Friday, July 18, 2003
Statistical grunt work: Sports in Malaysia
(This somehow disappeared from when I posted it two hours ago, so I'm reposting it.)
So I got bored, and with the recent controversy surrounding Dusty Baker's comments on blacks and sports, I decided to go off on a tangent and crunch some sport statistics from the websites of the Malaysian Cricket Association and the 2003 Malaysian Football Premier League Standings. Some interesting but not entirely unexpected findings follow.
Malaysia's always made a fair regional showing in cricket (such as beating the Australians). Why? Maybe it's because we have more Indians than the competition (well, aside from India, of course). Indians are overwhelmingly dominant at all levels of Malaysian cricket. In the 50 Over League (for all you non-cricketers, "overs" are analogous to baseball's "at bats" --- 6 balls are bowled per over. It doesn't refer to the age of the players being 50 and over), of 195 members of registered Division I teams, by eyeballing the names, I counted 101 Indians (that's 52%, whereas Indians make up only 8% of Malaysia's population!).
In contrast, I counted only 65 Malays or Orang Asli (33%, compared to 59% of the population), and, most disappointingly, 14 Chinese (7.2%, vs. 28% of the population), mostly playing for East Malaysian teams. The balance of 15 inviduals included 4 Western-named with foreign passports, 3 Muslim-named individuals with foreign passports, and 8 individuals with Malaysian passports whom I was not sure how to classify based on their names. However, there's some error in this method; most importantly, I may have miscounted some Chinese or Indians with Muslim names as Malays.
However, when we look at football (soccer), the situation changes. Among 261 members of Premier League Division I teams in 2003 (My 20-minute Java hackjob "data-mining bot" I had trouble automatically extracting the data for Division II from the website, so I haven't included them here), there are only 23 Indians (or 8.8%, roughly at parity with their representation in the population). Worse yet, only 14 Chinese, or 5.3%. This compares to 185 Malays or Orang Asli (71%), as well as 9 Africans (from Ghana, Liberia, Zambia, and Sierra Leone), 10 whites (mostly Australians), 5 Brazilians, and 12 individuals whom I was not sure how to classify based on their names.
What's unusual is that Chinese, despite being concentrated in defense and midfield positions, on average during the just-completed 2003 season scored more goals than their Malay or Indian teammates, who were about equally distributed among all positions aside from a dearth of Indian goalkeepers. (As for the foreigners, the expense and wounded pride of having to bring one in only find themselves compensated if that foreigner is very good indeed. So, as expected, virtually all the Africans and a good portion of the whites played as strikers and racked up many goals for their teams, far more on average than native players).
I wish I had other statistics so I could analyze them further, but goals per player was the only one I've been able to find for now. Stats on Malaysian footballers are, as you might imagine, not in such high demand, and so hard to find.
So why are Indians so good at cricket, while Malays dominate in soccer, and Chinese barely make a showing in either, but when they do, seem to be slightly more skilled than their fellows? More in an upcoming post ...
Marriage Gap more than compensated for by excess Asian Female immigration, but what about similar gap among unmarried cohabiting couples?
Among Asians, the shortfall in the number of married Asian men as compared to women (305,004 individuals) is not only very similar in magnitude to the shortfall in outmarried men (305,768 individuals), but it is smaller than the surfeit of monoracial Asian women overall in the 18-to-65 population ("marriage age population") as compared to monoracial Asian men (400,810, which I obtained from here; oddly enough, the other immigrant-heavy ethnic group, Hispanics, have huge surfeits of men; in that same 18-65 age range, there's an extra 970,186 of them).
Seeing that natural birth should produce almost equal amounts of Asian women and Asian men (sex-selective abortion or infanticide is presumably almost non-existent in the US), one can conclude the imbalance must be either from excess immigration of Asian females (such as for the purpose of marrying white men as mail order brides, which would support Bill Lee's hypothesis), or less likely theories for which there is no evidence, such as excess emigration of Asian men married to non-Asian women.
However, the ratio of unmarried HAFs living with non-Asian males to unmarried HAMs living with non-Asian females is 1.37:1, while the similar ratio for non-Hispanic Asians is 2.07:1. The total excess of interracial cohabitation among Asian females as compared to Asian males is 27,625 indiduals. These seem less likely to be explained by excess immigration of Asian females.
Since it is rather difficult for an not-yet-married mail order bride to enter the country and remain, the imbalance would require that 27,625 prospective mail-order brides were in the country on temporary visas at the time of the 2000 census (greater than the total number of mail order brides who enter in a year!), were all cohabiting with their prospective partners (rather than staying in hotels), and all chose to respond to the Census as householders despite their non-resident status. Furthermore, in the age range from which you would expect most Asian unmarried cohabiting individuals to be drawn (18 to 29), there is only an excess of 14,411 females over males.
So, there must be other effects which explain why so many Asian girls cohabit with non-Asian boyfriends as compared to Asian men cohabiting with non-Asian girlfriends. The imbalance is even more curious given the intense social disapproval which such girls must face, which one would expect to make them more reluctant (Asian men cohabiting with their white girlfriends would likely be applauded as "scoring one for the race," whereas Asian women in the same situation would be derided as "sellout sluts hot for white cock.")
Based on the calculations I performed in the last post, there are 5,915 Hispanic Asian males married to non-Asian females (out of a total 14,818
married HAMs) and 8,805 Hispanic Asian females married to non-Asian males (out of a total 18,090). Like the gap among non-Hispanic Asians, the shortfall in the number of married men compared to married women (3,272) is of a very similar magnitude to the shortfall between the number of outmarried males and outmarried females (2,890). Interestingly enough, the outmarriage imbalance is smaller than among non-Hispanic Asians (only 1.49 to 1, as opposed to 2.77 to 1), but it is still there.
Unfortunately, the government does not public what the population of Hispanic Asians in the United States actually is, let alone its gender balance. It seems plausible that the roughly 3,000 extra outmarried Hispanic Asian females could be the result of mail order brides from Latin America entering the US (not too many war brides are likely to come from down there, though).
Even more statistical grunt work: Marriage in the USA
Godless Capitalist points to Bill Lee who purports to refute Steve Sailer (and plenty of whiny AA males who want to use their inability to find a date as an excuse to impose censorship on the media and commit violence against hapas and whites they find putting their dirty untinted paws on Proud Yellow Women) on the topic of interracial marriage among Asians.
Specifically, Mr. Lee disagrees with the conclusion from this number that AA men are having trouble finding mates due to AA female outmarriage; if you subtract war brides and mail-order brides from the equation, there is no outmarriage imbalance, or it is of a far smaller magnitude than anyone has said in the past. Seems plausible, more on that in another post after I've had time to crunch the relevent numbers myself. Hopefully between his crazy vitriolic ranting and my crazy vitriolic ranting, we'll be able to come to a conclusion.
However, Steve Sailer's assertion that the gap has widened since 1990 isn't the result of any trickery (even though I'm not sure how he got 3.08:1). I and probably any number of other people calculated our numbers independently following the Census Bureau's publication of the report on Families and Living Arrangements, and also found a widening gap. Not all of the numbers were the same to two significant figures, reflecting different methodologies, but they did represent a higher outmarriage imbalance since 1990.
My calculations indicated a ratio of 2.77:1, which actually represents an increase in the imbalance of 2.54:1 found in the 1990 census. Mr. Lee, however, examining a different government report, found a ratio of 2.35:1. To compare our figures:
- Married Asian males:
Mr. Lee: 2,118,000
- Married Asian females:
Mr. Lee: 2,393,000
- Total number of married Asian couples:
Mr. Lee: 1,914,000
Why the discrepancy? Mr. Lee is using Current Population Survey numbers, while myself and Mr. Sailer used numbers from two Census Enumerations of all households, from 1990 and 2000. These numbers are (for the most part) directly comparable, as they were collected using the same method, except that the 1990 Census did not allow respondents to check multiple boxes for race. As a result, some married mixed race Asians from the 1990 Census may not have been counted in the Asian category in the 2000 Census, as they've been transferred (for the most part, against their will) to a separate "Two or More Races" category.
The CPS, on the other hand, does not count or even attempt to count every member of the population, as does the Census. (It also seems to count all married couples rather than just "householders"; I'm not too clear on this, however). To quote the press release which accompanied the report of which Mr. Lee makes use:
The Census Bureau cautions the public not to confuse these estimates,
based on survey data collected in March 2000, with Census 2000 data, which
are being released on a flow basis. Findings from these two sources may
not agree because of different data collection procedures ...
The statistics were collected in the March 2000 Current Population
Survey, which uses the 1990 census as the base for its sample. Statistics
from sample surveys are subject to sampling and nonsampling error.
I've been trying to find earlier CPS data on interracial marriage to compare to Mr. Lee's calculated figure of 2:35 to 1, but the government appears not to have bothered to compile it. So all we have to go on is the Census, which shows a widening imbalance.
Conclusions? Well, Mr. Lee's assertion that most of the imbalance is due to warbrides and mail-order brides appears correct. So the outmarriage imbalance is far smaller than traditionally reported. On the other hand, there's no denying that in 1990, a decade in which one would expect the inflow of war-brides from Asia to be quite small, that imbalance also widened. Other sources (such as the survey of unmarried couple households, which also shows far more Asian females than Asian males living with their unmarried partners) also suggest that the interracial dating and marriage imbalance may not be entirely mythical. Further analysis is obviously required.
Calculating the outmarriage imbalance from the 2000 Census:
Consider the following method:
- Open the Excel version of PHC-T-19 Table 1 (Hispanic Origin and Race of Wife and Husband in Married-Couple Households for the United States: 2000).
- Find the value B27-F27-M27, which is the total number of married NH (non-Hispanic) AMs (Asian males) who are not married to NHAFs nor HAFs. This should be 171868.
- Find the value M14-M27, which is the total number of married NHAFs who are not married to NHAMs nor HAMs. This figure should be 474364.
- Find the value B19-F19-M19, which is the total number of married HAMs who are not married to NHAFs nor HAFs. This figure should be 5915.
- Find the value F14-F19-F27, which is the total number of married HAFs who are not married to NHAMs nor HAMs. This figure should be 8805.
- Add together your values from steps 2 and 4. This gives the total number of married AMs, both Hispanic and non, who are not married to AFs. This figure should be 176,143.
- Add together your values from steps 3 and 5. This gives the total number of married AFs, both Hispanic and non, who are not married to AFs. This figure should be 483,440.
- Finding the ratio of the two values from steps 6 and 7, we should get a 2.7746.
Monday, July 14, 2003
Blacks and Asian grocery stores
It's a fairly common observation that in Asian grocery stores and open air markets in the US, aside from Asians, the second-largest group of customers are blacks. Several theories are usually advanced to explain this, such as "WASPs are culinarily unadventurous," "poor blacks are attracted to the cheaper prices," "black cooking makes use of cuts of meat which are harder to find at white butchers," etc.
Well, I've got another one: superior Black resistance to food-borne diseases (of which you'd expect there to be more in hot and humid climates, like Africa, than cold ones like Northern Europe). The markets in Chinatown don't exactly pass the muster of government regulations, to say the least, and so it's safe to speculate that the less sanitary conditions there give rise to more bacteria. Enough whites who buy raw meat and vegetables at Asian food markets have got sick that they've told all their friends not to go, regardless of how much money they might save. Whereas fewer blacks have the same problem, so they can continue to take advantage of the low prices.
This theory might also explain why there are fewer Latino customers in Asian groceries. Despite the fact that, especially on the East Coast, Asian groceries are usually located in heavily Latino neighborhoods, and Latinos, with a similar socioeconomic profile to blacks, would also be attracted to cheaper prices and non-traditional cuts of meat, Latinos just don't have the same level of disease resistance. Then again, they are the people famous for queso fresco ...
(As a corollary, this would also imply that blacks are getting ripped off when their tax dollars go to funding the FDA, since they would have less use for)
Sunday, July 13, 2003
The US moves to catch up with ... Malaysia
Ward Connerly will propose a drastic step at the July 16th meeting of the Regents of the University of California: the elimination of funding for race and ethnic-targetted events on all UC campuses. (Banning ethnic clubs is a common practice in Malaysian varsities, and Malaysia's head of state, unlike ours, has spoken decisively against affirmative action for underperforming ethnic groups).
San Francisco Chronicle reports, but leaves many questions unanswered:
University of California Regent Ward Connerly will ask fellow regents next week to cut funding and sponsorship of nonacademic events held for groups of a specific race, ethnicity or sexual orientation -- the same proposal he unsuccessfully advanced five years ago.
Connerly, the architect of Proposition 209, which in 1996 banned the use of racial preferences in university admissions, said events such as black student orientations and Latino graduation ceremonies held at all nine campuses of the university system are divisive and exclude the public.
"Brown vs. Board of Education said that separate was morally wrong, and if we want to bring people together we should not start them off as separate," Connerly said. "(These events) have a symbolic effect of dividing people and they clearly are not supported by the public."
However, it remains unclear how far Mr. Connerly's proposal extends. Obviously he targets separate orientation and graduation ceremonies, but would ethnic-specific student associations continue to exist on campus? What about cultural and language associations? The Daily Cal seems to imply that if Connerly's proposal were passed, ethnically-targetted student groups (such as Chinese Students Associations) would be required to disband:
Currently, university funds can support racially or ethnically related groups so long as they are neither favored nor discriminated against based on their mission. Funds are distributed based on general standards unrelated to race or ethnicity, and while certain groups may have a target community, they are still open to all students within the university.
As a supporter of Connerly's proposal, I nevertheless remain worried by some obvious implementation problems, to the extent that I think such a ban would give rise to such worse racial tensions on campus that we're better off without it. Malaysian varsities, of course, have such a ban in place without any trouble. However, they did it from the beginning; they're not trying to dismantle pre-existing social networks which are likely to put up a great deal of resistance.
