a vague promise that non-white groups, as they blend into the white majority, will largely identify with the white tradition/culture. The better solution is to allow a mixed civic/cultural narrative in which whites, like other ethnic groups, recognize that while their ancestors did horrible things they also did great things and created a durable and in some ways brilliant structure and value system for a free society, while recognizing that minority groups also contributed in fundamental ways to that evolution. The story shouldn't be ethnic politics around a contentless nation and a weak civic nationalism, but a core of shared values and a shared story of movement toward a more perfect union, a narrative that all groups can feel a part of if both harms and goods are recognized.
A few other criticisms: It didn't have to be 537 pages. Numerous sections should have been consolidated. Furthermore, there are times when Kaufmann goes out of his way to downplay racism, although I appreciated that when he said something was racist he clearly defined what that was without falling back on generalities like systemic racism.
I see this book concession to several realities: demographic change and the need to rethink the national identity, how to manage the "white transition" that threatens democracy itself, how to deal with the fact that ethnic/cultural identities do and will remain more salient to most people than more ideological civic identities (like my liberal civic nationalism), and that the anti-racist campaign against whiteness needs to be moderated. I don't enthusiastically embrace these concessions, but I recognize them as important. So I will definitely draw on this book for research and teaching, both for the argument (worth using to challenge students to think about how our group identities will evolve and what exactly racism means) and for the voluminous charts about immigration, identification, etc etc. Recommended only for those willing to take deep dives, as this book is long and detailed.
Let's start with the term WhiteSHift. This refers to when a majority white population (although the concept could apply to any majority group) expands its identity and blends through intermarriage/reproduction with non-white or non-WASP groups. A new majority forms that largely identifies with the dominant group's identity/history/culture, in a form of assimilation by amalgamation. This happened in US history as whiteness shifted in the early 20th century as southern and eastern European immigrants groups became white. Of course, those groups were never seen as fully non-white. Now, with rising immigration and higher birth rates among immigrants, combined with lower birth rates among the white majority, the whiteshift will be a mixing with Hispanic, black, and Asian groups.
Whiteshift is in a sense a goal and a prediction. It would mean a successful transition through our current moment of tremendous cultural and racial anxiety/backlash on immigration/cultural change/demographic change in which white majorities fear they are losing their countries/cultures. You can see this in the Trump, Brexit, and populist far-right movements in the West, which Kaufmann convincingly shows are much more about culture and race than economic anxiety or even class. These right wing groups have arisen as the establishment parties have failed to consider white fears about the loss of majority status, taking advantage of a latent political resource. These groups threaten to abandon democracy and liberalism themselves in response to these changes, and WhiteShift is designed to reassure them that change will be more gradual and less final than the demagogues imagine. To reassure them, he argues, we have to change the anti-racist norm about white identity, which basically preaches that white people have to be ashamed of their past, their ancestors, and their culture and "deinvest from whiteness" while other races should be proud of their heritage/identity. Political correctness and a "left-modernist" anti-white hostility is used to police this norm. Kaufmann is right that the anti-racist inflation of the definition of racism, and its vigilance in calling out every little thing as racist, feeds the right wing, ethno-traditional backlash.
Where I got off the train of this book was the idea that white majorities, as they blend with minorities, should be encouraged to openly identify with their group and be treated as another ethnic interest group, like Hispanics or AAs. We need to find a way for whites to say they are proud of their past, their ancestors, and even their cultures (however that is defined), I'm not sure if you can do that in a way that cleanly separates the benign aspects of this identity from the fact that so much of white identity in the past has been defined by a sense of superiority and dominance over non-whites. For example, with a figure like George Washington, whites want to be proud of him, and there are reasons to be proud, but minorities rightfully question whether a slaveowner should be the symbol of a modern, diverse nation. Kaufmann largely ignores these "rubber-meets-the-road" identity clash questions that make his politics of ethnic accomodation less feasible.
In short, Kaufmann seems to think white majorities, who are willing to vote for someone like DJT to alleviate these concerns about change, will suddenly become more rational as their shift to minority status approaches. I struggle to see how this will happen or how these groups will accept a status as "just another ethnic interest group" with no inherent status vis a vis the nation itself. Trumpism and its European forms are all about the idea that the white culture and the nation are synonymous, and they arne't about to give that up for a vague promise that non-white groups, as they blend into the white majority, will largely identify with the white tradition/culture. The better solution is to allow a mixed civic/cultural narrative in which whites, like other ethnic groups, recognize that while their ancestors did horrible things they also did great things and created a durable and in some ways brilliant structure and value system for a free society, while recognizing that minority groups also contributed in fundamental ways to that evolution. The story shouldn't be ethnic politics around a contentless nation and a weak civic nationalism, but a core of shared values and a shared story of movement toward a more perfect union, a narrative that all groups can feel a part of if both harms and goods are recognized.
A few other criticisms: It didn't have to be 537 pages. Numerous sections should have been consolidated. Furthermore, there are times when Kaufmann goes out of his way to downplay racism, although I appreciated that when he said something was racist he clearly defined what that was without falling back on generalities like systemic racism.
I see this book concession to several realities: demographic change and the need to rethink the national identity, how to manage the "white transition" that threatens democracy itself, how to deal with the fact that ethnic/cultural identities do and will remain more salient to most people than more ideological civic identities (like my liberal civic nationalism), and that the anti-racist campaign against whiteness needs to be moderated. I don't enthusiastically embrace these concessions, but I recognize them as important. So I will definitely draw on this book for research and teaching, both for the argument (worth using to challenge students to think about how our group identities will evolve and what exactly racism means) and for the voluminous charts about immigration, identification, etc etc. Recommended only for those willing to take deep dives, as this book is long and detailed.
April 13, 2019
Description: Across the West, anti-immigration populists are tearing a path through the usual politics of left and right. Immigration is remaking Europe and North America: over half of American babies are non-white, and by the end of the century, minorities and those of mixed race are projected to form the majority in many countries.
Drawing on an extraordinary range of surveys, Whiteshift explores the majority response to ethnic change in Western Europe, North America and Australasia. Eric Kaufmann, a leading expert on immigration, calls for us to move beyond empty talk about national identity and open up debate about the future of white majorities. He argues that we must ditch the 'diversity myth' that whites will dwindle, replacing it with whiteshift - a new story of majority transformation that can help lift anxieties and heal today's widening political divisions. A bold, original work, Whiteshift will redefine the way we think about ethnic diversity and populism.
My review is just one song: Blue Mink - Melting Pot, and then follow up with these directions: The Onion Song - Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell
Drawing on an extraordinary range of surveys, Whiteshift explores the majority response to ethnic change in Western Europe, North America and Australasia. Eric Kaufmann, a leading expert on immigration, calls for us to move beyond empty talk about national identity and open up debate about the future of white majorities. He argues that we must ditch the 'diversity myth' that whites will dwindle, replacing it with whiteshift - a new story of majority transformation that can help lift anxieties and heal today's widening political divisions. A bold, original work, Whiteshift will redefine the way we think about ethnic diversity and populism.
My review is just one song: Blue Mink - Melting Pot, and then follow up with these directions: The Onion Song - Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell
July 23, 2019
Eric Kaufmann’s “Whiteshift” is a tour de force accessible piece of exceedingly high scholarship. As a demographer and psychological sociologist, Kaufman applies all his training to examine, describe & deconstruct, and provide proposals to move forward on issues of ‘whiteness,’ immigration and the rise of the populist right in western nations. Kaufmann uses an evidence-based approach to all of these issues, rather than relying on feelings, beliefs and anecdotes. A self-admitted multiethnic liberal, Kaufmann takes on otherwise lines of liberal taboos, like extreme modernist liberal faith in anti-racism. These are not easy issues to tackle, especially for a leftist reader who believes in a multicultural color-blond society. Yet, Kaufmann provides a compelling argument that is supported by the mass of data he employs. I cannot recommend this book highly enough for any citizen of a western democracy, majority, minority or mixed in ethnic origin, irregardless of political convictions/leanings. One of the best pieces of contemporary history I’ve ever read. 5 hearty stars!!!!
July 8, 2019
“Whiteshift” in this book means the making in the West of a new population of mixed race “white” people born from the current majority white population and migrants recently arrived. The author, a professor of politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, does not attempt any definite conclusions about the color of the “whiteshifted” people compared to their parents. This is sensible since the offspring of two people of intermediate color may be lighter or darker than either one of them. The whiteshift is necessarily an inexact concept, but there is no doubt it is happening.
Non-whites are increasing more rapidly than whites. There is a belt from Central America through Africa and into West Asia where the Total Fertility Rate (TFR), the number of children a woman bears in her lifetime, is above the 2.1 level needed to replace the population. For the developed world of the West plus East Asia, the TFR is well below replacement level. Thus the West, especially its European-origin population, will be a demographic speck of a few percentage points by the end of the century. The low birth rate and growing population deficit, which has been observed for many years, is seen as indicative of a decline and possible extinction in the West, and therefore of white people, who are not encouraged to take pride in their identity as Africans or Asians are. It should be remembered that TFRs over the world are decreasing now, so the trend may not be as rapid as it appears. This does not mean whites are fated for extinction. But even nonwhite minorities in the US have a feeling that whites are under attack. “After the August 2017 Charlottesville riots, 70 percent of nearly 300 Latino and Asian Trump voters agreed that ‘whites are under attack in this country’ and 52 percent endorsed the idea that the country needed to ‘protect and preserve its white European heritage’ - sounding like the white Trump voters.” (p. 10)
One trait of whites favoring their survival is a certain exclusiveness or clannishness in terms of where they flock to raise their families (this is only one of many factors that determine housing patterns). After hundreds of years, America is still “a nation of immigrants” and despite having been built up, so to speak, from many different ethnicities, whites remain central. America has grown through immigration but always around this white core.
Among the intellectual class, the dominant American attitude on immigration was formed shortly before World War I and has continued through to this day. Originating with John Dewey and especially Randolph Bourne. Immigrant groups were to maintain their ethnic boundaries, while anglo protestants were to give up their boundaries and morph into cosmopolites. Obviously Bourne was projecting his own self-image into his country. The author quotes Bourne: “[The American Protestant would-be cosmopolite] may be absurdly superficial, his outward-reaching wonder may ignore all the stiller and homelier virtues of his Anglo-Saxon home, but he has at least found the clue to that international mind which will be essential to all men and women of good will if they are ever to save this Western world of ours from suicide.” (p. 53) This international mind was to be the result of a literary study attempting to get at the essences of various peoples: “new enthusiasms for continental literature, for unplumbed Russian depths, for French clarity of thought, for Teuton philosophies of power...”
Dewey and Bourne had a remarkable power to convince American intellectuals of the vacuity of the US and their own white race. I have a tentative explanation as to why. After World War II, the Russians and Teutons had left their world more damaged than ever before. The Anglo-Americans put it back together. But this patched-together world responded with the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, neither of which has global sovereignty, a requirement for any entity that would “save this Western world from suicide”. Certainly a nation would need a great deal of cosmopolitanism to cede its power to organizations possessing so little military force. But Dewey and Bourne provided a noble objective. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the fear of global war was over. There was only one superpower. Political correctors of the time took for granted that the United States, relieved of its Cold War burden, had no proper basis for opposing an appeal to “international law.” So if (for example) a majority on the UN Security Council wanted Israel to make a concession on West Bank security, it was only right for the US to pressure Israel into making it, even if from its experience Israel felt that more was necessary to prevent terrorist incursions. The conflict was between security (part of sovereignty) and cosmopolitanism. Belief in open borders was part of the cosmopolitan point of view, and part of the dispute over the proposed wall at the US southern border. This is the best explanation of campus “political correctness” I can think of.
After three chapters dealing with immigration history in Britain, Europe, and Canada, the author takes up the recent campus wars and their connection with race, which implies immigration. Here he finds the crucial concepts to be Timur Kuran’s “preference falsification” and the “Overton window”. Generally when people believe others observe a norm, they conform to it, even if they have doubts. When the changing moral narrative makes the norm seem dubious, skeptics realize others share their doubts; a self-augmenting rollback begins to unravel attitudes previously seen as unchallengeable. Likewise there are other norms that are favored but under accidental circumstances become disfavored. Of the total spectrum of policies on any given issue, some can be proposed without inciting moral odium and some are considered outrageous. The portion of the spectrum that is not considered outrageous is known as the “Overton window”. Obviously preference falsification and the Overton window are applicable to almost any public policy issue. Most opinion journalists and political operatives are constantly trying to change norms of policy, or open the window wider or pull it shut.
Immigration and race involve a number of possible limits in policies that most people don’t want to openly reject even if they are subconsciously resent them: for example, reductions in immigration levels, point-based systems for deciding who to admit, and so on. They were not so much talked about, and then Trump came along. His challenge
prepared immigration skeptics to bring neglected ideas up for open consideration.
Multiculturalism gained new force in 1965, the year of the Hart-Cellar Act which eliminated quotas based on national origin. Anti-immigrant attitudes are driven by the number of immigrants present and the rate of increase of immigrant population, both of which have turned out much larger than expected. Anti-immigration organizing began in the 1980s with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) which gave amnesty to 1.6 million but didn’t effectively enforce employer sanctions. The huge inflows continued. Polls have shown that the public clearly wants immigration restriction. It seems to me that the fundamental question on immigration is whether to set a limit to the yearly total of immigrants. This cannot be done unless we secure the Southern border. “Build that wall!” is still not quite within the Overton window but not outside either.
Chapters 7 and 8 provide an interesting analysis of attitudes on immigration and race, using the analytical tools previously described. Some attitudes on immigration are taboo in the current “national discourse”. But taboos can come and go. What we see demonstrators doing on TV may not mean very much. The author has polling data showing that people are repelled by leftist attacks on complex symbols like Christopher Columbus, despite the prominence given these attacks. He cites a series of ideological taboos which he visually represents as concentric circular zones, with multiculturalism on the periphery and attacks on white or Christian identity in the center. Gradually they weaken from 1990 to 2010. (Figure 8.1 in the book.) (Much of his data is drawn from Europe, where there are minority parties that broadcast their positions.) Transitions between highly publicized attitudes in the zones occur in a feedback process by means of the Overton window and Kuran’s “preference falsification.” Really to prove this, though, would require more data than he provides.
These analyses raise the question of how people really feel about the propaganda that is hurled at them. The author’s belief is clear: “At the crux of this debate is the question of whether whites can legitimately defend their group interests through restricting immigration. Liberals insist that this is racist ...” (p.367) The author cites evidence that liberal attitudes are wrong. Consideration of white self-interest is supported by the Brookings social scientist Shadi Hamid. He says: “For me the more useful question isn’t why Trump voters voted for him, but rather why they wouldn’t. ... I can’t be sure I wouldn’t have voted for Trump ...This may make me a flawed person or even as some would have it, a ‘racist’. But it would also make me rational, voting if not in my economic self-interest then at least in my emotional self-interest.” (quote on p.368) Concerning the current furor at the southern border, we might consider the viewpoint of those Americans who want their country to stay mainly as it is rather than absorb an enormous number of immigrants. But that idea is not within the mainstream media’s Overton window.
In the last four chapters, the author takes up the question of whether whites will respond to the global transition with flight or intermarriage. The concluding discussion is “Will ‘Unmixed’ Whites go extinct?”. Flight, in this context, means moving to another location. Whites prefer small cities and towns over larger ones and this is not the case does not occur with other populations. Diversity of population has the disadvantage of social fragmentation. The author acknowledges, “Despite the persistence of discrimination, [white desire to separate from minorities] is unlikely to account for today’s segregation picture.” (p.391) In London, white British decline ... is less a story of white flight than one of white British families avoiding dense and diverse neighborhoods.” (p.195) So the uneven racial distribution cannot be attributed to whites alone.
The author does not believe there will be white extinction, and points out that whiteness is more than a question of what people look like. “There are no physical colors or races, but our color perception and linguistic evolution mean we have a set of racial categories, centered on archetypes, that may be as difficult to dislodge as the primary colors . ... The acceptance of those who don’t look white as members of the ethnic majority will probably require both intellectual arguments and emergent processes such as intermarriage which make this more compelling.” (p. 478-479). There will likely be two steps in the race-mixing process: (1) whites remain “a large tightly-bounded group, part of a diminishing share of a multicultural society of discrete groups” then evolving evolution into (2) “a melting pot in which the white group melts with others”. The question is how well the white majority culture thrives compared to that of the other cultures that compete with it. Based on studies of American films, the author thinks the white culture will prevail.
There will continue to be groups maintaining their distinctness like Native Americans in the US. The author notes the tendency of whites to form compact sects like the Mormons, Amish, Hutterites, or Haredim; their high birthrate and endogamous marriage bodes well not just for their surviving but thriving. There will be skeptics who assert that distinctness claims are false. For example Shlomo Sand in Israel denies the existence of European Jews, but feels a commonality with Israeli Arabs and considers Judaism strictly a religion. In East Asia, a concern for racial distinctiveness runs in the other direction, as in the case of Chia-hsiang Wang who maintains that as a Han Chinese he bears some responsibility for the treatment of Taiwanese. The whole question of the popular meaning of “race” will probably be reconceived.
This is a long and complex book, not as clearly organized as it could be. The author verifies most of his assertions with statistics collected from the US, Britain, and Europe. There is a wealth of interesting material here; this review doesn’t begin to present its variety.
Non-whites are increasing more rapidly than whites. There is a belt from Central America through Africa and into West Asia where the Total Fertility Rate (TFR), the number of children a woman bears in her lifetime, is above the 2.1 level needed to replace the population. For the developed world of the West plus East Asia, the TFR is well below replacement level. Thus the West, especially its European-origin population, will be a demographic speck of a few percentage points by the end of the century. The low birth rate and growing population deficit, which has been observed for many years, is seen as indicative of a decline and possible extinction in the West, and therefore of white people, who are not encouraged to take pride in their identity as Africans or Asians are. It should be remembered that TFRs over the world are decreasing now, so the trend may not be as rapid as it appears. This does not mean whites are fated for extinction. But even nonwhite minorities in the US have a feeling that whites are under attack. “After the August 2017 Charlottesville riots, 70 percent of nearly 300 Latino and Asian Trump voters agreed that ‘whites are under attack in this country’ and 52 percent endorsed the idea that the country needed to ‘protect and preserve its white European heritage’ - sounding like the white Trump voters.” (p. 10)
One trait of whites favoring their survival is a certain exclusiveness or clannishness in terms of where they flock to raise their families (this is only one of many factors that determine housing patterns). After hundreds of years, America is still “a nation of immigrants” and despite having been built up, so to speak, from many different ethnicities, whites remain central. America has grown through immigration but always around this white core.
Among the intellectual class, the dominant American attitude on immigration was formed shortly before World War I and has continued through to this day. Originating with John Dewey and especially Randolph Bourne. Immigrant groups were to maintain their ethnic boundaries, while anglo protestants were to give up their boundaries and morph into cosmopolites. Obviously Bourne was projecting his own self-image into his country. The author quotes Bourne: “[The American Protestant would-be cosmopolite] may be absurdly superficial, his outward-reaching wonder may ignore all the stiller and homelier virtues of his Anglo-Saxon home, but he has at least found the clue to that international mind which will be essential to all men and women of good will if they are ever to save this Western world of ours from suicide.” (p. 53) This international mind was to be the result of a literary study attempting to get at the essences of various peoples: “new enthusiasms for continental literature, for unplumbed Russian depths, for French clarity of thought, for Teuton philosophies of power...”
Dewey and Bourne had a remarkable power to convince American intellectuals of the vacuity of the US and their own white race. I have a tentative explanation as to why. After World War II, the Russians and Teutons had left their world more damaged than ever before. The Anglo-Americans put it back together. But this patched-together world responded with the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, neither of which has global sovereignty, a requirement for any entity that would “save this Western world from suicide”. Certainly a nation would need a great deal of cosmopolitanism to cede its power to organizations possessing so little military force. But Dewey and Bourne provided a noble objective. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the fear of global war was over. There was only one superpower. Political correctors of the time took for granted that the United States, relieved of its Cold War burden, had no proper basis for opposing an appeal to “international law.” So if (for example) a majority on the UN Security Council wanted Israel to make a concession on West Bank security, it was only right for the US to pressure Israel into making it, even if from its experience Israel felt that more was necessary to prevent terrorist incursions. The conflict was between security (part of sovereignty) and cosmopolitanism. Belief in open borders was part of the cosmopolitan point of view, and part of the dispute over the proposed wall at the US southern border. This is the best explanation of campus “political correctness” I can think of.
After three chapters dealing with immigration history in Britain, Europe, and Canada, the author takes up the recent campus wars and their connection with race, which implies immigration. Here he finds the crucial concepts to be Timur Kuran’s “preference falsification” and the “Overton window”. Generally when people believe others observe a norm, they conform to it, even if they have doubts. When the changing moral narrative makes the norm seem dubious, skeptics realize others share their doubts; a self-augmenting rollback begins to unravel attitudes previously seen as unchallengeable. Likewise there are other norms that are favored but under accidental circumstances become disfavored. Of the total spectrum of policies on any given issue, some can be proposed without inciting moral odium and some are considered outrageous. The portion of the spectrum that is not considered outrageous is known as the “Overton window”. Obviously preference falsification and the Overton window are applicable to almost any public policy issue. Most opinion journalists and political operatives are constantly trying to change norms of policy, or open the window wider or pull it shut.
Immigration and race involve a number of possible limits in policies that most people don’t want to openly reject even if they are subconsciously resent them: for example, reductions in immigration levels, point-based systems for deciding who to admit, and so on. They were not so much talked about, and then Trump came along. His challenge
prepared immigration skeptics to bring neglected ideas up for open consideration.
Multiculturalism gained new force in 1965, the year of the Hart-Cellar Act which eliminated quotas based on national origin. Anti-immigrant attitudes are driven by the number of immigrants present and the rate of increase of immigrant population, both of which have turned out much larger than expected. Anti-immigration organizing began in the 1980s with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) which gave amnesty to 1.6 million but didn’t effectively enforce employer sanctions. The huge inflows continued. Polls have shown that the public clearly wants immigration restriction. It seems to me that the fundamental question on immigration is whether to set a limit to the yearly total of immigrants. This cannot be done unless we secure the Southern border. “Build that wall!” is still not quite within the Overton window but not outside either.
Chapters 7 and 8 provide an interesting analysis of attitudes on immigration and race, using the analytical tools previously described. Some attitudes on immigration are taboo in the current “national discourse”. But taboos can come and go. What we see demonstrators doing on TV may not mean very much. The author has polling data showing that people are repelled by leftist attacks on complex symbols like Christopher Columbus, despite the prominence given these attacks. He cites a series of ideological taboos which he visually represents as concentric circular zones, with multiculturalism on the periphery and attacks on white or Christian identity in the center. Gradually they weaken from 1990 to 2010. (Figure 8.1 in the book.) (Much of his data is drawn from Europe, where there are minority parties that broadcast their positions.) Transitions between highly publicized attitudes in the zones occur in a feedback process by means of the Overton window and Kuran’s “preference falsification.” Really to prove this, though, would require more data than he provides.
These analyses raise the question of how people really feel about the propaganda that is hurled at them. The author’s belief is clear: “At the crux of this debate is the question of whether whites can legitimately defend their group interests through restricting immigration. Liberals insist that this is racist ...” (p.367) The author cites evidence that liberal attitudes are wrong. Consideration of white self-interest is supported by the Brookings social scientist Shadi Hamid. He says: “For me the more useful question isn’t why Trump voters voted for him, but rather why they wouldn’t. ... I can’t be sure I wouldn’t have voted for Trump ...This may make me a flawed person or even as some would have it, a ‘racist’. But it would also make me rational, voting if not in my economic self-interest then at least in my emotional self-interest.” (quote on p.368) Concerning the current furor at the southern border, we might consider the viewpoint of those Americans who want their country to stay mainly as it is rather than absorb an enormous number of immigrants. But that idea is not within the mainstream media’s Overton window.
In the last four chapters, the author takes up the question of whether whites will respond to the global transition with flight or intermarriage. The concluding discussion is “Will ‘Unmixed’ Whites go extinct?”. Flight, in this context, means moving to another location. Whites prefer small cities and towns over larger ones and this is not the case does not occur with other populations. Diversity of population has the disadvantage of social fragmentation. The author acknowledges, “Despite the persistence of discrimination, [white desire to separate from minorities] is unlikely to account for today’s segregation picture.” (p.391) In London, white British decline ... is less a story of white flight than one of white British families avoiding dense and diverse neighborhoods.” (p.195) So the uneven racial distribution cannot be attributed to whites alone.
The author does not believe there will be white extinction, and points out that whiteness is more than a question of what people look like. “There are no physical colors or races, but our color perception and linguistic evolution mean we have a set of racial categories, centered on archetypes, that may be as difficult to dislodge as the primary colors . ... The acceptance of those who don’t look white as members of the ethnic majority will probably require both intellectual arguments and emergent processes such as intermarriage which make this more compelling.” (p. 478-479). There will likely be two steps in the race-mixing process: (1) whites remain “a large tightly-bounded group, part of a diminishing share of a multicultural society of discrete groups” then evolving evolution into (2) “a melting pot in which the white group melts with others”. The question is how well the white majority culture thrives compared to that of the other cultures that compete with it. Based on studies of American films, the author thinks the white culture will prevail.
There will continue to be groups maintaining their distinctness like Native Americans in the US. The author notes the tendency of whites to form compact sects like the Mormons, Amish, Hutterites, or Haredim; their high birthrate and endogamous marriage bodes well not just for their surviving but thriving. There will be skeptics who assert that distinctness claims are false. For example Shlomo Sand in Israel denies the existence of European Jews, but feels a commonality with Israeli Arabs and considers Judaism strictly a religion. In East Asia, a concern for racial distinctiveness runs in the other direction, as in the case of Chia-hsiang Wang who maintains that as a Han Chinese he bears some responsibility for the treatment of Taiwanese. The whole question of the popular meaning of “race” will probably be reconceived.
This is a long and complex book, not as clearly organized as it could be. The author verifies most of his assertions with statistics collected from the US, Britain, and Europe. There is a wealth of interesting material here; this review doesn’t begin to present its variety.
June 20, 2019
So.. what exactly is this book?
The subtitle gives a lot away, but I found myself asking this consistently throughout the book. It seems to me that this is a culmination of various case studies that detail the history of ethnicity, ethnic conflict and ideology and policy-related decisions in the West while discussing four strategies whites have to deal with the already unfolding “Whiteshift” - an event where the demographics of white majorities in the West alter. According to Kaufman, in the US at least, we have already seen one Whiteshift before (the absorption of Jews, Irish, Italians, etc. into a “white” identity) that displaced the solitary hold on the “white” identity that previously only WASPs had. This is important because it demonstrates that a Whiteshift is not a catastrophic event and has historical precedent.
So what are these four strategies that whites can pursue and which is the best option? 1. Whites can fight. They can elect people like Donald Trump. They can build walls. They can pursue horrific episodes of mass deportation and ethnic cleansing. 2. Whites can repress. They can pretend like ethnic identity for whites doesn’t matter at all and slander attempts to recognize this as racist. 3. Whites can flee. They can segregate themselves from minorities, forming demographic hubs of white people who don’t leave the community and only marry within their race. Lastly, and as the author suggests, whites can join. Whites can merge as they already have done before with the first Whiteshift. Kaufman sees a future in which whites still look “light” but aren’t quite what we see today. Whiteness will look less like Rick Santorum and more like Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, who, despite being half Hispanic, are both culturally viewed as white. Indeed, Kaufman has some pretty interesting stuff in his book about the merging of Hispanics and whites into a single identity. Not entirely of course and it’s much more complex than that but it’s definitely something to check out.
Overall, his argument implies that we need to normalize the white fear of going extinct. Charlottesville is not the answer and neither is repressing white fears until whites no longer trust the institutions in place to protect their identity (which, in turn, leads to people like Donald Trump and decisions like Brexit). Whites can not win the demographic game. It really is already too late. They need not fear losing their identity if they embrace the upcoming Whiteshift as they have already done before.
As for the negatives on this book, it is long... way too long. Over 500 pages and so much could’ve been left out. You also can’t escape the author’s political orientation as well (center-center-left with a vendetta against the far-left). Part of this is admirable. Eric Kaufman is a well-known name in political science and academic hits against the far left are hard to come by. Still, I can’t help but feel, as I usually do, that blatant demonstrations of ones political affiliations in an informative book like this really take away from its value to those who it targets. Still though, I think this is an incredibly important book that anyone ought to read if they want an understanding of the driving forces of politics in the modern times, where the roots lie, and what is to come in the future.
The subtitle gives a lot away, but I found myself asking this consistently throughout the book. It seems to me that this is a culmination of various case studies that detail the history of ethnicity, ethnic conflict and ideology and policy-related decisions in the West while discussing four strategies whites have to deal with the already unfolding “Whiteshift” - an event where the demographics of white majorities in the West alter. According to Kaufman, in the US at least, we have already seen one Whiteshift before (the absorption of Jews, Irish, Italians, etc. into a “white” identity) that displaced the solitary hold on the “white” identity that previously only WASPs had. This is important because it demonstrates that a Whiteshift is not a catastrophic event and has historical precedent.
So what are these four strategies that whites can pursue and which is the best option? 1. Whites can fight. They can elect people like Donald Trump. They can build walls. They can pursue horrific episodes of mass deportation and ethnic cleansing. 2. Whites can repress. They can pretend like ethnic identity for whites doesn’t matter at all and slander attempts to recognize this as racist. 3. Whites can flee. They can segregate themselves from minorities, forming demographic hubs of white people who don’t leave the community and only marry within their race. Lastly, and as the author suggests, whites can join. Whites can merge as they already have done before with the first Whiteshift. Kaufman sees a future in which whites still look “light” but aren’t quite what we see today. Whiteness will look less like Rick Santorum and more like Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, who, despite being half Hispanic, are both culturally viewed as white. Indeed, Kaufman has some pretty interesting stuff in his book about the merging of Hispanics and whites into a single identity. Not entirely of course and it’s much more complex than that but it’s definitely something to check out.
Overall, his argument implies that we need to normalize the white fear of going extinct. Charlottesville is not the answer and neither is repressing white fears until whites no longer trust the institutions in place to protect their identity (which, in turn, leads to people like Donald Trump and decisions like Brexit). Whites can not win the demographic game. It really is already too late. They need not fear losing their identity if they embrace the upcoming Whiteshift as they have already done before.
As for the negatives on this book, it is long... way too long. Over 500 pages and so much could’ve been left out. You also can’t escape the author’s political orientation as well (center-center-left with a vendetta against the far-left). Part of this is admirable. Eric Kaufman is a well-known name in political science and academic hits against the far left are hard to come by. Still, I can’t help but feel, as I usually do, that blatant demonstrations of ones political affiliations in an informative book like this really take away from its value to those who it targets. Still though, I think this is an incredibly important book that anyone ought to read if they want an understanding of the driving forces of politics in the modern times, where the roots lie, and what is to come in the future.
August 9, 2020
Whiteshift tackles head on fraught territory regarding changing demographics in the Western world with the focus on how majority white populations have been affected by increased immigration by non-white communities and how these effects are playing out now and will likely play out over time. This is through the lens of the socio/political and includes a bevy of demographic data as well as the author’s own survey work (mostly conducted through MTurk questionnaires).
The positives were parts of the book that veered toward the academic and historical treatment of the topic, for example when he shows historical trends the rise of populist right parties in the UK and Europe. In addition, the final few chapters on predicting the effects of decreased white share in the US and Western Europe provide an engaging discussion on possible outcomes and demographic shifts and were overall thought provoking.
The negatives are the overarching IDF-friendly moralizing sections. The idea of negative vs. positive liberalism feels more like a vehicle to contrast the elements of liberalism which the author tends to disagree with. It’s clear he has a bone to pick with what he sees as overreach on the left when he states that “overzealous liberal norm-policing is contributing to a toxic, polarizing atmosphere.” It’s in these quips that he pulls back the curtain a bit too far: when it treats the topic dispassionately it’s much more convincing.
Perhaps because the author is mired solely in political and sociological considerations, there’s not as much emphasis on economic drivers of populist right sentiment. He does speak of reducing cultural inequality oddly enough. It’s stated that “right-wing populism has little to do with economics, but arises largely from ethnic change, caused by immigration which unsettles the existential security of conservative and order-seeking whites”. He may be overstating his case here.
His final recommendations in skewing immigration to fit the contours of his thesis seems a bit unworkable, much like Trump trying to unilaterally stem flows from his designated “s-hole countries”. However, the book’s considerations and analysis are not without merit and perhaps if Kaufmann was a bit more tolerant it would have made for an even more pertinent analysis.
The positives were parts of the book that veered toward the academic and historical treatment of the topic, for example when he shows historical trends the rise of populist right parties in the UK and Europe. In addition, the final few chapters on predicting the effects of decreased white share in the US and Western Europe provide an engaging discussion on possible outcomes and demographic shifts and were overall thought provoking.
The negatives are the overarching IDF-friendly moralizing sections. The idea of negative vs. positive liberalism feels more like a vehicle to contrast the elements of liberalism which the author tends to disagree with. It’s clear he has a bone to pick with what he sees as overreach on the left when he states that “overzealous liberal norm-policing is contributing to a toxic, polarizing atmosphere.” It’s in these quips that he pulls back the curtain a bit too far: when it treats the topic dispassionately it’s much more convincing.
Perhaps because the author is mired solely in political and sociological considerations, there’s not as much emphasis on economic drivers of populist right sentiment. He does speak of reducing cultural inequality oddly enough. It’s stated that “right-wing populism has little to do with economics, but arises largely from ethnic change, caused by immigration which unsettles the existential security of conservative and order-seeking whites”. He may be overstating his case here.
His final recommendations in skewing immigration to fit the contours of his thesis seems a bit unworkable, much like Trump trying to unilaterally stem flows from his designated “s-hole countries”. However, the book’s considerations and analysis are not without merit and perhaps if Kaufmann was a bit more tolerant it would have made for an even more pertinent analysis.
January 4, 2021
I tried to get through Whiteshift, got halfway through, and realized that it's truly not worth my time. There were a discouraging amount of overgeneralizations and missed nuances in this book, stemming from a detached rational framework that the author existed within. Kaufmann's arguments for the protection of white ethnic-majorities in Western countries and his perceived solutions to the 'refugee crisis' were predicated on protecting white fragility and racial anxieties that stem from racism rather than addressing the roots of these beliefs. His distinction between ethnicity and race is also confusing and these social constructs go completely unexamined. The very things that Kaufmann espouses that we should give credence to (i.e. ethnic anxieties) are ones that we should be dismantling. What is interesting is his accounts of how populist right-wing parties have risen in different Western countries and the strategies that they have used to garner support but there were many other issues that I had with this book.
February 28, 2019
Disclaimer: I received this book as part of Good Reads' First Reads program.
Whiteshift is a weighty, very long, scholarly tome that explains the worldwide situation that we in the USA first noticed with Brexit, and continued with the election of Donald Trump. While many have tried to explain it in economic terms, the premise of this book is that it all boils down to immigration and racism. White majorities in Europe and the US are finding themselves surrounded more and more with people who aren't white, and they are afraid of losing their majorities. In addition, many white conservatives (according to the author) are made to feel bad about their feelings by white liberals, which leads to a backlash. While I'm not sure I buy everything the authors says, or agree with all of his conclusions, it certainly gives me plenty to think about.
Whiteshift is a weighty, very long, scholarly tome that explains the worldwide situation that we in the USA first noticed with Brexit, and continued with the election of Donald Trump. While many have tried to explain it in economic terms, the premise of this book is that it all boils down to immigration and racism. White majorities in Europe and the US are finding themselves surrounded more and more with people who aren't white, and they are afraid of losing their majorities. In addition, many white conservatives (according to the author) are made to feel bad about their feelings by white liberals, which leads to a backlash. While I'm not sure I buy everything the authors says, or agree with all of his conclusions, it certainly gives me plenty to think about.
February 13, 2020
Challenging Book
Whiteshift is both reasonable and perceptive in the early chapters when the grievances that birthed white identity politics are explained and substantiated with statistical evidence. The book is less persuasive in the final chapters when unreasonable hypotheticals with respect to immigration and assimilation and cynical views of intermarriage are advanced. Of the final proposals, multivocalism could garner consensus in our polarized polity. Liberalism may be an easy target to assail but few alternative political arrangements are more palatable or ethical.
Whiteshift is both reasonable and perceptive in the early chapters when the grievances that birthed white identity politics are explained and substantiated with statistical evidence. The book is less persuasive in the final chapters when unreasonable hypotheticals with respect to immigration and assimilation and cynical views of intermarriage are advanced. Of the final proposals, multivocalism could garner consensus in our polarized polity. Liberalism may be an easy target to assail but few alternative political arrangements are more palatable or ethical.
October 19, 2020
Very thorough and unbiased look into the future of western nations and what it means for the constituent people's of those nations. This book needed to be written to understand the future we are heading for, it took Eric guts to do so and he did a great job explaining the realities about where we are at demographically
July 29, 2020
Best argument I’ve ever read about our ethnic present and future as a nation.
September 29, 2020
I think it was very comprehensive. The author managed to bring facts and objectivity to a very delicate and sensitive topic.
August 27, 2021
Like it or not, the decline of White European populations is something we need to talk about, and Eric Kaufmann gives the evidence for this to be a spoken about in a civil way. The issue has been repressed for too long, left in fringes which unchallenged has regressed into hate and half-truths loaded into conspiracy theories like the great replacement, energising populism, Trump and Brexit.
Kaufmann in great detail goes through historic events and happenings in the Anglosphere & Europe though I feel his Brexit portion is poor (he does not mention Cummings or the individual targeting using algorithms via facebook for starters). His policy suggestions seem both credible and seem evidence-based in their workings and politicians would do well to read these - indeed, for me they are the books highlight, though he takes more of a utilitarian view than I usually do. I do disagree with his narrow definitions of concepts including populism and racism. They are right- as far as they go. Its odd as racism is redefined in the second section, and I think he does not truly appreciate the subtlety of racism as a moral concept developing out if the psychological discrimination concept, and though I agree positive feelings to your own group are independent of negative to another, if you prefer/think 1 group superior, then treat them in a way that gives them something over another group did this would seem consequentially racist. Surely holding one group up is as unethical as holding one down?
He provides strong arguments to the main issue here being cultural and ethno concerns of immigration rather than economic; but I wonder if his own arguments about Kahneman could be used against him. Immigration is not always the top issue, the economy always comes close or surpasses and anger for elites seems to trump migrants; unlike these other issues however immigration has a fairly easy scapegoat/folk devil. Could a better land of plenty allay these fears? Kaufmann makes a good case for no, but as his own quotes from the great Kahneman show people prefer issues of whats in front of them (immigrants) rather than abstract numbers and ideas (globalisation). Just because focus is on migrants does not mean other issues arent a bigger problem. Keep a mans head and heart filled with hate for the other, and he will never realise its poverty thats killing him. Moreover his points run counter to the lessons of the last populist lift from the late 1800's. His points on racial categories does seem to neglect differences in countries; the "one drop" rule for the US in being black is very different to the whole "coloured" in South Africa, a difference likely down to the difference in size of a ruling racist white class; South Africans needed that line to remove class consciousness as they were a minority, in the US as a large majority they had the relative luxury of being exclusive. Similarly Hispanics in US while seem to be pushed away from being White I think would be considered White in Europe today - but not necessarily pre WW2. These categories are more malleable than I think he gives credit in time and space.
The ethno-cultural part of this book was critical but a headache. I had hoped for an objective steer, i felt the author could provide on disentangling the different concerns of ethnic and cultural anxiety. This remained elusive and attempts to do so were sparse and left wanting. The idea Robin Hood is an ethnic thing (bizarre) and when asked to objectively choose culturally American clearly they just chose from their viewpoints. The idea that NASCAR and San Francisco arent both American culture points just feels (to an outsider) stupid. I also don't feel I have learnt anything on what the cultural fears and issues are beyond Christianity vs Islam. I do feel though Kaufmann deserves defending here - 'culture' is one of those things that feels more like an illusory linguistic trick. We could use it a sentence sure, and we would understand other peoples use of it in a sentence, but start trying to nail a definition down and agree on examples suddenly we are trying to grab smoke.
Furthering into this a large frustration was the seeming lack of ethnic and cultural dividing - to make matters worse I am convinced some use the terms interchangeably. I have heard people speak about multiculturalism when in terms of definition i think they meant multiethnicism (if that is even a word). The only analogy i can think of is its like disentangling the body from the self. They are not the same thing, but that does not mean that they are isolatable different things. It makes understanding the issue harder if not impossible.
What Kaufmann makes clear though is something Brexit taught me. Tactics against these so far have been poor. "Just ignore" immigration was clearly a stupid idea, and Kaufmanns page 202-203 counter is brilliant. Suppressing debate via calls of racism is also not helping. Firstly, the substitution for an argument seeming non-racist means we never deal with the actual issue. Secondly, the issues are moved and spoken about in echo chambers with little balance or critical thought. Why stop talking about it in the Internet Age when i can just exclude you? These issues go unaddressed bubbling at the fringes of politics and eventually spill over and have been manipulated in a theatre you have had no input in. Brexit is a good example of repressed grievances spilling over from those who felt they could not talk about their issues in a referendum that used the EU as a punching bag for many issues the EU had little to do with. The issue lies around frustrations of trying to disentangle ethno-cultural issues and an attempt to remove racist sentiment from non-racist sentiment. Frustratingly i dont think this can be done cleanly, if at all. A person having fears bound in taboo (e.g. racism) and concerns for non-taboo subjects (e.g. housing, ability to access healthcare) don't happen in separate vaccums. This for me also holds for his "Racial self-interest isn't racist" in regards to immigration, theoretically sure that might be true. Theoretically holocaust denial doesn't have to be anti-semetic and yet I am waiting for true a scenario for that to happen. I also think racial self-interest, at least from applications of game theory, long term hampers rather than helps the group. Regardless shaping debate to make people explain why something is racist may help add reason and remove personal attacks from the arena. Allowing limited racist or other discriminative devil advocates (or percieved, pending on your yardstick) could help banish them to the margins by showing how they go against ideals/are fraught with inconsistencies, which is better than repressing these thoughts and feelings that eventually burst, it would allow reduced tensions and polarisation. Or I open pandoras box and destroy western civilisation as I know it. Either/or.
My biggest frustration, at least I believe - lies not with the book or the author - but with the fact we have to deal with this in a world of climate change, rocketing inequality, rising authoritative superpower China and nuclear weapons this being the defining issue of my time makes me want to scream (Kaufmann seems to agree with me on this). I suppose I see left-modernists and populists squabbles a distraction. Not to say immigration is all sunshines and rainbows - a balance needs to be struck (mainly for the anxious; and this extends beyond whites), and immigrants to the UK are signifcantly more homophibic, mysognistic, and fundamentalist - and I would be pro screening out/using programmes to integrate these members, but their children and grandchildrens values steadily regress to the mean of host nation values, long-term these issues moderate or disappear. This is in ideal world though where climate refugees arent going to increase exponentially. Culture is the longest running game of chinese whispers that inevitably changes without the breathtaking current pace of technological change or immigration. Considering the biggest tenets of UK culture i think of (e.g. football, Christmas, democracy, pubs, shakespeare?) have been largely assimilated by immigrants and their descendants anyway. In 25 years increase of people belong to non-White groups shot up from 6-15%; and the monarchy approval rating went up 6%. I"m not quite sure the fear of values is entirely grounded in reality though numbers for the British (but not the US) on immigration are. The right of ethno self-determination to be able to say no to immigration? This has farcical strings attached, such as myths of "our land" and usually assumptions of life as a zero sum game. When do you become native and get a say, how many generations? Ethno-nationalists aren't telling, most likely because i suspect they don't know. Geneticists show the history of humanity is one of immigration and admixture of different populations, which accelerates during times of technological change like now, and borders not movement is the quirk of our time. Ethno-nationalists illusion is that this is a static concept and history teaches us this is dynamic, the faucet of immigration intensity changes but never yields. It could dawn down to shoddy questions on identity or a moral philosphy question of do you have a right to say who lives where particularly if they dont violate your rights? I'm sure to many in the West the Chinese dictating who can live in which City or rural area would seem a violation of right - this asks if our nation lines are meaningful, or just another right violation based on arbitrary lines by a state. It also assumes natives not saying yes over the benefits of any immigration. The other is the environmental strain - something which facts seems to be elusive on, and nobody I have heard has brought it up. Though so far we have lacked a malthusian catastrophe, farming productivity has increased, and Britain has already been a net food importer since pre WW2. I imagine this will come eventually, though if the ecological concern is real or if its just another subsitute for less PC complaints (or most likely, both) we will again probably never really untangle - Kaufmann does frustrate me by assuming sometimes racist/non-racist issues and reasons exist fully independently of each other.
I understand where the underlying anxiety is coming from, but what is really needed here is a firm grasp of reality not coddling. This would be the point I throw whiteshift at them. His ability to pull together a well researched argument is in full display in his takedown of the white genocide theory, why white decline long term will dissipate and likely whites will increase, and where our longer term fears should be is once again commendable. If people are able to overcome issues laid out by Kahneman is another matter. Myths ironically will be the saving grace of nationalism long-term, as migrants children do assmilate. My girlfriend is 3rd gen American of Hispanic/Jewish heritage, and likes to make fun of beating Britain in 1776 - despite her first American ancestor arriving in the 1920's. Similarly, when Germany beat England in the 2010 world cup a friend said to me "yeah but we won the war" a man (or boy then) born in 1993 to parents who came to the UK in the 1970's from Sri Lanka. My dad last year went to a Wedding of his colleague Muhammad, who insisted men wore kilts in line with his scottish background - and when I went to Oktoberfest I saw Muslim girls in Munich with hijabs and matching Drindl (the traditional dresses). The last comedy show I went to the mans opening joke was "i'm black-british. You know the best thing about being Black-British? Being able to have all the pride of the Empire and none of the guilt". Kaufmann focuses more on intermarriage assimilation, but i think the integration of his "salad bowl" minorities is worth noting - frustratingly he does not do so, but its already a tome. Kaufmann believes the way forward is multivocalism within a flexible nationalism with civic nationalism. I agree, the franchises nationalism is clever and works well for western values, though I feel he undermines the powers of civic nationalism, I think there are numerous things we can agree on (and sometimes in a liberal society, that is to be able to disagree). Overall an eye opening read that is a good sword against white anxiety and how to disspell this going forwards in an evidence based approach.
Kaufmann in great detail goes through historic events and happenings in the Anglosphere & Europe though I feel his Brexit portion is poor (he does not mention Cummings or the individual targeting using algorithms via facebook for starters). His policy suggestions seem both credible and seem evidence-based in their workings and politicians would do well to read these - indeed, for me they are the books highlight, though he takes more of a utilitarian view than I usually do. I do disagree with his narrow definitions of concepts including populism and racism. They are right- as far as they go. Its odd as racism is redefined in the second section, and I think he does not truly appreciate the subtlety of racism as a moral concept developing out if the psychological discrimination concept, and though I agree positive feelings to your own group are independent of negative to another, if you prefer/think 1 group superior, then treat them in a way that gives them something over another group did this would seem consequentially racist. Surely holding one group up is as unethical as holding one down?
He provides strong arguments to the main issue here being cultural and ethno concerns of immigration rather than economic; but I wonder if his own arguments about Kahneman could be used against him. Immigration is not always the top issue, the economy always comes close or surpasses and anger for elites seems to trump migrants; unlike these other issues however immigration has a fairly easy scapegoat/folk devil. Could a better land of plenty allay these fears? Kaufmann makes a good case for no, but as his own quotes from the great Kahneman show people prefer issues of whats in front of them (immigrants) rather than abstract numbers and ideas (globalisation). Just because focus is on migrants does not mean other issues arent a bigger problem. Keep a mans head and heart filled with hate for the other, and he will never realise its poverty thats killing him. Moreover his points run counter to the lessons of the last populist lift from the late 1800's. His points on racial categories does seem to neglect differences in countries; the "one drop" rule for the US in being black is very different to the whole "coloured" in South Africa, a difference likely down to the difference in size of a ruling racist white class; South Africans needed that line to remove class consciousness as they were a minority, in the US as a large majority they had the relative luxury of being exclusive. Similarly Hispanics in US while seem to be pushed away from being White I think would be considered White in Europe today - but not necessarily pre WW2. These categories are more malleable than I think he gives credit in time and space.
The ethno-cultural part of this book was critical but a headache. I had hoped for an objective steer, i felt the author could provide on disentangling the different concerns of ethnic and cultural anxiety. This remained elusive and attempts to do so were sparse and left wanting. The idea Robin Hood is an ethnic thing (bizarre) and when asked to objectively choose culturally American clearly they just chose from their viewpoints. The idea that NASCAR and San Francisco arent both American culture points just feels (to an outsider) stupid. I also don't feel I have learnt anything on what the cultural fears and issues are beyond Christianity vs Islam. I do feel though Kaufmann deserves defending here - 'culture' is one of those things that feels more like an illusory linguistic trick. We could use it a sentence sure, and we would understand other peoples use of it in a sentence, but start trying to nail a definition down and agree on examples suddenly we are trying to grab smoke.
Furthering into this a large frustration was the seeming lack of ethnic and cultural dividing - to make matters worse I am convinced some use the terms interchangeably. I have heard people speak about multiculturalism when in terms of definition i think they meant multiethnicism (if that is even a word). The only analogy i can think of is its like disentangling the body from the self. They are not the same thing, but that does not mean that they are isolatable different things. It makes understanding the issue harder if not impossible.
What Kaufmann makes clear though is something Brexit taught me. Tactics against these so far have been poor. "Just ignore" immigration was clearly a stupid idea, and Kaufmanns page 202-203 counter is brilliant. Suppressing debate via calls of racism is also not helping. Firstly, the substitution for an argument seeming non-racist means we never deal with the actual issue. Secondly, the issues are moved and spoken about in echo chambers with little balance or critical thought. Why stop talking about it in the Internet Age when i can just exclude you? These issues go unaddressed bubbling at the fringes of politics and eventually spill over and have been manipulated in a theatre you have had no input in. Brexit is a good example of repressed grievances spilling over from those who felt they could not talk about their issues in a referendum that used the EU as a punching bag for many issues the EU had little to do with. The issue lies around frustrations of trying to disentangle ethno-cultural issues and an attempt to remove racist sentiment from non-racist sentiment. Frustratingly i dont think this can be done cleanly, if at all. A person having fears bound in taboo (e.g. racism) and concerns for non-taboo subjects (e.g. housing, ability to access healthcare) don't happen in separate vaccums. This for me also holds for his "Racial self-interest isn't racist" in regards to immigration, theoretically sure that might be true. Theoretically holocaust denial doesn't have to be anti-semetic and yet I am waiting for true a scenario for that to happen. I also think racial self-interest, at least from applications of game theory, long term hampers rather than helps the group. Regardless shaping debate to make people explain why something is racist may help add reason and remove personal attacks from the arena. Allowing limited racist or other discriminative devil advocates (or percieved, pending on your yardstick) could help banish them to the margins by showing how they go against ideals/are fraught with inconsistencies, which is better than repressing these thoughts and feelings that eventually burst, it would allow reduced tensions and polarisation. Or I open pandoras box and destroy western civilisation as I know it. Either/or.
My biggest frustration, at least I believe - lies not with the book or the author - but with the fact we have to deal with this in a world of climate change, rocketing inequality, rising authoritative superpower China and nuclear weapons this being the defining issue of my time makes me want to scream (Kaufmann seems to agree with me on this). I suppose I see left-modernists and populists squabbles a distraction. Not to say immigration is all sunshines and rainbows - a balance needs to be struck (mainly for the anxious; and this extends beyond whites), and immigrants to the UK are signifcantly more homophibic, mysognistic, and fundamentalist - and I would be pro screening out/using programmes to integrate these members, but their children and grandchildrens values steadily regress to the mean of host nation values, long-term these issues moderate or disappear. This is in ideal world though where climate refugees arent going to increase exponentially. Culture is the longest running game of chinese whispers that inevitably changes without the breathtaking current pace of technological change or immigration. Considering the biggest tenets of UK culture i think of (e.g. football, Christmas, democracy, pubs, shakespeare?) have been largely assimilated by immigrants and their descendants anyway. In 25 years increase of people belong to non-White groups shot up from 6-15%; and the monarchy approval rating went up 6%. I"m not quite sure the fear of values is entirely grounded in reality though numbers for the British (but not the US) on immigration are. The right of ethno self-determination to be able to say no to immigration? This has farcical strings attached, such as myths of "our land" and usually assumptions of life as a zero sum game. When do you become native and get a say, how many generations? Ethno-nationalists aren't telling, most likely because i suspect they don't know. Geneticists show the history of humanity is one of immigration and admixture of different populations, which accelerates during times of technological change like now, and borders not movement is the quirk of our time. Ethno-nationalists illusion is that this is a static concept and history teaches us this is dynamic, the faucet of immigration intensity changes but never yields. It could dawn down to shoddy questions on identity or a moral philosphy question of do you have a right to say who lives where particularly if they dont violate your rights? I'm sure to many in the West the Chinese dictating who can live in which City or rural area would seem a violation of right - this asks if our nation lines are meaningful, or just another right violation based on arbitrary lines by a state. It also assumes natives not saying yes over the benefits of any immigration. The other is the environmental strain - something which facts seems to be elusive on, and nobody I have heard has brought it up. Though so far we have lacked a malthusian catastrophe, farming productivity has increased, and Britain has already been a net food importer since pre WW2. I imagine this will come eventually, though if the ecological concern is real or if its just another subsitute for less PC complaints (or most likely, both) we will again probably never really untangle - Kaufmann does frustrate me by assuming sometimes racist/non-racist issues and reasons exist fully independently of each other.
I understand where the underlying anxiety is coming from, but what is really needed here is a firm grasp of reality not coddling. This would be the point I throw whiteshift at them. His ability to pull together a well researched argument is in full display in his takedown of the white genocide theory, why white decline long term will dissipate and likely whites will increase, and where our longer term fears should be is once again commendable. If people are able to overcome issues laid out by Kahneman is another matter. Myths ironically will be the saving grace of nationalism long-term, as migrants children do assmilate. My girlfriend is 3rd gen American of Hispanic/Jewish heritage, and likes to make fun of beating Britain in 1776 - despite her first American ancestor arriving in the 1920's. Similarly, when Germany beat England in the 2010 world cup a friend said to me "yeah but we won the war" a man (or boy then) born in 1993 to parents who came to the UK in the 1970's from Sri Lanka. My dad last year went to a Wedding of his colleague Muhammad, who insisted men wore kilts in line with his scottish background - and when I went to Oktoberfest I saw Muslim girls in Munich with hijabs and matching Drindl (the traditional dresses). The last comedy show I went to the mans opening joke was "i'm black-british. You know the best thing about being Black-British? Being able to have all the pride of the Empire and none of the guilt". Kaufmann focuses more on intermarriage assimilation, but i think the integration of his "salad bowl" minorities is worth noting - frustratingly he does not do so, but its already a tome. Kaufmann believes the way forward is multivocalism within a flexible nationalism with civic nationalism. I agree, the franchises nationalism is clever and works well for western values, though I feel he undermines the powers of civic nationalism, I think there are numerous things we can agree on (and sometimes in a liberal society, that is to be able to disagree). Overall an eye opening read that is a good sword against white anxiety and how to disspell this going forwards in an evidence based approach.
July 16, 2021
Dreary, disengaging, and deluded. The contradictions he makes in his arguments throughout this book are limitless.
His understanding and explanations of racism are extremely monolithic, and individualistic. His definition of it for this book's purposes is when one group shows 'antipathy towards outgroups'.
He argues for 'symmetrical identity politics', where white's ethnic interests and white identity gets as much credit or acceptance as minorities'. He argues that the repression of white ethnic interests is a result purely of the 'left-modernists' and radical white guilt-ridden liberals...
African people, living in countries stolen by a European white's, were enslaved for a goods trade from the 1400s up until the mid-1800s, then treated as less than human, then segregated and avoided, then accepted but still despised...(USA, Britain, France, Spain, Brazil...) Imagine that psychology and view of African people building up and flowing through the white majorities of all these countries over centuries. Kaufmann ignores power ENTIRELY in this book. Racism is not just an 'antipathy towards outgroups' it is about power and control based on evil values over those outgroups, and all the psychological side-effects that come with that! White western identity has power (colonialism) and evil exploitation in it, this is partly why it is more suppressed now, as many elements of it are satanic and tied to exploitation, power, hatred, lies, greed, arrogance and violence. You can't compare white identity from English whites or US Euro whites or Brazil Portuguese whites, to those in Bulgaria or Eastern Europe as if they are the same, (Kaufmann does this on numerous occasions - he predictably ignores the HUGE historical variations in these differing white majorities and instead blames the left-modernist mafia in the west for suppressing ALL white western identity)
This book is heavily influenced by Trump and Brexit. He took those two events as an undoubtable explanation that white majorities all over the West are in deep ethnic grievance. He conveniently forgets how close both Brexit and Trump votes were, and forgets how shambolic a contender Clinton was and the campaign that she ran was. The one moment in the book where he finally gives an example of white ethnic interests, after something like 500 pages of confused arguments as to why they should be permitted, low and behold, it's of course about slowing and controlling immigration. Such a unique white interest that is, right? It's not like any other non-white countries have ever shared that interest...He clearly hasn't given much thought to any actual examples of white interests/identities - maybe this is because if he was honest and historically accurate he'd report that a lot of them are of an evil nature. He just says they should all be valid and celebrated as equally as minorites.
His understanding and explanations of racism are extremely monolithic, and individualistic. His definition of it for this book's purposes is when one group shows 'antipathy towards outgroups'.
He argues for 'symmetrical identity politics', where white's ethnic interests and white identity gets as much credit or acceptance as minorities'. He argues that the repression of white ethnic interests is a result purely of the 'left-modernists' and radical white guilt-ridden liberals...
African people, living in countries stolen by a European white's, were enslaved for a goods trade from the 1400s up until the mid-1800s, then treated as less than human, then segregated and avoided, then accepted but still despised...(USA, Britain, France, Spain, Brazil...) Imagine that psychology and view of African people building up and flowing through the white majorities of all these countries over centuries. Kaufmann ignores power ENTIRELY in this book. Racism is not just an 'antipathy towards outgroups' it is about power and control based on evil values over those outgroups, and all the psychological side-effects that come with that! White western identity has power (colonialism) and evil exploitation in it, this is partly why it is more suppressed now, as many elements of it are satanic and tied to exploitation, power, hatred, lies, greed, arrogance and violence. You can't compare white identity from English whites or US Euro whites or Brazil Portuguese whites, to those in Bulgaria or Eastern Europe as if they are the same, (Kaufmann does this on numerous occasions - he predictably ignores the HUGE historical variations in these differing white majorities and instead blames the left-modernist mafia in the west for suppressing ALL white western identity)
This book is heavily influenced by Trump and Brexit. He took those two events as an undoubtable explanation that white majorities all over the West are in deep ethnic grievance. He conveniently forgets how close both Brexit and Trump votes were, and forgets how shambolic a contender Clinton was and the campaign that she ran was. The one moment in the book where he finally gives an example of white ethnic interests, after something like 500 pages of confused arguments as to why they should be permitted, low and behold, it's of course about slowing and controlling immigration. Such a unique white interest that is, right? It's not like any other non-white countries have ever shared that interest...He clearly hasn't given much thought to any actual examples of white interests/identities - maybe this is because if he was honest and historically accurate he'd report that a lot of them are of an evil nature. He just says they should all be valid and celebrated as equally as minorites.
December 28, 2019
I could not finish reading this book. I found it insulting, implausible and filled with gross oversimplifications. At the outset, Kauffman tries to ascribe diversity to geographic factors: “Europe is one of three relatively homogenous world regions, along with North Africa and East Asia. States in these zones often have ethnic majorities of 90 percent or more, mainly because of geoclimatic variation—topography and soil type—is lower. This reduced cultural diversity by facilitating historic assimilation. By contrast, mountainous places such as New Guinea or the Caucasus impede these processes and thus are extremely diverse. “ (p. 12)
The book goes downhill from here. Really? Geography and climate dictate diversity or homogeneity? The exceptions are numerous. One look at Utah suggests the fallacy of such an argument.
Another sweeping generalization: “Religion evolved to permit cooperation in larger units.” (p. 20)
Yes white majorities are in decline. Does this mean something bad? Is there really a loss of white ethnic-cultural confidence? Kauffmann posits that this demographic change is resulting in a growing culture war between increasingly insecure white conservatives and energized white liberals (p 3). Hmmm.
Finally, Kauffmann argues that “minorities cherish the white majority as an important piece of their national identity” (p 10). Not so sure about this.
I could go on but I cannot read this book.
The book goes downhill from here. Really? Geography and climate dictate diversity or homogeneity? The exceptions are numerous. One look at Utah suggests the fallacy of such an argument.
Another sweeping generalization: “Religion evolved to permit cooperation in larger units.” (p. 20)
Yes white majorities are in decline. Does this mean something bad? Is there really a loss of white ethnic-cultural confidence? Kauffmann posits that this demographic change is resulting in a growing culture war between increasingly insecure white conservatives and energized white liberals (p 3). Hmmm.
Finally, Kauffmann argues that “minorities cherish the white majority as an important piece of their national identity” (p 10). Not so sure about this.
I could go on but I cannot read this book.
May 2, 2023
“Whiteshift” is an open and balanced discussion about how white people, and the societies they've constructed, will deal with becoming minorities in the Western societies (United States, Canada, UK, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand) during the 21st century.
Over the past few decades, we have seen the rise of Liberals in Western countries who want to accelerate that change to whites being the majority – largely through immigration – and at the same time the rise of Conservatives who are resisting this change.
In theory, there's a need in most societies to have both Liberals who want to change the status quo, and Conservatives who don't want change, as well as having a fair debate between the two; however, in recent years, there has been a low willingness to have on open debate between the two positions. Both "sides" have taken extreme positions and the Centre is not strong enough to provide a counterweight to either extreme.
Consequently, an increasing number of Western nations are now grappling with "Culture wars" that are dividing their people. Understanding this Whiteshift, can help reduce this conflicts and can potentially allow for the return of open and fair debate. The author discusses alternate points of view and breaks down many arguments. One of the more interesting things he does is state that white people's points of view have been repressed and that it's time to allow this group to speak.
This book is about four different strategies that white majorities can now employ with respect to immigration and the inevitable rise of minorities to become the majority in this Century. These strategies including 1.) Flight 2.) Repress (white thinking in society) 3.) Flight and 4.) Join, the minorities. Each strategy has its own strengths and weaknesses and while the book doesn't describe this, they are no mutually exclusive.
The book is extremely well researched and backed up by quantitative and qualitative studies about how the various Western nations are dealing with this White Shift from being the majority to a minority in their home nations. It delves deeply into the reasons for the change in demographics and how various segments within society – left, right, and centre – are dealing with this shift.
What I liked most about the book was how it laid out the various strategies taken by the various segments of Western societies. For example, the modern left paint the majority whites as having “White privilege” which is similar to the idea of “Original sin” – a stain that cannot be removed. Really? I felt that painting Woke as a religion has helped me better understand the movement.
It also pointed to the Conservative grievance that all racial groups with the exception of white people are encouraged to celebrate their culture and differences - by Liberals. Clearly there's something unfair about this.
I found the author's analysis very interesting but at the same time very heavy to read. It took a long time to get though this book and to understand every point.
This is an important book that helps one understand how changing demographics and voting power are supplying fuel to both left-wing and right-wing movements in Western societies. It is also very helpful in projecting how Western societies will evolve over the 21st Century and this White Shift continues.
Over the past few decades, we have seen the rise of Liberals in Western countries who want to accelerate that change to whites being the majority – largely through immigration – and at the same time the rise of Conservatives who are resisting this change.
In theory, there's a need in most societies to have both Liberals who want to change the status quo, and Conservatives who don't want change, as well as having a fair debate between the two; however, in recent years, there has been a low willingness to have on open debate between the two positions. Both "sides" have taken extreme positions and the Centre is not strong enough to provide a counterweight to either extreme.
Consequently, an increasing number of Western nations are now grappling with "Culture wars" that are dividing their people. Understanding this Whiteshift, can help reduce this conflicts and can potentially allow for the return of open and fair debate. The author discusses alternate points of view and breaks down many arguments. One of the more interesting things he does is state that white people's points of view have been repressed and that it's time to allow this group to speak.
This book is about four different strategies that white majorities can now employ with respect to immigration and the inevitable rise of minorities to become the majority in this Century. These strategies including 1.) Flight 2.) Repress (white thinking in society) 3.) Flight and 4.) Join, the minorities. Each strategy has its own strengths and weaknesses and while the book doesn't describe this, they are no mutually exclusive.
The book is extremely well researched and backed up by quantitative and qualitative studies about how the various Western nations are dealing with this White Shift from being the majority to a minority in their home nations. It delves deeply into the reasons for the change in demographics and how various segments within society – left, right, and centre – are dealing with this shift.
What I liked most about the book was how it laid out the various strategies taken by the various segments of Western societies. For example, the modern left paint the majority whites as having “White privilege” which is similar to the idea of “Original sin” – a stain that cannot be removed. Really? I felt that painting Woke as a religion has helped me better understand the movement.
It also pointed to the Conservative grievance that all racial groups with the exception of white people are encouraged to celebrate their culture and differences - by Liberals. Clearly there's something unfair about this.
I found the author's analysis very interesting but at the same time very heavy to read. It took a long time to get though this book and to understand every point.
This is an important book that helps one understand how changing demographics and voting power are supplying fuel to both left-wing and right-wing movements in Western societies. It is also very helpful in projecting how Western societies will evolve over the 21st Century and this White Shift continues.
February 21, 2020
This is a highly controversial book and in the coming years, I suspect, this book will be used repeatedly in legitimizing identitarian movements.
This book contains some good points and it does a good job at mapping demographic changes in the West and the result ethnic conflict that is resulting from it. However, Eric Kaufmann, like most on the extreme right-wing, treats race as a monolith. Historically, the definition of whiteness has continuously changed given the political climate. In the US, the 'Big White Camp' for a long time excluded the Irish, the Italians and the Polish. In Europe, Nazis regarded the biggest ostensibly white ethnic group (the Slavs) as subhumans. It is only in the last 4-5 decades that the definition of whiteness has expanded and is now tied extricable to those who can trace their origin west of the Urals and north of Anatolia. Kaufmann hardly focuses on this, which makes the reader question if his intention with this book was only to provide a blanket of innocence to those who espouse identitatarian beliefs.
The history of civilization is a history of changing ethnographies. Once, this change was brought about by force, plunder and genocide (colonization of Americas, Australia, Aryan invasion of India, Turkic conquest of Anatolia etc.). But now, this change is gradual, peaceful and for the most part, a net benefit to the natives (shrinking labor force, declining birth rates etc.). It is an improvement upon the past and regressing back into nationalism will only push civilization backwards.
This book contains some good points and it does a good job at mapping demographic changes in the West and the result ethnic conflict that is resulting from it. However, Eric Kaufmann, like most on the extreme right-wing, treats race as a monolith. Historically, the definition of whiteness has continuously changed given the political climate. In the US, the 'Big White Camp' for a long time excluded the Irish, the Italians and the Polish. In Europe, Nazis regarded the biggest ostensibly white ethnic group (the Slavs) as subhumans. It is only in the last 4-5 decades that the definition of whiteness has expanded and is now tied extricable to those who can trace their origin west of the Urals and north of Anatolia. Kaufmann hardly focuses on this, which makes the reader question if his intention with this book was only to provide a blanket of innocence to those who espouse identitatarian beliefs.
The history of civilization is a history of changing ethnographies. Once, this change was brought about by force, plunder and genocide (colonization of Americas, Australia, Aryan invasion of India, Turkic conquest of Anatolia etc.). But now, this change is gradual, peaceful and for the most part, a net benefit to the natives (shrinking labor force, declining birth rates etc.). It is an improvement upon the past and regressing back into nationalism will only push civilization backwards.
March 5, 2020
Periaatteessa olen monesta asiasta täysin eri mieltä kirjoittajan kanssa. Kaufman hakee selityksiä valkoisen enemmistön kokemalle/tuntemalle uhalle maahanmuuton sekä monien muiden vähemmistöjen myötä. Hän yhdistää lisääntyneen maahanmuuton ja liberaaliin ajattelumaailmaan (jossa valkoisen enemmistön huoli omasta kulttuurista tuomitaan rasismina) tilanteeseen, jossa osa väestöstä ei koe omaavansa puhe- eikä valitusoikeutta. Ja kun tämä pelko omasta kulttuurista ja identiteetistä on pitänyt tehdä aiempaa peitellymmin tai kiertää (taloudellinen kritiikki kantokyvystä), on pinnan alla ollut kannatusta avoimemmalle mielipiteen ilmaisulle. Ja kun maahanmuutto on kasvanut, on lopulta pinnan alta paljastunut ajatuksia, joita liberaali osa väestöstä vierastaa.
Ratkaisuna näihin moniin ongelmiin esitetään maahanmuuton hidastamista, että muutos olisi vähemmän raju ja ihmiset ehtisivät tottua tähän. Tällä aikaa Kaufman esittää esimerkiksi, että pakolaisia otettaisiin jopa entistä enemmän länsimaihin asumaan, mutta heidät asutettaisiin omiin leireihinsä tai alueisiinsa, ilman että heille myönnettäisiin turvapaikkastatusta. Tämän ajatuksen ristiriidat ja osin järkyttävät vaikutelmat eivät vaadi hirveästi ajattelua.
Kirjassa on paljon huolestuttavaa, kiinnostavaa, vastalauseita herättävää ja muunlaista lukemisen arvoista pohdintaa. Erityisesti kaikille perussuomalaisia myönteisemmin maahanmuuttoon suhtautuville. Siksi viisi tähteä.
Ratkaisuna näihin moniin ongelmiin esitetään maahanmuuton hidastamista, että muutos olisi vähemmän raju ja ihmiset ehtisivät tottua tähän. Tällä aikaa Kaufman esittää esimerkiksi, että pakolaisia otettaisiin jopa entistä enemmän länsimaihin asumaan, mutta heidät asutettaisiin omiin leireihinsä tai alueisiinsa, ilman että heille myönnettäisiin turvapaikkastatusta. Tämän ajatuksen ristiriidat ja osin järkyttävät vaikutelmat eivät vaadi hirveästi ajattelua.
Kirjassa on paljon huolestuttavaa, kiinnostavaa, vastalauseita herättävää ja muunlaista lukemisen arvoista pohdintaa. Erityisesti kaikille perussuomalaisia myönteisemmin maahanmuuttoon suhtautuville. Siksi viisi tähteä.
August 19, 2022
I experienced this book in audio format. Even though I did that I could only make it about halfway through before I had to stop. The book was just too wordy and the author was taking forever to make his points. He does an exhaustive job of going through the history of immigration and ideas about immigration in both the United States, United Kingdom. He touches upon Europe more broadly too as well. His basic point is that ant-immigration arguments that focus on economics are just masks for the underlying fear of ethnic change. People can’t express fear of ethnic change without being denounced as racists so they use economic arguments instead. The author is against racism but thinks that we should be able to honestly debate the issue of immigration when it comes to ethnic change. He notes that in the US, the concept of whiteness was expanded throughout history to include more people. First it meant just “Anglo-Saxon” British descent people then expanded to include others like the Germans, Scandinavians and even the Irish and Italians. Perhaps it will keep expanding.
The basic points are interesting and part of me wants to know where his argument goes but it just gets buried in this book. It is not as crudely alarmist as The Strange Death of Europe but also much more tedious. The editor really needed to cut this one down to size. I think the author was making some good points but needed to be more succinct.
The basic points are interesting and part of me wants to know where his argument goes but it just gets buried in this book. It is not as crudely alarmist as The Strange Death of Europe but also much more tedious. The editor really needed to cut this one down to size. I think the author was making some good points but needed to be more succinct.
September 29, 2023
A nuanced, balanced and honest conversation about race and immigration. I appreciate that he pointed out that the problem is the mix of ethnic groups both under a coercive government more than anything else. I think we should just get rid of coercive government, but if that’s not an option I think he may be right about the future of whiteness. And I really appreciated the discussion about the taboo about talking about white interest and how that was broken and the effects. Most people don’t think in such deep and complex dimensions. This is not an “immigration good” or “immigration bad” book. It has pros and cons for different people in different amounts. Now that immigration in America has skyrocketed and even liberal cities are now breaking out in protest he has been proven right about the reaction of so many immigrants. Every conservative that I’ve spoken to was fine with the idea of immigrants coming to work and supporting themselves without taking anything from the system. It’s only when they are give goods and services from the government and the tax payers are resentful. I loved the point he made about how important the distinction is between citizen and non-citizen. I have been thinking for a while that the solution is to deny non-citizens the right to guaranteed care in any ER and public school education for all children. It sounds unkind, but we can’t treat anyone who walks into our country as if they are entitled to everything a citizen is.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews