Do white people have a mostly positive or negative effect on America?

[Hehehe]

All you two gotta do is actually read my original post instead of using a crystal ball to suss it out through the fog.

It seemed to me like you were saying that this demographic change leads to a mixed future where racism won't be a problem anymore. But apparently I misunderstood, so perhaps you could elaborate your original point further?

 

[metalhead]

My evidence is the Vox piece in the OP in which a majority of Americans and a near totality of democrats say that whites becoming a minority is a good thing.

Unless we go explicitly apartheid, whites becoming a minority will greatly reduce the ability of white people to use the apparatus of the state to inflict disproportionate suffering and harm on non-white people.

This will reduce suffering. Reducing suffering is a good thing. Hence, whites becoming a minority is good for America and Americans.

 

[Hehehe]

Unless we go explicitly apartheid, whites becoming a minority will greatly reduce the ability of white people to use the apparatus of the state to inflict disproportionate suffering and harm on non-white people.

This will reduce suffering. Reducing suffering is a good thing. Hence, whites becoming a minority is good for America and Americans.

Why do so many non-whites want to move to a country where state apparatus will be used to inflict disproportionate harm and suffering on them? I don't understand

 

[luiz]

Unless we go explicitly apartheid, whites becoming a minority will greatly reduce the ability of white people to use the apparatus of the state to inflict disproportionate suffering and harm on non-white people.

This will reduce suffering. Reducing suffering is a good thing. Hence, whites becoming a minority is good for America and Americans.

That's not necessarily true, especially as the other non-white groups will be fragmented and certainly there will be no such thing as a "non-white coalition" (curiously only nutters on the right and the left believe in that).

Becoming more diverse is not a good predictor of more social cohesion, less racism or anything like that. Indeed we only have anecdotal evidence, but it tends to point in the opposite direction (Lebanon, the Balkans, etc).

 

[yung.carl.jung]

what's the difference between this thread and a child growing up in abject poverty in a country with little social mobility? there is no difference. both never stood a chance.

what i'm trying to say is that this thread, specifically it's opening post, is hot garbage

Why do so many non-whites want to move to a country where state apparatus will be used to inflict disproportionate harm and suffering on them? I don't understand

because being treated unfairly is still vastly superior to being gassed by assad, or being beaten to death by a lynchmob because of your sexual preference, or being abducted and tortured by a defunct security apparatus. these are just a fraction of the actual reasons for people fleeing their country, of course there are less dramatic ones. are you dense or just purposefully asking stupid questions? asking for a friend.

 

[Berzerker]

The US is a nation plagued by white supremacy. Seems like a reasonable position to hold. They aren't celebrating the destruction of whites but instead the destruction of white supremacy. Through race mixing, being "white" is going to become a rarity within a dozen more generations and, if we don't obliterate ourselves by that point, completely nonexistent afterwards. It is difficult to advocate the propagation of a white majority without being racist. It explicitly requires cutting oneself off from those icky brown people.

It's challenging to fly the white power flag if you aren't white, and it's not morally or ethically questionable when you became not-white through loving and starting families with those aforementioned icky brown people. A reduction in white people is a natural effect of open intimacy with other ethnic groups. It's not a deliberate attack nor is it a racist agenda. The more accepting white people are of others, the less white people there will be in the future. This is what happens when skin colour is an easily altered component of genetic human physical characteristics.

Of course, then you've got cosmic-brained people who don their I-am-very-smart hats (MAGA, or your white-wonderland European equivalent) who are very genuine in their concern that more icky brown people will dismantle their crime-free, prosperous utopia. It's a serious concern, you see. The statistics!

But if the future holds one race of 'brownish' people what happens to the races of today? They largely disappear. Should we applaud that? There's irony in the racist' opposition to race mixing, if they have their way diversity will be preserved. Course white and black exist because of geography so white and black should continue into the future. Presumably we were all black 200 kya.

 

[Synobun]

But if the future holds one race of 'brownish' people what happens to the races of today? They largely disappear. Should we applaud that?

Yes. It means ethnic groups have accepted one another enough to have mixing be the majority. You maintain ethnic groups with isolation.

Course white and black exist because of geography so white and black should continue into the future.

Not in a globalized society with easy geographical access.

 

[Ryika]

Not in a globalized society with easy geographical access.

