Posted by John S Bolton on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:03 | #

Lingxin Hao at JHU, has a paper on ‘wealth of immigrants’ by national and continental origins on the internet.

Posted by John S Bolton on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:25 | #

Search for lingxin hao ‘wealth of immigrant’, find the paper with the tables of data, and find the non-hispanic black immigrant category. there is also one for dominicans.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:02 | #

During the 1960’s there was rumoured to have been a Home Office sponsored IQ test of first generation West Indian immigrants to Britain.  The result was said to be a mean test score of 88.

Billions have been spent on educational remedialism to absolutely no avail (well, not quite - the initial audit of the Excellence in Cities pilot found a very small but measurable results gain for white females).

Black politicians often endeavour to address the academic failings of their male young.  But they never mention the heritability of intelligence.  Indeed, they focus on the treacherous attractions of “street culture”.  Occasionally, there are egregious official attempts to portray black females as more successful than whites. 

The system itself is so geared to reward everyone - none shall fail - that even PeeCee universities are having to admit that quality is indistinguishable from mediocrity.

Posted by dan dare on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:48 | #

It’s difficult to see why expectations should have been so elevated for West Indian immigrants into the US, when their landsmen who emigrated to the Uk have performed so poorly on almost every societal measure.

The Afro-Caribbean population of the UK does not even have the excuse that they have been required to assimilate into an existing African-British group, since no such group existed.

Posted by John Ray on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:33 | #

Yes.  I agree with most of the above.  Motivation helps and coming from an impoverished culture is certainly good for motivation.  I have several studies in the literature showing that achievement motivation is high in poor countries.  e.g. Here:

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/manila.html

but that advantage vanishes once assimilation takes place.  It’s really an open-and-shut case from a serious academic viewpoint

Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:46 | #

Mr. Barret:

> but that advantage vanishes once assimilation takes place. (—The Moron)

That is not what Amy Chau’s research found in <u>World on Fire : How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability</u>

Here is the jacket liner.

Unfortunately, Chau doesn’t examine the West Indians in great detail. But the lesson is clear, many ethnic minorities retain traits and characteristics bred over centuries and use them to their advantage in the societes they’ve been transplanted, the most obvious case being Jews but others examined are Indians and Chinese.

As I read the book I thought about the introduction of cats to New Zealand. Many may know that flightless birds evolved in NZ over the centuries, so when the cats were introduced the birds were defenseless.

The book also punctures the diversity myth, and illustrates that societies whose wealth is dominated by ethnic minorities are very unstable and prone to much disorder.

BTW, Amy Chau is a Chinese-American married to a Jew, and the writer seems to be a lefty but the underlying research is sound.

PS: Just noticed Steve Sailer has a review of this book.

It also appears Sailer was somehow stiffed by Amazon.com during his “panhandling” drive.

Posted by Steve Sailer on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 06:48 | #

There are important differences between West Indies isles. Barbados is a pretty decent place with a much higher average income than, say, Jamaica. Barbadians are well known throughout the West Indies for being well educated and rather English in demeanour.

Posted by Stuka on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:35 | #

The IQs of non-white settler populations in the West are irrelevant. If the mean IQ of Afro-Caribbean immigrants was found to be 130, would that make these people more welcome among us? African, Asian, Arab, Subcon…these people are alien and their presence in the West is illegitimate. Let’s not get bogged down in silly debates about IQ.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:39 | #

It isn’t irrelevant, just nowhere near central.  IQ is icing, not cake.

Posted by Matra on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:54 | #

Barbados is a pretty decent place with a much higher average income than, say, Jamaica. Barbadians are well known throughout the West Indies for being well educated and rather English in demeanour.

I used to work with people from both islands and I agree with that statement. Indeed, one Barbadian in particular made it clear to me what she thought about Jamaicans but if a white person said similar things they’d have been in considerable trouble. She even thought Canadians were lacking in what she termed ‘proper British’ manners - too vulgar and Americanised in her view.

A number of years ago when the Toronto police force was ordered to stop collecting racial crime data the problem seemed to be almost exclusively with Jamaicans. I recall some people from other parts of the Caribbean being annoyed at being lumped in with Jamaicans.

Posted by Will Barett on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:03 | #

John Bolton: Thanks for the info, I looked at the Hao paper http://www.soc.jhu.edu/people/Hao/B5all.pdf but I only saw Dominican information, nothing for the West Indies.  I did find a reference to the book “Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American
Realities” by Mary Waters that I plan on taking a look at.  Perhaps when Hao’s paper becomes a book there will be more information.

As for IQ and assimilability.  I agree that IQ and good behavior should not be the sole behavior for accepting an immigrant.  However, it certainly should be a consideration.

Besides, the point of trying to dispel the West Indian myth, isn’t to restrict West Indian immigration.  It is rather to argue that genetics rather than just culture is major factor for social pathologies among African Americans.

As for World on Fire, almost all the examples involved just two ethnic groups (whites and blacks in Zimbabwe/South Africa, Jews and Blacks in the US, Jews in Germany, Chinese in Malaysia, Asians and blacks etc in the US etc.)  What seems to be happening with non-white immigrant groups in the US is they assimilate into a larger pan-ethnic identity.  Not to the point of the Rainbow coalition, but Koreans, Japanese and other Asian groups that would hate eachother in the mother country wound up joining the same ethnic lobbies.  The same with Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Guatemalans and other Hispanic groups.  So if there was any advantageous culture trait among some of ethnic group, it often gets lost.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:43 | #

> So if there was any advantageous culture trait among some of ethnic group, it often gets lost.

Did you read the same book?

Posted by Will Barett on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:47 | #

My point about small minority groups assimilating into larger ones isn’t from World on Fire. 

What I meant to say, and looking back, I did not articulate well, was that unlike Chau, I think the reason why Jews, Chinese etc. succeed in whatever country they are in is IQ (recall, that Chau claims that race and ethncity are social constructs.) so that a changing culture doesn’t mean that a group will no longer be Market Dominant.

Many asians are now abandoning the thrift, work ethic etc. of their parents, but they are still successful in the US because they are intelligent.  While I think there are positive cultural aspects of West Indian culture that helps them succeed somewhat, they are disapearing b/c they are assimilating in the black hip hop lifestyle.  The fact that their average IQ is less than that of the average African American, means that I find it very unlikely for them to continue to be a prosperous minority group like Jews, Asians, Indians etc.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:04 | #

> (recall, that Chau claims that race and ethncity are social constructs.)

Yes, a glaring flaw, and if she would’ve admitted the reality of race her argument would have been strengthened.

> Many asians are now abandoning the thrift, work ethic etc. of their parents, but they are still successful in the US because they are intelligent.

I agree with your observation.

I have read in some Jewish publications the concern they have with outbreeding with the Gentile - or other groups.

In response other Jews argue this is not a problem, for there is a counter trend too. They say a group of even more racially conscious inbreeders are developing, and those lost are offset by a more disciplined pool of racially conscious Jews.

Now, can we suppose, those Jews that outbreed are less intelligent? Or is it just self-discipline and environment that keeps a outbreeding in check? Well, this is just speculation, so if my idea is laughable, please pardon me.

BTW: Will or JW can either of you suggest a good introductory work by Salter. I’ve never read him. Or is Rushton a better place to start?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 05:16 | #

The IQs of non-white settler populations in the West are irrelevant.  (—Stuka)

Exactly.  Otherwise we all ought to be loudly clamoring for our own extinction, to be replaced by millions upon millions of Chinamen since they have higher IQs.  What kind of strange person would want such a thing? 

What’s happening is the other side has maneuvered us into what is, in reality, a last-ditch defensive position of imagining we’re obliged—on pain of forcible race-replacement—to prove exactly why, to the other side’s satisfaction, we shouldn’t be obliged to suffer race-replacement.  So here we are, laying out all the conditions under which we’d sort of grit our teeth and hold our noses and bear it, and all the conditions under which we think we shouldn’t have to undergo it.  Doesn’t anyone see how insane that is?  We don’t have to undergo any of it, not a bit, or prove to anyone the reasons why.  The other side can go shove it and that includes all the Chinamen and Subcons who are over here brazenly trying to fob that crap off on us! 

Is what’s being done to us being done to China?  India?  Pakistan?  Mexico?  The Sub-Sahara?  Israel?  Are any of these others being told that unless they can furnish convincing proof why they shouldn’t have to undergo race-replacement it’s going to be forced on them?  NOT ON YOUR LIFE they’re not!  So, WHY IN THE FRICKING HELL ARE FALLING FOR THAT? 

The issue isn’t how smart the different races are that are being bought in to replace white people.  I for one, at any rate, don’t see it that way.  The issue is holding onto our race.  It’s easy for all these Subcons and Chinamen to make fun of those of us who question what’s going on—their races aren’t threatened whatsoever!  If they were, you’d see the howls go up! 

This is no game, but is deadly serious:  any one or more of our white-Euro sub-races can literally go out of existence.  They all can!  I frankly couldn’t give a good god damn how smart the Chinese are or any other race is—I don’t goddamn want them replacing my race, pal!

<u>A.C. Kleinheider</u> wrote,
 
“Immigration is an important issue to me. I am very close to ‘single issue’ on it. You could be a flaming Marxist but if I think you’re gonna shut down the border and deport people, I’m down with the revolution.” 

This is just about exactly my view at the point where we are now, with what I see as deliberate race-replacement without any foreseeable limit.  As far as I’m concerned I’m allies with anyone who’ll help the side of sanity rectify the situation and, beyond just that, undo the damage already done till the status quo ante be restored.

(By the way, if my race “has to go,” according to all these browns, yellows, and white extended phenotypes, then every goddamn other race on the planet is going to have to go too, I can say that much!  Sauce for the goose?  OK, fine.  Sauce for the gander, then!  Hey, two can play that game!)

Posted by Stuka on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 05:35 | #

Well said, as usual. Agreed.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:17 | #

(<u>Here</u>‘s where Kleinheider wrote that, by the way.)

Posted by friedrich braun on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:16 | #

“As for IQ and assimilability.  I agree that IQ and good behavior should not be the sole behavior for accepting an immigrant.  However, it certainly should be a consideration.”

You start with the proposition that accepting non-White immigrants is a given or desirable, as long as they have a high enough IQ and show good behaviour. WNs, and generally speaking those who wish to preserve (or regain) the racial homogeneity of their respective nations, don’t care about the IQs and behaviour of racial aliens, we simply don’t want them in our nations.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:48 | #

“You start with the proposition that accepting non-White immigrants is a given or desirable,”  (—Friedrich Braun)

Friedrich Braun’s got the problem stated exactly right.  Lots of even those who question the whole goddamn thing are starting from the position that, “Hey guys, they’ve got us over a barrel—we’re going to have to accept to be race-replaced, there’s no alternative—so we’d better get busy telling them which races we’d rather be replaced by and why, and if we are diligent enough in our genetics research and provide them with logical-enough explanations we may convince them, if we’re nice about it and don’t act mean or shout too much, to let us get race-replaced by high-IQ Han Chinese and members of the Hindu Brahmin caste rather than what they really had in mind for us, getting race-replaced by low-IQ Sub-Saharans and Mexican Indians from Chiapas State.  Hey, wouldn’t we rather our grandchildren, and all our posterity thereafter, be Chinamen rather than Somali Bantus?  So, let’s not upset them too much and they might let us get race-replaced with a Chinese-Bantu proportion something like 60/40 instead of 95/5—OK?  And all you shouters and malcontents like that Fred Scrooby character, I wish you’d all just shut it because this is serious—they’re offering us the opportunity to pick the proportions of the races that are to replace us, so STOP RUINING IT PLEASE, SCROOBY!”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:10 | #

Typo:  Make that, of course,

“with a Chinese-Bantu proportion something like 60/40 instead of 5/95 [for the population that’s going to be brought in to race-replace whites]”

—Hey, who in his right mind wouldn’t accept an offer like that in a microsecond???  So, let’s all just shut up and count our blessings, and be thankful the other side’s being so nice to us!  They’re bending over backwards to give us a better deal here, if we’d just open our eyes and realize that!  Guys like this Scrooby character are gonna screw things up for everybody!

Posted by dlg on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:35 | #

Geoff Beck wrote: “Now, can we suppose, those Jews that outbreed are less intelligent?”

An interesting question. I think the answer, overall, is ‘No’ and that the opposite is true. In my experience, Jews who marry and have children with non-Jews, such as my father, one half of Will Barrett’s parentage, and Fred Scrooby’s (and also Steve Sailer’s, I believe), tend to be very intelligent. And the more extremely religious Jews, who would never dream of marrying a Gentile, tend to be less intelligent.

Posted by friedrich braun on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:00 | #

“An interesting question. I think the answer, overall, is ‘No’ and that the opposite is true. In my experience, Jews who marry and have children with non-Jews, such as my father, one half of Will Barrett’s parentage, and Fred Scrooby’s (and also Steve Sailer’s, I believe), tend to be very intelligent. And the more extremely religious Jews, who would never dream of marrying a Gentile, tend to be less intelligent.”

Jewish interrmariage on a significant scale is a modern phenomena limited by and large to the US. Ashkenazi Jews, as a heavily endogamous and selected group, shunned miscegenation with the Goyim. Orthodox Jews, and other Jews protective of their identity, view intermarriage is a grave danger to the Jewish sense of peoplehood.

