America’s Birth Rate Is Shifting Toward a Minority Majority and Now Things Are Starting to Make Sense

[Dutch Uncle]

I like how the study groups all minorities together in one large conglomeration against one ethnic group.

A RW assumption but not completely without merit.

We can't get rid of racism in America if we institutionalize it by putting Americans into racial boxes over the rainbow of individuality our nation has long advocated. The macro picture is better: promote tolerance.*

Science has proved there's no such thing as human races. Our major differences are basic cultural beliefs. Culture is learned behavior.

Not to get preachy, but since our nation has been founded upon Christian beliefs, then maybe the ethics should be Christian.

Millions of Americans changed their racial or ethnic identity from one census to the next

Americans of mixed race, American Indians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics were among those most likely to check different boxes.

www.pewresearch.org

*It's an economic world and its problems should be addressed through economics. Poor, uneducated Americans are a national security issue. The Soviets knew it and the Chinese know it. Take the politics out and it becomes science versus Evangelical religious beliefs.

MAGA = Making America a "Christian nation again" by abusing, cheating and dominating Americans. They've been doing this by undercutting the American education system for thirty years. In the MAGA Monarchy, only the rich are entitled to a quality education. Keeping the workers poor and uneducated makes them easier to manipulate. Extreme capitalism is flawed just like any other extreme. The middle of the stream is the most stable for the majority.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

A RW assumption but not completely without merit.

We can't get rid of racism in America if we institutionalize it by putting Americans into racial boxes over the rainbow of individuality our nation has long advocated. The macro picture is better: promote tolerance.*

Science has proved there's no such thing as human races. Our major differences are basic cultural beliefs. Culture is learned behavior.

Not to get preachy, but since our nation has been founded upon Christian beliefs, then maybe the ethics should be Christian.

Millions of Americans changed their racial or ethnic identity from one census to the next

Americans of mixed race, American Indians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics were among those most likely to check different boxes.

www.pewresearch.org

View attachment 76300

*It's an economic world and its problems should be addressed through economics. Poor, uneducated Americans are a national security issue. The Soviets knew it and the Chinese know it. Take the politics out and it becomes science versus Evangelical religious beliefs.

MAGA = Making America a "Christian nation again" by abusing, cheating and dominating Americans. They've been doing this by undercutting the American education system for thirty years. In the MAGA Monarchy, only the rich are entitled to a quality education. Keeping the workers poor and uneducated makes them easier to manipulate. Extreme capitalism is flawed just like any other extreme. The middle of the stream is the most stable for the majority.

The United States was not founded as an official Christian nation; it was established with a secular government designed to ensure religious freedom for all, famously creating a "wall of separation between church and state". The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of Christianity, prohibits religious tests for public office, and, along with the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), explicitly separates the government from religion.

Washington’s friend, the widely heralded polemicist Thomas Paine tried ending the controversy. “I do not believe in…any church,” he declared. In a call to arms against what he called church-state tyranny in early America, he insisted that “every national church or religion accuses the others of unbelief; for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

Both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson agreed. President Jefferson denied that Jesus was “a member of the Godhead,” and Benjamin Franklin, a co-author of the Declaration of Independence with Jefferson, decried Christian church services for promoting church memberships instead of “trying to make us good citizens.” An outspoken Deist, Franklin criticized all religions for making “orthodoxy more regarded than virtue.” He insisted that man be judged “not for what we thought but what we did…that we did good to our fellow creatures.”

Most of America’s Founding Fathers echoed Franklin’s beliefs. America’s fourth President, James Madison was raised an Anglican and was a cousin of Virginia’s Episcopal bishop. But he was a fierce proponent of church-state separation and fathered the Bill of Rights, whose opening words outlawed government “establishment of religion” and any prohibition of “the free exercise thereof.” Both Congress and all the states agreed.

 

[Damocles]

A RW assumption but not completely without merit.

We can't get rid of racism in America if we institutionalize it by putting Americans into racial boxes over the rainbow of individuality our nation has long advocated. The macro picture is better: promote tolerance.*

Science has proved there's no such thing as human races. Our major differences are basic cultural beliefs. Culture is learned behavior.

