The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Publications Filter?
VDare
Nothing found
 TeasersiSteve Blog
/
Diversity

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

From the NYT:

A Migration Juggernaut Is Headed for Europe
SEPT. 15, 2015

Eduardo Porter
ECONOMIC SCENE

European leaders probably don’t want to hear this now, as they frantically try to close their borders to stop hundreds of thousands of desperate migrants and asylum seekers escaping hunger and violence in Africa and the Middle East. But they are dealing with the unstoppable force of demography.

Fortified borders may slow it, somewhat. But the sooner Europe acknowledges it faces several decades of heavy immigration from its neighboring regions, the sooner it will develop the needed policies to help integrate large migrant populations into its economies and societies.

That will be no easy task. It has long been a challenge for all rich countries, of course, but in crucial respects Europe does a particularly poor job.

Perhaps it’s not surprising, as a recent report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found, that it is harder for immigrants to get a job in European Union nations than in most other rich countries. But that doesn’t explain why it is also harder for their European-born children, who report even more discrimination than their parents and suffer much higher rates of unemployment than the children of the native-born.

S0, immigrant resentment and hostility just gets worse in the second generation? Maybe Europe should plan for that, such as by letting in fewer fathers of future terrorists and welfare grifters?

Rather than fortifying borders, European countries would do better to improve on this record. The benefits would be substantial, for European citizens and the rest of the world.

Over the summer, as Hungary hurried to lay razor wire along its southern border and E.U. leaders hashed out plans to destroy smugglers’ boats off the coast of North Africa, the United Nations Population Division quietly released its latest reassessment of future population growth.

Gone is the expectation that the world’s population will peak at nine billion in 2050. Now the U.N. predicts it will hit almost 10 billion at midcentury and surpass 11 billion by 2100. And most of the growth will come from the poor, strife-ridden regions of the world that have been sending migrants scrambling to Europe in search of safety and a better life.

The population of Africa, which has already grown 50 percent since the turn of the century, is expected to double by 2050, to 2.5 billion people. South Asia’s population may grow by more than half a billion. And Palestine’s population density is expected to double to 1,626 people per square kilometer (4,211 per square mile), three times that of densely populated India.

You know, there’s a country close to Palestine that seems to do a pretty good job of stopping the “unstoppable force of demography.” Maybe Europeans could try to learn how the Palestinians’ neighbor does it.

… “With Africa’s population likely to increase by more than three billion over the next 85 years, the European Union could be facing a wave of migration that makes current debates about accepting hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers seem irrelevant,” wrote Adair Turner, the former chairman of Britain’s Financial Services Authority and now chairman of the Institute for New Economic Thinking.

In other words, Europe, lie back and try to enjoy it. But at the same time: dig faster!

Europe’s initial reaction to the flow has been mixed, at best. Germany, notably, has committed real resources to help cover the basic needs of hundreds of thousands of refugees it expects to welcome this year. But that is hardly the spirit across the board. And Europe is still mostly focused on steeling its borders, even to the point of closing many of its once free-flowing internal boundaries.

European countries are closing their internal boundaries because because the EU has done such a miserable job of closing its external boundary. (A serious question: Is this simple concept widely understood, or is it some amazing insight that I need to propound more often?)

Better options exist. The rich history of immigration around the world suggests that new migrant populations could be integrated into the European social fabric to the benefit of Europeans, the new immigrants and even the regions of the world they left behind. …

Rich countries with lower fertility rates and older populations benefit from young migrants of working age, who help rev up their slowing labor supply. From 2000 to 2010, migrants accounted for nearly two-thirds of European labor force growth.

Yeah, like in Spain, which took in huge numbers of culturally compatible immigrants in the 2000s from Latin America. How’d that strategy work out for Spain anyway?

Good news! Spain’s youth unemployment rate dropped from 48.9% in June to only 48.6% in July, and it hasn’t even been 7 years yet since the Crash.

Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, migrants are often highly educated, and they generally do not burden the public purse.

Especially when you just accept anybody with a smartphone and no documents.

But the overall task is greater, to eventually close the socio-economic gaps between immigrants and their descendants and native Europeans. “What matters is the integration of the migrants in receiving countries,” Mr. Scarpetta said. “This will not occur by itself.”

No, it will of course requiring hiring millions more soft major diversicrats to manage the process.

In the end, the choice is clear. Europe’s best shot at prosperity is to build upon the diversity that immigration will bring.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

From The Atlantic:

Stephen Colbert’s Writing Staff: 17 Men, 2 Women
And all 19 of the Late Show’s writers are white. So.

MEGAN GARBER 2:38 PM ET

Well, this is sad. Splitsider reports that Stephen Colbert’s new show—the one that premiered delightfully earlier this week, the one that seems to be trying to bring a new kind of intellectualism to late-night network comedy—has a writing staff that includes 17 men. And only two women.

And: All 19 of those writers are white. …

A writing staff is, in many ways, the soul of a show. The 19 people Colbert selected for The Late Show will decide much about how his influential platform will do its influencing. And Colbert himself, furthermore, is someone who—based on interviews he’s given as himself rather than the characters he has played on The Colbert Report and, now, The Late Show—seems to think deeply about the structures and systems that make the world what it is. He seems to understand, in a way many comedians don’t, that even the most innocuous kinds of “entertainment” play a role in defining culture.

You’d think Colbert would know better than most of his peers that “diversity” is not just some aspirational tautology, but the best proxy we have for ensuring that cultural products that aspire to some kind of mass-ness represent, as best they can, the actual mass.

But at least we have The Atlantic, Salon, TNR, and Slate to represent those masses who are Humorless-Americans and Petty Grievance-Americans.

That diversity is—even when it’s kept behind the scenes, even when it’s rumply and sarcastic and sleep-deprived—a signal of the value his show places on differing opinions, and differing experiences, and differing modes of understanding and processing and representing the world.

But if he’s made the decision, at the outset, to have such a wildly skewed ratio of men to women, and of white writers to writers of color—then nuance has already been pre-empted. The benefit of the doubt has already been taken.

Colbert has been asked before about the lack of diversity on his writing staff. His responses tend to involve making a joke of the question itself. When asked about his staff’s makeup during this year’s Television Critics Association convention, Splitsider notes, Colbert responded, “Lot of Leos. A couple Tauruses. But we make it work. Obviously those people shouldn’t be left alone.” During his acceptance speech when The Colbert Report won an Emmy last year, Colbert noted, “Our writers won last week for Writing a Variety Series! I’m so proud of those guys and one woman! And I’m sorry for that, for some reason.”

For some reason. If it’s 2015, and you’re not sure why you should be sorry about something like that, then—I hate to say it, but—you actually have a lot to be sorry for.

The Funny White Guy menace continues …

Colbert’s first book, back in 2009, I Am America (And So Can You!) was the initial time I got the impression that a professional comedy writer was riffing off my stuff. Not stealing my jokes: the punchlines were better than my punchlines, but a lot of the topics seemed highly familiar. I finally got to an entire page devoted to the otherwise less than red-hot topic of cousin marriage and realized one of Colbert’s staffers must be a reader of mine.

Colbert’s second book, America Again: Re-becoming the Greatness We Never Weren’t, is quite funny as well, but I didn’t see much evidence for any of my influence on it; so I presume my reader that had been on Colbert’s staff wasn’t involved with writing the second book. (In other words, I’m not just imagining things.)

 
• Tags: Diversity, Funny 
🔊 Listen RSS

Here’s part of an interview with the President in Vox that is pretty much along the lines of one of my “Core v. Fringe” election strategy articles, just discussed from the opposite partisan point of view. Obama tells Ezra Klein that he’s not worried about a backlash against Democrats over attacks on whites such as Trayvon and Ferguson because he’s using immigration to frontlash America into more and more of a “a hodgepodge of folks,” and thus opponents will “have much less ability, I think, to express” dissenting views.

Ezra Klein: One of the powerful things that’s happened as polarization has increased politically is it’s begun structuring people’s other identities. The one I’m particularly interested in here is race. If you look back at polling around the OJ Simpson verdict or the Bernhard Goetz shooting in New York, Republicans and Democrats — you basically couldn’t tell them apart. Now you look at the Zimmerman verdict or you look at what’s going on in Ferguson, and opinion on racial issues is very sharply split by party. Do you worry about the merging of racial and partisan identity?

Barack Obama: I don’t worry about that, because I don’t think that’s going to last. I worry very much about the immediate consequences of mistrust between police and minority communities. I think there are things we can do to train our police force and make sure that everybody is being treated fairly. And the task force that I assigned after the Ferguson and New York cases is intended to produce very specific tools for us to deal with it.

But over the long term, I’m pretty optimistic, and the reason is because this country just becomes more and more of a hodgepodge of folks. Again, this is an example where things seem very polarized at the national level and media spotlight, but you go into communities — you know, one of the great things about being president is you travel through the entire country, and you go to Tennessee and it turns out that you’ve got this huge Kurdish community. And you go to some little town in Iowa and you see some Hasidic Jewish community,

I think Obama is trolling here. Ezra later picks up on Obama’s reference to one of the most flagrant hubs of illegal immigration.

and then you see a bunch of interracial black and white couples running around with their kids. And this is in these little farm communities, and you’ve got Latinos in the classroom when you visit the schools there. So people are getting more and more comfortable with the diversity of this country, much more sophisticated about both the cultural differences but more importantly, the basic commonality that we have. And, you know, the key is to make sure that our politics and our politicians are tapping into that better set of impulses rather than our baser fears.

Ezra Klein’s post-interview interjection: Specifically you see this in Postville, Iowa, where a Lubavitcher family’s purchase of a meat-processing plant in the late 1980s has led to the migration of a small community of Hasidim to the area.

Obvious iSteve Bait from Ezra. Postville has been a notorious example of fringe aggression against core Americans since the publication on 9/10/2001 (poor timing, I’ll grant) of Stephen G. Bloom’s book Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America. A Jewish college professor went to Postville to write a book about how bigoted small town Iowa people were to ultra-Orthodox Jews just because they were diverse, but wound up writing about how excessively nice Iowans were to the relentlessly un-neighborly and even criminal newcomers.

Then, of course, there’s the Wikipedia article on the Postville Raid:

The Postville Raid was a raid at the Agriprocessors Inc. kosher slaughterhouse and meat packing plant in Postville, Iowa, USA, on May 12, 2008, executed by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security together with other agencies. The raid was the largest single raid of a workplace in U.S. history until that date, and resulted in nearly 400 arrests of immigrant workers with false identity papers who were charged with identity theft, document fraud, use of stolen social security numbers, and related offenses. Some 300 workers were convicted on document fraud charges within four days. The majority served a five-month prison sentence before being deported.

Several employees and lower and middle level managers were indicted on charges of conspiracy to harbor illegal immigrants, aggravated identity theft, and child labor violations among others and were convicted, serving prison sentences between 60 days and 41 months. Neither the owner, Aaron Rubashkin, nor his sons Sholom and Heshy Rubashkin, who were in charge of the management of Agriprocessors, were convicted of immigration and labor law violations. Financial irregularities brought to light by the raid and subsequent investigations led to a conviction of the plant’s chief executive Sholom Rubashkin on bank fraud and related charges. He was sentenced to 27 years in prison, and his trial on immigration charges was canceled.

So, Postville symbolizes both immigration fraud and bank fraud.

The INS was going to raid Postville back in 2000, when it was still a small time illegal immigration hub, but the raid got scrubbed due to the election. Agents heard that the owners were friends with Senator Joe Lieberman and feared political blowback. So they let Postville metastasize for eight years.

Back to Obama:

Obama: And my gut tells me, and I’ve seen it in my own career and you see it generally, a politician who plays on those fears in America, I don’t think is going to over time get a lot of traction. Even, you know, it’s not a perfect analogy, but if you think about how rapidly the whole issue of the LGBT community and discrimination against gays and lesbians has shifted. The Republican party, even the most conservative, they have much less ability, I think, to express discriminatory views than they did even 10 years ago. And that’s a source of optimism. It makes me hopeful.

Obama is optimistic because freedom of expression is much more limited than even ten years ago.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

For years I’ve been pointing out that two bulwarks of Democratic Party campaign fundraising and prestige, Silicon Valley and Hollywood, don’t have to play by the Diversity rules that most of the rest of American business is supposed to play by.

Every few years since the 1990s, Jesse Jackson would try to shake down the Tech Industry and he’d be laughed out of town. Silicon Valley and Hollywood were too liberal, too rich, too powerful, too successful in the global marketplace (America can only wish we had as big a share of jetliners, much less cars, as Silicon Valley and Hollywood have of their respective markets) to let Jesse Jackson throw a wrench in the works.

But 2014 was the year in which liberal ideology overwhelmed liberal hypocrisy. From New York Times columnist Joe Nocera:

Silicon Valley’s Mirror Effect
DEC. 26, 2014

“If meritocracy exists anywhere on earth, it is in Silicon Valley,” wrote David Sacks in an email to The Times’s Jodi Kantor.

Kantor was working on an article, published in The Times on Tuesday, about the Stanford class of 1994 — the class that graduated a year before Netscape went public, and, for all intents and purposes, started the Internet economy. She was exploring why the men in that class had done so much better in Silicon Valley than the women.

Sacks, meanwhile, was one of the most successful members of the class. At Stanford he wrote for The Stanford Review, “a conservative-libertarian campus newspaper,” where he befriended Peter Thiel, a fellow libertarian.

And were wildly unpopular dissidents on campus for opposing the regime of diversity worship that Jesse Jackson’s Hey Ho Western Civ Has Got To Go protests had imposed on Stanford. Obviously Thiel and Sacks were wrong because Science. Blacks and women (nobody ever seems to care enough about Mexicans to mention them, even though there are many millions in California) are just as likely to found successful companies once Jesse Jackson gets to revamp education. I mean, who are you gonna believe is smarter: Jesse Jackson or Peter Thiel?

Then, in 1998, Sacks, Thiel and a handful of others — overwhelmingly white and male — founded PayPal, which made them all very rich. Since then, the PayPal Mafia, as these men are known in Silicon Valley, have seeded companies, founded companies and sold companies — in effect, financing another generation of (mostly) young white men.

So, Sacks and Thiel have tested their discredited theories, using themselves as their test subjects, and …

… But, as Kantor pointedly asks in a short introduction to Sacks’s email, if Silicon Valley is truly a meritocracy, “why do mostly men prevail?”

Why do mostly men prevail in the NBA?

This is a question that has become increasingly urgent. This summer, Jesse Jackson shamed a number of important Silicon Valley companies, including Google, Facebook, Apple and LinkedIn, into publishing a breakdown of their employees by race and sex. The numbers are appalling — something the companies were forced to concede once the figures became public. At LinkedIn, 2 percent of the work force is black, and 4 percent is Hispanic. Google is 70 percent male, with 91 percent of its employees either white or Asian. Facebook: 69 percent male and 91 percent white or Asian. When it comes to leadership positions or board seats, the numbers are even worse. Can this really be the result of “meritocracy?”

Yes.

There aren’t many women or African-Americans working in Silicon Valley who would agree.

Why the constant insensitivity, the microagressions against the missing Mexicans not working in Silicon Valley, Mr. Nocera?

“Silicon Valley’s obsession with meritocracy is delusional,” Freada Kapor Klein, the co-chair of the Kapor Center for Social Impact, told The Los Angeles Times in May.

How did Freada Kapor Klein get to be the co-chair of the Kapor Center for Social Impact?

“Unless someone wants to posit that intelligence is not evenly distributed across genders and race, there has to be some systemic explanation for what these numbers look like.”

I want to posit that intelligence is not evenly distributed across genders and race.

Her husband, Mitch Kapor, designed Lotus 1-2-3, the seminal spreadsheet program that helped to make the IBM PC famous,

Question answered!

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Diversity, Silicon Valley 
🔊 Listen RSS
In Time Magazine, an Indian-American novelist, author of Maximum City, a book about Bombay (which he resents calling by its new Hindu nationalist name of Mumbai), lists numerous people whose racism you should be shocked by. Below is Mehta’s article, with his Google Voice annotations.

The ‘Tiger Mom’ Superiority Complex 

By Suketu Mehta 

From time to time, every Indian American finds an email in his or her inbox, wearing a font of many colors, like the one my grandfather once sent me: “Take a Pride–Being an Indian. 38% of Doctors in U.S.A. are Indians. 36% of NASA employees are Indians. 34% of MICROSOFT employees are Indians.

And 100% of the CEOs of Microsoft! Boo-yah! In-di-a! In-di-a! In-di-a!

“India invented the Number System. Decimal Point was also invented by India. Sanskrit is the most suitable language for computer software …” 

Of course, that was just my grandfather’s ethnocentrism speaking. Not me!

On my desk now is a book-length version of such an email: The Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural Groups in America, by Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld. You may remember Chua as the “Tiger Mom” whose 2011 memoir about the rigors of Chinese parenting set off waves of anxiety among aspirational American parents who had been raised with Dr. Spock’s permissive child-rearing attitudes. Her new book, co-authored with her husband, widens its aim, purporting to explain why not just Asians (like Chua) but also seven other groups–Cubans, Jews (like Rubenfeld), Indians (like me), Nigerians, Mormons, Iranians and Lebanese–are superior when it comes to succeeding in America. 

The book claims that these groups thrive because of three traits: a superiority complex, insecurity and impulse control. The ones lacking the “Triple Package” are African Americans, Appalachians, Wasps and pretty much everybody else. 

Does such thinking shock you?

I should hope so.

If not, it may be because it has become so insidiously commonplace over the past decade as a new strain of racial, ethnic and cultural reductivism has crept into the American psyche and public discourse. Whereas making sweeping observations about, say, African-American or Hispanic culture–flattering or unflattering–remains unthinkable in polite company, it has become relatively normal in the past 10 years to comment on the supposed cultural superiority of various “model minorities.” I call it the new racism–and I take it rather personally. 

I am an American, Calcutta born. I’m writing a book about immigrants in New York, dedicated to my two American sons. I want them to know why we came here and how we found our place in this new land. I want them to know about the teachers at the Catholic school in Queens who called me a “pagan,” and the boy there who welcomed me to the school by declaring, “Lincoln shoulda never let ‘em off the plantations,” and the landlord who welcomed us to the country by turning off the electricity.

In other words, the most important family memories that my sons are having inculcated in them is that they are Victims of Whites. That’s the most important legacy to instruct your children in in the 21st Century.

I also want them to know why their family did well in the end. We worked hard, yes, and we read books and went to the right schools and are “well settled,” as our relatives back in India describe us. But we also benefited from numerous advantages–from cultural capital built up over generations to affirmative action to an established network of connections in our new country–none of which had anything to do with racial, ethnic or cultural superiority.

None, I tell you, none!

By the way, why do we Indian immigrants get affirmative action? I could never figure that out. Are you people crazy or something? I’d say thanks, but then you might start figuring out how nuts it is.

When my family went to America, we left behind a system in which people are often denigrated because of their caste, religion, language or skin color.

Not us, actually. The Mehtas are Gujarati diamond merchants from Bombay. Perhaps we’re Jains (who dominate the diamond trade) or maybe Parsis (like conductor Zubin Mehta) or Brahmins or merchant caste, but whatever Amy Chua-type Market Dominant Minority I am, I try to keep my privileged ethnicity obscure here in the Colonies States so I can be the Voice of All India to you poor dumb Americans. It’s a living.

The U.S., of course, has its own deeply troubled history with regard to race, but its path has tended toward more equality. 

Recently, though, the language of racism in America has changed, though the plot remains the same. It’s not about skin color anymore–it’s about “cultural traits.” And it comes cloaked in a whole lot of social-science babble. The new racialists are too smart to denigrate particular cultures. Instead, they come at things the other way. They praise certain cultures, hold them up as exemplary. The implication–sometimes overt, sometimes only winked at–is that other cultures are inferior and this accounts for their inability to succeed.

