Gene Expression » Young American

Young American

Posted by Razib Khan on July 21, 2005; This entry is filed under Uncategorized.

This post on the demographics of young Americans over at Pearsall’s deserves some comments.

61 Comments

Thrasymachus July 21st, 2005 at 7:37 am

Fun. Let’s see if I can make an unordered list here in the comments section.

My best guesses for the future

How will this affect me? Depends on who you are. If you are white, you probably won’t notice much. It may be slightly harder to find a house in a good neighborhood. If you belong to a non-majority culture, there is a good chance that it is making inroads, presumably a positive thing for you.
How will this affect my kids? It’s hard to guess. I crunched some numbers and made a guess of an American average IQ in 2050 comparable with Argentina today. That’s only guess, and it’s hard to say what it will mean.
How will this affect my culture and values? Depends on what they are. White American culture and values has pretty much been the walking dead since 1960 anyway. If you’re the ‘proposition nation’ sort of person, I don’t think you have much to worry about. In a hundred years, they’ll probably still be holding elections for President. All the branches of government will probably look fairly similar to what they are now. The Constitution won’t have too many huge changes.
Thrasymachus July 21st, 2005 at 7:38 am

Looks like the html got stripped. It’s still readable anyway.
Peter July 21st, 2005 at 7:48 am

One thought regarding the fast-growing multiracial category. Because Pearsall’s charts are dealing with children and adolescents, it is the parents who are responsible for selecting “multiracial” rather than some other group. It will be interesting to see whether multiracial children will still identify as such once they become adults and can choose their racial identity for themselves. It is possible that we may see expansion of the one-drop rule to encompass people of part-Hispanic and part-Asian origin. Should that occur, the number of “multiracials” might decline.
razib July 21st, 2005 at 8:48 am

It is possible that we may see expansion of the one-drop rule to encompass people of part-Hispanic and part-Asian origin.

is there any evidence that one-dropism is occurring among eurasians? t.v. and film people regularly “pass” when they clearly have east asian ancestry, keanu reeves, jennifer tilly and mark paul gosselaar come mind.
Pearsall July 21st, 2005 at 9:36 am

I’m not so sure that one-dropism will kick back in to staunch the outward flow from the Hispanic and Asian categories. For one thing, the one-drop ideology was the result of specific circumstances at a specific time, and only ever applied to the children of white-black couplings (the children of white-Indian relations could go either way, with some maintaining an Indian identity, and some melting into white America).

If anything, I think that it will work the other way, that the grandchildren of mixed marriages will, if their mixed parent marries a white person, be considered white. Then again, I also predict that we’ll see a rise in ‘unquantifiables’, people like Tiger Woods, whose backgrounds are so mixed that they will stand outside of the traditional American categories.
razib July 21st, 2005 at 10:13 am

white-Indian relations

red or brown “Indian?”
bb July 21st, 2005 at 10:20 am

Well the increase in the Hispanic population, given the economic, academic, and crime statistics of this group bodes very ill for the country. If something isn’t done about mass unskilled immigration, I think there is a good chance that there will be no U.S.A. in 2050. Given a continuation of mass unskilled immigration for more than a decade or two, I don’t see any good outcomes.

I see only:

–corruption (going towards a Latin-American-like system as the U.S. becomes a Latin American-like country),

–socialism (stiff tax rates for “the rich,” basically a euphemism for taxing the hell out of professionals like engineers, doctors, and scientists),

–authoritarianism (increasing legal teeth to the “Diversity” ideology, such as prison time for the un-PC),

–and very possibly, violence as people revolt against such a system.

Also in store, and already major issues, are environmental degradation and resource strain with massive increases in population, and a degredation of the quality of life as East L.A.-type neighborhoods become more and more prevalent.

Slightly off topic here, but I think anyone who’s willing to take a few more bucks in exchange for turning large parts of the country to shitholes like East and South L.A., and even places like Santa Ana or the west side of Long Beach, CA, is frankly a traitor. Of course this is assuming that mass unskilled immigration is an economic benefit, which it almost certainly is not. (See Stephen Moore’s article at the WSJ linked from Steve Sailer’s site).
Peter July 21st, 2005 at 10:25 am

“I’m not so sure that one-dropism will kick back in to staunch the outward flow from the Hispanic and Asian categories. For one thing, the one-drop ideology was the result of specific circumstances at a specific time, and only ever applied to the children of white-black couplings”

You might very well be correct. On the other hand, it’s also possible that increased ethnic pride may lead some part-Hispanics and part-Asians to identify solely with their nonwhite sides. If enough people do so, others will be more or less dragged along. We’ll know soon enough, given all the mixed white/Asian children that seem to be around these days.
While we’re on the subject, I’m reminded of a comment Steve Sailer made a while back: even though statistics claim that white/Hispanic marriages and relationships are common and increasing, he sees few such couples, and that’s in Los Angeles where they should be commonplace. My experience in New York is pretty much the same.
pconroy July 21st, 2005 at 10:54 am

Peter,

I know a few Cuban women, and they are all married to White guys – perhaps this is the demographic that is doing the mixing??
Danny July 21st, 2005 at 11:36 am

I see that the Blacks make an impressive increase, from 12% to 15%. I imagine that this is the result of birthrate, not immigration. How come their birthrate is higher?

interracial couples account, as of the 2000 census, for 6.7% of all married couples in America. According to Frey, this now includes about 30% of married Asians and Hispanics, and about 13% of blacks

I’m trying to figure out how Asians & Hispanics have the same rate of interracial couples. In New York & California, Hispanics outnumber Asians 3:1. In Florida & Texas by roughly 10:1, yet if one compares White-Hispanic couples don’t remotely outnumber White-Asian couples (here the figures are roughly 1.1:1, 1.5:1, 1.8:1 & 2.2:1 respectively).

How can this be?
1. We don’t have the exact makeup of interracial couples not involving Whites. But this can’t make up the difference.
2.Population figures may include illegal immigrants, while marriage statistics may not. I have no idea if this is true.
3. The figures aren’t accurate.
oxy moron July 21st, 2005 at 11:42 am

It ain’t good. The obvious conclusion is that we need to shut off illegal immigration, scale back multiculturalism, reintroduce the desirability of assimilation, and pick our legal immigrants carefully.

Otherwise, it’s just a demographic matter of time before parts of the country slide into the third world.
Pearsall July 21st, 2005 at 11:49 am

Razib: red or brown “Indian?”

Red.

Peter: While we’re on the subject, I’m reminded of a comment Steve Sailer made a while back: even though statistics claim that white/Hispanic marriages and relationships are common and increasing, he sees few such couples, and that’s in Los Angeles where they should be commonplace. My experience in New York is pretty much the same.

Yeah, that’s a weird one, as according to Frey (see page 2 here in New York state 41% of interracial marriages are Hispanic and white. I was wondering about that, because as far as I can tell from what I see walking around New York City it’s a less frequent combination than Asian and white or even black and white. I can only think of like one or two Hispanic-white couples in my circle of acquaintances. Maybe it’s more common upstate (although surely most Hispanics in NYS live in the City)? Or maybe a lot of these couples involve white Hispanics who, when you see them, you just think of as white? I dunno, it’s an odd one. Maybe I’ll email Frey and ask him where he gets his stats from.
Pearsall July 21st, 2005 at 11:52 am

I see that the Blacks make an impressive increase, from 12% to 15%. I imagine that this is the result of birthrate, not immigration. How come their birthrate is higher?

