The Decreasing White Majority in the US

[BlackVision]

US Population by Race:

1970:
White 82.9%
Hispanic 5.2%
Black 11.1%
Asian 0.7%

1980:
White 79.8%
Hispanic 6.4%
Black 11.7%
Asian 1.5%

1990:
White 75.2%
Hispanic 9%
Black 12.1%
Asian 2.9%

2000:
White 69.1%
Hispanic 12.5%
Black 12.3%
Asian 3.6%

2050 Projection:
White 53%
Hispanic 22%
Black 15%
Asian 9%

Source: US Census Bureau


For more detailed information and many nifty graphs, go here:
http://www.mbda.gov/documents/mbdacolor.pdf

 

[Njorl]

Do you have similar statistics at your fingertips for eye color, hair color, blood type?

 

[Nereid]

race? ethnic group??

Here's a quote from a http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html : "note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.)".

But BlackVision's post starts "US Population by Race:" and says "Source: US Census Bureau".

Is there an inconsistency here?

Also, IIRC, there is a wealth of data (from the US Census Bureau?) on 'inter-racial marriages' (they're probably, in fact, marriages between people who are from different ethnic backgrounds) - both the number and proportion (expressed as a percentage of marriages between partners of the same ethnic background) are increasing, in some cases rapidly. Assuming that such marriages are no less 'fertile' than others, this suggests that many within the US have a rich ancestry. How does this diverse ethnic heritage of many individuals show up in the stats?

 

[BlackVision]

Hispanic isn't a race. I knew that. And hopefully you knew it as well. People defined as Hispanic are usually a mixture of 3 primary races. Caucasian, Native American, and Black. Depending on region.

But to be more specific. Hispanic is a mix of Caucasian and Native American in these countries: Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela, and Chile

And a mix of Caucausian and African in these countries: Cuba and Dominican Republic

Some hispanic countries are more purebreed Caucasian such as Argentina.

What's ironic is that people think interracial breeding will eliminate racial division. What it ends up doing is creating a new "racial" group like Hispanic, and cause even more division.

Also I never ever brought up Hispanics into the other discussion. So don't know what "inconsistency" you are talking about.

 

[BlackVision]

Also, IIRC, there is a wealth of data (from the US Census Bureau?) on 'inter-racial marriages' (they're probably, in fact, marriages between people who are from different ethnic backgrounds) - both the number and proportion (expressed as a percentage of marriages between partners of the same ethnic background) are increasing, in some cases rapidly. Assuming that such marriages are no less 'fertile' than others, this suggests that many within the US have a rich ancestry. How does this diverse ethnic heritage of many individuals show up in the stats?

There is a "2 race or more/mixed race" box in the Census Bureau form. Only 2.4% of Americans marked that box.

 

[Nereid]

Hispanic isn't a race. I knew that. And hopefully you knew it as well. People defined as Hispanic are usually a mixture of 3 primary races. Caucasian, Native American, and Black. Depending on region.

But to be more specific. Hispanic is a mix of Caucasian and Native American in these countries: Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela, and Chile

And a mix of Caucausian and African in these countries: Cuba and Dominican Republic

Some hispanic countries are more purebreed Caucasian such as Argentina.

What's ironic is that people think interracial breeding will eliminate racial division. What it ends up doing is creating a new "racial" group like Hispanic, and cause even more division.

Also I never ever brought up Hispanics into the other discussion. So don't know what "inconsistency" you are talking about.

Given what the Census Bureau says about the group it calls 'Hispanic', isn't it inconsistent to put it in the same group as 'White', 'Black', and 'Asian'? I mean, presumably each person who answered 'Hispanic' in the 1980 census (for example; the 2000 census brings new inconsistencies) *also* ticked a box like 'white', 'black', 'Hawaiian', ... yet all your percentages add up to close to 100%.

 

[BlackVision]

Given what the Census Bureau says about the group it calls 'Hispanic', isn't it inconsistent to put it in the same group as 'White', 'Black', and 'Asian'? I mean, presumably each person who answered 'Hispanic' in the 1980 census (for example; the 2000 census brings new inconsistencies) *also* ticked a box like 'white', 'black', 'Hawaiian', ... yet all your percentages add up to close to 100%.

Hispanics if not giving the hispanic option, will pretty much all of them, mark the "white" box. This is why the box called "white non hispanic" has emerged. And the statistics I gave here for white is "white non hispanic"

 

[Evo]

US Population by Race:

1970:
White 82.9%
Hispanic 5.2%
Black 11.1%
Asian 0.7%

1980:
White 79.8%
Hispanic 6.4%
Black 11.7%
Asian 1.5%

1990:
White 75.2%
Hispanic 9%
Black 12.1%
Asian 2.9%

2000:
White 69.1%
Hispanic 12.5%
Black 12.3%
Asian 3.6%

2050 Projection:
White 53%
Hispanic 22%
Black 15%
Asian 9%

Source: US Census Bureau


For more detailed information and many nifty graphs, go here:
http://www.mbda.gov/documents/mbdacolor.pdf

As I see it, white's are still by far the single largest population.

I think we all agree that Hispanic is an ethnic, not racial classification. Most Hispanic's would be classified as "white" for race since "caucasian" is no longer used. So that would definitely bump the overall "white" race to a huge majority. So, the statement that there is a decreasing white majority is really negligible. And who cares? I didn't realize that the US is supposed to be primarily white. I must have missed that part in the constitution.

 

[Nereid]

There is a "2 race or more/mixed race" box in the Census Bureau form. Only 2.4% of Americans marked that box.

... and such a choice was introduced only in the 2000 census, I believe.

This makes the stats harder to understand ... based solely on the marriage rates, and assuming that children of 'mixed marriages' would select the box you refer to, there is considerable under-reporting of this category.

That doesn't create inconsistencies as long as the data are interpreted as the CB says they should be ... (from a quote in an earlier post of BlackVision's, my emphasis): "The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups." - self-selection, sociopolitical constructs, ...

However, if the data is to be interpreted in terms of ancestry, or DNA, (etc), there would clearly need to be a lot of heavy analysis to remove both the obvious confounding factors and, no doubt, a whole host of not-so-obvious ones.

 

[Nereid]

Hispanics if not giving the hispanic option, will pretty much all of them, mark the "white" box. This is why the box called "white non hispanic" has emerged. And the statistics I gave here for white is "white non hispanic"

That is a rather important clarification, don't you think?

How did you (or the CB) count those who ticked '2 or more races'?

 

[BlackVision]

As I see it, white's are still by far the single largest population.

I think we all agree that Hispanic is an ethnic, not racial classification. Most Hispanic's would be classified as "white" for race since "caucasian" is no longer used. So that would definitely bump the overall "white" race to a huge majority. So, the statement that there is a decreasing white majority is really negligible. And who cares? I didn't realize that the US is supposed to be primarily white. I must have missed that part in the constitution.

Hispanic is not a racial classification but an ethnic classification. You are correct.

I never stated that the US should be primarily white. I never stated that it was good nor bad that the white population is decreasing. I was merely showing the future ethnic makeup of America.

 

[BlackVision]

That is a rather important clarification, don't you think?

How did you (or the CB) count those who ticked '2 or more races'?

People who marked 2 races are more is grouped separately. For more information. Visit www.census.gov

 

[bjon-07]

Just out of curiosity, what "races" do you think well be on the 2050 census, and do you think we, as a whole, we even care by then (will their be as much racism as their is know).

Personal i think we should define people by ethinciy/culture, if we have the urge to define someone at all. I know pleanty of who are of a certain race, but have an different ethicincity.

 

[loseyourname]

Hispanics if not giving the hispanic option, will pretty much all of them, mark the "white" box. This is why the box called "white non hispanic" has emerged. And the statistics I gave here for white is "white non hispanic"

Sorry dude. I was a census enumerator in the year 2000 and there was no such box. There was also no box to mark for two or more races. It was a contentious issue because we had to tell all of the hispanic people we encountered that they must select "white" as their race, but that they could select "hispanic of (insert national origin)" as the answer to the following question. Heck, half of our training probably consisted of going over how to handle this. Given the difficulty with these forms, I doubt that the statistics the Census Bureau has are really all that reliable. Another thing: We were also instructed to tell the people filling out the forms that they could select whatever they wanted as their race and ethnicity, that it was entirely a matter of their self-perception.

What's your point anyway? Are you afraid of a nation in which whites do not have such a large majority?

 

[Kerrie]

blackvision, i am a little concerned with your fixiation on race...i agree that we all need equality, but race is only an issue when it is made an issue.

 

[Moonbear]

What's your point anyway?

I'm wondering the same thing. What was the point of posting those statistics? Is there a point BlackVision is trying to make? Is there a question he or she has about those statistics? Is he/she awaiting a tutorial on anthropology, or population dynamics, or the methods of how the US Census Bureau collects their statistics? Or should we be discussing what assumptions were used to project the population composition in 2050? I'm actually curious about the last of those. Though, I'm also content to keep myself healthy enough to still be alive in 2050 to see for myself what really happens.

 

[Moonbear]

Hispanics if not giving the hispanic option, will pretty much all of them, mark the "white" box. This is why the box called "white non hispanic" has emerged. And the statistics I gave here for white is "white non hispanic"

If you're going to comment on the statistics you post, you should at least be somewhat knowledgeable about how they are collected. Read your own links. The 2000 Census did not include Hispanic as an option in the race question, it was a separate question entirely. 5.5% of the population checked off a newly created category called "some other race" in the race question, and the Census Bureau reports that the majority of those checking off "some other race" were Hispanic.

Also stated by the Census Bureau:

"The question on race for Census 2000 was different from the one for the 1990 census in several ways. Most significantly, respondents were given the option of selecting one or more race categories to indicate their racial identities. 3
"Because of these changes, the Census 2000 data on race are not directly
comparable with data from the 1990 census or earlier censuses.
Caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the U.S. population over time."

I've added the boldface for emphasis.

Source of the above quoted text (a pdf available on the census website):
Issued March 2001
C2KBR/01-1
Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin 2000
Census 2000 Brief
By
Elizabeth M. Grieco and
Rachel C. Cassidy

 

[BlackVision]

If you're going to comment on the statistics you post, you should at least be somewhat knowledgeable about how they are collected. Read your own links. The 2000 Census did not include Hispanic as an option in the race question, it was a separate question entirely. 5.5% of the population checked off a newly created category called "some other race" in the race question, and the Census Bureau reports that the majority of those checking off "some other race" were Hispanic.

I am knowledgeable. Notice that the White percentage is a decent amount larger than "White Non Hispanic" And the fact that a category called "White Non Hispanic" even exists. There's your first clue that Hispanics would mark the White box if there is no Hispanic option.

Even if most of the "some other race" are Hispanic, that doesn't change the fact that most Hispanics do mark "White"

 

[Moonbear]

I am knowledgeable. Notice that the White percentage is a decent amount larger than "White Non Hispanic" And the fact that a category called "White Non Hispanic" even exists. There's your first clue that Hispanics would mark the White box if there is no Hispanic option.

There was no such category as "White Non Hispanic" on the 2000 Census. The question on whether someone in the household was of hispanic origin was entirely independent from the question about race and was asked in two parts. First, to check off if any member of the household was hispanic, and second to obtain more detail on country of origin (i.e., Cuban, Puerto Rican, Mexican).

Even if most of the "some other race" are Hispanic, that doesn't change the fact that most Hispanics do mark "White"

47.9% of people identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino also identified themselves as white only. Not even a majority, let alone "most."

 

[BlackVision]

There was no such category as "White Non Hispanic" on the 2000 Census.

White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000. 69.1%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html


Why does the Census Bureau have this statistic? I don't see Asian persons not of Hispanic origin or Black persons not of Hispanic origin. Yup only White persons not of Hispanic origin. This is certainly an statistic that the Census Bureau wishes to gather.

If the Hispanic origin is separate, why would the Census Bureau need a "White Non Hispanic" box? You're arguing a moot point here.

47.9% of people identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino also identified themselves as white only. Not even a majority, let alone "most."

What definition of most or majority are you using? The fact is there is more Hispanics marking "White" than any other box. Are you really going to refute that fact? If so please give the number of hispanics marking asian, black, etc.

 

[BlackVision]

blackvision, i am a little concerned with your fixiation on race...i agree that we all need equality, but race is only an issue when it is made an issue.

Concerned? How? I do not have a fixation of race. I do however consider it an important field to study. Regardless of how taboo some people want to make it. Some people just go hostile of any sort of racial study regardless of how important or relevant it is.

 

[BlackVision]

Sorry dude. I was a census enumerator in the year 2000 and there was no such box.

If Hispanic is a separate section, the statistic for "White Non Hispanic" can be extracted simply by cross reference eliminating the need for the box but still giving the Census Bureau their desire to gather this statistic.

There was also no box to mark for two or more races.

Here is the Census Bureau's statement regarding that:


Two or more races. People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or more race response check boxes, by providing multiple write-in responses, or by some combination of check boxes and write-in responses.

What's your point anyway?

The point is whatever you wish to make for it. Some people will care and some will not. Some will find interesting, some will not. Some will find it important, some will not. Make what you wish of it.

 

[Moonbear]

White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000. 69.1%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html


Why does the Census Bureau have this statistic? I don't see Asian persons not of Hispanic origin or Black persons not of Hispanic origin. Yup only White persons not of Hispanic origin. This is certainly an statistic that the Census Bureau wishes to gather.

They do have those statistics as well (see below). However, the major point about the Census is that they don't actually have a reason for collecting any particular data. They collect as much information as they can and calculate tons of statistics on it assessing every permutation of the questions possible. The only reason the census is mandated is for political purposes. The population in a state determines how many representatives they have in the House of Representatives, and this information is also used to determine the number of electoral votes each state gets during a presidential election. Beyond that, it helps the folks in Congress get some sense of the demographics of their district so they can decide what issues to support or not support or who they need to campaign to. Keep in mind the Census has a LOT more questions than just race and ethnicity. Once you get past counting heads, the rest is mostly a waste of taxpayer money, little more.

If the Hispanic origin is separate, why would the Census Bureau need a "White Non Hispanic" box? You're arguing a moot point here.

The point is they did NOT have any such box on the census form. Go look it up, this information is on the census bureau website you provided a link for, so I know you know where to find it.

What definition of most or majority are you using? The fact is there is more Hispanics marking "White" than any other box. Are you really going to refute that fact? If so please give the number of hispanics marking asian, black, etc.

I agree "most" can be an ambiguous term, but even the simplest definition of majority requires more than 50%. Do the math, if 47.9% of hispanics identify themselves as white, then 52.1% checked something other than just the white box, whether it was black, black, American Indian or Alaska Native, some combination of multiple races, or "some other race."

Again, from the same source:

"Nearly half (48 percent) of
Hispanics reported only White,
while approximately 42 percent
reported only Some other race,
when responding to the question
on race (see Table 10). Less than
4 percent of Latinos reported Black
or African American alone,
American Indian and Alaska Native
alone, Asian alone, or Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
alone. In contrast, 79 percent of
the non-Hispanic population reported
only White and 0.2 percent
reported only Some other race."

Beyond discussing how the statistics are actually collected, what is the subject you wish to discuss here? You started this thread with the title, "The Decreasing White Majority in the US." So, is there some significance you attribute to that statement that you thought it was worthy of starting a discussion about it, or are you just posting statistics for the sake of statistics to clutter up the board for no reason?

 

[BlackVision]

They do have those statistics as well (see below)

I know they do but the ONLY one they showed in clear black and white in most of their statistic work is "White Non Hispanic" as shown by my link.

If you have ever filled out an application you should also have noticed that "White Non Hispanic" is a very common box and statistic. "Asian Non Hispanic" or "Black Non Hispanic" is practically unheard of.

Keep in mind the Census has a LOT more questions than just race and ethnicity.

Yeah they do. But even those questions are broken down into specific race categories.

The point is they did NOT have any such box on the census form.

Please look up "moot"

I agree "most" can be an ambiguous term, but even the simplest definition of majority requires more than 50%. Do the math, if 47.9% of hispanics identify themselves as white, then 52.1% checked something other than just the white box

Many will consider a majority as the largest group. For example, often times people will state that UC Berkeley has an Asian majority. You can use the term greatest minority but that term is extraordinarily misleading as it gives the impression that there is a bigger majority.

what is the subject you wish to discuss here?

The board members are certainly free to discuss whatever it is they wish.

You started this thread with the title, "The Decreasing White Majority in the US."

I could have called it "The Increasing Minority Population in the US" and it wouldn't have made an inch of a difference. The point is the demographic of the US is changing. You can make whatever you want out of it.

So, is there some significance you attribute to that statement that you thought it was worthy of starting a discussion about it, or are you just posting statistics for the sake of statistics to clutter up the board for no reason?

Ah so you think these statistics are useless. How did I figure that out? Let's see. Oh yes because it has to do with race. Like I stated before, people are hostile toward any racial study or racial dicsussion. YOU are one of them.

What is the significance of 99% of threads of this forum? I certainly have ran into a lot of pointless and useless threads on this forum. Yet I have never seen a comment stated by you in any of them. Hmm. Strange. You singled this thread out. The reason why is indeed quite obvious.

The fact is there is a multitude of different topics of discussions to be had with this statistic. People are free to discuss anyone of them. I certainly will not take away that freedom of people by trying to fixate it into one subject and putting my bias in it. You might want to start by clicking on the link I provided in the 1st post. But of course you think that report is just a waste of a PDF file because it's simply showing the demographic change yes?

 

[loseyourname]

If Hispanic is a separate section, the statistic for "White Non Hispanic" can be extracted simply by cross reference eliminating the need for the box but still giving the Census Bureau their desire to gather this statistic.

Perhaps they calculated it this way, but I can tell you for sure that there was no separate box one could mark that was labeled "White Non-Hispanic." The fact that you thought there was just goes to show that your research wasn't very complete when you posted this thread. But at least you're getting a nice little education here.

Here is the Census Bureau's statement regarding that:


Two or more races. People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or more race response check boxes, by providing multiple write-in responses, or by some combination of check boxes and write-in responses.

Again, there is no box one could mark that read "Two or More Races." It might be a minor point, or what you would call a "moot" point, but it still shows that you didn't complete your research.

The point is whatever you wish to make for it. Some people will care and some will not. Some will find interesting, some will not. Some will find it important, some will not. Make what you wish of it.

And what do you make of it, Mr. Vision? Are you concerned that whites may not have a majority in this nation forever? Are you happy? Are you indifferent? Surely, in order for you post this, you must find it interesting. Why?

 

[BlackVision]

Perhaps they calculated it this way, but I can tell you for sure that there was no separate box one could mark that was labeled "White Non-Hispanic." The fact that you thought there was just goes to show that your research wasn't very complete when you posted this thread. But at least you're getting a nice little education here.

What the hell? The fact is "White Non-Hispanic" IS grouped separately. Not just by the Census Bureau but in any racial study. That is the whole point. And what research? These are statistics that can be had in 1 min simply by visiting the website. You act like this is rocket science work.

Again, there is no box one could mark that read "Two or More Races." It might be a minor point, or what you would call a "moot" point, but it still shows that you didn't complete your research.

Again, every person had the full ability to mark more than 1 box. But the fact that you did not mention this at all shows that you did not know this and that YOU didn't complete your "research" But it's nice that I've been able to give you a little education here.

And what do you make of it, Mr. Vision? Are you concerned that whites may not have a majority in this nation forever? Are you happy? Are you indifferent? Surely, in order for you post this, you must find it interesting. Why?

The demographic of America is changing. Simply as that. You can try to forcibly insert my motive but it will only show your own prejudice state of mind.

 

[Nereid]

Concerned? How? I do not have a fixation of race. I do however consider it an important field to study. Regardless of how taboo some people want to make it. Some people just go hostile of any sort of racial study regardless of how important or relevant it is.

Perhaps you could help me by stating clearly which field of Social Science you feel such study best falls into?

Also, reading your posts I get very confused by how you use the term; on the one hand, it seems to be sociological ('self-identification of social group membership'); on the other somehow biological ('genes').

Perhaps something of solid scientific provenance would help - how much of Cavalli-Sforza et al's works have your studied? To what extent is your conception of 'race' related to a desire to update their 'population groups' to accommodate population movements of the last ~500 years?

 

[loseyourname]

What the hell? The fact is "White Non-Hispanic" IS grouped separately. Not just by the Census Bureau but in any racial study. That is the whole point. And what research? These are statistics that can be had in 1 min simply by visiting the website. You act like this is rocket science work.

You don't seem to be getting this. THERE WAS NO BOX ON THE CENSUS FORM MARKED 'WHITE NON-HISPANIC.' That's all I was saying. Presumably to get this information, they simply took the total white population and subtracted those who marked "Hispanic" on the question following the question about race. I do suspect, however, that the hispanic population is grossly misrepresented. I can tell you for damn sure that it is in the LA metro area. Many hispanics would not fill out the form for whatever reason. Some would not fill it out because they did not want to identify themselves as white. This was a big problem when we were collecting the data. The language barrier was a problem as well. Only so many of us actually spoke Spanish. I didn't, but was still assigned to a largely hispanic zone. Sometimes I had to have the children translate for me, or simply give up.

Again, every person had the full ability to mark more than 1 box. But the fact that you did not mention this at all shows that you did not know this and that YOU didn't complete your "research" But it's nice that I've been able to give you a little education here.

I fail to see why you are bringing this up. I said that they could mark multiple boxes. But you originally indicated that there was a separate box they could mark indicating that they were multiracial, at least that's the impression I got. That is incorrect.

By the way, I haven't done any research, but I was a census enumerator in the year 2000. I was one of the most productive enumerators in all of southern California. I was promoted several times and kept on for every subsequent census operation until all were completed. I think I'm fairly well qualified to give an account of how these statistics are gathered and to say what was and wasn't on the forms.

The demographic of America is changing. Simply as that. You can try to forcibly insert my motive but it will only show your own prejudice state of mind.

I'm not putting any motive on you. I'm just asking you what your motive is. I take it that you aren't going to tell. So be it.

 

[Moonbear]

Ah so you think these statistics are useless. How did I figure that out? Let's see. Oh yes because it has to do with race. Like I stated before, people are hostile toward any racial study or racial dicsussion. YOU are one of them.

You can try to forcibly insert my motive but it will only show your own prejudice state of mind.

I'll leave your own words to speak for themselves there.

You might want to start by clicking on the link I provided in the 1st post. But of course you think that report is just a waste of a PDF file because it's simply showing the demographic change yes?

Perhaps you missed this footnote in that report you think I didn't read:

"2 All population totals in this report are projections rather than estimates. Implicit is the phrase “if the fertility, mortality, and migration
assumptions of the projections hold” in all statements regarding the population situation for all groups and areas for all years from
1995 to 2050."

That's one big IF! Human behavior is so complex, it'd be hard to base too much on a projection like that. There could be a huge influx of immigrants from a particular country or continent due to any number of reasons, or a radical shift in attitudes regarding interracial marriages (in either direction) that could quickly shift the entire demographic in any number of directions. That's the only reason I don't think the statistics are meaningful, at least not the 2050 projection, because so many things could change in 50 years time that the assumptions are not very likely to hold up.

The board members are certainly free to discuss whatever it is they wish.

I chose to discuss the method of data collection including the wording of the questionnaire used, but since you've repeatedly told me it's a moot point, then that must not be acceptable to you as a topic under the thread you've started. I also addressed the problems in using the census data to formulate projections of future population changes, but that's pretty much still just about the data collection. Neither of these approaches really addresses social sciences anyway, so there's not much point in continuing along those lines here. I might have better success discussing this if I understood why you chose to post these statistics under social sciences...why not Statistics or Politics and World Affairs?

 

[Loren Booda]

BlackVision, the trends of your statistics indicate to me that racial labeling itself could well become obsolete for the majority of Americans toward the next half of this century, due to interracial mating. What effect do you think such socialization would have on the US?

 

[BlackVision]

You don't seem to be getting this.

No you don't seem to be getting this. White Non Hispanic is grouped separately. Whether or not they have made a specific box for it is irrelevant. The Census Bureau shows the "White Non Hispanic" numbers very clearly for all their statistics. Visit the site yourself.

And it certainly isn't just the Census Bureau. Predominately all ethnicity columns in any applications has a "white non hispanic" box. The fact that the Census Bureau had a separate Hispanic section, eliminates the need for one. That still does not change the fact that "white non hispanic" is a section of it's own, much like hispanic, asian, etc.

I fail to see why you are bringing this up. I said that they could mark multiple boxes.

Really? Where?

But you originally indicated that there was a separate box they could mark indicating that they were multiracial, at least that's the impression I got.

Every individual had full opportunity to disclose more than one race. That is the point.

I'm not putting any motive on you. I'm just asking you what your motive is. I take it that you aren't going to tell. So be it.

I do not have a motive. The demographics of America will change. As simply as that.

 

[BlackVision]

I'll leave your own words to speak for themselves there.

Yes please. As my words are correct.

That's one big IF! Human behavior is so complex, it'd be hard to base too much on a projection like that. There could be a huge influx of immigrants from a particular country or continent due to any number of reasons, or a radical shift in attitudes regarding interracial marriages (in either direction) that could quickly shift the entire demographic in any number of directions. That's the only reason I don't think the statistics are meaningful, at least not the 2050 projection, because so many things could change in 50 years time that the assumptions are not very likely to hold up.

Current trends point to those results. The rate of immigration. The birthrate of one ethnic group to the next. Could it all change and the projection be wrong? Of course. But odds are it will not.

There would have to be a radical shift in immigration. Immigration primarily comes from struggling countries. Europe overall is not struggling. Nor do any predications show that they will in the imminent future. The immigration rate from these countries will continue to stay low. All signs point to a substantial Hispanic and Asian growth. Hispanics also have the highest birth rate of all ethnic groups. Whites have the lowest birth rate. Certainly the Hispanic population have exploded from 1980 to 1990 to 2000 and currently there is no signs that it will stop. All signs also point to a White decline as Europe immigration is extraordinarily low and the very low birth rate of Whites. Whites will also in the near future shrink in population. Not just percentage wise but their overall numbers as well. As their birthrate is below the replacement line.

Again could it all change? Yes. But even the most conservative estimates still show a growing minority population and a shrinking white population.

 

[loseyourname]

No you don't seem to be getting this. White Non Hispanic is grouped separately. Whether or not they have made a specific box for it is irrelevant. The Census Bureau shows the "White Non Hispanic" numbers very clearly for all their statistics. Visit the site yourself.

Do you honestly not see that I am not arguing with you about that? Are you just used to getting attacked? Is this some kind of defense mechanism on your part? I don't even know what say other than relax.

I will again point out that the statistics were not reliably gathered, at least not in the LA area. I can only imagine that other large metropolitan areas had the same problem. I can assure you that the true number of hispanics is larger than what the Census Bureau reports.

Every individual had full opportunity to disclose more than one race. That is the point.

Since when do you get to say what my point was?

I do not have a motive. The demographics of America will change. As simply as that.

Do you mean to say as simple as that?

Unless you are some kind of computer program that generates data at random and posts it on internet forums, I would imagine there was some motive behind why you posted this particular thread. I could speculate based on other posts of yours, but I'd prefer to simply ask. Since you won't answer, shall I speculate?

 

[BlackVision]

BlackVision, the trends of your statistics indicate to me that racial labeling itself could well become obsolete for the majority of Americans toward the next half of this century, due to interracial mating. What effect do you think such socialization would have on the US?

The blending of all ethnic groups is a future possibility. However it would not be likely in this century. As of now, interracial mating is still fairly low. It has grown somewhat compared to the past but it is still relatively low. Most people seem to still marry within their ethnicity.

I would figure such an scenario would be similar to the Spaniard, Native American, African blending that has already occurred to Latin America.

 

[BlackVision]

Do you honestly not see that I am not arguing with you about that? Are you just used to getting attacked? Is this some kind of defense mechanism on your part? I don't even know what say other than relax.

I will again point out that the statistics were not reliably gathered, at least not in the LA area. I can only imagine that other large metropolitan areas had the same problem. I can assure you that the true number of hispanics is larger than what the Census Bureau reports.

You constantly fail to get the point what can I say.

The Census Bureau is not run by a bunch of naive simpletons. Everything is certainly taken into consideration. Statistics such as these are weighed to a degree to compensate for the scenarios you've described.

When statistics show that the world population is 6.3 billion. Do you think someone went and counted every single head? No. But from fundamental information and with proper reasoning and some common sense a very good estimate can be given.

Since when do you get to say what my point was?

Since when was I stating that it was your point?

Since you won't answer, shall I speculate?

Sure. Doesn't mean you will be correct however.

 

[loseyourname]

You constantly fail to get the point what can I say.

The Census Bureau is not run by a bunch of naive simpletons. Everything is certainly taken into consideration. Statistics such as these are weighed to a degree to compensate for the scenarios you've described.

Sampling was not used for the 2000 census. This was a huge issue, but apparently, since you were not a member of the bureau at the time, you didn't know this. You'll just have to take my word for it.

Since when was I stating that it was your point?

I brought up the point, didn't I?

Sure. Doesn't mean you will be correct however.

Well then, I will speculate that you are a mindless robot that posts threads for absolutely no reason. Sounds logical.

 

[BlackVision]

Sampling was not used for the 2000 census. This was a huge issue, but apparently, since you were not a member of the bureau at the time, you didn't know this. You'll just have to take my word for it.

If you dig through the Census Bureau enough, you will see statistics that show both weighed results and unweighed results.

I brought up the point, didn't I?

"Every individual had full opportunity to disclose more than one race. That is the point."--BlackVision

Huh? What? I could of sworn that I stated that and that it was my point.

Well then, I will speculate that you are a mindless robot that posts threads for absolutely no reason. Sounds logical.

You are one that likes to limit freedom on topics that you personally do not like or feel comfortable with. That sounds more logical.

 

[hitssquad]

Statistical reliability only applies to data sets

I will again point out that the statistics were not reliably gathered, at least not in the LA area.

Statistical reliability can be established for data sets, but reliability of gathering of data is statistically nonsensical.

 

[Kerrie]

Concerned? How? I do not have a fixation of race. I do however consider it an important field to study. Regardless of how taboo some people want to make it. Some people just go hostile of any sort of racial study regardless of how important or relevant it is.

as i said before, it is not an issue until you make it one, which i clearly see you doing here. children, for example, will play with anyone, regardless of nationality, race or even gender. once an adult teaches them a difference, then they begin to recognize it as a difference.

 

[loseyourname]

Statistical reliability can be established for data sets, but reliability of gathering of data is statistically nonsensical.

A lot of Hispanic households were passed up because of language barriers and many simply refused to fill out the forms because they either didn't understand them or didn't like the way the questions were asked. This was definitely the case, at least in the LA area, with Hispanics more than with any other ethnic group. Also, I know of at least several districts where there is a good chance that large Asian populations were over-reported because of duplicate questionnaires. Again, I can only imagine that other large metro areas had similar problems. The gathering process is done about as well as it can be, but it isn't perfect.

I will again stress that the bureau did not use any sampling methods. The official statistics are exactly what were gathered and so are not an accurate reflection of reality. Groups that do not speak English as well as homeless people were vastly undercounted.

"Every individual had full opportunity to disclose more than one race. That is the point."--BlackVision

Huh? What? I could of sworn that I stated that and that it was my point.

Sure, you said that after I brought up my point that you were wrong to say (as you originally did) that there was an option marked "two or more races." It's a very minor point that isn't all that important. As you seem to be drilling home for whatever reason well after you have been agreed with, it is only a matter of wording. I just wanted to make sure that the wording was clear. Since it has been for about the last two pages and we have been in agreement that entire time, why do you continue to harp on it? Do you have some kind of persecution complex that makes you believe I'm out to prove you wrong even when I have agreed with you?

You are one that likes to limit freedom on topics that you personally do not like or feel comfortable with. That sounds more logical.

Are you completely insane? Do you see "PF Mentor" beneath my name? When have I ever made any attempt to limit what can or cannot be said pertaining to a given topic? And what makes you think I am uncomfortable with this topic? I happen to be multiracial myself, and almost a quarter Hispanic. To be honest, I'm glad this is happening and I hope the projections are correct. I'm a huge proponent of interracial mixing. I am also a huge proponent of trying to depict reality accurately and pointing out when given statistics might not be such a reflection. This really isn't a major point. Just add a couple percentage points to the black and Hispanic populations (especially the Hispanic population) and you've probably got it about right. The numbers are certainly in the ballpark.

 

[BlackVision]

as i said before, it is not an issue until you make it one, which i clearly see you doing here. children, for example, will play with anyone, regardless of nationality, race or even gender. once an adult teaches them a difference, then they begin to recognize it as a difference.

Children are naive for one thing so this isn't the best example. There's quite a lot of things children do that they grow out of. As far as races, children recognize differences on their own as they get older. They do not need assistance from adults.

Race is an issue because there are differences. Not simply on the way you look but also the cultures and the way you think. The OJ Simpson trial. There is a perfect example in the clashing of races. And affirmative action certainly has made race more of an issue than it ever was before.

I have not made something an issue that wasn't already one to begin with.

 

[Kerrie]

Children are naive for one thing so this isn't the best example. There's quite a lot of things children do that they grow out of. As far as races, children recognize differences on their own as they get older. They do not need assistance from adults.

Race is an issue because there are differences. Not simply on the way you look but also the cultures and the way you think. The OJ Simpson trial. There is a perfect example in the clashing of races. And affirmative action certainly has made race more of an issue than it ever was before.

I have not made something an issue that wasn't already one to begin with.

affirmative action is worthless. children do not see color because they are not taught to view it as different, i have two children myself and their friends are of many different nationalities. skin color shouldn't be looked at any different then eye color. as far as making an issue of something that already is, i can make many issues about the inequalities of being female-especially working with "the good ol' boys" (farmers and mechanics), but i don't. instead, i prove myself by being the best person i can. afterall, underneath skin colors and skin differences, we are just human beings.

 

[Nereid]

Race is an issue because there are differences. Not simply on the way you look but also the cultures and the way you think. The OJ Simpson trial. There is a perfect example in the clashing of races. And affirmative action certainly has made race more of an issue than it ever was before.

I have not made something an issue that wasn't already one to begin with.

So it's sociological, not biological - group membership, perceptions of difference, etc.

 

[Nereid]

The blending of all ethnic groups is a future possibility. However it would not be likely in this century. As of now, interracial mating is still fairly low. It has grown somewhat compared to the past but it is still relatively low. Most people seem to still marry within their ethnicity.

I would figure such an scenario would be similar to the Spaniard, Native American, African blending that has already occurred to Latin America.

(my emphasis) Evidence?

There was a recent Scientific American with data on mixed marriages. IIRC, the rates are (all?) rising, and some (Native American?) already >1 (N mixed marriages/N within-group marriages).

You might like to do some quick calculations; assume a two-group population, a modest out-group/in-group birth rate ratio, and the existence of a nascent third group, which becomes visible only when it reaches some threshold (also assume only a majority of the out-group progeny will declare membership of the third group). I think you'll find two generations are more than enough for some big 'surface' changes.

 

[hitssquad]

Data on mixed marriages

There was a recent Scientific American with data on mixed marriages.

http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=8DB13CA8-2B35-221B-68BBB19319B01718&ARTICLEID_CHAR=8DBDFA60-2B35-221B-603079FAC5944755&sc=I100322; October 2003; by Rodger Doyle; 1 page.

IIRC, the rates are (all?) rising

"Beginning sometime after World War II, blackwhite marriages rose once again, but so slowly that by 2002, they accounted for only 0.7 percent of all marriages." Ibid.[/size]

and some (Native American?) already >1 (N mixed marriages/N within-group marriages).

Almost twice as many Pre-Wurm Mongoloid Immigrants (PWMI; there are no humans native to the Americas) marry whites as marry other PWMI's.

• NATIVE AMERICAN-WHITE MARRIAGES
  
  Per 100 white-white marriages: 1.2
  
  Per 100 Native American-Native American marriages: 195.4

Ibid.[/size]

 

[selfAdjoint]

So black-white marriages are 0.7% of all marriages. I had been using 0.5%, so I wasn't too far out. I concluded from this that the "black" and "white" populations in the US are for practical puposes reproductively isolated.

 

[Nereid]

"Beginning sometime after World War II, blackwhite marriages rose once again, but so slowly that by 2002, they accounted for only 0.7 percent of all marriages." Ibid.[/size]

What are the actual numbers (black-non-black marriages per 100 black-black marriages), both today and in the 1950s?

Almost twice as many Pre-Wurm Mongoloid Immigrants (PWMI; there are no humans native to the Americas) marry whites as marry other PWMI's.

• NATIVE AMERICAN-WHITE MARRIAGES
  
  Per 100 white-white marriages: 1.2
  
  Per 100 Native American-Native American marriages: 195.4

Ibid.[/size]

Don't you mean "people who self-identified as 'Native American' and 'White' in the respective Censuses"?

 

[Moonbear]

Does anyone have any sources from the 1950s of what they were projecting the composition of the population would be in 2000? I tried a google search to see if anyone had any historical data up on the web, but didn't have any success. It might help to determine how accurate a 50 year projection would be if we could see how well a 1950s projection for 2000 lined up with the actual data. It just seems that it's silly making a big fuss about a projection for 2050 when so many social and political changes could shift the composition of the population. What does it really mean anyway?

A more interesting projection, though not really from the perspective of social sciences as from the perspective of politics, is the shift toward an older population. That's going to put some big stresses on things like social security and medicare programs, so at least there I see some reason to want to predict now what will happen in 50 years so those programs are ready to handle it. If the Hispanic population has grown into more of a majority by 2050, is that going to change anything we're doing that we'll need to start preparing? Maybe including more Spanish lessons as part of the school curriculum? But then, I don't even know if the Hispanic population in those numbers are likely to be recent immigrants, or second, third, fourth, fifth generation...without knowing that, I don't know if we're talking about a shift to a predominantly Spanish speaking population, or just a shift for the cosmetic industry to provide more products for a wider range of skin tones as there is more blending of races into the intermediate skin tones. Otherwise, I don't see anything of significance to that information unless you're someone planning on running for political office and need to know you shouldn't alienate the Hispanic voters.

 

[Loren Booda]

BlackVision,

What personal hardship has ever been imposed upon you by the US government that approaches slavery of your ancesters?

Others "pale" in comparison.

 

[Nereid]

So black-white marriages are 0.7% of all marriages. I had been using 0.5%, so I wasn't too far out. I concluded from this that the "black" and "white" populations in the US are for practical puposes reproductively isolated.

Without the black-non/black marriages per 100 black/black marriages ratio, and how it's changing, you can't really conclude anything from '0.7% of all marriages'. For greater precision, you really need to know the numbers of children born with just one black parent vs those with two (and similarly for whites) ... for example, children with a white father and black mother (and whose parents weren't married to each other).

Then there's the question of identity; since the terms 'black' and 'white' are based on self-identification (not genetics), which identity the children of a mixed marriage take matters a lot if you extrapolate beyond just two generations.