Silly Minority "White" Nation Meme Surfaces Again at the Census Bureau

Today's New York Times is reporting Census Bureau projections that the "white" ethnic group in the United States will be outnumbered by other ethnic groups by the middle of this century. From the Times:

The bureau predicts that by 2043 — which is a year later than it previously projected — there will be no single majority group in the country as a whole, as the share of non-Hispanic whites falls below 50 percent.

The population of non-Hispanic whites is expected to shrink both as a share of the population and in raw numbers, the bureau predicted: it is projected to peak in 2024 at 199.6 million, and then to fall by nearly 20.6 million through 2060.

The Hispanic population is expected to more than double during that time, to 128.8 million in 2060 from 53.3 million now. In 2060 nearly one in three residents will be Hispanic, up from about one in six now. (People who identify themselves as Hispanic may be any race.) The black population is expected to increase to 61.8 million from 41.2 million over the same period, with its share of the population rising slightly. And the Asian population is expected to double, to 34.4 million in 2060 from 15.9 million now, with its share of the population climbing to 8.1 percent from 5.1 percent.

Alas, the Census Bureau began collecting racial background information back in 1790 because under the Constitution slaves counted as only three-fifths of a person when it came to apportioning members of the House of Representatives among the states. Now the bureau justifies the multiplication of racial and ethnic categories on the grounds that...

Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.

What's particularly irritating about the Census Bureau projections is the assumption that Americans 40 years from now will docilely continue to allow themselves to be pigeonholed into the Census Bureau's arbitrary set of racial and ethnic classifications. First of all, the Pew Research Center reported earlier this year that ethnic intermarriage rates are rising steeply which will make a mockery of the federal government's racial categories. 

Second, as I pointed out in my column, "The Silly Panic Over a Minority White Nation," if one adds up the current descendants of all of the earlier "non-white" immigrant groups, e.g., Irish, Italians, Slavs, Jews, Greeks, etc., the U.S. is already a "majority minority" nation. As I reported:

So adding up all of the “non-white” groups, one finds that they and their descendants now total 184 million out of 313 million citizens, constituting nearly 60 percent of the country’s current population. But how can that be? After all, the Census Bureau notes, “In the 2010 Census, just over one-third of the U.S. population reported their race and ethnicity as something other than non-Hispanic white alone (i.e. "minority").” The answer to this conundrum is that Italians, Poles, Jews, and the Irish are now considered “white.”

It is this fact that renders silly and nearly meaningless the pronouncement that “whites” will be a minority in this country by 2050. By 2050, just as the earlier waves of Irish, Italian, Jewish, and Polish immigrants were assimilated, so too will today’s Hispanic immigrants and their descendants be. For all intents and purposes, Hispanics will become as “white” as Irish, Italians, Jews, and Poles.

I concluded:

It is my hope and belief that Americans of whatever ancestry living in 2050 will look back and wonder why ever did anyone care about the ethnic makeup of the American population. America is an ideal, not a tribe.

That's still true.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I'd like to hear Chris Mallory's opinion on this.

    I'd like to have heard from Slappy, also, but sadly he doesn't seem to have survived Registration.

  • ||

    While the culling of the griefers was a wonderful--and desired--result of registration, we have sadly lost some of our more comical idiots, while retaining far too many sockpuppets. And I still want them to let LoneDipshit back.

  • John||

    I would take ten LoneDipshits in exchange for killing off a single one of the sock puppets we have now.

    And don't any of the decent commentators ever come back? We will never see Thoreau again. But you knew fucking Joe Boyle was going crawl out of his hole, climb on his stepladder and start posting again.

  • ||

    joe can't quit us, John. That midget scumbag is some kind of super-masochist who loves to come here for the abuse. Part of his diseased mind probably thinks he "wins" (on the internet!), but another part of him is just the short guy who gets in fights in bars every night and gets his ass kicked repeatedly.

    Here's joe.

  • John||

    Joe is too smug and cowardly to ever actually get in a physical confrontation.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Thinking of board suicide, John? You are far less Libertarian than I am. I score 92 on the purity scale.

  • John||

    Shut up sock puppet. You are fascist little brownshirt who comes on here to post talking points given to you by your handlers and for the purpose of destroying every thread.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    John, you are clearly an idiot. I am nothing if not original. You are just a garden variety Republican.

  • John||

    There is nothing original about you. You post the same talking points that Tony posts and posted daily by other lefty sock puppets all over the internet.

    Again, shut up sock puppet.

  • ||

    John, if you would just ignore it, you would cause it more pain than anything else. Just walk away. FULL IGNORE.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    It has taken me a bit, but I have come around to Epi's line of thought. It craves attention and attention only - nothing else.

  • ||

    I can't ignore John, yet I can ignore PB. I think it's because every once in a while John appears to be a reasonable person, and Palin's Buttplug can't even fake that for five seconds.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I am nothing if not original.

    Every pile of shit certainly is unique.

  • ||

    Which purity scale? Might I see your alleged answers and then see if they contradict the statist stuff you regularly post?

    Not buying this 92 bit based on the evidence at hand.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Maybe it's like a golf score?

  • John||

    I could see shreek being a 20 handicapper.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I posted it recently.

    I divide the three legs of the LP (social and drug liberalism, anti-war, anti police-statism, and restrained spending/small gov) into equal thirds on a 100 scale.

    Ron Paul scores 96 with demerits for his disregard for privacy rights and earmarks.

    100 is nearly unheard of.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yeah, well I scored a 98 on the scale I made up for virility. So there.

  • nicole||

    What were your demerits for? I mean, if you don't mind my asking.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I liked Return to Me, which was kind of a chick flick.

  • ||

    Are you asking Tulpa or the sockpuppet? I'm assuming Tulpa's, even on his own scale, were for being retarded.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Retardedness has no bearing on being virile. And I'm not.

  • ||

    I beg to differ.

    Have you ever seen how those retards are hung?!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Unlike some other Pennsylvanians, I don't run a charity providing communal showers for special people, so no, I haven't.

  • ||

    There's nothing about that question I didn't like, JJ.

  • nicole||

    Tulpa, of course. And I haven't seen "Return to Me," but based on the IMDb poster picture, it looks like a hell of a chick flick.

    [David Duchovny swoon]

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I liked the part with Carol O'Connor and the monkey.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I demerit myself for supporting a central reserve bank (the Fed) that manages the currency and intervenes in the economy to mitigate economic cycles.

    I also support pollution regulations like dumping poison chemicals into public water supplies (like Hayek).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Do you demerit yourself for supporting BO's military interventions?

  • ||

    Unlike some other Pennsylvanians, I don't run a charity providing communal showers for special people, so no, I haven't.

    What the hell? I thought you were a professor of mathematics. Isn't that what you guys do for a living?

    It should be noted that I was not particularly gifted in math.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I don't support his interventions. I support the fact there is one less military intervention than there was under Bush and he didn't start it (he did double down on it - regretably).

  • wareagle||

    because nothing yells libertarian purity louder than two votes for Obama.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    One - 2008. I was lockstep with the anti-GOP Reason writers then.

    Still anti-GOP though. Libertarians are Stockholm Syndrome captives to the GOP - sadly.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Aww, I miss Slappy. His sublimated racist bullshit was a ray of undiluted white sunshine in my otherwise dull life.

  • SugarFree||

    "American" is Slappy. He'll be back.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Maybe if you guys were more supportive the other-opinioned commenters wouldn't be dropping like flies.

  • SugarFree||

    Boo-hoo.

  • ||

    We're totally non-supportive of you yet you stick around, Tulpy-Poo, so you're not exactly setting the correct example.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm more of a tapeworm than a fly.

  • R C Dean||

    Here's the deal, T.

    As internet boards go, we're actually not that bad. If anything, we engage in reasoned debate too much, by constantly engaging with the bad-faith trollmenters here.

    Sure, there's some name-calling, but we do that to each other; its a guy thing, really.

    I think anyone who wants to come here and argue in good faith will get a reasonably good reception. We certainly won't treat them much worse than we treat fellow libertarians.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You're painting with a broad brush.

    There's a cadre of commenters who don't contribute anything BUT insults.

  • ||

    You can't seriously look at this and compared to, say, a typical yahoo news or youtube comment and not be impressed at the very least by how witty and erudite our insults are compared to the rabble.

  • ||

    JJ, you are a blithering nincompoop. See? I just crushed yahoo and youtube and I'm not even remotely bringing my A game.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yeah, well my poo murals on the wall of my bedroom were much better than those of my brothers and sisters at that age, but my mom didn't seem impressed.

  • ||

    I do so love it when you whine, Tulpy-Poo. It nourishes me. Which is good, because my lunch will be light today.

  • nicole||

    So, Tulpa, I do think you get some extra demerits for wanting to be a mom.

  • SugarFree||

    Offer you nothing but insults is not the same as only offering insults. You are not this entire board, you egomaniac.

  • ||

    Of course not. He's the only person on this board that matters. See the difference?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Some people are offered only insults, others are offered nothing.

    Not to toot my own horn, but I offer a smorgasboard of all kinds of shit.

  • ||

    Tulpa offered the board ORDER!!!

  • nicole||

    Just like a good mother should.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    There's a cadre of commenters who don't contribute anything BUT insults.

    Well fuck you in your whiny little bitch ass, mother fucker! ;)

  • Killazontherun||

    Contribute? I wasn't aware that this was either a charity.

    Yeah, I've changed over the years, I would go round for round for hours in the past. The difference now, I don't let myself get sucked in to wasting valuable time on an issue oriented debate that everyone is going to forget about tomorrow. What it is the payout?

    If it can't be expressed pithily, walk away.

  • Killazontherun||

    this was either a charity.

  • Old Bull Lee||

    Manuel Garcia O'Kelly-Davis is fine with all these goobacks around.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The Scots-Irish are non-white? Or non-WASP?

    It will be far more telling to divide us demographically by religion anyway. Which is already being done full-force. Fundies overwhelming vote GOP while us secularists do not.

  • Ron Bailey||

    PB: As I reported from the Consumer Genetics Conference earlier this year, Ancestry.com's analysis finds that...

    between 1607 and 1790 about 900,000 people immigrated to this country. The largest share of immigrants were enslaved Africans, about 360,000 people. The next largest groups of immigrants came from England (230,000), Ulster (135,000), Germany 103,000), and Scotland (48,500). The result of this immigration pattern was that in 1790, nearly 2 million residents of the new United States were descended from English immigrants; 750,000 from Africans; 320,000 from Scotch-Irish; 280,000 from German; 200,000 from Irish; 160,000 from Scottish; and 120,000 from Welsh.

    Being Protestants, the Scots-Irish were clearly "white." (wink)

  • R C Dean||

    That is really interesting, Ron. I had no idea that such a large proportion of the colonial population was black/enslaved.

  • wareagle||

    this Balkanization belongs to your side. It is so heavily invested in dividing people according to melanin, genitals, and hair type that people like the times see minority white as one outcome of their work.

  • Brandon||

    By "Secularists," you mean "State Worshippers?"

  • ||

    "By "Secularists," you mean "State Worshippers?""
    Because heaven forbid anybody learn to think for themselves.

  • wareagle||

    the Times seems majority-minority as a good thing, some sort of liberal wet dream that puts whitey in his place. Whatever. The left has already done huge harm with its relentless drive to categorize people; separating folks into groups makes them easier to control.

    It also makes it easier to hide the left's condescension and patronization of any minority group by pretending all of its members think with one mind, something no one would say of whites. Angela Merkel was right; multiculturalism does not work. As long as the word on the left side of the hyphen is more important than the one on the right, or long as the hyphen exists at all, it will remain easy to pit one group against another.

  • John||

    And the irony of the whole thing is that there probably isn't an organization in America that is whiter than the NYT. Can't they just kill themselves in self hatred so the rest of us can get on with our lives?

  • wareagle||

    their self-hatred is exceeded only by their hatred for the rest of us, and they fancy themselves as part of the Top Men Committee.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Never underestimate the power of doublethink.

  • ||

    The left has already done huge harm with its relentless drive to categorize people; separating folks into groups makes them easier to control.

    The left invented American racial categories and relentlessly worked to categorized people. It definitely wasn't, you know, slaveholders or anything.

  • Zeb||

    Well, they certainly didn't do anything to reduce it in the 20th century.

  • SugarFree||

    Yes, slaveholders were very concerned about "Non-White Hispanics" and "Pacific Islanders."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, slaveholders were very concerned about "Non-White Hispanics" and "Pacific Islanders."

    Historically, they were.

    See: Blackbirding and Casta.

    Jus' sayin'

  • SugarFree||

    I'm thinking of the Southern US plantation, but you are correct in the boarder sense. The 4th best kind of correct.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Slaveholders can't be leftists?

    That's news to me.

  • ||

    I don't think leftists have any real ideas or principles, just a vague sense of irritation with people who have money.

  • Zeb||

    I think it's probably a good thing. Though I suppose that categorizing people is too useful a tool to give up so easily. They'll always find away.

    More hopeful, I think, is the continuing mixing of the races. I hope that it works out as Bailey suggests and things get mixed up enough that people aren't willing to be put into neat racial categories some time over the next 30-40 years. Then you don't get the multiculturalism problems. Mixed cultures work fine.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I hope that it works out as Bailey suggests and things get mixed up enough that people aren't willing to be put into neat racial categories some time over the next 30-40 years

    Lies. The only way my Ashkenazi Jewish Scottish Indian Afro-Caribbean Thai Laotian Vietnamese daughter is going to marry a non-Ashkenazi Jewish Scottish Indian Afro-Caribbean Thai Laotian Vietnamese man is over my dead body.

  • tarran||

    Whites will become minorities?

    There are too many minorities (minorities)
    At my water park (my water park).
    This was our land, our dream (our dream)
    and they’ve taken it all away.
    They just keep coming and coming (minorities).
    I tried to go and tell the police,
    But even the authorities
    Are minorities
    At my water park.
  • ||

    That is one of the greatest songs ever written by Trey.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I think I even saw a Native American (gross).

  • ||

    The lazy river has never been lazier.

  • tarran||

    Cartman: [runing up to the boys] You guys! You guys, we have got problems of Biblical proportions!
    Stan: Dude, where have you been?
    Cartman: I've been counting. Do you know there are two hundred and five Mexicans here? and there are a hundred and ninety black people!
    Kyle: So what?
    Cartman: So?! Guess how many people are at the water park today? One hundred and forty three! There are actually more minorities here than US!
    Kyle: Well then they're not minorities, are they?
    Cartman: ...What do you mean?
    Kyle: Dumbass, if there's sixty percent of them to forty percent of us, then who's the minority?!
    Cartman: The black and brown people.
    Kyle: No, you're the minority!
    Cartman: Do I look like a minority to you, stupid?! Now look guys, I did some calculations: just last year, there were almost ninety percent normal people to minorities. That's fifty percent rise in one, year!
    Stan: This is more math than I've ever seen you do.
    Cartman: Because it's important! A fifty percent rise each year means that in three years the world will be only... minorities. That's 2012! The Mayans predicted this!
    Butters: The who?
    Cartman: The Mayans! They knew that minorities would take over the world by the year 2012! And now it's happening!
  • tarran||

    [Adrift in the Floom Zoom on Pi Pi Lake. Cartman whips out his memo pad and starts writing again.]
    Cartman: It has been many, many hours since the Apocalypse, and all I keep thinking is "Why me? Why am I the only one of my race God chose to survive in this minority-run world?" When the smoke has cleared I'm sure the minorities will start rebuilding, building the world... in their way. I can see it now. Nooo... [imagines himself in class with a bunch of non-white students]
    Teacher: [A black man] Alright, Eric Cartman, let's hear your book report.
    Cartman: I read Treasure Island, because I was so happy when I saw that movie.
    Teacher: Hey! You're living in a minority-speaking country now! Say it right!
    Cartman: ...because I was so happy when I sen that movie.
    Teacher: Goood.
    Cartman: Noooo... [now imagines himself at a job interview] Trying to find a job was even harder.
    Señor Lopez: You don't expect to make the same amount of money that minorities make, do ya?
    Cartman: Well, I do just as much work.
    Señor Lopez: [laughs] You're trash around here. You'll never make as much as a minority.
    Cartman: Noooo... [now imagines himself at an open council meeting] Eventually the minorities will do away with me altogether.
    Coucilman: All those in favor of putting white people in camps?
    Audience: Aye!
    Coucilman: All those opposed?
    Cartman: Noooo...
    Coucilman: The minorities win!
  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Fat little Cartman is a young Limbaugh (although he played Glenn Beck in an episode).

  • ||

    You know, Palin's Buttplug, Republicans aren't unique in their ability to be fuckwads. I mean, just look in the mirror.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Michael Jackson was ahead of his time.

  • SugarFree||

    Gonna be a white minority
    There's gonna be large cavity
    Within my new territory
    We're all gonna die

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I think you yourselfed the link. Here, let me help.

  • SugarFree||

    Nope. YouTube gets no more business from me until Google unblocks the porn.

  • ||

    They blocked porn sites? I didn't notice.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The reason that white birthrates are down is that all of the straight white males over 30 in America are pederasts.

  • ||

    I thought they were metrosexuals. Like tarran.

  • tarran||

    I'm not a metrosexual, and I have the long unkempt ear-hair to prove it!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Uh, isn't male pederasty advantageous wrt reproduction? We're supposed to tell the afghans this, right.

  • Hugh Akston||

    All I know for sure is that my Little League coach told me not to cry because I wouldn't get pregnant that way.

  • American||

    "...assumption that Americans 40 years from now will docilely continue to allow themselves to be pigeonholed into the Census Bureau's arbitrary set of racial and ethnic classifications. "
    Why assume Americans won't? The burden of proof lies on those who predict great changes in human attitudes, not on those who deny them. Do they appear to be doing this now? Is Obama black or not? Even though he was raised in a white environment by a white family? It's not just Obama's generation. I've never met a single mixed race person (And I have met mixed race people) who didn't consider himself a minority. Affirmative action is part of this, but deeper is the culture that celebrates "oppressed" minorities and encourages them to celebrate their identities. So the idea that "intermarriage" will end the idea of race is preposterous. Besides, we've been predicting an "explosion" in intermarriage for over thirty years. Even if we did achieve a society where people no longer considered race as a factor when choosing a partner,(again, the burden of proof lies on them) we would still see the mostly white and Asian college educated Americans on the right side of the bell curve marrying each other. The, as Tony would say, "privileged" in society will be members of this group. In fact intermarriage would sharpen racial differences, as the white underclass melts into the black and brown masses. For a more detailed analysis of racial issues see Charles Murray, The Bell Curve.

  • ||

    And there he is!

  • ||

    What kind of porn do you think Slappy prefers: a white girl getting banged by a black dude, or a white girl getting banged by many black dudes?

  • ||

    White guy with a black girl?

  • Killazontherun||

    Black chick, white guy, does it mean shit? Maybe.

    I grudgingly have to admit, the choral refrain is awesome.

  • nicole||

    Yes.

  • ||

    White girl banged by many Muslim black dudes.

  • ||

    But enough about nicole's activities last night...

  • ||

    Uh, wrong. Let's hear more.

  • nicole||

    You know what, some commenters offer nothing but insults!

  • ||

    How do you know what I have to offer? Jesus, nicole. Stop being so glib.

  • nicole||

    Warty, you have already offered so, so much more. I'll never forget our special night, even if Dunphy had to be there too.

  • SugarFree||

    Ew.

  • ||

    GO ON.

  • ||

    You roofied me! It doesn't count!

  • SugarFree||

    She had sex with you on a roof? Ya'll's sick.

  • nicole||

    At least I know how to spell y'all.

  • SugarFree||

    Sorry for the dramatic plunge in typing (not that I was that great to begin with.) I have an eye I can't see out of very well.

  • ||

    NutraSweet took a few too many shots in the eye during his last bukkake.

  • SugarFree||

    Maybe you should stop eating asparagus, cockfag.

  • nicole||

    You know, Epi, some of us were thinking that and choosing not to offer more insults when our previous, light-hearted one turned sad.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Do you have to ruin everything, Epi?

  • ||

    Uh...obviously.

    "I'll ruin you like I ruined this company!"

  • ||

    I notice that you consider being gang-banged by black muslims to be an "insult".

    Racist.

  • nicole||

    Is it black Muslims or Muslim black dudes? Some of us know there is a difference.

  • SugarFree||

    Nation of Islam... do they have bow-ties... you know, like all over?

  • ||

    Some of us know there is a difference.

    There you go categorizing people again, you filthy collectivist. Sheesh.

    And your website sucks. You never review any books that I have personally read. Therefore, I can conclude that you do not have good taste.

  • nicole||

    Pretty sure you're now down to re-using insults. BUT THAT ONE HURTS BECAUSE I HAVEN'T UPDATED IN SO LONG.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Why not white dude getting banged by black dudes?

  • ||

    Those are his home videos.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Couldn't you have said the name "Bar Rafeli" 5 times backwards, in front of a mirror and summoned her, rather than this knucklehead?

  • SugarFree||

    Slappy don't like those sneaky Jews either.

    You'd think neo-Nazis shutfuckers like him would get along better with Muslims.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Ah yes, a marriage of convenience twixt white supremacist and Islamist.

    "You, I get next - but first, the filthy JOOOOOS!"

  • ||

    Hmm.

    JJOOOOOSSS is suspiciously similiar to BBOOOOOOOSH.

    Coincidence? I think not!

  • American||

    A majority of Americans support immigration restriction. Is your argument to them going to be "you're a neo-nazi, you don't like JOOOOS." As for the Muslims, 10,000 of them just marched through Britain demanding an end to free speech. I don't want that in my country.

  • Calidissident||

    Since when does Britain have free speech?

  • American||

    They have enough of it to piss of the Muslims. They are, BTW, the main reason Britain no longer has free speech.

  • Calidissident||

    Really? I guess in American's world everything bad that happens in a majority white place in because of minorities and everything good that happens in a majority non-white place is because of whites (like the time you claimed the only reason El Paso isn't as violent as Juarez is because of white policing)

  • American||

    Who are Britains "hate speech" laws designed to protect? Muslims. And Faggots. Of course it is the white people's fault for passing them. I'm not saying whites are blameless.

  • Calidissident||

    Don't people get locked up for racial slurs about blacks? Is that their fault too? What was the Muslim population when they passed the hate speech laws in 1986? And how many other countries with low (even relative to the UK) have hate speech laws? And I wasn't even just talking about "hate speech." Britain has some of the most stringent defamation laws in the world. There are a ton of exceptions to their free speech laws unrelated to hate. Gladstone censored a play that was critical of him. Joyce's book "Ulysses" was banned due to obscenity. I don't think either of those things had anything to do with Islam

  • R C Dean||

    He's actually talking sense for the first half, anyway.

    Is there political power to be exercised by classifying people as minorities? Are there rents to be sought by advertising yourself as a minority?

    As long as the answers to these questions are "yes", then we will be pigeonholed.

  • ||

    I've never met a single mixed race person (And I have met mixed race people) who didn't consider himself a minority.

    You've met a lot of them. Their ancestors managed to "pass" and assimilated into the white population. There's a black or Indian great-granny in a lot of American whites.

  • Calidissident||

    "Besides, we've been predicting an "explosion" in intermarriage for over thirty years. Even if we did achieve a society where people no longer considered race as a factor when choosing a partner,(again, the burden of proof lies on them) we would still see the mostly white and Asian college educated Americans on the right side of the bell curve marrying each other."

    Interracial marriage rates have more than doubled in the past thirty years. And around 80% of white people who intermarried married Hispanics or blacks. Hispanics and blacks who married whites are more likely to be college graduates. There is virtually no difference in college graduation between white men who married whites versus Hispanics or blacks. White women who intermarried with Hispanics or blacks are less likely to be graduates than those who married white men (although the difference is less than 5% in the case of Hispanics). Similarly, couples where the man was white and the woman black or Hispanic made more money (median) than white couples, though the opposite is true when the wife is white.

    I do agree that interracial marriage won't eliminate racism or the idea of race, but I do think it will help reduce their prominence

  • American||

    "Hispanics and blacks who married whites are more likely to be college graduates."
    The reason for this is that poor Americans are much more likely to live
    are more likely to identify with their race, not always in a racist way, their habits, hobbies, attitudes, and cultural views are more in line with each other than rich Americans. Besides, white Americans, are going to be much more likely to be willing to marry a black American if they are college educated. It is class, affected directly by intelligence, much more than race, that matters here. The upper class will be more white and Asian, the lower class, more black and brown. Minorities are going to wonder, in the future even more than they do today, why, as a majority of the population, they are a minority in the worlds of business, mathematics, and much more.

  • Calidissident||

    "The reason for this is that poor Americans are much more likely to live
    are more likely to identify with their race, not always in a racist way, their habits, hobbies, attitudes, and cultural views are more in line with each other than rich Americans."

    Ok, but none of this supports your assertion that interracial marriage is mostly rich whites and Asians, which is directly contradicted by the statistics. Asians may be the most likely to marry out, but part of that is simply because they're the smallest group and have the smallest pool of potential partners to marry in their own race. Overall though, most whites who marry out are marrying Hispanics, and the percentage who marry blacks isn't that far behind Asian

  • American||

    "Ok, but none of this supports your assertion that interracial marriage is mostly rich whites and Asians"
    There is a thing called reading comprehension. You suck at it.

  • Calidissident||

    I read exactly what you wrote. And the only way it could even possibly be true is if the proportion of each race as a percentage of the population was roughly equal. Then, perhaps, you would see a majority of intermarrying whites marrying Asians, though even then it wouldn't be overwhelming. Since that isn't going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future, I don't know how you can justify the statement that we would mostly see Asians and whites intermarrying, whether race is a factor or not. There simply aren't enough Asians (and there won't be in the foreseeable future) for that to be true. If you simply meant "Asians and whites would be more likely to intermarry" then I'm telling you that what you wrote has a completely different meaning, and that you need to work on your writing skills.

  • American||

    "we would still see the mostly white and Asian college educated Americans on the right side of the bell curve marrying each other"
    Is this the source of your notion? Notice the "right side of the bell curve" part. Readin comprehesion, again. The only other time I mentioned the term "Asian" was when I said "The upper class will be more white and Asian, the lower class, more black and brown." Is that it?

  • Calidissident||

    I'm saying the comment doesn't make any sense. Not because it is literally inaccurate. We would still see whites and Asians "on the right side of the bell curve" marrying each other. It doesn't make sense because that isn't something that anyone would argue against. Why would Asian-white intermarriage decline if race was no longer a factor? Your use of the words "even if" and "still" imply that people would disagree with the conclusion. I don't know anyone who would. Combined with the sentence about the white underclass melting in with the "black and brown masses," it seems that you're saying intermarriage would largely be between intelligent, educated, wealthy Asians and whites, and then lower class whites with blacks and Hispanics. Based on what you wrote, that's not an unfair assessment of its meaning. And the statistics do not back up that narrative.

  • American||

    God dammit reading comprehesion! The point of that sentance was not that white and asians would keep marrying each other, stop marrying each other, or anything like that. It was about SMART PEOPLE, who are MOSTLY WHITE OR ASIAN, marrying other SMART PEOPLE.

  • Calidissident||

    Again, ok? Next are you gonna tell me water is wet? I think the problem here is I'm giving you too much credit in the sophistication of your argument. What is the implication of that point? From your own post, you give the opinion that interracial marriage would sharpen racial differences. Why? The only reasons I could infer from this entire conversation are based on your comment about smart whites and Asians intermarrying and lower class whites marrying blacks and Hispanics. According to statistics, college education among white men who marry Hispanic or black women is virtually the same as those who marry white women. For white women, college education rates are slightly lower for those who marry Hispanic men, and significantly for those who marry black men, compared to those who marry white men. Couples where the man is white and the wife is Hispanic or black actually make more money than white couples. When the wife is white, household earnings are inbetween white couples and same race black/Hispanic couples, though in couples where the man is Hispanic, earnings are much closer to white couples than Hispanic couples. Asian-white couples are the highest earning, but are just 20% of all white intermarriages.

  • Calidissident||

    What's my point? How exactly does all this add up to sharpening racial differences? Blacks and Hispanics who intermarry are more successful economically (and depending on the gender pairing, not much less successful than white couples, if at all), and according you, no mixed race person ever identifies as white, so wouldn't all this intermarriage create new generations of blacks and Hispanics who are wealthier, more educated, and more intelligent? If this wasn't the argument you're making, then that's on you for shitty word choice cause there is no other way to interpret what you've been saying

  • John||

    The reason "white" birth rates are down is because every time a white person marries a minority, their children are that minority. Think about that. Intermarriage, especially among whites and Hispanics and Asians is pretty common. So there are millions of white people who are having children that are considered "minority" yet there every minority that has a child their child is considered to be of that minority.

    But I would like know why a half "white" child is a minority and not a white child. That seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction to me.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Think about that. Intermarriage, especially among whites and Hispanics and Asians is pretty common.

    Right, but those marriages tend to produce gun-toting White Hispanics, who are not minority.

  • Zeb||

    Still Hispanic. That counts.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Tell that to George Zimmerman.

  • American||

    Never underestimate doublethink. Zinnermann was just the sacrifice that the blacks required to get them to vote. Hispanics will always be "non-white."

  • Spoonman.||

    This is a good point.

    My wife and I (both white) have five nieces/nephews.

    All would be minorities under this definition, even though they're all biologically related to us.

    And that's probably how racism will die in this country, but there will still be some census taker who comes to my niece's door in 2050 and says "BUT I CAN'T CATEGORIZE YOU!! :("

  • ||

    My wife and I (both white)...

    You racists disgust me.

  • R C Dean||

    Oh, he'll categorize her, no question.

    As a minority, as long as that's a stop for the government gravy train.

  • Zeb||

    That's why you just promptly send in the forms with all the race boxes checked.

  • kinnath||

    Everybody just keep fucking everybody until we're all the same color.

  • ||

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Finally, a political stance that can sway the masses as one!

  • kinnath||

    Rich people have always stayed on top by dividing white people from colored people but white people got more in common with colored people then they do with rich people we just gotta eliminate them.

    White people, black people, brown people, yellow people, get rid of 'em all.

    All we need is a voluntary, free spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction

    Everybody just gotta keep fuckin' everybody til they're all the same color

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Like Larry Niven's "Flatlanders" - everyone is vaguely mixed race/Polynesian looking and hawt.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Non-Asian women are not going to accept Asian men though.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Interesting. Two of my coworkers (one Irish-American and one Hispanic-American) are married to Asian men. (Vietnamese and Chinese respectively). I also know a lot of White female Japanese-culture geeks whose ovaries constantly scream for Japanese and Korean pop-stars.

    Jus' sayin'

  • SugarFree||

    It's because he One Drop Rule is still around, even if it confers status at this point.

  • Zeb||

    "But I would like know why a half "white" child is a minority and not a white child. That seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction to me."

    Yeah. That's pretty racist, really. It's like the old "one drop rule". If you have any documented black ancestor, then you are black.

    Obama is just the first president to be only half white.

  • ||

    Didn't you have to be an octoroon or blacker to be considered black in the old South?

    Cyril: Oh, I think we're pretty diverse.
    Lana: Ha! Please...
    Archer: What? You’re black...ish...
    Lana: "ISH?"
    Archer: Well, what’s the word for it, Lana? You freaked out when I said quadroon!
    Lana: Imagine that!

  • R C Dean||

    But I would like know why a half "white" child is a minority and not a white child.

    See me @ 2:20 for the answer.

  • PapayaSF||

    For all intents and purposes, Hispanics will become as “white” as Irish, Italians, Jews, and Poles.

    I'm not so sure. We never had laws or even much in the way of custom that meant that English signage also had to be in Gaelic, Italian, Hebrew, and Polish. None of those groups included people who believed that a portion of the United States really "belonged to" the nation of their ancestors. (And certainly none were taught that in school.) And pretty much the entire weight of law and culture was aimed at turning those groups into Americans, not into hyphenated Americans who needed affirmative action.

  • GILMORE||

    Hispanics will become as “white” as Irish...

    DEEAR FUCKING GOD ITS WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!!! MOAR WALLS!! END THE WHOLE 'PRESS 2 FOR ESPANIOL'!! WE NEED TO HURRY BEFORE THEY JOIN FORCES AND POPE-IFY THE COUNTRY!!

    ...None of those groups included people who believed that a portion of the United States really "belonged to" the nation of their ancestors...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

    Manifest destiny was the belief widely held by Americans in the 19th century that the United States was destined to expand across the continent. This concept, born out of "A sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example ... generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven".[1] ... Mid-19th-century politicians would use it to explain the need for expansion beyond the Louisiana Territory. ...Manifest destiny provided the dogma and tone for the largest acquisition of U.S. territory. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico and it was also used to acquire portions of Oregon from the British Empire.

    Indians call bullshit on you, self-righteous white man.

  • Homple||

    "By 2050, just as the earlier waves of Irish, Italian, Jewish, and Polish immigrants were assimilated, so too will today’s Hispanic immigrants and their descendants be. For all intents and purposes, Hispanics will become as “white” as Irish, Italians, Jews, and Poles."

    This will start as soon as racial and ethnic quotas and preferential treatment disappear from all laws, custom, and regulation. In other words, just after the General Resurrection.

    "It is my hope and belief that Americans of whatever ancestry living in 2050 will look back and wonder why ever did anyone care about the ethnic makeup of the American population. America is an ideal, not a tribe."

    Isn't it pretty to think so.

  • ||

    So-called "white Hispanics" may drop the "hispanic" after two or three generations of not speaking any spanish.

  • JeremyR||

    But they aren't stopping speaking Spanish.

    That's the difference between now and generations ago.

    My grandmother on my mother's side was Spanish, Lopez. But her family did have to learn English because there weren't signs everywhere in Spanish, no Spanish TV, media, etc.

    Immigrants had to assimilate. Now they don't. And they don't want to, either.

  • ||

    Shorter Jeremy: "The Spanish language is RUINING AMERICA!"

  • Calidissident||

    You're right Jeremy. No Hispanics or immigrants speak English. None.

  • American||

    Calidissident sucks at reading comprehension!

  • ||

    Murrican sucks at criticism!

  • Calidissident||

    Jeremy made an very broad, inaccurate post. I responded with an even more extreme and absurd version of it. Your sarcasm meter needs fixing

  • American||

    That's your point on about 1/2 of all the posts you criticize. What part of the statemeant was "broad and innacurate?" The exeption proves the rule.

  • Calidissident||

    The part where he states that his ancestors learned English, with the implication that Hispanics and immigrants today don't. The part where he stated that there is no assimilation, or that Hispanics don't want to assimilate. Or that they all still speak Spanish (or that there's something wrong with speaking your ancestral tongue). All broad generalizations. Over 90% of Latinos speak English.

    A majority of Hispanics are either immigrants or children of immigrants. No other immigrant group instantly assimilated when coming here. My great grandparents were from Italy. My great grandma never learned a word of English. She handled domestic duties while my great grandfather (who learned English) supported the family. My grandfather was well-assimilated, but Italian was his first language growing up. Just an anecdote, but I don't think stories like that are at all uncommon among the immigrant groups of the past

  • ||

    By 2050, just as the earlier waves of Irish, Italian, Jewish, and Polish immigrants were assimilated, so too will today’s Hispanic immigrants and their descendants be.

    And even if they aren't assimilated, so what?

  • Ron Bailey||

    JP: It's a prediction; not a policy.

  • John||

    Then we will have a large assimilated minority that has no future or stake in the country. What could possibly go wrong? It has worked pretty well in Europe and the middle east hasn't it?

  • PapayaSF||

    Exactly. Didn't that Austro-Hungarian empire thing work out? And there's no ethnic tension in Quebec or Yugoslavia, right?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    There never was a "Austro-Hungarian Empire". Austria and Hungary had the same monarch in personal union, but they were always considered two separate countries with two separate governments.

  • John||

    There was an Austrian empire that finally got so weak, they had to share power with their neighbor Hungarians.

  • GILMORE||

    John| 12.13.12 @ 3:21PM |#

    Then we will have a large assimilated minority that has no future or stake in the country.

    ...AND THEY OWE THEIR ALLEGIANCE TO THE POPE, THOSE BLOODY IRISH!! YOU CANT TRUST THEM!!

    Seriously John...this whole 'assimilation' line regarding immigration or birthrates or whatever... i think its so bullshit.

    The presumption that You or I - by virtue of being vaguely similar shades of pasty - are in any way "assimilated" to something and thusly share some kind of *cultural bond* is a complete crock of shit. When i was in school in Tennessee, I was completely fucking unassimilated... and THANK GOD. And when punks here @ H&R occasionally launch into their periodic "5-minute NYC Hate"... they reveal their utter lack of interest/comfort with/identification with this kind of world. I don't think this is a sign of a coming social-apocolypse.

    What the fuck is so different about HIspanics living here?

    And while I joke about the Irish thing all the time = I am the son of a son of an Irish immigrant... and his dad, who came to the US after WWI, experienced widespread discrimination. We joke about it now, but it was real.

  • American||

    Ya what does culutre even mean anyway? It's not like people in other cultures vote for socialism, beat their wives, kill faggots, commit crime at higher rates, think math is "white," think America is "the great Satan," think insulting the Prophet should be illegal, hate Jews, think that their nation has a historical right to part of our country, think that white people and capitalism are "evil," oh wait, they do. If you don't mind living in Mexico or Iraq or Nigeria, why don't you move there?

  • Calidissident||

    What is culutre?

  • Cut out the crap||

  • GILMORE||

    "White" is neither a Race nor an Ethnicity

    Its an adjective for, "boring"

    So what's the problem?

  • ||

    It should be replaced with "vanilla", much more accurate that way.

  • GILMORE||

    vanilla goes great with everything!

    White people by contrast are cultural imperialists who destroy all pure native societies by demanding their 'assimilation' into their bland monoculti

    some people see a rootbeer float? i see vanilla oppression of sodas of color

  • ||

    I absolutely love root beer floats, but mine always use chocolate ice cream. Take that vanilla imperialism! Your own methods subverted and used against you!

  • Sidd Finch||

    For all intents and purposes, Hispanics will become as “white” as Irish, Italians, Jews, and Poles.

    ... and American Indians?

  • Sidd Finch||

    The Hispanic population is expected to more than double during that time, to 128.8 million in 2060 from 53.3 million now.

    Well if you assume the sky-high fertility of recent Hispanic immigrants will continue forever, then sure, that makes a ton of sense.

  • GILMORE||

    See, people NEVER slow down how many babies they have when their economic lot improves...

  • American||

    See, people's economic lot will improve.(sarcasm)

  • GILMORE||

    beats Mexico

  • Cut out the crap||

    Not for long.

  • American||

    Why does it beat Mexico? Checkmate

  • SAL||

    What's particularly irritating about the Census Bureau projections is the assumption that Americans 40 years from now will docilely continue to allow themselves to be pigeonholed into the Census Bureau's arbitrary set of racial and ethnic classifications.

    I'd be less optimistic. Brazil, a country where virtually everyone has mixed ancestry (roughly 5% black, 45% mulatto and 50% white), has recently implemented affirmative action inspired by American policies and people are starting to classify themselves as black or white more than ever. Some public universities now even have a board to determine if a person is sufficiently "black" to have an easier pass in the entry exams. Needless to say, racial tensions are growing instead of diminishing.

  • Calidissident||

    I've never been to Brazil but am somewhat familiar with the genetic, ancestral and racial history of the country, and I just have to say: How the fuck does affirmative action work there? Is their some arbitrary cutoff for black ancestry? Do you have to be majority black? What about the "pardos?" Seriously, how does that work in a country as racially mixed as Brazil?

  • SAL||

    In fact it's been working through some terrifying ways, as I said in federal and most state universities, where education is "free" and the entry exams are extremely competitive, everyone that's not white may apply for the so called "quotas", i.e. one gets to pass the exam with fewer points than those who aren't eligible ("whites"). As you mentioned, in practice it's really hard to classify people in Brazil since the population covers the whole brown palette from black to pardos/mulatos/morenos to white; hence some universities have come up with boards that may challenge the claim of applicants who look too "white". That's right, university boards for color analysis. That's what happens when a stupid government imports the policies of another country that has a fairly different racial composition and history.

  • SAL||

    *entry entrance exams, sorry

  • Calidissident||

    "hence some universities have come up with boards that may challenge the claim of applicants who look too "white"."

    Wait, you're telling me this actually happens? This isn't something out of a dystopian novel? So if you're equally black genetically as another applicant, but you got lighter skin genes, then tough luck?

  • Sidd Finch||

    This seems germane.

    http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0027162

    We observed that, although there were significant differences between the three “color” groups in genomic ancestry and skin pigmentation, there was considerable dispersion within each group and substantial overlap between groups. We also saw that there was no good agreement between the “color” categories reported by each member of the sibling pair: 30 out of 86 sibling pairs reported different “color”, and in some cases, the sibling reporting the darker “color” category had lighter skin pigmentation.

  • SAL||

    exactly. These boards determine the apparent race, in a completely arbitrary manner; they don't give a crap about your family history. University of Brasilia (UNB) was a pioneer of color analysis boards, and they had an infamous case where identical twins applied for it, one of them was accepted and the other rejected for being white. He objected the decision and after a lot of media attention the university accepted both.

    Brazil is the country of the future. A dystopian future, indeed.

  • American||

    Yes, it is, I've read about it. I think it's better than our system, where any dispicable white who wants an advantage over his fellow man can easily get it by lying about their race, or where an Argentian Jew is a "hispanic."

  • SAL||

    I think that any kind of affirmative action is outrageous, especially in Brazil. As the link of Sidd Finch shows, skin color doesn't correlate directly with genomic ancestry; therefore advocates of affirmative action in Brazil cannot claim that it makes up for past injustices. So they argue that their objective is to make up for the racism of today, and they're accomplishing precisely the opposite.

  • Flemur||

    I get a sick kick out of reading liberal tripe, and nowadays I don't have to bother with DailyKos for a laugh.

  • ||

    "Man, why can't people be MORE concerned about race? Anyone who disagrees is just LIBERAL!"

  • DRM||

    Just let me know when the Democrats call George P. Bush a traitor to his people for being a Republican, eh?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement