Try the 1960, according to the US Census. After 1960, it's been a steady change to today where people who identify as White comprise a bit over 61%, a figure that seems to make strong, heterosexual white men clutch their pearls.
So one, admit your facts were wrong, and then you can start to debate intelligently. Secondly, society is inherently unequal. Congress has attempted to redress some of this equality through affirmative action. And third, you're saying the quiet part out loud when you yet again show concern about being a minority-majority. Are you afraid of being treated the same way non-whites have been treated for the last 100 years, or do you think they've been treated just fine?
My facts are not wrong. The demographics of the United States did not begin to appreciably change until Reagan* signed his immigration reform bill in 1965 or so.
>Secondly, society is inherently unequal. Congress has attempted to redress some of this equality through affirmative action
Yes, the debate is whether or not this inequality is actually due to racism, and whether codified racism is somehow an appropriate vehicle for correction. Sidestepping this necessary discussion with accusations of white supremacy is not an argument.
>And third, you're saying the quiet part out loud when you yet again show concern about being a minority-majority
I'm not saying anything quiet out loud. I've been loud and clear that I am worried about the fact that whites, today, are already a majority-minority in multiple institutions, rapidly approaching such status in the military and the nation in general, and most importantly, are already being treated unfairly in a misguided attempt to correct perceived racism with actual racism, and being slandered with dehumanizing comparisons to nazis for even attempting to question whether such discriminatory policies are justifiable.
>Are you afraid of being treated the same way non-whites have been treated for the last 100 years, or do you think they've been treated just fine?
First, I really don't appreciate the bigoted implication that only a white male could possibly be concerned with mistreatment of whites. I am a Jewish immigrant. Second, yes, I am indeed concerned that the only socially acceptable view appears to be that today's white people deserve to be mistreated because some white people mistreated others in the past.
I am arguing against literal systemic racism and yet my posts are being flagged. This is the most toxic sort of groupthink and, now that we have successfully convinced 1-2 generations that the only contributions that white people have made to civilization are racism and colonialism, yes, you're god damn right I'm worried that the foundations have been laid for mistreatment of whites, who are a tiny minority with respect to global demographics. Your argumentation is generally dishonest and you appear to be supporting bigotry in the form of some petty revenge fantasy.
Equality of opportunity != Equality of outcome. If you think the meritocratic system is broken, fix the process, don't penalize whites for the perceived sins of some of their ancestors.
*It is was signed by Lyndon B Johnson, as the daughter post points out.
FYI, the immigration bill was signed by Lyndon Johnson. Ronald Reagan was not President.
It was advertised as just being a small reform and not as something profound. Here is Ted Kennedy:
""The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants,” lead supporter Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-Mass.) told the Senate during debate. “It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
I don't think that follows. You're tacitly assuming that the demographics of the military will reflect the demographics of the society as a whole, whereas I think its more reasonable to assume that the demographics of the military will reflect the demographics of the poor for whom it represents a viable alternative.