When everybody knows it’s really their Bad Karma.

The U.S.–like Brazil or England–likes to think it has moved beyond race. After all, we elected a black President, twice. But in reality, the terrain of race-baiting has simply shifted. The condescension once aimed squarely at African Americans now also claims as its targets Latinos, Muslims and–in a novel twist–large swaths of whites. And the people doing the condescending might be black or brown themselves. 

A Congolese immigrant whom I met in the course of researching my book told me about the African Americans she knows at the supermarket where she works. “We are really different,” she said about her community, as opposed to African Americans. “They don’t have African values. They don’t have the values to be black.” 

I asked her what that means. 

“To be black,” she explained, “means you get married and you don’t have children before.” The American blacks at her supermarket, she said, need to go to college. “They ask if you want to have marijuana. It’s just normal for them. It’s easy for them to say that ‘My ancestors were oppressed.’” 

Let me be clear that I, Suketu Mehta, didn’t say this. An extremely black woman from the Congo said it, not me. She may have been an extremely black woman lesbian pre-op transgender immigrant from the Congo for all I know. In other words, don’t blame me for what she said. I’m a person of color myself. I would never ever think that maybe she had a point about African Americans, with whom I stand in utter solidarity from my Manhattan high rise apartment provided to me free by NYU, where — did I mention? — I’m a professor. I’m not endorsing the shamef
ul thing she said, I’m just reporting it so we can all cluck in approbation over it.

A book like The Triple Package, even if it takes pains to argue in nonracial terms, is an example of this sort of ethnocentric thinking writ large. And it is only the latest in a long line of books–spanning more than a century–arguing for the superiority of this or that American group over others. The roots of alleged superiority have changed over time from race to class to IQ to religion and now to culture. 

In 1916 Madison Grant wrote The Passing of the Great Race, which purported to demonstrate the racial and cultural superiority of Northern Europeans over Southern Europeans.

I’m annoyed that Time wouldn’t give me the column inches to work in a clever reference to Tom Buchanan in The Great Gatsby here.

The book was influential in drumming up popular support for passage of the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act, which barred Asians from immigrating to the U.S. and established quotas for Southern and East Europeans, to keep out Jews.

Which caused the Holocaust.

Decades later, an influential 1959 article by Bernard Rosen

Presumably, not a Jew. I mean, I wouldn’t passively-aggressively quote some utterly obscure Jewish person saying something politically incorrect 55 years ago, now would I? I mean, who would write a gigantic passive-aggressive put-on like this article appears to be? I’d have to have grown up in some place like Queens and really resent Jewish domination of the New York literary world to go out of my way to find somebody who isn’t a famous Jewish thinker to poke fun at for my own private satisfaction while you can’t prove I’m criticising Jewish thinking. Are you implying that this article is just a hoax to see what I could get away with without any editors at Time actually getting the joke?

I mean, Rosen could be a Teuton, right?

declared that “Protestants, Jews and Greeks place a greater emphasis on independence and achievement training than southern Italians and French-Canadians.” …

And that was obviously wrong because TBD

This line of argument expanded in the 21st century. In 2004 Samuel Huntington, the Harvard professor who became famous for his book The Clash of Civilizations, warned against Latino culture in a Foreign Policy cover story bearing the title “José, Can You See?” In his book published the following year, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, he explained the differences between Anglo and Latino culture by quoting a Texas entrepreneur on “Hispanic traits … that ‘hold us Latinos back’: mistrust of people outside the family; lack of initiative, self-reliance, and ambition; low priority for education; acceptance of poverty as a virtue necessary for entrance into heaven.” 

Of course, that’s wrong because the 50 million Latinos in America provide only two members of the Forbes 400 while the few million South Asians provide six members. Boo-yah! … Which just shows how racist America is.

In 2009 an article by Jason Richwine

Shouldn’t somebody fire that guy?

, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

, caught the attention of my people with its title, “Indian Americans: The New Model Minority.” East Asians continue to excel in the U.S., he noted, but Indians are clearly the latest and greatest model. Why? “Exhibit A is the spelling bee.” Success in spelling and other similar cognitive tasks, according to Richwine, proves that we are smarter than whites as well as Ashkenazi Jews–a happy finding for my father, who spent a lifetime in the diamond market, where they have a big presence. Richwine’s conclusion: immigration policy should favor these model minorities over, say, Mexicans. 

Obviously, I, Suketu Mehta, utterly disagree with this finding. But I think you should know about it … just so you can be mad at Richwine. I’m not trying to plant any ideas in your head or anything about how brilliant we Indians are. I’m totally not into saying that us Indian Americans are smarter than you Ashkenazi Jews, but I think you should know that this horrible Jason Richwine person said it. Get ‘im. For me. For the children!

Then there is Stanford University’s Thomas Sowell, who in Migration and Cultures: A World View identified six model “middleman minorities” who exemplify the entrepreneurial virtues he thinks the U.S. desperately needs. Last year he took the argument to another level, writing that there are some cultures that are just incompatible with Western values, primarily (surprise!) Muslim culture. 

Where are these maniacs coming from recently? Back in the 1970s you’d never hear any vicious racist nonsense like this! What? Sowell’s just repeating his 1978 book Ethnic America?

Who knew?

These bromides don’t just come thundering down from the ivory tower. They’re all around us in casual conversation about group accomplishment and group blame. Typical was a recent podcast by the comedian Adam Carolla,

I heard that Carolla grew up in practically the same neighborhood as that horrible Sailer person.

in which he interviewed San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Newsom noted that half of Latino and African-American families in California don’t have access to a checking account or ATM. 

“What’s wrong with them?” asked Carolla. “I want to know why those two groups don’t have access … Are they flawed? … Do Asians have this problem? … They were put in internment camps. Are they at the check-cashing places?” 

They own them. No, I didn’t say that.

“Look at the history,” Newsom responded. “It’s naive to suggest that those things don’t matter.” 

“How about the Jews?” asked Carolla. “No problems in the past? … Why are the Jews doing well? … Why do some groups do so much better? I’ll tell you why: they have a family who puts an emphasis on education.” He may have been speaking lightly, but Carolla’s words show how easily the line can blur between cultural praise and cultural denigration. 

Of Ethnicity and Reality 

… The new American racism, however, is turning the clock backward. While Chua and Rubenfeld are not the only ones peddling this pernicious line of thought, their book is likely to make them prominent spokespeople for it. So it’s worth taking a close look at the “evidence” they marshal for their argument. Too often they–and their compatriots–ignore the realities of American history to make their half-baked theories stick. 

The authors attempt to barricade themselves against charges of racism by protesting that the Triple Package has nothing to do with race or IQ; it’s about ethnicity. So not all blacks are losers–look at Nigerians and Liberians! They are so well represented in the Ivy League! But the authors fail to acknowledge that Africans and Afro-Caribbeans are beneficiaries of affirmative action, won through the civil rights struggles of African Americans. kquote>
Which makes what I just said about quotas A-OK. We shall overcome … Sing it!

What’s more, African Americans are not in a bad way because of lack of racial pride

In fact, have you noticed that African Americans seem to have plenty of self-esteem? I’m just sayin’ …

or a problem with their impulses.

I would never say that.

Their challenges as a community trace back centuries; they were brought here in chains, their women raped

Not by me, personally, but your tastes may vary.

and their families deliberately broken. 

Take that, Chua! Let no one ever say that a Chinawoman can out BS an Indiaman.

This is what President Obama was talking about in his remarks after the Trayvon Martin verdict

That Zimmerman guy, I have to say, a year of hiding indoors really did his complexion a world of good. “Wheat-colored” we’d call it in the marriage market personal ads.

, when he said, “I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.” 

Because History!

Look at all those instructive historical epics, such as 12 Years a Slave, Django Unchained, and Lee Daniels’ The Butler. It used to be that blacks caused problems for themselves because of white racism, but now the country has elected some nonentity comfortable-in-his-own-skin Constitutional scholar President because he’s black so awesome, so now … Because History.

In summary, don’t blame me: Us Indians just got here!

Time and again, when examining the claims of the new racialists, we find other, deeper, often more complex explanations for why the children of some groups do better than others. 

As Nancy Foner, a leading immigration scholar

Here’s the extended Foner family family tree of leftist academics and Marxist labor organizers. Three of her four Foner uncles were blacklisted during the McCarthy era. By the way, I was hoping that Nancy would introduce me to the movie star Gyllenhaal Siblings, but she explained that they are her cousin Eric’s ex-wife’s children by her second husband, so I’ll just have to figure out another way to get my screenplay into Jake’s’ hands: Maybe I’ll tell him, “‘The Prince of Persia’ changed my life!” D’ya think?

, points out in an essay, “Today, the way East Asian–as opposed to black or Hispanic–immigrants fit into New York’s racial hierarchy makes a difference in the opportunities they can provide their children.” Because they are not black, she notes, “East Asian (and white) immigrants face less discrimination in finding a place to live and, in turn, send their children to school.” That translates into greater access to heavily white neighborhoods with good public schools.

Well, that clears that up. For example, that’s why Stuyvesant is about 70% Asian: it’s near Wall Street, which is heavily white.

Moreover, even if they attend school with native-born blacks and Latinos, they do not feel a bond of race with native minorities–making them less likely to become part of a peer culture found among some disaffected inner-city black and Latino youth.  

In other words, Asians youths are less likely to join criminal gangs. So, it doesn’t have anything to do with culture.

Cubans, meanwhile, are in favor over other Latinos among the new racialists, since they appear to do better in America than groups like Mexicans. But as City University of New York’s Philip Kasinitz, an expert on ethnic assimilation, notes, “If Mexicans threw out the top 10% of their population into America, you’d be singing a different tune about Mexicans.”

Maybe we should try only taking the top 10% of Mexicans? Speaking of Talented Tenth Mexicans, maybe Alfonso Cuaron would like to direct my screenplay as his Gravity follow-up? I could add some long tracking shots for Lubezki to film. Heck, I could make the plot about the oppression of illegal alien Mexicans in a post-apocalyptic England. What was that movie about, anyway? But I don’t care: if Cuaron wants to direct, I’ll slap in a maid, gardener, busboy, whatever. I’m cool.

And among Cubans, there’s a subset that hasn’t done well: the “Marielitos,” who immigrated in 1980 when Fidel Castro emptied the island’s prisons and told the inmates they were free to head to America. They were much darker in complexion than the first wave of Cubans, and they have not done anywhere near as well as their light-complected compatriots. What does this suggest? First, that if you were doing well in the country you’re leaving, you’ll do well in the country you’re going to, and vice versa. Second, that lighter-skinned people tend to fare better than darker-skinned people when they immigrate to the U.S.,

Or any country … Except for those damn Tamils. Have you ever noticed how pushy Tamils are? Don’t they know their place?

even if they’re from the same country.

Here’s something I didn’t actually know about the Marielitos until I started getting just plain hateful emails after my Time article appeared: a sizable fraction of the Marielitos were career criminals or lunatics emptied out of Cuba’s penal institutions by Castro and dispatched on boats as a giant middle finger guffaw at the expense of Castro’s archenemy.

I’ll grant you that’s not common knowledge, but apparently there is this obscure art film called Scarface directed by the exquisitely tasteful Brian De Palma, written by the Oxford professor of history Oliver Stone, and starring an understated character actor named Al Pacino as Tony Montana that obliquely referred to that history:

But how is some Indian like me to supposed to know about obscure American stuff like that? It’s racist to expect Indian immigrants to know American history just because we’re paid to write long articles in Time Magazine about it. Do you know anything about Indian history? I sure don’t. I mean, You sure don’t.

What about Jews? Scholars like Stephen Steinberg in The Ethnic Myth have pointed out that the success of immigrant Jews was largely due to the fact that they arrived in the U.S. with “industrial experience and concrete occupational skills” well suited to the booming urban economies of the new world.

That’s why so many Jewish-Americans these days have good paying jobs as factory foremen.

Not, as Chua and Rubenfeld posit, because “Jews maintained for millennia the idea that they were God’s chosen people.”

Well, that clears that up once and for all.

… Lastly, what sha
ll we make of Indians–who, aside from Chinese, are perhaps the new racialists’ favorite model minority? Indians in America are, as Chua and Rubenfeld note, “by any number of measures, the most successful Census-tracked ethnic group in the country.” 

Well, if Indians are so great, what explains India? The country is a sorry mess, with the largest population of poor, sick and illiterate people in the world, its economy diving, its politics abysmally corrupt. For decades, those who could afford to get out did. The $1,000 that it takes to purchase a one-way ticket to the U.S. is about a year’s salary for the average Indian. If India shared a border with the U.S. and it were possible for its poorest residents to cross over on foot, we would fast cease to be the model minority, and talk-show hosts would rail against us just as they do against Mexicans. 

You mean to say that legal restrictions on immigration are actually good for the American public? Maybe we shouldn’t take the rest of the world’s “huddled masses?” No, I’m just kidding. U-S-A! U-S-A! Statue of Liberty FTW!

The groups Chua and Rubenfeld and the other new racialists typically pick out as success stories are almost without fail examples of self-selection. Forty-two percent of Indians in the U.S. ages 25 and older have a postgraduate degree. But only about 20% of those they’ve left behind in the motherland even graduate from high school, and 26% of the population is illiterate. It’s the same with Nigerians: the ones who are here represent a vastly richer and better-educated subset of the country’s population as a whole. 

So Africans really aren’t that smart on average? Is that what I’m trying to tell you? No, absolutely not. You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that. What kind of racist are you?

Further, the authors pay almost no attention to the role of networking, which accounts for so much of the success of groups like Jews, Cubans and Indians. Part of the reason so many immigrant groups thrive is that when they arrive in the U.S., they already have an uncle who runs a store and cousins who are tutors, doctors or lawyers who can help them negotiate the new country. 

When my family immigrated in 1977, we didn’t do well because of delayed gratification or cultural superiority or a chip on our shoulder. We did well because my uncle in Detroit, an engineer, brought us over on the family-reunification bill, not in shackles or in steerage. When my father started his diamond business on 47th Street in Manhattan, there was a network of Indian diamond merchants who could show him the ropes.

Oh, come now, the diamond industry is notoriously meritocratic and wide open to any individual with a little moxie.

My sons, in turn, will benefit from my connections. 

Much of The Triple Package focuses, naturally enough, on immigrants in New York City–then and now the immigrant capital of the country, if not the world. So you could profitably browse a gold mine of a book just put out by the NYC department of city planning, The Newest New Yorkers, a compendium of figures about the diverse groups that make up my hometown. 

Chinese Americans in New York City, it turns out, earn less than other groups lacking the Triple Package. The median household income of Chinese in the city ($42,766) is lower than that of Ecuadoreans ($46,126), Haitians ($48,175) and Pakistanis ($50,912). The New York City group with the highest percentage of high school graduates isn’t Chinese or Indians; it’s Ukrainians (94.4%). But rarely are we treated to encomiums about the cultural superiority of the Borscht Mom.

Like the Brooklyn Nets are owned by a simple Slavic farm boy who was just better than anybody else at growing potatoes. Or something. I wasn’t really paying attention. I leave that to bad people like Amy Chua. Did I mention how much you should hate her?

America’s Real Exceptionalism 

The pity is that this book, and this entire line of argument, is taken seriously–among my relatives

Whom I totally disagree with.

Ha-ha-ha

 , for instance, –when all the scholars I’ve consulted laugh at it. 

“Every one of the premises underlying the theory of the Triple Package is supported by a well-substantiated and relatively uncontroversial body of empirical evidence,” the authors assert. “Give me a break,” said Foner, who is one of the authorities cited in the endnotes. “There is a large body of literature showing that the most important factor predicting success among the children of immigrants is parents’ human capital.” That is: skills and education, from family to family and individual to individual. 

And family has nothing to do with culture. Or genes. Neither nurture nor nature matters. Don’t even think about children inheriting genes from their parents. No Indian has ever thought about blood ancestry. You can’t hear this Indian thinking about biological inheritance. I’m putting my fingers in my ears and chanting so you can’t hear me think about that.

Nyah Nyah Nyah.
 

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Diversity 
🔊 Listen RSS
A new study ranks the most diverse metropolitan areas in the country:
1
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA
40.8%
14.2%
24.0%
15.1%
5.9%
2
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA
42.4%
8.1%
21.7%
23.6%
4.2%
3
Stockton, CA
35.9%
7.1%
38.9%
14.3%
3.9%

Perhaps not coincidentally, #1 Vallejo was the first municipality in this present downturn to go bankrupt, way back in 2008, and #3 Stockton entered bankruptcy recently. Stockton is a classic exurb (of SF) whose home prices got bid up way too high during the subprime bubble and then people came to their senses and realized that they didn’t want to pay $4 per gallon to commute four hours per day to live in Stockton. 

But Vallejo is more of a suburb of SF, with what ought to be a pretty nice location right on San Francisco Bay. And it went broke way back in 2008. It got ripped off big time by its public safety unions during the bubble. Michael Lewis wrote a Vanity Fair article about Vallejo that I commented upon in VDARE last year:

Diversity makes public affairs ripe for exploitation by highly unified groups, such as the prison guards’ union and local firemen. Lewis reported on how Vallejo’s fire department is an island of cohesion in a sea of anomie. 

Moreover, because the vibrant residents of Vallejo tend to set their houses on fire more frequently than the duller residents of less diverse Northern Californian communities, the Vallejo FD attracted some of the most gung-ho firefighters from all over the region. 

Not surprisingly, the Vallejo fire department—a rare institution in Vallejo with a high degree of what Harvard political scientist Robert D. Putnam calls “social capital,” or espirit de corps among its employees—managed to outmaneuver the divided and listless citizenry in grabbing a slice of the pie bigger than could be afforded by the populace’s mediocre ability to generate wealth.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Diversity 
🔊 Listen RSS
Matthew Yglesias points out that the top 12 executives are all white men at Apple (which, in less than a decade and a half, has gone from down-and-out to the world’s highest stock market valuation). He goes on to suggest how to begin fixing Apple’s problem.

Thank God I sold all my Apple stock in 1999 and used the money to buy Hewlett-Packard stock because HP had appointed Carly Fiorina CEO. As we all know, white men cannot begin to grasp the diverse needs of women and people of color, so how can they sell them computers?

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
🔊 Listen RSS
From my Taki’s Magazine column:

Augusta National is to aspirational Gentile corporate executives what Harvard is to ambitious high-school students. …. So why did Augusta National immediately add a black member in 1990 after Shoal Creek, site of that year’s PGA Championship, was widely criticized when its founder let it slip that it was all-white? In contrast, why did Augusta National wait 22 more years to let in any women, even shrugging off a frenzied 2002 campaign against it by The New York Times? … 

The contrast is striking because race discrimination was pervasive in American country clubs up through the 1990 Shoal Creek imbroglio… 

On the other hand, contrary to all the press accounts presenting Augusta National as a last relic of the Bad Old Days, all-male golf clubs have never been common in the US, and they may even now be increasing in number.  

What’s the story behind all this?  

Read the whole thing there.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Diversity, Golf, Sports 
🔊 Listen RSS
A running theme at iSteve over the years has been to question the conventional wisdom that white racism long completely prevented the efflorescence of talent among the diverse and thus, under our more enlightened system of today, various diverse superstars in numerous fields will be arriving Real Soon Now. 

Yet, in quite a few fields, I can recall various non-whites of the past who accomplished more than their more numerous and more accepted co-ethnics today. For instance, Pancho Gonzales, a cholo from East L.A., was among the the top American tennis players from the late 1940s to the early 1970s, while there are no Mexican-American touring pros today.

With the French Open tennis tournament going on currently, I’m reminded that Australian Aboriginal-surnamed Evonne Goolagong won the French Open in 1971, 41 years ago, following up with a Wimbledon triumph later that year. You can’t get much more diverse than Australian Aborigine. During this peak era in the popularity of tennis in general and women’s tennis in particular, Goolagong (after her marriage, Goolagong-Cawley) won 7 Grand Slam individual titles from 1971-1980. She was well-liked by the public; not as pretty as Chris Evert, but cuter than Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova. 

One question is how Aboriginal she is. There was never any doubt in the public’s mind about her surname: Goolagong is an obviously Aboriginal sounding word, similar to “billabong,” which is famous from the opening line of Australia’s unofficial national anthem “Waltzing Matilda:” “Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong.”

On the other hand, Aboriginal looks seem to be somewhat recessive. If she weren’t named “Goolagong,” it’s not clear if non-Australians would have immediately guessed she was part-Aboriginal. This was an era of fashionable tanning and tennis players then tended to be well-tanned. Also, the most prominent Aboriginal facial feature, the heavy brow ridge, is less noticeable among female Aborigines.

Both her parents identified as mixed-race Aborigines who were assimilated into rural Australian working class culture. They were as beige-skinned as her, but some of her seven siblings ranged from brown to black. The Goolagongs were poor but not impoverished. They were the only Aboriginal family in a small town, and the Goolagong kids went to school with the white kids. Her father Kenny Goolagong was an itinerant sheep-shearer, but also the town’s golf champion. In the British commonwealth, golf is a less elitist sport than in America. And, Australia is possibly the most sports-oriented culture on earth.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
🔊 Listen RSS
The San Antonio Spurs are now 10-0 in the NBA playoffs, as they go for their fifth NBA title since 1999 in their Tim Duncan Era. Even before this season, the Spurs’ veteran Big 3 of Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili had the three highest career winning percentages among active NBA players. 

Duncan is from the American Virgin Islands, and was intent on becoming an Olympic swimmer until a 1989 hurricane wrecked the only training swimming pool on St. Croix. (Competitive swimming is the exact opposite of basketball in typical personality type.) So, being huge, he then took up basketball at St. Dunstan’s Episcopal High School, then off to Wake Forest.

Duncan is always praised as having the best fundamentals of any big man in the NBA, but that says more about the decline of fundamentals in U.S. basketball. He’s not particularly huge for an inside NBA player at 6-11, he didn’t pay attention to basketball until high school, and the Virgin Islands are not a basketball hotbed, and probably didn’t offer anybody close to his size in his age group.

Yet, by his sophomore year at Wake Forest, Duncan was college defensive player of the year and clearly an NBA lottery pick. But he’d promised his dying mother he’d get his college degree, so he played for free for two more years.

The Onion has a running gag about Duncan’s responsible, staid un-NBAness. 

Tim Duncan Delivers Heartfelt Speech On Fiscal Responsibility During Spurs Victory Celebration

Tim Duncan Offers To Do Taxes For Entire Spurs Team

Tim Duncan Forwards Story About Particle Accelerator To Spurs Teammates

Tim Duncan Offers To Drive NBA Players To Polling Place On Election Day

Tim Duncan Hams It Up For Crowd By Arching Left Eyebrow Slightly

Tim Duncan Makes Citizen’s Foul Call

Tim Duncan Announces Fifth Straight Successful New Year’s Resolution
Matthew Yglesias has a good rant in Slate, The Most Ignored Dynasty in Sports, about how the fact that nobody outside of central Texas cares about how quietly excellent the Spurs have been for, roughly, ever shows that, despite what we might claim to admire, Americans actually like show-offs, hoopla, and drama queens. (Parker appears to have been trying to generate a whoop-tee-do via his tumultuous marriage to Desperate Housewives actress Eva Longoria, but that comes up more in the entertainment than sports gossip columns.) 

Yglesias points out:

It’s the popularity of the [Oklahoma City] Thunder, the Spurs’ opponents in the Western Conference Finals, that proves San Antonio’s lack of sex appeal isn’t a consequence of geography. 

One thing that’s going on is that San Antonio’s longtime Big 3 are, more or less, foreigners. The NBA is a leading expression of African-American culture, and none of these guys quite fit into NBA fans’ desire for stereotypical African-Americans basketball players. Duncan is a bourgeois West Indian, Parker was raised in Europe, and Ginobili is some kind of white guy from the other side of the world.  

Moreover, San Antonio has relatively few blacks and many of them are there because of military connections, so it’s low on, as they say, vibrancy. It’s a Mexican and military town, and that’s not very interesting to NBA fans. 

One interesting nature-nurture question about West Indians that I don’t know enough to have a useful opinion upon: Is it easier for West Indians to act white because they come from black islands? Did the Duncans successfully raise Tim to act respectable, to act middle class because it’s not a race thing there, it’s a class thing?

The Wayan Brothers’ old TV show In Living Color had a long running parody showing what African Americans think of West Indians, Hey Mon Hedley, about a hard-working family from the Caribbean who look down upon African-Americans as shiftless.

Every February since 1999, I’ve been volunteering to go to the West Indies to research this important question, but nobody has taken me up yet on paying for my trip.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Diversity, Sports 
🔊 Listen RSS
In VDARE this week, I look at an unexpected topic by reviewing historian Susan J. Matt’s thought-provoking book Homesickness. Matt is working in the subfield of “history of emotions,” which was invented by French historians around 1940 and is proving an excellent field for female scholars. Her previous book, Keeping Up with the Joneses, was on how envy of the material possessions of others went from being considered a vice in the 19th Century to being thought “good for the economy” in the 20th Century. Here she defends homesickness, a common feeling stigmatized today as childish, but which in the Victorian Era was considered the mark of a sensitive, loyal, virtuous individual.

But Matt’s most valuable contribution might be this point: that modern institutions try to bully Americans into becoming as fungible as individual humans can be.

This demand from big institutions for fungibility, for homogeneity, for interchangeability among the human raw materials they work with might explain much about all the contemporary propaganda from those institutions for equality and diversity. There are paradoxes within paradoxes here.
Read the whole thing there.
(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Books, Diversity 
🔊 Listen RSS
My new VDARE column is about Maurice Glasman, one of the most interesting leftist thinkers in recent years to emerge (and then get rapidly submerged as he made clear the full logic of his worldview). Lord Glasman served for the last half year as the idea man for the new British Labour Party boss Ed Miliband. 
Glasman, who is almost utterly unknown in the U.S. media, articulated a new old-fashioned, pre-multiculti leftism for Labour of the kind that George Orwell might have approved of. Not surprisingly, last week he got stomped down for calling for a halt to mass immigration, but he had an interesting ride while it lasted. 

Lord Glasman has found himself on the less privileged side of the central ideological divide of the 21st Century—a gap that sprawls across the more familiar ideological chasms of the 20th Century. The crucial question is no longer capitalism vs. communism, but globalism v. localism, imperial centralization v. self-rule, cosmopolitanism v. patriotism, elitism v. populism, diversity v. particularism, homogeneity v. heterogeneity, and high-low v. middle. 

Barack Obama, for example, epitomizes the first side of these dichotomies, especially the high-low coalition. By being half-black, he enjoys the totemic aura of the low, but has all the advantages of the high. He has never, as far as anyone can tell, had a thought cross his mind that would raise an eyebrow at a Davos Conference. 

In contrast to the President, Glasman is certainly an original thinker. But anybody on his side of these new dichotomies faces a tactical disadvantage. 

Because globalists want the whole world to be all the same, they share common talking points, strategies, conferences, media, and so forth. 

In contrast, because the localists want the freedom to rule themselves, they often don’t even realize who else is on the same side of this divide. 

For example, to most Americans, “socialism” is a very foreign-sounding word. To a lot of Brits, however, socialism is what their grandfathers looked forward to while they fought WWII and then came home to create the National Health Service.

Read the whole thing there.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Diversity, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

As we’ve all been lectured, diversity is the biggest and bestest thing in the whole world.

Except when it’s not.

Everybody in the Main Stream Media is enraptured by the success of the U.S. women’s soccer team in reaching the July 17 finals of the Women’s World Cup. (Where they lost, to the Japanese), It’s a triumph for the American Way of Life over less enlightened countries that oppress their women by forcing them to wear their Manolo Blahnik pumps instead of the soccer spikes they dream of. You know, like France, Italy, and England.

Or something like that. The reasoning isn’t exactly clear, but the sentiment is obvious.

Female soccer embodies many of the most deeply-held values of white American upper middle class families: gender equality; parental (especially paternal) investment in their children; organized practice instead of play; ambitions for college scholarships; tacit race and class segregation via spending; and chauffeuring … lots and lots of chauffeuring.

So nobody in the American MSM has been so rude as to point out the remarkable lack of racial and ethnic diversity on the U.S. women’s soccer team.

Judging from the latest roster—if our World Cup team was the Tea Party, it would be denounced as nativist and racist. Certainly the women’s national soccer team would fail the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notoriously Four-Fifths Rule for sniffing out possible “disparate impact” discrimination—discrimination where it doesn’t have to prove intent.

Yet Google News records no mention by the MSM of the lack of diversity on this lauded squad.

Moreover, even though soccer is cited almost as often as ethnic restaurants as proving how crucial immigrants are to American success, every single one of the 21 players was born in the U.S.

I found a grand total of one blogger, Professor Harold Black, an African-American economist, who complained about the team’s shortage of ethnic diversity:

“I admit I am not a soccer fan, but we have been inundated with US women’s soccer and the World Cup. This is the whitest, least diverse squad I have ever seen. It makes the BYU sports teams look like the University of Memphis. … There is one Hispanic-surnamed player who looks like a blond Barbie.”

In fact, one player, Shannon Boxx, is a little bit black. But she’s not exactly from the ‘hood. She was raised solely by her white mother in the beach city of South Torrance, CA. Rather like Barack Obama, another beach kid who was dumped by Dad, she says she learned about being black by majoring in African-American Studies at the U. of Notre Dame.

And yes, one player, Amy Rodriguez, has a Spanish surname. But she’s about as nonwhite as actress Cameron Diaz of Bad Teacher. Rodriguez (see picture left) is a blonde born in Beverly Hills. She grew up in Lake Forest, one of the wealthiest towns in southern Orange County. Her California-born father is of Cuban descent.

And that’s it for diversity on the Women’s World Cup team.

What’s the story here? Isn’t soccer the global game? Don’t Portland hipsters who get up early on Sunday to watch the English Premier League on television believe in diversity? Haven’t we already seen headlines in the New York Timeslike Swiss Team Enriched by Ethnic Diversity? [By Rob Hughes, June 6, 2011] Or For Host Germany in Women’s World Cup, Diversity Is the Goal? [By Jeré Longman, June 25, 2011]

And where are all of America’s vibrant Latina soccer players?

And why doesn’t anybody talk about it?

The first question is: Why are Americans relatively better at women’s soccer than at men’s soccer?

The answer is, obviously, that countries that care about soccer haven’t cared much about women’s soccer. When the U.S. won the Women’s World Cup at the Rose Bowl in 1999, the only countries that were competitive were America, due to decades of Title IX affirmative action scholarships for female athletes; Communist China; Brazil; and the Nordic usual suspects. Americans bragged so hard in 1999 that some countries that actually know how to play soccer, like Germany (which won the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2003 and 2007), got sore and taught some of their girls.

Hispanic cultures were especially uninterested in women’s soccer. Anne-Marie O’Connor wrote gingerly for the Los Angeles Times on July 16, 1999 in A Cultural Snub for Women’s World Cup:

“There was something missing at the Rose Bowl when the United States won the Women’s World Cup:

“Latinos.

“Latinos, the dynamite behind the Los Angeles soccer explosion, were strangely absent Saturday, making up no more than 10% of the crowd—a far cry from the overwhelmingly Latino crowds that usually support Rose Bowl and Coliseum soccer …”

Title IX, which demands that colleges give almost as many sports scholarships to females as males—with grand Politically Correct indifference to whether or not teenage girls actually like, say, golf—is always trumpeted as Good for Diversity.

But in reality, it benefits well-to-do whites—especially those from intact families. With over 50 percent of Hispanic mothers and over 70 percent of black mothers being unmarried, few Latino or African-American girls can expect much coaching from their fathers.

A dead give-away is that Title IX is seldom enforced at community colleges. The kind of hard-charging businessmen who guide their daughters to golf or soccer scholarships at a state flagship university don’t care about junior colleges.

The U.S. isn’t going to stay at the top of women’s soccer as countries that actually know how to train young soccer players get interested in the women’s game—unless we change our entire grass-roots program. Right now, white upper middle class people have constructed a youth soccer system in the U.S. that is much more expensive, elitist, and ineffective at nurturing talent in young men than any other country’s system.

And soccer moms and dads like it that way—because it provides a de facto white-dominated environment for their children.

The current American youth soccer system of expensive pay-to-play travel squads and countless away games is not designed to win World Cups or even to create professional soccer players. Young players learn how to handle the ball by practicing one-on-one, not by playing in eleven-on-eleven games. It’s designed by affluent parents to get their kids some exercise, let them experience some level of success in a game away from minorities, and maybe win a college scholarship.

Everything that can be said about the motivations of American soccer parents regarding their sons can be said double regarding their daughters. They don’t care about training their daughters for non-existent women’s professional leagues. They care about giving their daughters something wholesome to do with their time so they don’t get pregnant and marry losers before they finish college.

Next, let’s focus on men’s soccer, since that provides the baseline.

Although you don’t hear about this much, the teams that win the World Cup are, with the exception of mighty Brazil, usually quite white. Italy won in 2006 with an all-white team, and Spain’s 2010 World Cup winners were nearly so.

It’s not just the best teams that are mostly white. It’s also the best players. Of the 50 top male players in the world in 2010, 39 were white, ten West African black by birth or descent, and one mixed. None were Asian or Amerindian (although the most exciting player of a generation ago, Argentina’s Diego Maradona, might be somewhat mestizo).

Across a variety of sports, the best athletes in the world tend to be white or black, with other races an afterthought (although there are occasional exceptions, such as the huge and fast Samoans).

Therefore, a sports’ balance of power between Europeans and West Africans can, in the long run, depend on subtle rules that determine, for instance, how many rest periods and substitutions are allowed.

American spectator sports have evolved in the direction of ever more stoppages in play to accommodate television commercials. This gives athletes of West African background with more fast-twitch muscle fibers time to rest up between sprinting and leaping. And that helps make American spectator sports blacker, at the expense of white athletes with better endurance.

In contrast, soccer remains a game with remarkably few TV timeouts. Soccer’s ruling body, FIFA, could easily change the rules to make it more TV-friendly, and t hus more black-friendly, like the NFL and NBA. Americans, you’ll notice, are always suggesting ways to change the rules to make soccer more exciting on TV (i.e., blacker).

But FIFA doesn’t want to change. It’s apparently happy with a sport that, while integrated, remains far more dominated by whites than the NBA or NFL.

The ethnic breakdown of the U.S. men’s World Cup team has been roughly the same as the global top 50. In 2010, out of 23 male players on the American squad, there were 13.0 non-Hispanic whites, 7.5 blacks, and only 2.5 Hispanics. In 2006, there were 6.5 blacks and, similarly, only 2.5 Hispanics.

The Hispanic total is down from 1994. Andrea Canales complained on ESPN in 2007:

“One might guess that as a wave of Latino influence sweeps America, the effect on soccer, the U.S. game many Latinos adore more than any other, would be even more profound. Instead, their numbers on the U.S. men’s senior team have dwindled—three were on the World Cup roster for 2006, compared with five in 1994.”

To be frank, the long-anticipated tidal wave of Latino cultural influence has yet to arrive in any area of American white. Generally speaking, Whites, blacks, and Asians all pay strikingly little attention to Hispanics.

Still, you’d think that at least in American soccer there’d be a high level of Latin accomplishment

There are two levels of selection to keep in mind when thinking about who gets picked for an American World Cup team: the top level; and the preceding question of who gets into the pipeline.

The American men’s World Cup coaches have recently striven to select “the best athletes” (which is sportscode for “black”), even though only a tiny number of African-Americans actually care about soccer.

The results of this strategy have been mixed for the U.S. team. Sprinting speed and leaping ability play a role in soccer, but not as much as in football and basketball. Ball-handling matters hugely, and that takes innumerable hours to master.

Conversely, the American coaches’ emphasis on “athleticism” hurts the chances of mestizos, who tend to be slow and short.

This Mexicans are generally not terribly good athletes. Judging merely by its large population (113 million), middling wealth, and high degree of soccer fanaticism, Mexico ought to be a soccer superpower, contending for the World Cup at least as often as, say, two-time winner Argentina. Among those middle and high-income countries where soccer monopolizes young men’s attention, only Brazil has a larger population.

And it shouldn’t be that hard for Mexico to be better than the U.S. in soccer because there just aren’t that many soccer nuts in the U.S. Heck, there may be more numerous fanatical supporters of the Mexican men’s soccer team in America than there are full-blooded fans of the American team. There certainly were more Mexican than American fans at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena last June 24, when Mexico defeated the U.S.

Ten days later, I attended a Fourth of July party at the house of an African-American lady who lives a block from the Rose Bowl. She rolled her eyes as she remarked how much better behaved were the folks who showed up to watch Independence Day fireworks at the Rose Bowl than were the Mexican team fans who drove drunk past her house for hours after Mexico’s victory, honking horns and waving Mexican flags.

And yet, despite all this Mexican enthusiasm for the Mexican team on both sides of the border, Mexico is about as mediocre as the U.S. at the men’s World Cup. Like America, Mexico usually qualifies for the World Cup elimination brackets, but then gets knocked out in the round of 16.

Still, you don’t have to be a great athlete to be an effective soccer player. What you need is a lot of practice kicking the ball. One way to learn is the old-fashioned South American approach that produced Maradona: spend your entire childhood in a shantytown playing hooky and dribbling a soccer ball around.

The other is the methodical Dutch approach: start intensely practicing at age seven under coaches with a ruthless focus on producing professional soccer players.

But the U.S. system, instead of having kids practice their ball-handling non-stop like the scientific Dutch, duns parents to send their kids on jets to countless distant games, where they mostly run up and down while not touching the ball.

Europeans also find baffling the American obsession with earning a college scholarship through soccer. If you intend to play in the World Cup, you should be a full time professional by age 18 at the latest.

But American soccer moms care more about college for their kid than the World Cup.

So, U.S. men’s soccer could probably find more Latinos from the barrios than it does. There are probably more Latinos in the U.S. with the eye-foot coordination and the soccer obsession to make the U.S. World Cup team. But the system is set up to keep them out. In an article about why there are so few Latino players at the upper levels, Landon Donovan, probably the best American male player of his generation, reflects on growing up in California’s Inland Empire:

A lot of the kids I played with growing up just didn’t have the resources, so they hit high school and they were off to do other things. A lot of them would end up in bad situations. These were kids that were a lot more talented than I was. It’s kind of sad because I think that happens over and over.” [The missing Latino link, By Andrea Canales, ESPN Soccernet, January 3, 2007]

On the other hand, Donovan’s parents might well have been happy that by the time puberty arrived, his travel squads had gotten too expensive for those of his former teammates who were on their way to winding up in bad situations.

In summary, not surprisingly, much about American soccer, especially girls’ soccer, therefore goes without saying.

And there’s a lot to be said for unspoken norms. But if nobody is ever crass enough to explain in writing what’s actually going on, nobody ever learns any lessons that they can apply to anything else.

For instance, talking honestly about soccer reveals that much of what nice upper middle class people say out loud about diversity and immigration isn’t true. There isn’t a lot of talent coming from Mexico, even in soccer. There especially isn’t much female talent from south of the border. Massive Latino immigration doesn’t make America more sophisticated; it makes the population more backward and knuckleheadedly macho. Privileged whites don’t actually want their children exposed to diversity; they will spend a lot of money to keep them, especially their daughters, in a cocoon as white as (say) the U.S. Women’s World Cup team.

