NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » Clannishness » How Does the Increasingly Diverse American Landscape Affect White Americans’ Racial Attitudes?

How Does the Increasingly Diverse American Landscape Affect White Americans’ Racial Attitudes?

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 118 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

1700 words

Last month I wrote about how Trump won the election due to white Americans’ exposure to diversity caused them to support Trump and his anti-immigration policies over Clinton and Sanders. That is, whites high in racial/ethnic identification exposed to more diversity irrespective of political leaning would vote for Trump for President and not Clinton or Sanders. It is commonly said that more diversity will increase tolerance for the out-group, and all will be well. But is this true?

Craig and Richeson (2014) explored how the changing racial shift in America affects whites’ feelings towards the peoples replacing whites (‘Hispanic’/Latino populations) as well as the feelings of whites towards other minority groups that are not replacing them in the country. Interestingly, whites exposed to the racial shift group showed more pro-white, anti-minority violence as well as preferring spaces and interactions with their own kind over others. Moreover, negative feelings towards blacks and Asians were seen, two groups that are not replacing white Americans.

White Canadians who were exposed to a graph showing that whites would be a projected minority “perceived greater in-group threat” leading to the expression of “somewhat more anger toward and fear of racial minorities.” East Asians are showing the most population growth in Canada. Relaying this information to whites has them express less warmth towards East Asian Canadians.

In their first study (n=86, 44 shown the racial shift and 42 shown current U.S. demographics), participants who read the title of a newspaper provided to them. One paper was titled  “In a Generation, Ethnic Minorities May Be the U.S. Majority”, whereas the other was titled “U.S. Census Bureau Releases New Estimates of the US Population by Ethnicity.” They were asked questions such as “I would rather work alongside people of my same ethnic origin,” and “It would bother me if my child married someone from a different ethnic background.” Whites who read the newspaper article showing ethnic replacement showed more racial bias than those who read about current U.S. demographics. Whites exposed to projected demographics were more likely to prefer settings and interactions with other whites compared to the group who read current demographics.

In study 2 a (n=28, 14 Dutch participants and 14 American participants, 14 exposed to the U.S. racial shift, 14 exposed to the Dutch racial shift), those in the U.S. racial shift category showed more pro-white/anti-Asian bias than participants in the Dutch racial shift category. Those who were exposed to the changing U.S. ethnic landscape were more likely to show pro-white/anti-black bias than participants exposed to the Dutch racial shift (study 2b, n=25, 14 U.S. racial shift, 11 Dutch racial shift). In other words, making the U.S changing racial/ethnic population important, whites showed that whites were, again, more likely to be pro-white and anti-minority, even while exposed to an important racial demographic shift in a foreign country (the Netherlands). Whites, then, exposed to more racial diversity will show more automatic bias towards minorities, especially whites who live around a lot of blacks and ‘Hispanics’. Making whites aware of the changing racial demographics in America had them express automatic racial bias towards all minority groups—even minority groups not responsible for the racial shift.

In study 3 (n=620, 317 women, 76.3% White, 9.0% Black, 10.0% Latino, 4.7% other race) whether attitudes toward different minority groups may be affected by the exposure to the racial shift. Study 3 specifically focused on whites (n=415, 212 women, median age 48.8, a nationally representative sample of white Americans). Half of the participants were shown information about the projected ethnic shift in America while the other half were given a news article on the geographic mobility in America (individuals who move in a given year). They were asked their feelings on the following statements:

“the American way of life is seriously threatened” and were asked to indicate their view of the trajectory of American society (1 = American society is getting much worse every year, 5 = American society is getting much better every year); these two items were standardized and averaged to create an index of system threat (r = .64). To assess system justification, we asked participants to indicate their agreement (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree) to the statement “American society is set up so that people usually get what they deserve.”

They were also asked the following questions on how certain they were of America’s social future:

“If they increase in status, racial minorities are likely to reduce the influence of White Americans in society.” The racial identification question asked participants to indicate their agreement (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree) with the following statement, “My opportunities in life are tied to those of my racial group as a whole.”

