The Real Menace

Tom Schaller brings us the cutting edge in anti-immigration arguments, the onrushing Mexican hordes are making us short:

This list I found online shows America already dropping to 27th in average adult male height by 2006, behind most of Europe and -- get this -- Iraq, which ranks 21st! Of course, with all the discussion of how immigration is adversely affecting the country, I wonder if the new study accounts for the decline in average height attributable to the arrival of millions of Mexicans and other Latin Americans who, on average, are shorter. No Latin American country ranks higher than 37th (Uruguay), and Mexico is 51st. (I once recall playing a pickup basketball game in Peru, ranked 39th, where I was basically a power forward. As Borat would say: “Niiiiiice.”)

From a sports perspective, it's interesting that the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries -- all full of tall people -- are places where basketball doesn't really seem to have taken off. One imagines that if that portion of Europe showed the level of enthusiasm for hoops that you see in Spain or Greece, it'd probably generate quite a few more players.

Photo by Flickr user Mr TGT used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Even if you restrict the US population to only Caucasians, the US is still shorter than Northern Europeans on average today.

Posted by Lanks | July 17, 2007 10:54 AM

it's interesting that the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries -- all full of tall people -- are places where basketball doesn't really seem to have taken off.

No, but they play a mean handball...

Posted by 3pointshooter | July 17, 2007 10:55 AM

As a short person, I suddenly feel disloyal.

Past (false) aspersions on Matt's height were, of course, really attacks on his patriotism. Short Hispanic Jewish silk-stocking metrosexuals will bring this country to its knees.

Posted by John Emerson | July 17, 2007 10:56 AM

Re: "One imagines that if that portion of Europe showed the level of enthusiasm for hoops that you see in Spain or Greece, it'd probably generate quite a few more players."

I don't know. Having lived through the Jack Sikma era, the thought of seeing a lot of really big guys with really pale skin kind of makes me queasy.

Posted by Jim W | July 17, 2007 11:03 AM

Of course, the addition of millions of shorter than average immigrants has a sympathetic effect on native born citizens, causing them to shrink.

Posted by shecky | July 17, 2007 11:03 AM

And the next thing you know, we'll all be playing soccer. The horror.

Posted by Archit | July 17, 2007 11:19 AM

Mestizo immigrants: shorter, less-intelligent -- what's not to like?

Posted by Harold | July 17, 2007 11:21 AM

Matthew seems pretty scruffy-looking for an alleged metrosexual.

Can Scandinavians jump?

Posted by JP | July 17, 2007 11:21 AM

We may not be getting taller, but we're certainly getting wider.

Posted by Peter | July 17, 2007 11:27 AM

I do not have a handy link, but all of the materials that I have read recently ascribe the relative height of the Dutch to (a) better childhood nutrition and (b) better pre-natal public health. From my understanding, even those who are genetically predisposed to be "short" would be inches taller if they had optimal nutrition and public health.

I take myself as an example of this phenomenom. I am 6' 2". None of my eight immigrant great-grandparents was taller than 5' 8" (none of the women were taller than 5'1"). My maternal grandfather was 5'9" and my maternal grandmother was 5'2" (the giant of her family - her two sisters were each under 5'). My paternal grandfather (who I greatly resemble) was 5'9" and my paternal grandmother was 5'2". My father is 5'10" and mother is 5'7". What changed was the move from shtetl (great-grandparents) to New York tenaments (grandparents) to the Outer Boroughs (parents) to suburbs (me).

In other words, if the short Latin American immigrants of today can provide good nutrition and neo-natal health care to their offspring, the future generations will not be shorter than the general population.

Posted by Ephus | July 17, 2007 11:38 AM

I do not have a handy link, but all of the materials that I have read recently ascribe the relative height of the Dutch to (a) better childhood nutrition and (b) better pre-natal public health. From my understanding, even those who are genetically predisposed to be "short" would be inches taller if they had optimal nutrition and public health.

I take myself as an example of this phenomenom. I am 6' 2". None of my eight immigrant great-grandparents was taller than 5' 8" (none of the women were taller than 5'1"). My maternal grandfather was 5'9" and my maternal grandmother was 5'2" (the giant of her family - her two sisters were each under 5'). My paternal grandfather (who I greatly resemble) was 5'9" and my paternal grandmother was 5'2". My father is 5'10" and mother is 5'7". What changed was the move from shtetl (great-grandparents) to New York tenaments (grandparents) to the Outer Boroughs (parents) to suburbs (me).

In other words, if the short Latin American immigrants of today can provide good nutrition and neo-natal health care to their offspring, the future generations will not be shorter than the general population.

Posted by Ephus | July 17, 2007 11:40 AM

Sorry for the double post.

Posted by Ephus | July 17, 2007 11:40 AM

Actually, Komlos and Lauderdale *don't* argue that Americans are getting shorter; they argue that American heights have stagnated since World War II, while those of other advanced countries have shot up. It's telling that people like Schaller, who are supposed to have some basic understanding of statistics, are making this mistake and spreading it through the blogosphere.

Posted by David | July 17, 2007 11:40 AM

Anyhoo, it'd be nice if one of these days MattY would humor us with a real discussion about the general issue.

For instance, Mexico has a great deal of PoliticalPower in the U.S. (MattY can educate himself on this part of the issue by reading this: tinyurl.com/8u2jm . He can also look into the indirect links that that government has to various U.S. non-profits and Democratic politicians. Some - but not all - of those are listed here: tinyurl.com/ygbclj)

Doesn't MassiveImmigration increase Mexico's PoliticalPower inside the U.S.? Does MattY think it's OK for a foreign government to have such influence inside our country and have such an impact on our immigration system? If not, what does he intend to do to counteract it?

Even used car salesmen are willing to answer objections, so hopefully MattY will show us he's a real, grown-up pundit by actually coming up with a real argument. One day, I'm sure.

Posted by TLB | July 17, 2007 11:45 AM

Anything that reduces the political power of stupid white people is fine by me. Sheesh.

Posted by JP | July 17, 2007 11:48 AM

Mestizo immigrants: shorter, less-intelligent -- what's not to like?

I don't know why Matt's blog seems to attract these people who make a racist comment in every thread for a week or so, then disappear. Fred seems to be the only one who has stuck around.

Am I wrong to assume that they're most likely following a link from Steve Sailer's place?

Posted by Steve | July 17, 2007 11:55 AM

Re: Even if you restrict the US population to only Caucasians, the US is still shorter than Northern Europeans on average today.

The US "Caucasian" population (quotes used because I am dubious about traditional racial classifications) contains large numbers of people from Southern and Eastern Europe, with genetic influence from the Middle East and Africa as well (and perhaps some Native American genes too). Americans whites are not ethnically "pure" northern Europeans, a people known even in antiquity for being taller than their neighbors in the Mediterranean south.

Posted by JonF | July 17, 2007 11:59 AM

From my understanding, even those who are genetically predisposed to be "short" would be inches taller if they had optimal nutrition and public health. - ephus

Some of us have suspected milk intake may play a role.

For example, among my friends whose parents came from East Asia (which is a famously non-milk-drinking place), they are almost to a person very much taller than their parents.

Also, in my family, for whatever reasons of genetics, everyone is either much shorter than average or fairly tall. The exceptions are myself (5'10") and my father (5'8"), and both of us, due to allergies, didn't have milk as kids ... the family theory is that if we weren't allergic to milk and would have drunk it as kids, we would be in the well over 6' tall half of the males in my family.

Aren't the Netherlands and Scandanavian countries famous for dairy rich diets?

Posted by DAS | July 17, 2007 12:00 PM

Much as I'd like to blame Sailer, i don't think he's responsible for TLB. The CompoundWordTroll also made an appearance at Crooked Timber. Much hilarity ensued.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | July 17, 2007 12:02 PM

Certainly Shawn Kemp is a bulwark against this trend.

Posted by steve duncan | July 17, 2007 12:03 PM

Steve:

Perhaps I don't fit your pattern because I am not a racist*?

Ephus:

Might there also be some genetic differences between Dutchmen and Indians from Latin America that affect height?

*Not that this should require clarification, but since this charge is thrown about casually, let me make this distinction: I bear no hatred or ill-will for any race, so therefore I do not consider myself a racist. On the other hand, I do notice that there tend to be differences, on average, between different races (e.g., that Koreans tend to do better in school, on average, than whites). For noticing distinctions like this, folks like Steve are quick to call me racist.