Posted by friedrich braun on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:02 | #

“And the more extremely religious Jews, who would never dream of marrying a Gentile, tend to be less intelligent.”

Of course this is just baseless rhetoric without any evidence (besides a few anecdotal vignettes).

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:01 | #

I don’t see the need to downplay American Jewry’s intermarriage rate (on the other hand doubt has been cast on some figures on offer, I think rightly).

There’s every reason to believe that many Jews have started believing their own press.

There’s also every reason to believe that many American Jews see intermarriage as a threat and that the general trend is tending away from intermarriage.

There’s also every reason to suspect skullduggery from Jews in all matters ethnic, and thus to take the talk on intermarriage with a grain of salt.

Posted by Will Barett on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:40 | #

Many people here seem to be enthralled by F. Salter’s On Genetic interests, and I agree it is a good book.  Salter’s point is largely derived from the concept of carrying capacity.  Salter argues, and I’m quoting from his article in Population and Environment

If the immigrants contribute to the economy in ways that the native population cannot, the carrying capacity is raised. If they are a drain on resources or even of average productivity, they lower that capacity by taking the place of potential native born.

Getting back to the original topic, let’s look at West Indians.  The people of Barbados, Jamaica, and Haiti are all very genetically similar, yet Barbados and Jamaica are reasonably livable countries while Haiti is one of the most dysfunctional countries.  To the best of my knowledge, the geography and climate are the same as well.  Barbados’ and Jamaica’s chief source of income is tourism, and I’m sure Haiti’s could be were it not such a hell hole.  What is the major difference?  My guess would be that Barbados and Jamaica has a sizable white and Asian minority that helps salvage the economy and raise the carrying capacity.  Is this white and asian minority bad for Barbados?  Is the utter lack of whites or other ethnic groups good for Haiti? 
Admittedly even NE Asian’s IQ’s are not that appreciably better than whites, but for the sake of argument, let’s say there is a race of 200 IQ people who are not genetically similar to whites.  Do we not want to let at least some of them in? I think that the benefit to the carrying capacity and genetic interests in the long run.

Posted by friedrich braun on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:47 | #

A good site on Jewish genetics:

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:21 | #

Is this white and asian minority bad for Barbados?  Is the utter lack of whites or other ethnic groups good for Haiti?

I generally refrain from speculating as to what is in another ethne’s best interests.  Who would believe a WN’s take on what’s in a black Haitian’s best interests anyways?

let’s say there is a race of 200 IQ people who are not genetically similar to whites.  Do we not want to let at least some of them in? I think that the benefit to the carrying capacity and genetic interests in the long run.

No, I don’t.  I’m not a universalist totalitarian so I recognize the right of nations to choose multiracialism, and even recognize the possibility that it is the superior way of life.

I also recognize the distinct possibility that nations based on EGI are inherently superior; that’s what I want for myself and my posterity.

As for the details, they’ve all been hashed out several times before, the threads are in the archive.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:26 | #

...for the sake of argument, let’s say there is a race of 200 IQ people who are not genetically similar to whites.  Do we not want to let at least some of them in?

No.  What can they produce here that they can’t produce somewhere else?

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:31 | #

Who would believe a WN’s take on what’s in a black Haitian’s best interests anyways?

Good point.  White liberals are guilty of this all the time.  If you asked the average black, do you think he would prefer (1) that his government spend thousands of dollars trying to raise his IQ or (2) that the government give him those dollars?

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:42 | #

Many people here seem to be enthralled by F. Salter’s On Genetic interests, and I agree it is a good book.

I’ve never read it.  The beauty of EGI is that it needs no book to explain it.  A paragraph is enough.

Posted by Will Barett on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:16 | #

That paragraph obviously isn’t enough for you.  Genetic Interests and immigration policy rest on the fact that there is a carrying capacity.  If there were unlimited resources and space, then the only problem that could arise genetically in a multiracial society would be miscegenation, which tends not to be widespread for different reasons. 

So, if an immigrant raises the carrying capacity beyond the resources he uses, then he is a net gain to the native’s genetic interests.

I’m not saying that in practice, this means the west must accept 5 million Japanese immigrants because I don’t think their production is that much higher, and most of the good we can get from them we can get through trade rather than migration.  However, even if we are to base our immigration policy solely on genetic interests (which I don’t think we should), then IQ should be a factor, and there would be some (admittedly not many) cases where non whites would be admitted into white societies.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:28 | #

But how could high-IQ Japanese immigrants raise our carrying capacity?  I don’t think it’s possible, even in theory.

Posted by Will Barett on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:44 | #

Let’s look at practice with blacks and whites.  In Zimbabwe, the blacks have proven rather imcompotent in running their own farms, however the white minority has done a good job.  Hence having whites run the farms raises the carrying capacity for blacks.  If there are no whites, as it looks like there will be rather soon, then I’m sure the carrying capacity will go down.  It already has gone down b/c taking the white owned farms and giving them to blacks has already caused mass starvating, lowering the carrying capacity.

Now, let’s say a Japanese immigrant comes to America and runs a powerplant that is twice as efficient as ones run by whites.  This I’m sure will save more resources than he, and probably thousands of Japanese would use up and raises the carrying capacity for everyone. 

I’m sure if we had my hypothetical race of 200 IQ people living here, they would come up with many carry capacity raising ideas and activities.

Posted by friedrich braun on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:46 | #

“even if we are to base our immigration policy solely on genetic interests (which I don’t think we should)”

And why not?

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:03 | #

So, if an immigrant raises the carrying capacity beyond the resources he uses, then he is a net gain to the native’s genetic interests.

Obviously you’re contradicting yourself here because miscegenation is a blow to EGI, and since the trend is toward increasing miscegenation I find your dismissal of it unpersuasive.

In the real world it becomes all but impossible to manage things based on your individual impact on carrying capacity, etc.  Any slim possible gains would be offset by the danger presented by an alien EGI.

Maybe this is just as true regardless of the amount of improvement to carrying capacity; the potential for alien manipulation and deception might even be proportional to the potential increase in carrying capacity (who’s to say whether the increase in carrying capacity is “fairly” distributed, rather than being employed vs. the native EGI?).

For a more than competent set of peoples like whites*, the inherent risks outweigh the debatable rewards.

*since when is mean IQ the end all and be all?  I say the vaunted 3 point east Asian advantage in mean IQ hasn’t resulted in any real world advantage.  I say precedent is as important.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:10 | #

blacks have proven rather imcompotent in running their own farms, however the white minority has done a good job.  Hence having whites run the farms raises the carrying capacity for blacks.

The blacks are simply lucky they’re dealing with a relatively benevolent alien people who would be opposed, not supported, by their coethnics around the world if they ever chose to get up to any skullduggery.

In other words, one example doesn’t make a rule.

Now, let’s say a Japanese immigrant comes to America and runs a powerplant that is twice as efficient as ones run by whites.

Okay, but one hypothetical example does not a rule make.  Incidentally, it would behoove the natives to barter for the technology instead of importing the technologist.  If he refuses to trade for it, his motives tend to clarify.

I’m sure if we had my hypothetical race of 200 IQ people living here, they would come up with many carry capacity raising ideas and activities.

...and any hardheaded natives would spend their lives crossing their fingers about what those big-brains are up to.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:15 | #

Mr. Barett, I’m having a hard time envisioning any real-world situations where aliens can increase our EGI, other than a few extremely unlikely exceptions that would just prove the rule.

We’re smart enough to adopt any technology humans can invent, without needing to import the inventor (and other than tech I’m drawing a blank here, since I’m setting the bar higher than you are due to the “skullduggery factor”).  Blacks may not be, but that’s their problem not ours.

Posted by Freddy on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 02:37 | #

>The people of Barbados, Jamaica, and Haiti are all very genetically similar<

Not true - Bardadians have much more white ancestry on average than Jamaicans & Haitians have.

Posted by Will Barett on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:27 | #

I explicitly stated, a number of times, that in practice, this does not mean that any western country needs to accept non-white immigrants.

My simple point is that EGI does not make it an apodictically lead to always demanding perfectly homogeneous ethno states.

Now, as to why I don’t believe that EGI should be the sole basis for our immigration policy: I think genetics are important, and race is important as well.  But I think culture can be a very powerful factor, and it is related, but not the same thing as ethnicity.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:51 | #

http://www.arthurhu.com/2002/09/montoya.txt

IQs of over 130 are 7 times more likely to be found in European populations than in East Asian populations.

Posted by WestIndian on Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:30 | #

In one of the books (IQ&Wealth;of Nations) the IQ scores gathered for Barbadians was flawed.

