Racial discrimination in Malaysia

Great Debates
101

Mrs. Map is of Indian Malaysian descent. From what I know, there are basically two groups of India-descended Malaysians: the relatively poor and uneducated which you refer to, who mainly descend from late-19th-C-to-early-20th-C rubber plantation workers, and a group of more middle-income, fairly well-educated families who descend from Indian families who spoke both English and, say, Tamil, and so were brought over by the British to help supervise those plantations, run company stores, etc. There must be a few Indians whose roots in Malaysia predate the 19th C as well, since there have been contacts between the regions since at least the second century AD.

But I believe your general assessment is spot on: the Indian Malaysians tend to have the worst of both worlds: neither the economic advantages of most Chinese Malaysians, nor the affirmative action enjoyed by ethnic Malays.

Oh, and Chief Pedant is either an idiot, or a troll.

102

Acknowledging that there are significant genetic differences between the races is a necessary precondition of a serious debate about how different groups have different outcomes. If you reject the nature half of nature vs nurture each time, no real discussion can be had. This does not mean that genetics is the cause of all differences, but it is clearly the cause of some. If you consistently deny that genetics can be a factor, then it’s like debating the death penalty with someone who does not understand the deterrent theory of law enforcement - the debate can only ever go one way.

Contrariwise I am sure that Chief Pedant acknowledges that environment can sometimes be a factor, for example with first-generation Irish immigrants to the US starting off poorer than the surrounding population. The blindness in this thread is clearly one-sided.

103

Nobody has rejected that genetics could be a factor. The problem is that asserting that it is a factor, the predominate factor, requires proof. In every thread where someone makes this genetics argument, they fail to provide any. It always boils down to assertions of faith and particularly clumsy anecdotes.

True. And many of those differences have been scientifically supported, and readily accepted by the larger scientific community. Why hasn’t the scientific community gotten behind this CP’s view if it is so readily apparent? You could maybe argue that present racial sensitivities in America may make mainstream or government funding for studies involving Black inferiority difficult to obtain, but why has no one proven Jewish or Asian superiority here or anywhere else in the world? Surely Chinese or Japanese scientists would be eager to prove such a thing.

CP, I have a few questions for you that you ducked the last time we talked about this issue. Why are Serbs, Croatians, French, and Argentinians overrepresented in the NBA today? Why are foreign-born players more common today as well?

As for your cites, the first study involves 17 people. Hardly enough to draw broad conclusions. More importantly, even if we accept the findings of the study, I don’t understand how you draw the conclusions you did from this study.

These are runners whose times are similar. That is the professional standard they are presumably judged on. Why are their times the same if their “oxidative enzyme activity, rate of lactate accumulation, and their ability to sustain high-intensity endurance exercise”, are so different? Is their some unknown negative counteracting those positives, or is something else awry?

Your second study says addresses my concerns for me:

More importantly, if the genes dictate that Blacks are genetically predisposed to muscle strength, why are most bodybuilders and strength athletes White? Doesn’t that lead one to believe that non-genetic factors have a greater impact than genetic ones?

104

And what’s up with so many professional baseball players being of Latino descent? Did the Conquistadors have some special homerun genes in their blood or something?

105

True. But nurturist arguments are often equally fuzzy, positing some background “discrimination” rather than specific causes. This thread has been somewhat better than most, in that “traditional family structure” is at least a plausible mechanism for differential achievement between Malays and Chinese. But this is an exception, particularly when you look at debates in the public square. Sotomayor’s ruling in Ricci, and the EEOC’s four-fifths rule (which still stands as of the SCotUS decisions) are both predicated on the idea that unequal outcomes definitely proves unfair discrimination.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. The differences in achievement between different racial groups are well-documented, and widely used by minority activist groups. The differentials in IQ are less publicly discussed, but are again accepted by the vast majority of psychologists - as with global warming, there is a lot more debate, and hostility to the idea, among nonexperts than among experts.

If you’re asking whether there have been specific genes identified that impact intelligence and are differentially expressed among races, the answer is no, BUT we know so little about what genes do what that there is no way we would know right now even if there are such genes. Even after the human genome project we have very little knowledge of what genes do, though projects like the HapMap project will help increase our knowledge of differences in gene expression among populations.

But let me leave you with this thought: height has a clear genetic component, and yet we don’t know what the genetic formula for height is. Given that height is much easier to measure than IQ, I’d wait until we know what the “height genes” are before pointing the the lack of IQ genes.

