A significant drop in seeing oneself as white

General Social Survey participants were asked: "From what countries or part of the world did your ancestors come?" The answers listed in the table above include ethnicities with substantial numbers of white and non-white people (self-identified). The first column of numbers are the percent of the group who self-dentified as white when surveyed some time in the 1970s or 1980s, while the second column of numbers are the corresponding numbers for the past two decades. Finally, the last column is the difference between the first two. (Most of the categories have large sample sizes, with a few exceptions like Arabs in the earlier period having only 29).  

You can see that, with the exception of American Indians, fewer people now consider themselves to be white.

The drop over the two periods is substantial in all other groups. If American society is so racist against minorities, why is whiteness so much less desirable than 20 years ago? If whiteness carries with it so many advantages, why are fewer people trying to pass as white?  Liberal researchers tell us that living among white bigots forces minorities to give up trying to be white. For this to be the case, recent conditions would have to be dramatically worse than in the past. That is untenable.      

Caucasian not white

How strongly does race predict voting? Here is a multivariate model of six predictors:

Voted for Bush in 2004 (standardized OLS regression coefficients)

Black -.35
Other race -.10
Male .07
Years of education -.08
Income .09
Church attendance .22

All predictors are significantly related to the outcome variable--voting for Bush over Kerry or Nader. (The dependent variable is evenly split so I can get away with using OLS).  "Black" is a comparison of blacks versus whites, and is the strongest predictor in the model. Frequency of church attendance is next. "Other race" is in comparison with whites, and is about as predictive as sex, education or income. Another way of stating this is that whiteness is a relatively strong predictor of voting Republican. 

For those interested in getting more people to vote Republican, none of these predictors is easy to manipulate. For example, how do you get more people to go to church?  Setting aside the question of practicality, Republicans might benefit if more people saw themselves as white. If America embraced, say, a Coonian understanding of Caucasian, and focused on facial features rather than skin color, fewer Americans might be drawn to the party of people who feel like aliens--the Democrats. You know--feminists, homosexuals, immigrants, Jews, non-Christians, and non-whites.  

The use of the term "white" does not help since it brings some pasty dude to mind. This has always been a misleading term. My ancestry is 100 percent northern European, and I can give John Boehner a run for his money any day. One of my brothers looks a little like an Arab. A rough rule of thumb would go like this: "Forget the little groups around the world. Does he look like an East Asian? Does he look like a sub-Saharan African? Does he look like an American Indian? No? Then he's a Caucasian guy."     

Armenian Americans

Val Avery

Richard Bakalyan

Mike Connors

Ken Davitian

Michael Goorjian

Armenia can be considered part of Europe or Asia, but Armenians are another interesting test of white Americans' definition of whiteness. These are actors of Armenian descent. They all look white to me, but Ken Davitian (the manager from Borat) looks pretty exotic. I suspect an anthropological education has widened my definition of white.

I probably should mention that Kim Kardashian's father is of Armenian descent. (While we're at it, so is Cher's).

Hispanics assimilating toward victim class

As you can see in the table, over the past four decades fewer and fewer GSS respondents of Mexican descent self-identify as white. In the 1970s, almost all Mex-Ams thought they were Caucasian. The drop could be due to fewer recent white Mexican immigrants and/or due to a reduced tendency to call oneself white.

This table shows that while the percent of blacks and "others" who are Hispanic is on the rise, the percent of whites who are Hispanic has stalled or is dropping.

Television programs and college ads in Mexico (see Steve Sailer's post) show that being white is popular there, but a recent study published in the American Sociological Review reported that as Hispanic immigrants spend more time in the U.S. and learn English, they are less and less likely to self-identify as white. The authors interpret this as immigrants encountering so much racism here, they begin to see themselves as Hispanic since the country won't let them be white. There could be some truth to the claim that America has a narrower definition of white than in Latin America, but I suspect that the finding also reflects that, while whiteness is popular in Latin American countries, being a person of color is popular here and carries with it financial benefits. (The study also shows that darker-skinned Hispanics earn less, and, of course, conclude that this proves racism, and, of course, fail to mention the possibility that skin color might be a rough indicator of genes that predict economic success).

I take the trend of turning away from whiteness as a sign that a majority of Hispanics are assimilating toward a victim class, rather than merging with the white majority. This squares with their consistent two-to-one voting for Democrats.

More on intermarriage

In the last post, reader Jim Bowery correctly pointed out that greater disapproval by older whites compared to younger whites of a relative marrying someone from another race might reflect the tendency for people to become more conservative as they age.

Fortunately, the General Social Survey has longitudinal data. Participants were asked: "What about having a close relative marry a black person? Would you be in very favor of it happening (1), somewhat in favor (2), neither in favor nor opposed to it happening (3), somewhat opposed (4), or very opposed to it happening (5)?

The table displays the mean attitude for different age groups measured at three different times: 1990, 2000, and 2008.

You can see two major patterns. First, as we saw in the last post, measured at any specific time, disapproval is stronger among older whites (just look down the columns). Second, if you look along the rows, you can that that approval grew among most age groups over time. The only expections to this are the two youngest groups over the 2000-2008 period: their level of approval remained stable. 

So approval has generally grown over time, and younger cohorts start out with more approving averages than older cohorts. 

But notice that, compared to Pew's numbers, these estimates do not make whites look so gung-ho about a close relative outmarrying. The average (2.73) of the most liberal group in the table--people who are now in their 30s--is much closer to neutral than "somewhat in favor." Most of the groups are currently between neutral and "somewhat opposed."

It seems to me that asking about favoring or not favoring the marriage is more revealing than asking "if you would be fine with it." (By the way, each cell is at least 100 cases).      

Revolution in racial attitudes has been most dramatic among whites

I copied this graph from Pew's report on trends in interracial marriage.  It's interesting how the greater reluctance among older whites, compared to older blacks and Hispanics, at seeing a relative marry outside their race (or ethnicity) is reversed among young adults. Young whites are more supportive of outmarriage than either young blacks or Hispanics (although the difference is not large). The revolution in racial attitudes has been much more dramatic among whites.  

Race, ethnicity, and attitudes toward inter-ethnic marriage

The Midlife Development in the United States Study asked Americans how important it is for members of their ethnic group to marry inside the group. Here are the percentages who said "very important" or "somewhat important" (N = 4,881): 

Jewish 47.4
Asian 42.3
Amerindian 37.3
Black 34.6
Hispanic 33.8
English 28.4
French 19.7
Italian 19.1
Scottish 18.5
Irish 18.3
Polish 16.3
German 16.0
Swedish 15.8
Norwegian 15.2

Non-whites and especially Jewish Americans have high numbers. 

Preferring the company of one's ethnic group

The study of Midlife Development in the United States (2004-06) asked 4,759 people if they prefer to be with other people of the same ethnic group. Here are the percentages who said "not at all."


Percent
White 38.8
Black 6.5*
Native American 20.0*
Asian 7.4*
Hispanic 16.2*

*significantly different from whites at the 95% confidence level

All non-white groups are more likely than whites to prefer the company of their own. Whites are six times more likely than blacks to have a non-preferential attitude.  

Hispanic gang membership

In his American Conservative article "His-Panic" (the same title used in Geraldo Rivera's recent book), Ron Unz suggests that criminal justice officials have invented the Hispanic gang problem in order to secure federal anti-gang dollars.

As was shown in the last post, the best approach to such questions is to seek out the best data. I found two studies in which researchers surveyed adolescents about membership in a gang. Descriptions of each are found here. In the Esbensen and Winfree study (1998) of a large sample of eighth graders in 41 schools in 11 cities, the percent in gangs was as follows:

Percent in a gang

Blacks 12.3
Hispanics 12.3
Whites 6.4


Results are similar in the main study (2001) of 15,292 teens (from 313 secondary schools across the country).  The following lists the percentages who admitted they were in a gang:


Percent in a gang

Males 
Blacks 13.4
Hispanics, 10.4 
Whites 5.7
Asians 4.7 

Females
Blacks 6.8
Hispanics 7.2
Whites 2.2 
Asians 1.2

Gang membership prevalence among Hispanic males approaches that of blacks, and is roughly double that of whites. Compared to white females, Latino girls are more than three times as likely to belong to a gang.

Affiliation with a gang ranges all the way from a wannabe to a hardcore thug, and these surveys certainly include plenty of the former. But they are consistent with media and criminal justice depictions of violent gangs--both on the streets and in the prisons--being dominated by blacks and Hispanics. It is not imaginary.

Race and oral sex

As a follow-up to the last post, I calculated the percent of married partners who said they had performed oral sex on their spouse sometime in the past few weeks (N = 1,931).

Male on female
Whites 65.2
Blacks 62.9
Hispanics 66.3
American Indians 50.0
Asians 50.0


Female on male
Whites 63.6
Blacks 57.7
Hispanics 54.7
American Indians 78.0
Asians 55.8

None of the estimates are significantly different (although the difference in the percentages for male and female American Indians approaches significance).

Race and anal intercourse

The National Couples Survey asked married people if they've had anal intercourse in the past four weeks. Here are their responses by race/ethnicity:

Percent
Whites 12.1
Blacks 23.6*
Hispanics 29.6*
Asians 12.2
American Indians 30.4*

*p < .05, two-tail test, compared with whites


The numbers are much higher for NAMs (non-Asian minorities). Would this be an indication of male dominance as well as of freakiness?

Race, class, and domestic violence

According to the conventional wisdom, blacks are more violent than whites because of poverty.  Researchers, who are supposed to get beyond the cliches, have rarely tested this idea, and it doesn't help that the relevant data is scarce.

The National Couples Survey asked married people (N = 1,181) if they had ever had a "physical argument." I limited the sample to respondents who had graduated high school--but who had gone no further--in order to eliminate variation in social class. Here are the percentages saying there has been physical fighting in the marriage:

Percent
Whites 10.9
Blacks 28.6*
Hispanics 23.2*
Asians 17.9
American Indians 20.0

* p < .05, two-tailed test, compared with whites.


Married blacks at the same level of education as whites are almost 3 times more likely to be violent. Hispanics are more than twice as likely. Sample sizes are so small, the Asian/white and Amerindian/white differences are not significant.

Blacks score highest on "lie scale"

A reader raised the question about racial differences in honest self-reporting. I ran across this study of 980 children with a mean age of eight. It found that black children score the highest on the "lie scale" (with questions like, "I never get angry"--obviously dishonest if you answer yes), while Hispanic children scored the highest on concerns about living up to others' expectations (the "social concerns scale"). Whites scored lowest on the lie scale. The black-white gap is 37 percent of one standard deviation--a moderate difference.

More on race and altruism

In The 10,000 Year Explosion, Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending claim that agrarian living selected for stinginess. A farmer who gave away all his seed was left with nothing to plant in the spring.

This might explain results from a GSS analysis described in the last post. I've reproduced the findings in the table above and added estimates for Amerindians and Americans of Chinese and Japanese descent (combined into an "Asian" category).

With their deep agricultural histories, you would expect whites and Asians to hold on to their money more tightly. It looks like they do. While they don't seem to differ on non-monetary forms of charity like participating in walkathons, they are less likely to give or loan individuals money. Compare whites and Asians to American Indians, for example. Twice as many Indians as whites have helped a needy neighbor.

Keep two things in mind, however. Pure opportunity might explain these numbers. NAMs associate with more needy people than whites or Asians. (On the other hand, whites and Asians have more money to give). Also--sample sizes are small for everyone except whites.

American decline continues right on schedule

The above graphs shows the trend in the percent of all births to white unamarried mothers (CDC data). The percent has shot up in this decade from the low 20s to over 25 percent.

For blacks, the level has been flat at around 70 percent since the early 1990s.

For Hispanic mothers, the share of illegitimate births has shot up from the low forties to 50 percent in just the past few years.

Asian Americans have hung steady at 15-17 percent since 1993. They are the only group with numbers that are low and not getting worse (unless the little 3-year increase starting in 2004 portends something).

It looks like the acceptability of bastardom, embraced by blacks long ago, has grown strikingly among whites and Hispanics in this decade. American decline continues right on schedule.

Behavioral measures of personality

In this old research study (Perceptual And Motor Skills. 1976. Dec; Vol. 43, pp. 843-7), 1,154 pairs of high school students were observed in cafeteria queues. Blacks were found to touch others more frequently than whites. This is consistent with Francis Galton's claim that Africans are affectionate and gregarious. Over the years, my observation has been that blacks are more extraverted, but self-assessment data (GSS) don't back me up.

Behavioral studies, like this one on touching, seem to offer a more valid way to identify personality differences between races. One interesting approach is to study the items in people's offices or homes, as is described in Snoop: What Your Stuff Says about You.   

I can't call it a study, but I have gotten an impression of racial differences from behavior in the classroom. If I measure extraversion as the frequency of speaking up in class--or perhaps approaching me with questions--blacks are the most extraverted, whites are in the middle, and Mex-Ams are the most introverted.

If I measure conscientiousness in terms of the how perfectionistic students are when writing their papers, whites would score the highest, Mex-Ams in the middle, and blacks would come in last. Or if I measured the trait by punctuality and attendance, the racial order would be the same.

If I measure disagreeableness in terms of students arguing with me, blacks rank first, whites second, and Mex-Ams third.

It's not as easy to measure neuroticism, but based on expressing emotional difficulties to me, whites do it the most. Hispanics are less likely to talk to me, period. Blacks talk to me plenty, but are more likely to talk about problems in terms of circumstances, not feelings. 

Black and white shooting rates in New York

Heather MacDonald cites some interesting statistics in her piece today in the NY Daily News. Based on victim and witness reports, 82% of all shootings in New York are by blacks even though they are only 24% of the city's residents. Whites are 35% of the city but commit only 1% of the shootings.

Let's get a comparison of the two races. If we divide 82 by 24 (the black numbers), we get 3.42. If we divide 1 by 35 (the white numbers), we get 0.03. When you divide 3.42 by 0.03, the result is 114. So the black shooting rate in New York is 114 times that of whites. 

I know there are large income differences between blacks and whites there, but holy crap. 

Like we're surprised--Northern states are most trusting

Gallup asked almost 180,000 Americans if they would trust someone who found their wallet to return it. The darkest states on the map indicate the most trusting states. Gallup concluded that states with higher of levels of well-being and access to services are more trusting. They seem to be hinting that collectivism breeds trust.

Collectivist California and New York are two of the most untrusting states in the country. And D.C. has half the level of trust seen in Utah--that bastion of liberalism.

It goes with out saying that percent white and ethnic homogeneity were not mentioned.

Among Mex-Ams, is there a relationship between race and education?

I get very few Mexican American students who are Amerindian looking.  Is that a reality or is it just me?

I looked at GSS data for Mexican Americans from this decade between the ages of 30 and 49 (N = 382). The mean years of education for those who give "other" as their race is 10.93. For self-described white Mex-Ams, it's 11.78.  The difference disappears, however, if I limit the analysis to those born in the U.S. The racial gap is created by less educated, non-white immigrants.

I checked, and there is no racial gap in mean IQ (WORDSUM) for the two groups if we limit the sample to American-born people of Mexican descent.

Notice how educational levels stink for both the white and non-white groups. The average Mex-Am, white or brown, can't seem to finish high school.

Blacks and the subculture of violence:  In Black Rednecks and White Liberals, Thomas Sowell argues that the South developed a violent culture because of Scotch Irish immgrants.  Blacks supposedly absorbed these values from their white neighbors and still have them, regardless of what region of the country they now live in. Among the values is a touchiness on matters of honor and manhood. If someone offends you, you don't walk away. You teach him a lesson. Sowell points to culture and thus avoids any biological explanations for the higher rate of violence among blacks.

General Social Survey data, however, don't back up his assertion.  Of course, it would be nice if respondents were asked a long list of questions about the appropriate use of violence, but we have at least one question: is it okay--yes or no--for a man to hit a drunk who bumped into his wife on the street?

A violent orientation among white Southerners should be most concentrated among the lower classes, and I would expect attitudes to differ from American norms most in the East South Central (ESC) part of the South which includes Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee.  15.5% of these people agree with the statement about hitting a drunk man.  It's 18.9% if only men are included.

How does that compare to low-status blacks who live anywhere in the country? Only 7.9% of them said yes to the question, and the number for males is only 9.1%.  The number for all blacks does not differ significantly from the estimate for all Americans: 8.6%. By contrast, low-status whites from the ESC region are significantly more likely (at the 95% confidence level) to hold this violent attitude when compared to other Americans or to poor blacks.

So, it's possible that white Southerners are more prone to assault than Northerners because of their views toward the appropriate use of violence, but how do we explain the high level of violence among blacks? Liberal researchers will instruct us that a racist society makes blacks angry, and anger leads people to vent physically.  A biological explanation is an obvious possibility--I mean, racist whites, and the Scotch Irish for that matter, don't live everywhere blacks do around the globe--but it hasn't been investigated much because it might be true.