Breaking News - Major Terrorist Attack In Oslo, Norway

[dps]

Yet when these immigrants arrived, the US was already overwhelmingly an acculturation machine - because, to this day, the main source of population where the British Isles. Now, the US has to deal with a different situation, not necessarily because of the latinos themselves, but, I would contend, with the existence of mass media, different socio-economic context, etc. Yet, it has the historic resources of the reading of its own past.

Is that accurate?

Not even close.  In fiscal year 2010, there were 1,042,625 people who became Lawful Permanent Residents (green card) in the United States.  Of those, only 88,743 were from Europe generally, and they didn't even bother breaking it out into UK / Ireland immigrants.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2010.pdf

If you just mean "most USians are of British heritage, even now a couple hundred years later," that's wrong too.  From the 2006 data, only 46 of 300 million people listed British or Irish as ancestry.  Even if you throw in everyone who listed "American," "Scotch-Irish," or "Welsh," you're still well less than half.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_

"Most" implies "greater than 50%" and I don't think that the majority of Americans are of English descent (though frankly I'm not 100% certain on that, and it becomes even more of a question if you expand it from "English" to "British"), but I don't think there's any doubt that more Americans have British ancestory than have any other national ancestory.  Maybe not a majority, but definately a pluralarity.

[jimmy olsen]

The death toll on the island has been lowered to 68? How did that mistake happen?

[jimmy olsen]

Also, the guy apparently is a fan of Japanese xenophobia.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/us-norway-japan-idUSTRE76P1AO20110726

[Syt]

The death toll on the island has been lowered to 68? How did that mistake happen?

Some victims got better.

[Ideologue]

Yet when these immigrants arrived, the US was already overwhelmingly an acculturation machine - because, to this day, the main source of population where the British Isles. Now, the US has to deal with a different situation, not necessarily because of the latinos themselves, but, I would contend, with the existence of mass media, different socio-economic context, etc. Yet, it has the historic resources of the reading of its own past.

Is that accurate?

Not even close.  In fiscal year 2010, there were 1,042,625 people who became Lawful Permanent Residents (green card) in the United States.  Of those, only 88,743 were from Europe generally, and they didn't even bother breaking it out into UK / Ireland immigrants.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2010.pdf

If you just mean "most USians are of British heritage, even now a couple hundred years later," that's wrong too.  From the 2006 data, only 46 of 300 million people listed British or Irish as ancestry.  Even if you throw in everyone who listed "American," "Scotch-Irish," or "Welsh," you're still well less than half.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_

Ok, but now what is it? I'd wager Latin America, right? And it seems like it is causing you guys a major headache.

I guess what Oex is saying is that Europe is getting entirely different type of immigrants - we mostly get Africans and Middle Easterners.

Mainly for ulmont: my understanding of what he was saying was that genes that arrived from the British Isles still constitute the majority of all genes in the United States.  This strikes me as plausible, and likely true.

[Gups]

Is it possible to ascribe genes to a country?

[Ideologue]

Is it possible to ascribe genes to a country?

Only if you take an arbitrary starting point for tracking them, as I am.

Which is necessary; if you don't choose a starting point, we're all Congolese, or if you want to be really hard, we're from a tidewater somewhere lost to time.

[The Brain]

Yesterday, most of Norway protested against the violence by coming together at six pm.

[jimmy olsen]

Is it possible to ascribe genes to a country?

Only if you take an arbitrary starting point for tracking them, as I am.

Which is necessary; if you don't choose a starting point, we're all Congolese, or if you want to be really hard, we're from a tidewater somewhere lost to time.

Out of Africa: Complete Replacement has been disproved!

Paleoanthropoly hijack!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP2_fGKHExk

[Martinus]

The death toll on the island has been lowered to 68? How did that mistake happen?

I wouldn't say that not shooting 20 people is a "mistake". 

[The Brain]

The death toll on the island has been lowered to 68? How did that mistake happen?

I wouldn't say that not shooting 20 people is a "mistake". 

[Martinus]

Is it possible to ascribe genes to a country?

Gene Hackman - USA
Gene Kelly - USA
Gene Roddenberry - USA
Gene Wilder - USA
etc.



All Genes seem to be American.

[jimmy olsen]

The death toll on the island has been lowered to 68? How did that mistake happen?

I wouldn't say that not shooting 20 people is a "mistake". 

You know what I meant.

[Viking]

Is it possible to ascribe genes to a country?

Gene Hackman - USA
Gene Kelly - USA
Gene Roddenberry - USA
Gene Wilder - USA
etc.



All Genes seem to be American.

Gene Simmons - Israel

[Martinus]

Is it possible to ascribe genes to a country?

Gene Hackman - USA
Gene Kelly - USA
Gene Roddenberry - USA
Gene Wilder - USA
etc.



All Genes seem to be American.

Gene Simmons - Israel

So all genes are either American or Jewish. Figures.