Inductivist

In the latest issue of American Sociological Review--the flagship journal of U.S. sociology--Andres Villareal finds that even after a number of factors are taken into account (i.e., gender, age, indigeneity, educational level, region, and rurality) darker skinned Mexicans--in Mexico--are poorer than their paler counterparts. The poverty gap is roughly as large as the American black-white difference. Even though the main ethnic division in Mexico is between indigenous people and mestizos, and skin tone variation among mestizos is not socially emphasized, Villareal concludes that the results are strong evidence for intense discrimination based on color. 

Keep in mind that this research has appeared in the best quantitative sociology journal in the United States; perhaps in the world. The author is interested in discrimination, but treats skin tone variation as his measure of discrimination. Why not measure discrimination directly? At least ask respondents concerning perceived instances of mistreatment. Is that too difficult to ask about? Why doesn't he save himself a lot of work, skip the data collection and analysis, and simply write a speculative paper asserting discrimination?

The relationship between skin tone and poverty could be explained in many different ways. If I claimed that the link is explained by genes associated both with economic success and skin color, my assertion would be just as plausible as his. But it goes without saying that he wouldn't admit (and doesn't mention in the paper) that a genetic explanation is possible since it is morally out of bounds. This trick of not measuring what you are studying and ruling out other explanations as unacceptable has been used in a thousand similar studies. Instead of relying on data, a whole discipline is based on moralistic faith. If we're going to defund NPR, let's do the same to sociology.     

I know some whites are angry about Robert Rodriquez' Mexocentric movie Machete, and it is true that the message is the worst kind of submental propaganda, but how can anyone take seriously a political philosophy inserted into a Mexploitation film?  I mean, who is going to care about "revolucion" when everyone is going to the movie to see boobs and  blood?  Does any non-retarded person actually believe that U.S. Senators pick off border crossers with deer rifles just for fun? The only thing that saves the odd coupling is that the politics is as moronic as the action.   

According to Gallup data, more than half--56 percent--of Mexicans say they have gangs where they live. It's an ever-present aspect of Mexican life, and Mexican immigrants have brought the tradition with them to the United States. The number of Hispanic street and prison gang members in this country might total 500,000. Territorial competition is a common way for young males to show everyone they are men, not boys. In his own mind, a gang member thinks he is protecting the neighborhood from outsiders, protecting the ladies from those who would do them harm, and defending his honor through violence when another gang does something offensive. To a subset of Mexicans, this is a noble lifestyle lived by real men who take nothing from no one, but the truth is that it is a barbarism not tolerated in a civilized society. The country needs to select its immigrants more carefully.  


UPDATE: By the way, one of the main reasons that teenage boys form gangs in the first place is to defend themselves against existing gangs. The Bloods, for example, organized to protect themselves against Crips. Numerous gangs in the Hispanic community are sociological evidence that their neighborhoods are dangerous (not that they're safe as some have recently argued). You don't see white gangs because white neighborhoods are generally safe.  

Mexicans have the worst values in the world: The World Values Survey asked people in all regions of the world in the early 90s if the following are ever justified: falsely claiming government benefits; avoiding transportation fare; buying stolen goods; cheating on taxes; stealing a car for a joyride; keeping lost money; lying in one's interest; being unfaithful; and accepting bribes. I averaged the ranks for each of the 40 countries, and zeroed in on the worst five:


Worst values ranking:
1. Mexico
2. Finland
3. France
4. West Germany
5. Belgium

Czechoslovakia is (was) about as bad as Mexico, but they were not asked several of the questions so they were left out. The remaining four were not even as close to being as accepting of bad behavior as Mexicans were. I'm sure that some respondents were creative and thought up ways when these things could be justified, but bleh--I still think the questions capture moral zeal or the lack of it.

But the neocons instruct us that Mexican immigration revitalizes America's decaying values. They will help us get our family lives back together. The wisdom of these guys is indeed breathtaking.

GSS data cast doubt on the idea that immigrants will shift our values right: Will Mexican immigrants bring a more Catholic tinge to politics? General Social Survey respondents were asked if they approved of abortions for any reason. Below is the percent difference between groups:


Percent difference in approving of abortion for any reason

Mexican Immigrant--All Americans, -17.2%
American-born of Mexican ancestry--Total American-born (ages 26+), -10.1%
American-born of Mexican ancestry--Total American-born (<25), -2.9%

Indeed, Mexicans immigrate with views less favorable to abortion than the average American, but in subsequent generations and among younger Mexican Americans, the gap closes. From these data, America shapes the moral values of immigrant families more than the reverse. These data also say poppycock to neocons who argue that Latinos will move the country in a traditional direction.