Remember how the Mainstream Media said they won't be coming for Jefferson and Washington Next?

[GreyICE]

A big thing to note on the entire "white people will be the minority" is that usually "white" is considered under the racist "one drop" rule - one drop of black blood makes you black, etc. Since the US census form doesn't have a box for "multiracial" (instead you can check any number) most people check one because that's what you're supposed to do on forms. Because of that they typically check the "non-white" one if they have non-white heritage. Due, again, to a racist rule that still applies in people's minds. After all Obama was the first black president, not the 44th white president, right?

Pew estimates 7% of Americans are mixed race, underscoring the really shoddy nature of the census in capturing this: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/06/11/chapter-2-counting-multiracial-americans/

If we consider "multiracial" a category, then it's one that can literally only grow, not shrink. Since it's fated to always grow due to the silly way we're defining races, then yes, we're "fated" not to be a white country because as racial divides and racism relaxes we'll have more and more people with mixed ancestry. Again, if you consider the silly "one drop" rule as anything other than delusional babbling from a bunch of traitors.

[Madner Kami]

Blood-purity is a stupid thought in any way you think about it. You had two parents, they each had two parents (4 total) and those each had two parents (8 total) and so on. How long will it take, till you find someone in that lineage, who is not "of your race"? At just 20 generations (roundabout 500 years ago), you already have 1,048,576 ancestors... (yes, I am aware that re-marrying into the own very distant and not as such recognisable family is a thing that can't be avoided, so some ancestors will have the same ancestor-ancestors, which are counted double in this case, but you get the jist).

[Antiboyscout]

Protesters Dump Statue of Anti-Slavery Activist Hans Christian Heg in Lake:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/protesters-dump-statue-of-anti-slavery-activist-hans-christian-heg-in-lake/ar-BB15V3aF

DC delegate pushes to remove Emancipation Statue in Lincoln Park:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/504271-dc-delegate-pushes-to-remove-the-emancipation-statue-in-lincoln

[LittleRaven]

A big thing to note on the entire "white people will be the minority" is that usually "white" is considered under the racist "one drop" rule - one drop of black blood makes you black, etc.

The other big thing to note is that "whiteness" in the political sense is very different from "whiteness" in the ethnic sense.

Biden may correct that ethnically "white" people (as currently defined, which is...dubious, to say the least) will be a minority in X years, but politically, that's largely irrelevant, because politically "white" just means "default." So all that's going to change is which populations are considered "white." We've seen this play out over and over again in American history. For a long time, Irish and Italians weren't "white"....until suddenly they were. Asians used to be at the bottom of the social totem poll, now certain groups are near the top. If I had to guess, I'd tag Hispanics as the next to make the leap....they're already considered "white" across much of the Southwest, which is why statues of Conquistadors are such a big thing.

[LittleRaven]

Something will exist, but it won't be the United States in any real sense, any more than the Mayan Empire exists because there are people living on the land that used to be the Mayan Empire.

Faith, G-Man. The US is NOT that fragile. We've had a remarkable run of stability in this country for most of our lives, so mistaking that for the norm is understandable, but Americans are a rowdy lot, and none of this is new. Almost exactly 100 years ago, cities literally burned as protests turned to riots, and people died by the hundreds. (or thousands, depending on who you ask) The United States survived just fine. 50 years ago, our country up-ended itself both socially and politically, but the country endured. In time, this too shall pass, and the United States shall remain - in spirit as well as name.

[Darth Wedgius]

And a county in Oregon has now decided that only white people have to wear masks.

There may be a United States in the future, but I don't know if a country will exist on earth that won't see the color of someone's skin first and foremost.

[Riedquat]

So I decided to go look up this "Joe Biden thinks white people becoming a minority is a good thing up". I found this: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/biden-says-whites-a-minority-in-2017-census-says-2044

"By 2017, those of us of European stock," Biden said "will be an absolute minority in the United States of America."

That's "not a bad thing, that's a good thing," he added, because it means the U.S. is expanding the diversity of its people.

He has cheered the end of the white, European majority before. Last December, while in Morocco, he said:

"Ladies and gentlemen, in 2017, the United States for the first time, Caucasians of European descent like me will be in an absolute minority in the United States of America. The secret that people don't know is our diversity is the reason for our incredible strength."

There's obviously some difference of opinion about diversity here, as I don't find the column isn't terribly interesting beyond "Joe Biden gets years mixed up."

The better question is "why should it matter either way?" Although I doubt too many people who are happy to say "more diverse is a good thing!" will then go on to agree that countries where almost everyone is black need more white people.

Personally I find two positions OK - either we don't give a crap about it at all, or we like everywhere being different for its variety and not every country ending up as carbon copies of each other.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

isn't destroying those statues the same as book burning, pretending those parts of history don't exist? how about putting them in resumes to properly lean from the mistakes of history?

and wile I am still not really defending him, I looked up Andrew Jackson to double check what I was told earlier and couldn't find evidence he deliberately made the Trail of Tears happen. where was the part where he channeled Darth Sidious and said "wipe them out..all of them"?

[GreyICE]

isn't destroying those statues the same as book burning, pretending those parts of history don't exist? how about putting them in resumes to properly lean from the mistakes of history?

and wile I am still not really defending him, I looked up Andrew Jackson to double check what I was told earlier and couldn't find evidence he deliberately made the Trail of Tears happen. where was the part where he channeled Darth Sidious and said "wipe them out..all of them"?

Andrew Jackson's Speech to Congress on Indian Removal

"It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.

The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.

What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization and religion?

The present policy of the Government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process. The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual. Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does Humanity weep at these painful separations from everything, animate and inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind, developing the power and facilities of man in their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this Government when, by events which it cannot control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.

And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement."

Citation: President Jackson's Message to Congress "On Indian Removal", December 6, 1830; Records of the United States Senate, 1789‐1990; Record Group 46; Records of the United States Senate, 1789‐1990; National Archives and Records Administration (NARA]

[Dragon Ball Fan]

isn't destroying those statues the same as book burning, pretending those parts of history don't exist? how about putting them in resumes to properly lean from the mistakes of history?

and wile I am still not really defending him, I looked up Andrew Jackson to double check what I was told earlier and couldn't find evidence he deliberately made the Trail of Tears happen. where was the part where he channeled Darth Sidious and said "wipe them out..all of them"?

Andrew Jackson's Speech to Congress on Indian Removal

"It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.

The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.

What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization and religion?

The present policy of the Government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process. The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual. Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does Humanity weep at these painful separations from everything, animate and inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind, developing the power and facilities of man in their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this Government when, by events which it cannot control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.

And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement."

Citation: President Jackson's Message to Congress "On Indian Removal", December 6, 1830; Records of the United States Senate, 1789‐1990; Record Group 46; Records of the United States Senate, 1789‐1990; National Archives and Records Administration (NARA]

I only skimmed though all that but what I read still doesn't say he intended for the natives to die.

like I've said before that my fictional role model from childhood was Goku from Dragon Ball Z, thus, my idea of what evil looks like is Frieza, a mustache twirler who laughed maniacally at an act of genocide he committed. or for a real life example, the hate filled, proudly evil speeches about killing the Jews Hitler gave.

but even if I am wrong, destroying his statue is just pretending the Trail of Tears didn't happen.