This is a somewhat off-topic question, but how far over on the "light-complexion" end of the Bell Curve do Indians have to be for their fellow Indians to regard them as "non-Indian looking?" For example, I have read some internet comments (Sepia Mutiny, etc.) from Indians who regard GOP gubernatorial contender Nikki Haley as "non-Indian looking."

Generally, I would tend to agree. In my K through 12 years I did notice that the "duller" students seemed to require a lot more external stimulation in order to be entertained than I did. As I matter of fact, my parents used to joke that sending me to my room as a punishment (no tv or video games) was useless, as I would be perfectly content reading the stack of books that I always had in my room. For that matter, there is the old cliche of low IQ youth getting involved in anti-social activities because they were bored on a Saturday night and needed something to do.

Another observation from Keeley, in his WAR BEDORE CIVILIZATION, concerns the expanded role of women in 19th century health care: 
...I am convinced that one of the most effective innovations in nineteenth- century military medicine was the begrudging acceptance of women nurses. Victorian sexism focused women's intelligence and practical curiosity on precisely those subjects that were eventually recognized as primary medical concerns-cleanliness (antisepsis), nutrition, convalescent care, and patient morale. 
 
Although Keeley holds that nurture accounts for women's critical role in improving health care, I wonder if nature might not also play a role. Perhaps women, along with being more religious than men, are also innately more "health-conscious" (at least in the areas that Keeley lists)than men are? Indeed, one might even note that such health topics as cleanliness, nutrition, convalescent care, and patient morale are exactly the areas where religiously prescribed health care regimes and scientific medicine converge.

Although he does not get into the relative merits of "prayer-based" healing vs. pre-antibiotic Western medicine, Lawrence Keeley, in his War Before Civilization, does note that "military medicine during the nineteenth century was worse than ineffective: it was positvely harmful" (95). Indeed, he contrasts the largely harmful techniques of nineteenth century Western medicine with the considerably less life endangering methods of "primitive healers," and finds that nineteenth century doctors were superior in only one area over their primitive counterparts: namely, WEstern surgeons'"ability to stop massive bleeding from major arteries and veins (96).

How anyone can take Spengler seriously after reading his comment regarding the "mediocraty" of Counter-Reformation art is beyond me. One normally needs to consult such heavyweight thinkers as Dan Brown in order to find such a piece of wilful stupidity.

In regards to the spread of Nahuatl in post-conquest Mexico, some historians have even argued that the Spanish, via their practise of settling towns with their Amerindian allies,can be seen as facilitating the Aztec conquest of Mexico and Central America. Indeed, I have read that "Aztec" barrios in, for example, Escuintla in Guatemala and San Esteban de Tlaxcala in Saltillo, Coahuila, preserved their language and identity well into the early part of the 20th century. 
 
Racial identity in Hollywood is a very curious phenomenon, but the general rule seems to be that "Blackness" is more racially determinative than the other catagories.Unless you fall into the Wentworth Miller/Jennifer Beals/Rashida Jones end of the phenotypic spectrum, actors with Black ancestry are confined to playing Black characters .For that matter, all three of the aforementioned actors have still played Black characters and have had a good deal of media coverage devoted to their racial makeup. In contrast, one might note that the part Asian actor Dean Cain played Superman on TV for a number of years, with very little, if any, media attention devoted to the fact that a "non-White" performer was playing the Man of Steel. I am quite certain that a lot more media interest would have been generated if Dean Cain had been part Black (Assuming, of course, that they would have hired a part Black, as opposed to part Asian, to play Superman).

Razib, I apologize for citing you in my response. You are, of course, correct in noting that English penetration is somewhat more extensive in the Dravidian South of India than in the North.For that matter, I do not wish to imply that Ostler is a sterotypical man with a hammer, seeing structural similarities as the determining factor in language spread.In the case of English penetration in India as compared to Japan, numerous historically contingent factors have played a role (English colonial domination of India, the multiplicity of languages within India, Japan's linguistic homogeneity, etc.).  
 
Pconroy, I had no idea that Alan and Neil are now perceived as sterotypically Jewish to the degree that, say, Irving is.

Hsieh, what do you mean by "South Asia?" Are you including the Indic cultural zone under that rubric? If so, Razib's comments regarding certain common I-E elements should demonstrate that it is probably somewhat easier for an Indian to learn English (as an adult) than it is for a Japanese. 
 
In terms of the spread of Spanish in the New World, Ostler has some fascinating data on the relatively slow growth of Spanish among the Amerindian populations. For that matter, Ostler never says that structural similarities are definitive, only that they help.

In regards to ease of language learning, Nicholas Ostler's Empires Of The Word has some good material on structural affinities as an aid in language acquisition. For example, he specifically cites the structural similarities between Continental Celtic and Latin as playing a key role in Latin's victory over Celtic in Continental Europe. Conversly, Insular (British) Celtic was not quite as structurally similar and resisted being supplanted by Latin.Similarly, Arabic's successful spread across the Middle East was mediated by the dominance of Aramaic, a closely allied tongue. 
 
In terms of the Far East, he notes the relative failure of ESL training in Japan, citing the deep structural differences between the languages as a key factor.

Thanks for the response, Razib. The conjunction of greater religiosity with (relatively) easier to pronounce names makes a lot of sense as an explanation for Indian onomastic conservatism. On the pronounciation front, some of my US born Indian friends have told me that their parents made a special effort to select names that Anglophones can easily pronounce (e.g., Priya, Devi, Recka, etc.). 
 
In regards to the Chinese in the US, their tendency to select very "WAspy" names seems somewhat akin to the naming patterns found among Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants, who also heavily favored high class sounding Anglo names like Richard, Robert, etc. Of course, the Ashkenazi fondness for such names had the side-effect of making such uber-Waspy names as Irving, Sheldon, Sydney, etc. somewhat Jewish sounding to later generations.Perhaps Anglo names favored by the Chinese (I know 5 Chinese girls named Lucy) may become somewhat Sinified in the popular mind?

Razib, any thoughts on the disparity between Chinese immigrants, with their strong propensity for adopting Western names, and Indians, who seem to be much more onomastically conservative?Nearly all of the Chinese students that I know personally go by Western names, while the great majority of the Indians that I have encountered retain "traditional" Indian naming patterns. For that matter, I have noticed a lot of hostility towards Bobby Jindall in the Indian-American community for his use of "Bobby."

Damn, I left out Shiri Appleby, Evan Rachel Wood and Rena Sofer. 
 
Shiri Appleby: Jewish on both sides; her mother is described as of Sephardic Moroccan descent, which does not help the aesthetic rankings of Ahkenazi Jews.  
 
Evan Rachel Wood:DEscribed as Jewish; however, I strongly suspect that she is half Jewish. Her mother's name is listed as Sarah Lynn Moore in the Wikipedia article, and this sounds rather non Jewish to me. 
 
REna Sofer: Jewish. Father is a Rabbi.

Here is my attempt to ascertain the ethnic background of Whiskey's list of Jewish actresses: 
 
Sarah Michelle Gellar: Jewish on both sides. 
 
Michelle Trachtenberg: Ambiguous. Described as Jewish in some articles, but speaks of celebrating both Christmas and H. 
 
Alona Tal:Jewish on both sides. 
 
Yasmine Bleeth: As Razib noted, reports are conficting in regards to her mother. 
 
Laura Prepon: Half Jewish, half Irish. 
 
Amanda Bynes: Half Jewish. Father is non Jewish 
 
Rachel Bilson: Half Jewish. Mother is Italian. 
 
Scarlet Johanson: Half Jewish. Father is DaNISH. 
 
AShley Tisdale: Half Jewish. 
 
Elizabeth Banks: Not ethnically Jewish. She is a convert to Judaism. 
 
Amber Benson: Half Jewish 
 
Elizabeth Berkley: Seems to be Jewish on both sides. 
 
 
Jennifer Connelly: Half Jewish. 
 
Soleil Moon Frye: Ambiguous data. Some sources merely list her as Jewish, while others describe her as a convert. 
 
Leah Remini: Half Jewish. Father is Italian. 
 
Sarah Silverman: Jewish. 
 
Alicia Silverstone: Half Jewish. Mother is not Jewish. 
 
Jennifer Jason Leigh: Jewish 
 
Amanda Peet: Half Jewish. Father is not Jewish. 
 
For most of the actresses on this list, I relied on Wikipedia;however, for the more ambiguous cases (Bleeth, Trachtenberg, etc) I used multiple sources.

Again, in MAINSPRINGS OF CIVILIZATION, Huntington attempts to objectively analyze the relationship between climate and mental activity by studying the percentage of non-fiction versus fiction books in North American city libraries, the premise of the study being that readers of non-fiction are engaged in a somewhat more strenuous form of mental activity than readers of fiction (Barring, of course, such esoteric works as, say, ULYSSES). The data for the study comes from the 1920-1939 period. 
8 most southerly cities in the survey:Tampa; Houston; New Orleans; Jacksonville; El Paso; Savannah; Shreveport; SAn Diego:Percentage of non-fiction in libraries:28.9 
8 next most southerly cities:Atlanta; Los Angeles; Oklahoma City; Nashville; Richmond; Oakland; Kansas City; Cincinati:percentage non-fiction:51.3 (41.3 if L.A. is omitted). 
6 more northerly cities:Baltimore; Denver; New Haven; Chicago; Boston; Hamilton, Ont.: percentage non-fiction:53.5 
6 most northerly cities:St. John, N.B.;Minneapolis;Portland, Oregon;Seattle;Spokane;Vancouver: percentage non-fiction:55.2  
(HUNTINGTON, MAINSPRINGS OF CIVILIZATION, P. 353).

In regards to Lyall Watson's theory regarding the Pacific Northwest as the optimal climatic zone, Huntington does something similar in MAINSPRINGS OF CIVILIZATION, arging that the optimal areas in the world for "High Efficency" are: Northwestern Europe (descrbed as a "rough rectangle with corners near Liverpool, Copenhagen, Berlin, and Paris"); the North American Atlantic zone, from New Hampshire to New Jersey;the Puget Sound area;the California coast;New Zealand; and the Southeastern Coast of Australia (p. 393).

A great source of information on the interplay of climate and civilization is Ellsworth Huntington; in particular, take a look at MAINSPRINGS OF CIVILIZATION (PUB. 1945) and CIVILIZATION AND CLIMATE(3rd ed. 1924). The books are full of data on the relationship between climate and civilization; as a plus, since Huntington was, in essence, a pre-WW2 product, PC doublethink is almost entirely absent.

To carry on the chorus, the teenage bride theory does seem to carry a lot of weight ; prior to the 1960s, people were a lot franker about what constitutes a woman's aesthetic peak; Hence, the need to put a young girl on display, as it were, during her prime. Modern day society goes to rather extravagant lengths to persuade itself (SEX AND THE CITY, etc.) that a woman in her 30s can effectively compete with women in their late teens and 20s.

The increase in living standards might have something to do with this; George Orwell once remarked that a more youthful appearence was one of the key demarcaters of social class in Britain, with a middle aged Upper class individual nearly always looking younger than a working class person. Perhaps this Uper class tendency has simply spread more evenly throughout the population.

One possibel explanation for the increasing age of beauty contestants and playboy playmates is the trend towards a prolonged youth in our society; look at stars from the 1930s through the 1960s. A man or woman in his or her 30s looks substantially older than a perosn of similar age today.

What about the decline in the social stigma of cosmetics/hair dying? My grandmother remarked to me that during her youth (1930s-1940s) the bottle blonde was seen as something of a tart, and the practise of lightening hair was strongly associated with suspect catagories: Actresses, prostitutes, etc. Even now, with hair lightening a much more socially acceptible practise, extreme dye-jobs carry with them lower class connotations.