Most groups will continue in thin disguise: If you just remove the explicitly ethnic-specific associations, the black club will rename itself the Martin Luther King Historical Society, while the Korean club turns into a Korean Language and Culture Club, and maybe even some pan-ethnic Asian-American clubs will survive by reforming themselves into Committees for the Celebration of the Lunar New Year or whatnot. (And if you try to stop those, someone will also demand you ban Christmas, Halloween, Easter, and Thanksgiving.)
Mostly monoethnic groups will remain so, regardless of their name: A group which avoids a ban by removing ethnicity-specific language from its title and charter likely won't see much change in its ethnic composition, due to simple inertia in people's conceptions of the group: members will continue to invite friends they think would fit well with other members, mostly co-ethnics. Even requiring such clubs to disband and hold new elections to ensure more ethnic diversity on the board when the entering freshmen arrive will hardly solve the problem, since 3/4 of the membership will likely remain the same.
Scope creep becomes a real problem: So if you start denying funding to a wider range of student groups to avoid Problem #2, where does it start? Do you look at the ethnic composition target clubs with too many of one ethnicity? That won't even get off the ground; at least in this case, everyone will line up behind Connerly to demand race-blindness.
And once you've started banning, where do you stop? What about foreign students orientations and clubs, which, especially among Asians, naturally attract American-born co-ethnics looking for cute FOBs or a chance to practice their heritage language? And if you cut off the money to the Puerto Ricans and maybe the Hawaiians, do you do the same to students from all the other states and territories too? What about gospel music societies? Foreign-language karaoke competitions? Language practice groups? Religious groups attached to ethnic churches?
The social disappears while the political remains: Student groups faced with exile from campus and possible extinction won't sit idly by, but instead will begin to look for other funding sources. However, socially-oriented groups will find themselves at a severe disadvantage to politically-oriented groups in this regard. The latter have a membership much more willing to donate their time for fundraising, and are also more likely to find sympathetic "community organizations" ready to spread about their own government grants. The former, saddled with the image of lazy partygoers, aren't likely to find community members who want to subsidize their teenage drinking and sex.
Furthermore, Connerly's proposal bans only ethnically-targetted "non-academic" activities. The giant loophole? Department undergraduate groups in African-American, Chicano, and Asian-American studies, which get their funding from the department, rather than from disbursements of student activities fees anyway. Such groups will be unlikely to throw parties or hold ice-skating trips, on which at least a few students of other ethnicities, even Evil Whiteys, might feel welcome and come socialize. However, they'll be certain to take up the burden from politically-oriented clubs of objecting to everything they see in the media, demonizing whites, and promoting the ugliest form of Asian, Black, or Chicano solidarity --- one based not on socializing with friends, but on attacking others.
Frats and sororities will take up the slack: With the loss of socially-oriented ethnic clubs, minorities looking to socialize mostly within their own ethnicities are likely to turn to self-selected residential groups, which will be far less vulnerable to elimination by the administration. It's difficult to pin down such groups as being ethnic-specific, even if they choose mostly members of their own ethnicity: the same thing happens in mostly-white "mainstream" frats. Cutting their school funding would just create even more pressure to drive frats at large off campus, where their antics would cause even more danger to themselves and their neighbors. In the mean time, they'll continue to throw parties less open to students of other ethnicities as those held by non-residential ethnic clubs.
As a former board member of a Chinese Students Association, I can point out one benefit ethnic clubs bring to the student body at large: our parties always attracted at least some members of other races. Plenty of Asian-Americans, who otherwise wouldn't date non-Asians, came to our parties and found themselves dancing and hooking up with one of our Deeply Colored Allies or even Almighty Oppressor Whiteys. And no one gave them a second look. Frat parties tend towards the less friendly; the high-testosterone environment produces plenty of fighting spirit and racial solidarity of the crudest kind, which may well express itself in violence against whites and white-looking hapas flirting with Asian girls (though so far, they've only killed each other). And the residential environment means rumors spread far more quickly.
Religious groups will too: Asian-Americans who want to socialize primarily within their own ethnic group, but don't find drinking and partying attractive, will likely turn to church-sponsored social events instead. The role of evangelical churches in the Asian-American community is rather difficult to explain, and deserves a whole essay in itself; but for now, I'll point out that this development wouldn't be likely to produce any increase in interracial socialization, and would lead to other tensions of its own.
And what about the Jews? Though "Jewish" is ostensibly a religious tag, many Jewish student groups, unlike their Muslim, Christian, or Hindu counterparts, have little to do with the study of holy books or observance of religious festivals. They instead focus on socialization among Ashkenazi ethnics, and admit even atheists and Buddhists as board members. However, it's not very practical either to ban them (which will bring complaints and cries of discrimination from them and probably an expensive ACLU suit) or not to ban them (which will bring complaints and cries of unequal treatment from everyone else, and likely further inflame anti-Jewish sentiment).