The researchers had the participants read the article about the impending racial shift in America and had them fill out “feeling thermometers” on how they felt about differing racial groups in America (blacks, whites, Asians and ‘Hispanics’) with 1 being cold and 100 being hot. Whites reported the most positivity towards their own group, followed by Asians, blacks and showing the least positivity towards ‘Hispanics’ (the group projected to replace whites in 25 years). Figure 2 also shows that whites don’t show the same negative biases they would towards other minorities in America, most likely due to the ‘model minority‘ status.

fig-2

So the researchers showed that by making the racial shift important, that led to more white Americans showing negative attitudes towards minorities—specifically ‘Hispanics’. This was brought about by whites’ “concerns of lose of societal status.” When whites begin to notice demographic changes, the attitudes towards minorities will change—most notable the attitudes towards blacks and ‘Hispanics’ (which is due to the amount of crime committed by both groups, and is why whites show favoritism towards Asians, in my opinion). Overall, it was shown in a nationally representative sample of whites that showing the changing demographics in the country leads to more negative responses towards minority groups. This is due to the perceived threat on whites’ group status, which leads to more out-group bias.

These four studies report empirical evidence that contrary to the belief of liberals et al—that an increasingly diverse America will lead to more acceptance—more exposure to diversity and the changing racial demographics will have whites show more negative attitudes towards minority groups, most notably ‘Hispanics’, the group projected to become the majority by 2042. The authors write:

Consistent with this prior work, the present research offers compelling evidence that the impending so-called “majority-minority” U.S. population is construed by White Americans as a threat to their group’s position in society and increases their expression of racial bias on both automatically activated and selfreport attitude measures.

Interestingly, the authors also write:

That is, the article in the U.S. racial shift condition accurately attributed a large percentage of the population shift to increases in the Latino/Hispanic population, yet, participants in this condition expressed more negative attitudes toward Black Americans and Asian Americans (Study 3) as well as greater automatic bias on both a White-Asian and a White-Black IAT (Studies 2a and 2b). These findings suggest that the information often reported regarding the changing U.S. racial demographics may lead White Americans to perceive all racial minority groups as part of a monolithic non-White group.

You can see this from the rise of the alt-right. Whites, when exposed to the reality of the demographic shift in America, will begin to  show more pro-white attitudes while derogating minority out-groups. It is important to  note the implications of these studies. One could look at these studies, and rightly say, that as America becomes more diverse that ethnic tensions will increase. Indeed, this is what we are now currently seeing. Contrary to what people say about diversity “being our strength“, it will actually increase ethnic hostility in America and lead towards evermore increasing strife between ethnic groups in America (that is ever-rising due to the current political and social climate in the country). Diversity is not our “strength”—it is, in fact, the opposite. It is our weakness. As the country becomes more diverse we can expect more ethnic strife between groups, which will lower the quality of life for all ethnies, while making whites show more negative attitudes towards all minority groups (including Asians and blacks, but less so than ‘Hispanics’) due to group status threat. The authors write in the discussion:

That is, these studies revealed that White Americans for whom the U.S. racial demographic shift was made salient preferred interactions/settings with their own racial group over minority racial groups, expressed more automatic pro-White/antiminority bias, and expressed more negative attitudes toward Latinos, Blacks, and Asian Americans. The results of these latter studies also revealed that intergroup bias in response to the U.S. racial shift emerges toward racial/ethnic minority groups that are not primary contributors to the dramatic increases in the non-White (i.e., racial minority) population, namely, Blacks and Asian Americans. Moreover, this research provides the first evidence that automatic evaluations are affected by the perceived racial shift. Taken together, these findings suggest that rather than ushering in a more tolerant future, the increasing diversity of the nation may actually yield more intergroup hostility.

Thinking back to Rushton’s Genetic Similarity Theory, we can see why this occurs. Our genes are selfish and want to replicate with out similar genes. Thus, whites would become less tolerant of minority groups since they are less genetically similar to them. This would then be expressed in their attitudes towards minority groups—specifically, ‘Hispanics’ as that ethny will most likely to become the majority and overtake the white majority in 25 years. This is GST on steroids. Once whites realize the reality of the situation of increasing diversity in America—along with their status in the country as a whole—they will then show more negative bias towards minority out-groups.

All in all, the more whites are exposed to diversity in the social context as well as the reality of the ethnic demographic shift in 25 years will be more likely to show negative attitudes towards all American ethnies (though less negative attitudes towards Asians, dude to being less criminal, in my opinion). As the country becomes less white, so to will the whites in America become less tolerant of all minorities and start banding together for pro-white interests—showing that diversity is not our strength. This, in reality, is exactly what liberals do not want—whites banding together showing less favoritism towards the out-group. However, this is what occurs in countries that increasingly become diverse.

Advertisements

24 Comments

  1. iffen says:

    “Last month I wrote about how Trump won the election due to white Americans’ exposure to diversity.”

    Stop repeating this. It is factually incorrect.

    Trump won because: 1) Rust Belt white voters who had previously voted for Obama voted for Trump. 2) Rust Belt whites comprised a higher % of the electorate in 2016 than in 2012 because whites voted at a higher % in 2016 than in 2012 and blacks voted at a lower %.

    Blacks did not fall from the sky into the Rust Belt between 2012 and 2016. They have been there in significant numbers since the early part of the 20th century. All white voters in the Rust Belt are and have been aware of black people since at least WWII.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Thanks. I edited it.

      Whites exposed to more diversity are more likely to show negative attitudes towards ethnic minorities—more so towards blacks and the ones set to replace them, ‘Hispanics’. This was seen to a lesser extent in Asians, showing that when whites are exposed to the reality of being replaced as the majority in the country in 25 years that they look at all non-whites as a ‘monolith’, showing negative attitudes towards all minority groups in the country because when you get down to the very bottom of this, it’s all about genetic interests. And I assume that when the reality of what’s at stake is thrown right into people’s faces, they start to become more ‘tribal’, so to speak, and start pushing more for their own interests with pro-white bias while derogating out-groups.

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      Whites exposed to more diversity are more likely to show negative attitudes towards ethnic minorities

      Whites don’t have to have ethnic minorities as neighbors in order to be exposed to more diversity. Attitudes can shift as a result of nationwide trends and exposure via media and other sources. Modern society considers racism passe and undignified. There is a recognition of the horrors racism has wrought in the past and a desire not to repeat the same mistakes. People living in all-white towns are not immune to these trends.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      The point of this paper is that exposing whites to the fact that they wull be a minority in 25 years creates more in-group favoritism, having whites want to be around and congregate with other whites, while derogating the out-group, even racial minorities who are not contributing to the racial shift.

      Recognizing that one is being replaced and then that individual then works for his own interests has nothing to do with whatever you’re talking about. When the average white America is exposed to this fact, more in-group favoritism and out-group derogation occurs.

      Like

  2. Chinedu says:

    iffen,

    In addition to that rust belt whites voted overwhelmingly for Bernie Sanders, Mr. Diversity himself. In fact if Sanders had gotten the nomination he would’ve received such a large percentage of the white vote that his election would’ve been inevitable. Hillary was a terrible candidate with a closet full of skeletons. Trump won because Hillary could not motivate Obama voters to vote for her. How can Trump’s election represent white fear of diversity when black Americans alone would have given the presidency to Hillary if so many of them didn’t stay home?

    For his sake I hope someone is paying this blogger for his “output.” He certainly wastes a lot of his time writing things that have absolutely no basis in reality.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      This wasn’t about the election per se, it was just about how increasing diversity makes whites more ‘racist’ (whatever that means). Everything I wrote here is factually correct.

      I don’t get paid for this pal. I do this on my free time.

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      it was just about how increasing diversity makes whites more ‘racist’

      That’s utter bullshit. Whites are less racist now than they were 20 years ago. And they were less racist 20 years ago than they were 50 years ago. And they were less racist 50 years ago than they were 100 years ago. Read newspaper articles from around the turn of the 20th century. You will find that vicious, ugly racism represented mainstream thought in this country. I’m talking about major American newspapers that are still around today.

      With each passing year whites become less racist. Whites becoming less racist is directly attributable to more diversity and more exposure to other races, cultures and traditions. This is not even something that can be argued with a straight face. White racists still exist and may always exist as a percentage of the population. But it goes without saying that increased diversity promotes a reduction of white racism.

      I’m actually paying white people a compliment. But as a so-called race realist (i.e., racist) you don’t want to hear that. You want whites to be more racist. You want racial conflict and even race wars.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      That is ‘utter bullshit’, yet expsure to the fact that whites will be replaced in America in 25 years shows they begin to show more bias for the in-group and show less favorable attitudes towards all minorities, least to Asians.

