It depends if you truly mean racial, or just cultural. I can appreciate why it would be important to preserve the basic cultural identity of a country over time - not that it can't adapt, as no culture is static, they are always in fluxes and development - but that's different to being overwritten.
However you've said "race" rather than culture, and I'm not sure that race ALONE would be important? To use England / London as an example, I know there are a lot of cultural pocket areas, but also, there are MANY Black / Asian who are quite clearly still culturally English. Even up here in "still relatively white" Scotland, I know several people who are very much "Scottish" by several generations, Irn bru drinking, strong Scottish accent, and yet
non-white.
I don't see why the pigmentation of someone's skin, or other physical features, would be all that relevant.
For the US it's obviously even more complicated... I mean... From an outside perspective, to me, African Americans are just as "American" as Euro-Americans,and then there are various different cultures even within that, yet still all "American".
So I think that's proof in itself that there can be many subcultures and still one culture tying it all together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Monkey
Well white Brits are already a racial minority in London.The 2011 census had them at 44.9%.
That could be in part due to white flight though.
Whether that matters or not is subjective.
|
That depends on whether you mean a majority as in literally more than 50%. White British... There are several groups, it's not just "white British" and "all miscellaneous"
. There is no other single group that's anywhere near 45%.