Bannon responded: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” he didn’t finish his sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”
> While Bannon didn’t explicitly say anything against immigrants, he seemed to hint at the idea of a white nationalist identity with the phrase “civic society.”
That seems like a pretty big jump from him citing a common stat to Verge accusing him of calling for a white nationalist state. He didn't say anything close to that.
He may hold nationalist ideas where he wants more American's founding good companies domestically. But I'm not really seeing where he is calling for a white society or for an end of Asians starting companies? It could easily just as much imply that he just wants to see more Americans being successful founders in the US tech industry in addition to Asians?
From someone outside of the industry it may be a rational concern question to ask why there aren't more Americans starting those top companies? You can ask that and be concerned about that while not being characterizing the problem as Asians taking some fixed amount of jobs.
The insistence of people to fill in all the blanks of everything Steve Bannon doesn't say with some generic white supremacist viewpoint is really strange to me. Like there's an attempt to discredit any of his ideas by associating them with white nationalism. Usually by cherry picking statements and inventing a bunch of implied underlying meaning - that may or may not actually exist - to fill in the gaps until a narrative is complete. It's actually quite brilliant from a partisan character assassination perspective.
Knowing that explicit white nationalism could be problematic, a white nationalist might speak in code. This is similar to the way someone might speak in code when discussing criminal activity, since it's illegal to surveil non-criminal discussion. The question in court is whether a reasonable person would interpret a conversation as normal speech or criminal code. "The eagle flies at midnight," is obvious code. Other speech is not so clear.
> It could easily just as much imply that he just wants to see more Americans being successful founders in the tech industry in addition to Asians?
First, Asians can be and often are Americans.
Second, why would Bannon bring up this point that more "Americans" should be successful founders? Is it that our schools are failing? No, because Asians attend the same schools. Ah, I've got it. Perhaps there's a cultural problem with white anglo-saxon protestants: anti-intellectualism and anti-education. Is that what Bannon is getting at?
Knowing that explicit white nationalism could be problematic, a white nationalist must speak in code.
You have got to be kidding me. Ok, let me play along.
Xapata is clearly a white nationalist! How do I know it? He doesn't speak in white nationalist terms! Those white nationalists need to speak in code, so the evidence is clear!
Not kidding at all. Was my comparison with drug-speak not clear? Let me try again.
Suppose I'm a nice girl. A guy just asked me if I was free to go to dinner tonight. I don't want to offend, so I say, "I'm sorry, I'm washing my hair tonight." The guy now has a conundrum. He can interpret the statement literally and ask if I'm free for dinner tomorrow night, or he can interpret it as that I do not want to eat dinner with him. Humans speak in codes and implications regularly.
In Bannon's case, we must decide what interpretation of his thought is the most plausible cause of his speech. I can come up with two options:
1. Bannon believes there's something hindering the ethnic and cultural majority from technological entrepreneurialism and we should address that problem.
2. Bannon believes the number of ethnic minorities achieving economic success will decrease the prevalence of the historically common culture. Being of that culture, he dislikes this trend.
Are there any other interpretations? What's the most plausible to you?
Not obvious at all. I thought we were sharing a frustration for the recent trend in politics to make implications rather than explicit statements.
I didn't think I was assigning new meaning, but only exactly what Bannon intended. I can, obviously, never be certain I've understood him correctly, so I just make my best guess. It's reasonable to expect that different people will make different guesses.
>I didn't think I was assigning new meaning, but only exactly what Bannon intended. I can, obviously, never be certain I've understood him correctly, so I just make my best guess.
Why are you guessing at all? Why are you assuming he isn't saying what he means?
A generous interpretation of Bannon would be that he simply wants to see more domestic workers founding successful tech companies. He might see these statistics not as a reason to get rid of ethnic minorities, but rather as a sign that something about American culture is discouraging Americans from entrepreneurism.
Why would he not finish his thought to clarify that Americans are not as entrepreneurial as Asians? That seems like an easy thing to say if that's what he meant.
It's possible he didn't think it needed clarification. This discussion took place within effectively a far-right echo chamber where everyone was already more or less on the same page. It's also possible he didn't even feel very strongly about this point to begin with and decided he didn't like it before even finishing his sentence. It's really impossible to say. During live, unscripted discussions it's very common for someone to begin a thought, decide they don't even personally like it while in the midst of saying it, and then cut themselves off.
So... that page is the understanding that the majority culture suppresses the entrepreneurial spirit or are bad at math and science? If that's the echo chamber of the far-right, that's a big surprise to me.
> decide they don't even personally like it while in the midst of saying it, and then cut themselves off.
That's possible. Indeed it sounds like Bannon cut himself off, but more for disliking the clarity than the content of what he was saying. It sounded like he caught himself and chose to insinuate rather than elucidate.
"When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think [...]" he didn't finish his sentence. "A country is more than an economy. We're a civic society." [1]
My problem with Trump administration rhetoric is there is this assumption that non-white == immigrant. Many Silicon Valley CEOs and entrepreneurs are second (or even third) generation Asian-Americans. And let's not forget the first generation Canadian or European founders. The fact that he singled out Asians in particular shows the undercurrent of racist ideology driving Bannon (the primary hardliner influencing Trump).
“When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” Bannon said, not finishing the sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”
