If you HAD to choose, would you rather your country lose its language or its race?

[Nurzat]

I care more about the language than the genetics/race. a country's culture is totally dependent on the language. look at literature. so I would care more about preserving the language than the race. a mulatto that speaks native Ukrainian is more Ukrainian than a white that does not speak it

[Alessio]

I actually would love for my country to lose its language and adopt an African one.

[Gwydion]

I don't know how to answer. As an American, my country has no one race. It would be a shame if the USA lost English, but that's so unrealistic that I can't even imagine it being possible

It was 94% white in the 1960s and the vast majority of non-whites were blacks in the South. In other words the vast majority of the USA was white and in most places you likely would not encounter any non-whites.

As to the OP, language easily. While language is important, it is something that can easily revived if one is so inclined...look at the revival of Hebrew in Israel. Once your race is gone, it's gone for good. Even if you lost your language for good it wouldn't be as transformative to a nation as a change in race.

[TheMaestro]

Why is it 'of course'?

Then everything does not make sense, for example France, if I would be French I rather have my own people speaking different language rather than black people speaking my language.
I rather have my kid talking to me in Nigerian than someones kid pretending to be my kid talking to me with my language.

[Tooting Carmen]

It was 94% white in the 1960s and the vast majority of non-whites were blacks in the South. In other words the vast majority of the USA was white and in most places you likely would not encounter any non-whites.

As to the OP, language easily. While language is important, it is something that can easily revived if one is so inclined...look at the revival of Hebrew in Israel. Once your race is gone, it's gone for good. Even if you lost your language for good it wouldn't be as transformative to a nation as a change in race.

I thought the African-American population has always hovered around 12%? (One of the few constants in American history).

[ChildrenFromTheSun]

I'd rather have the US and Mexico become predominantly loaded with pure blood Amerinds and adopt Amerind languages.

[Finnish Swede]

Basically language is just a tool to communicate...nothing more nothing less.

Genetics and sub-race? Those are important.

So...I would absolutely be willing to lose the language first.

[DarkWater]

[QUOTE=Tooting Carmen;5320173]California by itself is home to over a tenth of the US population and an even bigger percentage of the US economy. Hardly insignificant.[/QUOT

That region has always had Spanish influence. USA doesn't have an official language, but really everyone knows it's English. We don't even really teach a second language in schools

[Tooting Carmen]

Basically language is just a tool to communicate...nothing more nothing less.

Genetics and race? Those are important.

So...I would absolutely be willing to lose the language first.

Surely language also embodies history and identity?

[DarkWater]

It was 94% white in the 1960s and the vast majority of non-whites were blacks in the South. In other words the vast majority of the USA was white and in most places you likely would not encounter any non-whites.

As to the OP, language easily. While language is important, it is something that can easily revived if one is so inclined...look at the revival of Hebrew in Israel. Once your race is gone, it's gone for good. Even if you lost your language for good it wouldn't be as transformative to a nation as a change in race.

USA was not 94% white in the 60's.



Also, USA was built on stolen land. The real Nation's people are the American Indians