olyclimber Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Interesting to compare this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091216/ap_on_go_ot/us_white_minority to this: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/skin-colour-map-indigenous-people Quote
Fairweather Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I suppose a more racially balanced society will, ultimately, result in a more balanced perception of justice. Of course, there are dozens of instances where small minorities have exercised effective control over state process via their monopolies over the "legitimate" means of violence. As for the second link: I'm not sure I agree with its validity on two fronts: First off, I think the cartographer has Peru/Western Bolivia/Northern Chile completely wrong. Secondly, I think anthropologists who go around measuring skulls and assessing skin tones have, in the past, demonstrated themselves to be among the most vile and racist humans on the planet. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Secondly, I think anthropologists who go around measuring skulls and assessing skin tones have, in the past, demonstrated themselves to be among the most vile and racist humans on the planet. ah, so they are liberals.... Quote
ZimZam Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I think the title is somewhat misleading. Whites will still be in the majority. The other races in total will outnumber whites with the largest "competitor" being Latinos at 28%. Better lock the gates now as I'll be about 100 years old by that time. By then societies will be so homogenized that this statistic won't mean squat. Stinkin' im'grants. Quote
olyclimber Posted December 17, 2009 Author Posted December 17, 2009 well if he hates them, they must be! or maybe he is judging them on another measure. Quote
olyclimber Posted December 17, 2009 Author Posted December 17, 2009 zimzam, yes, it is misleading. good point. there are all sorts of hues. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Does this mean we're finally going to be cool? Quote
olyclimber Posted December 17, 2009 Author Posted December 17, 2009 no. but you can claim oppression starting 2050. Quote
mkporwit Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 no. but you can claim oppression starting 2050. [video:youtube]o76WQzVJ434 Quote
ivan Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 white or not, i could hardly ever be confused with Being Part of the Majority Quote
prole Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I suppose a more racially balanced society will, ultimately, result in a more balanced perception of justice. Of course, there are dozens of instances where small minorities have exercised effective control over state process via their monopolies over the "legitimate" means of violence. As for the second link: I'm not sure I agree with its validity on two fronts: First off, I think the cartographer has Peru/Western Bolivia/Northern Chile completely wrong. Secondly, I think anthropologists who go around measuring skulls and assessing skin tones have, in the past, demonstrated themselves to be among the most vile and racist humans on the planet. Is it just me or are you becoming more and more like this character every day? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 no. but you can claim oppression starting 2050. I'm Irish. We've been claiming that for over a thousand years. Quote
Pete_H Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Does this mean we're finally going to be cool? No. But maybe now we'll be able to dance. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 "in a world...made of steel..." Quote
Pete_H Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 So, if black folks like drums; White folks dig guitar; and Hispanics enjoy piano; If we're all just light brown, what kind of music will we rock out to? Quote
G-spotter Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 In the long term view everyone's an African & on their way to being some sort of Sino-Indian hybrid. Quote
olyclimber Posted December 17, 2009 Author Posted December 17, 2009 why did we diverge in the first place? Quote
ivan Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 why did we diverge in the first place? b/c everybody's an asshole Quote
JosephH Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 why did we diverge in the first place? Mutation rate drops as you leave the equator heading south or north. Quote
G-spotter Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 why did we diverge in the first place? It has to do with footprint of whole species vs mobility of individual members. Speciation happens the same way. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.