These are not, when it comes down to it, ignoble desires. In fact, they’re quite reasonable.

What is unreasonable is how the same people who spend huge sums to protect their own children from diversity will, at the same time, demonize their less privileged fellow citizens as racists for asking for some help from their government in guarding America’s borders.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S “STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE”, is available here.]

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Diversity, VDare Archives 
🔊 Listen RSS
From my new VDARE column:

Female soccer embodies many of the most deeply-held values of white American upper middle class families: gender equality; parental (especially paternal) investment in their children; organized practice instead of play; ambitions for college scholarships; tacit race and class segregation via spending; and chauffeuring … lots and lots of chauffeuring. 

So nobody in the American MSM has been so rude as to point out the remarkable lack of racial and ethnic diversity on the U.S. women’s soccer team. 

Judging from the latest roster—if our World Cup team was the Tea Party, it would be denounced as nativist and racist. Certainly the women’s national soccer team would fail the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notoriously “Four-Fifths Rule” for sniffing out possible “disparate impact” discrimination—discrimination where it doesn’t have to prove intent. 

Yet Google News records no mention by the MSM of the lack of diversity on this lauded squad.

Read the whole thing there.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Diversity, Sports 
🔊 Listen RSS
From City Journal:

Less Academics, More Narcissism 

The University of California is cutting back on many things, but not useless diversity programs.
by Heather Mac Donald 

California’s budget crisis has reduced the University of California to near-penury, claim its spokesmen. “Our campuses and the UC Office of the President already have cut to the bone,” the university system’s vice president for budget and capital resources warned earlier this month, in advance of this week’s meeting of the university’s regents. Well, not exactly to the bone. Even as UC campuses jettison entire degree programs and lose faculty to competing universities, one fiefdom has remained virtually sacrosanct: the diversity machine. 

Not only have diversity sinecures been protected from budget cuts, their numbers are actually growing. The University of California at San Diego, for example, is creating a new full-time “vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion.” This position would augment UC San Diego’s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellor’s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisors, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center. 

It’s not surprising that the new vice chancellor’s mission is rather opaque, given its superfluity. 

This expansion in the Diversity budget at UCSD follows that campus’s 2010 noose hoax.
In other campus news, everybody in college (especially private colleges) gets As or Bs. The D is almost extinct and the C is endangered.
My question is: Does grade inflation really matter? Who wins and who loses from grade inflation?
It appears that A- is the new B, B+ is the new C, and B is the new D. That wouldn’t seem like much of a problem, at least if everybody had gotten the memo. 
Perhaps the losers are parents whose views of GPAs are from pre-1968. Junior brings home a 3.00 GPA and they think he’s doing pretty good, so they send in another check for another $50,000 worth of diversity hysteria college for Junior, but they don’t realize that a 3.00 is more like a 1.00 in the bad old days. This is the 2010s, where everybody and everything that has to do with college is “amazing.” (I went to a college-related event tonight and heard the word “amazing” at least a couple of dozen times.)
Look, Junior is happy with his grades, the college is happy, the deluded parents are happy, and Nintendo is happy that Junior has time to play several hours of video games per evening during the academic year. Everybody is amazingly happy, so why are you complaining?
But what happens after another generation of grade inflation?

I guess we’ll need new varietals of A, like how bonds are rated, where A is pretty ho-hum, compared to Aa- or Aaa.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Diversity, Education 
🔊 Listen RSS
Track and field is interesting because its demands are simple enough that human biodiversity stands out pretty clearly. But after awhile it gets kind of dull because the same old same old demographic patterns keep showing up. (Here’s my VDARE article on human biodiversity in track up through the closse of the 2008 Olympics.)

Hence, it’s fun when some rare diversity shows up among the top performers.

For example, last year Christophe Lemaitre of France became the first white man and second non-sub-Saharan African to record a time in the 100m dash in the 9.XX second range by running 9.98. (A half Australian Aborigine – half Irishman once ran a 9.93 and a Pole once ran a 9.997, which was rounded up to 10.00.)

Lemaitre is a 21-year-old country boy from Savoy who had never tried sprinting until he was 15, when the French had a national competition to find the fastest 15 year old at 50 meters. He got timed at a fair and it turned out to be the fastest mark in the country.

Lemaitre appears to be the real deal. He’s broken 10.00 five more times, including a pair of 9.95s. In 2012 in London, will he become the first man since 1980 not from West Africa or Southwest Africa (Frankie Fredericks of Namibia) to make the Olympic 100m dash 8-man final? Right now, his 9.95 makes him only the tenth fastest man in 2011. On the other hand, most of those who are faster are Jamaicans and one country can only enter three contestants in the 100m. Also, some of those Jamaicans might get caught. 
The Americans used to be very big in sprints (here are some pictures of an American sprinter who used to be very big), but after the 2004 Olympics, they started more rigorous drug testing while the Jamaicans didn’t, and now Jamaicans win everything. 
Right now, Lemaitre looks like a very healthy young man. If he shows up in 2012 looking like a plastic action figure with giant biceps, however, and runs a 9.75 to medal, well, it would be a big whoop-tee-doo, but I’d be happier if he showed up looking human and ran in the low 9.9s.
Another candidate to break the West African lock on the 100m finals is a Zimbabwean named Ngonidzashe Makusha, who ran 9.89 at the NCAA finals. Zimbabwe is more or less in Southeast Africa.
In women’s sprinting, where the records are out of reach, the big story is, as usual, American Allyson Felix, who lost out on individual gold medals in the 2000 in 2004 and 2008 to Jamaican women with biceps twice the circumference of her own. Felix should be the beau ideal of African-American respectable middle class young ladyhood, so it’s always compelling to see whether she can finally win an individual gold medal her way or whether she’ll go over to the Dark Side and show up in 2012 massive like her rivals. This year, she’s concentrating more on the 400m and has the best time of the year in it. I wish her well.
Meanwhile, in distance running, which is dominated by East Africans and Northwest Africans, Chris Solinsky of Wisconsin became in 2010 the first non-African to run 10,000 meters in under 27:00. Also, at 6′-1″ and 165 pounds, he’s built like a high school quarterback. He’s the tallest and heaviest runner ever to break 27:00.

The endless miles of training for distance running puts a lot of pounding on the knees, so it’s usually dominated by short ectomorphs. That’s why Parris Island Marine Corp drill instructors aren’t usually the intimidating giants seen in movies. Instead, they tend to be feisty little guys whose knees can take all the pounding of the running they do in boot camp. 

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Diversity, Olympics, Sports 
🔊 Listen RSS
Yale anthropologist Mike McGovern opines in the NYT on DSK’s accuser:

Before you judge, stand in her shoes: 

I suspect that if I tried to stand in her shoes, I would probably topple face forward. It could be informative to see a picture of the shoes in the closet of DSK’s accuser. Average heel height might be a relevant datapoint.

REVELATIONS about the hotel housekeeper who accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault suggest that she embellished claims of abuse to receive asylum, fudged her tax returns, had ties to people with criminal backgrounds, had unexplained deposits in her bank account and changed the account of the encounter she gave investigators. Yet those who would rush to judge her should consider the context. 

Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s accuser is from Guinea, also the home country of Amadou Diallo, the street peddler who was shot to death in the doorway of his Bronx apartment building by four New York City police officers in 1999. … 

Immigrants share tips and hunches about ways to outwit the system, even as immigration judges try to discover the claimants’ latest ruses. But I can say from experience that for every undeserving claimant who receives asylum, several deserving ones are turned down. So few Africans gain access to green cards through legal channels that the United States government grants about 25,000 spots annually to Africans selected at random through the diversity visa lottery. 

Just as Mr. Diallo’s death resonated because it made the tribulations of many West African immigrants public, the case of Mr. Strauss-Kahn and his accuser has the aura of a parable. Many Africans feel the International Monetary Fund, which Mr. Strauss-Kahn led, and the World Bank have been more committed to the free flow of money and commodities like bauxite than to the free flow of people and the fulfillment of their aspirations. 

Guinean press accounts, and recent conversations I’ve had with Guineans, suggest that they disapprove of the deceptions by Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s accuser. But given the poverty and systemic violence in their country, they understand the circumstances in which such deception could occur — and we should, too.

As the case against Mr. Strauss-Kahn seemingly disintegrates, he is enjoying a political renaissance at home, yet I keep asking myself: does a sexual encounter between a powerful and wealthy French politician and a West African hotel cleaning woman from a dollar-a-day background not in itself suggest a gross abuse of power? 

Meanwhile NYT reporter Jim Dwyer “reports:”
By JIM DWYER 
What is so wrong with the original plan to hold a trial for Dominique Strauss-Kahn to decide if he committed an act of sexual violence against a hotel housekeeper? … 
“She wants to testify to the world what Mr. Strauss-Kahn did to her, and she is willing to be hammered on cross-examination,” Mr. Thompson said. “You don’t have to come over on the Mayflower to be the victim of a crime.”
(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Diversity 
🔊 Listen RSS
Of course, it doesn’t exactly say that …
Report says too many whites, men leading military
Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

Two decades ago, when the military was at the height of its prestige during the first Gulf War, 7% (I believe) of the generals in the U.S. Army were black. The #1 and #3 generals in the Gulf War (Colin Powell and Calvin Waller) were black. 

One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.

The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.

Efforts over the years to develop a more equal opportunity military have increased the number of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the ranks of leadership. But, the report said, “despite undeniable successes … the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve.”

“This problem will only become more acute as the racial, ethnic and cultural makeup of the United States continues to change,” said the report from the Military Leadership Diversity Commission …

Indeed.

Having military brass that better mirrors the nation can inspire future recruits and help create trust among the general population, the commission said.
An interesting question that the press has strenuously not interested itself in is: Who has been dying in recent wars? You used to hear all the times that minorities are more likely to get killed in America’s wars, but now you never hear anything about the subject. 
When I checked on the Iraq War in 2007, American whites, relative to their share of the young population, were getting killed in combat at 1.86 times the rate of nonwhites. 
In Afghanistan through 2009, whites were dying at a rate 2.47 times their share of the population of 20-24 year olds.
I asked then:
How could this statistic be spun so it’s “appropriate” for the mainstream media? Here’s a feasible headline:

Minorities Discriminated Against at VA Cemeteries
Whites Get More Free Burials

The AP article continues:

Because they are technically attached to, but not assigned to, combat units, [women] don’t get credit for being in combat arms, something important for promotion to the most senior ranks.
Through 2006, U.S. women had suffered 2% of the fatalities in Iraq.
The most interesting part of the AP article is this exercise in reading between the lines:
Lyles said the commission consulted a panel of enlisted women on the issue. “I didn’t hear, `Rah, rah, we want to be in combat,’” Lyles said. “But I also didn’t hear, `We don’t want to be in combat.’ 
In other words, enlisted women don’t want to be in combat. The only women who do are the most promotion-crazed female officers, and the enlisted women aren’t excited about getting themselves killed to help get these officers promoted.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Diversity, Military 
🔊 Listen RSS
With Silicon Valley Fever mounting again, it’s worth looking at the trendiest companies in America. From the San Jose Mercury News a year ago, a story that go so little attention that I didn’t even see it back then:
By Mike Swift
Posted: 02/13/2010 04:00:00 PM PST
Updated: 05/27/2010 04:42:07 PM PDT

The unique diversity of Silicon Valley is not reflected in the region’s tech workplaces — and the disparity is only growing worse.

Hispanics and blacks made up a smaller share of the valley’s computer workers in 2008 than they did in 2000, a Mercury News review of federal data shows …

The rest of the article shows that these statements are also true for whites as well, but who cares about them?

Women in computer-related occupations saw declines around the country, but they are an even smaller proportion of the work force here. The trend is striking in a region where Hispanics are nearly one-quarter of the working-age population — five times their percentage of the computer work force — and when dual-career couples and female MBAs are increasingly the norm.

It is also evident in the work forces of the region’s major companies. An analysis by the Mercury News of the combined work force of 10 of the valley’s largest companies — including Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Cisco Systems, eBay and AMD — shows that while the collective work force of those 10 companies grew by 16 percent between 1999 and 2005, an already small population of black workers dropped by 16 percent, while the number of Hispanic workers declined by 11 percent. By 2005, only about 2,200 of the 30,000 Silicon Valley-based workers at those 10 companies were black or Hispanic.

The share of women at those 10 companies declined to 33 percent in 2005, from 37 percent in 1999. There was also a decline in the share of management-level jobs held by women.

… With the number of white computer workers also dropping after 2000, Asians were the exception. They now make up a majority of workers in computer-related occupations who live in Silicon Valley, although they hold only about one in six of the nation’s computer-related jobs. 

In 2008, the share of computer workers living in Silicon Valley who are black or Latino was 1.5 percent and 4.7 percent, respectively — shares that had declined since 2000.

This isn’t broken out in the article, but looking at the accompanying graph, you can see that the white share of computer worker employment (“programmers, software engineers, research scientists, network and database administrators and related occupations”) in Silicon Valley shrank from 47.1% in 2000 to 37.6% in 2006-2008, according to the Census Bureau. That’s a drop of 20.3%.

But, that’s not news.

Nationally, blacks and Latinos were 7.1 percent and 5.3 percent of computer workers, respectively, shares that were up since 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Of the 5,907 top managers and officials in the Silicon Valley offices of the 10 large companies in 2005, 296 were black or Hispanic, a 20 percent decline from 2000, according to U.S. Department of Labor work-force data obtained by the Mercury News through a Freedom of Information request.

So, Non-Asian Minorities make up on average only 5% of the top 591 employees in each of ten big Silicon Valley firms. That doesn’t seem terribly in proportion to the NAM percentages in California.

You mean, Richard Florida’s whole Vibrant Diversity shtick isn’t completely based on hard statistical data?!? I thought diversity was strength! ( Next, you’ll be trying to tell me that Dr. Florida’s gays and performance artists are less important to the economic success of Silicon Valley than pocket protector nerds!) 

Maybe somebody should have looked into this before vastly increasing the percentage of NAMs in California and the whole country.

At these ten big Silicon Valley firms, the share of whites among top managers at top firms shrank only from 66% to 64% from 1999 to 2005. That seems pretty typical: white people at the top do well for themselves and are less buffeted by demographic trends than average people.

The share of managers and top officials who are female at those 10 big Silicon Valley firms slipped to 26 percent in 2005, from 28 percent in 2000.

… The Mercury News originally sought federal employment data for the valley’s 15 largest companies through the Freedom of Information Act in early 2008. Following an appeals process that stretched over nearly two years, five of those companies — Google, Apple, Yahoo, Oracle and Applied Materials — convinced federal officials to block public disclosure. Data from 2005 was the most current available when the Mercury News made the request. …

It would be fun to compare the proportion of NAMS in advertisements for these five stonewalling companies to the proportion in their executive ranks, if anyone could ever find out the numbers.

At a time when eBay was headed by one of the few high-profile female CEOs in Silicon Valley, Meg Whitman, the share of the company’s managers and top officials who were female declined to 30 percent in 2005, from 36 percent five years earlier, according to federal employment data. … In Silicon Valley companies, men and women in technical careers are equally likely to hold mid-level jobs, but men are 2.7 times more likely than women to be promoted to a high-ranking tech jobs such as vice president of engineering, or senior engineering manager, Simard and Henderson found in a 2009 study.

The researchers found a series of clues from the water cooler to the living room. Men are more likely to develop informal professional networks, like taking coffee breaks with colleagues — networks that often lead to career opportunities.

The valley’s married male tech employees are more likely to follow the traditional model of having a man working full time, with a woman who stays home with the kids, than a
re male professionals nationally, perhaps because of the high salaries paid in tech. By contrast, tech women are overwhelmingly in dual-career couples, and many face an either-or choice — parenthood or career advancement.

“We expected a difference,” Simard told the glum-looking students at Stanford, “but this is kind of like the 1950s.” …

The horror, the horror that any employees anywhere in America are still making enough money to support a family on one income. Better double those H-1B visa quotas right away to put an end to that.

Some critics blame the government for allowing powerful Silicon Valley companies to rely so heavily on foreign-born workers on H-1B visas, which they contend has boosted the numbers of Asians in the tech workforce at the expense of other groups.

“The reason Silicon Valley is different is that those standards have traditionally been enforced in other industries,” said John Templeton, whose “Silicon Ceiling” report details the lack of blacks and Latinos in Silicon Valley. “If you go to a bank IT department, or a cable television IT department, it reflects the community around it. But somewhere, government dropped the ball.”

What role does H-1B play in these trends? Anybody know?

Seriously, perhaps an overall better way to look at employment than by race would be employment by U.S. citizens v. non-citizens. But that’s not mentioned in this article, and I don’t know if it’s even aggregated anywhere. The 2010 Census refused to collect citizenship information, so I doubt if we’ll ever hear much about it.

It sure doesn’t come up much. From an Ibn Khaldunian perspective, perhaps that’s inevitable: America has been on top of the world so long that our asabiyah is all frittered away. We now mostly just squabble amongst ourselves, minorities v. whites and whites v. whites over who cares about whites least. So these kind of divisions are pretty easy for the Larry Ellisons to manipulate to add a few billions to their net worth.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Diversity 
🔊 Listen RSS
From the San Jose Mercury News:
By Mike Swift mswift@mercurynews.com
2/11/2011
Saying the Silicon Valley tech industry needs to do a better job of hiring native-born blacks, Latinos and some other minority groups, minority leaders picketed Google’s Mountain View headquarters Tuesday, asking the Internet giant and other large valley companies to disclose their workplace diversity data.

… The leaders called on the federal government to review the H-1B work visa program that tech companies use to hire engineers from abroad, unless the companies comply.

Good point.

The groups are filing a complaint with the federal government, saying of 34 Silicon Valley tech companies from which they requested workforce data, just 12 agreed to share it. The groups are asking the government to force the companies to disclose their data. They said they singled out Google for Thursday’s protest because of its growth and visiblity.

“Google can google anything, but if you google Google, you can’t get anything,” said Faith Bautista, of the Asian coalition.

I like that line.

A report in the Mercury News last year, based on workforce data that Silicon Valley’s largest companies had filed with the federal government, found that the Bay Area’s unique diversity is not reflected in the region’s tech workplaces.

Hispanics and blacks, the newspaper found, made up a smaller share of the valley’s computer workers in 2008 than they did in 2000, even as their share grew across the nation. There was also a decline in the share of management-level jobs held by women between 1999 and 2005. Five companies — Google, Apple, Yahoo, Oracle and Applied Materials — refused to release their data, saying it would cause “commercial harm” by potentially revealing the companies’ business strategy to competitors. The original story is available at http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14383730.

I looked up what’s going on. The government collects diversity data on all big companies, but the Mercury News’ Freedom of Information request for the numbers on 15 big Silicon Valley employers was successfully fought by five of them: Google, Apple, Yahoo, Oracle and Applied Materials.

In a written statement, Google said it strongly values diversity, pointing to its support of internships and scholarships with groups such as Historically Black Colleges & Universities.

“Our philosophy has always been that a diversity of perspectives, ideas and cultures means better products for our users. That’s why we have an inclusive work environment and constantly promote diversity at Google, through scholarship programs, internship opportunities and partnerships with organizations working to educate the next generation of engineers and professionals,” the company said.

But not through hiring more than the government-mandated minimum of blacks and Mexicans. Google draws the line there.
I call for a boycott by all pro-diversity people everywhere. No more buying any and all products and services from Apple until Apple stops hiding its diversity data.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Diversity 
No Items Found
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, VDARE.com columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.


PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation