Skip to comments.How will Anglo-American relations fare when America is no longer majority white?
Posted on 04/04/2011 11:01:59 AM PDT by ventanax5
Americas Census results show that the country is being transformed into a much browner, more suburban, more southern and western place. The Economist reports: According to a recent study from the Census Bureau, the majority of them are now from groups normally considered minorities, chiefly Hispanics and blacks. The latest release of data from last years decennial census confirms that whites still constitute a slender majority, 54%, of those under 18, and a larger one, 64%, of the population as a whole. Americas demographic change is rapid enough to be called a revolution. Over the past decade minorities accounted for 92 per cent of all population growth, with the number of Hispanics in the US now somewhere around 51 million, and minorities a majority in California and Texas, the USs most populous states. By 2050 whites will be a minority in the US, a historically astonishing transformation.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
The sad thing is that had liberal race merchants not spent the last 30 years beating this dead horse, we could have been so over this issue...
...and on to more pressing ones (ie, how not to end up facing the choice be Muslim or be dead)
Americas Census results show that the country is being transformed into a much browner, more suburban, more southern and western place.
According to a recent study from the Census Bureau, the majority of them are now from groups normally considered minorities, chiefly Hispanics and blacks. The latest release of data from last years decennial census confirms that whites still constitute a slender majority, 54%, of those under 18, and a larger one, 64%, of the population as a whole.
Americas demographic change is rapid enough to be called a revolution. Over the past decade minorities accounted for 92 per cent of all population growth, with the number of Hispanics in the US now somewhere around 51 million, and minorities a majority in California and Texas, the USs most populous states. By 2050 whites will be a minority in the US, a historically astonishing transformation.
For its first century the US was not particularly diverse. Writing the Federalist Papers in 1787, John Jay, first chief justice of the United States, gave thanks that Providence has been placed to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.
From the 1880s to the 1920s the United States was transformed by its first wave of mass immigration, from eastern and southern Europe. But the differences with todays movement are striking. America imported overwhelmingly Christian, European migrants into a confident national culture with a high native birth rate in a sparsely populated continent. It had no welfare state and ruthlessly rejected immigrants who did not succeed (some 40 per cent of European immigrants returned home), immigrants faced enormous social pressures to drop their ethnic baggage, and for reasons of money and time they had to abandon links with their mother country. All of those things are true today, if you insert the word not before (with the exception of population density).
The United States only embraced diversity in 1965, with Senator Edward Kennedys Immigration Act, which opened up the country to non-Europeans in large numbers for the first time (although more than they expected: Kennedy predicted 62,000 immigrants a year; by 1996 it was 1.3 million a year). Before that, the United States was 90 per cent white, with large swathes totally dominated by northern European Protestants; Americas diversity experiment is as recent as Britains.
How will this new America be different to the old one, apart from being far more unequal? In some ways, not much. Americas political culture was forged by British-Americans such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, and its political ideals are still explicitly Anglo-Saxon. But culture and biology need not match, and Anglo-Saxon political ideas have survived better in the US than they have in England, where governments of recent years have assaulted such principles as the right to remain silent, habeas corpus and double jeopardy.
What may change is the United States relationship with Europe and Britain in particular. The term special relationship is a tragically embarrassing fiction Britain is way down the list of Americas best friends, barely an usher, let alone best man; but the two countries have enjoyed a more than close relationship during the last century. It is not just two World Wars, the fight against Communism, a dozen smaller operations and intelligence sharing. In many parts of the world Britain effectively handed over the British Empire to Pax Americana. Mark Steyn even suggested that future historians may see British and American rule as two parts of the same political era.
And this relationship was not entirely just about shared interests and a shared language; there was also a certain degree of shared descent, if not biological than at least cultural. Certainly President Woodrow Wilson, who effectively invented modern Anglo-Americans relations, saw it in familiar terms, and subsequent WASP presidents felt a certain attachment to the country from which the Mayflower sailed. And while American Anglophiles come in all shapes and colours, a disproportionate number come from historically English parts of the country and from Anglo, or at least European, backgrounds.
But what will Anglo-American relations look like when America is no longer Anglo? Will a Latinised, less European United States enjoy such a spiritual bond with England? We already have some indication with Barack Obama, the most anti-British US president in living memory, an inheritance from his Kenyan father (although on his mothers side he has a great deal of English blood, and claims descent from both Alfred the Great and Edward I), and Hillary Clintons views on the Malvinas. Considering the nature of the future US electorate, which politician would take Britains side against a Latin American state?
Lets hope Britain, and Europe, never needs rescuing, once again, from an aggressive totalitarian ideology.
It will probably look like every other thired world craphole once whites get to be the minority.Just look at what the other racial majorities have done for their countries.
Skin color is not destroying this country but rather the progressive agenda since the Woodrow Wilson years.
For the record, I’m darker than many Hispanics being part Italian, Polish, Dutch and Irish America. Half the family arrived in the early 1900’s while the rest were here in the early 1700’s.
Would more accurately be called an invasion
The larger question is “when no longer Christian Conservative...”?
Does it really matter what skin color the majority of Americans have, as long as they are productive citizens willing to stand up for freedom and the heritage of this country? Let’s move on from the racial politics. Treating people as members of a group rather than as individuals is a liberal mistake that we need to avoid imitating.
The press gets all giddy at the prospect of the destruction of the West. However it isn’t just Anglo-Americans but America itself that is wilting under the barrage of purposeful culture and race destruction. As the ever increasing non white population tries to outdo each other in victimization and power grabs they’ll find that other groups don’t give a damn about their whining and without the prominent ‘evil white man’ to co blame for all their ills the friction between groups will become front and center. The destruction will pick up speed until it all falls in on itself.
Time will tell.
A multi-ethnic America, if critical masses of all of these minority groups will assimilate, will survive and prosper in the 21st century.
A multi-cultural America, in which various groups are Balkanized and separatist, will fundamentally transform America for the worse.
There is a big difference between being multi-ethnic and being multi-cultura.
I don’t think we can say for sure which way America will go - multi-ethnic or multi-cultural.
And the other major issue is values. What values will everyone have? Will we continue to see critical masses embrace the “baby mama” culture, or will more return to traditional values of family? What about attitudes towards work and the concept of working your way up in a career field? What about attitudes towards owning and running a business? Or attitudes towards education? So many behaviors and attitudes of people will affect how America is into the 21st century.
What breathless crap. The intermarriage rate, especially between “whites” and “Hispanics” is very high, and that will transform whatever change the writer is talking about. The reason for this story appearing over and over and over in the media is the suicidal desire of the left to atone for the unforgivable sin of being “white,” the one “ethnic group” for which the world’s problems can be blamed.
About those quotation marks: “white” is almost as meaningless as “Hispanic.” A person whose heritage is Irish or German or Russian or Persian or Afgani can be called “white” by someone. Likewise, “Hispanic” can describe a Mexican or Panamanian or Columbian or Chilean. Strangely, a person from Spain is white; his descendent from Mexico is Hispanic. What stupid, meaningless terms.
I can imagine a family in 2050 with multiethnic, multiracial family members. I see it right now in Bush Alaska, where intermarriage rates are also high between Native and non-Native Alaskans. There are Native with blue eyes and red hair. Or blonde hair.
What articles like this do - or perhaps seeks to do - is maintain racial and ethnic barriers between people. That’s how the left maintains power. In the meantime, a lot of us from multiethnic, multiracial families right now think of ourselves as Americans, and that’s what we teach our kids and talk about openly to everyone who will listen. I would think that there’s more of us out there then the Telegraph likes to admit.
We’ll see what happens, but I am skeptical that the Mexicans will continue to procreate and immigrate in an extrapolated line through 2050. Their employment opportunities are limited and the nation cannot support a majority population of illegals and miniroties. Just like the Italians and the Irish, their birth rates will slip to the rest of the country and they will stop coming here as opportunities for them dwindle.
The more pressing question for these scum bags shuold be “how will the Anglo-Christian Brits fare when the Muslims are the majority?” They are on a faster track for that happening, so...
“GO BLOW IT UP YOUR YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU BRITISH POMPOUS A$$”
The idea of deliberately changing the ethnic & cultural nature of your population--from the standpoint of upholding the multi-generational function of any people or nation--is insane. What Teddy & his friends launched was a deliberate assault on American continuity, which made sense only to those who hoped to dilute our sense of being unique, of a clear identity--with that traditional ongoing purpose, set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution.
On the other hand, from the standpoint of those who sought to build a World Government, where all the peoples of the earth would find themselves submerged, with little or no possibility of ever escaping, the gambit made perfect sense.
We are now on the cusp of a decision that will decide whether any semblance of the unique achievements, the essential aspects that reflect the actual populations of nations, will survive the machinations of the enemies of nation & freedom. The deliberate homogenization of existing nations with outsiders brought in to accomplish "diversity," is a death thrust towards those existing nations. In no other way does it make any sense.
Pre-1965 American immigration policy was not an attack on any people. It was intended as an affirmation of the American people. (For more detailed analysis, see Immigration & An American Future">.)
I have been in this fight, since I took on Norman Cousins on his promotions, many decades back. We will lose everything we value, unless we are able to look more closely at what has really been going on here.
There is a time coming when there will be NO Christians on the earth...
don’t be here - it’ll suck, trust me.
I could care less what color a mans skin is—But I will never vote for an atheist, a Muslim, a Queer, or a Communist.My problems with the 0 is not his skin color but the color of his politics.
It’s not that he’s black, it’s that he’s RED.
Britain will be an Islamic Republic by then so what’s to worry?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.