Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

I came across an article that was more extensive than the one I'm posting below, but can't find it. The article got me to thinking if the white race is going to be either a very small minority or extinct. When I say white race I'm talking universally. The countries that have opened their borders to immigration. You have French, Irish, Americans, Brits, etc. that come in all colors, different ethnic backgrounds, due to either immigration or inter-racial marriages. Will these countries become one race where no one would be able to be "identified" by their ethic background because of all the mixed blood? Will they become countries where there is no white or black, but in the end brown???

http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/ ... inorities/

The U.S. government says for the first time, the majority of babies in the United States are minorities, a change likely to impact the country's racial and ethnic makeup in the future.

A Census Bureau study released Thursday shows that non-Hispanic whites make up less than half of all children under age three.

In 1990, more than 60 percent of children in that age group were white.

The study also shows that 12 states now have white populations of less than 50 percent among children under age five, and that seven more states could fall into that category in the coming decade.

An analyst on child demographics in the U.S., Laura Speer, says Americans are moving toward the reality they are living in a different world than the 1950s. She says it is clear the younger generation is very demographically different today than the elderly.

Yes.

I don't think any race will face extinction. In the past, races used to mix and intermarry with each other.
Some nations already varry from within their own members, like Turks, Iranians, Arabs, and Greeks.

None of these races faced extinction, in fact they got themselves distributed more around, but changes occur in location and ratio.

Some places in central Asia, for example Samarkand & Bukhara, were populated with Iranic people, but due to the heavy influence of the Turkish people, the demography of these places has changed significantly.
Now you see more Turkish faces than Iranic in lower parts of C.Asia, but the last still exist.

Who is pure anyways? Its rare to find a full pure ethnic group. You'll always see some variety from within.
Look at your family members to start with I get mistaken for being either a Turk or a Jew

Extinct no, maybe some places a minority, so what ? Things change over time. There was a time not so long ago, the majority population of America was brown, now its white maybe it will get brown again. Who knows ? And even if yes, like I said so what ?

desertdudeshj wrote:Extinct no, maybe some places a minority, so what ? Things change over time. There was a time not so long ago, the majority population of America was brown, now its white maybe it will get brown again. Who knows ? And even if yes, like I said so what ?

Hahaha!! Liked your comment !!

It's curious that only Europeans are so diverse compared to other 'races'.

I never understood why Europeans are the only ones to have such variety; blonds, redheads, browns, green eyes, blue eyes, hazel, etc.

I think it must be boring for everyone to have the same eye and hair color.

The problem is that these traits, which are also considered 'beautiful' in many opinion polls I've read, are also all recessive. My guess is that *eventually*, double recessive redheads and blonds will effectively become extinct sooner or later given the enormity of people with dark brown/black hair and the free movement of peoples.

Then again, Brazil isn't one race of people and they've had inter-racial marriages for generations, though I don't know if there is / was an unspoken of barrier between the Indians and blacks to marry the whites (upper class).

If so, should efforts be made to preserve the 'white race'? Or is that only OK to say that for animals?

How ethical it is to address white to be "upper class" in contrast to Indians & Blacks ..?
There is no such thing as superior race. We all share the same ancesstors (Adam & Hawwa).

Perhaps nations can show pride and be compared as per their civilizations and productivity, that is more acceptable than to think of others as lower-class just because they think their features looks "better" than others.

However, Europeans can varry in their features, but surely the Middle East region (specially: Turkey, Levant, and to an extent Iran) got a wider range of varriety. Its regular to witness such diversity among siblings.

desertdudeshj wrote:Extinct no, maybe some places a minority, so what ? Things change over time. There was a time not so long ago, the majority population of America was brown, now its white maybe it will get brown again. Who knows ? And even if yes, like I said so what ?

I'm talking about bi-racial, tri-racial races. There was a time when in America when races did not overlap. Brown, black, yellow, white did not cross over. Nor did Italians, Irish, Norwegians, etc.

Don't get your knickers in a twist dude. The point of my post is about change (duh!!), brought about an article I read. I think it's something to think about. Maybe for me, a bit more to think about because I am white.

Whites are the majority in America, which will not be the case over the next few decades, and in probability will be the case with many other countries where "white" is the majority. As a result of America, and the other "white" countries that have opened their borders to mass immigration, and add to that the changing times, whites will become the minority, and that minority will continue to shrink. You have countries that are "brown": India, Pakistan; Arab countries: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, China, Japan, etc., that don't do "immigration", so there will always be a purity, to a degree, with the blood line, unless they welcome immigration, which I don't think will happen.

Before America was America, it was solely Native American Indian - known as Redskins, but were in fact brown. Once America was "established" the building of America was created by settlers who were white, Chinese, African, Italian and people from other foreign countries, who were not considered "white" (with the exception of the Irish), white was not the majority. But that's not the point of my post, to go into history.

If a Pakistani and Philipino have a child - half/half. Then that child marries someone who is Arab/Vietnamese (half/half), the offspring would be a mix of 4 nationalities. Then that child of 4 nationalities marries someone who is a combination of 3 nationalities, say, African, Puerto Rican (Hispanic), White (say American, which is a result of multiple nationalities), that child will be..............? known by his/her passport, possibly skin color, but not ethnicity.

There will always be nationalities, and I mean that in an ethnic sense, in countries that are becoming such a mosaic of nationalities, such as America, that will "stay true" to themselves, but will be counted as being minorities.

There is no such thing as superior race. We all share the same ancesstors (Adam & Hawwa).

I believe certain cultures are superior and I also believe races are not equal.

I think the evidence shows there are differences between ethnic groups in terms of athleticism, intelligence, etc.

but surely the Middle East region (specially: Turkey, Levant, and to an extent Iran) got a wider range of varriety. Its regular to witness such diversity among siblings.

Uhm, that's probably because that region of the world has had numerous peoples settle there. Europeans have blond hair and blue eyes because of mutation and se.x.ual selection, Turks have blue eyes due to European migration.

symmetric wrote:How ethical it is to address white to be "upper class" in contrast to Indians & Blacks ..?
There is no such thing as superior race. We all share the same ancesstors (Adam & Hawwa).

Perhaps nations can show pride and be compared as per their civilizations and productivity, that is more acceptable than to think of others as lower-class just because they think their features looks "better" than others.

However, Europeans can varry in their features, but surely the Middle East region (specially: Turkey, Levant, and to an extent Iran) got a wider range of varriety. Its regular to witness such diversity among siblings.

It is a wide range of variety but not that wide because they marry fairly close - Saudi/Egyptian, UAE/Egyptian, etc., language, customs, beliefs. You can go so far as Moroccan and Iranian, but you don't see many Arabs married to people of other ethnicity, such as Chinese, Korean, Brazilian, etc.

My point Sym is that eventually Americans will not have individual identifying features or skin color. Not such a bad thing I would say.

-- Sun Jun 26, 2011 7:23 pm --

event horizon wrote:I believe certain cultures are superior and I also believe races are not equal.

I think the evidence shows there are differences between ethnic groups in terms of athleticism, intelligence, etc.

What, White Men Can't Jump??

You have to take into consideration the development of those cultures as well as the development of races. Everyone is created equal, but not everyone is given the opportunity.

Well they say that in 200 years natural blondes with blue eyes will be extinct and probably the last will be in Finland. Having those traits is actually a genetic mutation.

You will always have those who will seek out their own as it were. Take my family, one side is like an advert for the United Colours of Benetton, the other all white - just the way it goes.

But as you have more and more inter-racial marriages and partnerships, you'll still get weird genetic traits popping through, sometimes they skip a generation or two.

I think the world would be really boring if we were all brown. I mean it must be rubbish to have a nation where the general populous basically all look the same.

event horizon wrote:

There is no such thing as superior race. We all share the same ancesstors (Adam & Hawwa).

I believe certain cultures are superior and I also believe races are not equal.

I think the evidence shows there are differences between ethnic groups in terms of athleticism, intelligence, etc.

You and I, who is more superior??
And may you elaborate more so we can make this clear please.

event horizon wrote:

Symmetric wrote: but surely the Middle East region (specially: Turkey, Levant, and to an extent Iran) got a wider range of varriety. Its regular to witness such diversity among siblings.

Uhm, that's probably because that region of the world has had numerous peoples settle there.

Agreed.

What, White Men Can't Jump??

You have to take into consideration the development of those cultures as well as the development of races. Everyone is created equal, but not everyone is given the opportunity.

I can't imagine how everyone is created equal if people who practice and play basketball as much as Michael Jordan did don't end up being as talented as he was.

Bora Bora wrote:
It is a wide range of variety but not that wide because they marry fairly close - Saudi/Egyptian, UAE/Egyptian, etc., language, customs, beliefs. You can go so far as Moroccan and Iranian, but you don't see many Arabs married to people of other ethnicity, such as Chinese, Korean, Brazilian, etc.

My point Sym is that eventually Americans will not have individual identifying features or skin color. Not such a bad thing I would say.

I agree with you.
However I actually pointed specifically at Levant, Turkey, and Iran, these three places are much older with regard to interracial marriages. Levant region is a blended mixture of the following nations, Canaanites/Pheonicians, Aramaens, Assyrians, Childaneans, Persians, Gilanis, Mazandaranis, Kurds, Turks, Romans, Germans, Greeks, French, Arabs, Hebrews, Egyptions, Seljuks, Central Asians, and even Africans. LOL

Turkey, and Iran is of less diversity in comparison to Levant.

But when comparing these regions to America, then yes I have to admit it is more diverse over there with respect to modern history.

Bora Bora wrote:You have to take into consideration the development of those cultures as well as the development of races. Everyone is created equal, but not everyone is given the opportunity.

Exactly, thats the point, poor people in Africa didn't have the chance, unlike people in Japan.
All humans are equal, if a B+ german was bleeding so badly and in need for blood, his own brother (an A+) will fail to help him, but a B+ African will surely help that German survive!
There is no such thing as Superiority, and Inferiority. We are all human beings, sharing the same origin.

event horizon wrote:

What, White Men Can't Jump??

You have to take into consideration the development of those cultures as well as the development of races. Everyone is created equal, but not everyone is given the opportunity.

I can't imagine how everyone is created equal if people who practice and play basketball as much as Michael Jordan did don't end up being as talented as he was.

There were great white basketball players, football players, baseball players long before blacks were "allowed in". They just had to raise the basket higher for him. Don't you know that minorities had and still have to work twice as hard to prove themselves?? (and that would include women!!!) Jordan had a talent and was a gifted basketball player, as there are many today and as there were many years ago during "white only" teams. Larry Bird ring a bell? He's listed as one of the top 50 basketball players (as well as being a coach).

Talent is physical and mental. I believe everyone is good at something and many good at several things, you may have to experiment for a long time before you find what that talent is. Once defined, it depends if you want to apply yourself to it.

-- Sun Jun 26, 2011 8:13 pm --

symmetric wrote:All humans are equal, if a B+ german was bleeding so badly and in need for blood, his own brother (an A+) will fail to help him, but a B+ African will surely help that German survive!
There is no such thing as Superiority, and Inferiority. We are all human beings, sharing the same origin.

I'm sure if Jew or a Muslim was in a life or death situation and needed a heart valve and the only source was a pig, I bet neither would say no.

It reminds me of a story: a co-worker was looking to store some blood prior to an operation she was having, as she had a very rare blood type and wanted to be prepared in case something went wrong and a transfusion was required. She sent an email to the entire staff of a large law firm. A friend of mine, African American had the same blood type and volunteered to donate - this was done through email. All was good until the girl went up to meet my friend and when she saw she was black said "thanks, but no thanks". When my friend was telling me this she asked: What was she afraid of? That she would wake up from the operation and crave watermelon??? We had a good laugh over that one.

There were great white basketball players, football players, baseball players long before blacks were "allowed in". They just had to raise the basket higher for him.

That's not what I said. But, ok, which white basketball players came close to Michael Jordan's athletic ability? Larry Bird perhaps? Maybe John Stockton?

Those are the only two good white basketball players I can think of in the last two decades, and they don't come close to Jordan's greatness as well as 99% of the other professional players who played and practiced just as much as Jordan.

The fact that you can name only one guy when there are tens of thousands of whites who play and practice and are dedicated to basketball proves my point, otherwise you should be able to name tens of thousands of players comparable to Jordan, not one white guy who falls miserably short.

event horizon wrote:

There were great white basketball players, football players, baseball players long before blacks were "allowed in". They just had to raise the basket higher for him.

That's not what I said. But, ok, which white basketball players came close to Michael Jordan's athletic ability? Larry Bird perhaps? Maybe John Stockton?

Those are the only two good white basketball players I can think of in the last two decades, and they don't come close to Jordan's greatness as well as 99% of the other professional players who played and practiced just as much as Jordan.

The fact that you can name only one guy when there are tens of thousands of whites who play and practice and are dedicated to basketball proves my point, otherwise you should be able to name tens of thousands of players comparable to Jordan, not one white guy who falls miserably short.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Greates ... story#List

Maybe because all the white players didn't have rhythm??? Black players brought basketball to a new level, without a doubt. But that does not mean to discount those that came before them.

As I said, Jordan had a talent and a very dedicated passion for the sport. Because he was great a one thing, didn't mean he could be just as good or great at another - such as baseball.

But that does not mean to discount those that came before them.

Yes it does. Players from the 50's couldn't compete in the NBA today. That's absurd to argue otherwise.

As I said, Jordan had a talent

So he isn't equal with others. He possesses traits he was born with.

didn't mean he could be just as good or great at another - such as baseball.

I shouldn't need to explain what you did here.

The world is changing - mixed race marriage is a lot more acceptable than is used to be.

Like Russell Peters said, one day we all will be beige, so stop fighting it

event horizon wrote:

But that does not mean to discount those that came before them.

Yes it does. Players from the 50's couldn't compete in the NBA today. That's absurd to argue otherwise.

As I said, Jordan had a talent

So he isn't equal with others. He possesses traits he was born with.

didn't mean he could be just as good or great at another - such as baseball.

I shouldn't need to explain what you did here.

And you know for a fact that players from the 50s couldn't compete? It's a whole different game. It has been redefined. No one can say if they could or couldn't.

How do you explain Muggsy Bogus at 5.3"? Physically completely opposite from Jordan, but a great player. He was told since he was a boy that he could never play basketball, something he loved, because he was too short. He took something he knew he was good at, and developed it.

He is equal to any other man when it comes to being a person, whatever their race. What makes him different are his physical attributes and tapping into a talent he possessed. As I said, we all possess a talent which we can build on, but for the majority, we don't take it to the extreme and generally use it minimally.

As for baseball: I pointed out that Jordan bombed. He just didn't have the talent to succeed at it.

symmetric wrote: Some places in central Asia, for example Samarkand & Bukhara, were populated with Iranic people, but due to the heavy influence of the Turkish people, the demography of these places has changed significantly.
Now you see more Turkish faces than Iranic in lower parts of C.Asia, but the last still exist.

Surprise- surprise...
Who told you about that? The vast majority of Samarkand's inhabitance are Tajiks, who speak Farsi in their routine life.
The record "Uzbek" in their passports doesn't make them Turkish people as well as record "Muslim" doesn't make kind Muslim the former member of Communist party.

In 300 years there will be no white people

event horizon wrote:

There were great white basketball players, football players, baseball players long before blacks were "allowed in". They just had to raise the basket higher for him.

That's not what I said. But, ok, which white basketball players came close to Michael Jordan's athletic ability? Larry Bird perhaps? Maybe John Stockton?

Those are the only two good white basketball players I can think of in the last two decades, and they don't come close to Jordan's greatness as well as 99% of the other professional players who played and practiced just as much as Jordan.

The fact that you can name only one guy when there are tens of thousands of whites who play and practice and are dedicated to basketball proves my point, otherwise you should be able to name tens of thousands of players comparable to Jordan, not one white guy who falls miserably short.

Dirk Nowitzki...watch out for him!

-- Mon Jun 27, 2011 1:48 am --

Every race and every culture must have a homeland. Plain and simple. If your're yellow and speak gibberish, you belong to Saturn. If you're hairy and ever en-raged than Pakistan is for you. Like wise you got blue-eyes and blond hair, there must be a place for you, where you are free to live amongst similar people in freedom and safety. So on and so forth.
That said South America, bits of North America and Canada are a unique blend of cultures, melting pots if you may, and so they shall be. But that dose'nt mean the rest of the world must strive to emulate that model. It may not work for everyone. Likewise immigration has a curve, upto a point it will benefit North America and Canada. Should the numbers tip beyond that point, anarchy and chaos will ensue.

For a indigenous population to be rendered a minority inside their own homelands is at best a folly of unbelievable magnitude.

I think that eventually there will be far fewer whites, but who cares? Having a homeland has nothing to do with your physical appearance - in the future the language and dress will likely be the only way to tell where people come from. Even if that becomes more homogenous I think it wouldn't be a bad thing. Imagine a world where people are more alike than different... more peace and harmony

kanelli wrote:I think that eventually there will be far fewer whites, but who cares? Having a homeland has nothing to do with your physical appearance - in the future the language and dress will likely be the only way to tell where people come from. Even if that becomes more homogenous I think it wouldn't be a bad thing. Imagine a world where people are more alike than different... more peace and harmony

Nah, unless there is no religion...

Fascinating stuff.

May I just point out that just as there isn't a homogenous 'black' people, there isn't a homogenous 'white' people either. Physical differences in Africa are vast - and even within countries you can easily tell people apart by looks alone. Just saying a 'Nigerian' or 'Ethiopian' doesn't really help.

As for 'whites' breeding themselves out of existence.. I agree with those who point out the obvious - inter-breeding has been going on for a long, long time and it is unlikely any one major group will be bred out.

So what if the USA etc goes back to being less white?

Even in the UK, some reports say the inhabitants weren't white:

Misery Called Life wrote:For a indigenous population to be rendered a minority inside their own homelands is at best a folly of unbelievable magnitude.

Then how do you account for Austrailian Aborigines and Native American Indians?

Red Chief wrote:

symmetric wrote: Some places in central Asia, for example Samarkand & Bukhara, were populated with Iranic people, but due to the heavy influence of the Turkish people, the demography of these places has changed significantly.
Now you see more Turkish faces than Iranic in lower parts of C.Asia, but the last still exist.

Surprise- surprise...
Who told you about that? The vast majority of Samarkand's inhabitance are Tajiks, who speak Farsi in their routine life.
The record "Uzbek" in their passports doesn't make them Turkish people as well as record "Muslim" doesn't make kind Muslim the former member of Communist party.

Apologies, both cities are originally Iranic (Tajik) and are indeed populated with more Tajiks, but many of us here (Middle Easterns) when refering to Central Asia we generally just say Samarkand o Bukhara, which then makes my statement more clear about the Turkish influence. I should have made myself more clear