June 4, 2010

More Interracial Marriage Stats

Here are quotes from the summary of the new Pew report on interracial marriage in 2008. Note a few things. This is based on the Census Bureau's annual American Community Survey of 3 million people, not the decennial enumeration of 100 times that number Plus, note the distinction between newlyweds and married couples: people who get married in 2008 versus people who are married in 2008. So, there could be some sample size issues versus the actual Census. Still, when you start with 3 million people, you can slice and dice pretty far.

Also, 41% of babies born in 2008 were illegitimate, so marriage stats tend to look at what the upper 3/5ths or so of society are doing. Only about 28% of babies born to black women were legitimate and only 49% of babies born to Hispanics were legitimate, so marriage behavior and mating behavior are increasingly disconnected.
Even with that sharp increase, however, black-white couplings represented only about one-in-nine of the approximately 280,000 new interracial or interethnic marriages in 2008.

White-Hispanic couples accounted for about four-in-ten (41%) of such new marriages; white-Asian couples made up 15%; and white-black couples made up 11%.

I.e., "nonwhites" include Hispanics who self-identify as whites. Also, there's no multi-ethnic category as there is a multi-racial category, so a lot of these Hispanics marrying non-Hispanic whites might be actually half or a quarter Hispanic. So, for example, if blonde actress Cameron Diaz, daughter of an American-born Cuban father and an Old American (English, German, Cherokee) mother who grew up on the beach in Southern California, married, say, ex-boyfriend Matt Dillon, it would, theoretically, count as an "interracial marriage."
The remaining third consisted of marriages in which each spouse was a member of a different minority group or in which at least one spouse self-identified as being American Indian or of mixed or multiple races.
Of the 3.8 million adults who married in 2008, 9% of whites, 16% of blacks, 26% of Hispanics and 31% of Asians married someone whose race or ethnicity was different from their own.

For whites these shares are more than double what they had been in 1980 and for blacks they are nearly triple. For Hispanics and Asians, by contrast, these rates are little changed from 1980. High levels of Hispanic and Asian immigration over the past several decades helped drive both seemingly contradictory trends.

For whites and blacks, the new immigrants and (increasingly) their now grown U.S.-born children have enlarged the pool of potential partners for marrying outside one's own racial or ethnic group. But for Hispanics and Asians, the ongoing immigration wave has greatly enlarged the pool of potential partners for in-group marrying.
Gender: Among blacks and Asians, there are stark differences by gender in the tendency to marry outside their own racial group. Some 22% of all black male newlyweds in 2008 married outside their race, compared with just 9% of black female newlyweds. Among Asians, the gender pattern runs the opposite way. Some 40% of Asian female newlyweds in 2008 married outside their race, compared with just 20% of Asian male newlyweds.
Among whites and Hispanics, by contrast, there are no gender differences in intermarriage rates.

These gender gap ratios for newlyweds are actually less extreme than those seen for married couples in 1990 and 2000.

Correction -- That's looking at black or Asian intermarriage rates with everybody else, when what people are most interested in (and what my 1990s and 2000s articles were about) is black-white or white-Asian intermarriage. My earlier articles looked at white-black and white-Asian rates, not black-all other and Asian-all other.

Plus, that's just looking at percentages of people who got married, when a big issue is that fewer black women than black men and fewer Asian men than Asian women were getting married to anybody. Pew should give us the raw counts of interracial marriages in 2008 rather than putting everything in percentage terms, which can be misleading and confusing. Unfortunately, they don't.

Another way to look at this is that white men in 2008 were 3.90 times as likely to marry an Asian woman as a black woman, while white women were only 0.47 times as likely to marry an Asian man as a black man. (See p. 10 of the full report.) That's a big difference.

I'm tempted to divide 3.90 by 0.47 to come up with 8.33, but 8.33 what? What does 8.33 mean, if anything? One reason the prose style is so polished in my 1997 "Is Love Colorblind?" is that it took me a long time to get to the point that I was confident I was handling the algebra in a humanly meaningful way.

Also, the Asian population has shifted considerably in the direction of South Asians since 1990, who are rather different from East Asians in marital behavior.
About 9% of both male and female white newlyweds in 2008 married a nonwhite spouse and about a quarter of both male and female Hispanic newlyweds in 2008 married someone who is not Hispanic.
States and Regions: Intermarriage in the United States tilts West. About one-in-five (21%) of all newlyweds in Western states married someone of a different race or ethnicity in 2008, compared with 13% in the South and Northeast and 11% in the Midwest. All nine states with out-marriage rates of 20% or more in 2008 are situated west of the Mississippi River: Hawaii (43%); Nevada (28%); Oregon (24%); Oklahoma (23%); California (22%); New Mexico (22%); Colorado (21%); Arizona (21%); and Washington (20%). (See Appendix III for a fifty state table).
Regional out-marriage patterns vary in other ways. For example, blacks who live in the West are three times as likely to out-marry as are blacks who live in the South and twice as likely as blacks in the Northeast or Midwest.

Among Hispanics, by contrast, the highest rate of out-marriage is in the Midwest (41%) reflecting a general tendency for out-marriage rates to be higher among smaller groups.

Blacks who live in places like North Dakota have very high rates of intermarriage with whites: there aren't many other blacks for them to marry, and many of them got to these kind of states through the military, so they have been preselected for IQ, lawfulness, and have been culturally molded by the military
As for Asians, relatively few live in the South, but those who do are more likely to out-marry (37%) than are those who live in other regions.
The nation's most populous state, California, presents the following anomaly: in 2008, white (20%) and black (36%) newlyweds were more likely to out-marry than were Hispanics (18%).

That's what I see every day in California: Latinos with Latinos. This seems especially true for Mexicans, but less true for, say, South Americans. If we assume that LA is test driving the American future, then what we're likely to see is the whiter shades of Hispanics merging into the white population, but also less and less intermarriage of mestizos as their numbers grow larger.
In all other states where data are available for these groups, the reverse was true-Hispanic newlyweds out-married at higher rates than did whites or blacks. (See appendix for states and regional table or click here for an interactive map)
Education: Marrying out is more common among adults who attended college than among those who did not, but these differences are not large. Of all newlyweds in 2008, 15.5% of those who attended college married outside their race or ethnicity, compared with 13.5% of those who completed high school and 11.0% of those who did not complete high school.

Nativity Status: Marrying out is much more common among native-born adults than among immigrants. Native-born Hispanics are more than three times as likely as the foreign born to marry a non-Hispanic.
The disparity among native- and foreign-born Asians is not as great, but it is still significant; native-born Asian-Americans are nearly twice as likely as those who are foreign born to marry a non-Asian.

Here again, there are sharp gender differences. Among Asian men, the native born are nearly four times as likely as the foreign born to marry out. Among Asian women, the native born are only about 50% more likely than the foreign born to marry a non-Asian.

So, the gender gap is much smaller among American-born Asians: 39.5% outmarriage for American-born Asian women versus 30.8% among American-born Asian men. Asian parents are intentionally congregating together it certain communities -- e.g, largely abandoning the San Fernando Valley in favor of the San Gabriel Valley. This self-segregation in places like Arcadia has a lot of reasons (e.g., control of the public schools), but it also gives their sons a better chance.

But, it would be interesting to remove South Asians from this figure.


Interestingly, a higher percentage of newlywed couples among people, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44 and 45-49 are interracial than among people 20-24 and 25-29.

This would suggest that fertility is likely a little lower.

82 comments:

Tell The Whole Story said...

From the Pew Research Study :

Appendices : Section II : Additional Charts : New Marriages For Hispanics and Asians in 2008 Native vs. Foreign Born
Appendices : Section II : Additional Charts : Intermarriage Rates Among Asian US-Born Newlyweds by Gender 1980-2008

1) Over 41% US-Born (Native) Asian men married someone of a different race/ethnicity in 2008
2) Over 50% US-Born (Native) Asian women married someone of a different race/ethnicity in 2008
3) From 1980 to 2008, the interracial marriage rates for US-Born (Native) Asian men have hovered around 40 percent

When the Asian male/female interracial marriage disparity is discussed, Sailer ignores that roughly half of the US Asian Population are 1st generation immigrants. Most of these immigrant Asians (men) have English as a second language, are culturally ‘Asian’, are typically older, immigrated to the US already married, etc. But when you isolate Asians who are born in the US (or raised in the US) only - this means these Asians speak English fluently and are raised in American culture - the interracial marriage disparity between these Asian-American males/females lessens to where it is 41% vs 50%.

Anonymous said...

American intermarriage rates are so low, I have no idea why people worry about them.

Here in Britain however, intermarriage is an epidemic on a level seen nowhere else in the West.

Steve Sailer said...

Dear "Tell the Whole Story:"

Try to finish reading the whole post before complaining. I posted:

"So, the gender gap is much smaller among American-born Asians: 46.0% outmarriage for American-born Asian women versus 39.4% among American-born Asian men."

RandyB said...

What we need is more black women getting married, period.

June 20th (this year) is almost as segregated as Kwanzaa.

Anonymous said...

"Interestingly, a higher percentage of newlyweds among people, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44 and 45-49 are interracial than among people less than 30."

This is because the over 30 demographic is enriched with divorcees, beta males, and fat skanks. They are somewhat more desperate to hook up and are willing to forgo all those "requirements" for the ideal mate that they worked out over beer and Doritos with their college roommates. Also, marrying outside your race or ethnic group is a lot easier to do AFTER your parents are dead -- and it's far more likely you've lost a parent or parents after 40.

Mark said...

"Interestingly, a higher percentage of newlyweds among people, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44 and 45-49 are interracial than among people less than 30."

This makes sense given that the more educated members of society are most likely to intermarry, since people who pursue higher education tend to marry later.

Anonymous said...

I wonder why East Asians and South Asians haven't objected to being counted as one group by government and private instutions.

While I'm sure it would be a uncomfortable issue to bring up, there seem to be enough differences in behavior and culture to warrent different catagories.

From the very few South Asians I've dealt with, they seem to be very endogamous among both male and females. I was pretty surprised when I read that the candidate for SC Gov. Nikki Haley, married a white guy. Then again I was also surprised to find out she was Indian.

Anonymous said...

You're on fire lately, if it hasn't been said yet, great posts.

Anonymous said...

Re: S. vs. E. Asians, that would be interesting.

Is there data on specific Asian ethnicities? In Canada where they are plentiful, Asians get split into lots of categories for the census such as South Asians, Chinese etc.

Anonymous said...

On the east asian, south asian differences ... I wonder if more is the cultural differences of the asians vs American male and female desirability standards. East asian women have certain traits that tend to make them attractive to white men ... and vice versa.

For example, American women prefer their men to be taller and heavier than them. This is easy for east asian females, white male partners.

East asian women also tend to have little body hair, which American men find attractive. South Asian women tend to be more .. hirsute.

