« White, Olive, and Different Shades of Yellow | Gene Expression Front Page | The Germanization of the liberal idea »
February 02, 2003

"Market dominant minorities"

Steve Sailer has an important article on the difficulty of reconciling majority rule with economic inequity when it is benefits an ethnic minority. This is important, because if the plutocrats are the same race as the proletariat, then the Horatio Alger idea becames more tenable as one can not tell by just looking at someone or knowing their last name that they come from a long-line of plutocrats who did not rise up from the poverty of the masses (though they might have risen up from the poverty of the elite minority, which often displays income inequality as well). Steve mentions the difficulty of keeping the majority pliant as in Latin America, and how it is fast failing because of mestizo and black ethnic awareness. But this New York Times Magazine article about Hindu nationalism shows a primary method for keeping the hereditary elite in power: find a scapegoat [1]. In the case of India right now, that would be Muslims, who the upper-castes use to create Hindu solidarity in the defiance of the fact that from a Marxist perspective low-caste Hindus and Muslims share economic interests (and until the rise of low-caste parties these two groups were part of the bedrock of the Congress vote that helped create that party's near monopoly on power for 50 years) [2].

[1] I will address this article at some point if the idolaters do not demur.

[2] Most of India's Muslim elite (and middle-class) fled to Pakistan. So India's Muslims tend to share the same socioeconomic (and likely racial) profile as the Hindu lower castes.

Posted by razib at 01:16 PM




I had just read the piece when I turned to Gene Expression. All the more reason to forcibly expel illegal aliens from south of the border. As I told my brother some time ago: "They will never make a net positive contribution to this country."

Posted by: Roger Chaillet at February 2, 2003 02:13 PM


Mishra makes a major mistake - he believes that as goes Gujarat, so goes India. That is akin to suggesting that as goes Dixie, so goes America. The majority of the Hindu nationalist movement draws its members from the Gujarati community, both within India and from the deep-pocketed Gujarati diaspora. The BJP does not have much of a following outside of Gujarat.

Anutoush Varshey of the University of Michigan has studied the history of riots in independent India. His research found that riots in India are largely an urban phenomenon. Considering that 70% of Indians still live in villages, that is no minor detail. Second, Hindu-Muslim tension is largely a North Indian problem. While Punjab and Bengal exploded in bloodlust during partition (since their states were split), South India was almost untouched. (This may be due to the nature of Islam's introduction to South India. In North India, Islam came as a political and military force. Battles were fought and lost, but the Mughals eventually established an empire. Such events provide rich material to nurse Hindu grievances. In South India, Islam came with Muslim traders. They did business with the local Hindu population, but no attempt was made to change the political order, or convert the "kaffirs.")

Not only are Hindu-Muslim riots largely relegated to cities, the same cities keep appearing over and over. Ahmedabad in Gujarat has a terrible history in such matters, stretching back to era of British rule. In 1992, Bombay saw terrible riots, with Hindu mobs burning Muslim neighborhoods to the ground. Muslim gangsters retaliated by destroying the Bombay Stock Exchange, killing nearly 300 people. After that, the police force set up hotlines with religious leaders in both communities, so that in the future, any potential flareup could be kept in check. So while Gujarat was witnessing a pogrom of Muslims last year, Bombay was kept calm - as was the rest of the country.

The most important finding is that riots in India are not spontaneous events. They are planned by political bosses - orders are given, money is exchanged, and the police are ordered to stand down. That is what happened in Gujarat last year. Compare the response to later that year, when Muslim gunmen entered a Hindu temple in Gujarat, killing over 30 devotees. Due to the tremendous international embarrassment that India suffered earlier in the year, Vajpayee made it clear there would no large scale Hindu retaliation.

As far as the decline of the Congress party - this is a welcome development. Indeed, by the late 1960's, the majority of Indian states were run by non-Congress parties. It's ability to govern at the center relied upon dynastic politics, which is not healthy for either the party or India as a whole. It could not deliver prosperity, education, or communal harmony. Whatever extremists the BJP may have, they must be tempered if they hope to gain power at the center.

Despite its ability to grab headlines, Hindu nationalism is a fading phenomenon. That does not mean Indians should be lax in guarding against the more vicious elements. But hyperventilating by the Pankaj Mishras and Arundhati Roys of the country portrays a misleading picture of the reality on the ground.

Posted by: KXB at February 2, 2003 07:41 PM


Sailer:
"One reason: we are one of the fairly small number of lucky countries with "market dominant majorities." We can have our cake (capitalism) and eat it too (democracy) because our majority group is economically quite competent...

In contrast, if our current mass immigration system is allowed to continue, America will become just another country with a market dominant minority. Through government policy, we will have inflicted upon ourselves the kind of ugly society seen in most of the rest of the world."

This is Sailer best recent work. My ideas about the future role of Latinos in America are not conclusive. However, I would ask M or Chaillet or anyone else what do we do in case they are incorrect to fix our future economic problems?

Our White majority is in numerical decline (like all relatively high IQ groups around the world). How do we stave off the economic nightmare Sailer alludes to?

I already offered one solution (short of Whites having more kids)- mass immigration of certain S/E Asian groups. But, while this would likely solve our future economic straits, it would cause massive cultural shifts (I could see Razib 'paddling the Pacific' for blonder pastures if too many high IQ 'browns' invaded his all White hamlet ;).

Posted by: -R at February 2, 2003 11:10 PM


new zealand is always an option. at least south island :)

Posted by: razib at February 3, 2003 01:40 AM


"Our White majority is in numerical decline ..." -R

The numerical decline is not spontaneous. It's happening (here and in Europe) because of easily-reversible government policies ranging from grossly anti-white-natality tax policy to affirmative action to full and total federal-government endorsement and support of women's lib, and beyond.

"I already offered one solution (short of Whites having more kids) ... " -R

Stop right there -- what's wrong with whites having more kids as the solution? Why is that option always greeted with the sort of nose-holding we'd expect from Harvard Prof. NoŽl Ignatiev's ilk? That's the solution -- not yet one more hare-brained immigration scheme.

Posted by: Unadorned at February 3, 2003 10:02 AM


Cog,

I see a couple of problems:

First, If whites really want to start making lots of babies, that's real cool, but outside of this magical spontaneous desire, I see no convincing plan on how to encourage it. A government style "keep kids off drugs" propoganda campaign wouldn't convince anyone (kind of like the "keep kids off drugs campaigns). A government style program that would give tax or other benefits to families that have children, would end up having the unintended result of probably encouraging only poorer and more dysgenic classes (both white and non-white) to breed more, but not the actual high IQ people you have in mind. Also a targeted effort to get only more whites to breed is both unfeasible to modern Western sensibilities, and certain to only further agitate America's racial fault-line.

The first and best solution to this problem is to fix immigration. Send out the illegals, fix the leaky border, and allow in only the intellectual and professional classes (both white and non-white) who can demonstrate a satisfactory understanding of Western liberalism and democratic philosophy.

Posted by: Jason M. at February 3, 2003 11:41 AM


We've been through this before - government policies alone will not solve the problem of white fertility. Indeed, in this case (as in most), the policies are just an expression of the cultural zeitgiest.

Most white women in the West (esp. those in the higher IQ groups) are dead-set against fertility. They see those a who have no kids as heroically saving the world from a mythical "overpopulation". They feel that having children in their prime childbearing years will interfere with their career goals. THey have an active disgust for fertility beyond the requisite 2 children. (I've seen it - my own sisters involuntarily scrunch up their faces when they hear of families with 4 or more children). Absent a major cultural shift, I really don't see it changing any time soon...

Posted by: jimbo at February 3, 2003 12:20 PM


Of course a separate issue is whether or not the "memes" of Western Civilization can only realistically (in the broad sense) be passed on through white people to their progeny (not b/c of biology but b/c of how genuine culture is probably transmitted*). I am not prepared to argue with this or believe it at this time, but if someone would like to elucidate a case for it, feel free.

*though there could be a "biological" style argument for this too, I suppose. Like maybe white culture is the sum of white genes (not just white intellectual patterns, but behavioral ones, etc., etc. [see Rushton])

Posted by: Jason M. at February 3, 2003 12:23 PM


Unadorned/Cog:
"The numerical decline is not spontaneous. It's happening (here and in Europe) because of easily-reversible government policies ranging from grossly anti-white-natality tax policy to affirmative action to full and total federal-government endorsement and support of women's lib, and beyond"

This is an extremely naive view of the causes and potential solutions to the fertility debate. Secondly, this problem encompasses almost every 'high IQ' country in the world, while your supposed causes mainly pertain to America. I doubt, for example, most countries of the EU or countries of the Orient have major AA policies that are causing declines in birth rates.

"Stop right there -- what's wrong with whites having more kids as the solution? Why is that option always greeted with the sort of nose-holding we'd expect from Harvard Prof. NoŽl Ignatiev's ilk? That's the solution -- not yet one more hare-brained immigration scheme."

I have been researching this issue since Pat Buchanan came out with 'Decline of the West' early last year. I've already said that if Whites started having more kids, many of the cultural changes and economic difficulties facing this country would be avoided. I just doubt this will happen.

This article describes at length some of the issues that mark this debate. Of particular note are pp18-24 where they discuss some of the reasons for the decline in fertility (they point to many cultural factors). This article is shorter than it looks b/c the last ~20 pp are appendix/ bibliography. Near the end of the work, they also get into a discussion of steps the govt might be able to take in this matter but also admit the difficulty of changing cultural tendencies:

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Working/wp-2000-009.pdf

This site is a wealth of information regarding the decline across the globe. It is from 1996 so things may have gotten worse, but almost every 'high IQ' country is suffering a decline- not all of them have govt policies like ours with regard to women's lib, taxs, or AA:

http://www.unicef.org/pon96/statprof.htm

So, I am open to differing beliefs. Would you care to show your evidence in support of your positions?

Posted by: -R at February 3, 2003 05:44 PM


R is simply wrong! I went to a birthday cookout for my brother's stepson Saturday afternoon. His wife is Mormon. She has three kids of her own from her first marriage. Her daughter (26) is now pregnant with her first child. Her brother has three kids, all under the age of six. Her first sister has two kids, and the second sister has two as well. The families are happy, and the kids are well adjusted. One of the families from her ward (unit of the Mormon faith) has 14 kids! I met them. All seemed well adjusted, and not one seemed to have any pathologies. In fact, the older children took it upon themselves to look after the younger ones.

Posted by: Roger Chaillet at February 3, 2003 06:48 PM


Roger Chaillet:
"R is simply wrong! I went to a birthday cookout for my brother's stepson Saturday afternoon. His wife is Mormon. She has three kids of her own from her first marriage. Her daughter (26) is now pregnant with her first child. Her brother has three kids, all under the age of six. Her first sister has two kids, and the second sister has two as well. The families are happy, and the kids are well adjusted. One of the families from her ward (unit of the Mormon faith) has 14 kids! I met them. All seemed well adjusted, and not one seemed to have any pathologies. In fact, the older children took it upon themselves to look after the younger ones."

This post is makes NO sense with regard to anything I have written.

Wrong about what!? Who said one had to have pathologies if they have big families?!

Mormons are an obvious exception to the rule that most 'high IQ' groups are in numerical decline. Also, the information I am citing are established facts. How much of America is or will be Mormon compared to the rest!? Is anyone really thinking we will become a nation as consevative or traditionally minded as Mormons are in the near future.

Why are so many people assuming incorrectly that I particularly LIKE any of the information I have gathered!? You all are simply getting irritated at me on some ridiculous personal level because I am differing from your positions.

Maybe, Cog, Chaillet, or M could cite their own sources, just as I have. Like I said, I am open minded to differing opinions.

I think my requests for contrary sources are reasonable so why is this debate deteriorating?

Posted by: -R at February 3, 2003 07:08 PM


Sometime last year I watched an interview with a woman who paid drug-addicted women something on order of $500 if they would undergo sterlization. The woman's sterilization program seemed absolutely brilliant.

Now imagine if the program's annual budget were in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We might be able to sterilize 25% of America's less capable people's within 5 years. Not a direct solution to our national problem but something that could play an important role.

Posted by: dude at February 4, 2003 01:14 AM


"Now imagine if the program's annual budget were in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We might be able to sterilize 25% of America's less capable people's within 5 years. Not a direct solution to our national problem but something that could play an important role."

Aren't we getting into Eugenics territory here?

Posted by: Shanti at February 4, 2003 07:49 AM


dude,
Voluntary sterilization will probably never be very popular, even if millions of dollars are offered to each woman. Men don't understand how much sexual identity, dreams, and emotion a woman has in her ability to bear children even if she doesn't want them. Infertility is rarely as earth-shattering for men as it is for women. Personally, I find the idea of sterilization extremely distasteful. But I suppose that if people want it for themselves I have no right to complain.

Posted by: duende at February 4, 2003 08:58 AM


i don't see any problem with voluntary eugenics. certain groups already practice it-most jews get the tay sachs test to make sure that two carriers don't marry each other.

as far as infertility being more devastating for women duende, i'm skeptical of that. men in most cultures tend to be into having many offspring, not necessarily taking care of them. when children don't result from a marriage, in most traditionalist cultures women are blamed even if it the man has a history of no producing progeny (juan peron's infertility was not commented on during his lifetime).

Posted by: razib at February 4, 2003 05:00 PM