[readarticle]

America in 1998 had little shared ethnic background by the standards of America in 1898, which had a frankly hilarious lack of shared ethnic background by the standards of 1798.

California and Texas are utterly dominated by Non-Hispanic and Hispanic white people, the two ethnic groups with by far the highest rates of intermarriage in the United States of America.

England 1798 -> Europe 1898 -> Western 1998

[rjkennedy98]

First, I've honestly never hear of "Western" ethnicity, but I get what you are trying to say. Hispanics tend to self-identify as white, especially after a few generations.

I think the rest of your analysis is just wrong. First there was no "English" America. America from the start had European immigrants. New York was a Dutch colony. The early censuses used "white" and it always meant the same it means today.

This idea of a "progressing" whiteness is way way overblown to make people feel like the demographic changes we are facing are not unusual. But they are. Even if a huge percentage of hispanics start to self-identify as white - White people will still likely become a minority when they were around 90% of the population at the turn of the last century. Asians and Blacks are around ~20% of the population and Asians are the fastest growing ethnic group.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

[readarticle]

I’m not arguing whiteness will progress, I’m arguing against the idea there will be little shared ethnic background in California or Texas, and their “minority majorities”.

That ~20% figure is repeated in California and Texas, while the Hispanic and Non-Hispanic white populations are almost perfectly equal in size. These populations intermix at very high rates powered on one side at least by very strong social forces—societal and familial—that have existed for centuries, see: the demographic history of any Latin American country with substantial European immigration + the wildly different European:non European ratios in the US vs them.

From your own article, keeping in mind Hispanic immigrant populations are of European and Native descent:

We know that light-skinned Cubans were considered white at least as of 1950 because (despite the trepidations of the studio) the public accepted Lucy and Ricky, in a way they would never have accepted a black-white or Chinese-white couple. American Indians were considered non-white, but if they assimilated and married whites their children were generally accepted as part of white society. Did you know that Will Rogers was 9/32 ~~Cherokee~~ Maya?

A huge percentage of white babies of 2098 won’t have to self identify as white, they’ll just be white.

[rjkennedy98]

Today, in California the percentage of white babies is ~27%. Today.

How on earth can you possibly say that in 2098 that "a huge percentage of white babies ... will be white"? Are there any demographic studies that say this? Where are you getting this info from? Rarely do projections even go that far.

Even US Census predictions have been off by huge margins within a few years because of unexpected declines in longevity, birth rates, ect.

[readarticle]

And without even looking I can guarantee you the biggest percentage is Hispanic, not that far away from 27%, and heavily outweighing Asian and black figures that are once again combined under 20% alongside immigration flows from LA that have remained static for 20 years.

It isn’t white vs minorities, it’s white “vs” a roughly equally sized Hispanic population in a few states that are already being consolidated because immigration flows have tapered, and, party evidenced by the article you posted, easily integrated into “whiteness”. No progress needed!

Haven’t even gotten into how California and Texas are the definitions of special cases in the USA being literally the most attractive states in the Union and also on the border. What are the proportions like in Utah, Kentucky, Pennsylvania etc?

Simple flows + demographic history mate, regional history is one of the big keys here and points the way.

[dragonwriter]

> And without even looking I can guarantee you the biggest percentage is Hispanic, not that far away from 27%

I dunno, 20 percentage points higher makes a pretty loose definition of "not far away".

[readarticle]

That’s indeed further than I thought, but only 6 points larger than the difference between white and Asian, and 4 points smaller than white - black.

Texas meanwhile with a 13 point difference but 22.5 between white and black, the next closest.

According to 2014-2016 March of Dimes data anyways

[dragonwriter]

> Today, in California the percentage of white babies is ~27%.

No, its much higher, probably 70-75%.

Its just that most sources, despite using source data that gathers race and ethnicity separately, combines them into a single dimension which reports non-Hispanic whites as "white" and Hispanics of any race as Hispanic.

[dragonwriter]

> Hispanics tend to self-identify as white

Hispanics in the US mostly are white. Hispanics are significantly White to start with, and there is a definite racial socioeconomic stratification with Whites at the top, and that is not without reflection in resources, skills, and networks which help with immigration to the US.