There is no better place to witness this phenomenon than where I live, the state of Hawaii. There is no one "race" or ethnic group that dominates, and many people are multiracial/multicultural. There was a brilliant NY Times photo essay depicting this 6/28/2019 "Want to be Less Racist? Move to Hawaii". The pictures spell it all out. It is lovely to be in a place where no one is in the majority. I'm not saying there aren't factions, dominant political groups, resentments, etc. It's just that it is a lovely melting pot that could be a model for the future. Turns out, though, that this is the bluest of blue states, and that's why we moved here. Is it just a random thing that that happened, given our diversity? Just saying.
Another unappreciated aspect of this debate is that in the case of America’s largest “minority,” Hispanics, over 50% classify themselves racially as white, and are of mainly European descent. Their grandchildren, like the Italians and Eastern Europeans before them, will be thought of as white.
Self reporting of race in the 2018 census: 250.5 million mark that they are "white" while 77.5 million report that they are non-white. Clearly a lot of Hispanics are choosing white when there is no "Hispanic" option.
This argument goes to the other extreme. But neither argument confronts the overwhelming issue of Black lives. There has never been any evidence that children of interracial marriages become anything other than Black. And these marriages are much much rarer than other interracial marriages. For Blacks, and children of interracial marriages we have a caste system like in India; Wilkerson has just published a book, CASTE, on this subject. And the reason that you have a well functioning diverse society in Hawaii is that there are very few Blacks who live there. So, yes, move to Hawaii if you do not want to deal with the issues of Black Lives Matter.
"And these marriages are much much rarer than other interracial marriages.". Where are you getting this from, Sally? Black men and white women are overwhelmingly the most common interracial pairing. Mixed-race people abound in our society, and how strongly they identify as being black is beside the point - the point of the article is that identifying as "white" does not have to be a requirement for being part of the future American "mainstream" culture. And if you honestly don't think "blackness" has become more a part of American mainstream culture than in the past, well - I don't know you, but I'd have to guess you haven't been around very long.
I am afraid that I did not make myself clear. I was referring to the probability of intermarriage by race/ethnicity. And also I should have specified race or ethnicity.
The racial intermarriage data (Pewresearch.org) shows that 18% of newlywed Black couples are interracial while 29% of newlywed Asian couples are. But since Asians are a much smaller proportion of the population the numbers of those couples are smaller than the number of Black (non Hispanic) couples.
The situation is more complex for Hispanic intermarriage. Hispanics can be of any race; 50% self identify as white. The percentage of newlywed Hispanics who marry outside their racial/ethnic group is 27%. And Hispanics are now the largest minority group in the US.
Yes, I have been around long enough to see dramatic change but I am not so optimistic as you are. We are now in a situation where Blacks are “invading” white space and the reaction is often to call the police. See Eli Anderson, “White Space”
I apologize if my previous comment seemed condescending. I should perhaps begin by saying that I'm not entirely convinced that the author is correct either, and I am one of those who has long hoped that the reduced prevalence of white people in America will inject a much needed dose of humility into our ethnocentric core. I've felt this way ever since John Gibson's famous "make more babies" exhortation made it painfully clear that there were still those who viewed America as a country by and for white, Anglo-Saxon people - who were nice enough to let a few "others" in from time to time, so long as they didn't walk around like they owned the place. I have often fantasized about an America where half of people spoke Spanish, rendering us a true bilingual nation.
That being said, the author does make a salient point about how ethnic boundaries fade over time, thus expanding the "mainstream culture", which is probably a good thing. After all, we have, for several generations now, branded ourselves as a cultural "melting pot", which is probably better than a loosely-bound confederation of otherwise incompatible cultures united only by the ideal of personal liberty (much as the latter might make for a remarkable affirmation of the "America as an idea" concept). To the extent that this "mainstream culture" is inclusive of race, ethnicity, and religion, I don't shun it.
However, I understand your concern about the seeming difficulty of integration with darker skinned people. This difficulty is real, but I don't think it's because of a fundamental incompatibility, so much as the fact that skin color and race provide a more striking visual cue to indicate that we are, in some respect, different. Also, black Americans still bear the weight of the legacy of slavery, and this serves as a wedge inhibiting more intimate cross-cultural identification. As you imply, this isn't a problem unique to the United States. Most black folks in the western hemisphere are descended from African slaves - not because there is something about blacks which makes white people keen on enslaving them, but because African kings were willing to sell them. This is not a matter of apportioning blame, but simply an explanation for another factor adding to the seeming ubiquity of the black/white integration problem.
A few years ago I caught an Uber ride from a black fellow who had immigrated from Senegal in the late 1990's. (I live in the D.C. suburbs of Maryland.) Being a black man not descended from American slaves, he had quite a different perspective than your stereotypical woke black activist. He was entrepenurial, family-oriented, and a believer in the "American dream". In fact, not that long ago he would have been a rather targetable voter for the Republican party. But he still didn't like Trump; he pointed out how the U.S. had always been a bellweather for the world - that if the U.S. prospered, the world prospered, and Trump threatened our status in that regard. In short, he seemed pretty patriotic; clearly the color of this man's skin did not inhibit his sense of being an American. Pretentious as it may sound, I actually found this rather inspiring. Our differences are not so intractable as these difficult times often make it seem.
Also, I'd point out that the idea of "invading white space" is certainly nothing new. If anything we have progressed significantly in this regard. I grew up in the suburbs on the outskirts of Baltimore, on a street that must have been a good 15 blocks long, and I don't think that there was a single black person living there (this was in the 1970s and 1980s - most likely part of the legacy of redlining). You can imagine how a black person walking through the area might have been viewed with more than a little suspicion. When a black family looked into buying our home in the late '80s, you really saw some people's true colors, and this "there goes the neighborhood" reaction was common when blacks first started to follow whites into the suburbs. Thankfully, black suburbanites are now much more common, and culturally we at least have a general sensitivity to the stereotypes of being low-class criminals that blacks have long had to endure. Sadly, these associations still endure in the minds of some white people, but I doubt it's more prevalent than before - I shudder to contemplate the horror show we might have been treated to if everybody had a camera on them in the 1970's.
There is no better place to witness this phenomenon than where I live, the state of Hawaii. There is no one "race" or ethnic group that dominates, and many people are multiracial/multicultural. There was a brilliant NY Times photo essay depicting this 6/28/2019 "Want to be Less Racist? Move to Hawaii". The pictures spell it all out. It is lovely to be in a place where no one is in the majority. I'm not saying there aren't factions, dominant political groups, resentments, etc. It's just that it is a lovely melting pot that could be a model for the future. Turns out, though, that this is the bluest of blue states, and that's why we moved here. Is it just a random thing that that happened, given our diversity? Just saying.
Another unappreciated aspect of this debate is that in the case of America’s largest “minority,” Hispanics, over 50% classify themselves racially as white, and are of mainly European descent. Their grandchildren, like the Italians and Eastern Europeans before them, will be thought of as white.
Self reporting of race in the 2018 census: 250.5 million mark that they are "white" while 77.5 million report that they are non-white. Clearly a lot of Hispanics are choosing white when there is no "Hispanic" option.
Wow. This is one of the more optimistic takes I've heard in a good while. Appreciate the piecen
This argument goes to the other extreme. But neither argument confronts the overwhelming issue of Black lives. There has never been any evidence that children of interracial marriages become anything other than Black. And these marriages are much much rarer than other interracial marriages. For Blacks, and children of interracial marriages we have a caste system like in India; Wilkerson has just published a book, CASTE, on this subject. And the reason that you have a well functioning diverse society in Hawaii is that there are very few Blacks who live there. So, yes, move to Hawaii if you do not want to deal with the issues of Black Lives Matter.
Totally untrue, Sally. The "one drop rule" is a black myth.
https://multiracial.com/index.php/2004/09/01/white-racial-identity-racial-mixture-and-the-one-drop-rule/
"And these marriages are much much rarer than other interracial marriages.". Where are you getting this from, Sally? Black men and white women are overwhelmingly the most common interracial pairing. Mixed-race people abound in our society, and how strongly they identify as being black is beside the point - the point of the article is that identifying as "white" does not have to be a requirement for being part of the future American "mainstream" culture. And if you honestly don't think "blackness" has become more a part of American mainstream culture than in the past, well - I don't know you, but I'd have to guess you haven't been around very long.
I am afraid that I did not make myself clear. I was referring to the probability of intermarriage by race/ethnicity. And also I should have specified race or ethnicity.
The racial intermarriage data (Pewresearch.org) shows that 18% of newlywed Black couples are interracial while 29% of newlywed Asian couples are. But since Asians are a much smaller proportion of the population the numbers of those couples are smaller than the number of Black (non Hispanic) couples.
The situation is more complex for Hispanic intermarriage. Hispanics can be of any race; 50% self identify as white. The percentage of newlywed Hispanics who marry outside their racial/ethnic group is 27%. And Hispanics are now the largest minority group in the US.
Yes, I have been around long enough to see dramatic change but I am not so optimistic as you are. We are now in a situation where Blacks are “invading” white space and the reaction is often to call the police. See Eli Anderson, “White Space”
Thanks for your response, both of them.
I apologize if my previous comment seemed condescending. I should perhaps begin by saying that I'm not entirely convinced that the author is correct either, and I am one of those who has long hoped that the reduced prevalence of white people in America will inject a much needed dose of humility into our ethnocentric core. I've felt this way ever since John Gibson's famous "make more babies" exhortation made it painfully clear that there were still those who viewed America as a country by and for white, Anglo-Saxon people - who were nice enough to let a few "others" in from time to time, so long as they didn't walk around like they owned the place. I have often fantasized about an America where half of people spoke Spanish, rendering us a true bilingual nation.
That being said, the author does make a salient point about how ethnic boundaries fade over time, thus expanding the "mainstream culture", which is probably a good thing. After all, we have, for several generations now, branded ourselves as a cultural "melting pot", which is probably better than a loosely-bound confederation of otherwise incompatible cultures united only by the ideal of personal liberty (much as the latter might make for a remarkable affirmation of the "America as an idea" concept). To the extent that this "mainstream culture" is inclusive of race, ethnicity, and religion, I don't shun it.
However, I understand your concern about the seeming difficulty of integration with darker skinned people. This difficulty is real, but I don't think it's because of a fundamental incompatibility, so much as the fact that skin color and race provide a more striking visual cue to indicate that we are, in some respect, different. Also, black Americans still bear the weight of the legacy of slavery, and this serves as a wedge inhibiting more intimate cross-cultural identification. As you imply, this isn't a problem unique to the United States. Most black folks in the western hemisphere are descended from African slaves - not because there is something about blacks which makes white people keen on enslaving them, but because African kings were willing to sell them. This is not a matter of apportioning blame, but simply an explanation for another factor adding to the seeming ubiquity of the black/white integration problem.
A few years ago I caught an Uber ride from a black fellow who had immigrated from Senegal in the late 1990's. (I live in the D.C. suburbs of Maryland.) Being a black man not descended from American slaves, he had quite a different perspective than your stereotypical woke black activist. He was entrepenurial, family-oriented, and a believer in the "American dream". In fact, not that long ago he would have been a rather targetable voter for the Republican party. But he still didn't like Trump; he pointed out how the U.S. had always been a bellweather for the world - that if the U.S. prospered, the world prospered, and Trump threatened our status in that regard. In short, he seemed pretty patriotic; clearly the color of this man's skin did not inhibit his sense of being an American. Pretentious as it may sound, I actually found this rather inspiring. Our differences are not so intractable as these difficult times often make it seem.
Also, I'd point out that the idea of "invading white space" is certainly nothing new. If anything we have progressed significantly in this regard. I grew up in the suburbs on the outskirts of Baltimore, on a street that must have been a good 15 blocks long, and I don't think that there was a single black person living there (this was in the 1970s and 1980s - most likely part of the legacy of redlining). You can imagine how a black person walking through the area might have been viewed with more than a little suspicion. When a black family looked into buying our home in the late '80s, you really saw some people's true colors, and this "there goes the neighborhood" reaction was common when blacks first started to follow whites into the suburbs. Thankfully, black suburbanites are now much more common, and culturally we at least have a general sensitivity to the stereotypes of being low-class criminals that blacks have long had to endure. Sadly, these associations still endure in the minds of some white people, but I doubt it's more prevalent than before - I shudder to contemplate the horror show we might have been treated to if everybody had a camera on them in the 1970's.
Thank you for clear concise reasoning for the future of our country.