The Decreasing White Majority in 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.

 

[loseyourname]

Almost no self-identified black in the US is anywhere near 100% African-American. A great deal of the original freed population was the product of mixes between a slave girl and her white owner.

 

[BlackVision]

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

Races are both social and biological.

 

[BlackVision]

BlackVision,

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

Others "pale" in comparison.

Huh? I fail to see the relevance of this question to the current discussions that have been occurring.

 

[BlackVision]

Almost no self-identified black in the US is anywhere near 100% African-American. A great deal of the original freed population was the product of mixes between a slave girl and her white owner.

The average American black is approximately 20% white in origin. Even with this sizable mixing, it seems as though American blacks are still considered blacks.

This is similar to the fact that most Arabs have African mixing but are predominately Caucasian in origin and so would still be labeled as part of the Caucasian race.

 

[BlackVision]

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'.

Sure you can. With the Census figures, blacks make up 12.3% of the US population and Non Hispanic Whites make up 69.1%. So that means there is a 18 to 1 ratio from black population to black/white marriage. And a 99 to 1 ratio from white population to black/white marriage. White/black marriage is indeed a rarity.

 

[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.

Races are both social and biological.

The sociological dimension is clear; the existence of 'biological' races for homo sap. is under discussion in another thread (and controversial, to say the least). The point of the question is which dimension is pertinent to this thread?

To me it's pretty simple: the US Census Bureau defines 'race' in terms of self-identification (with some very clear disclaimers re interpreting the stats), the projections are done on this basis, so the sociological dimension is the only relevant one.

 

[loseyourname]

The sociological dimension is clear; the existence of 'biological' races for homo sap. is under discussion in another thread (and controversial, to say the least). The point of the question is which dimension is pertinent to this thread?

To me it's pretty simple: the US Census Bureau defines 'race' in terms of self-identification (with some very clear disclaimers re interpreting the stats), the projections are done on this basis, so the sociological dimension is the only relevant one.

It is made clear both on the form and by the enumerator that a respondent can choose whatever race he/she most identifies with.

 

[Nereid]

Sure you can. With the Census figures, blacks make up 12.3% of the US population and Non Hispanic Whites make up 69.1%. So that means there is a 18 to 1 ratio from black population to black/white marriage. And a 99 to 1 ratio from white population to black/white marriage. White/black marriage is indeed a rarity.

You might want to re-check your arithmetic*; I found the October 2003 Scientific American article, and it gives the following for 'black-white marriages per 100 black-black marriages': 8.1.

Q: if everything were otherwise equal across groups (fertility, age of mother at births of her children, survival, births per marriage, etc), and if all children of black-white 'marriages' were classed as black (and the only two population groups were black and white), how many generations would be needed before a population, initially 80% white and 20% black, became 80% black and 20% white? Assume 'black-white marriages per 100 black-black marriages' = 10. What other assumptions do you need (if any) to make to work this out?

I found it interesting that hitssquad's choice of words and data from the article to post were, shall we say, interesting.

Here is the final para of that article (Rodger Doyle, Scientific American, October 2003, p19):

"Official statistics on race are becoming increasingly meaningless. According to one estimate, up to 70% of Americans classified as black have a white ancestor; another estimate finds that as many as 21% of whites have African blood**. When the husband is white and the wife Japanese, three quarters of the children are labeled white. If, by some miracle of genetic testing, the U.S. Census Bureau could establish the ancestry of every American, it would be apparent that the U.S. is much further down the road to a mixed-race society than most would imagine.[/color]"

*actually, it's not your arithmetic that's wrong, but the assumptions you used to make the calculations; now that you know the 'right' answers, would you like to explain to us all the reasons why your method gave the wrong answer?

**odd expression; I'd have thought we *all* have 'African blood'

 

[loseyourname]

The average American black is approximately 20% white in origin. Even with this sizable mixing, it seems as though American blacks are still considered blacks.

This is similar to the fact that most Arabs have African mixing but are predominately Caucasian in origin and so would still be labeled as part of the Caucasian race.

"Considered" meaning how they are viewed socially. Biologically, they are multiracial.

 

[Kerrie]

Biologically, they are multiracial.

i think this is true for many people-regardless of what color their skin appears. this is why i ask, why make an issue of it? america is a melting pot, and it gets more and more mixed with every generation. perhaps in another generation, there will be no need to identify who is what race because everyone will be a little of everything. who knows, maybe america will have its own race someday!