Finally, I’d like to point out that the standard of proof for physical sciences, in which causation must be shown, is much higher than that for social sciences (in public-discourse terms, at least) in which vague mechanisms and correlations are accepted as evidence.

106

You will not post personal insults in Great Debates and be permitted to continue posting, here.

Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]

107

Without addressing every tedious objection, I have said repeatedly that nurture must be normalized for genetics to remain as the explanation.

I have also said that if specific ethnic groups succeed in the NBA, it is because that population is genetically superior. I note again the Inuit will not be taking their turn. It’s ridiculous to think the only grouping available is all whites and all blacks. The concept to take away is that it is genes and not nurture if nurture is controlled for. It may be a bit much to ask, but a reading of the book Taboo would save me from reiterating pages and pages of arguments here around this and similar points. It’s not that I can’t make them, or agree with Entine completely; it’s simply tedious to write an essay every time for the target audience of two or three people still following this thread…

The “ethnic chinese” group in Malaysia persistently doing well despite nurturing environments deliberately hostile toward their group is an example of where it’s appropriate to conclude that genes are at work. There is certainly a haste to plead nurture for groups that underperform where it can be shown that society is hostile toward them. It follows that overperformance must have an explanation other than nurture if the the overperforming group is on the short end of the nurturing stick.

It remains my observation that the contribution of genetics is rejected outright by many who want to demand that all possible cultural explanations be scientifically disproven before we accept a genetic explanation. This unreasonable standard is not applied to the genetic side of the argument. The default assumption is instead made that the contribution of genes is likely trivial and outcomes are mostly nurture. It is obvious to me by the defensiveness of the posts and the line by line demand for the obvious that a severe bias exists. There is no such thing as absolutely ruling out every possible nurturing variable, for as soon as one is abolished another is held up instead.

As an example of this, let me use the SAT’s. When black underperformance was attributed to black poverty and consequent lack of opportunity, that was considered an acceptable nurturing reason. However when subsets were broken down that showed wealthy black children still underperformed poverty-stricken whites, new cultural reasons were advanced instead of simply accepting the simpler explanation: there is a nature–not a nurture–difference for this skillset. These new explanations* are increasingly far-fetched, in my view, but I admit that my opinion is just that–an opinion. Until the next layer of putative cultural explanations are debunked, the nurture-only advocates will cling to their default notion that nature is not “proven.” And the efforts at finding cultural explanations will completely ignore that, if cultural explanations are the cause of underperformance, then why is there over-performance in other areas within the same cohort group, or overperformance by other groups with exactly similar cultural influences to overcome? How long will the special-case plea of american blacks hold up if blacks in other countries underperfom as well, or if immigrant asians who face similar biases and similar destitute backgrounds succeed more robustly?

And then there is this obvious issue being left alone: various cohorts are provably different in key genetic prevalences conclusively shown to be expressors of phenotypic differences. Why would there not be a default assumption that differences are at least equally genetic? That’s the reason I use the NBA, or sprinting, or similar examples. If it’s hard to admit genes are the predominant factor there, that’s a very nice indicator that whoever holds such a position has a substantial bias against genetic explanations.

We will not be able to hide behind our nurturing arguments for long. As I have also said many times, the genome is being unraveled, and we’ll find out soon enough who is right.

As to the notion that there isn’t some sort of groundswell out there among scientists in general that our genetics are predominant as the reason for our differences, I’d offer an opinion that, among genetecists, that opinion is predominant. Going forward it will be increasingly so. We’ll see a lot of dancing; a lot of gentleness in expressing it; a stuttering approach to find the right way to say it nicely; an avoidance of using the term “race” instead of “elite athletes” when comparing cohorts, and so on. But bit by bit, it will become increasingly acceptable to mention the pivotal role of genetics because it’s true. And the truth finds a way to come out, uncomfortable or not.

*The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test

108

Well, sorta. There are differences of achievement between a number of various societally identified groups. However, jumping from the idea that a culturally identified “race” has a firm genetic structure, makes that point a bit weak. Noting that a culturally identified group has more or less achievement than a different culturally identified group does not get us from that observation to a declaration of genetically “racial” traits without a lot more work that has not been done.

I am not opposed to the concept that intelligence correlates strongly with genetic relationships. Outside of a peer-reviewed paper, I would tend to suggest that it is a self-obvious truth. I have a bit more issue with broad claims of perceived “races” demonstrating achievement based on some implied genetic relationship when the “races” themselves are sufficiently blurry as to make the statements less than precise. Just as the study you linked, recently, exploring the identification of birth location through the examination of DNA actually argues against “race,” (since it only appears to identify pockets of localized populations without providing coherence among larger populations), jumping from “intelligence has a strong genetic component” to “that group is genetically more intelligent or less intelligent” lacks precision or meaning.

109

Frank Fredrecks is also listed on there a lot, and he’s Namibian, which is in southern Africa.

110

The over-representation of various populations speaks to a combination of culture and genes. Genes are prerequisite and drive culture; if the genes aren’t there, no nurture will produce top tier athletes. If the genes are there, there is an iterative loop between the enormous potential from the genetic underpinning and the culture that derives from and is driven by the successes that the genes enable.

Consider that in baseball, the Dominican Republic’s 8 million population easily out-represents baseball-crazy Mexico’s 80 million people (I think the per-capita disparity is on the order of 60-fold). How about Pacific Islanders kicking butt in the NFL? How about the Kalenjin domination of endurance running? Sure; there’s culture there. But the culture is driven by the genetic superiority which enables the culture to have a reason to even exist. And the over-representation is so staggering that it cannot be the entire rest of the world simply has inadequate nurture for distance running.

And where a population is successful, you can be confident genes underpin that success. A population of Chief Pedants would still be losers at basketball no matter how diligently they were nurtured. Among the cohort of all blacks, don’t look for the Nandi to be the next Olympic 100 meter sprinters, and don’t look for the west africans to be the next group of marathoners. Within that broad cohort of “black” the sub-populations with the highest gene prevalence for a particular skillset will be the sub-populations that are over-represented.

111

Well, it’s quite obvious that you didn’t do this before reaching your conclusion about the Malays. Perhaps that’s the reason your insistence on this point fails to leave an impression on your audience. Furthermore, your posts make me doubt you even know what “nurture must be normalized” means in practice. It’s something bandied about in your paragraphs, but not once have you shown an appreciation for the process that goes into doing such a thing.

And for some reason you think you’re saying something profound and controversial by saying genetic traits associat themselves along racial/ethnic lines. No one has denied this, for it is hilariously obvious that this is the case. Which makes it crazy that you feel the need to make clumsy, speculative arguments about the NBA. Whites are more likely to be pale than blacks; east asians are more likely to have epicanthic folds; blacks are more likely to have kinky hair, etc. Okay, so what? These differences in phenotype are not proof that ethnic Chinese are genetically smarter than Malays, no more than your “blacks are superior athletes” theory does.

112

The impression I leave on the audience here is unknown, unless they post a reply. I think I know the SDMB posters well enough to know I am not persuading anyone at all on this particular issue. Changing someone’s mind around this is right up there with changing their religious faith. We have been deeply ingrained to believe that we are all equal, and in fact our (genetically-based :wink: ) altruistic nature drives acceptance of that belief.

I do know what sort of complexities go into absolute proof that nurture is normalized. It could not be done, even in theory, within a single family cohort, much less a population. I leave it to the reader to decide if their brother really was more successful because he was smarter, or if that chance meeting he had with Uncle Al when he was 15 is what propelled him to his engineering job. After all, no one else in the family got to have that vacation with Uncle Al. And anyway, he was first in birth order…and mom loved him better, too…plus he always got the best teachers…

As I said in an earlier post, the donkey nevertheless brays in the back yard, and no machination around the other reasons I only think I am hearing a donkey braying are very dissuasive to my notion that you stole my donkey despite your presentation of factors I have not considered on why it may not actually be my donkey braying, or why I would even consider the donkey’s word against yours.

The OP posits that societal policy favors the Malay over the ethnic Chinese and asks for reasons why the outcome is unaffected. I suspect most readers of the SDMB do not demand an “I think” in front of every general statement made; with nurture v nature arguments it is a reasonably safe strategy of yours to hide behind a demand that every conceivable nurturing influence be formally studied and controlled for before it’s OK to posit a difference based on genes.

Outcomes are sufficient proof for me as I look at the world. When I see the same outcomes for various populations with no reasonable nurturing differences I don’t need to pretend “more study” is needed. I don’t need to pretend that I’m missing some sort of vastly superior but previously unrecognized nurturing advantage that west african blacks have which propels them to overrepresentation and leaves any genetic explanation “clumsy and speculative.” Nor do I have to pretend that there may be differences but oh-by-th-way they are only the skin deep ones.

When I look at a whites-only population, whether it’s a small cohort such as my family, or a large cohort of all US whites, I see that outcome differences within subpopulations are based on genetics to a substantial degree. I see that those born with great athletic ability or an ability to excel at school have outcomes which are distinctly superior to those differently enabled, on average. It’s easier to correct for nurture when the sensitivity of cohort grouping by self-identified color groups does not come in to play.

While I understand your consternation, your quarrel is with mother nature and not me, and as we unravel the genetic code I am confident you will see with whom she sides.

In the interim, if you are dissatisfied with me taking a position that the success of various populations–at a group level–within the larger Malaysian population is a function of average genetic differences over any other single factor, you have my blessing to remind “the audience” (of two, at this point? :wink: ) that that is an opinion of CP, who cannot produce evidence ruling out every possible nurturing overlay. If that consoles you in some way, well and good.

And now let me offer you the last word to make that point. I’m afraid I have a rather busy week ahead and my (genetically-driven) SDMB addiction will need to be set aside a few days.

113

If you presented your opinions as exactly that–as mere opinions–then I’d probably not bother to argue against you. It’s when you try to pass your opinions off as the end-products of scientific reasoning that I feel it necessary to point out the flaws in your approach. Plainly stated, a lot of what you’re saying is BS.

But as if that isn’t enough, when you preemptively slam people who disagree with you as being blinded by PC-ness, really, you’re just begging to be called to the carpet. As often as your postulations about racial genetics pop up on this board (I mean, seriously, you’ve written so much about the NBA on the SDMB that I wouldn’t be surprised if most of your posts in this thread came from copying and pasting from other threads), it’s hard not to get the impression that you are a bit obsessed with the subject.

114

The whole discussion about nurture vs. nature inappropriately dichotomizes a complex subject. The interaction of the environment and the genes is probably more important than either of those two individually. Studies of identical twins raised under similar circumstances frequently shows this. Why would one monozygote go on to develop schizophrenia in his early 20s while the other goes completely asymptomatic? Observations like this frustrate scientists but also intrigues them, because it can reveal the role of things like epigenetics.

Arguring for either nature or nurture obscures the basic premise of biology: the entire organism is an emergent property. We are not our DNA–our DNA is not such much a blueprint as a guidance document. And we are not our environments either, because we have too many examples of people defying the expectations concomitant with their upbringings. We are the product of both–and the weights of each factor are not necessarily predictable. The moment we’re conceived the interaction clock begins and it snowballs at rates that also defy prediction.

I find it funny that sports is often brought up to exemplify the genetic superiority of black athletism, but black Americans are disproportionately obese. In other words, NOT ATHLETIC. If we possessed genes that made us predisposed to running and jumping, then this shouldn’t be the case. Unless, that is, culture is really important. Or perhaps black people have genes that predispose them to obesity as well as athletism, and depending on environmental cues, they can turn out one way or the other.

Another hypothesis, just as reasonable as the others, is that black people are predisposed to obesity and laziness, and that black athletes are raised in such a way as to override their genetic legacy. We actually have more reason to believe this than the converse, since the statistics reveal that many more black Americans are obese compared to their number as professional athletes. A black child has a 70% chance of being obese. What’s his chance of being the next Kobe Bryant? Culture is brought up as the main culprit for black obesity, however. Not genes.
I’m wondering why this is the case.

I think it’s interesting (interesting in an eye-raising, smirk-wearing way) that when talking about impressive skill or talent, black people aren’t granted props for training harder or possessing more determination and self-confidence. No, these things are given secondary consideration to genes–something beyond their control. Something they can’t get “credit” for, as an individual. But the certain bad traits, like obesity, are automatically blamed on culture. If a scientist was looking at the statistics, they would have just as much reason to implicate genes or culture for either of these observations, without doing an experiment first to disprove their hypothesis.

Because of the complexity of biology, I think it’s much safer to seek cultural explanations first before attributing genetic differences to populations. For one thing, culture is obvious. Genes, and how they are interwoven with past and present environmental pressures, are not.

115

…Or, if there is a genetic reason for Black’s over-representation in some sports, maybe it’s because there is more genetic variation in Blacks and they have a larger standard deviation about the “norm”. Maybe the average Black guy is about as good/bad as the average White guy, but that there are just a few more outliers among Blacks. Because, let’s face it, probably all the good players in the NBA are outliers among their respective populations, and that doesn’t really tell us that much about the average.

But the biggest problem with using real world data like sports success is that you’re not taking a random sample of the various populations. You might think you are because every kid growing up would just loooooove to be in the NBA, but that’s simply not true.

116

A group-level predisposition to obesity is more likely genes than culture. It of course requires access to food to get a bunch of fat people…the genes that make us fat will be of great interest to scientists, and I expect we’ll see some definitive research around that show up reasonably soon.

I’d be careful demanding that success at an average group level be attributed to training harder or posessing more determination and self-confidence (although of course these traits are also influenced by genes). It’s another way of saying the other group’s lack of success is because they are lazier. The dilemma, of course, is that if we accept that it’s just working harder which gives us the successes which result in our group’s over-representation, we have to accept that laziness is also the explanation for our failures to succeed in arenas where our group underperforms. We don’t get to arbitrarily assign hard work as the factor for success in one place but external limitations as the factor for failure in another.

Winning a genetic lotto out of pure blind luck is the least pejorative explanation to advance for group-level successes, and the most practical reason to demand that we create a just and fair society for all. Such policies–race-based AA, e.g.–can factor in those group-level differences. It’s not enough–and it’s bad policy–to just demand underperforming groups simply work as hard as the successful groups.

117

However, looking at every venue where there is equal opportunity for blacks, asians and whites to compete at basketball would, in fact, tell you a great deal about the average. As I mentioned earlier, high school or college; church league or park league; minor league or major…–the same over-representation would occur across the board wherever the opportunity to play in the first place is equalized.

118

I am a Scotsman, but have lived in Malaysia with my Chinese Malaysian wife for over twenty years so my (rather random) observations might be of interest.

  • Why do Chinese children do better at school?

Both my wife and I have university degrees. We have two children, and my wife “drives” them far harder than I remember mine doing to me. This, of course, has its downside. The suicide rate for schoolchildren in Singapore, where parents are very keen for the children to excel, is high m- too high, IMO

We are lucky that both our twin sons are very bright, and with my wife’s pushing, are doing extremely well, not just in academic subjects, but in swimming and piano playing as well. Thankfully they are also pretty well-adjusted most of the time.

  • Why are Chinese-Malaysians wealthier and more successful in business?

Both pairs of my wife’s emigrated from Fujian province in China; her paternal grandparents to Penang in what was Malaya, and maternal to Singapore. Both grandfathers arrived with little or no education and no money - typical economic migrants. Both grandfathers worked as coollies in rubber plantations.

Both grandfathers worked very hard (at physically exhausting work), with the Singaporean one taking his family (including my mother-in-law) to Indonesia during the Japanese occupation of Singapore. Life was very hard for them there, with food in short supply.

Both, however, then had lucky “starts”. They were both astute gamblers (as are many Chinese men ) and won money which they both started to invest. Post-WW2 SE Asia was an economic powerhouse, so their investments grew - and grew. Both men became very wealthy indeed. What made them rich? Hard work, staying positive in the face of adversity, tenacity, and a bit of luck.

Rich Malays who I have come across during my work here (although I am now retired) became rich through being members of one of the many royal families here, or government patronage, and in one infamous case, stealing from the government-controlled company of which he was CEO and Chairman. He only avoided jail because of his government patronage that allowed all criminal charges to be dropped.

I saw how his corrupt dealings allowed him to steal, and it is the tight hold that Malays have on government, including the legal system, and non-entrepreneurial, i.e government-controlled, companies, that allows them to become wealthy - not hard work and tenacity.

119

Welcome to the Dope, bncpeter, and thanks for your interesting input. It adds vivid details to the general story discussed in this thread.

I would only mention that we should temper our general observations about laziness and corruption stemming from ethnic Malay affirmative action with a recognition that many ethnic Malays work hard and honestly – not just poorer ones (many rural), but also, for example, my wife’s female friends in the Kuala Lumpur region. These friends did get their jobs through ethnic favoritism, but they apply themselves diligently (their husbands, however, really DO tend toward “laziness,” according to the wives themselves).

Incidentally, your revival of this thread also revived my one Mod warning…thanks a lot! :wink:

120

I do not think that it is down to race, creed or colour, some people are materialistic others are not, I could have done a great deal better than I have but I am happy with my lot, time that was not spent chasing the last cent was spent enjoying my family, we have provided for our retirement and are not wanting. I have friends who are multi millionaires who are driven to succeed not to gain wealth just because they have a competitive nature that drives them to expand their factories not for added wealth they do not need but because they are trapped on a treadmill that thankfully I fell off many years ago. The materialistic I find to be door slammers that shut the woes of the world out when they go home, the less materialistic tend to involve themselves with their communities and try to solve some of the problems that exist.
Thankfully some of us are content a burden to none and not driven by greed