"The Browning Of America," Really?

[Robo]

This is proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Some of the dumbest conclusions and comments ever have come from people who consider themselves geneticists.

Can you name some?

[pragmatic]

If there is a merciful Gawd up there this can only mean one thing:

In future generations us white boys can finally jump a little higher!!!



Praise baby jeebus....!!!!

[Lummy]

Can you name some?

Why would I want to remember them? I suggest you check CBC talk radio.

[southwest88]

We hear a lot these days from the left teasing and needling white conservative folks about the fact that there’s this thing known as "The Browning Of America," because of America’s illegal immigration from south American countries and the fact that mixed breeding of the races is a norm today and even becoming more normal.
…

America meaning the US? There was always considerable racial & ethnic diversity in what became the US - once the Europeans began arriving in 1492CE. Even before the UK, there were Vikings (who abandoned their colonies), Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, Swedish - even with the massive die-off of Native Peoples (due to European diseases ravaging them), diversity was a real issue. Read Mayflower, a story of courage, community & war - Nathaniel Philbrick, c2006, Viking.

Or see http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...and-the-world/ - #1, the increasing racial & ethnic diversity of the US. If we pass on our values to the next generations, I think we'll be fine.

[Tahuyaman]

Progressives, racialists and hack cheerleaders all do cartwheels over mixed race children. That many if not most of them are feral and are raised in dysfunctional homes and communities is something they could care less about.

These numbers pale in comparison to real (not the fake news supremist hacks label, which is basically most white people) white supremists and I wish these two groups - the racialists and supremacists would get together and kill each other with metal baseball bats so the rest of us can go on in life without these $#@!ing $#@!s.

Life would be that much better.

Nonsensical at best.

[MisterVeritis]

Remember what the Democrat party goal is. They do not care what color skin a potential voter has. All they care about is winning. They use the poorest, dumbest, sickest, black and brown people, not because they are black and brown but because they are poor, dumb, and sick. Oh, the real winner is they come, mostly, from third world, authoritarian nations. They accept Democrat corruption as they have known nothing else.

The Democrats had to do this as white, middle-class traditional Americans do not reliably vote for Democrats.

Let's face it. The Democrats have won.

[Lummy]

My post that you quote, says nothing about the world "becoming better." The post is solely about genetics and the world thereby becoming "whiter." Why do you put words on my keyboard and insinuate I believe a whiter world is a better world?

I don't. You're paranoid. I merely elaborated on what you posted. I didn't take issue with you, but I will now: the "dominant gene" in black/white couplings is almost never the "white gene".

By contrast, the "white gene" is about on parity, as it were, with Asian and Native American genes, offspring of which can more closely resemble either or neither.

With blacks, on the other hand, it can take generations of admixture to remove characteristics of blacks, or conversely, drop whiteness in a single generation.

You already know this, of course.

On the other hand, all traces of Native American or Asian can disappear in one generation, or conversely, white characteristics can fade dramatically, but in either case the result is not dominant in appearance and can be very nice, even beautiful, certainly a hell of a lot nicer than this discussion, no thank you for baiting it.

Then you'll explain why when light and dark skin procreate the offspring are always lighter and never obtain the same darkness of the darker parent and not necessarily darker than the lighter parent, right? In most cases the skin tone is much, much nearer in tone to the lighter parent and only the physical features otherwise often favor the darker parent.

That's just plain false, even to a casual observer, and you know it. If it was true, then why is the black race growing in America? It should be shrinking, but it isn't, not by a plantation mile.

Proportion of blacks to whites* in America in the year 1650 was roughtly 1/24; in 1850, it was about 1/5; in 1940, about 1/9, in 2010 was 1/6 (*Wikipedia).

Where in these numbers drawn from Census data do you see any suggestion of a "lightening" of skin or "whitening" of other characteristics, especially comparing ratios in 1850 with 2010? The proportion of blacks to whites in the US is about the same now as it was around the high water mark of so-called "slavery". If anything, there is a strong suggestion of the blackening of America, not the reverse, as you would like to promote. Point is, your remarks are all false.

Also, if you could be so forthright as whether you have any idea how offensive your notion of skin "lightening" would be to many, if not most, contemporary blacks. I'm asking.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't. You're paranoid. I merely elaborated on what you posted. I didn't take issue with you, but I will now: the "dominant gene" in black/white couplings is almost never the "white gene".

By contrast, the "white gene" is about on parity, as it were, with Asian and Native American genes, offspring of which can more closely resemble either or neither.

With blacks, on the other hand, it can take generations of admixture to remove characteristics of blacks, or conversely, drop whiteness in a single generation.

You already know this, of course.

On the other hand, all traces of Native American or Asian can disappear in one generation, or conversely, white characteristics can fade dramatically, but in either case the result is not dominant in appearance and can be very nice, even beautiful, certainly a hell of a lot nicer than this discussion, no thank you for baiting it.



That's just plain false, even to a casual observer, and you know it. If it was true, then why is the black race growing in America? It should be shrinking, but it isn't, not by a plantation mile.

Proportion of blacks to whites* in America in the year 1650 was roughtly 1/24; in 1850, it was about 1/5; in 1940, about 1/9, in 2010 was 1/6 (*Wikipedia).

Where in these numbers drawn from Census data do you see any suggestion of a "lightening" of skin or "whitening" of other characteristics, especially comparing ratios in 1850 with 2010? The proportion of blacks to whites in the US is about the same now as it was around the high water mark of so-called "slavery". If anything, there is a strong suggestion of the blackening of America, not the reverse, as you would like to promote. Point is, your remarks are all false.

Also, if you could be so forthright as whether you have any idea how offensive your notion of skin "lightening" would be to many, if not most, contemporary blacks. I'm asking.

What is the impact, do you suppose on the Democrats importing 50 million black and brown people over the last 50 years?

I don't know what the ratio of black to brown was. Nor do I know what effect the murderous Planned Parenthood had on biracial couplings.

[Tahuyaman]

Most are not worried about a "browning of America", as they are more concerned with losing the culture which created and maintains the American way of life. They are more concerned about the concept of rugged individualism being lost or even demonized and the collective becomes the priority.


It's not about race or ethnicity.

[Lummy]

What is the impact, do you suppose on the Democrats importing 50 million black and brown people over the last 50 years?

I don't know what the ratio of black to brown was. Nor do I know what effect the murderous Planned Parenthood had on biracial couplings.

Negative. Blacks and browns are not being vetted. Everyone else is.