LogFAQs > #903742137

Dash_Harber posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Whos definition were you referring too here then? He and myself probably thought you were referring to the actual way the census defines race because the report in the article is based on census data

I meant in general when we are talking about race, but okay, I get the misunderstanding. I'll clear it up just to be safe; whether we recognize it or not, the 'one drop rule' has become so ingrained in society that even self-identifying people will often follow it, which means that in cases where you are measuring 'whiteness', you are measuring an incredibly narrow definition.

Thats fair. But if whiteness has for so long now been so narrowly defined for data keeping purposes such as by the census, why is there a sharper change in the relationship between white deaths and white births in more recent data than previous ones? Even if whiteness had been narrowly defined, it was consistently narrowly defined through the decades, hence we should expect consistent results unless something actually changed. Do you see what Im saying? And according to the data something did sharply change, even though its not like whiteness is being radically redefined, it has always been narrowly defined.

The Census Bureau has projected that whites could drop below 50 percent of the population around 2045, a relatively slow-moving change that has been years in the making. But a new report this week found that whites are dying faster than they are being born now in 26 states, up from 17 just two years earlier, and demographers say that shift might come even sooner.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/white-minority-population.amp.html
---

I don't know my gimmick
"Does that sound reasonable to you?"