Posted by Fred | July 17, 2007 12:16 PM

Matthew - have you ever considered talking to a professional about your weird obsession with height? Over the years you've devoted numerous posts to it, and it totally explains your fascination with the NBA. I saw this story yesterday about the world height rankings, and the very first thing I thought of was that you would undoubtedly do a post on it.

I could understand it if you were unnaturally short, but dude, you're 6'2".

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | July 17, 2007 12:22 PM

Koreans tend to do better in school, on average, than whites

And, of course, there couldn't possibly be an explanation for this outside of genetics, seeing as how American whites are so conscientious and value academics, intellectuals, and teachers so highly.

Posted by Tyro | July 17, 2007 12:32 PM

As a 6'2 inferior mestizo whose male Mexican relatives of my generation all top 6'0, may I please argue once more against the very concept of race. Every time it comes up, I cringe. Race is a myth and a fallacy, with less basis in science than Zodiac signs. Ethnicity is a loose, general, amorphous term. The idea of race as shorthand for anything is at best biologically bankrupt and at worst outright bigoted. And don't invoke Lewontin you fucking chuckleheads, there's as much consensus on race as there is on global warming.

Check out http://www.understandingrace.org/, the colorful and informative race-debunking website brought to you by AAA. The American Anthropological Association, that is.

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 12:42 PM

From my understanding, even those who are genetically predisposed to be "short" would be inches taller if they had optimal nutrition and public health.

Not only pre-natal. Our neighbors adopted a 4-5 year old Guatemalan child many years ago. He's mid-20s now and towers over the people from his hometown when he returns there for a visit.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 17, 2007 12:44 PM

Ethel-to-Tilly -

I knew Matt was taller than average, but do we have stats on his father and/or any siblings? (I know there's at least one brother.) I'm 6'1" and a little obsessed with height; I attribute this to my not winding up as tall as I thought I would, i.e., I'm (about an inch) shorter than my dad.

Posted by Quarterican | July 17, 2007 12:49 PM

I bear no hatred or ill-will for any race, so therefore I do not consider myself a racist. On the other hand, I do notice that there tend to be differences, on average, between different races (e.g., that Koreans tend to do better in school, on average, than whites). For noticing distinctions like this, folks like Steve are quick to call me racist.

Yeah, but Fred, you don't just get to change the definition of terms because you don't like the stigma that is attached to them. If you believe that races are inherently (genetically) inferior-- in intelligence or predisposition to criminality or what have you-- that its the generic definition of racism. And you know that.

Now, look-- you can argue that our definition of racism isn't useful. Or, and I think this is where you should go if you really follow your own beliefs, you can argue that a racist outlook is a correct one. But every time race is discussed around here, you and Steve Sailer end up doing this little language game dance that doesn't further the discussion at all. I mean if you accept the consequences of your own beliefs, why does the term bother you? What you believe has consequences. You can't be this "race realist" iconoclast and avoid the stigma of being a racist.

Also, don't be a weasel and use the "positive" racial stereotype (Koreans are smart!) when defining your views on race. You're better than that. Surely you know that the matter of controversy is your views on blacks and Mexicans and their intelligence.

Posted by Freddie | July 17, 2007 12:51 PM

Re: "If you believe that races are inherently (genetically) inferior-- in intelligence or predisposition to criminality or what have you-- that its the generic definition of racism."

Does "what have you" include skin color? There's no question that different races (or ethnic groups, or whatever term is acceptable) are genetically different in skin color. If believing that this is true makes a person a racist, than that goes against the common perception of the word.

Posted by Jim W | July 17, 2007 1:04 PM

No Jim W- if you believe skin color reflects intelligence or criminal predisposition, that's racist, and that's Freddie's point. What are you, Australian? Duhr! G'day, Bruce.

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 1:13 PM

I knew Matt was taller than average, but do we have stats on his father and/or any siblings? (I know there's at least one brother.)

My dad's 2-3 inches taller than I am, and my younger brother maybe one inch taller and possibly still growing a bit.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 17, 2007 1:13 PM

Gregorio,

The issue is this: there are certain physical traits which obviously separate races (on average) such as skin color or height. Believing in this doesn't make a person racist presumably because its so obviously true.

There are other, more complex traits (intelligence, temperment) for which there may or may not be average genetic differences. This is an empirical question. Believing that there are racial differences in these traits apparently makes one a racist because it can be plausibly argued that any apparent differences are of environmental origin.