My dating experience spans the spectrum of American women, but I will say the half and quarter asian-white mix produces a lot of beautiful women -- the slender asian waist and hairless body with a fuller white girl figure.

I do think most is cultural -- with South Asians being more insular and having larger extended families -- but American men don't find South Asian women nearly as attractive, on average, as East Asian women.

corvinus said...

I do think most is cultural -- with South Asians being more insular and having larger extended families -- but American men don't find South Asian women nearly as attractive, on average, as East Asian women.

On the whole, based on personal observation, it appears that South Asian/European mating, as with Hispanics, is approximately sex-balanced. This would make sense considering that South Asians resemble Europeans far more than East Asians do.

Arranged marriages lead to somewhat more immigrant South Asian men than women intermarrying, but among US-born and -raised South Asians, women seem slightly more likely than men to mix with whites, although not as much as East Asians. Why would this be? Possibly because South Asians seem to have somewhat lower obesity rates due to their vegetarian diets.

Interestingly, a higher percentage of newlyweds among people, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44 and 45-49 are interracial than among people less than 30.

I have a few theories on this, being 28 years old.

First of all, the "Facebook effect" has seemed to lead to tighter networking among young whites, but not those in their 30s and older (who don't use Facebook nearly as much). Consequently, whites in their 20s are less likely to be socially isolated from other whites and be "picked off" by minorities, so to speak. I say this because it has pretty much had this effect on me, and I cannot imagine that I am the only one.

Secondly, among the younger whites, there is somewhat of a stigma attached to out-marriage. White guys who date Asian women (especially foreign-born ones) are tarred as socially inept and/or promiscuous. Young white women who date black men are similarly seen as slutty and low-class.

Dog of Justice said...

Steve, your 46% vs. 39.4% statistic regarding native-born Asian female vs. Asian male outmarriage is wrong. That's native-born Asian (both genders) vs. native-born Hispanic.

(Feel free to delete this comment after you've corrected the numbers.)

Anonymous said...

Nepalese are a mix of East Asian and South Asian, however, they are Hindus and follow south asian mores in diaspora

In North east India, there are tens of millions of oriental race Hindus and Buddhists and there has been slow intermarriage for centuries

Caste exists in the Diaspora, in a weaker form

Indians in South East Asia , about 5% marry buddhist natives
for centuries,
In UK about 7% after 3 generations
In Canada, 13% after 5 generations

In Africa and Middle east intermarriage is 0%, since among all castes, marrying an African or a Muslim is grounds for outcasting

The east-asian south-asian difference in intermarriage is strongly due to religion and caste

Sunny Leone and Priya Rai are Punjabi Porn stars and plenty of white men do find them attractive

Anonymous said...

Regarding Nikki Haley, She is a Jat ( Landlord caste ) of Punjab

Normally, I would have expected her to be outcasted for converting to xtianity and marrying a white guy, which is what happens to Jat Sikh women of Canada

I notice she still attends a Sikh Gurudwara. Normally Sikh Gurudwaras would not let in an apostate

She also converted to Methodism which is like Episcopal in very mildly christian

These 2 factors lead me to question her conversion
Her opponents have raised the same issue

IMHO, She decided to go for political carreer and in the republican party, there is no room for a non-christian or a non-jew. and hence she decided to convert

A large number of Punjabis and Kashmiris can pass as Mediteranean whites

ironrailsironweights said...

East asian women also tend to have little body hair, which American men find attractive.

Yet they're among the few women today who generally refrain from removing a specific (and wonderful) sort of body hair.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Sunny Leone and Priya Rai.

Purely in the spirit of dispassionate research, I looked up their pictures.

Sunny is a beauty, like so many paragons of non-white beauty, turns out to look as if she were a darker European girl.

Priya otoh looks as rough as a badger's arse (as we say here in Britain).

Anonymous said...

Observation of a moderately large sample drawn from several areas of the USA persuades me that the the effects of South Asian vegetarianism do not include keeping South Asian women slender on average in the USA. Although in my sample there are many slender South Asian men married to well-padded South Asian women, and many couples both of whom are well-padded, only a small proportion of the married South Asian women are slender.

Separately, I see on TV and the Internet that Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi women with any money are nearly all chubby, though their menfolk are often not.

(Most of my sample are presumably middle-to-upper caste, since it includes many scientists, medical practicioners, engineers, computer geeks, and their families, plus a bunch of innkeeper types.)

adsfasfasdf said...

YUCK!!!!

Simon in UK said...

Anon:
"American intermarriage rates are so low, I have no idea why people worry about them.

Here in Britain however, intermarriage is an epidemic on a level seen nowhere else in the West."

I agree. Here in London, outside of a few of the wealthiest areas it seems more common to see a white mother with a brown (half-African) baby than with a white (all-British) baby. When you do see a white baby, it's usually Polish. My street of ca 120 residences is about half white, but I think my son is the only white child.

Truth said...

"White guys who date Asian women (especially foreign-born ones) are tarred...promiscuous."

Which is of course a social death-knell to a male in his 20s.

Anonymous said...

Simon,
the white British population of many London Boroughs is less than 50% and for the under 35s probably only 25-30% in 15-20 Boroughs.

Most native Brits with any sense got out of London years ago.

It won't be long before the majority of the population in many boroughs will be nearly all ethnic, mixed-race and white women. This will not be pleasant for white women even if they have mixed-race children. They will not have the wherewithal to move either.

I live in Tower Hamlets where the school population is approx 90% 'minority'.

Richard

Anonymous said...

