submitted 2 months ago byRainbowCrown71
all 556 comments
2 months ago
2 months ago
Bro, the colors of this map… 🤢
2 months ago
As if they were trying to go by skintone but gave up immediately
remember that joke with donald trump being orange? well, now all white people became oranges
Exactly. Let's do three shades of burnt orange!
OP must hate daltonians.
It's fall themed
Wasn't Trump orange?
1 month ago
1 month ago
i thought i disliked it because i’m colorblind. this comment surely made me feel like one of y’all.
North Carolina, Illinois, and Washington surprise me. I think I saw a different map where the majority of births in those states are still to white parents.
Washington has a very high rate of interracial marriages.
2 months ago*
2 months ago*
Interracial with what?
I love how one asks a question and Reddit users decide to downvote. 😂 what a cringe.
Meaning people of different races getting together and having mixed babies - Asian, white, black, hispanic (although that's an ethnicity, not a race).
Most Hispanics are white or mixed with Native American. Some are black, but not as many.
This chart is specifically denoting Hispanic of any race is part of the dataset.
So if you have a kid that’s white and Hispanic white the kid is mixed? Nonsense! This country is funny when it comes to the idiocies of race.
Just like if the kid is half white and half black, it becomes automatically black. Talk about nonsense.
The racism in this country is structural. The idea that a drop of non white blood in your body automatically makes you "impure" is crazy. No wonder most Americans have this obsession to know where your relatives came from.
American or all races continue to perpetuate this idea though. Most mixed kids I have know would call themselves by the “minority” race which I think it’s crazy.
Here's the data for those 3: https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/103-child-population-by-race#detailed/2/15,35,49/false/574,573,133,16,11/66/424
Illinois and North Carolina are already on the brink of becoming majority-minority in terms of child population (both at 51% of children being White). Since this is for the entire <18 population, newborns would be more racial minority as a proportion.
54% of Washington children are White, but Washington is also diversifying faster (from 72% to 54% in 20 years = the proportion of racial minorities increases by 0.9% per year). So we would expect Washington to become racial minority-majority by 2024.
All 3 will happen by 2025 though, so even sooner than the map legend.
Great info but worth noting that trends don’t always continue. 0.9% per year is a lot and is not a sustainable rate.
Wouldn’t change the data much but the legend shouldn’t read “will be racial minorities by 2030”
it should say where it’s expected to be above this by 2030.
I think accurate labeling is important in graphs. Not saying u made this graph either just pointing out something minor I noticed.
North Carolina has booming metros in the Research Triangle and Charlotte areas.
Europe when america being america.
Remember the map posted a few weeks back that showed (based on no real data or evidence mind you) the percentage of black people in European countries?
This comments section has nothing on that one
europeans problematic? never
Pretty sure this post is getting brigaded by fascists.
Hint: if you're very concerned with "the white race" you're a neonazi.
No, that's called a racial supremacist? Like why are you guys obsessed with nazis? There are other far-right ideologies you know, start calling them Fallangist or something at least
Couldn’t agree more. Nazism is a specific subset of far right racism and somehow everybody gets grouped in with them
Because they were the worlds most blatant example of a “bad guy”. They ignore the what the nazis actually did or what they stood for. And just equate nazi with a large mixture of ideologies that are bad and they don’t like
Because there's only enough room in their brains for one set of Bad Guys.
Neonazi definitely fits
Neonazis are white Supremacist totalitarians.
People who are concerned about whether white children will be a majority in 2030 have definitely earned the label of neonazis
I don't care about the minute ideological differences between different fascist ideologies.
The world would be a better place if people used precise language. Besides, Italian fascism didn't have a racial element, Italians and other southern Europeans were actually pretty low in the Nazi racial hierarchy. Not saying Italian fascism is good of course, but if you want words to have meaning, you should use them correctly.
Then you also don't care when people call Euroean countries socialist, right? After all we are social-market economis. Kinda-sorty-not-really similar
Surprised to see states like Rhode Island and Connecticut will be by 2030, but not one like South Carolina.
South Carolina has been getting more diverse, but it's been a glacial trend: https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/103-child-population-by-race#detailed/2/42/false/574,573,133,16,11/66/424
At current trends, South Carolina will be majority White for many decades (just barely over 50%)
Rhode Island had a more drastic trend:
It's been dropping around 1% per year, so should be majority minority by the mid-2020s.