What makes you think that? If we take the open borders of the EU as an example, the flow of population is mainly away from the countries that are not doing so well towards the ones that are doing great. Do you see a reason for why that would not happen globally as well? If not, how would the people living in the less fortunate countries develop into mixed races if there's basically nobody moving towards them? The only parts of the world that would have populations that become less and less distinct would be the ones that are booming.

 

[Bootstoots]

Obviously the thread title question is an absurd one.

But as for racial demographics - of course that's a reasonable question to ask people. Negative answers to this question will give a good measure of the amount of racial anxiety and/or resentment that white people are experiencing. This is an important thing to understand, because those feelings are a potent political force.

Politics are heavily racialized and appear to be getting worse. The Republicans are essentially the party of white people, especially non-college-educated whites, and the Democrats increasingly seem to consider it anathema to try to win them back. Democracies don't work very well when ethnic tribalism dominates over other concerns.

One of the main reasons I'm not a big fan of left-wing identity politics is that I suspect it's further increasing ethnic polarization. If you disparage white people enough, it's going to cause them to start identifying more with their white race and voting for the Republicans just to spite the Democrats, and it's likely to make Republicans more explicit in their racial appeals. The transformation from white-majority to no-racial-majority wouldn't be so rocky if white people thought of other racial groups as containing many potential allies. Without that, though, our politics are likely to get worse as we go from 62% non-Hispanic white to 50% over the next couple of decades.

(edit: minor edit for clarity in third paragraph)

 

[Berzerker]

Yes. It means ethnic groups have accepted one another enough to have mixing be the majority. You maintain ethnic groups with isolation.

Not in a globalized society with easy geographical access.

Certainly our ability to move can outpace evolution but in 10,000 years there will still be dark skinned people closer to the equator and light skinned people closer to the poles. While there are pros and cons to race mixing I dont know that the destruction of 'race' is a good thing, diversity has benefits too. It would be nice if we get to the point where race doesn't matter in how we interact but diversity is nice too.

 

[Synobun]

What makes you think that? If we take the open borders of the EU as an example, the flow of population is mainly away from the countries that are not doing so well towards the ones that are doing great. Do you see a reason for why that would not happen globally as well? If not, how would the people living in the less fortunate countries develop into mixed races if there's basically nobody moving towards them? The only parts of the world that would have populations that become less and less distinct would be the ones that are booming.

There is more emigration to third-world countries than you might expect, it's just not traditional.

But, ideally, quality of life will approach parity across the board as we advance, assuming we don't batten the hatches and give in to the compelling urge to create walled-in enclaves where the outside world is a waste.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Certainly our ability to move can outpace evolution but in 10,000 years there will still be dark skinned people closer to the equator and light skinned people closer to the poles. While there are pros and cons to race mixing I dont know that the destruction of 'race' is a good thing, diversity has benefits too. It would be nice if we get to the point where race doesn't matter in how we interact but diversity is nice too.

race is not a thing. henceforth the destruction of race is also not a thing. your supposition "in 10k years" is based on a wrong premise. adapting to one's environment is a process that takes hundreds, thousands of years. changing a phenotype from mostly pale to a darker phenotype can be achieved in but a few generations. if """mixed""" relationships were the norm pale skin would become a marginal phenomenom in a few hundred years.

diversity of peoples is not diversity of races. when we talk about """diversity"""" in societal discourse we usually are not talking about DNA Haplogroups, genetic markers or gene sequences, but rather about culture. culture is what is important, and culture is to be completely seperated from phenotype.

But if the future holds one race of 'brownish' people what happens to the races of today? They largely disappear. Should we applaud that?

Yes. Yes we should. Hundreds of animal species go extinct yearly. Dozens of animal species we have not even discovered and never will discover go extinct yearly. That makes me incredibly sad, but not sad enough to actually move my butt and do something about it. The same goes for human phenotypes. While is is somewhat sad that in the future many distinct phenotypes may disappear, I genuinely could not give less of a mess if it somehow helps the grand goal of ridding humanity of this parasitic idea that is grouping people by """"racial"""" characteristics.

some ideas are real goddamn stupid, but still have good longevity. debunking these ideas is rarely what killed them, it's the rapid change that is occurring all around the globe that will finish them off and replace them with new, perhaps equally stupid ideas. this is the fate of the hairless ape.

please don't take this as a personal attack, I was merely looking for something to quote so I can rant

 

[Ryika]

There is more emigration to third-world countries than you might expect, it's just not traditional.

And this statement is intentionally vague and non-descriptive, because...? Fact is, migration towards Africa is really small compared to migration towards, for example, Europe. IIRC, it's something like a 1:10 ratio, but I'm too lazy to look up the exact numbers, with the added problem the migrants towards who move towards Africa generally have lower birth rates than the people who already live there. So really, I don't see that future that you're vaguely predicting here.

But, ideally, quality of life will approach parity across the board as we advance, assuming we don't batten the hatches and give in to the compelling urge to create walled-in enclaves where the outside world is a waste.

I don't see how that could possibly happen either. That "ideal" world where there are no differences between countries simply does not exist, because countries are not the same, infrastructure-wise. Even if in the future we decided that it's time to give Africa the help that it needs to develop fully, and we live in a future where Africa is willing and able to accept that help to develop rapidly, in the time we're developing their country, and educating their people, our countries would already have moved ahead further.

The only way such a future could happen is if either we intentionally stopped developing our parts of the world - which would just be ridiculous - or if we lived in some sort of robot-controlled socialism.

But even if such a future were to happen, that would just mean that migration goes down drastically, as most migration still happens towards countries that are doing better economically. Take that away, and a large part of the world migration goes away, too.

 

[Synobun]

Who said anything about there being no differences between countries? Or stopping development? Nonsense.

 

[Ryika]

Who said anything about there being no differences between countries? Or stopping development? Nonsense.

Outside of the "Actual-Socialism Paradise" that I offered as an alternative, achieving an equatable level of development seems the logical prerequisite to achieving this:

quality of life will approach parity across the board as we advance

But in either case, the more important part of the equation is that even IF we reach that status, then all it means is that migration goes down drastically.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Outside of the "Actual-Socialism Paradise" that I offered as an alternative, achieving an equatable level of development seems the logical prerequisite to achieving this:


But in either case, the more important part of the equation is that even IF we reach that status, then all it means is that migration goes down drastically.

we're heading for fully automated luxury lgbtyqq space communism and we're all gonna love it

 

[Ryika]

we're heading for fully automated luxury lgbtyqq space communism and we're all gonna love it

It's very SciFi, but I think the path on which we might theoretically arrive in a state of "machine-assisted socialism", is in itself sound.

 

[Traitorfish]

For white Americans, is there an upside to losing their political power? Isn't some anxiety a little bit warranted? For them, best case scenario is that everything continues as it has, and the alternative to that is that things get worse for them. If white people are racists who mistreat minorities, then are the people of diversity going to be much better than whites in this regard? Are they going to be better than whites, even though they've been treated so horribly by the wicked white man?

"White Americans" have been a minority for decades, they just redefined "White" to include the Irish and Jews and all the other paler-than-not ethnics.

The biggest threat to "the power of white Americans" isn't more black and brown people, it's the failure of "white" people to identify with whiteness; not for whiteness as a political bloc to become unnumbered, but for it to come apart. Always has been.

 

[Hehehe]

because being treated unfairly is still vastly superior to being gassed by assad, or being beaten to death by a lynchmob because of your sexual preference, or being abducted and tortured by a defunct security apparatus. these are just a fraction of the actual reasons for people fleeing their country, of course there are less dramatic ones. are you dense or just purposefully asking stupid questions? asking for a friend.

Uhhuh. And what percentage of non-whites immigrating to the US are Syrians? No wait you haven't followed the conversation at all, have you?

race is not a thing

So what is it that companies like 23 and me do? It's all a scam?

"White Americans" have been a minority for decades, they just redefined "White" to include the Irish and Jews and all the other paler-than-not ethnics.

The biggest threat to "the power of white Americans" isn't more black and brown people, it's the failure of "white" people to identify with whiteness; not for whiteness as a political bloc to become unnumbered, but for it to come apart. Always has been.

[Citation needed]. US granted the Irish citizenship even back when it was for whites only

 

[Traitorfish]

[Citation needed]. US granted the Irish citizenship even back when it was for whites only

It's not really a matter of strictly legal definitions, otherwise questions of "political power" wouldn't enter into it.

And that's setting aside the fluidity of the legal definition of "white" throughout the nineteenth century, that may at various points have excluded Finns or included Hindus, depending on interpretation and application.