Interesting Maps and Graphs

Intermarriage rates in the U.S. Once again, Hollywood is not reality.

Q5RQxAn.png

Is this chart based on factual data? I see at the bottom black female marring white males!
 
Is this chart based on factual data? I see at the bottom black female marring white males!

Of course it's based on actual data. 5% of black women marry white men. What? You thought it never happened at all? That is, however, the lowest rate for women of color marrying black men. 14% of black men marry white women, but still, 91% of white women marry white men. (90% of white men marry white women.) You have to keep in mind there are a lot more white people than black people in the U.S.

90% of white men marry white women. 91% of white women marry white men.
 
strange graphic. why are certain groups nationalities while others are "race"? and "white" means "caucasian" in america right?

"Black" is how African Americans prefer to be called. You can't assign them a "nationality" because they've been here since the founding of the country, and you can't even assign them a country in Africa because their ancestors came from many countries in Africa.

Much the same logic applies to "whites".
 
imo, White and Black are terms that should be discarded, in light of what we know about genetics.

k1q295W.png


Middle Easterners are closer to Europeans, than "Blacks" are to each other. Yet, American society would consider Europeans and Middle Easterners to be a different race, while "blacks" are considered one. This is very problematic for many reasons.

I think "West Eurasian" makes the most sense, since we use other geographical terms like "East Asian", instead of "Yellow"

Yet, as Angela said, they come from many different areas, so they simply use the terms as a way to identify with a group. Americans tend to be a combination of many different nationalities. Some don't even know what they are.
 
Exactly!

I heard this idea thrown around a few times: that there should be a separate racial category for middle eastern people in the US which makes no sense at all. The closest non European population to Europeans is definitely the Middle Easterners and they're real close.
 
well i would question race completely. as you see there is a continuum from east eurasia to west eurasia so you can't really divide those too. there is probably also a cline from SSA's to westeurasians. so in the end taking nationality would be way more accurate instead of these large categories. or just not categorize at all. it's just going to be a matter of definition.
 
I heard this idea thrown around a few times: that there should be a separate racial category for middle eastern people in the US which makes no sense at all. The closest non European population to Europeans is definitely the Middle Easterners and they're real close.


This is because much of it has to do with phenotype. Moreover, West Eurasians probably have the most phenotypic diversity, I would guess. But genetically it doesn't mean much, considering dark-skinned WHGs are "North" of anyone alive today.
 
This is because much of it has to do with phenotype. Moreover, West Eurasians probably have the most phenotypic diversity, I would guess. But genetically it doesn't mean much, considering dark-skinned WHGs are "North" of anyone alive today.

Furthermore, from an anecdotal perspective, my trip to Portugal was also pretty illuminating. The Portuguese are genetically more "northern" than I, yet I would say I am fairer in skin-tone and hair color, than the majority of them. Perhaps because I have more Anatolian copper age admixture, who brought lighter features. I actually don't do so well in the Mediterranean environment. I burned pretty badly, and I have a heat rash. Moreover, I had to wear sunglasses at all times of the day, because the UV-rays made it impossible for me to see. My eyes were in a lot of pain. Though genetics is a roll of the dice, for example my brother is a bit darker than I. He could fit into Portugal perhaps. Low and behold, he is actually a tiny bit more "northern", than I.
 
In the US, as long as Affirmative Action exists we need Racial/Ethnic classification to limit abuses.

(from one of my State IDs)

YASj1oR.jpg


fyi Wt is in Pounds, not in Kg :)
 
well i would question race completely. as you see there is a continuum from east eurasia to west eurasia so you can't really divide those too. there is probably also a cline from SSA's to westeurasians. so in the end taking nationality would be way more accurate instead of these large categories. or just not categorize at all. it's just going to be a matter of definition.

Well, they're doing the study, so I guess they get to define the categories.

You can't use a nationality for "African Americans", because they are a mix of different ethnic groups from Africa. There's just no way to do it. They don't have a clue precisely which ones and neither do scientists. So, African-American would perhaps be the best choice, but although used for a long time, they now prefer to be called "black".

How precisely would you assign a nationality to a French, German, Irish, Italian, Polish American??? The U.S. is not like Europe.

As for Near Easterners it's a little murkier. I remember that when the pictures of the two Chechen brothers who did the bombing at the Boston Marathon were released, a lot of the police chatter was about two "white" males. So, for a lot of people, yes, they are white. Osama Bin Laden, who was mostly Yemeni, many people might say no, as they might say no about a lot of North Africans. Interestingly, when there was still segregation, Armenians went to court to be classified as "white", and were, and the same thing happened with the Christian Lebanese.

