Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How has the global population percentage by race changed over the past century?
Executive Summary
Global, century-scale changes in the world’s population share by race are not directly documented in the supplied materials; instead, the available analyses report national and regional demographic shifts (notably in the United States, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) and unrelated historical empire-population pieces that do not answer the century-long racial-share question. The supplied documents consistently show recent, country-level diversification driven by migration and changing birth rates, but they leave a clear data gap on a rigorously comparable, global time series of population shares by race across the past 100 years [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What claim set the user asked about — and what the sources actually asserted
The user asked how the global population percentage by race changed over the past century; none of the provided analyses directly supply a century-long, global racial breakdown. Instead, the materials contain three clusters of claims: (a) several items about the share of world population held by historical empires that do not speak to race or contemporary global racial composition [1] [5]; (b) multiple U.S.-centered accounts documenting declining non-Hispanic white shares and faster growth among Hispanic, Asian, and other populations in recent decades [2] [6] [7]; and (c) country-specific projections and migration-driven growth narratives for New Zealand and the UK showing rapid ethnic shifts at the national level [3] [8] [4]. The supplied claims therefore address national demographic change, not the global racial percentages over a full century.
2. Why the sources cannot answer the century-long global race question directly
The available sources are either national snapshots or historical empire population shares, not standardized global racial breakdowns across time. The empire statistics describe political entities’ shares of the world population at peak periods, without racial categories or consistent definitions [1] [5]. The U.S., New Zealand, and U.K. pieces report recent census or projection figures and note migration and birth-rate drivers, but they are limited to specific timeframes and domestic racial/ethnic classifications that are not harmonized internationally. Therefore, the materials provide useful evidence of contemporary, localized trends but cannot be aggregated into a reliable, century-scale global racial share series [2] [3].
3. What the U.S.-focused sources show and how they differ in emphasis
U.S.-centered analyses show declining non-Hispanic white shares and faster growth among Hispanic and Asian populations, underpinned by births and immigration; one May 2025 account reports non-Hispanic whites falling from 69.1% [9] to 57.8% [10] while Hispanic or Latino rose from 12.5% to 18.7% [2]. Earlier pieces highlight a 2012 birth-rate milestone and projections of a future majority-minority status around the 2040s [6]. A June 2025 update adds that Asians are the fastest-growing group in the most recent year [7]. These sources converge on rapid demographic change within one powerful national population, but they stop short of global extrapolation.
4. International snapshots point to migration as a dominant force
New Zealand and the United Kingdom analyses document migration-driven ethnic change: New Zealand projections foresee the Asian share rising from 19% in 2023 to 33% by 2048 while European/Other declines [3]. U.K. reporting describes the country’s largest population jumps in decades primarily fueled by net migration that accounted for 98% of recent increases, with projections of continued growth through 2032 [8] [4]. These pieces highlight how immigration reshapes national ethnic shares quickly, a mechanism that also operates in many other countries but is not quantified here at the global level.
5. What is missing: standardized global racial categories and a century-long time series
None of the supplied items create or reference a harmonized global racial taxonomy nor offer a consistent century-spanning dataset. Historical empire shares are not racial classifications, and modern national censuses use differing categories and methodologies, confounding cross-country aggregation. A credible century-scale answer requires consistent definitions, adjustments for changing borders and classifications, and longitudinal population estimates—elements absent from the provided analyses [11] [5] [6].
6. How different perspectives and possible agendas shape the presented claims
The sources emphasize different drivers—birth rates in U.S. pieces and migration in UK/NZ items—reflecting local policy and political interest in demographic change. The empire-history pieces appear oriented toward historical prominence rather than racial demography, which could mislead a reader expecting racial breakdowns. These emphases signal potential agendas: domestic coverage often centers on future political implications, while historical lists aim at prominence metrics; neither prioritizes constructing a global racial time series [1] [2] [4].
7. Bottom line and what’s needed to answer the original question robustly
The supplied materials document important national trends—diversification in the U.S., migration-driven shifts in the U.K. and New Zealand, and unrelated empire population shares—but they do not provide the data or harmonized definitions needed to describe how the global population percentage by race changed over the past century. To answer the user’s original question rigorously, one would need internationally harmonized historical population estimates by consistently defined racial or ancestry categories, assembled from multiple censuses and demographic reconstructions; those datasets are not present among the supplied analyses [2] [3] [5].