When the IQ test was conducted, the nation’s IQ average was listed as 78, the subjects were a small group of individuals from one of our high schools in the age range of 14 years of age.
Barbadians conduct a group of exams known as the 11+ which dictates which school students are best suited to attend at high school level, the scores are tallied based on their Math and English ability, all somewhat cognitive abilities, often used in IQ tests themselves.

Would it be a coincidence that the author chose a “Bursary” to conduct his studies at?

These Bursary schools are private institutions in which most of the students had obtained low grades in either Math, English or both.
Cognitively speaking it is to be expected that persons who have scored low in these exams would also score low on IQ tests but relatively be financially and socially adapt in order to pay for such schools.
We already know financial and social factors also contribute to the IQ score. 

The few subjects used in the very limited age group gave a very skewed measure of the IQ of a population of 250, 000, especially when we make comparison to the amount and quality of subjects used in estimating the IQ of other parts of the world.

Not only was the data from the experiment then inaccurate and biased, but on the chapters which then discuss racial differences, the author forgets to mention a very important piece of information. That is, though Barbados is a 90% black nation, the participants in the Barbadian IQ tests were non black.

Posted by Carib on Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:01 | #

Many of the persons speaking about Barbados are absolutely clueless to our politics and system. Barbados has never been dependent on our minority population. Jamaica has a larger minority of these types than does Barbados, which might be obvious due to their numbers and land mass being larger, yes their econ is presently below our own.

You will find many of the white Barbadians are not “white” to begin with. In record of our “pure” whites what we call “Ecky Beckies” are usually the purest of white Barbadians that have been here before the influx of white immigrants. This is because “Eky Beckies” interbreed with each other to keep their blood lines pure, however you will find that these persons are poorer than the average poor black Barbadian, and it is not due to repression by any means, but the refusal to fully assimilate into society.
Barbados is a largely black run country, this is not to deny that white businesses are not still flourishing, especially in the hotel industry with some of our larger chains being owned by recent white immigrants, many of these immigrants come to Barbados with already established expertise and capital from countries that have higher economies, such as the U.S and Europe, this pattern is actually seen with non whites as well , blacks included who after living in the United States and other countries with higher exchange rates move to Barbados with capital and immediately dominate certain areas of business. This of course does not mean that the average Barbadian who does not have this advantage is incapable of doing the same, but likely at a slower pace as he can only use income based on his own exchange rates.

Asians, of Middle Eastern and East Asian decent also do not hold any influential status on Barbadian society. This is because much of our Middle Eastern population is of Lebanese, Morrocan etc. descent and are largely Muslim. This means businesses erected by this minority are largely family based and do not largely contribute back to Barbados’ economy as they are supportive of their own kind within their religion.

East Asian populations have only now began to increase, this is because as Barbados is quickly expanding being listed as the number one developing country in the world, more man power is needed. Barbadians have now began outsourcing by off shore means, first looking to other Caribbean islands because they are supportive of others within our vicinity (Caricom) and subsidizing the remains with Chinese labor.
Most of these Chinese are not locals, but are invited on work permits and expected to leave when the project is done, however some do become adapt to Barbadian life, intermarry, have children and stay. Many family owned Chinese restaurants have sprung up throughout our business areas as a result, but the Chinese still do not hold any influential seat on a social or economical basis.

Asians of Indian descent often immigrate from Guyana, our South American neighbors. These men and women are usually hard working, but often overstay visitors VISAs and are constantly being deported at the expense of Barbadian tax payers. As is the situation with Mexico and the U.S some businesses underhandedly employ the Guyanese as they work longer hours for less money. As Barbados stands it has one of the highest exchange rates in the Caribbean chain, it is for this reason that our minority is increasing, but this is not to say that the Barbadian society was formed by these minority numbers or depends on them.

This is a familiar pattern that has been repeated throughout time with any rising power within the world. It will attract immigrants regardless and thus the minority population will begin to increase. What you apply to white countries however is the same, do not let your racial bias contribute to the overshadowing of your principles. You have admitted that white countries were founded by white persons and the minority population being there does not mean that they were the main contributors of a well developed society. This formula also applies to Barbados, because Barbados is a largely black country, please do not assume that you are suddenly allowed to trail from your initial standpoint on minorities within a majority white society and claim that the minorities are the ones responsible for Barbadian success. This is incorrect. You can only realize this upon actually living in the country.

Also, just another note I wanted to clear up, the notion that Barbadians are more mixed with “white” as Jamaicans is not correct. Barbadians are not a highly mixed people, and have always self segregated. Though it is a majority black society only a small number of Barbadian blacks intermarry with non blacks or non Barbadians, due to cultural differences.