RESIZED.20130717-boston-bomber-rolling-stone.jpg


alg-osama-bin-laden1-jpg.jpg


For the purposes of statistics like this, I suppose they could have a "European descent" and a "Near Eastern" descent, because they're trying to determine current rates of admixture between newer immigrants from different cultures with "older", European descent Americans.
 
In the US, as long as Affirmative Action exists we need Racial/Ethnic classification to limit abuses.

(from one of my State IDs)

YASj1oR.jpg


fyi Wt is in Pounds, not in Kg :)
Smart move of you to point out its in lbs!!
 
The grand majority of Jewish Americans are Ashkenazi and have both European and Middle Eastern ancestry so it would be hard to choose between filling in the European or the middle eastern box. Maybe we should have a west Eurasian category that covers Europe and the near east? It's a tough call
 
North Africans and Middle Easterners are already considered "White" on the U.S. census. My point is that because some are not "White" looking, it should just be considered West Eurasian, since it would at least make sense (genetically even) for this broad designation, instead of "White". Otherwise more specific and clearer terms are needed for statistics.

Imo, "White" truly means English, or Germans from Saxony, if we are talking about the original term. Irish were the first the be referred to as the N-word ("Blacks" were once called, "smoked-Irish"), and south Germans were not "good enough" for Ben Franklin, to immigrate to the USA. They were not originally "White". But overtime it had to change, and it lost its original meaning. Which is really tied to the ability to vote and procure property.
 
Last edited:
The Founding Fathers of the United States were very fond of and influenced by the Greeks. Only Greek males were able to have citizenship, and voting rights. Thus they applied the term "white", like the way the Greeks applied race to rights in the state. Ironically the Greeks would not fit into the version of their system that the founding fathers created, because they were southern European. And the Greeks would have thought it to be absolutely bizzare that strange barbarians from the british isles were copying them.
 
Implementing abstract ideals in the real World is not an easy task.

... created equal..., but for Policy issues we’re defined by race.

@Davef we don’t want to give any "Food for Thought" by the Kilo :grin: :)
 
In the US, as long as Affirmative Action exists we need Racial/Ethnic classification to limit abuses.

(from one of my State IDs)

YASj1oR.jpg


fyi Wt is in Pounds, not in Kg :)

Hello Salento.
Now, with a pedigree attested by ”yourdnaportal”, I am fit to be considered white in the American census and to apply for a vacancy among white supremacists to participate of their rituals where they drink milk and say that those who can not do so should go away. LOL. This is just a joke my dear friend. I just want to say that this functionality already exists in the portal and if all your SNPs were intact (unfortunately the result of some characteristics is presented as "no call", because some SNP may be damaged in the file that you uploaded).

A big hug dear friend.

gIVPGeT.jpg

U7zcLSJ.jpg

XRwzaly.jpg

d60uoAW.jpg

KBYtYxU.png

ZHpyEoH.jpg


 
Last edited:
North Africans and Middle Easterners are already considered "White" on the U.S. census. My point is that because some are not "White" looking, it should just be considered West Eurasian, since it would at least make sense (genetically even) for this broad designation, instead of "White".
The grand majority of Jewish Americans are Ashkenazi and have both European and Middle Eastern ancestry so it would be hard to choose between filling in the European or the middle eastern box. Maybe we should have a west Eurasian category that covers Europe and the near east? It's a tough call

you will have the same problem with east and west eurasians. where are people from kazakhstan? or pakistan? it seems like they are not "white" anymore. and the authors don't know what they are so they just wrote "pakistani". but where are iranians? they are "white"?

and the authors just should't mix "race" with nationalities. is a pakistani-iranian relationship now a "pakistani"-"white" relationship?
 
Implementing abstract ideals in the real World is not an easy task.

... created equal..., but for Policy issues we’re defined by race.

:

only in america or is there something similar in europe?
 
you will have the same problem with east and west eurasians. where are people from kazakhstan? or pakistan? it seems like they are not "white" anymore. and the authors don't know what they are so they just wrote "pakistani". but where are iranians? they are "white"?
and the authors just should't mix "race" with nationalities. is a pakistani-iranian relationship now a "pakistani"-"white" relationship?

I think you are confused at what I am saying.
 
@Ailchu @Duarte

This may seem strange to you, in the US racial and ethnic classifications are implemented to help the Minorities.

It allows to formulate a proportional quota based on diversity that Society can use to balance access to the Workforce, Banking, Education, ...

I don’t support Affirmative Action in the present form.
 

This thread has been viewed 86825 times.

Back
Top