Friday, May 04, 2018

Black/white intermarriage

In 1941, sociologist Robert Merton proposed a status exchange theory to explain the high proportion of black men—white women marriages. He suggested that men who have high economic or professional status, but who carry the stigma of being black,  trade their social position for whiteness by marriage.

And that continued for a long time. The white women who married black men were usually in fact of lower social class.  In a 1993 study, for instance we read: "The status characteristics of these marriages have remained traditional in the sense that intermarriage still occurs primarily when the white woman marries up in socioeconomic status". 

In other words the woman was trading her white skin for a richer/better educated black husband. From a social psychological point of view that seems perfectly reasonable.  Social psychologists usually regard all marriage as a trade:  Each partner gives the other some things that they want.

In a 1997 study, however we see that things have changed slightly.  We read:

"Interracial marriage tends to be educationally homogamous and the odds of interracial marriage increase with couples ’ educational attainment. Among interracially married couples with different educational attainments, both men and women from lower status racial groups but with high education levels tend to marry spouses from a higher status racial group with low education levels."

So we now have two groups:  Most interracial couples are now of EQUAL status but there are still some unions following the old pattern of low status white woman and higher status black man

And in this century the situation has become overwhelmingly of equal status between the couples, probably associated with the fact that the rate of black/white intermarriage has increased markedly.  The influences at work on such marriages have obviously changed.  Recent studies tend to show that, as in most marriages, the black/white partners now tended to be of equal status.  We read:

"Just as researchers’ assumption that women trade beauty for men’s socioeconomic status may have led to erroneous findings that seemed to support the “trophy wife” stereotype (McClintock 2014), researchers’ tendency to problematize interracial relationships may have generated a misleading focus on race-status exchange. In fact, interracial couples (like other couples) tend toward similarity in socioeconomic status (e.g., they have similar levels of education: Rosenfeld 2005). While I do not deny that social exchange may be a factor in romantic relationships, I think it is time that researchers reconsider the assumptions underlying their theoretical explanations. Do interracial couples really believe that the white partner married “down” in racial status? Or might they believe that in racial equality? Are minority women trading beauty and sexual access for white men’s race and income? Or might the white men also be good-looking? And might not women want sex too?"


"Minorities outmarried to Whites are often assumed to exchange their higher achieved status for an ascribed racial status. This study challenges this traditional exchange perspective by examining three SES measures (education, job prestige and income), using census 2000 PUMS data. Findings indicate that couples have similar statuses in all types of marriages, either endogamous or exogamous, and there is no evidence of status-caste exchange in intermarriage to Whites"


"Socioeconomic status has little effect on whether adolescents choose an interracial partner"

Something else that all observers seem to agree on is that the rate of domestic violence is much higher in Black-man/white-woman marriages. So has that diminished as the marriages have become more equal?  A 2009 study is much more interesting than a social survey would be:

"The number of interracial couples in the U.S. is growing, but they often receive little support. Although previous studies have explored the relationship between low social support and decreased relationship satisfaction in interracial couples, there are few studies on intimate partner violence (IPV) in these couples. To better understand IPV in interracial couples compared to monoracial couples, all police-reported IPV events across a municipality were examined. Odds ratios showed differences between interracial and ethnic minority monoracial couples. Interracial couples were more likely to have a history of prior IPV (OR = 2.60), engage in mutual assault (OR = 2.36), and result in perpetrator arrest (OR = 1.71) than ethnic minority monoracial couples. Victims of IPV in interracial couples were also more likely to be injured (OR = 1.37). There were no significant differences between the couples in terms of substance use or children present during the IPV event. Differences between IPV in interracial and White couples also emerged. Interracial couples were more likely to have children present (OR = 1.84), to have a prior report (OR = 1.98), to result in victim injury (OR = 1.73), and to result in perpetrator arrest than White couples (OR = 2.18). Interracial couples were more likely to engage in mutual assault than White couples (OR = 2.94). However, interracial couples were about 50% less likely than White couples to use drugs or alcohol before or during the IPV event. Research is needed to better understand the unique challenges and needs faced by interracial couples to help them sustain healthy partnerships."

So it would seem that the levelling out of social status between black/white partners may have reduced domentic violence in such relationships but it has certainly not eliminated it.  Mixed marriages are still much more violent than white/white marriages -- JR.

The 'Uncle Tom' Card Is Dead


Here is a short list of prominent conservatives and independent thinkers who've been accused by their critics of being an "Uncle Tom" or some other vitriolic variation on the overplayed left-wing theme of being a traitor to their race or gender ("Aunt Tomasina," "Uncle Juan," "Aunt Jemima," "Uncle Wong," etc.):

—White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.

—U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley.

—HUD Secretary Ben Carson.

—Rapper Kanye West.

—Lt. Col. Allen West.

—Former Louisiana GOP Gov. Bobby Jindal.

—Attorney Miguel Estrada.

—Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

—Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

—Author and filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza.

—Author and CRTV host Deneen Borelli.

—ACT for America founder and author Brigitte Gabriel.

—Former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

—Former GOP vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

—Attorney and author Ann Coulter.

—Former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke.

—Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.

—Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

—Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

—Economist Thomas Sowell.

—Economist Walter Williams.

—Scholar Glenn Loury.

—Turning Point USA activist Candace Owens.

—Conservative radio talk show host Larry Elder.

—Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.

—Author Erik Rush.

—Actress Stacey Dash.

—Former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain.

—Former University of California regent and businessman Ward Connerly.

—Former ambassador and GOP presidential candidate Alan Keyes.

—Conservative activist Niger Innis.

—Tea party organizer Lloyd Marcus.

—Author and columnist Star Parker.

—Author Shelby Steele.

—Social media stars Diamond and Silk.

—ESPN's Sage Steele.

—Radio host Charlamagne tha God.


Surveying this short list, you'll notice that all of us public enemies of the progressive diversity-mongers possess an incredibly diverse array of life and work experiences.

We are black, white, brown, native-born citizens, immigrants and naturalized Americans.

We are Republican, libertarian, moderate, hard-right and unaffiliated.

We are politicians, diplomats, academicians, writers, economists, entrepreneurs, entertainers, lawyers, doctors and pastors.

Like I said, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Pretty much any "person of color" who doesn't adhere militantly to Democrat Party orthodoxy has or will face the barbed charge of self-loathing or tribe betrayal.

And legions of women, famous and obscure, wealthy and poor, have been labeled "female impersonators" or "Stepford Wives" for embracing everything from unborn life to gun ownership, high border walls, low taxes and local control.

According to the self-appointed arbiters of color-coded and chromosomal fealty, if you marry outside your race, you're a traitor. If you adopt your husband's name, you're a traitor. If you're happy with stay-at-home motherhood, you're a traitor. If you straighten your hair, or culturally appropriate some other culture's hair, or bleach your hair the wrong color, you're a traitor.

Lord, what dreary killjoys these p.c. police be.

I catalogued my favorite malicious mutations of the Uncle Tom card for years on my blog, from "white man's puppet" to "Tokyo Rose" to "Manila whore," "Subic Bay bar girl," banana, coconut and Oreo. Instead of dissuading me from espousing heretical opinions, these insults spurred me on. Now, the increasing exposure and public ubiquity of unapologetic and unorthodox women and minorities seems to have triggered the collectivists' bile production at the highest levels.

Most recently, the White House Correspondents' Association gave "comedian" Michelle Wolf a lofty platform upon which to denigrate Sarah Sanders' womanhood by sniping:

"I'm never really sure what to call Sarah Huckabee Sanders, you know? Is it Sarah Sanders, is it Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is it Cousin Huckabee, is it Auntie Huckabee Sanders? What's Uncle Tom, but for white women who disappoint other white women? Oh, I know. Aunt Coulter."

Ultimately, the problem with the whinnying Wolf's schtick isn't that it's mean and divisive. It's that it's boring, unfunny and ineffectual. When everyone qualifies as an "Uncle Tom" in the eyes of the left's raging resistance, there will be no one left to pretend to laugh at their anemic jokes.


Adviser to Pope Francis Praises Karl Marx, Claims No Link to Communist Atrocities

Cardinal Reinhard Marx, head of the German Bishop's Conference and among the nine closest advisers to Pope Francis, applauded the teachings of Communist Karl Marx, whose 200th birthday occurs on May 5, claiming that the Communist Manifesto "impressed" him, helped to shape Catholic social doctrine, and was in no way responsible for the Communist atrocities and class-genocide committed by Marx's followers over the last 100-plus years.

Marxist regimes, starting with the Soviet Union in 1917 and Red China in 1949, have killed more than 100 million people worldwide for political and class reasons, all justified on the teachings of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and his co-author and financial backer Friederich Engels (1820-1895). The Catholic Church has repeatedly condemned Communism, with one of the earliest denunciations pronounced by Pope Pius IX in 1849.

Despite the Catholic Church's teaching against Communism, a utopian scheme that was Karl Marx's sole objective in life,  Cardinal Reinhard Marx told the magazine Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszitung, as translated and reported in, that the Communist Manifesto "impressed" him and that "without Karl Marx there would be no Catholic social teaching."

The German cardinal criticized capitalism, claiming there are "enormous social inequalities and ecological damage that capitalist dynamics are answerable to," and adding that any improvements are "not an achievement of capitalism but the result of a struggle against these excesses."  Communist China and the predominantly socialist India are two of the most polluted countries in the world, according to the World Health Organization; the United States and Western Europe are among the least polluted nations in the world.

Thanks to Karl Marx, said the Cardinal, the world knows that the "market is not as innocent as it appears in the textbook of economists, behind which are powerful interests."

As for the Communist atrocities and class-genocide committed by Karl Marx's disciples, such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro, Cardinal Marx told the magazine that there was no "direct connection" between Karl Marx and those crimes. There is "totalitarian" thought in Marx's work, but you can't draw a clear line from Marx to the Gulag, said the cardinal, as reported in

As for Karl Marx's May 5 birthday, Cardinal Reinhard Marx said there was no reason for him "as a Catholic bishop" to celebrate it, but it is something "we should commemorate."

In his 1937 encyclical letter "On Atheistic Communism," Pope Pius XI said, "See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.

"Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless."


Control the Words, Control the Culture

The culture war is largely a war of words. Right now, the Left is winning

What’s in a word? Why does it matter whether we call someone who breaks the law to enter the country an “illegal alien” or a “undocumented immigrant”? What’s the difference between a Christmas tree and a “holiday tree?”

It’s just semantics, right?  Yes…and no.

It is just semantics, but “semantics” means the meaning of words. Words exist so that we might discriminate one thing from another. Without words we have chaos. And it starts with the first words; a baby says mama to distinguish mommy from daddy. Words shape how we think; they color how we view the world.

No one understands this better than the Left. They are the masters of words. Because they know that words matter.

The Left has a special gift for euphemisms — soft words selected to sugarcoat harsh realities so as to make those harsh realities easier for us to swallow. But these soft words are insidious. Their sole purpose is to deceive.

Race discrimination in hiring and college admissions is refashioned as the much nicer sounding “affirmative action.” Who would ever oppose an affirmative action?

Global warming, which can be measured and challenged, has morphed into “climate change,” which means essentially nothing because the climate is always changing.

When Barack Obama became president, George Bush’s war in Afghanistan suddenly transformed into the far less ominous and threatening “overseas contingency operation.” That’s one way to try to end a war. Just rename it.

The examples are endless. There’s a new euphemism every week.

In the make-believe world of leftist language, young criminals have become “justice-involved youth.” Mandates and taxes are “individual shared responsibility payments.” Government spending becomes an “investment.” Wanting to keep more of your hard-earned money becomes “greed”; taking more of someone else’s money is them “paying their fair share.” Opposing a Democrat in the White House is “obstruction.” Opposing a Republican in the White House, “resistance”!

In the name of “diversity” the left enforces intellectual conformity. It censors opposing views in the name of “tolerance.” And it labels all non-left views “hate speech.”

Consider the ongoing battle over pronouns, whether to call a man who thinks he’s a woman “he” or “she.” Very few people in the country suffer from gender confusion, and we should have compassion for those who do, but the Left has invested countless funds, time, and energy to make everyone refer to some men as she and some women as he.

Why? Is it because the Left is so compassionate? Or is it more likely because so much of the Left’s cultural agenda is about blurring, even denying, the natural distinctions between men and women?

Sometimes it’s just an adjective that can change or even negate the entire meaning of the word it describes.

Take “social justice.”

Justice means getting what you deserve without favor. “Social justice” means getting what you don’t deserve because you are favored.

Here’s one we hear a lot these days. “My truth.” Truth is reality regardless of any individual’s feelings or perceptions. “My truth” is how I perceive things regardless of how they really are.

And how about “Same-sex marriage.” Let’s not get into the politics; let’s just look at the language.

Throughout history, in every culture, marriage has been the union of husbands, men, and wives, women. “Same-sex marriage” is the union of men with men or women with women, but it is most certainly not the union of husbands and wives.

Once the phrase “same-sex” was placed before the word marriage — that is, once the definition of marriage changed, the debate changed. It became about “marriage equality.” It was suddenly an act of bigotry to limit marriage to husbands and wives.

All this manipulation of language has paid off for the left: because whoever controls the words controls the culture.

Don’t believe me? Just try using plain language instead of the Left’s politically correct jargon. But be careful. Use “the wrong words” and you might lose your job, your home and your reputation.

The culture war is largely a war of words. Right now, the Left is winning. You can see the consequences everywhere: in politics, in education, in media.

It’s time to fight back. We should not cede another syllable.

What’s in a word? Everything.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


1 comment:

C. S. P. Schofield said...

Regarding "Same Sex" Marriage;

I have come to believe that, of all the litany of Gay causes, this ONE has some justice. As a society we want Gay people, like others, to live stable lives. We should, therefore, encourage monogamy in Gays. The principle problem that Gays cause society is the spread of STDs through promiscuous sex. Monogamy helps alleviate this. But we cannot, in fairness, demand that Gays live in stable monogamous relationships if we do not give those relationships societal recognition. Bluntly; at a minimum a Gay person who wants to live monogamously should have legal recourse against a partner who claims to eat that, and lies about it.

Homosexuality s a fact. There may be some people who could be 'cured' of it through methods not amounting to brainwashing, but not many. What is objectionable about the Gay subculture is largely its widespread association with what some people are pleased to call 'transgressive sex acts'; i.e. acting like adolescents with poor impulse control. If we want Gays to behave like adult members of society, we must give them the encouragement to do so that marriage represents.

At one time, I was of the opinion that 'Civil Unions', legally equal to Marriage, but differently named, were the answer. I came to realize that, even with marriage, there would be years (if not decades) of petty functionaries denying Gay couples the legal recognition to which their unions were entitled simply from the pettifogging pleasure that such pests get from saying 'no'. Calling Gay Marriages 'Civil Unions' would only drag out this period of pettiness.