Irrelevant. The red man of the US has passed into history, a remnant only of interest to gamblers, anthropologists and jade trinket tourists. For the last 150 years they have been on the edge of extinction. The United States was formed in, and populated by, the European and African populations - the red man was an outsider. In 1965 the law was changed which has lead to ongoing significant population increases, and to the detriment of that population's well being.
What is interesting is how out of touch with history this statement is. It apparently forget the major immigration waves that occurred in the US, and the general hatred for immigrants back in the "good ole days" as well. Around the Constitution, the British portion of the population was about 2/3's of the nation. This would dwindled as western Europeans came in, then southern and eastern Europeans came in, and of course, you speak of Europeans as being one conglomerate, when if they consist of a bunch of different cultures on their own right.
Methinks I am out of touch with folks who dodge a fact they cannot refute, i.e.; "The United States was formed in, and populated by, the European and African populations - the red man was an outsider." That statement is literally true, much to your annoyance.
I am well aware that the US had a base population of British (and some German and Dutch), and that for the the next 140 years periodic waves of white immigrants migrated to the nation. And I am also aware that such waves started with Northern Europeans in the Great Atlantic migrations (see B. Bailyn) and later were almost exclusively from Europe - products of Western culture and old world European alliances. But you, in turn, seem to unaware of current differences, not only for the US but for Europe.
First, Europeans were divided and often hostile to one another, but not so much that they did not recognize the huge difference between themselves and the "Mohammedans" and "the orient". They were at least bonded by being the people of the West, in christianity, shared political theories, and forms of social and family relationships. On the other hand, "the Turk" and the "Sultan" was far more alien, one that enslaved Christians and invaded Europe on behalf of 'Allah'.
Second, the waves of Europeans assimilated into a generalized European American culture, reformed by the American frontier and British-American political experience. No single nation or race overwhelmed the Americas through immigration, it was diffuse and measured. The "base" population identity changed to either 'white' or 'black' American, and people gradually assimilated (more or less) on that basis.
Third, the US "survived" the whole ordeal of assimilation...including the surviving the ordeal over assimilating blacks in the Civil War, the bloodiest war in American history. But "surviving an ordeal" is not relevant. The point is was the immigration ordeal worth it to the base population of people that either benefited or suffered from it?
My take is that immigration to the Americas, at least during the periods of high immigration, was harmful to the base population. It was harmful to the Native American, it was harmful to the non-Irish of the 19th century, it was harmful to the non-Sicilian, etc. Its no coincidence that the era of the 'ruthless' robber baron and the resultant gilded age was also the era of out-of-control immigration and hyper cheap labor. Having plentiful labor created low wages, displaced native born workers in mines and factories, and created the most labor strife in American history, etc. . It was only after strict immigration laws were passed that such waves ended, and Americans slowly assimilated Jews, Italians, Greeks, Chinese, and others. So by 1970, 50 years later the white population was largely assimilated - although white ethnic neighborhoods still existed in many large cities (Boston Irish, etc.).
But who cares if today's immigration works out after I (or my children) are dead? Why should today's base population suffer for your romantic ideal 50 to 100 years from now?
Last, the assimilation of different races and non Judaic-Christian peoples has always been more of an ordeal than that of assimilating Europeans. At its root, Islam is incompatible with secular Western law and complete religious tolerance. The difficulties Europe will face will be far worse than that experienced by the US - at least the US has always been much better at "melting" diverse peoples than other countries whose national identity is rooted in a 'national race' of peoples.
In short, the policies of Europe will lead to greater disappoint (as it did with the Turkish "temporary worker"), an ethnic underclass, and increasing social conflict.
In another 100 years, that historic population will have passed into history and most of the country will be from Mexican (and some Central American) lineage, breeding, and attendant intellectual and behavioral attributes.
Now there is a racist statement if ever one. You log in with the wrong username?
Given the 200 year degeneration of their Spanish culture and its micro accomplishments, it is not a place anyone of other backgrounds would want to live in.
Oddly enough, the sacrifice and dedication (followed by being the only industrial nation not destroyed by WWII) is what put America on top. The WASPs in this country seem to think sacrifice is unnecessary and think progress just happens and when it doesn't... immigrants!!!
No, what "put America on top" was a WASP work and thrift ethic, a talented base population from the British middle classes, and a base population of successful Germans; as well as the American culture individualism and market capitalism. If not for the WASP, the Yankee seed population of talent and values, I doubt the papist Irish, Italian, and others would have prospered as they (eventually) did.
