I for one welcome our new non-white overlords!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

Via CNN:

Census: 2011 data confirm trend of population diversity

By Stephanie Siek and Joe Sterling, CNN

(CNN)– U.S. minorities now represent more than half of America's population under the age of 1, the Census Bureau said, a historic demographic milestone with profound political, economic and social implications.

The bureau - defining a minority as anyone who is not "single race white" and "not Hispanic" - released estimates on Thursday showing that 50.4% of children younger than 1 were minorities as of July 1, 2011, up from 49.5% from the 2010 Census taken in April 2010.

"2011 is the first time the population of infants under age 1 is majority minority," said Robert Bernstein, a Census Bureau spokesman.

The latest statistics - which also count the national population younger than 5 as 49.7% minority in 2011, an increase from 49% in 2010 - portend a future of a more racially diverse America, with new and growing populations playing more important roles politically and economically in years to come, analysts say.

Like other analysts, Kenneth M. Johnson, senior demographer at the Carsey Institute and professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire, isn't surprised at the trend.

"We've known it was going to come, but the question was what year the "crossover point" would happen, he said.

"Little children are in the vanguard of all this change coming to America." he said.

Johnson sees the trend as an opportunity for more Americans to embrace diversity. More children are going to be exposed to a more diverse group of classmates, and that will affect attitudes and outlook.

The changes are going to be felt first in hospitals, as well as schools, where an increasingly diverse child population has to be absorbed. Hospitals would need interpreters and translators, for example, Johnson said. English as a second language would be an educational priority.

While many regions such as Atlanta have a diverse population, other regions lack racial and ethnic variety and will have to deal with a new kind of population, he said. In declining rural counties, he said, an influx of groups like Hispanics would serve to renew communities and changes would ensue.

"For a country that's aging, we need young workers, and the growth of the minority population will contribute to the size of the young adult workforce," he said. "This is breathing new life into the United States."

Jeff Passell, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center, called the Census numbers "a cumulative effect of 35 to 40 years of immigration" bringing large numbers of Latinos, Asians and other immigrants into the United States.

He said the Hispanic population in particular is very young, much more concentrated in child-bearing years, and has a higher fertility rate than the white, non-Hispanic population. Lately, he says, there are a lot more births among native Hispanics in the United States than new Hispanic immigrants, a "cumulative effect" of immigration.

If the trend continues, Passell says several decades from now, possibly in the late 2030s or early 2040s, the U.S. population will become less than 50% non-Hispanic white.

"This is a trend that we can reasonably expect to continue. The factors that determine this have been set into motion, and in demography things tend to change gradually," he said.

There were 114 million minorities in 2011, or 36.6% of the U.S. population, a bump of half a percentage point from 2010. The latest figures count Hispanics as the most populous and fastest growing minority group.

They numbered 52 million in 2011, and their population grew by 3.1% since 2010. The U.S. Hispanic population grew from 16.3% in 2010 to 16.7% in 2011.

"California had the largest Hispanic population of any state on July 1, 2011 (14.4 million), as well as the largest numeric increase within the Hispanic population since April 1, 2010, (346,000)," the Census said.

"New Mexico had the highest percentage of Hispanics at 46.7%. Los Angeles had the largest Hispanic population of any county (4.8 million) in 2011 and the largest numeric increase since 2010 (73,000). Starr County - on the Mexican border in Texas - had the highest share of Hispanics (95.6 percent)."

Asians numbered 18.2 million nationally in 2011, making them the second fastest-growing minority group - up by 3% since 2010. Figures show that California had the largest Asian population of any state at 5.8 million and the largest increase since 2010 at 131,000.

"Hawaii is our nation's only majority-Asian state, with people of this group comprising 57.1% of the total population. Los Angeles had the largest Asian population of any county (1.6 million) in 2011, and also the largest numeric increase (16,000) since 2010. At 61.2%, Honolulu had the highest percentage of Asians in the nation," the Census said.

African-Americans are the second largest minority group in the United States at 43.9 million in 2011, an increase of 1.6% from 2010. New York has the largest black population of any state with 3.7 million and Texas has the largest increase from 2010 of 84,000. Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago, has the largest black population of any county at 1.3 million. Fulton County, Georgia, which includes Atlanta, has the largest increase since 2010 at 13,000.

The District of Columbia has the highest percentage of blacks at 52.2%. Mississippi has the second-largest at 38%.

America's native population - labeled "American Indian and Alaska Native population" by the Census - was about 6.3 million in 2011, up 2.1% from 2010. California had the largest such population at 1,050,000 and the largest increase at 23,000. Alaska had the highest share at 19%. Los Angeles had the largest such population of any county, with 231,000, and the largest increase, 9,000 since 2010.

The population classified as "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander" was 1.4 million in 2011, up 2.9% since 2010. Hawaii had the largest such population of any state at 359,000 and the highest percentage at 26.1. California had the largest increase since 2010 at 9,000. Honolulu has the largest population of any county at 235,000. Los Angeles County had the largest increase since 2011 at 2,700.

Of single race non-Hispanic whites, California had the largest population at 15 million. Texas had the largest increase since 2010 at 80,000. Maine had the highest percentage of the non-Hispanic white alone population, 94.3 percent.

Four states and the District of Columbia have predominantly minority populations, Hawaii, at 77%, the District of Columbia at 64.7%, California, at 60.3%, New Mexico, at 59.8%, and Texas, at 55.2%. Minorities comprised the majority population in 11% of the nation's 3,143 counties.

Michael White, professor of sociology at Brown University, said the rise of minorities fits into a longer-term evolution of the U.S. population, a mosaic that has been adapting to ethnic change since the first Census was recorded in 1790. There have been many groups represented over time, from enslaved and indigenous peoples, those of European stock, and now to a population reflecting the wider world - truly a "melting pot," he said.

White says it's hard to say how the changes will affect politics and that one can't assume that ethnic patterns will determine voting patterns. Local economic issues, for example, will evolve differently in different states and cities, and there are economic benefits of having a younger population, he said.

"The political dimensions will play out differently," he said. And by the time the babies are old enough to cast ballots, "the United States will be a different place when they are walking into a voting booth."

William Frey, Brookings Institution demographer, sees political challenges for new immigrants and an economy benefiting from their presence. Many Hispanics and Asians are too young to vote or can't cast ballots because they haven't become citizens.

"It's going to take perhaps awhile before the younger people get more engaged in politics. They do have an impact in some places, like swing states, such as Nevada, Colorado and Florida. They can make a difference," he said.

He, too, says that newcomers to the United States bring an energy that invigorates the economic system and an older society.

"I think we're going to just see that the younger part of the population will have a different vibe," he said. "They are sort of needed to help our youthful image and to add to that vitality. They will bring a dimension and element we sorely need."

**Melissia**

Neato.

Hopefully it will mean less bigotry.

He, too, says that newcomers to the United States bring an energy that invigorates the economic system and an older society.

Translation: A bunch of lazy old fogies want to leech off of the younger generation because they lived their life irresponsibly.

**mattyrm**

Melissia wrote:Neato.

Hopefully it will mean less bigotry.

Why on earth would it? Are only white people racist?!

My missus is pretty racist, she says she really dislikes Asian (In the USA its more oriental) people, because at her high school half of them were from Korea and China and she said they were super racist.

I mean, I never had that prejudice, but its pretty good proof. Namely, everyone hates everyone.

I think racism is stupid, but its not merely a white phenomena. loads of blacks and mexicans and asians genuinely hate white people right? So why would you even say that?!

**d-usa**

I am inclined to think that maybe she meant that as we become a more diverse and integrated culture, and now we have a generation that grows up more diverse than any before it, we will all learn to become more tolerant of each other.

We can always hope.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:I am inclined to think that maybe she meant that as we become a more diverse and integrated culture, and now we have a generation that grows up more diverse than any before it, we will all learn to become more tolerant of each other.

We can always hope.

Worked for the Balkans. How could it be wrong?

**Amaya**

mattyrm wrote:
Melissia wrote:Neato.

Hopefully it will mean less bigotry.

Why on earth would it? Are only white people racist?!

My missus is pretty racist, she says she really dislikes Asian (In the USA its more oriental) people, because at her high school half of them were from Korea and China and she said they were super racist.

I mean, I never had that prejudice, but its pretty good proof. Namely, everyone hates everyone.

I think racism is stupid, but its not merely a white phenomena. loads of blacks and mexicans and asians genuinely hate white people right? So why would you even say that?!

At the risk of sounding racist, I've gathered that a lot of non white people think whites are exceptionally racist for some reason. Melissia self identifies as a minority. 1+1=2?

**Ahtman**

That is weird because a lot of white people think that non-whites think that whites are exceptionally racist. Everyone wins?

If anything this will lead to a spike in racism (the overt kind) as those idiots feel more marginalized and under attack. If you believe in white superiority and you find yourself increasingly surrounded by non-whites, and whites that don't care they if they date/marry non-whites, you will feel as if your back is up against the wall. Either they will try to move or more likely, become more belligerent.

**d-usa**

Ahtman wrote:That is weird because a lot of white people think that non-whites think that whites are exceptionally racist. Everyone wins?

Quit being so Meta

**mattyrm**

d-usa wrote:I am inclined to think that maybe she meant that as we become a more diverse and integrated culture, and now we have a generation that grows up more diverse than any before it, we will all learn to become more tolerant of each other.

We can always hope.

Yeah well.. I'm the eternal pessimist.

They say America is a melting pot, over here they say London is one. But It's not a melting pot. Its a hedge maze of intolerance with barbed wire on top of all the bushes!

Blacks stick together, Asians stick together, whites stick together, latinos stick together. My missus is part Mexican so she has plenty of Mexican mates, and they have told me they themselves they are pretty racist against white people, the old "Apart from you Matty!"

The fact of the matter is, we can all get over our puny mammalian brains and get along, but its not as easy as sticking everyone together and hoping for the best. Lump everyone into London and everyone hates everyone else. Add some religion/tribalism into the mix, and its all go.

No, call me a pessimist, but I cant see intolerance going away because more immigrants come in. I think that our species is fething horrible and we all look out for number 1. I mean, I don't think its as grim as all that.. but intolerance aint going anywhere, its been here for millenia and its here to stay. gaks gonna stay the same until the sun goes out as long as puny evolved primates rule the world.

**streamdragon**

America got rid of the 'melting pot' analogy back when I was still in high school. They switched it to a salad of some sort, I believe, to show that each individual piece retains its own unique qualities while still contributing to the overall status of the total.

Or some such nonsense.

The fact is that humans, likely by nature, are a very clannish and tribal group. For every two people willing to comingle and mesh groups, there are numerous others who are quite content to stay within the racial group, thank you very much. I see this a lot in Maryland and DC.

Adding more people will indeed increase the number of minglers, but probably not as a statistically significant percentage.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:That is weird because a lot of white people think that non-whites think that whites are exceptionally racist. Everyone wins?

If anything this will lead to a spike in racism (the overt kind) as those idiots feel more marginalized and under attack. If you believe in white superiority and you find yourself increasingly surrounded by non-whites, and whites that don't care they if they date/marry non-whites, you will feel as if your back is up against the wall. Either they will try to move or more likely, become more belligerent.

You're actually impugning your argument. I guess the initial question is, are only whites racist? If you answer yes, then 1) You're

ed in the head; 2) thats why you think racism will go up or down based on whites.

Mexicans can't stand Cubans who dislike Puerto Ricans. When I see a bunch of skinny chinned blonds in a group, my Slavic sense tingles and I have the sudden urge to lie down in a trench and randomly shout "for the Motherland! " We are tribes and there are idiots and baiters in every tribe.

**azazel the cat**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:I am inclined to think that maybe she meant that as we become a more diverse and integrated culture, and now we have a generation that grows up more diverse than any before it, we will all learn to become more tolerant of each other.

We can always hope.

Worked for the Balkans. How could it be wrong?

This is the best joke I've seen you make yet, Frazzled.

**d-usa**

streamdragon wrote:America got rid of the 'melting pot' analogy back when I was still in high school. They switched it to a salad of some sort, I believe, to show that each individual piece retains its own unique qualities while still contributing to the overall status of the total.

Or some such nonsense.

The fact is that humans, likely by nature, are a very clannish and tribal group. For every two people willing to comingle and mesh groups, there are numerous others who are quite content to stay within the racial group, thank you very much. I see this a lot in Maryland and DC.

Adding more people will indeed increase the number of minglers, but probably not as a statistically significant percentage.

So maybe more like Salsa, or is that considered racist again?

**treadhead1944**

d-usa wrote:
streamdragon wrote:America got rid of the 'melting pot' analogy back when I was still in high school. They switched it to a salad of some sort, I believe, to show that each individual piece retains its own unique qualities while still contributing to the overall status of the total.

Or some such nonsense.

The fact is that humans, likely by nature, are a very clannish and tribal group. For every two people willing to comingle and mesh groups, there are numerous others who are quite content to stay within the racial group, thank you very much. I see this a lot in Maryland and DC.

Adding more people will indeed increase the number of minglers, but probably not as a statistically significant percentage.

So maybe more like Salsa, or is that considered racist again?

Call it tomato based chip dipping sauce

**streamdragon**

Frazzled wrote:Mexicans can't stand Cubans who dislike Puerto Ricans.

I've always been amazed how much the various hispanic/latino/(I don't know the rest of the preferreed terms) groups dislike each other. I mean.. REALLY hate each other. At my high school, where the population of non-white and non-black students was very low, there were fights on a nearly weekly basis between various groups. And I don't mean one on one fights, I mean five to ten people per side just going at each other for seemingly random reasons.

I know, I know, anecdotal and all that, but it still sort of amazed me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:So maybe more like Salsa, or is that considered racist again?

treadhead1944 wrote:Call it tomato based chip dipping sauce

I suspect they went with salad as it's a fairly neutral term, yes. My school was somewhat ahead of its time with political correctness.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:You're actually impugning your argument.

Maybe you don't understand it then? My argument said nothing about only any one group being any one thing. I explicitly stated that overt white racists would become more belligerent as the numbers of non-whites increase. Overt white racists (Neo-nazis, KKK, ect) don't make up make up that large a segment of the population, and in fact are quite marginalized. I refer to them only because news like this will cause those idiotic groups the most consternation. Recognizing how one hate group will probably act in no way implies that they are the only hate group either.

**Frazzled**

streamdragon wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Mexicans can't stand Cubans who dislike Puerto Ricans.

I've always been amazed how much the various hispanic/latino/(I don't know the rest of the preferreed terms) groups dislike each other. I mean.. REALLY hate each other. At my high school, where the population of non-white and non-black students was very low, there were fights on a nearly weekly basis between various groups. And I don't mean one on one fights, I mean five to ten people per side just going at each other for seemingly random reasons.

I know, I know, anecdotal and all that, but it still sort of amazed me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:So maybe more like Salsa, or is that considered racist again?
treadhead1944 wrote:Call it tomato based chip dipping sauce

I suspect they went with salad as it's a fairly neutral term, yes. My school was somewhat ahead of its time with political correctness.

Why are you surprised? Conflict between "white" ethnic groups was and still is common in many places. Irish against Italians, Italians against Germans, etc. etc. My wife remembers a lot of that in Illinois where she grew up.
Heck in California where I lived there was conflict between the older generation hispanics and the new immigrants coming in from the same country.

**Amaya**

European history is one of white on white racism.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You're actually impugning your argument.

Maybe you don't understand it then? My argument said nothing about only any one group being any one thing. I explicitly stated that overt white racists would become more belligerent as the numbers of non-whites increase. Overt racists (Neo-nazis, KKK, ect) don't make up make up that large a segment of the population. I refer to them only because news like this will cause those idiotic groups the most consternation. Recognizing how one hate group will probably act in no way implies that they are the only hate group either.

You're right I didn't catch that. Good point.

**purplefood**

Amaya wrote:European history is one of white on white racism.

Is it?
I mean I can see discrimination based on nationalism but I wouldn't call it racism...

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
Why are you surprised? Conflict between "white" ethnic groups was and still is common in many places. Irish against Italians, Italians against Germans, etc. etc. My wife remembers a lot of that in Illinois where she grew up.
Heck in California where I lived there was conflict between the older generation hispanics and the new immigrants coming in from the same country.

Texans against everybody else

Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:
Amaya wrote:European history is one of white on white racism.

Is it?
I mean I can see discrimination based on nationalism but I wouldn't call it racism...

I think one could argue that it is basically the same thing, only the source of hate/contempt/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is based on a different factor.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Why are you surprised? Conflict between "white" ethnic groups was and still is common in many places. Irish against Italians, Italians against Germans, etc. etc. My wife remembers a lot of that in Illinois where she grew up.
Heck in California where I lived there was conflict between the older generation hispanics and the new immigrants coming in from the same country.

Texans against everybody else

It would take the rest of the world (outside of Australia) for it to be a fair fight.

**Amaya**

purplefood wrote:
Amaya wrote:European history is one of white on white racism.

Is it?
I mean I can see discrimination based on nationalism but I wouldn't call it racism...

I'd say it goes well beyond nationalism, but there is a lot of nationalistic pride thrown around as well.

**Ahtman**

purplefood wrote:
Amaya wrote:European history is one of white on white racism.

Is it?
I mean I can see discrimination based on nationalism but I wouldn't call it racism...

Having read some things on here from Europeans about Gypsies I'm not sure it doesn't fit at times, though certainly it wouldn't apply in all situations. Bigotry, prejudice, and ethnocentricism still have their place in European history in causing problems without the need for it to be racial. We do have Europe to thank for Judaism transitioning from a religion to a race though.

**ShumaGorath**

Amaya wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Amaya wrote:European history is one of white on white racism.

Is it?
I mean I can see discrimination based on nationalism but I wouldn't call it racism...

I'd say it goes well beyond nationalism, but there is a lot of nationalistic pride thrown around as well.

Racial identifications in the sense that we know them now are a modern creation. Nationalist, religious, and location centric forms of discrimination were predominant before we learned to identify genetic heritages. Europe maintained religious and nationalistic discriminations into its colonial period, when it developed genetic discrimination. Europe is strange in that it's borders were often religious as well as national for a very long time but it now identifies strongly as a single homogeneous "white" population. They're conflicted.

**Amaya**

Is that really true though? Didn't Hebrews always consider themselves to be a separate and superior race since they were God's chosen people?

Even though Canaanites, Moabites, Edomites, Hebrews, etc are all basically the same people.

**ShumaGorath**

Amaya wrote:Is that really true though? Didn't Hebrews always consider themselves to be a separate and superior race since they were God's chosen people?

Even though Canaanites, Moabites, Edomites, Hebrews, etc are all basically the same people.

Yes, but jewish genetic history is incredibly varied. They're not a race as we identify races today. The diaspora prevented them from being a homogeneous "race".

**mattyrm**

You guys make everything so complicated, as I said.. you don't need an excuse. Humans hate so much easier than they love.. Religion, skin colour, block, tribe, area, postcode.. people just fething hate each other!

Not to sound hippy or anything, I'm more like the comedian from Watchmen.

I saw some really fethed up stuff in Sierra Leone.. I could understand it if it was for theft or something, but.. just needlessly?

Anyway, I've never had nightmares, I don't think a burning orphanage would bother me. Nothing I ever saw upset me, just a grim sense of "Ah, I expected to see that gak anyway!"

Our species is awful, but there's no sense philosophising about it.

"The worlds a tough place, you just gotta be tougher right?"

**Ahtman**

Amaya wrote:Is that really true though? Didn't Hebrews always consider themselves to be a separate and superior race since they were God's chosen people?

Even though Canaanites, Moabites, Edomites, Hebrews, etc are all basically the same people.

Not really. Every group has considered itself special at one time or another. The key difference was that someone who was Jewish before could convert and they would be considered a Christian*, but if you make it a racial categorization you can never convert and you are always a Jew no matter what.

*There weren't a lot of Buddhists in 16th century Europe.

**Amaya**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Amaya wrote:Is that really true though? Didn't Hebrews always consider themselves to be a separate and superior race since they were God's chosen people?

Even though Canaanites, Moabites, Edomites, Hebrews, etc are all basically the same people.

Yes, but jewish genetic history is incredibly varied. They're not a race as we identify races today. The diaspora prevented them from being a homogeneous "race".

I'm referring to their pre diaspora attitude.

mattyrm wrote: You guys make everything so complicated, as I said.. you don't need an excuse. Humans hate so much easier than they love.. Religion, skin colour, block, tribe, area, postcode.. people just fething hate each other!

Not to sound hippy or anything, I'm more like the comedian from Watchmen.

You're exactly right, humans are very hateful.

Spoiler: