Natality data / rates of cross-racial breeding

Lenny asked for statistics on interbreeding (as opposed to just intermarriage/dating). Based on my analysis of the 2005 Natality Detail File [1]:

Of 2280259 children born to Non-Hispanic White women, the racial breakdown of fathers is roughly:
89.23% Non-Hispanic White
5.46% Hispanic
3.18% Non-Hispanic Black
2.13% Non-Hispanic Other Races

Of approximately 2217946 children fathered by Non-Hispanic White men, the racial breakdown of mothers is around:
92.76% Non-Hispanic White
4.12% Hispanic
0.96% Non-Hispanic Black
2.17% Non-Hispanic Other Races

These numbers are not inconsistent with the facts in my previous post: lower-quality women, who are more likely to engage in miscegenation, also unfortunately account for a disproportionate share of births [2].

For white mothers with Bachelor's degrees or above, the father is white in 94+% of cases. For married white mothers, the father is white 93% of the time. The educational breakdown of white mothers of white children vs. white mothers of mulatto children:

Less than HS: 9.1% vs. 19%
HS grad. or GED: 23.5% vs. 35.5%
Some college: 21.1% vs. 24.6%
Associate degree: 9.6% vs. 7.2%
Bachelor's degree or above: 36.3% vs. 13.1%

Education levels of white women who breed with Hispanics are similar to those of white women who mate with blacks.

So, on a positive note, while interbreeding will contribute to a reduction in the number of whites in America, it may slow the dysgenic decline of the whites who remain.


[1] "The public-use Natality Detail Files include all births occurring within the United States. Births occurring to United States citizens outside the United States are not part of these files. Data are obtained from certificates filed for births occurring in each state."

2005 is the most recent year for which this data is available. Race of father is "unknown or unstated" for about 9.6% of births to white mothers (the fraction is larger for most other groups). In the overwhelming majority of cases, when the race of the father is unknown or unstated, the mother is unmarried. My estimates assume the racial breakdown of fathers in these cases follows that for unmarried mothers of a given race where race of father is reported. Since about 10% of white mothers where the race of the father is not reported are married, and because I have ignored the (small number of) mothers with race unknown or unstated, the numbers I post above probably slightly overstate rates of interbreeding for white women and understate numbers for white men.

[2] E.g.:
In a 1988 study, Retherford and Sewell examined the association between the measured intelligence and fertility of over 9,000 high school graduates in Wisconsin in 1957, and confirmed the inverse relationship between IQ and fertility for both sexes, but much more so for females.[9]

In a 1999 study Richard Lynn examined the relationship between the intelligence of adults aged 40 and above and their numbers of children and their siblings. Data were collected from the 1994 National Opinion Research Center survey among a representative sample of 2992 English-speaking individuals aged 18 years. Findings revealed that weak negative correlations of -0.05 and -0.09, respectively were found. Further analysis showed that the negative correlation was present only in females.
Also likely contributing to the lower interbreeding rate by white men: the U.S. Hispanic population contains significantly fewer females than males.
# Sex Ratio (Males per 100 Females) in 2000
* Latino Foreign-Born (113)/Native-Born (100)
* Mex. Foreign-Born (126)/Native-Born (102)
* U.S. Population (96)
* U.S. Non-Latino White (96)

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

History is Biography.

Why is it that those lesser cousins of men well-reverberated in our words and books, whom they may resemble by fact of blood, always make their flitting illusion of fidelity? Oh how disappointing these children of men are whom flaunt the inheritance of their namesakes. And so on and on, these children pain to create illusions elaborate. And from where do they begin? To steal the strong father's name and to call it a custom of succession. Oh and how blissful it had been before the family name, how much disappointment our eyes would have been relieved of. But how they've have gone on to firmly web for all eyes new notions, new terms, fingers will forever turn on back to on a dusted page lonesome: the tribe, the city, the church, the nation, the "race"?

History is Biography.

Lenny said...

Thanks for this; Fascinating!

In sum, based on these numbers--
1) There were about 4.1 million white parents [of newborns] in 2005.
2) They produced ~2.45 million children.
3) *At least* 2.05 million (84%) of the children they produced were white. (The true figure will include whatever share of the "white Hispanics" who paired with white-non-Hispanics are genuinely white).
4) Assuming a 1.9 TFR for white-parents (regardless of race of partner); this means the effective-TFR for whites who are continuing their genetic legacy is at least 1.60 (1.9*.84). That's higher than much of Europe's TFR even without consideration to outbreeding among Europeans; but alas is still quite low.

[If anyone cares to check my math it would be appreciated.]

As far as culpability, the raw numbers women do suggest that women are "more to blame". But this is deceptive. As you noted, it is the low-quality white women outbreeding. And none of, e.g., the black+white pairings are ever raised white anyway; the products of black+white unions are remolved from the whiteAmerican genepool forever. But with the male miscegenators, their relatively higher status may result in more assimilation of alien blood despite lower rates of fathering mixed-race babies.

This (assimilation of the offspring) is the x-factor that is sort-of difficult to conjecture about.

Lenny said...

Regarding the much-vaunted WhiteMale-OrientalFemale pairings: It looks like they really don't produce as many children as one might think. So it's more of a "dating" thing than a "settle down" thing.

Even if the great majority of the WhiteMale+"Other" category involves Oriental women, that's still less than half the WhiteMale+HispanicFemale share. Still disproportionate, but not as bad as I thought. (There are ~5 times as many Hispanics as Orientals in the USA, but only ~2.5(?) times as many Hispanic-White pairings as Oriental-White).

On the "assimilation" issue again. An example is Olympic Swimmer Natalie Coughlin. No one would think she's anything but white on first glance. She's actually quarter-Filipino. Her Eurasian parent married-in to the white genepool with no qualms. For various reasons sublimation of Eurasians into the white genepool is easier than with any other product of miscegenation. What I mean is, "an intermarriage is not an intermarriage is not an itnermarriage". (Needless to say, if enough of those genes get assimilated in, the whiteAmerican population will slowly come to resemble that of Central-Asia...)

Anonymous said...

History is Biography.

n/a said...

'Even if the great majority of the WhiteMale+"Other" category involves Oriental women'

It appears to be around 2/3 Asian/P.I. / 1/3 American Indian.

'So it's more of a "dating" thing than a "settle down" thing.'

Adjusting for relative numbers in the population, White male / Asian female is by far the most common of possible White-Asian and White-Black pairings. (On the same basis, White female / Asian male marriages are more common than White female / black male.) Both the low Asian population and low birth rates by Asian women probably play a role in the relatively small number of births that result from these pairings.

I agree that the key is avoiding gene flow into the white population. In terms of numbers, a ten percent increase in the white birth rate could wipe out losses due to miscegenation (though whites' relative share of the population would continue to decline). In the long term it seems clear that geographical separation is necessary to ensure the continued existence of whites.

TGGP said...

I've got a post relevant to note [2].

Anonymous said...

I'm just wondering about something. What is the tfr of the mixed children? Do they have above replacement level fertility?

I suppose Hispanics do because of their fluid identity and Asians have low birth rates to begin with, I'm more interested in the offspring of black-white parings since IQ is very negatively correlated to birthrates among self identified black women and mulatto girls would on average have higher IQs.

Also affirmative action basically raises the mixed race child's status and prolonging his total years in education artificially ironically perhaps reducing their birthrate.

n/a said...

Interesting question. I don't know off the top of my head. I may try to find some data on this later, but I'm guessing their birth rates are unremarkable (likely intermediate between parental races) -- I suspect I would have heard about it were it otherwise.

Anonymous said...

I did my own investigation of this data and there is information from 2006-2008 as well.

Anonymous said...


# Sex Ratio (Males per 100 Females) in 2000
* Latino Foreign-Born (113)/Native-Born (100)
* Mex. Foreign-Born (126)/Native-Born (102)
* U.S. Population (96)
* U.S. Non-Latino White (96)


I'm coming to the party late, but an overall US non-Latino White population ratio of males to females of 96 is unusual. The oft quoted live birth ratio is around 105.

It is no wonder that female behavior in the US has become so slutty, because after removing homosexuals from the population it suggests that the ratio for heterosexuals is around 95.

I wonder if those numbers have been distorted by the baby boomers and the fact that women usually live longer than men.

Anonymous said...

Above blog is interesting.
I did simple math involving Non Hispanic whites.
In 2217946 children fathered by Non-Hispanic White men, 92.76% born to NH white women shows
2057367 pure NH white children.

Out of 2280259 children born to NH White women, same 2057367(above line) children should have been fathered by NH white.

x % of 2280259 = 2057367 .

Here 'x' is 90.23%, not 89.23%.

3.18% is too high for NH Black to be a father. Since NH White father is 1% points more, NH Black % points should be 1 % point less.
==> 2.18%

Anonymous said...

Your style is unique in comparison to other people I have read
stuff from. Many thanks for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I'll just book mark this blog.



my webpage :: fast weight loss