Not to get preachy, but since our nation has been founded upon Christian beliefs, then maybe the ethics should be Christian.

Millions of Americans changed their racial or ethnic identity from one census to the next

Americans of mixed race, American Indians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics were among those most likely to check different boxes.

www.pewresearch.org

View attachment 76300

*It's an economic world and its problems should be addressed through economics. Poor, uneducated Americans are a national security issue. The Soviets knew it and the Chinese know it. Take the politics out and it becomes science versus Evangelical religious beliefs.

MAGA = Making America a "Christian nation again" by abusing, cheating and dominating Americans. They've been doing this by undercutting the American education system for thirty years. In the MAGA Monarchy, only the rich are entitled to a quality education. Keeping the workers poor and uneducated makes them easier to manipulate. Extreme capitalism is flawed just like any other extreme. The middle of the stream is the most stable for the majority.

Yet I was directly describing the "study". You disagree with them. As I said, they group all other people against one ethnicity (not race, notice that there Dunkle, or was that blocked by your ASSumption Colored glasses you wear?)... in that study and I noted how much I "loved" that.

You are such a deliberate and fatuous moron.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

IIrony

View attachment 76261

Hey, it didn't explode into an unextinguishable bonfire, so there's that!

 

[Taichiliberal]

I like how the study groups all minorities together in one large conglomeration against one ethnic group.

I don't know what "study" you're referring to, because just posting statistical data and projections on that data is not being "against" or "lumping". It is what it is, as it is with the census and categories .... has been since the NYT article back in the1990's.

 

[Taichiliberal]

True, but repeating herself is a key indicator of cognitive issues.

Same goes for her fears, paranoia, and bravado trying to hide both. Sad.

I've had an NDE and been nearly died a few times. I saw my dad wither away, become bitter and afraid as he sank into the Hell of Alzheimer's. That's not the way I will allow myself to go.

Plan A is a long walk in the woods before sunset on a cold night, preferably a hilltop facing west, with a bottle liquor, a handful of Ambien and my .45.

If the White Nationalists destroy our Republic, Plan B will take longer since I'll go around the country sending a message to local White Nationalist leaders why they are wrong.

so you're planning to develop Alzheimer's?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The United States was not founded as an official Christian nation; it was established with a secular government designed to ensure religious freedom for all, famously creating a "wall of separation between church and state". The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of Christianity, prohibits religious tests for public office, and, along with the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), explicitly separates the government from religion.

Washington’s friend, the widely heralded polemicist Thomas Paine tried ending the controversy. “I do not believe in…any church,” he declared. In a call to arms against what he called church-state tyranny in early America, he insisted that “every national church or religion accuses the others of unbelief; for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

Both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson agreed. President Jefferson denied that Jesus was “a member of the Godhead,” and Benjamin Franklin, a co-author of the Declaration of Independence with Jefferson, decried Christian church services for promoting church memberships instead of “trying to make us good citizens.” An outspoken Deist, Franklin criticized all religions for making “orthodoxy more regarded than virtue.” He insisted that man be judged “not for what we thought but what we did…that we did good to our fellow creatures.”

Most of America’s Founding Fathers echoed Franklin’s beliefs. America’s fourth President, James Madison was raised an Anglican and was a cousin of Virginia’s Episcopal bishop. But he was a fierce proponent of church-state separation and fathered the Bill of Rights, whose opening words outlawed government “establishment of religion” and any prohibition of “the free exercise thereof.” Both Congress and all the states agreed.

Correct. However, it's dishonest to refute that a lot of American colonists risked their lives to avoid European persecution.
Obviously this is those who had a choice, not those forced to immigrate.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

A RW assumption but not completely without merit.

We can't get rid of racism in America if we institutionalize it by putting Americans into racial boxes over the rainbow of individuality our nation has long advocated. The macro picture is better: promote tolerance.*

Science has proved there's no such thing as human races. Our major differences are basic cultural beliefs. Culture is learned behavior.

Not to get preachy, but since our nation has been founded upon Christian beliefs, then maybe the ethics should be Christian.

Millions of Americans changed their racial or ethnic identity from one census to the next

Americans of mixed race, American Indians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics were among those most likely to check different boxes.

www.pewresearch.org

View attachment 76300

*It's an economic world and its problems should be addressed through economics. Poor, uneducated Americans are a national security issue. The Soviets knew it and the Chinese know it. Take the politics out and it becomes science versus Evangelical religious beliefs.

MAGA = Making America a "Christian nation again" by abusing, cheating and dominating Americans. They've been doing this by undercutting the American education system for thirty years. In the MAGA Monarchy, only the rich are entitled to a quality education. Keeping the workers poor and uneducated makes them easier to manipulate. Extreme capitalism is flawed just like any other extreme. The middle of the stream is the most stable for the majority.

Here's how insanely idiotic this is.

My ancestors, (great grandparents) immigrated from Europe to Mexico, not the US. They settled in what was then the Mexican state of Tejas where Santa Ana wanted lots of immigrants. Those same ancestors, who were Mexican citizens, revolted against the Mexican government and won their independence (my great grandfather, Jessie Billingsley, is in the famous painting of the surrender of Santa Ana at San Jacinto), and formed the independent nation of the Republic of Texas.

By the usual terms of who is a "Hispanic," I am Hispanic as my ancestors were citizens of Mexico at one point. How idiotic is that? I have more claim to being Hispanic than someone who has a Spanish surname and immigrated from Spain to the US directly. The whole thing is absurd.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Here's how insanely idiotic this is.

My ancestors, (great grandparents) immigrated from Europe to Mexico, not the US. They settled in what was then the Mexican state of Tejas where Santa Ana wanted lots of immigrants. Those same ancestors, who were Mexican citizens, revolted against the Mexican government and won their independence (my great grandfather, Jessie Billingsley, is in the famous painting of the surrender of Santa Ana at San Jacinto), and formed the independent nation of the Republic of Texas.

By the usual terms of who is a "Hispanic," I am Hispanic as my ancestors were citizens of Mexico at one point. How idiotic is that? I have more claim to being Hispanic than someone who has a Spanish surname and immigrated from Spain to the US directly. The whole thing is absurd.

What are the usual terms for who is Hispanic, Terry?

FWIW, the 2030 census will be more diverse with both race and ethnicities. Still, I question institutionalizing racism since it props up outdated beliefs. Notice it says "select all that apply". As we become more blended, it could become quite extensive. LOL

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What are the usual terms for who is Hispanic, Terry?

FWIW, the 2030 census will be more diverse with both race and ethnicities. Still, I question institutionalizing racism since it props up outdated beliefs. Notice it says "select all that apply". As we become more blended, it could become quite extensive. LOL

View attachment 76372

Hispanic is generally given to mean someone who has a lineage or heritage of coming from a country in the Americas where Spanish or Portuguese (Brazil) is spoken as the primary language.

For example, this guy definitely doesn't look "Hispanic" but definitely is:

That's Alberto Fujimori the former Prime Minister of Peru and lifetime citizen.

The problem is that Hispanic is defined by a language and national presence, not by any particular racial characteristic. Thus, anyone who had persons in their past lineage that were citizens in a Hispanic nation are by definition, Hispanic if that's how they want to be defined.

Even the list you provide from the census does that. My ancestors were from Mexico--at least for a while. Therefore, I could under the rules of the game, so-to-speak, legitimately claim I'm of Hispanic descent. Yes, that's absurd, but the whole way someone is defined as Hispanic is absurd. It's an artificial construct based on a language and politics.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hispanic is generally given to mean someone who has a lineage or heritage of coming from a country in the Americas where Spanish or Portuguese (Brazil) is spoken as the primary language.

For example, this guy definitely doesn't look "Hispanic" but definitely is:

That's Alberto Fujimori the former Prime Minister of Peru and lifetime citizen.

The problem is that Hispanic is defined by a language and national presence, not by any particular racial characteristic. Thus, anyone who had persons in their past lineage that were citizens in a Hispanic nation are by definition, Hispanic if that's how they want to be defined.

Even the list you provide from the census does that. My ancestors were from Mexico--at least for a while. Therefore, I could under the rules of the game, so-to-speak, legitimately claim I'm of Hispanic descent. Yes, that's absurd, but the whole way someone is defined as Hispanic is absurd. It's an artificial construct based on a language and politics.

Soooo....is it like the "one drop of blood" theory? If I'm 1% Hispanic, 10% Irish, 60% English, blah, blah, blah, but my ancestors were all born in US dating back to the early 1800s, what am I? Hispanic? Irish? English? Or just an American?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Soooo....is it like the "one drop of blood" theory? If I'm 1% Hispanic, 10% Irish, 60% English, blah, blah, blah, but my ancestors were all born in US dating back to the early 1800s, what am I? Hispanic? Irish? English? Or just an American?

Pretty much. I've seen that played by people in the federal government and military as a way to get ahead by claiming minority status in DEI situations. And, no, I haven't played that card myself only thought out the process because I've seen others use it. It's another disgusting reason why DEI and Affirmative Action have become total fails.

 

[Dachshund]

View attachment 75967View attachment 75968View attachment 75969

A large proportion of BLACK African Americans embrace the:: loud vulgar; offensive; lewd/hypersexual and generally uncivilized, antisocial set of behaviours, known as "RATCHET CULTURE" (e.g. Jasmine Crockett). as a way of life. White European Americans, however, do not. Culture refers to the ideas, values and traditions and behavioural norms, etc that a particular ethnic/racial group of people have.. Culture is chiefly a mental / psychological thing, not a physical thing like the melanin content of one's skin. So, souls (consciousness, the spirit, the mind, etc) as I have just illustrated, are not all the same "colour"


Dachshund the wonder Hound

DLM....DACHSHUND LIVES MATTER !!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Pretty much. I've seen that played by people in the federal government and military as a way to get ahead by claiming minority status in DEI situations. And, no, I haven't played that card myself only thought out the process because I've seen others use it. It's another disgusting reason why DEI and Affirmative Action have become total fails.

Nice opinion. That explains why you hate black people, women, etc who were promoted before you.

FWIW, I have no problem with leveling the playing field. I do have a problem of promoting someone just because of their heritage. I support a meritocracy.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Nice opinion. That explains why you hate black people, women, etc who were promoted before you.

I have no problem when someone is promoted on merit whatever their background. On the other hand, promoting someone who isn't competent to a position because of their gender, race, or whatever, is simply wrong, and worse, it means you now have to deal with that incompetence. I've seen that firsthand, more than once.
In one case, there was an E-7 promoted who all us Chiefs called an E-7, not a Chief, because none of us thought she was Chief material. The zeros (officers) loved her because she was a paperworking genius, but that was all she could do. No leadership skills. No technical expertise beyond being an administrative clerk. Not a Chief.

FWIW, I have no problem with leveling the playing field. I do have a problem of promoting someone just because of their heritage. I support a meritocracy.

I have a problem with artificially pretending to level the field in the name of things like diversity or inclusion. In the federal government, today, DEI is put ahead of competence. Having a diverse workforce is made more important than having a competent one. And, yes, management in the federal system is quietly keeping score on that basis (eg., using quotas) even if they are denying it. Seen that personally too. In one case, I was ordered to produce spreadsheets for it and told that these weren't really about quotas even as it was blatantly obvious that was exactly what they were for.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I have no problem when someone is promoted on merit whatever their background. On the other hand, promoting someone who isn't competent to a position because of their gender, race, or whatever, is simply wrong, and worse, it means you now have to deal with that incompetence. I've seen that firsthand, more than once.
In one case, there was an E-7 promoted who all us Chiefs called an E-7, not a Chief, because none of us thought she was Chief material. The zeros (officers) loved her because she was a paperworking genius, but that was all she could do. No leadership skills. No technical expertise beyond being an administrative clerk. Not a Chief.

I have a problem with artificially pretending to level the field in the name of things like diversity or inclusion. In the federal government, today, DEI is put ahead of competence. Having a diverse workforce is made more important than having a competent one. And, yes, management in the federal system is quietly keeping score on that basis (eg., using quotas) even if they are denying it. Seen that personally too. In one case, I was ordered to produce spreadsheets for it and told that these weren't really about quotas even as it was blatantly obvious that was exactly what they were for.

