QuoteNumbers of Children of Whites Falling Fast
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
WASHINGTON — America's population of white children, a majority now, will be in the minority during this decade, sooner than previously expected, according to a new report.
The Census Bureau had originally forecast that 2023 would be the tipping point for the minority population under the age of 18. But rapid growth among Latinos, Asians and people of more than one race has pushed it earlier, to 2019, according to William Frey, the senior demographer at the Brookings Institution who wrote the report about the shift, which has far-reaching political and policy implications.
The single largest increase was among Hispanics, whose birthrates are far above those of non-Hispanic whites, largely because the white population is aging and proportionally has fewer women in their child-bearing years. The median age of whites is 41, compared with 27 for Hispanics, the report said.
As a result, America's future will include a far more diverse young population, and a largely white older generation. The contrast raises important policy questions. Will the older generation pay for educating a younger generation that looks less like itself? And while the young population is a potential engine of growth for the economy, will it be a burden if it does not have access to adequate education?
The population of white children fell by 4.3 million, or about 10 percent, in the last decade, while the population of Hispanic and Asian children grew by 5.5 million, or about 38 percent, according to the report, which was based on 2010 Census numbers.
The number of African-American children also fell, down by 2 percent. Over all, minorities now make up 46.5 percent of the under-18 population.
Whites are now the minority of child populations in 10 states, double the number from the previous decade, according to the report, and in 35 cities, including Atlanta, Phoenix and Orlando, Fla. Vermont had the largest drop in its child population of any state.
The changes also have political implications. Though whites are still 63 percent of the population as a whole, that is down from 75.6 percent in 1990, and minorities, particularly Hispanics, who now outnumber blacks, are becoming an increasingly important part of the electorate.
Mr. Frey estimates that whites will slip into the minority by about 2041. The number of whites grew by just 1.2 percent in the population as a whole in the last decade, a fraction of the 43 percent growth among Latinos.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/us/06census.html
:hmm:
What I find a bit silly is how they calculate white race people - i.e. it excludes people who have "more than one race". In that case, it's only natural that white race people will become extinct sooner or later.
The term Hispanic sucks ass.
I think it lumps together everyone from south of the border as a generic them. People from Central and South America deserve to be categorized according to their individual country of origin and racial/ethnic background just like people from Europe. An Argentinian of Italian descent, a Guatemalan of Mayan descent and a Dominican of African descent are different people and their degree of assimilation into the United States will be different all other things being equal. That's why I find this minority/majority thing absurd, it is predicated on counting Hispanic whites as being forever outside the ''white mainstream", whatever the hell that means. The history of this country indicates the opposite will happen, just as Italian and Southeastern Europeans who were denigrated as being the swarthy other at the turn of the 20th century, Hispanics of white and later on white/native mixture will eventually be absorbed and accepted into the mainstream, while unfortunately those who are black Hispanics won't be. Hopefully that prejudice will be die sooner rather than later, but that day isn't here yet.
Similarly, Asians shouldn't be lumped together in one group. Japanese, Koreans, etc are not the same.
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2011, 02:32:09 AM
What I find a bit silly is how they calculate white race people - i.e. it excludes people who have "more than one race". In that case, it's only natural that white race people will become extinct sooner or later.
Only if you continue to allow this genocide to take place by electing the same kind of self-hating politicians. :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 02:35:36 AM
The term Hispanic sucks ass.
I think it lumps together everyone from south of the border as a generic them. People from Central and South America deserve to be categorized according to their individual country of origin and racial/ethnic background just like people from Europe. An Argentinian of Italian descent, a Guatemalan of Mayan descent and a Dominican of African descent are different people and their degree of assimilation into the United States will be different all other things being equal. That's why I find this minority/majority thing absurd, it is predicated on counting Hispanic whites as being forever outside the ''white mainstream", whatever the hell that means. The history of this country indicates the opposite will happen, just as Italian and Southeastern Europeans who were denigrated as being the swarthy other at the turn of the 20th century, Hispanics of white and later on white/native mixture will eventually be absorbed and accepted into the mainstream, while unfortunately those who are black Hispanics won't be. Hopefully that prejudice will be die sooner rather than later, but that day isn't here yet.
Similarly, Asians shouldn't be lumped together in one group. Japanese, Koreans, etc are not the same.
Would you say that grouping Chinese and Koreans, or Mexicans and Guatemalans together makes less sense than grouping all Europeans together? An honest question.
In any case, I'm kinda surprised that for all the "melting pot" analogies going on for decades if not centuries in the US, people of white race (with no mixture of non-"white" genes) still constitute majority of the country's population. It's not as much melting pot, as Ceasar's salad.
I need to have a son soon, so that he can enjoy some mixed-race poontang. :)
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2011, 04:03:11 AM
In any case, I'm kinda surprised that for all the "melting pot" analogies going on for decades if not centuries in the US, people of white race (with no mixture of non-"white" genes) still constitute majority of the country's population. It's not as much melting pot, as Ceasar's salad.
That phrase was coined back when the melting pot was thought to consist of Italians, Irish, Germans, etc. mixing together... i.e. different varieties of 'white'.
Anyway, IMO this demographic shift is fine with me. We stole this continent from the Mesoamericans so it's fine (and poetic justice) that they will eventually be taking it back. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on April 10, 2011, 05:40:41 AM
Anyway, IMO this demographic shift is fine with me. We stole this continent from the Mesoamericans so it's fine (and poetic justice) that they will eventually be taking it back. :cool:
They weren't doing anything useful with it. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on April 10, 2011, 05:40:41 AM
Anyway, IMO this demographic shift is fine with me. We stole this continent from the Mesoamericans so it's fine (and poetic justice) that they will eventually be taking it back. :cool:
Your lack of concern for the fate of the planet is disturbing.
Disgusting. Overrun with nerds and animetards. :(
Time to leave the republic. :(
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2011, 09:06:37 AM
Disgusting. Overrun with nerds and animetards. :(
Time to leave the republic. :(
:lol:
Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2011, 09:10:33 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2011, 09:06:37 AM
Disgusting. Overrun with nerds and animetards. :(
Time to leave the republic. :(
:lol:
Actually, I'm not really kidding that much. I'm really beginning to loathe my fellow Americans.
But where will you take the brood if not America?
And for every Timmay there is a Funkmonk, Garbon and myself. So don't fret so much.
I HATE NERDS
Time for the ogre avatar!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 02:35:36 AM
The term Hispanic sucks ass.
I think it lumps together everyone from south of the border as a generic them. People from Central and South America deserve to be categorized according to their individual country of origin and racial/ethnic background just like people from Europe. An Argentinian of Italian descent, a Guatemalan of Mayan descent and a Dominican of African descent are different people and their degree of assimilation into the United States will be different all other things being equal.
Oh not this ridiculousness again. I'm don't all agree with what you are agitating for, but how did last year's census not do that?*
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.advancingequality.org%2Fattachments%2Fwysiwyg%2F1171%2FCensus_2010_Race_Ethnicity_Ex.jpg&hash=aede4eaa8a7ad3ed95449dc180643f77d2aeecd1)
Looks like only Hispanics and Asians got to select a country of origin...with Asian countries of origin being "races".
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 02:35:36 AMThat's why I find this minority/majority thing absurd, it is predicated on counting Hispanic whites as being forever outside the ''white mainstream", whatever the hell that means. The history of this country indicates the opposite will happen, just as Italian and Southeastern Europeans who were denigrated as being the swarthy other at the turn of the 20th century, Hispanics of white and later on white/native mixture will eventually be absorbed and accepted into the mainstream, while unfortunately those who are black Hispanics won't be. Hopefully that prejudice will be die sooner rather than later, but that day isn't here yet.
So you are positing that "Hispanic whites" will be folded into the "mainstream" while also noting that the prejudice will die out? :unsure:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 02:35:36 AM
Similarly, Asians shouldn't be lumped together in one group. Japanese, Koreans, etc are not the same.
But Africans should?
*as an editorial aside, perhaps this splitting of race/origin into thousands of combination will eventually lead us to the realization that race is an outmoded concept. Although for the moment, it seems that while a person is free to check off so many little options, that data eventually gets folded into the old favorite groupings. (http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map - click on any one of the racial grouping tabs)
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2011, 09:35:34 AM
Looks like only Hispanics and Asians got to select a country of origin...with Asian countries of origin being "races".
