TO KIHNU: Yes, of course the ebb and flow of history affects Estonian demographics too. It affect every place everywhere on earth (the moon, I think, is not affected). However, the factors that have been in play in Estonia are very different to the factors affecting the white population of the US, and are much more similar to dynamics experienced by America's native population -- for whom I have a great deal of sympathy.

Est onia's native population, just like America's native population, experienced foreign invasion by overwhelmingly stronger enemies, and was overrun by them. By contrast, the nation that developed into the white United States has never been invaded by anyone. Its population shift happens under the control of its own sovereign rule.

There are other similarities also. White Americans think, at least on an emotional if not on an academic level, that they have always been there, that they have a pre-eminent right above and beyond everyone else to be there, and that their subjective orientations on the matter are the only valid ones. Russians feel the same in regard to Estonia -- and just as erroneously.

But there is one major dissimilarity between colonialism in America and colonialism in Estonia. Native Americans never constituted a modern nation with all the prerogatives and powers, legal and physical, of a modern nation. Estonians, by contrast, already were a modern nation when colonisation of their country began in 1940, and unlike native Americans, they were the co-equals in law of their oppressors. They therefore found the strength and the international support to throw off the yoke of their colonisers and they then created not a new country but simply reverted to the Estonia that always had existed de jure despite the intervening occupation, and re-claimed their sovereignty.

American natives, by contrast, had nothing to revert to and have no pre-existing sovereignty to reclaim. They have been comprehensively crushed by their invaders with no hope for any sovereign future.

It is ironic that foreigners in America believe that they are not foreigners at all, act as if they themselves are the natives, and harrumph at subsequent waves of foreigners that keep coming. Not dissimilar in many ways to the remaining rump of Russian colonists in Estonia.

@ Kihnu

Think about the Karelians and Komi, two Finno-Ugric peoples in Russia. In 1926, the Karelians and Komi comprised 37.4% and 92.2% of their homelands respectively while ethnic Russians were 57.2% and 6.6% respectively. As of 2010, Karelians now only comprise 7.4% of the Republic of Karelia (which does not even recognize Karelian as a co-official language with Russian), while ethnic Russians comprise 82.2%. Meanwhile, in Komi Republic, ethnic Russians now form 65.1% of the population while the Komi have fallen to 23.7%. This decline is largely attributed to a large influx of ethnic Russians into these traditional Finno-Ugric territories during the Soviet period, and a high rate of Russification. Of course, many modern-day ethnic Russians have significant Finno-Ugric roots with Russians sharing a closer genetic composition on average to neighbouring Baltic and Finno-Ugric peoples than to linguistically Slavic peoples of the Balkans (like the Bulgarians and Serbs) or even central European Slavs like the Czechs, though many will deny this. 

TO PR1oh1, who asks just how long is "long enough" for a people to become natives in a land? While no one can set a precise date, the general answer is not hard.

No one would argue that arrivals during modern history would NOT qualify for the status of "native population". Modern history is generally understood refer to the timeline beginning in the 16th Century. Equally, no one would dispute that arrivals in a land in prehistory DO qualify for the status of natives. Prehistory is understood to be the time before recorded history and the invention of writing.

This leaves the period of ancient history as the time in which the status of "native population" must be delimited. Ancient history is understood to encompass the time from the beginning of recorded history to the early Middle Ages.

On that reckoning, Russians who began inhabiting most of their land from between the 3rd and 8th Centuries AD, and Estonians who inhabited their land since before 1000 BC, are definitely natives. No immigrant peoples are natives of America -- and, incidentally, no Russians are natives of Estonia.

TO KIHNU: I don't think any whites have become convinced, either by mental illness or any other means, that "they must become racial minorities" in America or elsewhere, and I don't think anyone made a decision to that effect. Whites already have been a minority in America and elsewhere in the New World, and by the ebb and flow of history they became a majority in some parts of it. By the same process, that status is now diminishing in some places.

The really good thing is that the population of the United States and of other countries remains 100% human.

Why should the 1960s be the eternal and never-to-be-changed orientation from which American social history should be fixed? For no reason at all, apart from the subjective inclination of the fixer! Kind of reminds me of the "Unbreakeable bonds of freeborn republics assembled by Great Russia". History cannot be put in a bottle -- it is a living thing, and moves over time despite who is convinced of what at a time of their own arbitrarily subjective choosing.

Perhaps the New England native shouldn't have helped the white colonists -- but they would have lost their land anyway. Meanwhile, "Latinos" are not a race, but can be people of any race who are also of Spanish heritage. I can confirm that Spaniards are white, if that is a matter of importance.