Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Um, huh?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
White America
- Thread starter Jimmy
- Start date
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Oh I had to reread what you initially wrote. I didn't read it right the first time so disregard my last statement
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
How so?
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Well it's kind of just open for discussion. I tried to switch the forum category but I don't know how. So feel free to share your thoughts on it
Last edited:
Okay.
To me, there is some level of nuanced discussion around this very general issue. But it isn't really skin colour that comes into it.
For example, it interests me to look at the Finnish education system and consider the impacts of a less homogenous population, and a population with a higher level of language diversity. A system which was always highly regarded became more pressured.
But unless this thread starts heading in a more nuanced direction, I'll just read along what others have posted and respond if I feel the need.
Thanks for the clarification.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
There are a lot more interracial and mixed marriages occuring (especially since it is more welcome now) which I think is a contributing factor. NG did an article about 4-5 years ago about this very same thing.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Definately
“They”, who? How did they reach this dubious conclusion? I call bogus without accreditation.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Wasn't america non white from the beginning 
So must have been a white problem from the very beginning
So technically colored man take back what white man stole before they created "america"
So must have been a white problem from the very beginning
So technically colored man take back what white man stole before they created "america"
Augustus
…
My thoughts are that it isn't true.
Fastest growing group in society is Hispanic (I think). Most Hispanics consider themselves to be white though.
The attempt to define people into monochromatic 'white' v 'people of colour' binary is both racist and very stupid anyway as you get into this kind of situation of deciding who is 'pure' enough to be counted as a white.
There will be a lot more mixed race people in the future, what % of 'non-white blood' makes one a 'person of colour'?
Also you create a situation where people who are genetically the same can be 'white' or 'people of colour' depending on how they choose to identify or based on one's prejudice.
Time for new ways of classifying people methinks.
I'm guessing these are the same guys that came up with the Covid numbers. We all know how that went down, lol.
Anyway, such predictions and models are useless because they attempt to determine the future based on current or past history. If we could do this reliably we'd all be rich and never have to work if we all played on the stock market. Obviously, that isn't true, so why should we accept this?
This is merely culture war revolutionaries attempting to masquerade their ideological wish list as science. It's lies and propaganda, but to drive the point home what color of people have disappeared in the civilized world in the last 300 years? Absolutely none. Heck, let's go further back... How about the last 2,000... Still none. That's why this is propaganda, and not science. There will always be folks whom find attractiveness only among people of their own color. (And, I see no problem with that or wanting your children to look like you, etc.)
The other point to be made is childbirths naturally scale with available resources and historically both Asians and people of European descent have more upward mobility in this regard. The same conditions which create 'stuck in the ghetto' conditions for people of color limit their ability to grow large families and sustain them. The problem with being poor is it alters and limits your thinking. This means while some of the wealth will trickle to the struggling poor birth rates will always accelerate with the other two races in spades before the others. The net effect, of course, as it will not change very much regardless.
There is the question of the "Hispanic" wave of immigrants. That has an upper limit because the migrant generation is typically not qualified for skilled jobs that would allow them to drastically affect the net total of the population in the long run. (Government handouts only get you so far, and you still have to pay the rent.) Second generations become Americanized and their societal views and norms conform more to that than the thinking of their parents. So, you will see a short-term spike as they bring their culture from the homeland (which is big families with lots of kids) with succeeding generations having fewer and fewer children as they adopt the new norms of the adopted culture. Ultimately, the birth rates for these people will normalize over a single generation which makes the current numbers useless for prediction.
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
What I find weird about the question is that it is based on skin colour alone. If we take skin colour out of it, most of Americans are already mixed race. The fact that people focus on skin colour to define race seems very arbitrary to me. And the definition of skin colour isn't even accurate.
I mean even the Irish were discriminated against when they went to America by other people with a similar range of skin colour.
Yes, I've heard this estimate before. Some of it depends on the definitions of each of the racial classifications. For example, in my county, the demographics are described as follows: "The racial makeup of the county was 75.07% White, 3.03% Black or African American, 3.22% Native American, 2.04% Asian, 0.13% Pacific Islander, 13.30% from other races, and 3.21% from two or more races. 29.34% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race."
If you add up all the percentages here, it comes out to 129.34%. The category of "Hispanic" is not a race, but as the majority are ostensibly classified as "white," the percentage of the white population remains a solid majority. Assuming that all or most of the 29.34% Hispanic population are counted as white, then subtracting that number from 75.07 would indicate that 45.73% are non-Hispanic white.
When people say that white Americans will make up a minority of the U.S. population by 2050, they're referring specifically to non-Hispanic whites.
Some of this also relates to differences in how the U.S. has traditionally classified races versus how it was done in Mexico and other Latin American countries.
Casta - Wikipedia
Wasn't america non white from the beginning
So must have been a white problem from the very beginning
So technically colored man take back what white man stole before they created "america"
I guess it would depend on how one defines "America." If we're talking about the United States of America, then that was created in 1776 and defined within the context of early British settlement and colonization. The Spanish and French were also white Europeans, although their settlements and colonies were considered outside of the domain of the British colonists. They didn't really count as "American" history until they were annexed and absorbed into British or U.S. territory.
One historical point that often gets overlooked is that, just after Columbus' first voyage to America, a papal bull was issued in 1493, which essentially gave all land of the Americas (most of which hadn't even been mapped yet) to Spain. So, if you want split hairs and get stuck on technicalities, then one could say that God stole the land on behalf of Spain, or at least, that's how people might have seen it back then. A few centuries later, Americans hit upon the idea of "Manifest Destiny," which essentially says that it was all due to "God's will."
From who? The whites who feel left out because they can't dominate anymore?
Or, maybe, those responding to the whites not wanting to play by the rules by letting the brown people vote and actually govern?
Or the whites on the social welfare program and the more productive brown people footing the bill. That is, of course, if the whites let them get the jobs and the power.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Yea, as far as I can tell, Whiteness is only tangentially related to skin color., and over the course of decades or centuries, ethnic groups seem to flip from being nonwhite to white or vice versa. Just look at the history of Jewish people or people from the Middle East in 20th century America. As far as I know, the first Spanish speaking Mexicans in American history were considered White, too.
I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to recall that a few Nonwhite people also tend to more closely identify with being White when they become affluent and integrate into a more middle class or upper community.