Non-Hispanic white births the minority in US

Children from racial and ethnic minorities now account for more than half the births in the US, according to estimates of the latest US census data.

Black, Hispanic, Asian and mixed-race births made up 50.4% of new arrivals in the year ending in July 2011.

It puts non-Hispanic white births in the minority for the first time.

Sociologists believe the ongoing economic slowdown has contributed to a greater decline in birth rates among white people.

The US Census Bureau recorded 2.02m babies born to minorities in the year to July 2011, just over half of all births, compared with 37% in 1990.

bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18100457

Well, demographics are changing in the US. How is this a story? Many folks are also marrying those of other ethnic groups- c’est la vie. :slight_smile:

Interesting how “Hispanics” are considered a homogenous group when they aren’t.

One wonders whether, in times past, anyone referred to some white group or other as, e.g, “non-Italian whites” or “non-Irish whites”. I doubt it. Interesting that anyone has such an interest in constantly telling Hispanics that they are “different” somehow, as a group, and that they’re all different in the same way. When I was growing up, that was not the case.

How do “Hispanics” view themselves? As a basically homogeneous group, with regional differences, or as wholly different from one another?

I find no problem being lumped in with other “whites,” but my Polish background and heritage is nothing at all like my wife’s Sicilian heritage. And, she considers herself as “white.” :shrug:

All the Hispanics I know differentiate themselves from white people. My good friend and father of my goddaughter differentiates himself from me in conversation, as in “You’re the only white person here!” He calls himself Mexican and me white. The other Hispanics I know say similar things.

Statistically, “Hispanic” is not a race, but I think my friend would be very surprised if he knew that. We all kind of consider it a race, a separate group here.

I can’t say how all Hispanics view themselves. Realizing this is anecdotal, I can say the following:

  1. I know people of Hispanic origin who do not consider themselves in any way members of a group separate from “Americans” generally. Some of them are very “white” in appearances. Some others are not. Interestingly, at least three of them also have German ancestery (From German settlers in Mexico).
  2. I have noticed, in my parish, that Mexicans have almost nothing to do with Central Americans, and vice-versa. If there is a “Hispanic” event, it’s really two events with no crossover. They don’t even look alike, and they’re well aware of that.
  3. Also, in my parish, there are “Hispanics”, not born here, who have nevertheless totally joined the “white” world socially. They do tend to be the more “white” looking ones, but not necessarily.
  4. There are not many Cubans in my area, but “white” Cubans I have known are simply assimilated Americans. I have not known any black Cubans.
  5. I don’t know many Puerto Ricans, but their situation is sort of unique to themselves. Long-time citizens, usually of mixed race, but not socially involved with, say, Mexicans or Central Americans. Some, but not all, Puerto Ricans have a black admixture. Mexicans of “the race” do not tend to be terribly fond of blacks. Being “Yaqui” is not far from being “black” for people of “the race”.
  6. Among Mexicans, being an “Indio” (not well defined, of course) puts one outside the largely mythical “raza”. Being “white” (in coloration) does not.
  7. Some Mexicans will tell you they are “white”, particularly those who look “white”. Some distinguish themselves from “whites”, but as members of “the race”. Other Hispanics are definitely not considered part of “the race”.
  8. I have met Uruguyans who, it seems, are very quick to inform one that they’re “pure Spanish” in contradistinction to the more numerous Mexicans and Central Americans, with which they have nothing at all to do.

So, again, there’s really no homogeneity except among some of the national groups, and even then, it isn’t universal.

I think that’s true of most South Americans. Argentinians and Chileans whom I know do not consider themselves as “Hispanics” or as “Latinos.” And, the Argentines refer to the language they speak as “castillano,” (pronounced "casti- jano) rather than as “Spanish.” :shrug:

I only know one Chilean, and she told me that Argentinians were “stuck up,” but then added, “but they would say the same about us!”

Yes, Italians and Irish were both exlcuded from the “white” group at different time in history along with Jewish people and Eastern Europeans. The amount of different groups that are counted as White has steadily grown throughout history.

Black, Hispanic, Asian and mixed-race births made up 50.4% of new arrivals in the year ending in July 2011.

As they say, there are “lies, d**ned lies and statistics.” In this case, it is all in how “mixed race” children are counted.

The article links the actual census spreadsheet (a summary, thankfully).

Disclaimer: this is just an illustration. I have no agenda but am rather annoyed at the race politics being played.

If we count the births by the race/ethnicity of the parents, the picture is a little different:

Of 252,537 “mixed race” births, 233,014 had one white parent. Approximately 2/3 (or 160,963) of those are non-Hispanic, if the pattern holds on the white/Hispanic ratio.

Therefore, 2,149,787 of 4,008,000 births had at least one white, non-Hispanic parent (or 53.6%). Contrast that with the 50.4% who had at least one Hispanic or non-white parent. (does not add up to 100% due to double counting of mixed race children).

Second Disclaimer: I am one of those parents who contributes to the 4% of “mixed race” children.

The oddity of the Hispanic situation is that the only way you make white births the minority, is if you separate out white Hispanics. The whole skin-color thing is irrelevant I guess. :stuck_out_tongue:

When I was in high school, 1955 - 1959, our annual Spring field and track competition and school picnic was referred to as the “XXth (or whatever) Annual Race Riot.” Most of the boys were Irish or Italian. :smiley:

Race, as it is conventionally described does not exist as a biological relaity. It is a social construction thus we see the ever shifting definitions of “whiteness” and “blackness” through recent history.

What it says to me is that People of Color are having more babies than People on non-Color…

…and that the good old USA is going down the same road as Europe – West and East…

…thus…People of Color will one day – sooner than later – dominate the populations…

…and run the major Countries of the World…

…which ultimately means that…

God has one heck of a sense of humor…more ordinarily called…Justice!:smiley:

Pax Christi

Here is the–incredibly sad and unconscionable–statistic that no one talks about in the media or otherwise…the elephant in the room…thanks primarily to Margaret Sanger’s eugenics philosophy and strategy and current Planned Parenthood target strategy (but not without acquiescence in the Black communities and Black Churches…and mainstream media… TV, radio, newspapers, magazines).

Table 99. Abortions—Number and Rate by Race: 1990 to** 2006**

** Statistics for 2006
**
62,258,000 (women age 14-44) 1,242,000 (abortions) =19.9 abortions per 1000 women;

48,686,000 (white women) 681,000 (abortions) =14.0 abortions per 1000 women

9,248,000 (black women) 464,000 (abortions) = ** 50.2 abortions per 1000 women**

4,325,000 (“Other” Women) 97,000 (abortions) = 22.3 abortions per women

[INDENT][Census Bureau noted: total abortions 2006 (1,242,000)…have been estimated by interpolation based on 2005 total abortions actual hard data (1,206,000).

census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0099.pdf[/size]
[/INDENT]

Agreed. The US has had several presidents there were part one minority or another - (including black) but for some reason the current president is ignorantly called the first.

Would “mulatto” president be more acceptable in Obama’s case? I think not.

Hey, I’ve seen some folks around here refer to Asian folks as “Orientals” so. . . :shrug: :wink:

Kind of hard to get excited saying “The historic fifth black president”.

When I first got online a decade ago I reacted with horror that Britons, especially would use the term “oriental”. I would go on to explain what I was taught 20 years before that. Tha Asians were a people and oriental referred to objects.

The comeback was that “Asians” were Arabs and Indians. While in America Arabs are white. Watch West Side Story if you don’t believe me. Followed by British slang for me being a daft Yank.

I am informed, reliably one supposes, by an Arab that Arabs in the U.S. do not have a “minority category” to check off on all of the lists where one does that. Nor are they able to claim any kind of preference when it comes to “affirmative action”. Thus, they are, by default one could conclude, considered “non-minority” and therefore “white”.

But then, if the lily-white Elizabeth Warren can obtain preferences claiming to be “Native American” by reason of her great grandfather’s alleged high cheekbones alone, then I guess anybody can claim to be anything and likely get away with it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.