It's not unusual that all of your examples over the years have never been white males. They are always black, female, Jewish, something.

If she was a "paperworking genius" and kept in admin, then she doesn't need to know how to lead a squad of SEALs, repair a broken generator or anything else except excel at her job....which sounds like that's exactly what she did.

I've seen two main types of officers; Staff and Line. The worst officers I worked with on the line were the former. Sure, great at paperwork, not so much in the field. The most memorable one couldn't navigate his way out of a paper bag and would have killed me if I hadn't caught the error. Yes, he was a white male. LOL

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It's not unusual that all of your examples over the years have never been white males. They are always black, female, Jewish, something.

I've run into incompetent White males too. They usually get fired or whatever from that position. Had a Electrical Officer at one point like that. He left the command as an LDO, never to be promoted again and shuffled off to somewhere where he couldn't do any harm. A unit CO that was the paperwork nightmare from Hell. The guy ordered all the E-6 and above (officers included) to carry around a thick notebook full of forms, instructions, etc., so you'd know how to do the paperwork properly. He'd send out a memo with a routing slip (8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper covered with little boxes that got checked) that contained a memo about a memo... Everything was fouled up like a soup sandwich, but by god he could tell you to the subparagraph in some regulation why it was. An Admiral came out personally to fire his ass.

If she was a "paperworking genius" and kept in admin, then she doesn't need to know how to lead a squad of SEALs, repair a broken generator or anything else except excel at her job....which sounds like that's exactly what she did.

Being a Chief is about far more than simply doing some assigned job. There's far more to it. You'd have to be one to really grasp what it means. She wasn't Chief material. She was an excellent, even outstanding First Class Petty Officer.

I've seen two main types of officers; Staff and Line. The worst officers I worked with on the line were the former. Sure, great at paperwork, not so much in the field. The most memorable one couldn't navigate his way out of a paper bag and would have killed me if I hadn't caught the error. Yes, he was white male. LOL

I can agree with that. A longtime staff officer put in command makes a horrible CO much of the time. Another one I worked under was a LCDR who had never done anything other than staff positions up to her promotion to LCDR as an affirmative action staffer. That was the most important thing in the Navy in her opinion. She made everybody sit through all the crap she was used to giving from her lower ranking days. She chewed the Chiefs out for not simply accepting her bullshit with a smile.

She was another officer relieved for cause, ending her career once she had to show leadership rather than paperwork.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I've run into incompetent White males too.

Wow. After 6 years of whining about minorities, an admission when cornered. LOL

 

[QP!]

...

I have a problem with artificially pretending to level the field in the name of things like diversity or inclusion. In the federal government, today, DEI is put ahead of competence. Having a diverse workforce is made more important than having a competent one. And, yes, management in the federal system is quietly keeping score on that basis (eg., using quotas) even if they are denying it. Seen that personally too. In one case, I was ordered to produce spreadsheets for it and told that these weren't really about quotas even as it was blatantly obvious that was exactly what they were for.

The problem is people like you act like "competence" is the default when it is not.

Who gets the interview, job and promotion is more often a function of forms of nepotism where a person who comes from the same culture, country, region, a friend or family member gets that break.

For instance if you have 100 years where almost exclusively only white men from central europe can even hold middle management and above jobs in most American companies and that persists widely into the early 1990's, those men are still in upper management today and got there because of their form of DEI that prevented them having competition from PoC and women.

That Central european male, who is now making all the hiring decisions and MAY NOT even be deliberately prejudiced will interview MANY capable persons for job positions and since job hirings do not just come down to 'resume skill attributes' but also a 'feeling of fit' and more fuzzy things like 'wanting to give a person a break', there is a ton of room for unconscious subjective bias to lead him to pick the kid who reminds him of himself or his son or his neighbors kid.

DEI does NOT say to pick the unqualified person but to EXAMINE your hiring practices to see if you have this bias and to adjust your hiring to better reflect the community. You pick from the OTHER QUALIFIED resumes.

You need look no further than Trump and see what has too often been the NORM in hiring. Trump wants a LOOK and people he is comfortable around him and he has put competence at the bottom of that hiring list.