Their birthrate has always been higher (and in fact black fertility has dropped further than white fertility over the last thirty years), but the main reason that they don’t make up more of the overall population is that they tend to die earlier than whites (by about 6 or so years, if I recall correctly) for various reasons.
William July 21st, 2005 at 11:52 am

I think the one-dropism effect is partly at work here: Diversity programs still rule the roost. A high earning couple I know (he ”white”, she Latin but pure Spanish – so they have 100% European ancestry) claim their kids as Hispanic – and apply for all the breaks for scholarships, etc, they can get.

Hey, it works for Ward Churchill, and he is a no-drop Amerindian.

On blacks, recent welfare reform may have stopped the production of large families to unmarried females and that would only show up on 0-7 year numbers. Blacks in general have a lower age profile (they have kids earlier and die younger). Maybe someone could do the same comparison pie graphs for the 1980 census.

BTW, there is a lot of black immigration from the Carib. Less now but a lot in the 1990s.
pconroy July 21st, 2005 at 12:01 pm

Perhaps part of the lack of visibility of White-Hispanic couples, versus White-Asian couples, is due to observer bias by Blog members, by which I mean that most people on this blog are at the very least +1sd, and their circle of friends will most likely be in this range also. I have observed that most White-Asian couples I have seen are probably on average +2sd, often Jewish-Chinese, whereas – with the exception of Cubans – the only other White-Hispanic couple I met, were Anglo-Puerto Rican, and they were definately in the -1sd to 0sd range.
Pearsall July 21st, 2005 at 12:13 pm

Perhaps part of it is that white-Hispanic couples are more likely to working-class, whereas white-Asian and white-black couples in the US are more frequently middle-class?
John Emerson July 21st, 2005 at 12:20 pm

To the extent that this is the result of intermarriage rather than immigration or differential birthrates, the overall effect is slight or none, except for white nationalists. It’s just a form of assimilation and breaking down of boundaries. E.G., there are probably fewer Polish-Americans now than there were 70 years ago, but more people with at least one Polish ancestor, and perhaps much the same percentage of Polish genes in the mix.
William July 21st, 2005 at 12:26 pm

observer bias by Blog members

I don’t think any of us are denying the huge rise in Hispanics through immigration, etc., we are just saying that racial blending is an an additional factor to consider.

On a related note: the highest rate of inter-marriage seems to occur between Jews and non-Jews ( Ithink 40-50% of Jews in the USA). What do our government head counters say about the US Jewish population?
Horatio July 21st, 2005 at 12:33 pm

My experience with White-Hispanic couples is that the Hispanics in these couples are usually “whiter” than the average. The people in my family range from phenotypically Caucasian to phenotypically Amerindian, though few are pure. My relatives who are dating or married to non-Hispanic whites are whiter than the norm in my family. I can usually pick out white Hispanics that most people would miss and I notice this same trend in other couples. Many of the Hispanics in these couples would just fly under your radar as an Italian. My friend recently introduced his Colombian girlfriend to his Sicilian/Italian family, they loved her; she looks just like they do.
John Emerson July 21st, 2005 at 12:50 pm

May I also add that, in terms of the basic GNXP “g”paradigm, if two IQ-90 people or two IQ-110 people of any race marry and have children, the effect of intermarriage on the gene pool is nil.
Danny July 21st, 2005 at 1:01 pm

An above comment predicted that increased immigration will result in greater socialism. I think the opposite is true. The Rise and Decline of the American Welfare state is strangely coterminous with the shutting down and subsequent opening up of mass immigration.
Pearsall July 21st, 2005 at 1:28 pm

In regards to Danny’s point, that is what the left-wing writer David Goodhart argued in the Guardian last year: that the traditional British welfare state couldn’t exist without a certain amount of homogeneity (you can see the two parts of his essay here and here). Here in the US you can see similar forces at work, not just at the national level, but also at local levels. For a long time the most quasi-socialist state and local administrations, the ones that offered the most comprehensive package of cradle-to-grave protections, were to be found in places that were overwhelmingly white, like Wisconsin (Milwaukee had a very strong socialist tilt to its local politics for a long time), Maine, and Minnestota. As those states have diversified the welfare state has been hacked up.

If anything, I think increasing ethnic diversity will mean the continued ascendance of (our version of) free market capitalism. As far as the economic debate goes, the American Left is in a shambles at the moments. I can see increasing political authoritarianism in the coming decades, but not socialism, or anything that looks like socialism. Perhaps a rebirth of the old political machines in the cities, where the Irish bosses would chop up the civic cake and hand off slices to the Jews, Italians, Poles, Germans, and so on, just with different groups.
razib July 21st, 2005 at 1:34 pm

What do our government head counters say about the US Jewish population?

the american gov. doesn’t track religion or collect any such information.

re: socialism and latin americans, i don’t think that’s going to happen. the latin american elites have been very good at protecting themselves…. (excluding cuba at the partial exception of nicaragua)
John Emerson July 21st, 2005 at 1:41 pm

In 1936 Minnesota was the most left-wing state in the nation — the only Congressman to vote to support the (leftist) Spanish Republic was from the Minnesota Farmer-Labor third party. The FL governor called himself a socialist rather than a liberal.

In 1941 or 1942 a member of the same FL party was charged with serving as a front for Germany. Charles Lindbergh’s father was part of that party too, and Lindbergh was accused of Nazi sympathies.

I don’t much believe in left-right convergence stuff, but here there was a case of it. Minnesota was far from the power centers, rich enough to feel independent but poor enough to feel resentful, and also had a very high proportion of Scandinavian and German foreign-born. You could say that alienation trumped ideology.

I visited a HS friend at his farm home once around 1960, and among the 40 or so books in the house, mostly religious books, was a “Decline of the White Race” book. The father was almost certainly an ex-FL voter.
Al Mujahid July 21st, 2005 at 1:50 pm

“Here in the US you can see similar forces at work, not just at the national level, but also at local levels. For a long time the most quasi-socialist state and local administrations, the ones that offered the most comprehensive package of cradle-to-grave protections, were to be found in places that were overwhelmingly white”

I agree. In Europe the middle class has more empathy for the poor, because the white middle class can identify with the white poor and can imagine themselves or their children becoming poor.
In the US which is far more diverse than Europe, a lot of white americans consider the poor to be the ‘other’. For example, there are studies (I saw one such study referred to an article in the Economist this year) which have shown that the poorest white americans believe that they are not as poor as blacks (even though in reality they are as poor as black americans)
Similarly white poor in America believe their children have a better chance of moving across class lines when compared to the poor white population of Europe who are not as optimistic about their kids chances of moving up the social ladder and this has something to do with the Americans not being as enthusiastic for the socialist state as they believe their children have a good chance of moving up and wont have a need for a socialist state (which is stark contrast to a study posted here at gnxp from LSE a few months back which showed that social mobility in the US is lower than the social mobility in France, Germany etc.,)
Pearsall July 21st, 2005 at 1:59 pm

What do our government head counters say about the US Jewish population?

As Razib says, that’s not something that the government keeps track of. After a quick Google search I found this pdf report from 1999 that estimated that the Jewish community grew by about 500,000 during the 1990′s, mostly as a result of immigration from the former Soviet Union.
bb July 21st, 2005 at 2:04 pm

I think the experience of California strongly suggests that the idea that increasing Latinization will somehow *weaken* socialism is bunk. California is the most heavily Hispanic state in the union, and is perhaps the most liberal–the Dems are only barely short of a 2/3 majority in both houses of the state legislature. The budget deficit, even in per capita terms, is also enormous and probably in the top 5 if not #1 or #2. Remember we’re talking about a state that went Republican in every election from 1952 to 1988, except for 1964.

In any case, with the exception of perhaps the top 20 percent or so of achievers, Hispanic/Amerind immigration has been a *huge* negative for the U.S. Unskilled workers may be doing valuble work, but that doesn’t mean having more unskilled labor on the margins is good, or that having less is bad.
Al Mujahid July 21st, 2005 at 2:07 pm

“In any case, with the exception of perhaps the top 20 percent or so of achievers, Hispanic/Amerind immigration has been a *huge* negative for the U.S”

Do you mean the Indians( South Asians) ?
bb July 21st, 2005 at 2:20 pm

As for Latin American elites being able to protect themselves, there are a couple issues here. First, I don’t want to have to be travelling from sanctuary to sanctuary in a sea of third world hell. Second, the attitude of our elites is very different from that of Latin American elites. Most of our elites are traitors (supporting every anti-”rich,” anti-Western, anti-American, anti-white, feminist, homosexualist piece of nonsense that comes around) and are proud of their treason. This sort of attitude I think opens up our elite (including those who don’t believe in aformentioned flapdoodle) to being dispossessed relatively easily.
bb July 21st, 2005 at 2:21 pm

“Do you mean the Indians( South Asians) ?”

No. I am referring to the heavily American Indian (“Native American”) ancestry of most U.S. Hispanics.
Rosenberg July 21st, 2005 at 2:49 pm

[i]My experience with White-Hispanic couples is that the Hispanics in these couples are usually “whiter” than the average. [/i]

You mean, something like Gisele Bundchen and Leonardo diCaprio?
Danny July 21st, 2005 at 2:58 pm

I was about to start explaining how victory for the Democrats doesn’t equal objectively more left-wing policies, but like, what’s the point? With stuff like treasonous anti-white homosexual feminism, I can’t compete.
razib July 21st, 2005 at 3:02 pm

Most of our elites are traitors (supporting every anti-”rich,” anti-Western, anti-American, anti-white, feminist, homosexualist piece of nonsense that comes around) and are proud of their treason.

well, california might be a good counterexample. things might not play out like they do down south. also, note that the white elite in many parts of latin american plays a double game: they are proudly white and apart, but they are also part of the mestizo/cosmic race. at the end of the motocycle diaries the character who plays che guevara talks about latin americans being “one mestizo race,” when of course part of the journey reinforced to him the vast disparities of class and race throughout the continent.
razib July 21st, 2005 at 3:17 pm

btw, the national jewish population survey from 2001 might interest some here….
Pearsall July 21st, 2005 at 3:21 pm

The increasing dominance of Democrats in California politics is as much of a function of a shift in the white population as it is of Hispanic immigration. After all, whites still cast the overwhelming majority of the votes in California, despite only making up around 45% of the state population (Steve Sailer talked about this in relation to the recall election). What appears to have happened is that many conservative whites in the classic Nixon/Reagan mould have left for Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, etc., leaving liberal whites as a much larger proportion of the overall white vote. When Californian whites vote in large numbers for Republican candidates, they win. Now, this may not be true twenty or thirty years down the line, but for the moment the dominance of the Democrats in California can be mainly laid at the door of its white population.
jaimito July 21st, 2005 at 3:42 pm

Argentina is not so bad, Trasymachos, except that it is bankrupt and does not pay its debts. Democracy was never an Argentine forte, military dictatorships are the rule. But why Argentina? Brasil is more like the USA anno 2035. Nice music.

By the way, I have a seen similar analysis for Sweden, Holland and so on. One is called Who is having the babies in Britain? My conclusion: Let the future worry for the future. Most people doesn’t seem to care, at least, not to the point of having babies themselves. Which is the only thing that could change the future.
Michael July 21st, 2005 at 3:52 pm

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-garreau17jul17,0,3719869.story?coll=la-home-sunday-opinion
William July 21st, 2005 at 4:55 pm

btw, the national jewish population survey from 2001 might interest some here….

Oy vey! the number of Jews dropped from 5.5 million in 1990 to 5.2 million in 2001. What happened to all those Russian immigrants?
bb July 21st, 2005 at 5:10 pm

“I was about to start explaining how victory for the Democrats doesn’t equal objectively more left-wing policies, but like, what’s the point?”

That’s true in a sense (for example Clinton was not particularly left-wing, and where he was (e.g. blank slate-ism and its related follies), Bush Jr. is pretty much on the same wavelength as Clinton). However, victory for the Dems in California definitely has resulted in reckless spending. Also, a greater proportion of the population believing in leftist politics has given us open borders, big spending, and blank slater Republicans such as George W. Bush.
vic July 21st, 2005 at 5:16 pm

ho hum
most mixed race kids or at least the ones who can will self classify themselves as white at blend into the mainstream.
end of story
The Guyland July 21st, 2005 at 5:24 pm

Jaimito is right. Brazil is more like the USA. We are going to have to prepare ourselves for the utter destitution, favelas, prostitution, rampant AIDS and the like. We will likely have to look after our own. Pity.

Me? I am waiting for the Mexican elite begin moving from Mexico. They have managed to fool dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks Mexican peasants for almost 100 years with Cosmic Mestisaje stuff. They will begin moving here once there is a big enough racial and electoral base of malleable Mexicans to rule. They are just going to transplant their Mexican methods to America.

Right now they can bleed Mexico dry and the peasants love it. They can beat them, starve them, kill them and the peasants still love it and lick their overlord’s hands. Amazing! That, my friends, is political power.

Think about it. Is there anything that says the mayor of LA has to be a citizen? If Vincente Fox were elected LA mayor, wouldn’t he get a work visa? If we didn’t give him a work visa, wouldn’t it be white Ingles gringo racism? Disenfranchising La Raza?

But even if the white Mexican elite can’t step right into American politics, look for them to start gobbling up all the Mexican affirmative action slots. For every five peasants they send over the border, we are going to have to pay for one Mexican to go to college free. Otherwise American colleges won’t meet their affirmative action figures. Hell, Harvard has to go straight to Africa with a bundle of scholarships in hand to get qualified black students. Look to see the same thing in Mexico as the number of Mexican peasants increase radically.

Actually it is a truly inspired scam. You send the dumbest, bottom, starving, 10% of your population to America . Then you yell at white America because none of the folks you starved out are going to American colleges. As the number of peasants grows, American colleges, guilt-ridden at the tiny percentage matriculating, come directly to your country and give your rich (and smart) children a full scholarship to American universities.
H. Ross Perot July 21st, 2005 at 5:32 pm

PConroy,

“I have observed that most White-Asian couples I have seen are probably on average +2sd, often Jewish-Chinese, whereas – with the exception of Cubans – the only other White-Hispanic couple I met, were Anglo-Puerto Rican, and they were definately in the -1sd to 0sd range.”

I agree as does Steve Sailer. Many Asian female/Jewish male appearing couples were observed when I was at UCLA. White/Hispanic look to be on the downwardly mobile side, unless they are artificially subsidized with one partner in a Gov’t job.

For better of for worse, the elites could have shut the southern US border 40 years ago, but they haven’t. They seem determined to make a North American common market with free flow of goods, capital, and labor. A natural extension would be to then have the rest of the Americas join in. They never took a vote, as this would have lost big if they had.

All I can say is take care of yourself because the Council on Foreign Relations, et al, certainly won’t. The fiscal crunch will come soon as the Baby Boomers retire and gov’t expenses spike.
scottynx July 21st, 2005 at 6:21 pm

Pearsall wrote:
[The increasing dominance of Democrats in California politics is as much of a function of a shift in the white population as it is of Hispanic immigration. After all, whites still cast the overwhelming majority of the votes in California, despite only making up around 45% of the state population (Steve Sailer talked about this in relation to the recall election). What appears to have happened is that many conservative whites in the classic Nixon/Reagan mould have left for Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, etc., leaving liberal whites as a much larger proportion of the overall white vote. When Californian whites vote in large numbers for Republican candidates, they win. Now, this may not be true twenty or thirty years down the line, but for the moment the dominance of the Democrats in California can be mainly laid at the door of its white population.]

The left-wing shift in california is due to the hispanic influx and the white outflux. But the left-wing shift is still mostly the fault of the hispanic influx, because the hispanic influx was itself a large driver of the white outflux (though admittedly the white outflux didn’t change the national political balance, they are still in america).
William July 21st, 2005 at 6:27 pm

ho hum

Ho hum? Are you denigrating our discussion? Or are you doing a cute Disney song?

Ho hum, ho hum, for it’s off to work we come…
Arcane July 21st, 2005 at 9:14 pm

I’m coming to this discussion late, but I still have a few comments…

An above comment predicted that increased immigration will result in greater socialism. I think the opposite is true. The Rise and Decline of the American Welfare state is strangely coterminous with the shutting down and subsequent opening up of mass immigration.

There’s a problem with this whole idea. Indeed, it was mass immigration that forced the decline of some of the more unsavory elements of the welfare state in the US, mainly due to its rejection by the white majority. However, some of the commenters here have the idea that by somehow increasing mass immigration they will finally be able to kill it off… problem is, the more mass immigration that occurs and the more the white birthrates decline, the white majority will continue to decline until it gets to the point where there is no majority to rebel against it, at which point the welfare state will again begin to rise.

So, it’s only true to an extent that mass immigration destroys the welfare state.
Arcane July 21st, 2005 at 9:18 pm

NOW THIS is an interesting stat:

Oy vey! the number of Jews dropped from 5.5 million in 1990 to 5.2 million in 2001. What happened to all those Russian immigrants?

So the Jewish population in the US is in a state of decline… I wonder what the long-term effects of this will be for our sciences? Anybody have any idea where all the Jews are going (has to be emigration…)?

I think one of the biggest mistakes we made when the USSR collapsed was that we didn’t go over there with billions of dollars and recruit millions of Russian scientists and engineers and bring them to the US.
razib July 21st, 2005 at 9:35 pm

For every five peasants they send over the border, we are going to have to pay for one Mexican to go to college free.

this is infuriating, but true. we all know “hispanics,” “native americans” and black kids from upper middle class backgrounds who are there to add a “diversity” of views to school and work….

So the Jewish population in the US is in a state of decline… I wonder what the long-term effects of this will be for our sciences? Anybody have any idea where all the Jews are going (has to be emigration…)?

a lot of this is probably due to intermarriage. since the intermarried jews probably assort with other bright people, the resultant half-jews, 60% of which are not raised as jews (secular or christian) probably aren’t that dumb (jonah goldberg excepted).
William July 21st, 2005 at 11:00 pm

I also think the Jewish birthrate is pretty low, because (1) birthrates of urban whites in general is low – it cost so much to raise a child in NYC, Boston, etc. (see Sailor, others, on this) (2) most Jews live in urban areas (see Jesse Jackson’s comment on NYC being ”Hymietown”.)

Come on you guys, go join a kibbutz or something!
William July 21st, 2005 at 11:06 pm

Sorry iSteve, my spellchecker turned you from a Sailer into a Sailor. Blame Bill Gates.
Steve Sailer July 21st, 2005 at 11:06 pm

Traditionally, immigration into America leads not to socialism, but to Tammany Hallism, as politics reverts back to tribalistic slicing up of the pork pie.
razib July 21st, 2005 at 11:38 pm

I also think the Jewish birthrate is pretty low, because (1) birthrates of urban whites in general is low – it cost so much to raise a child in NYC, Boston, etc. (see Sailor, others, on this) (2) most Jews live in urban areas (see Jesse Jackson’s comment on NYC being ”Hymietown”.)

the link i provided addresses all these questions. no need to conjecture.
William July 22nd, 2005 at 12:47 am

The extremely low fertility in the early years – and thus the rising average age of giving birth can’t be ignored as a major factor in causing a population to shrink (as any mathematical demographic model will show). The fertility differences between Jewish and non Jewish in the lower ages are almost astonishing.
Robert Hume July 22nd, 2005 at 12:35 pm

I think that gnxp’s white-asian observations may be biased. In DC metro area I notice lots, a substantial majority, of white-male/asian-female who are low and lower-middle class, both of them. Don’t forget all the soldiers who came back from Vietnam and Japan and the Philippines with brides. They set up a large mixed culture.
pconroy July 22nd, 2005 at 1:24 pm

I’ve been in DC a number of times, and there is a huge Phillipino population there, but my guess is that they don’t fit into the same East Asian/South Asian elite demographic that one sees in other cities on the coasts?
razib July 22nd, 2005 at 3:02 pm

East Asian/South Asian elite demographic that one sees in other cities on the coasts?

filipinos who come to the US tend to be college educated and middle class. many of them are mid-level professionals.
odocoileus virginianus July 22nd, 2005 at 4:39 pm

Keep in mind that the more educated Phillipinos are usually ethnic Chinese or an upper class Phillipine/Chinese mix. They aren’t always keen on identifying themselves as Chinese, bc of the ethnic persecution of Chinese endemic to the the region.

(grew up in a MD suburb of DC. All the Phillipinos in my hs calc class and the other science classes were ethnic chinese or chinese mixed).
pconroy July 22nd, 2005 at 8:20 pm

Right that’s what I meant.

I knew a Phillipina and her parents bought her a penthouse apartment in midtown Manhattan when she was studying Computer Science at NYU, but she was of 100% Chinese descent – her parents owned a grocery store chain throughout the Phillipines.

Another part Phillipina – not of Chinese descent – I knew grew up in a trailer park in Florida, where her dad operated a roadside stall selling food next to some highway, and she attended Community College in Manhattan, majoring in modern dance, and became an exotic dancer.

That’s not exactly objective I know, but it gives some indication of the disparities that exist between Phillipino’s of Chinese descent and the bulk of the population.
H. Ross Perot July 24th, 2005 at 10:39 am

PConroy,

“it gives some indication of the disparities that exist between Phillipino’s of Chinese descent and the bulk of the population.”

The Phillipines population are primarily Malay, with some Chinese. Fringe blends from Spain, America, etc. also exist, but its still mostly Malay with some Chinese. The same mix is present in Malaysia, with the same overachievement by the Chinese and underachievement by the Malays, including affirmative action for Malays and occasional anti-Chinese riots.
Godzilla Pimp July 24th, 2005 at 12:35 pm

Most people don’t realize that many “Vietnamese” immigrants are actually Chinese and that the war was mainly fought to drive the Chinese elite out.
Stir the Pot July 24th, 2005 at 10:08 pm

An old Chinese woman scours thru my neighborhood’s garbage cans every trash day before dawn digging for recyclables. If she collects a few large trash bags full of crushed aluminum cans she might earn $3 for her time. She is not homeless, or stupid, or crazy, and she knows this behavior is illegal. She is just looking for free money and is cheap way past the point of ‘normal’.

The Chinese are an economically/politically successful minority in many, if not most, east Asian nations (especially southeast) and are the subject of regular ethnic riots every few years.

Their ethnic cohesion, secrecy, high visio-spatial/numeric IQ’s, and cultural…umm…thrift…serve them well financially, but tend to alienate their host societies.

Worth noting is that, to my knowledge, no real, serious, offensive war of aggression has ever been launched by the Chinese. Money seems to motivate them more than power.
pconroy July 25th, 2005 at 6:24 am

Stir,

I don’t know where you live, but in my neighbourhood in New York, I have a similar old Chinese lady? She wears a large wide brimmed hat – like a coolie of yesteryear – and a stick over her shoulders, balancing 2 large trash bags!

Young American

61 Comments

Archives

Recent Comments

Jason’s Delicious

Categories

Young American

61 Comments

Archives

Recent Comments

Jason’s Delicious

Tags

Categories