Posted by Jim W | July 17, 2007 1:20 PM

My dad's 2-3 inches taller than I am, and my younger brother maybe one inch taller and possibly still growing a bit.

A-ha! My hypothesis may be hogwash, but I appear to have been correct on the premise.

Posted by Quarterican | July 17, 2007 1:24 PM

Implicit in a lot of these posts is the idea that its better to be taller. That may be true for basketball players and giraffes, but is it true for people in general?

Even if nutritional differences cause people in one country to be a couple inches shorter than in another country, so what? I guess it matters if its a symptom of a general nutritional problem, but if they nutritional deficiency in the short country hasn't caused any other problem aside from shortness, then why does it matter?

Posted by Jim W | July 17, 2007 1:34 PM

I bear no hatred or ill-will for any race, so therefore I do not consider myself a racist. On the other hand, I do notice that there tend to be differences, on average, between different races (e.g., that Koreans tend to do better in school, on average, than whites)

Claiming that blacks and hispanics simply don't have as good a work ethic as the rest of us is flat-out racist, notwithstanding your self-serving redefinition of the term. "They're objectively inferior, but I don't hold it against them." What a riot.

Posted by Steve | July 17, 2007 1:34 PM

I hate to wade into this topic, but it is circular reasoning to say that there are physical differences which separate races (as JimW does above). For the most part, we define races based on the physical characteristics of people. So obviously, races defined in this way will have physical differences from each other.

Posted by cs | July 17, 2007 1:44 PM

The issue is this: there are certain physical traits which obviously separate races (on average) such as skin color or height. Believing in this doesn't make a person racist presumably because its so obviously true.

Nothing obviously separates races because races do not exist. How many races are there? Is Bissurat from Eritrea the same race as Jean-Paul from Senegal? How 'bout Lars from Norway and Gioacchino from Malta? Am I white, descending from Mestizo peoples on my mother's side and Celtic stock on my father's? Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, Osmiroid? Get real, get over race.

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 1:57 PM

So there's a genetic reason all those Amsterdam hookers are over 6'2" & weigh 15 stone? I don't know whether to be alarmed or relieved.

Posted by K | July 17, 2007 1:58 PM

Dutch have to be tall to breathe above the coming flood. As for the Adams Apples, well, just pray they're good tuckers.

BTW-- I blame those barrel-chested freaks for the Crocs fad.

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 2:03 PM

Gregorio,

It's the same in my other half's family. They know of Zapotec, Comanche, indeterminate Brazilian, Spanish, French, & Sephardic ancestors. They have Jewish surnames & epicanthic folds. All of which is what's meant by mestizaje. The members of the current generation all tower over their grandparents, for presumably non-genetic reasons.

Posted by K | July 17, 2007 2:13 PM

While Scandinavia isn't in on basketball yet, I spent time in Serbia where basketball is not so much a sport as a fanatical religion. The country has produced such stars as Peja Stojakovic and Vlade Divac and rising stocks like Darko Milicic and I can tell you that people there are frigging TALL. Like ridiculously tall. I was frequently shorter than women, and I'm six feet tall. So it would make sense that the Balkans may be an example of a place where an interest in basketball proceeded from a natural physical aptitude for the sport. It's no coincidence that one of their other major sports in Serbia is volleyball, another activity for the freakishly tall.

Posted by Benjy Sarlin | July 17, 2007 2:15 PM

cs,

No, we don't just define races based on physical differences. The issue is, until very recently, groups of people were largely genetically isolated from each other for thousands of years, and evolved separately, This has led to some interesting physical differences that corrolate with geographical location.

And, Gregorio, whether or not there is such a thing as race according to a particular technical definition is not the point. I don't care whether you prefer the term race, ethnic group, or some other term. That doesn't matter.

The point is, because people evolved in somewhat isolated groups in different locations for several thousands of years, there are differences between them. What exactly those differences are is an empircal question, which does not hinge on those groups being completely isolated from each other, or on there being sharply delineated barriers between them.

Posted by Jim W | July 17, 2007 2:21 PM

There is plenty of interesting research on height variations, which is both beyond the grasp of immigration trolls and not helpful to their cause. Burkhard Bilger had a fascinating (no, really) article about height in the New Yorker a few years ago: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/04/05/040405fa_fact.

Two facts from this article: 1. Immigrant populations are shorter when they get to the US, but after a couple of generations, their grandkids are the same height as everybody else. It's got far more to do with nurture than genetics. At least in terms of height, they assimilate. Whaddaya know!

2. Americans haven't increased much in height since WWII or even before, while Europeans have shot up. For the Euros, it's thought to be due to prosperity and better health care, but for the Amis, nobody knows why we're stuck in a rut. It's true across income levels, even. I blame McDonalds, sugared soda and HMOs (half kidding, half not kidding).

Posted by Ben | July 17, 2007 2:29 PM

What Ephus said...for whatever reason, height is one of those places where ethnic boundaries that really only make sense in sociological terms get reified as having some significant genetic basis.

In reality, the height of a population correlates with its life expectancy and IQ, inversely with its asthma rates and income inequality, and in general pretty much just how you'd expect anything to behave when it falls under the broad categories of quality of life and health.

Yes, all things else being equal, tallish parents will more likely have tallish kids, and shorter parents shorter kids, but all else is never equal and in practice environmental effects almost completely dwarf genetics (as it were).

Posted by tps12 | July 17, 2007 2:53 PM

As long as we both agree that race is a pernicious myth propagated to economically oppress large swaths of people in the name of colonialism and capitalism then yes, Jim W, I'm happy.

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 2:56 PM

"In reality, the height of a population correlates with its life expectancy and IQ, inversely with its asthma rates and income inequality,..."

That's interesting. It sounds like nutrition is the independent variable and height, life expectancy, and IQ the dependent variables. There may be a point, though, where pumping in more nutrition will still increase height without affecting life expectancy or IQ.

I think I've read somewhere that, within a society, being really tall is inversely correlated with life expectancy.

Posted by Jim W | July 17, 2007 3:04 PM

Jim W, IIRC that's being what one might call 'freakishly tall' for the population in question, tall beyond merely getting lots of protein.

"No, we don't just define races based on physical differences. The issue is, until very recently, groups of people were largely genetically isolated from each other for thousands of years, and evolved separately, This has led to some interesting physical differences that corrolate with geographical location."

Um, thousands of years isn't squat, for many things. Probably for almost everything genetic, unless there's some monster pressure (e.g., a particular disease).

Just consider the fact that people can interbreed quite casually, even if their ancestors literally came from opposite ends of the globe.

Posted by Barry | July 17, 2007 3:55 PM

I am under seven inches tall, myself, whereas my father is over 37 feet tall. Our family tends toward extremes, without much in the middle.

I'd say race exists in the same sense as nationality, roughly. Japanese and Koreans both exist, as do Asians and Whites, but that's an aspect of our culture and norms, not some biological law. One could imagine an alternative scenario in which, due to the contingencies of history, Kyushu were considered part of the same nation as Korea, while Hokkaido and Honshu were independent states with seperate national identities, but that doesn't mean that the existence of Koreans and Japanese are a myth. Similarly, in some alternative society, it could be that there would be different ways of looking at race: for instance, grouping all non-blacks into a single "pale" race, and then dividing blacks into three different races. That wouldn't be any less valid than our current approach, just as, if history had been different, the United Scandinavian Kingdom that covers what now consists of Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark would be no less valid in that alternative scenario than the current states are in the reality we live in. That doesn't change the fact, though, that in the world as currently construed, we consider Asians and Whites to be of different races.

Posted by Julian Elson | July 17, 2007 4:32 PM

Not we; maybe you do. For me, there are two different races: Muggles and us ones in the know.

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 4:53 PM

Matt is right. There has been a vaguely negative correlation between average height vs. interest in basketball in Europe, with the Southern Europeans being more fanatical about basketball (that's where the big money leagues are) and the Northern and Eastern Europeans tending to be taller.

The two places where height and interest came together were the Balkans and the Baltics, thus the tremendous record in Olympic basketball of Lithuania, Croatia, and Serbia.

However, the Mediterranean countries are getting taller and the Northerners are getting more interested in basketball, so this is evening out.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 17, 2007 4:53 PM

Steve Sailer IS officially jumping the shark. Sorry you missed the boat, Sailer, but the Race race is far from over.

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 5:02 PM

As for whether or not race exist, it all depends upon whether or not you use a realistic definition. It's easy to debunk bad definitions, which are abundant.

The best definition is that a racial group is an extended family whose ancestors were partly endogamous.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 17, 2007 5:06 PM

Endogamy is the practice of marrying within a social group- w*******a

oh ho hum so there are a million races or 5 just depending on where you draw the line? wow informative what a great definition you can't argue with it because IT MEANS NOTHING. and you qualified that by PARTLY endogamous. kind of within social group fucking? oh ho hum. well, that rules out the Late Night Shots as a race, tee hee.

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 5:40 PM

Most of the more cogent criticisms directed at the concept of race would be even more cogent directed at the concept of extended family?

Q. Do you belong to your mother's extended family or to your father's, huh? Huh?

A. Both.

Q. Are Arnold Schwarzenegger's kids Kennedys?

A. I guess ...

Q. How can somebody belong to more than one extended family?

A. They just can. That's how sexual reproduction works.

Q. How many extended families do you belong to?

A. I don't know, exactly.

Q. What name are you supposed to call an extended family?

A. Hard to say ...

Q. Aren't there different conceptions of extended families in different cultures, like in China the male line extended family is culturally considered vastly more important than the female line?

A. Sure, but that doesn't mean that males reproduce asexually in China. Different cultures have different ways of dealing with the facts of sexual reproduction, but they can't eliminate those facts.

Q. So, I've triumphantly shot the concept of extended family full of logical holes, so you must now agree with me that Extended Family Does Not Exist?

A. Well, no, extended families do exist and they are fairly important in our world and they need to be studied. I'm sorry that they don't follow the rules of Platonic essences or that they would be considered very sloppy legislating, but they are what they are.

Many of the same things are true of racial groups as extended families, only less so -- racial groups are actually more coherent and more cohesive than extended families precisely because a racial group is a special case of an extended family -- it is one made more coherent by inbreeding among ancestors.

If you go back 40 generations or about 1,000 years in your family tree, there are one trillion open slots for ancestors in that generation. Of course, you didn't actually have one trillion individual ancestors 40 generations ago. Instead, a much smaller number of individuals did multiple-duty, filling multiple places in your family tree. That's the partly endogamous part. And that provides a lot more coherence and cohesiveness to the special case of extended families that are racial groups than to extended families in general.

That's why Matt Yglesias, for example, can say with a reasonable degree of accuracy that he is 3/4ths Ashkenazi Jewish and 1/4th white Cuban.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 17, 2007 6:28 PM

Iraq is 21 to our 27? No wonder we're losing the war!

Posted by Greg | July 17, 2007 6:31 PM

Freddie,

I never claimed one race was inferior to another. I don't even fit your definition of racist. Also, it's not just a "stereotype" that Koreans, on average, do well academically. It's empirical fact. It's also empirical fact that African Americans and Mexican Americans, on average, don't. Calling someone a racist for mentioning those facts when relevant (e.g., during discussions about the chances of unskilled Mexican immigrants advancing economically in America) may burnish your politically correct bona fides, but that doesn't make the accusation true.

Steve,

When did I ever claim that all blacks and Hispanics had a worse work ethic than "the rest of us"?

Gregorio,

If there's no such thing as race, as you say, then can we eliminate affirmative action already?

Posted by Fred | July 17, 2007 6:44 PM

Gregorio,

If there's no such thing as race, as you say, then can we eliminate affirmative action already?

WOW MAN FRED YOU GOT ME THERE. NEVER HEARD THAT ARGUMENT BEFORE.

Here's a hint: It's precisely because morons like you believe race exists that affirmative action is necessary. Is what I might say if I believed in Affirmative Action. But I don't. As a Revolutionary Socialist, I believe in uniting the working class across ethnic and national lines. Affirmative Action promotes division. In our current bourgeois oligarchy "republic," it is a net positive policy. On a level field, it is more bourgeois obfuscation of the real issue: the ever increasing untenability of Capitalism.

Posted by Gregorio | July 17, 2007 7:06 PM

"Some of us have suspected milk intake may play a role.

For example, among my friends whose parents came from East Asia (which is a famously non-milk-drinking place), they are almost to a person very much taller than their"

It should also be noted that only white Europeans and Arabs tend to be born with the necessary enzymes to digest milk, which is one reason that the early ads in this country promoting milk-drinking tended to be racist in tone.

"I never claimed one race was inferior to another."

Do you think because we're a bunch of darkies that we're too stupid and will fall for this shit? Your posts on race read like Archie Bunker got a dictionary for Christmas.

