California population to hit 60 million by 2050 - Whites a minority (Los Angeles: buy, pharmacy)

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by silverkris

Your xenophobic screeds aren't any different from what was said about the Italians and the Irish in the 19th century - that the whole country was going to pot because they were "undesirable" and "base". The USA didn't go to pot then and won't tomorrow.

But it has veered towards Teapot, as the barkers continue to obey commands to obsess on racial supremacy credos.

[waffleiron1968]

Having a selection process is a must. The poorly protected border is crazy. We were never asked if we wanted to live in Mexico by default!

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by waffleiron1968

Having a selection process is a must. The poorly protected border is crazy. We were never asked if we wanted to live in Mexico by default!

Gotta ask the federal government about their border security issues, then.

[k374]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Caucasians don't have to remain a majority and likely won't. They built this country into the powerhouse it was on many levels but of course, that counts for nothing

This is absolute rubbish. The reason this country is a powerhouse is due to various races contributing equally. This country has historically attracted the brightest talent from all over the world which is why it has grown so much. Without other races this country would really be nothing. Quit portraying it like whites are solely responsible for all the development that we have because that is outright lies.

[DriveNotCommute]

Logic check:

1. Here's what I am seeing in the many posts for this topic --

The majority ethnic leadership in charge when the United States experienced the benefits of an industrialization was mostly northern/western European, based on popular history. People should therefore attribute the successes of the era to most people of that dominant cultural group.

2. Here's a topic with a similar logical structure --

The majority generational leadership in charge when the United States was enjoying the accumulation of its greatest financial prosperity just prior to our economic collapse in the 2000s were Baby Boomers. People should therefore attribute the current financial problems to most people of that dominant cultural group.

So who has a difference in conclusion for the two statements above? What would explain the difference?

[SoCalbound12]

Originally Posted by k374

This is absolute rubbish. The reason this country is a powerhouse is due to various races contributing equally. This country has historically attracted the brightest talent from all over the world which is why it has grown so much. Without other races this country would really be nothing. Quit portraying it like whites are solely responsible for all the development that we have because that is outright lies.

That is absolute rubbish. For the vast majority of our history we've been 90%+ white, European demographically speaking. For the first 200 years of our nation only whites, in particular men, were able to fully contribute to society. The country was founded by white Europeans, and built largely by white European men.

Have other races contributed? Yes, but their contributions are much smaller, and for the most part more recent. Whites of European descent still hold most of the wealth, own most of the businesses, and are statistically still the majority population in the United States. Per capita no race (other than a few Asian groups and Jews) are more educated or prosperous than white Americans.

Your comment about "without other races this country would really be nothing" is so completely wrong that the rest of your comments lose credibility being in the same paragraph with it. Take for instance school performance:

Furthermore, non-Hispanic white Americans who are mostly the products of suburban public K-12 schools, are at the very top of global comparisons, as I pointed out in a recent Salon article:

The overall PISA scores of American students are lowered by the poor results for blacks and Latinos, who make up 35 percent of America’s K-12 student population. Asian-American students have an average score of 541, similar to those of Shanghai, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea. The non-Hispanic white American student average of 525 is comparable to the averages of Canada (524), New Zealand (521), and Australia (515). In contrast, the average PISA readings score of Latino students is 446 and black students is 441.
Unlike Asian immigrants, many of whom are college-educated professionals, Latino immigrants tend to be less educated than the American average. And both Latinos and blacks are disproportionately poor. … America’s public school system works quite well, for non-poor native students. It is overwhelmed by a disproportionately black poor population, which suffers the legacy of centuries of discrimination, and a disproportionately unskilled and illiterate foreign-born population.

If you look at the facts, then, they don’t suggest that the U.S. public K-12 system is a failure. Rather American public education is a world-class success except among poor natives and immigrants, whose educational challenges have more to do with poverty and rural cultural legacies than alleged failings of public K-12.

Education reform’s central myths - Salon.com

The claim that America’s K-12 system is inferior to that of other industrial nations is another myth whose purpose is to divert the attention of the American public from the real reasons for the offshoring of U.S. industry. Much has been made of the fact that, according to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the U.S. ranks 12th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in mathematics. But the countries at the top of the list in 2009 — Korea, Finland, Hong-Kong China, Singapore, Canada, New Zealand and Japan — tend to be small or homogeneous or both.
The overall PISA scores of American students are lowered by the poor results for blacks and Latinos, who make up 35 percent of America’s K-12 student population. Asian-American students have an average score of 541, similar to those of Shanghai, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea. The non-Hispanic white American student average of 525 is comparable to the averages of Canada (524), New Zealand (521), and Australia (515). In contrast, the average PISA readings score of Latino students is 446 and black students is 441.
Unlike Asian immigrants, many of whom are college-educated professionals, Latino immigrants tend to be less educated than the American average. And both Latinos and blacks are disproportionately poor. American students in schools where fewer than 10 percent of the students needed subsidized lunches score 551 on average — above the average of any of the 34 developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Americans in schools where at least 75 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-cost lunches average 446, second to last among students in OECD countries. America’s public school system works quite well, for non-poor native students. It is overwhelmed by a disproportionately black poor population, which suffers the legacy of centuries of discrimination, and a disproportionately unskilled and illiterate foreign-born population. Instead of scapegoating America’s K-12 schools, we need to combat family poverty directly, by means of job creation programs and a living wage, while admitting fewer poorly educated immigrants.

Innovation and education won’t save our economy - Salon.com

Is this to say that I support Jim Crow or legalized racial discrimination? No, but you do you a disservice to yourself when you make wild and factually incorrect statements like "America would be nothing" without other races. It's just not true. Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, China, and Finland all seem to get along just fine without America's multiculturalism and diversity. America built her powerhouse status when she was still 90%+ white.

[k374]

Originally Posted by SoCalbound12

For the first 200 years of our nation only whites, in particular men, were able to fully contribute to society. T

absolute horsesh!t, for the first 100 years black people were putting in the blood, sweat and tears to build the infrastructure of this country while the white man was just sipping his tea...that is the truth. You need to go back and re-read your history books.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by k374

absolute horsesh!t, for the first 100 years black people were putting in the blood, sweat and tears to build the infrastructure of this country while the white man was just sipping his tea...that is the truth. You need to go back and re-read your history books.

Only in parts of the South and not even all of it. The North was far more prosperous, which is part of why the North won.

[SoCalbound12]

Originally Posted by k374

absolute horsesh!t, for the first 100 years black people were putting in the blood, sweat and tears to build the infrastructure of this country while the white man was just sipping his tea...that is the truth. You need to go back and re-read your history books.

So the Irish and other "non-white" Europeans were never indentured servants? They had no part in building the railroads and other grunt labor? Italians never helped build the tunnels, bridges, and railroads in New York?

Anyway I'm not talking about physical labor, physical labor is cheap and plentiful. Did blacks organize the founding of America? Did they pay for it? Plan it? Execute it? Did they design, pay for, and plan the building of the cities, or the expansion west? Or even the plantations they worked on? Almost anyone could do manual labor to build someone else's dream, but not everyone could conceive of a city or a nation where there was nothing but wilderness, and then actually plan it out and execute it.

If you really think all whites were doing was just "sipping their tea" during the first 100 years of the Republic you are not a very well read person and you probably shouldn't be commenting on things that are out of your depth.

Furthermore, my comment was said that for the first 200 years only white men were able to fully contribute to society, and that is true. Due to voting restrictions, slavery, Jim Crow, etc. blacks and women were limited in their ability to contribute. Perhaps instead of getting emotional you should fully read and comprehend the comments you are talking about so you avoid spouting off "absolute horsesh!t."

[k374]

first off the greatest advancement in this nation in terms of medicine, engineering, technology has been in the last 4 or 5 decades, not in the time before it.. heck, electric power wasn't even prevalent until the 1900s. If you want to look at it in terms of contribution to the country this is the time period that counts most. It's also quite illogical to include a period in time where the number of minorities in the country were very low due to selective immigration and discriminatory practices of the whites.

In the last 4 or 5 decades minorities have contributed immensely, just as much as whites. So making a statement such as "white's built this country into a powerhouse" is nothing but racist elitism.