Take a look at the hotness of the average Indian actress...they are super-hot women.

Indians are essentially Caucasians, are they not Steve? Caucus mountains come from that region, and their facial features are identical to whites with darker skin.

Anonymous said...

"But it would be interesting to remove South Asians from the figures"

Breaking:

Spelling bee winner part of Indian-American streak
By LAUREN SAUSSER (AP) – 6 hours ago
WASHINGTON — Shantanu Srivatsa and Anamika Veeramani sat nervously, side by side on stage.
Once again, an Indian-American was going to win the Scripps National Spelling Bee. It was just a matter of what word and what time on Friday.
Shantanu, 13, an eighth-grader from West Fargo, N.D., stepped to the microphone first and couldn't spell "ochidore."
Anamika — showing the cool demeanor she kept throughout — kept her hands behind her back and rattled off the correct letters for the medical term "stromuhr." She didn't crack a smile until the trophy was presented.

Anonymous said...

"Young white women who date black men are similarly seen as slutty and low-class."

Stereotypes are true.

Silver said...

American intermarriage rates are so low, I have no idea why people worry about them.

It's the fact of it that concerns people, not just the rate of it. A lower rate only means whites will go extinct later rather than sooner. Of course, we're potentially talking hundreds of years for complete extinction, but effective extinction -- political dispossession, powerlessness -- will occur well before that.

I think Steve places this line of thought in the "You can't say that!" files so it'll be interesting to see whether it gets posted. He should note in weighing it up that the observation itself, of itself, is politically neutral: it's just what's occurring. There's nothing inherently right wing or left wing or any wing about it; it's just a phenomenon and this is what it undeniably portends. One might favor or disfavor that phenomenon but there it is.

Dave R. said...

American intermarriage rates are so low, I have no idea why people worry about them.

Here in Britain however, intermarriage is an epidemic on a level seen nowhere else in the West.


I think you're projecting. One reason to discuss this is that rates are low, since intermarriage can be taken as a proxy for assimilation. And the ongoing immigration that gives people partners from their own race also produces ethnic enclaves and discourages assimilation.

To the extent I worry about miscegenation it's as a part of reverse assimilation: multi-culti-brainwashed young natives assimilating into "vibrant" (confident and assertive) minority or immigrant cultures, and contributing to balkanization rather than real assimilation. And when the male and female numbers are as different as they are, you add a demographic balkanization in as well.

rob said...

Sailer, the graphs in line with text is really unappealing.

Anonymous said...

"Indians are essentially Caucasians, are they not Steve? Caucus mountains come from that region, and their facial features are identical to whites with darker skin."

Indians are a mixture of Caucasians (who came from the north) and Dravidians (who came from Africa on their way to Australia) in varying degrees.

Anonymous said...

Indian women want to marry up or the same level
This means finding a guy with college degree ( removes 75% of whites ), making over 100K ( removes 90% of whites )
And many of the white men making over 100K and with a college degree will not be interested in Indian women

The next problem is christianity
Indians live in extended families and having christian member inside is very disruptive, with constant references to heathens, pagans and idol worshippers and vegetarians. Even christian-jew marriages are very stressful

Indian men will also not marry non-virgins ( rules out 99% of natives ). In Indian society, non-virgin = Wh***

Regarding Africans
There are a million negritos ( asian negro ) in Indian forests, primitive, with frizzly hair, and thick lips and are considered untouchables
Also, there is an African group called Siddhi, these were pirates and mostly muslim and also untouchable
Finally the muslim sultans imported thousands of black slaves called Habshis , mostly muslim and untouchable also

Anonymous said...

The 2010 spelling bee winner, Anamika Veeramani, is from a Dravidian landlord caste
Their modal Y-Haplogroup is L1, which they have 40% concentration
L1 is present in North India at 10% and 4% in middle-east
L1 is generally absent among Australian Abos

jody said...

yeah, the statistics for the "asian" group are starting to get confounded. putting all humans from asia into one category is not accurate.

i think these numbers corroborate what i see on the street. white men with east/southeast asian women is by far the most frequently occuring interracial couple, much more common than black men with white women. despite there being 40 million africans in the US and only 8 million or so "asians", the white /asian couple is now more common even in absolute numbers. and since not all 8 million "asians" are east/southeast asians, the real rate of occurence for this couple is even higher than what the numbers here show.

europeans and africans are clearly not merging into one genetic group, despite being together for 400 years. black americans might be slowly becoming a little more european over time, though. i see tons of evidence of this whenever i see the covers of black men's magazines at the gas station, or even music videos from black musicians. mulatto women appear far out of proportion to their real numbers and are clearly considered more attractive and desirable.

i've been seeing a few asian men with white women in the last 15 years, and it looks like that is showing up in the numbers. they're usually totally americanized guys, not directly from asia, who grew up around white girls and clearly prefer them over asian girls. i have a couple asian friends like that.

Anonymous said...

Simon from the U.K.:

I was very sad to hear what you had to say. The British should have listened to Enoch Powell. So sad and so avoidable.

To the other poster. The Caucasus mountain range is not In or NEAR India. I suggest you study a map.

corvinus said...

"White guys who date Asian women (especially foreign-born ones) are tarred...promiscuous."

Which is of course a social death-knell to a male in his 20s.


Maybe not if he wants to get a large quantity of tail, but the quality of the tail will be substantially reduced.

I actually know a Casanova like this. His roommate reported to me that he does indeed get laid a lot, but it's either Asian women (usually Chinese students) or nasty-looking white women of the sort that my roommate wouldn't let his male member get anywhere close to. If my town had a large black population he'd probably have lots of black women over too. Our white female acquaintances consider him "just a friend" and would consider sleeping with him to be gross, to put it mildly.

Camlost said...

What we need is more black women getting married, period.

Yeah, why don't you get to work on that one right away.

The problem is that no one WANTS black women. No other races want to drop down and marry them, or just don't find them attractive or feminine at all.

Meanwhile, most black males are either on the downlow or chasing any non-black female they can find, almost without regards to looks as evidenced by NBA star Lamar Odom marrying the she-male Chloe Kardashian.

eh said...

Miscegenation doesn't really bother me, although if I had my druthers I'd rather not see it. But the progeny usually look like some kind of new sub-species, which I find a little unsettling. I often catch myself thinking: 'I hope that kid never needs an organ transplant.'

Sam said...

I just saw Robin Hood.

Interesting that Britain has always been able to defend herself against formidable foreign invaders- Vikings, French, Spanish Armada, Napoleon, Luftwaffe.

But interestingly can't stop herself from being colonized by low IQ Third World immigrants without weapons.

Anonymous said...

South Asian women do tend to get fat.

Partially this is caused by their cuisine, which generally involves a more than healthy serving of oil. Being a vegetarian is no benefit. The truth is vegetarian eating is pretty tasteless and the remedy to this is to fry everything.

The second factor is that any South Asian woman of means is extremely sedentary. With labor costs as low as they are, servants and hired to do anything and everything. A high status south Asian woman generally does not work (not so much for immigrants to the US).

The biggest contributor is probably genetic. South Asians are genetically pre-disposed to obesity and the only reason their homeland isn't full of fatties is because most of them simply can't afford to get enough to eat.

Toadal said...

Steve said:
Also, the Asian population has shifted considerably in the direction of South Asians since 1990, who are rather different from East Asians in marital behavior.

Black is the new white, brown is the new yellow, and a diminishment and dissipation is the new America.

Anonymous said...

Take a look at the hotness of the average Indian actress...they are super-hot women.

Indians are essentially Caucasians, are they not Steve? Caucus mountains come from that region, and their facial features are identical to whites with darker skin.


Those actresses are handful among a population of more than a billion. The average Indian woman looks more like this:

http://i49.tinypic.com/5yswat.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/21mz3io.jpg

http://i50.tinypic.com/xpd81z.jpg

Simon in UK said...

Actually further to my last comment, my Muslim neighbour is Bangladeshi. They're fairly laid-back about Islam, but a bunch of Salafi Islamists live a few doors down, and they seem to be trying to recruit my neighbour's children. The niqab-veiled female recently knocked on my door by mistake.

Anonymous said...

I think that American's in general have the highest propensity to fatness in the world. To truly see this, you should go to an event that has a large cross section of them. I have had two occasions to do this: 1) at Disney World in Florida and 2) on a Caribbean cruise. At Disney World, some fat white women insisted that their rather grotesque obesity was a "condition" and demanded motorized carts (meant for the handicapped) to get around the park. The Carribean cruise had some Europeans present, but it was very easy to tell them apart - the Europeans, almost without exception, had much more reasonable figures.

Anonymous said...

But in fact India is more or less Caucasian. Genetically, Cavalli-Sforza found that Indians are about three times closer to West Europeans than to East Asians.

Still, making racial or ethnic generalizations about South Asia can be a mug's game. It is the most anthropologically complex region on earth.

May 23, 2004

Interesting India, Competitive China

By Steve Sailer

Truth said...

"'I hope that kid never needs an organ transplant.'"

Well isn't that thoughtful of you.

Anonymous said...

South Asian women do tend to get fat.

South Asians are a little less fat than the general population in the UK

-

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/cmsincludes/_process_document.asp?sPublicationID=1174996293552&sDocID=3585

Though BMI =/ fatness because of muscle and all that.

Anonymous said...

Indian kids dominate the national bee because they have a minor league circuit:

http://www.slate.com/id/2255622/

OhioStater said...

Off topic, but we don't make men like John Wooden anymore.

Anonymous said...

Indians may be close to caucasians at the genetic level but they look anything but. Don't believe what you see in Bollywood, as someone commented they are abberations. Indians oddly enough are misrepresenting themselves to the west, and one gets a sense to themselves as well. It perpetuates a horrible apartheid that has been in place for 5000 yrs with clear physical markers between the haves and have-nots. If you see the caste demographics of immigrants from India the poor lower-castes cannot be held guilty of trying to migrate to your countries. They are too crushed for thinking something so ambitious as escaping the yoke of their lighter brown masters.

Jack said...

So, for example, if blonde actress Cameron Diaz, daughter of an American-born Cuban father and an Old American (English, German, Cherokee) mother who grew up on the beach in Southern California, married, say, ex-boyfriend Matt Dillon, it would, theoretically, count as an "interracial marriage."

She is a brunette that dyes her hair blonde. Considering her ancestry it might very well be appropriately called an interracial marriage by Old American standards.

Indics are not Caucasian but they may be considered a mixed Caucasoid, as much as a quadroon might be.

Anonymous said...

>Don't believe what you see in Bollywood, as someone commented they are abberations. Indians oddly enough are misrepresenting themselves to the west, and one gets a sense to themselves as well. It perpetuates a horrible apartheid that has been in place for 5000 yrs with clear physical markers between the haves and have-nots.

In the west, they killed off inconvenient or despised minorities (red Indians, blacks, jews).

Which is worse, genocide or caste?

Anonymous said...

http://i49.tinypic.com/5yswat.jpg

Untouchable

http://i46.tinypic.com/21mz3io.jpg

Untouchable

http://i50.tinypic.com/xpd81z.jpg


Backward caste

--

Bollywood actresses are drawn entirely from the top 25-30% upper-caste pool

If you go to Shaadi.com, mostly uppercaste, you can see more average looking upper caste women

Brahminlagn.com only has photos of brahmin women

-

I have never seen a backward caste or untouchable looking better than a 5 ( on a 1 - 10 scale )

--

When I was getting married some decades ago, I found that about 5 - 10% of the prospective brides from my caste, with makeup, could be possibly in bollywood
--

Bollywood actresses are almost entirely Kashmiri, Punjabi-Jat-Khatri, Shia muslim women of persian blood, Bunts and Brahmins, all with lots of makeup

--

On TV, I saw Deepika Padukone ( Brahmin ) without makeup, She is darker in person without makeup, but still plenty hot

--

Bunt - Aishwarya Rai, Shilpa Shetty

Punjabi Khatri - Sunny Leone ( Kareena Malhotra ), Kareena Kapoor , Karishma Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra

Punjabi Jat - Parminder Nagra

Muslim - Suzanne Khan, Zeenat Aman, Tabu

Brahmin - Manisha Koirala, Aditi Govitrikar, Madhuri Dixit, Gauri Pandit ( Kashmiri brahmin ), Padma Lakshmi, Deepika Padukone, Jaya Prada, Hema Malini, Rani Mukerji, Raveena Tandon



You can see them all in Song and dance sequences on youtube

Anonymous said...

Indian kids dominate the national bee because they have a minor league circuit:

http://www.slate.com/id/2255622/
--

Indians also do this for geographic bee - This year won by Aadith Moorthy ( brahmin )
and for math counts - This
year runner up was a brahmin

--

Anonymous said...

From an Indian brahmin perspective, I am against widespread random ( maybe exception for individual cases ) miscegenation

We have been brahmins for 5000 years and we intend remaining as brahmins for the next 5000 years

More than a gene, a cultural
meme is also transmitted, and unless the new incoming person is also in tune with transmission of these cultural memes, transmission of culture will be lost - The objection is religious-cultural not racial

A few incoming persons may be willing to carry on the brahminical culture and we dont object to these , however in the majority of cases, the grandchildren will be general purpose white native and not superior IQ brahmin

In India, there are tens of millions of Indian christians and there is virtually zero intermarriage, and I fail to see why christians in the diaspora be married into without careful screening and vetting

There is also the IQ question, brahmin IQ has been carefully built up and guarded over the millenia and I am loathe to see it disappear by random mingling

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ_sRFPm2Ko

Has a 27 year brahmin woman from New York talking on how she will only marry another brahmin

==

Something fishy on Nikki Haley

When people convert into christianity, they often diss their old religion

Bobby Jindal has spewed dirt on Hinduism, whereas, Nikki Haley has not only not dissed sikhism , she even visits the sikh gurudwara

Looks like a conversion for politics

Anonymous said...

This whole trend began on February 2, 1943.

Burton said...

"Indian kids dominate the national bee because they have a minor league circuit..."

"Indians also do this for geographic bee...and for math counts..."

Man, they should have a minor league circuit for how to make their homeland a semi-decent place to live. That vaunted Brahminic IQ sure hasn't done much for the massive ghetto that masquerades as a subcontinent.

IQ - a magic number used to enhance the conceit of merchant minorities, convincing them that their various accomplishments have nothing to do with the wealth the host society has already managed to wrest from the earth well before said merchant minority ever arrived on the scene.

rob said...

Indian kids dominate the national bee because they have a minor league circuit

heeheehee. What talent! Silly little autistic tricks. Imagine raising your child to be a human version of spellcheck. I wanna be PowerPoint when I grow up!

Anonymous said...

I'm skeptical that the Brahmins are particularly cleverer than the Merchant castes, in India. It would be interesting to see if that could be demonstrated, but I buy the idea that Jews are smart because of mercentile selection, not religious debating, so on the basis of analogy, I'm skeptical that Brahmins would have particularly advanced IQ.

Simon in UK said...

Burton:
"Man, they should have a minor league circuit for how to make their homeland a semi-decent place to live. That vaunted Brahminic IQ sure hasn't done much for the massive ghetto that masquerades as a subcontinent."

I was going to say something about whites in South Africa as a comparison to Aryans in India, but South Africa does actually have a much higher GDP per head than India. I guess the Protestant/Germanic Work Ethic may be more important there than IQ per se.

jody said...

i disagree totally that there is any stigma today attached to white men who date east/southeast women. that's not reality in 2010 america, canada, or australia. tall, good looking, successful white men with a lot to offer, will deliberately go after the best looking asian women, and are equally comfortable dating either white women or asian women.

Anonymous said...

How common is Chinese/Indian intermarriage in Singapore?

Anonymous said...

>>Man, they should have a minor league circuit for how to make their homeland a semi-decent place to live. That vaunted Brahminic IQ sure hasn't done much for the massive ghetto that masquerades as a subcontinent.

Indian poverty is a direct result of British depredation. Read Angus Maddison's economic history of world. India and China had roughly 50% of the world economy in 1700. the British refused to let India industrialize and force-fed them British cotton in the name of "free trade". They also destroyed native agriculture and turned north india into a giant opium field to feed to the chinese, By 2100, India should be back to its normal historical place, after suffering a "colonial penalty" of 500 years.

rob said...

Indian poverty is a direct result of British depredation. Read Angus Maddison's economic history of world. India and China had roughly 50% of the world economy in 1700.

In 1700, the world was full of poor peasants. India and China had craploads of them, as first cut, they were roughly equally productive. A good guess would be roughly 50% of humanity lived in India and China.

What makes you think India would have been capable of industrializing back then? They haven't been able to since. Indeed, free of the British, Indians chose worse economic policies than the British ever imposed on them.

Simon in UK said...

anon:
"Indian poverty is a direct result of British depredation. Read Angus Maddison's economic history of world. India and China had roughly 50% of the world economy in 1700. the British refused to let India industrialize and force-fed them British cotton in the name of "free trade". They also destroyed native agriculture and turned north india into a giant opium field to feed to the chinese, By 2100, India should be back to its normal historical place, after suffering a "colonial penalty" of 500 years."

My Indian students tell me this, but looking at the actual economic data, the Raj didn't collapse the Indian economy. Rather, India remained static while the European world bounded ahead. But India still did better than China, until after 1948.

Anonymous said...

Indian poverty is a direct result of British depredation.

No, it's the direct result of fat-ass maharajahs unable or unwilling to fight the British. Just like they couldn't (or wouldn't) fight the Muslims, Mongols, and Moguls.

India and China had roughly 50% of the world economy in 1700. the British refused to let India industrialize

If anything, the British forced India to partially industrialize against the wishes of the rajahs who wanted a "pure" India untouched by Western ideas.

and force-fed them British cotton in the name of "free trade".

The British simply picked up where Genghis Khan left off.

They also destroyed native agriculture and turned north india into a giant opium field to feed to the chinese,

India did a good enough job of destroying its own agriculture.

By 2100, India should be back to its normal historical place, after suffering a "colonial penalty" of 500 years.

More like 1500 years.

Don't believe that Indians lived in perfect harmony with themselves and their neighbours until Evil Whitey came along!

Anonymous said...

>in 1700, the world was full of poor peasants. India and China had craploads of them, as first cut, they were roughly equally productive. A good guess would be roughly 50% of humanity lived in India and China

In the 18th century, the standard of living was appreciably higher in South India than in England. This is attributed to superior right of contract and job security. Check out "Late Victorian Holocausts" on Amazon for the data. India and China still held a commanding 25% of the world economy combined in 1860, when England was industrialized.


>My Indian students tell me this, but looking at the actual economic data, the Raj didn't collapse the Indian economy. Rather, India remained static while the European world bounded ahead.

Your students are right. The Indian economy grew at less than 1% per annum under the Raj. It grew at 3% under the failed Nehruvian state and since liberalization, it has grown at 6%.

>Don't believe that Indians lived in perfect harmony with themselves and their neighbours until Evil Whitey came along!

But I learned all this *from* whitey!

buckle said...

"But I learned all this *from* whitey!"

So how come none of y'all crunched the data, sahib, instead of waiting around for us? One caste of Whitey tells you when you've been wronged, but the isteve caste of Whitey tells you when you're plain wrong.

It's mind boggling that someone can economically compare a massive goddamned chunk of Asia, a subcontinent, with an island in the misty north, as if all's equal in the beginning of the factoring. Sure the sleazy Anglo-Saxons and Cromwell reinvitees robbed the joint, but don't pretend that it's some paradise, or that you even know how to make it one. Are you there right now, trying to turn it into a better place, or are your kids on the spelling bee circuit here in old Kwa?

Anonymous said...

"Looks like a conversion for politics"

If this is true, how committed is she to Sikhism?

Anonymous said...

There is a public policy dimension to this: since mixed race NAM children are considered full NAMs for the purposes of affirmative action (e.g., our current prez), there is a subsidy at work. Non-NAM parents who intermarry with NAMs can have an anchor baby for public and private benefits purposes. Another way of looking at it is as a bizarro version of the Ottoman blood tax, except in this case it is not Christians who are punished, but those who don't pull an Ann Stanley Dunham.

rec1man said...

Some Upper-caste white hybrids

Norah Jones, Anya Lahiri, Rhona Mitra, Diya Mirza, Alesia Raut, Saira Mohan, Nifa and Nishan Hindes, Sara Corner, Andrea Roche, Asha Leo, Rosy Heineman,
Siobhan Parekh, Raquel Zonte,

Anonymous said...

"Looks like a conversion for politics"

If this is true, how committed is she to Sikhism?
--

Not very, but she does not want to get outcasted and lose the fund raising as well as her parents being ostracised by other sikhs for her apostasy

She wants to get the political benefits of christianity as well as the social and financial benefits of sikhism

Anonymous said...

How common is Chinese/Indian intermarriage in Singapore?

==

About 5% of Chinese women marry Indian men and raise their kids as Hindus

The chinese wife keeps a statue of the buddha and Hindus are OK with it, since the Buddha is also one of the Hindu gods

The chinese wife may go to Taoist temples and Hindus are OK with that too, since we have millions of gods and having a dozen more is no big deal

Anonymous said...

Regarding Indians having a mini-league for spelling, geographic bee, math bee etc

Whites do same for cheerleading and sports and being a rock star

Indians were 1 step from poverty, and the only way out is education leading to a safe job in Engineering or Medicine

Middle class Indian parents value educational awards and play the percentage game

Most Doctors and Engineers make a good safe salary, whereas most cheerleaders and rock star aspirants go broke

Anonymous said...

India and China still held a commanding 25% of the world economy combined in 1860, when England was industrialized.

Would I be right in thinking that this 'commanding' is largely statistical. ie most of that trade was Indian peasnats, famers and merchants trading with each other. Since Im guessing they were more than 25% of the owrlds population Im not sure how impressed Im supposed to be by that 25% figure.

This commanding only takes on significance when you introduce international trade

Lucille said...

Imagine raising your child to be a human version of spellcheck

Yes, humans imitating a computer program designed to... mimic human intelligence. How dumb. I suppose it's also dumb to actually learn math when you could use a calculator instead?

(Not ethnically Indian, BTW, and I've never participated in spelling bees.)

Anonymous said...

I don't doubt that the smartest Indians are very smart, but I just don't see India becoming a developed country anytime soon, or ever. The Indian underclass is simply too large. I doubt that most of the Indians who frequent this site would even disagree with me on this, as they seem to hold lower caste Indians in complete contempt.

Anonymous said...

Would I be right in thinking that this 'commanding' is largely statistical. ie most of that trade was Indian peasnats, famers and merchants trading with each other.

I think it's more to do with the fact that trade was trade good limited to a stronger extent. Trade, in terms of value, was to a large extent trade in tropical/subtropical things that Europeans couldn't get or that the countries within that region had comparative advantages to produce. Speciality crops that you can grow in the European climate zone are limited and the settler colonies were fairly thinly populated and undeveloped. That was not very predictive of what would happen when trade shifted towards manufactured goods that "European" means of production gave them an advantage in producing and that Indians would appear to have had no advantages in producing (and to a lesser extent when Europeans applied their methods of production to other colonial holdings to which they were more amenable).

Anonymous said...

Caribbean Hindu immigrants to the USA are almost entirely low caste and they do better socio-economically than blue collar whites, even though they lack the IQ to win spelling bees
Their caste rules ban illegitimacy and criminality

Steve had a post a few years ago, on the black looting after Katrina vs the law abiding nature of low caste slum dwellers after Mumbai floods

By comparison, Brazil has 50% low IQ blacks and mullatoes, whereas the comparable figure for India is 40% , ( untouchable, tribals and muslims ), of which only the muslims ( 15% muslims are 50% of the Jail population ) are violent criminals

I have walked several times past midnight, alone , through untouchable slums and felt perfectly safe, but I would never enter a muslim ghetto, day or night

Mauritius has a per-capita GDP of $10K, with its productive members ,5% euros and 50% low caste hindus supporting a parasitical class of 15% muslims and 30% blacks

In the recent global downturn, Indian economy has managed 8% growth without any govt stimulus and next year is estimated to be 9.5%, as compared to the bankrupt west
and the Indian economy is non-dependent on exports

As far as memorization, Reverse digit span is one of the measures of g

Anonymous said...

On a looks rating from 1-10, below 30, white women do have looks from 1-10, whereas upper caste women are mostly 3-8 and if you hunt around it is easy to find a 7 or 8 that is a virgin

Among upper caste women , you will never find the fat walmart white women

Also, after 30, upper caste women age a lot slower than white women ( not as slow as east asian )
--

http://mrsmithgoestodelhi.blogspot.com/2008/08/today-is-raksha-bandhan.html

A non-bollywood upper caste lady without make up

Anonymous said...

Regarding Nikki Haley , IMHO, she is no better, no worse than the rest of her competition

However, back in 2004, in the Republican primary her opponent Coon, attacked her for her birth name
Nimrata Randhawa, her current Republican opponents have attacked her for her name and previous religion

Whereas in the Democratic party, several Hindu-Sikh legislators have won their seats without changing their name or their religion
In Ohio, in the Democratic primary, one of the winners was Surya Yellamanchalli, and he did not need to change his name or his religion

The Republican party needs introspection on whether it deliberately wants to drive Indian Americans to the Democrats

The Republican message that is sent out is that Indian Americans are unacceptable unless they change their religion

Anonymous said...

In the book 'Desi Land' by Shalini Shankar, looking at a cluster of Jat Sikhs in San Jose, the rules were
No blacks, no muslims, no hispanics
Any girl caught was deported to India
The other Indian kids and neighbors reported any dating activity to the parents
A girl who eloped with a black was outcasted
Another girl who eloped with a muslim, was outcasted and her parents were also boycotted at the local sikh gurudwara

Most of the Jat Sikh girls married other Jat Sikhs

Anonymous said...

Some one commented on seeing more black men with white women then anything else although it would not be what the stats would lead you to think you would find. I don't know where he was from but here in the mid Atlantic that is certainly true.
I can count into the high numbers ( 20's) of bm/wf's before I see a white man with an Asian woman, black women or a black man with a black woman. Oh, many of these young white woman are very good looking. There are plenty of Asian young women around too.
I have done this a number of times and I know other people that have noticed the same thing.
One thing, it seems to be all or nothing. They are all out or you see no one. Is it the moon?

Here, is something else. I have noticed that there seems to be growing body of erotic photography that plays off of the use contrast of black men and white women nude bodies.(perhaps having sex). It is for sure art photography and very powerful and erotic. Who is doing this I don't know but there must be a market for it for sure.

Anonymous said...

Both interracial marriage and sex between blacks and white have increased greatly since the 1970's.
There should be a good population of children from these unions by now.
Do we know anything about how the children of black white parents mate?
Some one told me they "thought" that females would seek mates that were like their fathers and the males would seek a mate that was like their mothers. Sounds good but no
proof.
Is anything known in this matter?