So you are positing that "Hispanic whites" will be folded into the "mainstream" while also noting that the prejudice will die out? :unsure:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 02:35:36 AM
Similarly, Asians shouldn't be lumped together in one group. Japanese, Koreans, etc are not the same.
But Africans should?
*as an editorial aside, perhaps this splitting of race/origin into thousands of combination will eventually lead us to the realization that race is an outmoded concept. Although for the moment, it seems that while a person is free to check off so many little options, that data eventually gets folded into the old favorite groupings. (http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map - click on any one of the racial grouping tabs)
I didn't see the '10 census since I was in Korea, I assumed it was similar to the '00 one.
The prejudice I'm talking about is the one against those of African descent.
No, Africans shouldn't. However aside from recent migrants it would be impossible for the vast majority to report the nation of origin of their ancestors given the lack of records.
Yes they should. Don't be an idiot in the name of equality, Tim. The African countries are not the equals of the nation-states.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 10:06:55 AM
I didn't see the '10 census since I was in Korea, I assumed it was similar to the '00 one.
Gotcha. But yeah the 2010 census had all of those useless check boxes.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 10:06:55 AM
However aside from recent migrants it would be impossible for the vast majority to report the nation of origin of their ancestors given the lack of records.
So they wouldn't. No big deal to provide the option if you think that it is valuable for the census to ask country of origin.
Oh and for you and Neil, the 2010 census doesn't provide the option to select country of origin if you are a "non-hispanic white". ;)
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2011, 04:03:11 AM
In any case, I'm kinda surprised that for all the "melting pot" analogies going on for decades if not centuries in the US, people of white race (with no mixture of non-"white" genes) still constitute majority of the country's population. It's not as much melting pot, as Ceasar's salad.
I think it is interesting that you buy into this concept of "races." There is just one race: the human race. All the rest of it isn't about genetics, it is about words.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2011, 10:48:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2011, 04:03:11 AM
In any case, I'm kinda surprised that for all the "melting pot" analogies going on for decades if not centuries in the US, people of white race (with no mixture of non-"white" genes) still constitute majority of the country's population. It's not as much melting pot, as Ceasar's salad.
I think it is interesting that you buy into this concept of "races." There is just one race: the human race. All the rest of it isn't about genetics, it is about words.
To an outsider like you, I am sure it seems that way.
In all likely hood, Hispanic will just be considered white in the future.
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2011, 04:01:48 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 02:35:36 AM
The term Hispanic sucks ass.
I think it lumps together everyone from south of the border as a generic them. People from Central and South America deserve to be categorized according to their individual country of origin and racial/ethnic background just like people from Europe. An Argentinian of Italian descent, a Guatemalan of Mayan descent and a Dominican of African descent are different people and their degree of assimilation into the United States will be different all other things being equal. That's why I find this minority/majority thing absurd, it is predicated on counting Hispanic whites as being forever outside the ''white mainstream", whatever the hell that means. The history of this country indicates the opposite will happen, just as Italian and Southeastern Europeans who were denigrated as being the swarthy other at the turn of the 20th century, Hispanics of white and later on white/native mixture will eventually be absorbed and accepted into the mainstream, while unfortunately those who are black Hispanics won't be. Hopefully that prejudice will be die sooner rather than later, but that day isn't here yet.
Similarly, Asians shouldn't be lumped together in one group. Japanese, Koreans, etc are not the same.
Would you say that grouping Chinese and Koreans, or Mexicans and Guatemalans together makes less sense than grouping all Europeans together? An honest question.
I think what Timmay is getting at (though I'm not entirely certain) is that while, for example, "Chinese" or "German" both are nationalities and also ethnicities, "Mexican" is a nationality, but not an ethnicitiy, any more than "American" is an ethnicity. By putting anyone with roots in Latin America into an ethnic group called "Hispanic", you're creating a group that, essentially, is a fiction.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2011, 10:48:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2011, 04:03:11 AM
In any case, I'm kinda surprised that for all the "melting pot" analogies going on for decades if not centuries in the US, people of white race (with no mixture of non-"white" genes) still constitute majority of the country's population. It's not as much melting pot, as Ceasar's salad.
I think it is interesting that you buy into this concept of "races." There is just one race: the human race. All the rest of it isn't about genetics, it is about words.
:D
Quote from: dps on April 10, 2011, 11:41:27 AM
you're creating a group that, essentially, is a fiction.
But that applies to the whole exercise. :contract:
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2011, 10:48:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2011, 04:03:11 AM
In any case, I'm kinda surprised that for all the "melting pot" analogies going on for decades if not centuries in the US, people of white race (with no mixture of non-"white" genes) still constitute majority of the country's population. It's not as much melting pot, as Ceasar's salad.
I think it is interesting that you buy into this concept of "races." There is just one race: the human race. All the rest of it isn't about genetics, it is about words.
Fuck you, hippie. You unscientific bullshit has been noted.
I remember a kid in undergrad saying that the whites and asians will unite to oppress the blacks and the hispanics. Something to consider, at least. :hmm:
Fooey, everyone knows that hispanics become white in 3 generations. Jose Juan Santa Maria Martinez begets Michael Carl Martinez, who begets Brandy Martin (who marries Larry Krystowyzy).
The ones we need to weed out are the idiots and the nerds.
Quote from: PDH on April 10, 2011, 01:52:27 PM
Fooey, everyone knows that hispanics become white in 3 generations. Jose Juan Santa Maria Martinez begets Michael Carl Martinez, who begets Brandy Martin (who marries Larry Krystowyzy).
The ones we need to weed out are the idiots and the nerds.
That is my thinking on the matter. If Sicilians and Eastern European Jews can be white surely Latinos will as well. In any case it is further absurd that every time a white person has kids with a non-white person then those kids do not count. This is like whiteness by some weird racial purity standard. If we go by that standard then sure white people will die out. But really isn't that a good thing? Are we really supposed to view people of different races intermarrying as some great cause for alarm?
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2011, 02:19:08 AM
As a result, America’s future will include a far more diverse young population, and a largely white older generation. The contrast raises important policy questions. Will the older generation pay for educating a younger generation that looks less like itself? And while the young population is a potential engine of growth for the economy, will it be a burden if it does not have access to adequate education?
:bleeding: Really? Just how contemtible does this Sabrina lady think the human race is?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2011, 11:13:04 AM
In all likely hood, Hispanic will just be considered white in the future.
Even Pedro Guerrero?
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2011, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 10, 2011, 01:52:27 PM
Fooey, everyone knows that hispanics become white in 3 generations. Jose Juan Santa Maria Martinez begets Michael Carl Martinez, who begets Brandy Martin (who marries Larry Krystowyzy).
The ones we need to weed out are the idiots and the nerds.
That is my thinking on the matter. If Sicilians and Eastern European Jews can be white surely Latinos will as well. In any case it is further absurd that every time a white person has kids with a non-white person then those kids do not count. This is like whiteness by some weird racial purity standard. If we go by that standard then sure white people will die out. But really isn't that a good thing? Are we really supposed to view people of different races intermarrying as some great cause for alarm?
There's a built in aversion towards racial intermixing in all of us, and it can't be entirely suppressed. I find this a great source of optimism. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2011, 01:56:41 PM
That is my thinking on the matter. If Sicilians and Eastern European Jews can be white surely Latinos will as well. In any case it is further absurd that every time a white person has kids with a non-white person then those kids do not count. This is like whiteness by some weird racial purity standard. If we go by that standard then sure white people will die out. But really isn't that a good thing? Are we really supposed to view people of different races intermarrying as some great cause for alarm?
:lol: There is no race with which humans can intermarry.
People who worry about "the white race" dying out can just redefine "white race." It isn't like the concept has anything but a semantic meaning anyway. Hell, call the Portuguese "white" and right there you get millions more people added to the "white race."
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2011, 02:32:50 PM
:lol: There is no race with which humans can intermarry.
People who worry about "the white race" dying out can just redefine "white race." It isn't like the concept has anything but a semantic meaning anyway. Hell, call the Portuguese "white" and right there you get millions more people added to the "white race."
Yep. We have always done that and will continue in the future. Though the media (or at least this one embarrasingly racist article) seems to be enjoying playing up the Latin Peril for some reason.
I've always just assumed that like the Kilrathi, the difference in human "races" is like the difference between lions, tigers, leapords, and cheetahs.
All big cats are equal! :P
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2011, 01:56:41 PM
If Sicilians and Eastern European Jews can be white
:huh:
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2011, 02:47:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 10, 2011, 02:45:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2011, 01:56:41 PM
If Sicilians and Eastern European Jews can be white
:huh:
They are in this country!
You've already displayed your complete and utter ignorance on the matter. :hug:
Obviously the "white race" is overrated if it includes Slargos.
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2011, 01:56:41 PM
Are we really supposed to view people of different races intermarrying as some great cause for alarm?
Only if it's your daughter.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F412Su3k4laL.jpg&hash=9822142fd9cf80e4f04327bd828ef1dcab2400d7)
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2011, 02:02:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2011, 02:19:08 AM
As a result, America's future will include a far more diverse young population, and a largely white older generation. The contrast raises important policy questions. Will the older generation pay for educating a younger generation that looks less like itself? And while the young population is a potential engine of growth for the economy, will it be a burden if it does not have access to adequate education?
:bleeding: Really? Just how contemtible does this Sabrina lady think the human race is?
I dunno, sounds like GOP policy to me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2011, 03:19:56 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2011, 01:56:41 PM
Are we really supposed to view people of different races intermarrying as some great cause for alarm?
Only if it's your daughter.
Yeah actually my grandfather taught all of his children to be tolerant of other races but apparently was displeased when my mother started dating a black guy. In the end, he had to deal with it as 3 of his 4 children ending up with "non-white" partners. ^_^
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 10, 2011, 02:43:44 PM
I've always just assumed that like the Kilrathi, the difference in human "races" is like the difference between lions, tigers, leapords, and cheetahs.
All big cats are equal! :P
Tigers would pwn those other cats.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2011, 03:25:46 PM
Yeah actually my grandfather taught all of his children to be tolerant of other races but apparently was displeased when my mother started dating a black guy. In the end, he had to deal with it as 3 of his 4 children ending up with "non-white" partners. ^_^
Sounds like a great guy. Taught his kids to be good people in spite of his own personal issues.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2011, 03:19:56 PM
Only if it's your daughter.
Soon there will only be hispanic chicks for those black dicks :weep:
Fortunately, Canada will remain white.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 10, 2011, 02:43:44 PM
I've always just assumed that like the Kilrathi, the difference in human "races" is like the difference between lions, tigers, leapords, and cheetahs.
All big cats are equal! :P
The diferences in human "races" are not nearly as distinct as those of the subspecies you mention. One can look at cheetah DNA and tell it is from a cheetah. One cannot look at human DNA and say it is from a "Hispanic."
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2011, 03:55:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2011, 03:25:46 PM
Yeah actually my grandfather taught all of his children to be tolerant of other races but apparently was displeased when my mother started dating a black guy. In the end, he had to deal with it as 3 of his 4 children ending up with "non-white" partners. ^_^
Sounds like a great guy. Taught his kids to be good people in spite of his own personal issues.
Oh yeah, other than that one blemish, he was quite the role model.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2011, 03:30:06 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 10, 2011, 02:43:44 PM
I've always just assumed that like the Kilrathi, the difference in human "races" is like the difference between lions, tigers, leapords, and cheetahs.
All big cats are equal! :P
Tigers would pwn those other cats.
The biggest tigers are bigger than the biggest lions, but lions come in prides.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2011, 04:08:29 PM
One cannot look at human DNA and say it is from a "Hispanic."
Unless the helix has a 3' spoiler on it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 06:51:16 PM
The biggest tigers are bigger than the biggest lions, but lions come in prides.
That's cheating.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2011, 04:07:45 PM
Fortunately, Canada will remain white.
Pff. More than 10% of your population is non-white. You're far beyond repair.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2011, 04:08:29 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 10, 2011, 02:43:44 PM
I've always just assumed that like the Kilrathi, the difference in human "races" is like the difference between lions, tigers, leapords, and cheetahs.
All big cats are equal! :P
The diferences in human "races" are not nearly as distinct as those of the subspecies you mention. One can look at cheetah DNA and tell it is from a cheetah. One cannot look at human DNA and say it is from a "Hispanic."
http://knol.google.com/k/can-dna-tell-what-race-you-are#
:hmm:
One-drop rule. :homestar:
Quote from: Slargos on April 10, 2011, 07:38:37 PM
One-drop rule. :homestar:
It is always sad when somebody embraces Lettowism.
Quote from: Slargos on April 10, 2011, 07:35:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2011, 04:07:45 PM
Fortunately, Canada will remain white.
Pff. More than 10% of your population is non-white. You're far beyond repair.
Ethnic Alberta remains forever white, with only a salting of the other races. Moreover, because we are far from the homelands of the lower races, and those peoples tend to settle in the three larger cities, my homeland has only the highest class of immigrant, as opposed to your darkie-infested hellhole.
Quote from: Slargos on April 10, 2011, 07:38:37 PM
http://knol.google.com/k/can-dna-tell-what-race-you-are#
:hmm:
One-drop rule. :homestar:
What color were people 100,000 years ago?
Quote from: Slargos on April 10, 2011, 07:38:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2011, 04:08:29 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 10, 2011, 02:43:44 PM
I've always just assumed that like the Kilrathi, the difference in human "races" is like the difference between lions, tigers, leapords, and cheetahs.
All big cats are equal! :P
The diferences in human "races" are not nearly as distinct as those of the subspecies you mention. One can look at cheetah DNA and tell it is from a cheetah. One cannot look at human DNA and say it is from a "Hispanic."
http://knol.google.com/k/can-dna-tell-what-race-you-are#
:hmm:
One-drop rule. :homestar:
Did you read your link? :unsure:
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2011, 08:18:17 PM
Ethnic Alberta remains forever white, with only a salting of the other races. Moreover, because we are far from the homelands of the lower races, and those peoples tend to settle in the three larger cities, my homeland has only the highest class of immigrant, as opposed to your darkie-infested hellhole.
Once Quebec splits from the federal government, you guys can petition for US statehood. It'll be scads of fun!
Quote from: PDH on April 10, 2011, 08:22:05 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 10, 2011, 07:38:37 PM
http://knol.google.com/k/can-dna-tell-what-race-you-are#
:hmm:
One-drop rule. :homestar:
What color were people 100,000 years ago?
Homo sapiens sapiens were black. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis were white. :nerd:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpartmule.com%2Fblog16%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2Fpatrick-ewing.jpg&hash=c63ff534acd7cb81e81379dfefb9a9fe767ff928)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 08:37:34 PM
Homo sapiens sapiens were black. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis were white. :nerd:
Really? And how do you figure that?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2011, 09:36:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 08:37:34 PM
Homo sapiens sapiens were black. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis were white. :nerd:
Really? And how do you figure that?
Homo sapiens sapiens hadn't left Africa yet, so they had to have been black to deal with the UV radiation. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis lived in Eurasia and genetic tests have shown that some of them had red hair. How many red headed black guys do you know?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 09:40:35 PM
Homo sapiens sapiens hadn't left Africa yet, so they had to have been black to deal with the UV radiation. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis lived in Eurasia and genetic tests have shown that some of them had red hair. How many red headed black guys do you know?
And you teach. :bleeding:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 09:40:35 PM
Homo sapiens sapiens hadn't left Africa yet, so they had to have been black to deal with the UV radiation.
Why would Africa be exposed to more UV radiation?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2011, 09:41:58 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 09:40:35 PM
Homo sapiens sapiens hadn't left Africa yet, so they had to have been black to deal with the UV radiation. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis lived in Eurasia and genetic tests have shown that some of them had red hair. How many red headed black guys do you know?
And you teach. :bleeding:
Not many minds can grasp the complexity of that kind of deep time.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2011, 10:00:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 09:40:35 PM
Homo sapiens sapiens hadn't left Africa yet, so they had to have been black to deal with the UV radiation.
Why would Africa be exposed to more UV radiation?
The latitude.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2011, 09:41:58 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 09:40:35 PM
Homo sapiens sapiens hadn't left Africa yet, so they had to have been black to deal with the UV radiation. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis lived in Eurasia and genetic tests have shown that some of them had red hair. How many red headed black guys do you know?
And you teach. :bleeding:
:huh: None of this is controversial. Modern Homo sapiens hadn't left Africa 100k years ago, was exposed to high levels of UV radiation and therefore must have had high levels of melanin in their skin to protect them from its adverse effects.
Neanderthals live in relatively high latitudes, were exposed to less radiation, and it would have been advantageous for them to have lower concentrations of melanin in order to increase production of vitamin D. The discovery that some Neanderthals had red hair via analysis of their genome, proves that fair features were common (and likely widespread) among Neanderthals.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2011, 04:07:45 PM
Fortunately, Canada will remain white.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Visible_minorities
For longer than America, yes, but you guys sure are desperate to immigrate as many Asians as possible.
Visible minorities (that is such an adorably "white is normal here" term, btw): 1996: 11.21%. 2006: 16.20%. So you gained 5% in 10 years and I doubt that trend has changed much since 2006, so let's say you're probably around 18-20% now. Good luck!
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2011, 07:41:44 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 10, 2011, 07:38:37 PM
One-drop rule. :homestar:
It is always sad when somebody embraces Lettowism.
You've got quite a bit more than one drop huh? :console:
Quote from: JonasSalk on April 11, 2011, 12:30:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2011, 04:07:45 PM
Fortunately, Canada will remain white.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Visible_minorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Visible_minorities)
For longer than America, yes, but you guys sure are desperate to immigrate as many Asians as possible.
Visible minorities (that is such an adorably "white is normal here" term, btw): 1996: 11.21%. 2006: 16.20%. So you gained 5% in 10 years and I doubt that trend has changed much since 2006, so let's say you're probably around 18-20% now. Good luck!
:nelson:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 11:57:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2011, 10:00:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 09:40:35 PM
Homo sapiens sapiens hadn't left Africa yet, so they had to have been black to deal with the UV radiation.
Why would Africa be exposed to more UV radiation?
The latitude.
Not especially different from Southern Europe, which still gets a fair bit of insolation. Now, I want you to think about skin colour, and try again.
Quote from: JonasSalk on April 11, 2011, 12:30:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2011, 04:07:45 PM
Fortunately, Canada will remain white.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Visible_minorities
For longer than America, yes, but you guys sure are desperate to immigrate as many Asians as possible.
Visible minorities (that is such an adorably "white is normal here" term, btw): 1996: 11.21%. 2006: 16.20%. So you gained 5% in 10 years and I doubt that trend has changed much since 2006, so let's say you're probably around 18-20% now. Good luck!
They all settle in terrorist-haven Toronto and the hellhole that is the lower mainland of BC. Greater Alberta remains appropriately white.
Quote from: Slargos on April 10, 2011, 11:09:00 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2011, 10:48:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2011, 04:03:11 AM
In any case, I'm kinda surprised that for all the "melting pot" analogies going on for decades if not centuries in the US, people of white race (with no mixture of non-"white" genes) still constitute majority of the country's population. It's not as much melting pot, as Ceasar's salad.
I think it is interesting that you buy into this concept of "races." There is just one race: the human race. All the rest of it isn't about genetics, it is about words.
To an outsider like you, I am sure it seems that way.
:XD:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 11, 2011, 12:02:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2011, 09:41:58 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2011, 09:40:35 PM
Homo sapiens sapiens hadn't left Africa yet, so they had to have been black to deal with the UV radiation. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis lived in Eurasia and genetic tests have shown that some of them had red hair. How many red headed black guys do you know?
And you teach. :bleeding:
:huh: None of this is controversial. Modern Homo sapiens hadn't left Africa 100k years ago, was exposed to high levels of UV radiation and therefore must have had high levels of melanin in their skin to protect them from its adverse effects.
Neanderthals live in relatively high latitudes, were exposed to less radiation, and it would have been advantageous for them to have lower concentrations of melanin in order to increase production of vitamin D. The discovery that some Neanderthals had red hair via analysis of their genome, proves that fair features were common (and likely widespread) among Neanderthals.
Which is why the Yakuts and Eskimos are also pale white. :rolleyes: And yes, red hair can be found amongst Africans and Australian aborigines ( along with almost all the people's of the world).