Hillary Rodham Clinton is right. She has the broader and whiter political coalition, so she should, by all rights, be the Democratic presidential nominee.
After all, in other realms of the political process, we routinely refer to "black districts" or "Latino districts" and speak of the necessity of those jurisdictions to be represented by black or Latino elected officials. Well, then, because the American population is 66% white, maybe the United States is a de facto white district that should be represented accordingly.
Don't scoff at the idea. Ethnic and racial self-determination have been underlying factors in the formation of modern nations. Israel is one example, along with anti-colonial revolutions and states in the Third World. The principle of ethnic self-determination made its way into the United Nations Charter, and it lurks in contemporary domestic discussions about the political and cultural rights of every kind of minority.
The Clinton campaign's assertion of her electability based on "hardworking white American" voters reveals deep divisions in the Democratic coalition. But it isn't a sign of the resurgence of white supremacy in America. Rather, it is a formal re-articulation of whiteness as a social category and a racial interest group.
Last week, exit polls in West Virginia showed that Barack Obama might be facing some fierce racial resistance if he becomes the Democratic nominee. More than half of West Virginia Democratic voters -- 95% of whom are white -- said they would be dissatisfied if Obama won the nomination.
Is this white supremacy? No, in fact it might be its opposite, an acknowledgment that white privilege has its limits. With immigration and globalization reformulating who we are as a nation, it isn't the white elites that are threatened by the changes; rather, it's the nearly 70% of whites who are not college educated who figure among the most insecure of Americans. Many feel that their jobs are being outsourced or taken by immigrants -- legal or otherwise -- and that their culture is being subsumed. When Clinton promises to make their voices heard, she's appealing not to Anglo-Saxon racial triumphalism but to the fear of white decline.
-the rest here
Yes Left Wing zealots are secretly becoming downright giddy at the thought of an emerging "White Community".
Because it signals the demographic decline of the White Race in America. Whites will soon be just another minority group vying for political attention.
The articles hispanic author notes that America is 66% White, but this is a fallacy promoted by the US census which counts North Africans, Jews, Arabs, Turks, Persians and other middle-eastern groups as "white". And when you factor in the uncounted illegals the percentage of Whites (as in people of indigenous European descent) in America is somewhere around 54%.
The author also mentions globalization. Here the leftists begin to squirm due the fact that in "our global village" Whites account for only 13% of the population. Quite the minority indeed.
The article itself is titled, 'The Fear Of White Decline' .
Is there a fear of White decline in America?
For the simple reason that as the percentage of Whites drop in any given area, the greater the increase in crime, drugs, gangs, prostitution, murder, rape, political corruption, theft, infrastructural degradation, poverty and disease.
For example, there is nothing more ironic or comical than hearing about how "dynamic" and "wonderful" Latin-American Culture is from people who are fleeing from it.
Will White Americans come to see themselves as a Community again?
But it has nothing to do with what leftist think it is.
The truth is White people's tolerance for "Multiculturalism" is directly related to their distance from it.
And when there is no place left to White-flight to, well, I think a great many of the other minorities are in for a rather rude awakening at the reaction of a couple of hundred million White people (in both American and Canada) who have been striped of their inheritance and backed into a corner with nothing left to loose...