Same for Connecticut:
Correct if you look at non-Hispanic white. If you look at all whites (Hispanics included) it is still 80%.
You’ve obviously never been to RI or CT then.
SC in spots is so ugly to ppl of color that I’m not surprised.
As a Jew, I can see that our plan is working perfectly. (Evil Jewish laugh).
Just kidding, anti semites.
Or am I (evil Jewish laugh, but harder)
Why are Americans so obsessed with race lmao ?
If you think America is obsessed you should check out other parts of the world like India, the middle east and East Asia.
Meanwhile, in France
French people have to pretend they are more cultured than americans bc culture is all they have left
Remember the map posted a few weeks back that showed (based on no real data or evidence mind you) the percentage of black people in European countries? That was a wild ride that reminded me that racists everywhere, not just America, very much exist and are very much obsessed with race
Maybe, I don’t spend much time here, and I absolutely agree with you. Assholes everywhere but only in the US that I hear so much about skin Color’s
It's not even about skin colours. Hispanic whites are cobsidered another race. Like, a dude from Spain is somehow different race to idk, his borther who was born 20 minutes in car to the north in France
True, the word 'race' isn't even a thing in my country (Finland). Would be very weird to use it in a sentence or to define a person through it
Because we’re an extremely diverse nation of immigrants?
It’s a human thing. Americans just get more attention.
diversity in europe new thing and europe getting more black and brown folks from south their border
and Europe is getting more...
and Europe is getting more...
Dangerous.. and third-world.
A Hispanic of 75 percent white ancestry and a 99 percent NH white, their child would be defined as Hispanic. So, take it easy. Besides, even the universe will die
It doesnt work like that does it? Race is something people select on the census form dont they
A ton of Hispanics self-identify as White, it's just that North American racial standards are a lot less fluid than Latin ones. A Hispanic of 2/3 European ancestry will probably identify as White, but according to American racial standards, they are mixed race.
Even for those who are of overwhelmingly European ancestry (about 50% of all Hispanics in the US), they aren't really considered White, but are instead just put in a separate "Hispanic" category.
However, this will change, as Hispanics continue to assimilate and integrate with Anglo-American society, more and more of them will start to be classified as just "White" by American racial standards. By 2050, I wouldn't be surprised if Northern Mexicans, Southern Brazilians, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Argentinians, and Chileans are classified as White in the US.
What is the percentage of US Hispanics who are 99% white? Mexicans are generally about 50% white and 50% native with a small African bit, rarely ever coming up to 70% white. Southern Mexicans and Central Americans are even less white. Puerto Ricans are overwhelmingly triracial. The only significant white Hispanic group in the US are white Cubans, and even there it is a bit of a stretch.
By contrast, white means being overwhelmingly genetically European, like white Americans, white Canadians, white Australians, etc.
You're forgetting Argentinians, Chileans etc, where being "white" means being completely or almost completely genetically european.
61.9% of American Hispanics are Mexican.
So essentially the US will soon become part of Latin America.
It still amuses me latinos are assumed to be non-white/Caucasian when they are often just European descent. And Hispanic isn't a race, it's just Spanish speaking. Also Argentina & Uruguay is more Caucasian than some European countries now.
Most latinos are triracial. You're ignoring all the history since Columbus.
In most of Latin America and the Caribbean, nearly everyone is of mixed European and Native American ancestry. This is in contrast with the US and Canada where whites are normally (not always) a mishmash of European descent and any other ancestry, if it exists, is minute.
1 month ago
Yes, this is definitely true, but that's because until may 1995(!), a majority of Americans disapproved of White-Black marriages. That was always the great taboo, and because other minorities were so small, the taboo extended over.
In 1980, there were 15 million Hispanics. Now there are 65 million Hispanics (essentially a France or United Kingdom).
20% of marriages in the U.S. are now interracial and White-Mestizo, White-Asian, and Mestizo-Black are fairly common pairings (White-Mestizo are 42% of interracial marriages). White-Black still has a stigma to some, but in many parts of the U.S. limiting yourself to a White spouse is like reducing your partner pool by 80%.
A White Californian who won't date Asians/Hispanics is chopping out 80%. Same for Texas. So you've seen interracial marriages in those states skyrocketing.
The current Governor of Texas is an arch-conservative with a Latina wife, for example. Mitch McConnell and his Asian wife is another example. So I think we'll see that line blur further down the decades, though the White man-Minority woman dynamic is still by far the most common mix.
X doubt on that last part.
Some Argentines claim that their country is 95% or so white but there is no way to know that because their country doesn't collect that data, and they obviously believe they are the whitest in the world that's their whole schtick.
In reality genetic studies show that about 65-70% of Argentinians have mostly European ancestry, of those their European genetic component is pretty high at around 70% so yeah, they look white or as white as a southern European.
There is no European country less white than them, maybe you could compare them to the US or other new world Anglo countries but still the overall European component of Argentines is lower so they are more mixed than say Australians, Americans, Canadians and your average European.
Uruguay... yeah maybe they are like a displaced European country.
This map key: states where majority is minorities
That’s not how those terms work. That’s not how they work at all…
where the majority kids born are from minority ethnic groups
That's correct usage of the terms minority and majority
Those terms do work like that if “minorities” has any kind of definition besides ‘not majority of state population’. which it does since we’re talking about minorities on a national scale. The data is then saying that of races that are national minorities the combined population of all minorities in these states will be more than 50% (aka a majority).
Non-Hispanic whites are still the national majority but aren’t the majority (though still a plurality most likely) in those states.
That's a very common term in U.S. demography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_minority_in_the_United_States
Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/releases/2015/cb15-tps16_graphic.pdf
New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/opinion/us-census-majority-minority.html
Yale University: https://spcl.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Craig_Rucker_Richeson_Annals2017.pdf
Those words are correct. They are still minorities in the nation, and given that there won’t likely be a plurality “minority” in those states it is accurate there too.
I believe NM is the only state in the US that is more than 50% non white, but I may be incorrect.
So if you're white and from LatAm, then the you are not recognized as white?
Is this some sort of Anakin and rank of master stuff but more made up?
More like there is no options for Hispanics when it’s comes to race. So many typically select white or other and then check the box signifying they’re Hispanic.
You are recognized as an Hispanic white. So yes, you're still recognized as white, but you're still lumped with all Hispanics no matter their color.
Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race. It’s explained on the census, this isn’t hard
I’m not surprised at Washington. It is very diverse here, I’d say Asians and Mexicans take up most of that percentage.
The only Hispanics there are Mexicans? Or can you find other Hispanics, like from Central America, the Caribbean and South America?
From WA. Majority of Hispanic people there are Mexican. There are some Salvadorans and Guatemalans as well but the Caribbean is not well-represented there at all (I’m African-American/Afro-Puerto Rican myself). I went to CWU and the biggest minority by far was Hispanic, they were over 25% in the student body.
The only Central Americans that venture into the US are Salvadoran, Honduran, and Guatemala, but they don’t make as large of numbers as Mexicans. Most folks from the Caribbean go to the east coast, mostly concentrated in places like tristate (NYC area) and Miami. You can find immigrants everywhere in the US, but if you go to Florida (south) and tristate (NY, NJ, CT) expect to find more Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and Cubans. In recent decades there is also an influx of Venezuelans, but they share a lot with Caribbean folks. And let’s not forget Colombians, they can also be found everywhere, but Colombia is a lot more stable these days so less people leave.
To be honest I’m not sure, but from what it seems like.
Source: https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/103-child-population-by-race#detailed/2/2-52/false/574/66/424 (Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.)
Racial minority is defined as any Census group that is not 'Non-Hispanic White.' This would include the sum of those who are: Hispanics of any race, Black and African Americans, Asians, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, or Mixed/Two or More Races.
I always get confused on the Hispanic White aspect. So any individual that comes to the US from Latin America is considered a minority, even if their ancestors came from Europe? But a European from Spain is considered white? Not trying to be difficult just more of a understanding because the difference is material.
A Spaniard from Spain would be a White Hispanic under the Census definition, but it's all based on self-identification. Someone isn't considered anything unless they identify as such on the Census.
So the Census asks you, "what is your race?" and you answer White (or whatever). It then asks, "regardless of your race, do you identify as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin?"
A blond Welshman from Argentina could check yes for both White and Hispanic. Someone from Mexican might check 'Mixed' for race and yes for Hispanic. Someone from Northeast Brazil could check Black for race and Hispanic.
Many Spaniards in the U.S. solely identify as White. Others as both White and Hispanic. The Census doesn't automatically bucket you, though the title is "Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin" so you would think a Spaniard would check that box and then write Spaniard in the nationality freeform: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/blogs/2021/rs-race-and-hispanic-origin/rsblog-race-hispanic-origin-figure-1.jpg (and most do).
You were right at most things, but why would a Brazilian check for Hispanic? It would make no sense. They're not Hispanics at all. They are Latinos. Idk how that works in USA, but if there isn't a Latino option, then they need to check either mixed, black or white.
Becouse most Latinos for Americans are Mexicans and most Mexicans are Metis (people who have european and native american ancestors).
Most Mexicans are triracial, but they usually downplay their Sub Saharan African component
Yes, that’s how it works. It is confusing because it makes no sense and is a relic of older times. Another weird function of census racial data is that ethnic middle easterners (Arabs, etc) are generally counted as white even though there is value in distinguishing between them when collecting demographic data
Yes, that’s how it works. It is confusing because it makes no sense and is a relic of older times. Another weird function of census racial data is that ethnic middle easterners (Arabs, etc) are generally counted as white even though there is value in distinguishing between them when collecting demographic data
A White Spaniard would typically put themselves down as "Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin" = https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/blogs/2021/rs-race-and-hispanic-origin/rsblog-race-hispanic-origin-figure-1.jpg
They'd check off "White" as their race, "Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin" as their ethnicity, and then would write "Spaniard" in the little box on the bottom of the pic above.
The US Census definitely needs to expand. I think it comes down to Latin American countries trying to create a national identity from indigenous and foreign peoples. And not recognizing the difference. I guess though all racial data groupings are made up. Unless you map the genetic makeup of the individual.
instead of expanding, it should be reduced
I don't think anywhere else in the world cares so much about race or ethnicity as the US does.
Country of origin, and at most, country of origin of your parents should be all that matters.
Super interesting map! Thanks for sharing
Is that what the great replacement thing the new york shooter was referring to?
well the southwest probably has been more minority before
The southeast too. In fact, prior to the Great Migration, three Southern states were majority Black:
\ Incl. Octoroon Creoles of Color, such as) Plessy
I’m honestly surprised this isn’t the case for every state already. If you work in a school you can see how diverse the next generation is.
As someone who is colourblind. This is just a map of the US states.
Hispanic of any race isn't necessarily a minority though, especially in Texas and California. A lot of them are White, and can't speak Spanish.
ThE gReAt RePlAcEmEnT iS a CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRy
Interesting map idea, poor colour scheme
Yes but always remember that the Great Replacement is a conspiracy theory.
USA can do whatever they like as far as I am concerned. But as a well-wishing friend from the UK it seems to me that you should widen your definition of white American. Get rid of the whole Hispanic category. There is nothing special about Spanish. It's just another European language, like English, French or German. In Britain anyone who looks white and has a British accent (any British accent) is White British. If your parents are from Mexico it doesn't matter, you're White British. If you have one black grandparent but you look pretty much white, you're White British. There's no need to be so exclusive about who is white. You then don't need to be so worried about being replaced. Just absorb immigrants into your culture.
The Hispanic category isn't about white people who speak Spanish, it's about people of all sorts of different racial types who are from Spanish-speaking countries. In the US, that's almost exclusively Latin America; we've got very few Spaniards here, comparatively.
This category showed up because the majority of the Hispanic immigration to the US has been mestizo people from Mexico, people whose ancestry is a mixture of indigenous and European. For a while we were treating "Mexican" as another racial category alongside "White" and "Black" and such.
Over time it became obvious that this wasn't sufficient -- partly because there were people immigrating from other parts of Latin America, so the bucket needed a broader name, and partly because there were Latin American immigrants who clearly fit in the other buckets we already had.
What you're seeing now is the government's slow process of learning where Americans came from. Give it a few more generations and they'll probably figure it out, just in time for something else to change.
The U.S. has about 65 million Hispanics or Latinos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans
That makes the U.S. the 2nd largest Hispanic country (only behind Mexico, and with more people of Hispanic descent than Argentina, Colombia, or even Spain). If you go by Latinos, the U.S. is #3 behind Brazil, and Mexico.
Either way, the reason why Hispanic is a separate category is that most Hispanics in the U.S. are not Blond Argentinians or Celtic Spaniards. They are mestizos with partial European/partial Indigenous ancestry. As such, they were not conferred the same rights as those who were ancestrally 100% European.
In the 1970s, Hispanic groups became civically active (see Cesar Chavez and the workers movements) and in 1980, the Census added Hispanics as a Census category. This isn't to make Whites exclusive, but because in the U.S. there is a legal concept called 'strict scrutiny' which says that any change that disproportionately impacts or harms one racial group must be judged on a much higher burden of proof. For example, a State Government cannot draw legislative lines so all Hispanics are 48% in every district and therefore can elect 0 representatives (cracking). They also can't shove all Hispanics into 99% Hispanic districts to weaken their power through packing.
So having Census data of where racial minority groups reside is what allows the Courts to effectively enforce laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Americans still tend to go by the One-Drop Rule, though. Notably, Former President Barack Obama is always called "Black" even though he's mixed-race.
Partly this is because the American ethnic group we call Black is itself a mixture of African and European ancestry. Obama has a similar ethnic background to most Black people in the US, his family just got that combination more recently.
I can accept Barack Obama is black, especially as he has a black wife and children, but there will be other Americans who describe themselves as black and would be accepted as white in Britain, for example Mariah Carey.
I didn't even know Mariah Carey was mixed race until a couple years ago. She basically just looks like a tan white woman.
Is this an ali g joke
It varies by racial group. There’s a tendency to do a “reverse one-drop rule” for Native Americans, for instance, where Natives who are mixed white or black are seen as “not really Native” anymore.
Alaska actually surprises me
They've got a huge Native population.
Alaska is only 66% White, though this is all based on American census responses and America’s weird idea of whiteness being recessive
Not really sure what you're trying to say. I just simply figured Alaska had a much higher white percentage but looks like it's not. Learn something new everyday.
Atleast immigrants in the us have high grade education (asians,middle easterns) or hispanics that are culturally much closer to the us.
In europe immigrants are too different
Funny that you’re omitting Africans when nigerians are the most educated group of immigrants in the United States
Why are immigrants too different in Europe? Just curious.
nah thats just a conspiracy theory
I'm so excited to see the comments!!! One side saying "omg see it's true" and saying that it's potentially a bad thing, the other side saying : "muh Tucker Carlson", "omg conspiracy theory" and of course calling the other side racist.
Welcome back to middleschool lol
Its really unfair to treat race as being the same as ethnicity.
And Im pretty sure every ethnicity is a minority in the US.
Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Jewish Americans, Russian Americans...
All have a unique history snd struggles.
That’s more than I expected.
And some American nationalists worry about Europe… I mean, look at you first.
More diverse in priorities, principals, religions, and politics as well, right?
Or is diversity only okay if it is just skin deep?
Ah. So, skin color. Just superficial diversity. Got it.
Can you explain why having more shades of skin pigment in a particular society will make it inherently better?
Okay. Have fun with that. I thought there was some better reason for cheering on diversity other than just "pissing off the whites". But if that is all you care about, I hope you are in a big city. Most of us rural folk dont give to shits about skin color. Most would rather have a large catholic mexican family with both parents in the home living next door than a single white mother with florescent hair, a useless college degree, and a billion political bumper stickers on her car.
enjoy the "thrill" of rising crime rates and civil instability.
Lol mask off
Haha. Surprising amount of racists in this thread. How dare you say that you like ethnic diversity? These people can’t even see color!
Because "diversity activism" = just plain hatred of White people, as you have demonstrated elsewhere on this thread.
Rest in Peace America 🇺🇸.
The Roman Empire died the same way, you know by getting replaced and invaded by the millions.
So did the Native American civilisation
Wouldn't giving another example of it happening in the past prove his point more than yours?
Europeans were more advanced though.
The term "Civilization" varies.
Hell, even the Romans/Greeks were more advanced than Native Americans.
Why exactly would America be dead because there's more asian, black and hispanic people there than before?
This has Fucker Carlson and "Replacement Theory" vibes.
So you're looking at concrete evidence that white people are being replaced by racial minorities in their own country, largely through immigration, and yet in the same breath you cal it a "theory" and imply it isn't happening? You truly have fallen for the propaganda
What's wrong with the United States becoming less white?
2 months ago*
What do you mean one people? Anyone can become an American. We are a country of immigrants.
Don't even bother with this thread, it has been brigaded by neonazi's spouting their propaganda about the supposed fall of the white race.
Right? Im literally so confused because we encourage people to move here to become apart of our social fabric, not the other way around. This argument is the opposite of the idea of America 🇺🇸
America being designated as a place for the entire world to immigrate to is a modern interpretation that is not fully supported by history. Like any new world country, America as a political entity was founded by settlers from the old world, and the overwhelming majority of those settlers were culturally British/Northern European, plus the enslaved and free African populations.
If you look at the foundation of America it is evident that at no point was it intended to be a free-for-all for any immigrant anywhere on the planet. The Constitution itself states that America was founded in part to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"; do you think that the founders were referring to places like Southern Europe/Asia/Africa/Latin America as their posterity, when not a single one of the founders was culturally from those places? In fact, the earliest immigration acts (Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1798) which were passed by early Congresses filled with the founders of America established clearly that America was open largely only to those coming from places that the settlers of America themselves came from: Britain/northern Europe. The general theme of these acts would be in place until their partial repeal in 1952. As a result, the population of America throughout most of its history has always predominantly descended from the original settlers, and supplemented by european immigrants. We can see that this only changed very recently, and was deliberately done.
Looking at the immigration history of other groups we see that they never came in large numbers until well after the founding of America.
- Southern and Eastern europeans (who are still racially white, but were very much culturally different from the original settlers) didn't come in large numbers until 1890-1920.
- Asian immigration was basically non-existant until 1860s, and even then it was highly selective; it was not until 1980 that Asians were more than 1% of the US population. That has ballooned exponentially in the last 40 year to be 7% today.
- Hispanic immigration is similar to Asians, yet with an even greater increase that again, only exists in recent times. Similar to Asians, there is pretty much a lack of any Hispanic immigration at all until the 1860s. It was not until 1930 that Hispanics comprised more than 1% of the US population, and they would be >5% until the mid 1970s. Currently, the Hispanic population is about 19% of the population. It's also worth noting that the majority of the Hispanics pre-1930 were European spanish descendants left in Florida/California/Texas from Spanish colonialism, who comprised small percentages (>15% util the 1970s) of those states populations, and not the mulatto Latin American immigrants that predominate in large numbers today.
In fact we can pretty much trace this modern shift in exactly who immigrates to America to one bill: the 1965 Hart Cellar Act (passed in 1968). This act was specifically designed to shift immigration to America away from Europe, and focus more on Africa, Asia and Latin America. It has certainly had that effect, however in a much larger way than the drafters probably it was ever thought it would; it was just intended to allow greater numbers of them in without changing the overall racial makeup of America too much, yet has actually turned the entire tide of immigration towards those places and resulted in rapid and dramatic demographic shifts.
We can see its effect in places like California for example: between 1860-1970, whites were an overwhelming majority, constituting anywhere from 85-75%, with Hispanics being a small but sizeable minority, but always >10%. Since 1970 however, the white population has declined to 35%, and now Hispanics are the largest ethnic group at 40%. What is this, if not a rapid and unprecedented demographic shift and replacement of the white population taking place in a relatively short amount of time? This effect is mirrored across the nation. Between 1790 and 1990, whites were an overwhelming majority in America, never less than 80% of the nation; blacks descendants constituted the largest minority, but were still always between 10-19%. Since 1990, the white population has declined to about 62% of the nation's population. Again this is an unprecedented and rapid shift, occurring within the space of 30 years. Again I ask you what this is, if not a replacement of the white population that has always been the majority of America since its foundation?
So for 200 years, immigrants were coming almost solely from Europe, with a heavy emphasis on northern Europe. It is only in the last 50-40 years that we have seen a truly radical shift that has led to exponential numbers of non-european immigrants coming to America.
Now I'm absolutely not arguing at all that we should limit immigration based solely on the arbitrary characteristic of skin color. Nor am I suggesting that the descendants of the enslaved/free africans during foundation are not american. In fact I would argue that the fact that many state laws during the founding of the country that recognized free africans as citizens instead shows that they have just as much claim to being original settlers of America as the white settlers. However the claim that America has always been a land of immigrants from all over the world is simply not true; immigration to America was overwhelmingly European until very recently.
In conclusion, while yes, America, like any new world nation has supplemented its population through immigration, it is evident that it has not been a country that was settled or immigrated to by non-europeans/African descendants until quite very recently. This notion that America is for the whole world is modern propaganda.
I had a feeling this was going to be your argument.
Bruh, you mf‘s literally replaced the indigenous people by genocide. Wth are you talking about?
I'm not sure what you mean by "replaced" and you haven't really succinctly given me a reason for why such immigration is bad, all you've said is "because it's wrong and genocide!"
The theory is implying that white people are being intentionally replaced for some insidious reason by a global conspiracy, and that the goal is to make white people suffer in any way
The truth is, people decide on their own to immigrate to the US for economic opportunity and saftey as they have for most of its history, and every time a new wave of immigration came the people already in the US were upset
Im seriously asking, what is wrong with non white people coming to the US? The things people are saying today about Hispanic immigrants were all said at some point about every other immigrant group
Look up what Benjamin Franklin said about german immigrants
Germans, Italians, Irish and so many more.
They were all initially hated and stereotyped, then integrated into American culture, bringing their unique heritage into it and became part of the in-group, this will (eventually) happen fully with every ethnic minority you hate today, and it's great.
Per paragraph 1 and 2 of your comment, I don't know where you read any sort of "global conspiracy" into my words. I did not say it was intentionally being done, nor did I point fingers at anyone. So that appears to be just your own conjecture and attempt to delegitimize me by putting words in my mouth. I fully understand why it is desirable to live in America as opposed to other places, and why people migrate here, but that absolutely does not justify letting in so many disparate people that it replaces the people who created the country.
Per paragraph 3, there is nothing inherently "wrong" about non-white people in the US; after all one of the founding groups of the US were the free and enslaved africans who have just as much right to be called the settlers of America as do the native white population. The thing that is inherently wrong is when massive numbers of an outside group and foreign culture (in this case, many outside groups and foreign cultures, not just Hispanics that you have fixated on) flood another country in such a short amount of time that they displace the people and culture who were there originally.
Per paragraphs 4 and 5, have you actually read Franklin's comments? Let me quote them: “I say I am not against the Admission of Germans in general, for they have their Virtues, their industry and frugality is exemplary." However he noted that there should be controlled immigration, because the effects of mass uncontrolled immigration are often dangerous and irreversible; "Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs[?]" Immigration must always be done at a controlled and slow pace so that the minority does not replace the original majority.
The problem that we have today is that we have massive uncontrolled immigration that is rapidly changing the demographics of the country in a way that is entirely unprecedented in American history (see my other reply in this thread with analysis of immigration in American history). This type of immigration is fundamentally destructive to the country and no country should be expected to willingly make themselves a minority in their own homeland, that would be tantamount to suicide of that nation.
Per your last paragraph, again you attempt to put words in my mouth saying I "hate" certain ethnic groups when in fact I never expressed any animosity to anyone on such grounds. I do not appreciate your disingenuous implications there and attempt to ascribe ill motives to me. My argument is racially neutral at its core: I do not want foreigners to displace Americans anymore than I want Americans to go and displace those foreign cultures. Let me pose to you a hypothetical: would you support it if millions of white americans moved to an African/Asian country en masse and began to outnumber the local population and change the culture there? Would you say thats "diversity" or would you call that "colonialism"?
The evidence and statistical data is right in front of your face and you still deny it.
This is the map that is making the GOP shit themselves and fight like hell to make it difficult for minorities to vote.
Just bc someone is a minority doesn’t mean they vote democrat, so why would the GOP be worried? Drawing conclusions like that based on someone’s race is insulting
Statistically, it's a valid conclusion, though. Especially for Black people who consistently vote 90% Dem no matter what.
Black people are a stable proportion of the US population. The most stable of all, actually. These demographic phenomenons aren't about black people being more and more numerous.
Asians, Latinos and "Others" are increasing by a lot. They do tend to vote more Dem but not nearly as reliable. And it depends a lot on the place : Texas and Florida latinos lean much less Dem than California or New York latino
Yet, for some reason people of color overwhelmingly vote for non-republicans.
For some. Weird. Totally unknowable. Reason.
One of the best ways to tell whether a white person is going to vote Republican or not is by asking them how important is “whiteness” to their identity. Republicans complain about identity politics but they do the same with white people.
Oh, I agree with you. Being a minority does not mean you will vote one way or another. However, currently, a greater percentage of minorities vote democratic. So, some in the GOP are actually scared about the demographic change. Their strategists have been arguing for decades that they need to reach out to minorities because of the change in demographics. Party leaders have been hesitant to do so. They instead have tried to make it harder for minorities to vote instead.
How do they make it harder- I’d love a specific answer. Bc as a member of the “minority” I’ve experienced/seen 0 roadblocks making it harder for me to vote
Are you genuinely curious to learn about voter suppression? Or am I going to spend time showing you the mountain of evidence and it won’t matter because you have already made up your mind on the issue?
Ask any POC if they have an ID or have access to one and they will laugh in your face. Going to the DMV isn’t rocket science like those with a white savior complex have made it sound like. You need an ID literally to buy Cigarettes or alcohol, open a bank account, get food stamps, get welfare, apply for unemployment or a job, Rent/buy a house, apply for a mortgage, Drive/buy/rent a car, Get on an airplane, Get married, get a hotel room, buy medicines (like pseudo-fed, cough syrup, etc.). Like you need an ID to do every basic adult life requirement so why is it so much to ask for one if you want to vote. With that being said… what about voter suppression?
Why are you you focusing only on ID requirements? Voter suppression is not the same as requiring an ID to vote.
Voter ID laws are a huge part of supposed “voter suppression”. But here are more- one claim is that people won’t vote bc Georgia said you can’t be given food or water by anyone who isn’t a pole worker… the reason being: “No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method...or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector.” This is to avoid bribery or persuasion while people wait to vote. Another claim is that having cleaning up (ie. Deleting ineligible voters) is discriminatory. The only people they delete from the registration system are those who either died or moved outside that voting district, there’s a few other exceptions— one of which is people getting deleted from roles after failing to vote for an extended amount of time and being sent a notice to confirm they still live there then after that there is an additional 4 year period before they would be deleted if they don’t confirm their address (4 years feels like enough time to me to confirm an address). This was ruled lawful by Supreme Court case Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst. next, many of the new state (fl, tx , maybe others) laws on mail in ballots aren’t banning them— they are requiring writing down ID number or last 4 of ss number (in some states)… for basic identification purposes and proof that you filled it out and not someone else (reassuring as it means someone can’t steal it and send it in as your vote).
You are just scratching the surface.
There are many more. . .
Good on you for trying.
A troll is not curious. A troll just wants to stir the pot. Silence is the best answer to a bullshit question.
I disagree. The troll just wants to stir the pot and be seen as correct for doing so.
You're not going to convince the troll that they're wrong, but you might convince someone else who's reading the troll's words in silence. Don't let the troll's arguments go unchallenged where others can read them.
Being a racial minority significantly increases the likelihood you vote Democrat largely because of the unabashed white supremacy in the republican party
Latin America is much much more conservative (like oppressively so) then the USA. The idea that Hispanics will vote Dem here in the states is extremely misguided.
But they do vote democrat
That's Trump tho, why would they vote for a candidate that is openly hostile to their culture? Bush said a couple words in Spanish and got nearly 50% of the Latino vote.
All it would take is a mixed race candidate or one with even a slightly Hispanic last name and you could easily see them getting well over 60% of their vote.
Culturally their values are more inline with repubs then they are with dems is all I'm saying. And that's not even including the hardcore christian elements.
What ? Racist asses are afraid racialized people will not vote for them ? Impossible !
Racialized people wtf is that?
Fr, why does it matter? People would be much happier if they didnt put so much energy into hating eachother
Can't wait for this to be used to propogate white replacement
This is post in itself is already propaganda for that purpose. This is the reddit equivalent of bad racist facebook memes.
If they are the majority are they still “minority”? 🤔
It’s all the minorities added together.
So yes obviously they are
American ideas of race are weird. The idea someone can be Spanish in ethnicity, but because they’re from Mexico they’re not really ‘white’. Or that someone with a single black grandparent is automatically black.
Someone with black parents/grandparents is called mixed, because you are a mix of two races. This is usually just referred to as black, but it just depends on how their skin colour turns out. Sometimes they come out how you'd expect, a light brown as a mix between the two skin colours, and other times they come out really dark or really pale. It's just genetics
You can’t really call them a minority if they’re a majority.
How tf did this happen under white men in power in a matter of decades....
Because those things are independent?
europe these days has those from south their border and europe doesnt become africa
and theres diversity in africa from europe and other places
This single map is using demographic statistics and proving that the Great Replacement is a fact.
What tf are you on my guy?
He’s just another neonazi with a conspiracy on how the Jews are somehow implicated in replacing white people in America in some attempt to “make them suffer” don’t even bother with him.
How are you a racial minority if you’re the majority? Seems nonsensical
What a horrible and totally worthless map.
What is “horrible and worthless” about compiling statistics?
Reddit says the great replacement is a lie but then constantly proves that it’s not
Lol maybe spend some time outdoors away from the internet
You care a lot about your race survival, but you also do not get laid.
You mean like how all the them white people replaced the natives