Non-Hispanic White births are now a minority of all births in the USA (though still a plurality): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18100457
Other then being an interesting fact, does it matter?
"White" births now a minority in the USA
Non-Hispanic White births are now a minority of all births in the USA (though still a plurality): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18100457
Other then being an interesting fact, does it matter?
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Yes.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
How?
You asked, I answered, what more is there?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Don't see why it should. Most people who come here are thoroughly Americanized within one generation. I couldn't care less what their skin color is. In fact, I think we should be encouraging immigration far more than we do.
So they are like Spain now?
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
A) That hasn't been true for at least several decades.
B) The article is about people who are born in America, not people who come to America.
C) The education levels of many Hispanics do not actually increase once you get past the second generation. In fact, it frequently decreases. I doubt it's because these people are Hispanic per se, but rather that the education attainment of one's parents has a large effect on one's own educational attainment. Despite most Hispanics in America being born here, only 13% have a college degree, compared to 18% of African-Americans, and 31% of whites.
D) The benefit of a younger population is offset by much of that population taking in more in benefits than they pay in taxes (this isn't true for immigrants on average, but rather for immigrants who have no education).
E) Instead of having a system that de facto encourages poor, uneducated people to come here (regardless of where they come from), we need to have a system that encourages the immigration of educated and/or skilled people. Disaffection toward immigration will only increase as we continue to get immigrants who compete with the working class for jobs for generations at a time.
Hope is the denial of reality
???
Have you been to certain cities on the west coast?
Now I realize that you said most, but there seems to be a large popultaion (I could be wrong) that are NOT assimilating
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Source?
Yes, but the reason why the white non-Hispanic population has been decreasing as a proportion of total population is a combination of immigration from non-European countries and a higher birthrate among non-whites (notably non-white immigrants). Both of those are tied to immigration, though obviously it's far more complex. Regardless, I'm not particularly concerned by non-immigrants who are non-white having children, either.B) The article is about people who are born in America, not people who come to America.
Who said anything about education level?C) The education levels of many Hispanics do not actually increase once you get past the second generation. In fact, it frequently decreases. I doubt it's because these people are Hispanic per se, but rather that the education attainment of one's parents has a large effect on one's own educational attainment. Despite most Hispanics in America being born here, only 13% have a college degree, compared to 18% of African-Americans, and 31% of whites.
From a government budget perspective, possibly (though I'd have to see data to quantify). From an economic perspective? Almost certainly not. That's ignoring the positive worldwide effects of remittances et al, not to mention the US' cultural and political influence around the world.D) The benefit of a younger population is offset by much of that population taking in more in benefits than they pay in taxes (this isn't true for immigrants on average, but rather for immigrants who have no education).
I don't agree with this entire statement (I think immigration can be good from more than just getting the educated to move here), but I firmly believe that our immigration system should be overhauled. Yes, we want to encourage people with educations to move here - IMO, anyone with a college education should get an automatic work visa. But there's a lot of good that can come from other forms of immigration as well. I'd prefer to decriminalize the practice as much as possible, and possibly gain more control over who comes and why.E) Instead of having a system that de facto encourages poor, uneducated people to come here (regardless of where they come from), we need to have a system that encourages the immigration of educated and/or skilled people. Disaffection toward immigration will only increase as we continue to get immigrants who compete with the working class for jobs for generations at a time.
Assimilating != Americanizing IMO. I don't subscribe to the 'melting pot' theory of American identity; possibly the so-called 'mosaic' analogy is closer, though it is obviously imperfect at best. I think that people who move here quickly adapt the basic value systems we hold dear - about our government, our freedoms, our entrepreneurial focus, etc, etc. You don't need to turn into a WASP replica to be American or hold American values.
Plenty of countries with ethnic/religious/etc. diversity do very poorly unless one group dominates over others; otherwise they frequently fragment along sectarian lines. Yet the US does have an pan-identity as Americans that supercedes our rich diversity in backgrounds. That, I think, is not challenged by non-whites, immigrants or otherwise. It's one of our great strengths as a nation, and I think we can do quite well without descending into xenophobia just because there are neighborhoods that are predominantly Asian, or Hispanic, or African.
Doesn't matter in my book.
Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with the changing birth rates/growth. Just think what you think Americanization is is not ideal.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Why?
I don't think (again I could be wrong) that people leave their s*** behind if they don't assimilate. I hate all the hyphenated American crap. Your not an Irish-American, or an African-American or any other -American...you are an American. The - is just a label and divides us. We have enough of that already.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I don't think so, VR. In many countries people don't have that hyphen, but they choose their country of origin as their identity rather than anything else.
The US is a land of immigrants, and I think it's unreasonable and unfair to expect people to check their other identities - national, religious, or ethnic - at the door when they enter. We are greatly enriched by the diversity of perspectives in our country, and I strongly prefer a country that celebrates and benefits from the strengths of a variety of cultures rather than just one.
BTW, when did we get a curse filter?
We don't have one. Veldan brought his own.
Diversity of perspectives is fine but the modern day liberal bull crap says all perspectives are equal and that's just retarded. Certain cultures are simply inferior to others.
I don't know whether to state that inferiority is subjective, unless you can create some objective measure of the quality of a culture, or I can also consider that if your use of language, customs, thought-processes, values, morals, etc. constitute a culture, then your very quote is decent evidence for your hypothesis. This last observation is of course subjective, so I am truly baffled.
. . .
This is only true if you are uncomfortable making value judgements, or are trying to claim some measure of objectivity.
There are few judgements in life that aren't subjective so labelling it as such is redundant. The word is subjective.
I'm of the opinion that a culture that treats females as second class citizens is inferior, of course that's subjective and others might say a culture that lets women and men act the same is inferior. Feel free to let us know where you stand Illusions.
Does context never matter to you? Lewk is stating certain cultures are "simply inferior". He obviously has a personal view of which ones are inferior. His wording, and prior posting behavior leads me to believe that these cultures are to him, universally inferior. I'm reminding him, whether he cares or not, that whatever criteria he is using, are his own, and not self-evident truths.
Oh, thank you. I had forgotten that I was reminding Lewk of this, and not making a brilliant discovery on the nature of human perception.
I thought I alluded to this when I deemed a quote of Lewk's that included his stereotypical "Liberals" line, and his use of "retarded" as an insult, as evidence in support of his hypothesis that there are inferior cultures.I'm of the opinion that a culture that treats females as second class citizens is inferior, of course that's subjective and others might say a culture that lets women and men act the same is inferior. Feel free to let us know where you stand Illusions.
. . .
Lewk believes in a universal morality that has been determined by a higher power, a power from which objective right and wrong can be derived. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that his opinions are informed by his faith. A faith which has been created and inspired by this higher power. So, while you may believe in the relativity of all things and the subjectivity of his own criteria, he is more than comfortable identifying the things around him he believes to be immoral, evil, or wrong as immoral, evil, and wrong.
I think it's mattered for quite a while. Demographic changes influence all sorts of things....including our political environment and power structures. I think it's good for the US to be less white-male-dominated, as we move forward into the 21st century. It's good to remember we're a nation of immigrants, intermarried cultural and genetic "mutts".
Our melting pot can also be a 'crazy quilt' of sorts, without losing what's euphemistically called The American Spirit.
What?Diversity is a good thing. Different perspectives have equal value...including those new or minority cultures you say are "inferior". Better get used to it now, it'll make your elder years a whole lot better. It's likely you could find yourself as Grandpa to a child who's the product of interracial, interfaith, multi-cultural, or same-sex unions.
Saying that culture A is superior to culture B is subjective. Saying that culture A is worse than culture B according to a specific set of criteria is not. The problem is then finding a reasonable set of criteria, which isn't as hard as it seems, as long as the argument is between fellow Westerners.
Hope is the denial of reality
What specific set of criteria is being used as the "objective" standard? It's probably harder than you let on....when there arerabidardent supporters of English as our ONLY language.
*Oh yeah, and a whole lotta "Obama isn't really an American, doesn't understand "our" American principles, and wants to turn us (US) into a secular SSSocialist European nation.*
Last edited by GGT; 05-18-2012 at 09:44 PM.
Respect for general human rights, rights for women and minorities, education level, productivity, etc.
Hope is the denial of reality
So, how're we doing on that "objective" scale?
Does the US *Republican* version of austerity (cutting budgets to Education, Police, Firefighters, Public defense attorneys, Public health departments...) or states amending their constitutions on those premises.....mean they're more "objective"? Are they respecting general human rights, or minority rights, by banning Marriage Equality or reproductive choices, refusing to fund Planned Parenthood, school clinics, public sex-ed, or birth control?
I'd like to see Lewk respond to this post. Especially since his fundamental Christian conservative (and rather "old fashioned" American stereotypes) would likely lump all minorities into one group, and dismiss it as "Lib'rul" ideology.
Diversity is not necessarily bad and I haven't said any such thing. Different perspectives do NOT have equal value unless you prefer to exist in a world where there is no right or wrong.
What?
Saying all perspectives have equal opinion means that the opinion that homogeneity is superior to diversity has equal weight as your opinion. Regardless of any arguments, discussion or additional points of view they will always be equal. And that's bull shit.
As others have pointed out -do you consider a culture that treats women as near slaves to be equal to cultures that do not? Do you think a culture that supports strapping bombs on children is equal to one that values children?
And while Enoch is right I do believe in a higher power and objective morality, even an atheist can agree that some cultures are better than others. You'd have to agree to an objective measurement - but if you refuse to even come up with a measurement then the discussion is completely futile and worthless.
I understand that he is very firm in his beliefs now, but my intent in posting these things in discussions with him is in the hope that maybe, someday, in the future he'll be a bit more flexible or understanding of other people.
This is why I stated that part about "unless you can create some objective measure of the quality of a culture", I just wanted to cover my bases. However in a debate/discussion between Lewk and myself, while I do believe there will be some overlap in what we would like a perfect culture to have, there are likely going to be important factors that we don't agree upon, or even factors that have similar wordings but different meanings to us individually, even though we are both Westerners.
Highlighting this mainly for Enoch. Things like this are why I made that post. I don't believe I've caused this, but its nice to see that Lewk considers this and thinks this way.
. . .
What's your point with that bold? Lewk is entirely correct.
If you can come up with an objective measurement we can make objective judgements. If you can't, we can only make subjective ones. If you can't even make subjective measurements then you are irrelevant and meaningless to the discussion. I am an atheist and prepared to say a culture that abhors slavery is better than one that practices it, that a culture that respects women is better than one that doesn't. Are you prepared to agree or disagree Illusions?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote