The Decreasing White Majority in the US

[shonagon53]

Black Americans suffering from sickle cell anemia live in the United States.
Sub-Saharan Africa, for one.

I see zero crossover.

Hitsquad, that's hilarious!

Is this some kind of stand up comedian message board?

Blacks come from Africa! You brought them here in ships. Remember?

I DO see the crossover.

 

[plus]

No, sickle cell anemia is caused by a mutation in a gene. The carrier frequency will be higher in people coming from regions where the malaria incidence is high too. Thus, if a carrier frequency is high.. the disease frequency will be higher too.
What I meant to say (and what you should've understood) is that not only African Americans have sickle cell anemia, but populations that come from regions where there is malaria have an increased risk. Thus: Africa, mediterranean, India and the Middle East.
It is not related to skin color, since a mediterranean american and an african american both have an increased risk over an asian american or skandinavian american. THUS grouping people by skin color is not right.


You mean asians and not blacks. It would all depend who classifies as an asian american (first generation, second generation), I would have to read the article.

You should have expressed yourself better if this is what you meant to say, because it is pretty obvious that the american blacks do not come from a high malaria environment, just some of their ancestors did.

 

[Monique]

I quote myself:

Originally posted by Monique
Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will.

Exactly where do I state that blacks are from America? This is an issue of comprehensive reading.

 

[hitssquad]

Racial classification by traits or by general factors of traits

Earlier in this thread, Monique wrote,

Blacks don't have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, people who live in malaria-infested regions will.

More recently, Monique wrote,

I meant to say ...[/color] that not only African Americans have sickle cell anemia, but populations that come from regions where there is malaria have an increased risk. Thus: Africa, mediterranean, India and the Middle East.
It is not related to skin color, since a mediterranean american and an african american both have an increased risk over an asian american or skandinavian american. THUS grouping people by skin color is not right.

Just as individual mental abilities do not define Spearman's g, individual heritable population traits -- such as mean and shape of skin-color distribution, mean and shape of susceptibility-to-disease distribution, and mean and shape of IQ distribution -- do not distinguish races. Races are distinguishable by their respective distinct general factors of individual heritable population traits.

Racial classification has nothing intrinsically to do with skin color, just as gravity has nothing intrinsically to do with falling bodies.

 

[Monique]

What do you mean to say? Susceptibility-to-disease distribution is also an individual heritable population trait.

I guess you mean to say that races may be classified upon traits that are either completely present or completely absent in a population. Norwegians are all white and Nigerians are all black.

You may have defined distinct populations, but it says nothing about the differences between Nigerians and Somalians or Norwegians and Irish. Why are the Irish not a different race than the Norwegians? There may be markers hidden deeper than the skin that distinguish them.

Population is the word to be used, not race.

 

[hitssquad]

The difference between populations and races

Races are distinguishable by their respective distinct general factors of individual heritable population traits.

Racial classification has nothing intrinsically to do with skin color, just as gravity has nothing intrinsically to do with falling bodies.

What do you mean to say?

Both races and gravity are distinguishable by their respective general properties rather than by specific traits that may be associated with them.

individual heritable population traits ...[/color] such as ...[/color] susceptibility-to-disease distribution

Susceptibility-to-disease distribution is also an individual heritable population trait.

I guess you mean to say that races may be classified upon traits that are either completely present or completely absent in a population.

The http://www.tall.org/clubs/ny/tcnyc/ is such a population and, on the grounds that it is grouped based on a distinguishable trait rather than on a general factor of heritable traits, it is not a race. Mensa, for the same reason that it is grouped based on a distinguishable trait rather than on a general factor of heritable traits, is also a population which is not a race.

Norwegians are all white and Nigerians are all black.

Norwegians and Nigerians are classifiable as separate races, and this is because each possesses a distinguishable general factor of heritable traits.

You may have defined distinct populations, but it says nothing about the differences between Nigerians and Somalians or Norwegians and Irish.

The Nigerian, Somalian, Norwegian and Irish population are all classifiable as individually distinguishable races according to that definition of possessions of distinguishable general factors of heritable traits.

Why are the Irish not a different race than the Norwegians?

The Irish and Norwegian populations constitute distinguishable races, and this is because they differ in terms of general heritable population traits. The populations of eight-year-old students from two different given elementary schools and classified within the span of any given school year do not constitute different races, and this is at least partly because those two populations are not breeding and hence cannot be said to have heritable traits.

Racial classification has nothing intrinsically to do with skin color

There may be markers hidden deeper than the skin that distinguish them.

No matter how deep, traits as markers cannot distinguish races. Races are populations distinguishable by their respective general factors of heritable markers in comparison with those of other populations.

Population is the word to be used, not race.

Population describes groups of individuals that are not necessarily distinguishable by their general factors of heritable traits (and, hence, are only necessarily distinguishable by anything other than general factors of heritable traits such as locations in space and time; specific hair color; specific age or age range; specific hobbies or hobby range; specific hair color or hair color range; specific height or height range; etc.; i.e., the http://www.tall.org/clubs/ny/tcnyc/ does not constitute a race). Races are subsets of populations that are distinguishable by their respective general factors of heritable traits.

 

[Monique]

You are contradicting yourself multiple times hitssquad.. it gets confusing as to what you mean to say

Originally posted by hitssquad
[..] individual heritable population traits do not distinguish races. Races are distinguishable by their respective distinct general factors of individual heritable population traits.

So again, what's the difference between a "individual heritable population trait" and a "distinct general factor of individual heritable population trait"?

So what you are saying is that classifying races on skin color is not valid, since that is not a general factor of heritable trait? Your terms seem like hocus spocus. Why can't a marker be a 'general factor of heritable trait'? So what is it that makes the Norwegians and the Irish distinguishable by a 'general factor of heritable trait'?

 

[hitssquad]

Differences between factors and the variables they are derived from

what's the difference between a "individual heritable population trait" and a "distinct general factor of individual heritable population trait"?

("Traits," Monique.) Factors and the variables they are derived from are not the same things. Factors are derived from variables.

• Factor. The word "factor" has a number of dictionary definitions, but the term as used here has a very restricted, specialized meaning. A factor is a hypothetical variable that "underlies" an observed or measured variable. Thus a factor is also referred to as a latent variable. It is best thought of initially in terms of the mathematical operations by which we identify and measure it.
  
  Although a factor is identifiable and quantifiable, it is not directly observable. It is not a tangible "thing" or an observable event. So we have to be especially careful in talking about factors, lest someone think we believe that we are talking about "things" rather than hypothetical and mathematical constructs. But one can say the very same thing about the many constructs used in the physical sciences (gravitation, magnetism, heat, valence, and potential energy, to name a few). They are all constructs . This does not imply, however, that scientists cannot inquire about the relationship of a clearly defined construct to other phenomena or try to fathom its causal nature...
  
  Factors arise only from the reliable or nonchance correlation between [variables]... ...it should be possible in theory to devise ... tests in which the [variables] did not correlate more than could be expected by pure chance. Such a test could not be analyzed into factors. Its total variance would consist only of the sum of the separate item variances plus a little random error variance due to the small chance correlations among items.

(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. pp55-56.)


Thus, factors of traits exist in races because heritable pheonotypic traits covary within two or more given populations, and avoid covariance between two or more given populations, more than could be expected to occur by chance. In other words, races are distinguishable when general differences in terms of heritable traits between given populations, and general similarities in terms of heritable traits within the same given populations, occur reliably.

what you are saying is that classifying races on skin color is not valid, since that is not a general factor of heritable trait?

("Traits," Monique.) Racial classification based on skin color, or any given individual trait, is not internally consistent. Racial classification based on membership possession of individual traits is nonsensical since members of any given population have the potential to share any given trait or characteristic degree of trait variance with members of any other given population.

Why can't a marker be a 'general factor of heritable trait'?

("Traits," Monique.) There could not be any such thing as a 'general factor of heritable trait', singular. And do you mean 'trait' when you say 'marker'? If expression of multiple heritable traits are factor analyzed to expose their common variance, then, by definition, no single trait can load completely on any factor.

• Factors arise only from the reliable or nonchance correlation between [variables].

(Arthur Jensen. The g Factor. p56.)

what is it that makes the Norwegians and the Irish distinguishable by a 'general factor of heritable trait'?

("Traits," Monique.) The Norwegian and Irish populations are distinguishable by a 'general factor of heritable traits' when, in terms of general factors of heritable traits, individual members of those populations are more like their fellow population members than they are like the non-members of their respective populations. From the perspective of a statistical worldview, there is no threshold level of this disparity between in-group and out-group general heritable trait alikeness that can consistently rule out the classifiability of two or more populations into races. From the perspective of a statistical worldview, as long as any general difference in heritable traits exists between any two or more given populations, those populations are reliably classifiable into races.

 

[Monique]

("Traits," Monique.) Factors and the variables they are derived from are not the same things. Factors are derived from variables.

Thank you, I understand now. Factors can be viewed as different loci on the genome that each contribute to a phenotype. Only when these factors co-occur more frequently within a population than in between populations, can it be said they are racially different.

Racial classification based on skin color, or any given individual trait, is not internally consistent. Racial classification based on membership possession of individual traits is nonsensical since members of any given population have the potential to share any given trait or characteristic degree of trait variance with members of any other given population.

You are partially flawed in your reasoning. When a new population is settled through a founder-effect, or when a population size decreases rapidly and expands rapidly thereafter (bottleneck), can there be individual traits that are uniquely representative of the population as a whole and distinguish them from other populations. For a population to become 'racially' different its overall genetics needs to change significantly too, as you introduce the term general factor of heritable traits. So an individual heritable trait could, though not automatically, distinguish races.

The Norwegian and Irish populations are distinguishable by a 'general factor of heritable traits' when, in terms of general factors of heritable traits, individual members of those populations are more like their fellow population members than they are like the non-members of their respective populations. From the perspective of a statistical worldview, there is no threshold level of this disparity between in-group and out-group general heritable trait alikeness that can consistently rule out the classifiability of two or more populations into races. From the perspective of a statistical worldview, as long as any general difference in heritable traits exists between any two or more given populations, those populations are reliably classifiable into races.

I mostly agree, except for the fact that you propose to classify populations into races even though the perspective of a statistical worldview dictates that you cannot reliably do that. There are simply too many factors to consider and there is simply too much variance from person to person within the same classification. The best that can be done is construct distributions of factors to describe different populations.

 

[plus]

I quote myself:

Exactly where do I state that blacks are from America? This is an issue of comprehensive reading.

There are many blacks from America. You do not need to state this for this to be fact. These blacks are not from malaria infested regions therefore according to your statement they should not have a high prevelence of sickle cell disease.

You should have said those descended from people living in malaria infested areas.

 

[plus]

Norwegians are all white and Nigerians are all black.

The norwegians are not all white. There are many black and brown skinned immigrants or offspring of immigrants.
The Nigerians are probably approaching a population all black but there will be some white europeans/asians there (for example working for shell).
The area which people live cannot be used to define a race as you could change race just by moving to a different area. This is ludicrous.

 

[Monique]

There are many blacks from America. You do not need to state this for this to be fact. These blacks are not from malaria infested regions therefore according to your statement they should not have a high prevelence of sickle cell disease.

You should have said those descended from people living in malaria infested areas.

OMG has this gotten off-track. There was someone, I don't know who, who stated that blacks have a higher case of sickle cell anemia. I stated that it is more correct to correlate it with geographical ancestry.

Having a higher incidence of a disease does not define race, but populations. Populations that lived in malaria infested regions, not races that lived in malaria infested regions.

I agree though, sickle cell anemia is the most common genetic disorder in Africans, but it is also enriched in the Indians or Mediteranians or other locations I mentioned.

 

[Monique]

Norwegians are all white and Nigerians are all black.

The norwegians are not all white. There are many black and brown skinned immigrants or offspring of immigrants.
The Nigerians are probably approaching a population all black but there will be some white europeans/asians there (for example working for shell).
The area which people live cannot be used to define a race as you could change race just by moving to a different area. This is ludicrous.

You really do not understand population genetics.

I used the example to illustrate a trait that can be either completely absent or present in a population and how that can be used to define races. It's hypothetical, that is how theories are simplified and tested.

Since whiteness is a trait of living near the pole circle and brownness is a trait of living near the equator it is not such a ludicrous idea to use skin tone to define geographical origin (note I wasn't describing the citizenship of countries).

Being a little less ignorent would help analytical discussions. Thirty percent of Amsterdam is allochtonous, if I want to find out something about the autochtonous Dutch I sure wouldn't sample from that 30%.

 

[Tasthius]

Since whiteness is a trait of living near the pole circle and brownness is a trait of living near the equator

Yeah the environment over genetics argument. Tell me, if whiteness is a trait obtained via living near the poles, explain blonde, red and brown hair, as well as eye color differential commonly only found in caucasian populations. What evolutionary utility does blonde hair play for cold environments?

 

[Monique]

Blonde hair lacks pigment, white skin lacks pigment. What evolutionary utility does white skin play for cold environments? It must be the black pigmented hair that has evolutionary utility, since it filters the solar rays before they hit the scalp. Since solar rays are less intense near the poles, the pigment is allowed to mutate to colors such as brown, red, or blonde.

 

[hitssquad]

Does white skin have competitive value in low-sunlight environments

Blonde hair lacks pigment, white skin lacks pigment. What evolutionary utility does white skin play for cold environments?

Got rickets?

• healthy, full-term infants from birth to six months who have adequate exposure to sunlight are not at risk for developing vitamin D deficiency or rickets

 

[Monique]

You're right dark-skinned people get VitD deficiency when light intensities are low. But could that have something to do with white hair too? Since in cold environments not much of the skin is exposed, it might just could.

 

[hitssquad]

What environmental pressures selected for blond hair

It has been theorized that blond hair was selected for by males who couldn't resist its eye-catching glint. Since females and males differ in terms of skin tone for other evolutionary reasons (the females of every race have lighter skin than the males), perhaps males became programmed to take lightness in general as a cue for femininity and thus applied attraction-to-lightness to hair color.

 

[Monique]

Wasn't that during the Renaissance, when having a toned skin equaled working out on the land and thus being a laborer? It carried through into slavery and the Indian caste system.

Is it really that females have lighter skin globally? I really never did notice a gender difference.

 

[Tasthius]

Wasn't that during the Renaissance, when having a toned skin equaled working out on the land and thus being a laborer? It carried through into slavery and the Indian caste system.

How does the Renaissance have anything to do with the Indian caste system, since they are separate events in history by about 3,000 years?

 

[selfAdjoint]

She's talking about the females having lighter skin, and comparing Renaissance paintings (e.g. Mars and Venus, he tan she pale) with Indian caste traditions. This goes back to ancient Egypt where there are murals of Pharaoh (tan) and his queen (pale), but that goes more to the ancient seclusion of women, since obviously Pharaoh didn't work in the fields. He just got out of the house, while she didn't.

 

[Monique]

I didn't phrase myself right because it doesn't. It could have carried through from the Renaissance into slavery, where the Indian caste system would be an early example how Aryan people defined social status on skin tone in N. India.

 

[plus]

You really do not understand population genetics.

Being a little less ignorent would help analytical discussions. Thirty percent of Amsterdam is allochtonous, if I want to find out something about the autochtonous Dutch I sure wouldn't sample from that 30%.

I would appreciate not being called ignorant.

From my experience with Amsterdam, the figure is much higher than 30%. Also, what is the prediction for the future of Amsterdam?
Is there any truth in this statement

By 2020, 50 per cent of the children in Holland under the age of 18 will be of Muslim descent.

taken from:
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...adline=-Welsh-star-in-race-row-name_page.html

 

[Monique]

I would appreciate not being called ignorant.

That's fine, I made my point in that post.

From my experience with Amsterdam, the figure is much higher than 30%.

That entirely depends where in Amsterdam you look. Certain suburbs the number will be close to 80% and in others close to 10%. If you can read it: http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/10017521/Veel_stadswijken_voor_90_procent_allochtoon.html It is true that if you look at the young population in these cities, 50% will be of foreign decent.

Also, what is the prediction for the future of Amsterdam?
Is there any truth in this statement

By 2020, 50 per cent of the children in Holland under the age of 18 will be of Muslim descent.

taken from:
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...adline=-Welsh-star-in-race-row-name_page.html

Only major cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague show such high immigrant numbers. The government has now implemented rules which shun immigrants away from Rotterdam and try to relocate them to the smaller cities and villages to help integration. I don't see how a population of 16 million of which 9% (1.44 million) are non-western in 15 years can change to a population where 50% is of non-western descent. All the couples would have to have at least one child every year for those 15 years to reach such numbers (do the math).

In this case integration is the problem that should be dealt with.. I'm not sure if the same holds true for the US.

 

[plus]

That's fine, I made my point in that post.
I don't see how a population of 16 million of which 9% (1.44 million) are non-western in 15 years can change to a population where 50% is of non-western descent. All the couples would have to have at least one child every year for those 15 years to reach such numbers (do the math).

In this case integration is the problem that should be dealt with.. I'm not sure if the same holds true for the US.

If 9% are of foreign descent, then on average (assume that there are twice as many in the reproductive age group (over the years))) there will be approximately 20% in the age group 20-35. If the average moroccan woman has e.g. 3.5 children, and the average white woman has 1.5 children (and assume this holds across all immigrant groups, which of course it will not) , then the ratio of children with white mothers to children with non white mothers will be 12:7. However, this does not include the many mixed race children (most of whom with white mothers and non white fathers).

In conclusion, I think the statement from my website link must be false if only 9% are of foreign descent.

That was an interesting page, although there were many words which I could not understand.

 

[Monique]

Small correction: 17% of NL is foreign, of which 9% is non-western (Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese and Indonesians).

That article is from a major dutch newspaper that quoted data from the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) on the topic. You could try babelfish for a translation, but I don't think it would do a very good job :)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Is that 9% a percentage of the foreign,or of the whole population?

 

[Monique]

Ah, you've got me..

On the CIA website it says "Dutch 83%, other 17% (of which 9% are non-Western origin mainly Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese and Indonesians) (1999 est.)"


It can't be 9% of 17%, that would be 1.5% of the whole population: only 250,000. Thus 9% of the whole population.

 

[selfAdjoint]

So more than half of the "other" are non-western, meaning from those examples, not european descended.

One person in 6 is not Dutch, and 1 person in 11 is not European descended.

 

[Nereid]

But how many of the 'Antilleans, Surinamese and Indonesian' immigrants are decendants of roaming/roving Spaniards/Dutch/etc (even if it's only one ancestor among 100)?

 

[Andre]

Indeed, it's a big melting pot and many autochtones have variable ethnic ancestors That's good for genes diversity and a healthy population.

Is this why the average Dutch persons grows far too tall? F1 hybrids?

 

[plus]

Small correction: 17% of NL is foreign, of which 9% is non-western (Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese and Indonesians).

That article is from a major dutch newspaper that quoted data from the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) on the topic. You could try babelfish for a translation, but I don't think it would do a very good job :)

Are you sure this is 91% white rather than 83%with dutch nationality, 9% other western nationality and 9% born abroad? If so, then there will be some of the 83% non white.

 

[Monique]

The numbers are on ethnic groups, I assume they sent out questionairres asking for ethnicity. The 83% dutch mustn't include colonial immigrants ('cause they are grouped among the antilleans, surinamese and indonesians).

 

[BlackVision]

That's good for genes diversity and a healthy population.

The IQ surplus of Ashkenazi Jews seem directly linked to their closely monitored and homogeneous breeding.