"It's also empirical fact that African Americans and Mexican Americans, on average, don't. Calling someone a racist for mentioning those facts when relevant (e.g., during discussions about the chances of unskilled Mexican immigrants advancing economically in America) may burnish your politically correct bona fides, but that doesn't make the accusation true."

Except you tend to reduce the cause of these differences down to creepy essentials that are pretty much racist arguments.

"If there's no such thing as race, as you say, then can we eliminate affirmative action already?"

There's a difference between race as lived as a social fact and race as a biological and scientific reality. The Hutus and Tutsis, for instance, had no real biological differences between them, similar to the differences between Catholic Croatians, Bosnian Muslims and Russian Orthodox Serbians. It was the social fact of race as it was lived in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia that led to genocide there, not DNA.

Posted by Reality Man | July 17, 2007 7:17 PM

Gregorio,

I just finished reading your post in the Harry Potter thread where you essentially wrote that English lit is mostly bullshit speculation but you love it all the same. Should we infer that your "race is an illusion" comments here are written in that spirit?

As for affirmative action, the reason why it exists isn't because people like me believe that different races exist -- the folks who administer affirmative action acknowledge that implicitly, by giving preferences to members of races they deem 'disadvantaged'. The reason affirmative action exists is because different races differ, on average, in their academic abilities. Of course you already know this though.

Posted by Fred | July 17, 2007 7:30 PM

Reality Man,

"Except you tend to reduce the cause of these differences down to creepy essentials that are pretty much racist arguments."

Help a dumb white guy out and explicate this. What are you trying to say?

Posted by Fred | July 17, 2007 7:34 PM

Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait for another post for MattY to discuss/apologize away the links between leaders of the DemocraticParty and the MexicanGovernment.

lemuel pitkin says: Much as I'd like to blame Sailer, i don't think he's responsible for TLB. The CompoundWordTroll also made an appearance at Crooked Timber. Much hilarity ensued.

My last visit there was on this thread: tinyurl.com/2uranu Alert me if you find a grown-up response.

Posted by TLB | July 17, 2007 7:45 PM

"Except you tend to reduce the cause of these differences down to creepy essentials that are pretty much racist arguments."

Help a dumb white guy out and explicate this. What are you trying to say?"

I would like to present people's Exhibit A:

"The reason affirmative action exists is because different races differ, on average, in their academic abilities. Of course you already know this though."

The reason AA exists in because of historical legacies of racism against blacks, Latinos and Native Americans in the US and also a historical legacy of AA for white Americans (especially from the "right families"). The Ivies, for example, up until about the 1960's where rather up-front that their primary criteria for admitting students was good breeding. In the 1920's, the Ivies would go around to the New England prep schools, which would pride themselves on being almost uniformly all-white, and instead of interviewing kids, they would put out sign-up sheets for any student to sign. Applications were irrelevant because going to Andover back then meant you were from the right families and of "proper breeding." When you have a legacy of segregation, Jim Crow, employment discrimination, being barred from better schools for your race, etc. you are going to see lower academic performance over time. Recognizing history is not the same thing as saying, "different races differ, on average, in their academic abilities." Here's a clue also from the "Asian-American community": Asian-Americans, whether Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Indian or whatever, tend to hate it when you start using the "But I think Asians are smart!" argument to show you aren't racist. It's just using us as props for your own creepy purposes. You're forty years out of date and don't even know it. You really are probably too lacking in self-awareness to ever get it. You probably never will and will think everyone is just harassing little poor you.

Posted by Reality Man | July 17, 2007 8:10 PM

Re: It should also be noted that only white Europeans and Arabs tend to be born with the necessary enzymes to digest milk

Um, the whole human species is born with this enzyme, otherwise our infants (and our species) would not survive. However people who cease to drink milk after infancy lose this enzyme. (Some people also lose the enyzme in early adulthood even if they continue to drink milk well into childhood, hence lactose intolerance, which exists across "races"). Several non-European cultures do use milk or other dairy products and hence tend to retain the lactose-processing enzyme: the Mongolians for examples (who use mare's milk), or the Masai of East Africa.

Posted by JonF | July 18, 2007 6:32 AM

I have a feeling that even if the average is being pulled down, the very tallest people (like those that will be playing hoops) aren't getting shorter.

Posted by TW Andrews | July 18, 2007 11:17 AM