<p>Hawaii already looks like this. In pre-school, our D was very sad she didn’t have multiple ethnicities, unlike nearly all her peers. 
</p>
<p>Hawaii has just under 25% claiming mixed race. Unique about Hawaii is that it has never been majority white. </p>
<p>Many more people are “mixed race” than claim it. According to multiple studies, most African Americans (descendants of pre-Civil War slaves, not recent African immigrants) have 20-30% white/European ancestry (This is the average % among those tested). My own kids are part Hispanic/Native American (H’s Mexican grandma)–but they identify as white/European, culturally. Of 7 kids, only a couple “look part Hispanic” (and H doesn’t look Hispanic at all!) I suppose everyone is “mixed” if you go back far enough. (My Polish ancestors were probably part Mongolian. . .) I think people claim what they identify with culturally/how they look, not what they are, genetically.</p>
<p>I won’t live to see it.</p>
<p>It is amazing, though, what we have lived to see. </p>
<p>My sister has done genealogy on our family back into the 1400’s. Pretty interesting but boring at the same time.
Lots of Dutch & English.
One Chinese relative in the 1800’s.
I didnt really understand that oftentimes Hispanics are considered to be white, until I met my sister in law who is from Colombia.
You could probably round up thirty locals with similar skin & hair color, and some would consider themselves to be black, Hispanic, white, middle eastern/ mediteranean.</p>
<p>Now some of my friends ( especially those from the east coast) wouldn’t hesitate to ask " so who are your people?" But I rarely do, unless they bring it up. But on the other hand, I don’t want them to think I am uninterested.
However I have mistaken a New Zealander for an Englishman, so I don’t guess anymore.
:o</p>
<p>Hmmm, not sure how accurate the prediction is. I think that the majority will continue to marry the same race. We’re just wired to be physically attracted to people who look similar, which makes me doubt that there is suddenly going to be a huge upsurge in interracial marriages. I think it will continue to be in the miniority, although that minority might grow a little by 2050. Not a bad thing in my opinion, as romanigypsy stated, diversity is a big part of what makes this country so beautiful and unique. Not that interracial kids aren’t “diverse,” but I don’t think they will make up the majority of Americans in the sense that the article is portraying them. I personally am half-Japanese and half German/Lithuanian and I’ve only met one other euroasian (a mix I recognized a lot of in the article) it’s really hard for me to believe that within the next 35 years or so everyone is going to look similar. Not sure I’d want that either, I love seeing all the different races present in America, they’re all so beautiful and help keep things interesting.</p>
<p>I doubt there’s going to be a much further increase in interracial marriages in the future compared to now. </p>
<p>Though of 'course, if by multi-racial, you count all the Elizabeth Warrens and such, could be that most people in the US are multi-racial. They don’t all look Mulatto though. There’s a big difference between being 50/50 (or near it) race-wise, and being 90%+ of 1 race and 10% of something else. </p>
<p>Wow, it looks like something is going to happen sometime in the next 36 years to make everybody good looking.</p>
<p>Actually, between now and the year 2050 represents only about one human generation. The children born this year will then still be in their child -bearing years themselves. Maybe by 3050 we will have all blended into one big multiracial stew, but unless starting tomorrow everyone marries someone of a different race, this process won’t be nearly so far along in just 36 years.</p>
<p>I think I should clarify what I said about mixing. I don’t like the idea of taking an “average” American because I don’t think there’s any such thing. I don’t really think blending us all together makes for an “average”. That could work in places where people are fairly similar looking but I don’t think it’s an accurate representation of somewhere like the US. I mean, theoretically, if you had 50% of the population white and 50% black with no interracial unions and you took an “average” then the “average” would be a mixed raced person when there are none. It just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. </p>
<p>From what I have read, most of the 80-100 million increase in US population over the next 40 years will come from immigration from Latin American and Asian countries. Recent immigrants are probably less likely to intermarry than long-term Americans because it is not as accepted in their countries of origin.</p>
<p>I also admit to taking offense at the notion that intermarriage is somehow <em>better</em> than the alternative. Like people are relieved to be wiping out something that they hate. That is offensive to me at a base level. Racist even, perhaps.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL at coureur! I think all those blue eyes are going to disappear. I don’t see them that often now and aren’t they a recessive trait? </p>
<p>The trend toward medium skin is a good thing for those whose ancestors were light-skinned. Skin cancer is a major nuisance (one I know only too well), and melanoma is more than a nuisance.</p>
<p>I live in the suburbs of Washington, DC, and interracial marriage in all its varieties is so common here that most people don’t even remark on it. </p>
<p>Blue eyes are almost certainly not going to disappear for a very, very long time. Yes, blue is recessive but it’s not like only one gene determines eye color. </p>
<p>I’m much more worried about gingers disappearing. </p>
<p>I had never heard the term “ginger” until recently. I guess it means people with red hair. Is that correct, EK?</p>
<p>It means people who have red hair and pale skin. </p>
<p>I don’t see people with red hair and pale skin disappearing or blue eyes disappearing. </p>
<p>I was always called a carrottop, ( which I didnt like, plus carrottops are green), but yes ginger means red hair.
Ive known African americans and native americans with red hair, but red hair is recessive and requires both parents to have the gene. Blue eyes is more complicated, but its also possible that wouldnt die out completely because of mutations.</p>
<p>Re: blue eye color disappearing, it is already happening. Among Whites, it went from 57% 110 years ago, down to 33% 60 years ago, and is now somewhere around 22%.</p>
<p>
.<a href=“Eye color - Wikipedia”>Eye color - Wikipedia;
<p>^ I wonder how well that controlled for the definition of “white”. We have a much higher Middle Eastern and Latino(a) population (obviously less blue eyes) now than in the early-mid 1900s yet both are routinely classified as “White”. </p>
<p>Blue eyes are a health risk. Higher incidence of melanoma and macular degeneration.
As unfortunately Ive found out.</p>