      You want whites to be more racist. You want racial conflict and even race wars.

      I want people to wake up to common sense and I most definitely do not condone violence.

      Like

    • iffen says:

      I agree with your opinion that the extent and virulence of white racism has declined. A separate but related idea of the current era is white resentment. This is an important force within the white working class and this resentment gets confused with racism by SJWs and advocates of white identity movements alike.

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      That is ‘utter bullshit’, yet expsure to the fact that whites will be replaced in America in 25 years shows they begin to show more bias for the in-group and show less favorable attitudes towards all minorities, least to Asians

      This is a matter of great import only to people like you. Once again, these anti-diversity arguments were voiced almost verbatim with regard to Italians, Greeks, Russians, Jews, etc. In fact the intensity of the anti-immigrant sentiment was in the past much fiercer than anything we see today. There were anti-Chinese riots, anti-Mexican riots, anti-Italian riots, anti-Polish riots, anti-German riots, anti-Irish riots and general anti-Catholic riots. These were violent events in which people were killed because they were perceived as different and other.

      In more recent history, Iranians have taken over Beverly Hills. That couldn’t have happened in the 20’s or 30’s or even in the 70’s. But nowadays no one really cares primarily due to the salutary impact of greater diversity. Your Italian immigrant forefathers helped pave the way for those Iranians. They also helped pave the way for all the other new immigrants against whom you are using the very same rhetoric that was used to try to keep out your people.

      So what you’re saying is nothing new. But in the modern world trying to maintain in perpetuity a white majority in is untenable. Migration has altered the ethnic make-up of nations throughout human history. It’s not inconceivable that in the future it will be Americans looking to immigrate to places with greater opportunities. Nations rise and fall and nothing in nature lasts forever.

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      I agree with your opinion that the extent and virulence of white racism has declined. A separate but related idea of the current era is white resentment.

      The intensity of white resentment against immigrants reshaping the landscape has also diminished greatly. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries much of that resentment was directed against newly arriving ethnic whites. The resentment often was expressed violently and many people were killed.

      Like

    • iffen says:

      In large part, the earlier resentment was directed at the groups because they were “different.” Today’s resentment is not so much that the groups are different, although that is still present, it draws much more strength from what is understood as special treatment for minority groups.

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      In large part, the earlier resentment was directed at the groups because they were “different.” Today’s resentment is not so much that the groups are different, although that is still present, it draws much more strength from what is understood as special treatment for minority groups

      That’s called scapegoating and it was vastly more virulent when directed against Irish, Italian and other white immigrants back in the day.

      Like

    • iffen says:

      Somewhat, but scapegoating would be blaming blacks and integration for causing the failure of public schools.
      Resentment is saying that black students are exempted from compliance with accepted behavioral norms in school.

      Like

    • Chinedu says:

      Somewhat, but scapegoating would be blaming blacks and integration for causing the failure of public schools.
      Resentment is saying that black students are exempted from compliance with accepted behavioral norms in school.

      Resentment was at the heart of the antagonism toward ethnic white immigrants. They were alleged to be dirty, with weird alien practices and habits. They were alleged to be criminally inclined. They were alleged to be a threat to women. They were alleged to be unable or unwilling to assimilate and conform to normative American values. They were alleged to undercut labor by working cheap and being paid under the table. They were alleged to practice an idolatrous religion that was incompatible with American values. They were alleged to hold their allegiance to said religion more important than their allegiance to any country.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Chinedu,

      Nations rise and fall and nothing in nature lasts forever.

      Of course not. I’d like to prolong a fall for as long as possible though. Why let things crumble when you can save them, if not only for the time being?

      The Sun is going will turn into a red giant in five billion years and everything that evolution has done on earth will not matter. May as well stop studying evolution right?

      Like

  3. Chinedu says:

    RealRealist,

    Here’s a little bit of your people’s history that you may be ignorant of:

    I knew something about our nation’s early antipathy toward Catholics and Italians, but I had not fully appreciated the depth of that antagonism. For example, the largest mass lynching in U.S. history took place in New Orleans in 1891 — and it wasn’t African-Americans who were lynched, as many of us might assume. It was Italian-Americans.

    After nine Italians were tried and found not guilty of murdering New Orleans Police Chief David Hennessy, a mob dragged them from the jail, along with two other Italians being held on unrelated charges, and lynched them all. The lynchings were followed by mass arrests of Italian immigrants throughout New Orleans, and waves of attacks against Italians nationwide.

    What was the reaction of our country’s leaders to the lynchings? Teddy Roosevelt, not yet president, famously said they were “a rather good thing.” The response in The New York Times was worse. A March 16, 1891, editorial referred to the victims of the lynchings as “… sneaking and cowardly Sicilians, the descendants of bandits and assassins.” An editorial the next day argued that: “Lynch law was the only course open to the people of New Orleans. …”

    John Parker, who helped organize the lynch mob, later went on to be governor of Louisiana. In 1911, he said of Italians that they were “just a little worse than the Negro, being if anything filthier in [their] habits, lawless, and treacherous.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/10/opinion/falco-italian-immigrants/

    If this doesn’t demonstrate to you how far in a positive direction this country has come then you are hopelessly deluded. Pay particular attention to the blurb from New York Times editorial. THE NEW YORK TIMES!!!!

    I encourage you to read the entire article. Hopefully it will wake you up.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Italians were always looked at as Caucasian in America. I know of the 9 Italians lynched in LA. What will it ‘wake me up’ from? I read the article, plus I’ve read about rhe event a lot in the past. And? Things happen. The past is the past.

      Like

  4. Todd says:

    According to the Genetic Similarity Theory, shouldn’t whites not be the least positively disposed towards Hispanics, since they’re more similar to Hispanics than to the other groups?

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I don’t know the ethnicities of the subjects in the representative sample in the third study, I’ll check it out tomorrow to see if it’s either said or I can infer it.

      But, for instance, Mexicans are about 56 percent ‘Native’ American, 5 percent African and 37 percent European (see table 1 of Admixture in Latin America: Geographic Structure, Phenotypic Diversity and Self-Perception of Ancestry Based on 7,342 Individuals)

      So they’re genetically more distant due to being more ‘Native’. If these individuals in the study are Northwest European, than the generic similarity hypothesis still holds. Moreover, it’s about another racial/ethnic group overtaking whites’ majority status which is one reason why more negative attitudes are had toward ‘Hispanics’ when they become aware of the racial shift.

      Even then if we are just talking ethnic genetic interests, the same applies. Genetic distance between European ethnies, though less than that between the macro races, is still enough distance for ethnic strife.

      Like

    • Todd says:

      I mean Hispanics relative to other non-white groups. Hispanics would be closer to whites genetically than the other non-white groups.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Correct. But when shown that ‘Hispanics’ will replace whites in 25 years they show negative attitudes towards all minority groups, most of all ‘Hispanics’ as they will replace whites. If another non-white group were to replace whites, you’d see the whites in the sample dislike that group the most, and it’s due to the population replacement.

      You also have to remember that that’s an average estimate of admixture in Mexicans, so some may be more and others less related to Europeans while being more related to ‘Natives’.

      Like

    • Todd says:

      I believe the average Mexican is mestizo. At any rate, whatever the admixture, they’re generally closer genetically than the other non-white groups are.

      According to Genetic Similarity Theory, in a replacement scenario, presumably the negative attitudes would shift accordingly based on genetic similarity. If the French, for example, were to be replaced by the Germans, shouldn’t the French still have less negative feelings towards Germans than to, say, blacks, because the Germans are much more genetically similar than blacks are?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Mexicans have more ‘Native’ ancestry than European, on average. The ruling class is largely Spaniard.

      presumably the negative attitudes would shift accordingly based on genetic similarity.

      When a representative sample of white Americans (n=415, 212 women, median age 48.5) read a newspaper that showed they would be replaced in 25 years by ‘Hispanics’, they thought negatively of all minority groups.

      shouldn’t the French still have less negative feelings towards Germans than to, say, blacks, because the Germans are much more genetically similar than blacks are?

      Yea, but these people are replacing them; gene frequencies are substantially different between both populations due to recombination and other processes.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 230,543 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at RaceRealist88@gmail.com
%d bloggers like this: