[World Cup 2018] Iceland Team: 98% Icelandic Ancestry; Racial-Anthropological Analysis

---

Iceland

(Above) Iceland’s starting eleven for a recent international game.

(Below) Iceland’s 2018 World Cup team [source], of which each player is profiled below and classified by anthropological-racial type.

---

Iceland’s FIFA World Ranking in 2018: 22nd

---

Iceland national football (soccer) team at World Cup 2018

Racial stock of the Iceland-2018 World Cup team:
— 100% European ancestry [23.0/23.0 players]
—– 98% Icelandic ancestry [22.5/23.0]
—– 2% Danish ancestry [0.5/23.0]

For an in-depth, player-by-player racial-ancestry analysis, see below.

Advertisements

[World Cup 2018] Sweden Team: 91% White, No Muslims

---

Sweden

Sweden’s starting eleven for a recent international game; Sweden’s full-23 pic for World Cup 2018 (final squad announced in mid-May 2018) is not available.

---

Sweden’s FIFA World Ranking in 2018: 24th

---

Sweden national football (soccer) team at World Cup 2018

Racial stock of the Sweden-2018 World Cup team:
— 91% European ancestry [21.0/23.0],
—– of which twenty players (87%) are fully White-European;
— 4.5% Middle Eastern ancestry [1.0/23.0];
— 4.5% Subsaharan African ancestry [1.0/23.0]

For an in-depth, player-by-player racial-ancestry analysis, see below.

[World Cup 2018] Denmark Team: 90% White/Scandinavian

---

Denmark

(Note: This is not the final squad picture, but is a then-current national team as of late 2017; the finalized World Cup squad in early June, 2018 contains several more non-White players, on whom see below)

---

Denmark’s FIFA World Ranking in 2018: 12th

---

Denmark national football (soccer) team at World Cup 2018

Racial stock of the Denmark-2018 squad:
— 90% European ancestry [20.75/23.0], of which almost all is of Danish origin
—– of which nineteen players (83%) are fully White;
— 10% Black Subsaharan-African ancestry [2.25/23.0], mainly (1.5) East African;
— No Muslims, though two of the mixed-race players (Yussuf Yurary Poulsen and Mathias Jørgensen) do have African-Muslim fathers

For an in-depth, player-by-player racial-ancestry analysis, see below.

[World Cup 2018] Spain Team: 92% White

---

Spain

---

Spain’s FIFA World Ranking in 2018: 10th

---

Spain national football (soccer) team at World Cup 2018

Racial stock of the Spain-2018 World Cup team:
– 92% European ancestry [21.15/23.0]
– 5.5% Subsaharan African ancestry [1.25/23.0]
– 2% East Asian ancestry [0.5/23.0] via David Silva
– 0.5% North African ancestry [0.1/23.0]

See below for a racial-ancestral analysis for each player.

[World Cup 2018] Switzerland Team: 70% White but Only 44% White-Christian

---

Switzerland

Switzerland national football (soccer) team at World Cup 2018

---

Switzerland’s FIFA World Ranking in 2018: 6th

---

Racial stock of the Switzerland-2018 World Cup team:
— 70% European ancestry [16.0/23.0],
—– of which fifteen players (65%) are fully White,
——– of which 22% Balkan-Muslim ancestry [5.0/23.0],
——– of which 44% are unmixed White-Christians [10.0/23.0].
— 28% Subsaharan African ancestry [6.5/23.0]
— 2% Amerindian ancestry [0.5/23.0]

For an in-depth, player-by-player racial-ancestry analysis, see below.

[World Cup 2018] England Team: 63% White and No Muslims

---

England

---

England’s FIFA World Ranking in 2018: 12th

---

England national football (soccer) team at World Cup 2018

Racial stock of the England-2018 team:
– 63% European ancestry [14.5/23.0], of which eleven players (48%) are fully White
– 37% Subsaharan African ancestry [8.5/23.0], though twelve players (52% of the team) have at least partial Black ancestry, five full-Blacks (three of which are Strikers) and seven partial-Blacks
– 0% Muslim and Other ancestry [0/23.0]; of the players with West African ancestry, none have clear evidence of Muslim heritage, and no players identify as Muslims

For an in-depth, player-by-player racial-ancestry analysis, see below.

[World Cup 2018] Germany Team: 83% White, 11% Muslim

---

Germany

---

Germany’s FIFA World Ranking in 2018: 1st

---

Germany national football (soccer) team at World Cup 2018

Racial stock of the Germany-2018 World Cup team:
– 82.5% European ancestry [19.0/23.0], of which 18 players (78%) are fully European; generally this ancestry is all either from Germany or from compatible, close neighbors — unlike, notably, the Swiss team which has so many recent-Albanian-origin players)
– 6.5% Subsaharan African ancestry [1.5/23.0]
– 11% Muslim ancestry [2.5/23.0], of which two Turks with strong cultural ties to Turkey and one half-Tunisian (the latter, Khedira, is counted as 0.5-Muslim for ancestry purposes, but does, in fact, identify as a Muslim)

For an in-depth, player-by-player racial-ancestry analysis, see below.

[World Cup 2018] France Team: 33% White; African Majority

---

(This post is inspired by Steve Sailer, who is sure to get a lot of material out of the World Cup in the coming weeks.)

---

France

---

France’s FIFA World Ranking in 2018: 7th

---

France national football (soccer) team at World Cup 2018

Racial stock of the France-2018 World Cup team:
– 33% European ancestry [7.5/23.0], of which only six players (26%) are fully European; of the White players, most have strong ancestral ties to France
– 52% Subsaharan African ancestry [12.0/23.0] from across Francophone Africa
– 11% North African ancestry [2.5/23.0], all of which is from Algeria and Morocco
—- Multiple players of known- or likely- Islamic origin, and Muslim players almost certainly number fully-European-Christian players on France-2018

For an in-depth, player-by-player racial-ancestry analysis, see below.

Total Fertility Rates by Race in the USA, 1980-2013

Previous posts on fertility rates by race: 1980-2008 and 1980-2010.

I present the latest data on U.S. Total Fertility rates by race through 2013. (Data source links at the end of this post.) You can see herein the full effect of the George W. Bush Housing Bubble in its historical context:

Note that this Total Fertility Rate data is based on the race of the mother.

_________________________________________________
The actual number of births in 2013:

• 2,130,000 babies born to White Non-Hispanic women (54.1%).
• 580,000 babies born to Black Non-Hispanic women (14.8%).
• 900,000 babies born to Hispanic women (22.9%).
• 270,000 babies born to Asian women (6.8%).
• 46,000 babies born to American-Indian women (1.2%).

_________________________________________________
TFRs for the entire period 1980-2013:

1.97 — Overall USA
1.77 — White non-Hispanic (=child generation is 84% as large as parent generation)
2.16 — Black (=child generation is 103% as large as parents’)
2.70 — Hispanic (’89-’13 only) (=child generation is 129% as large as parents’)
1.84 — Asian (=child generation is 88% as large as parents’)
1.85 — American-Indian (=child generation is 88% as large as parents’)

Note: The size of the child generation is here based on a replacement fertility of exactly 2.10. Higher mortality rates among Blacks and Hispanics partially offset some of this difference. That is, Blacks and Hispanics may have a slightly higher replacement fertility than 2.10.
_________________________________________________

Comments:

(1) The 2000s Housing Boom, or, the 2000s Baby Bubble. The housing bubble brought with it a baby bubble, most especially for Hispanics. The White TFR, too, was apparently lifted by the Housing Bubble, by as much as a sustained one-tenth of a TFR point over a period of years. This amounts to something like a million additional White Americans being born than would have been without the Baby Bubble. (Yes, that gentle bulge in the blue line, from 2000 to 2008 amounts to around a million more White births than would have happened without the bulge.)  However, the number of “extra babies” of other races born during the Housing Bubble considerably exceeds this in relative terms. (With the exception of the luckless Amerindians. See below.)

(2) Whites. The good. White Non-Hispanic TFR has been remarkably stable over the past 25 years. White births recovered to 54% of total births by 2013, up from reportedly crossing below the 50% threshold a few years ago (the 2010-2011 period). The bad. White Americans have had sub-replacement fertility since either 1970 or 1971 and TFR reached quite low depths in the later 1970s and 1980s. The current 1.75 children/woman for White women drops to around 1.6 if counting only “White couples,” as about 10% of White women who give birth have a Nonwhite partner according to other data. The verdict. A sustained “all-White” 1.6 TFR means that each child generation is about 75% the size of its parent generation; this means steady population contraction, but no collapse; it puts U.S. Whites better off than very many other ethnic majority populations in the rich world.

(3) Hispanics.

Ancestry of Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton 1999

Hillary Clinton is of entirely Northwestern European ancestry, almost entirely British Protestant, but lacks Colonial American ancestry. She was raised a Methodist. She describes her parents and immediate family as “middle class [and] Midwestern” in her autobiography (p.2). She says this of her parents: “They believed in hard work, not entitlement; self-reliance not self-indulgence” (p.2). (The relevant parts of Hillary’s autobiography are included as an appendix below, in which all quotations from it which will be made below can be found).

It seems Hillary identifies personally more with her mother than father (for instance, in her autobiographical breakdown of her personal ancestry, Hillary talks about her mother’s side first, contrary to standard practice; she has much praise for her mother throughout). However, there is some evidence that in terms of abstract, distant ancestry she identifies most strongly with her Welsh ancestors, almost all of which are on her father’s side.

Below are detailed profiles of Hillary Clinton’s eight great-grandparents, with a biographical outline of each person, with a breakdown of his/her personal ancestry. This was partly inspired by Racehist’s recent evaluation of George W. Bush’s (which reveals only 31% New England ancestry).

Earlier ancestry posts are here:
— The Hated Richard Nixon’s Ancestry
— Mitt Romney’s Ancestry
— The German Ancestry of Ron Paul
— Newt Gingrich’s Ancestry: The Apple Falls Close.

(A note on the importance of ancestry. I believe that we can gain a special and important insight into a person’s worldview, politics, or motivations, by knowing two related but not identical things: (1) his or her full ancestry and (2) How they see their own ancestry [e.g., which parts they most identify with]. This knowledge can be more highly valuable than volumes of writings, which are subject to social pressures of a given time or place. Most Americans are aware of their own ancestries, and most remain quite “loyal to their ancestry”, all things considered. See also Racehist’s “The 25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S. Media by Ancestry“.)

Hillary Clinton, circa late 1960s.

Ethnic Breakdown of Hillary Clinton’s Ancestry
— 43.8% England (of which most comes from Northeast England)
— 31.3% Wales
— 13.3% Scotland
— 6.3% France (emigration in the 1830s)
— 5.5% French North American Colonial (Quebec, etc.)
— 0% English-speaking American Colonial

• Hillary Clinton has no “Colonial American” ancestry at all; that is to say, no English-speaking ancestors in North America prior to

Whites’ Views on Obama 2014-2015, by Demographics (Summary)

White Americans’ Views on Obama by age, gender, income, marital status, children, religion, education, sexual orientation, and more. All graphics are in one post here along with brief summaries. Click on any of the links for more detailed analysis / commentary.

[Whites’ Views on Obama] By Education

Whites are mostly negative about Obama, as consistently only around 30% approve of him (despite the Nobel Peace Prize). This 30% figure is far from the whole story. Wide differences in outlook on Obama within the White population are worth considering.

Modern polling allows us to open up a window onto, and look closely at, these differences. There are some surprises.

---

Using data collected by Reuters’ scientific polling in 2014 and 2015 (for a sample group of over 50,000 Whites), I present an in-depth analysis of White attitudes towards Obama:

1. Whites’ Views on Obama by Age Group, Sex, and Political Involvement
2. Whites’ Views on Obama by Religious Identification (and Race)
3. Whites’ Views on Obama by Sexual Orientation
4. Whites’ Views on Obama by Income
5. Whites’ Views on Obama by Marital Status and Children
6. Whites’ Views on Obama by Education Attained [This Post]

In this post:

Education Attained
Among Whites Over 30

Whites’ Views of Obama by Level of Education Attained. [Click to Expand]

---

Summary of Key Points
The more education attained, the higher the support for Obama. White college degree holders vs. non-degree holders: Ten point jump in support for Obama among men. Fifteen point jump for women.

[Whites’ Views on Obama] By Marital Status and Children

Whites are mostly negative about Obama, as consistently only around 30% approve of him (despite the Nobel Peace Prize). This 30% figure is far from the whole story. Wide differences in outlook on Obama within the White population are worth considering.

Modern polling allows us to open up a window onto, and look closely at, these differences. There are some surprises.

---

Using data collected by Reuters’ scientific polling in 2014 and 2015 (for a sample group of over 50,000 Whites), I present an in-depth analysis of White attitudes towards Obama:

1. Whites’ Views on Obama by Age Group, Sex, and Political Involvement
2. Whites’ Views on Obama by Religious Identification (and Race)
3. Whites’ Views on Obama by Sexual Orientation
4. Whites’ Views on Obama by Income
5. Whites’ Views on Obama by Marital Status and Children [This Post]
6. Whites’ Views on Obama by Education Attained

In this post:

Marital Status and Children, Heterosexuals Over Age 30

Whites’ Views on Obama by Marital Status and Children. [Click to Expand]

---

Summary of Key Points
Marriage really affects White women’s politics. White men’s, not as much.
Having children really affects White women’s politics. White men’s, not at all.

---

Analysis / Commentary
Note: To limit interference, I look at only straight Whites over age 30 at the time of polling (i.e., born before 1985). “Non traditional sexual identities” are excluded because they will skew the “never married” and “no children” categories (we already know that LGBTs are much more pro-Obama than heterosexuals). Under-30s are excluded because many/most who are not yet married are not so by choice but because “it’s not time yet” and will be married by their 30s.

Preliminary Comment: I think this may be the most interesting of all the tables I’ve produced from this polling data. In the first post, I commented that there was apparently “no difference” in White men and White women’s stated views on Obama. Overall, that’s true. Actually, though, there are great differences, revealed by careful analysis:

The Institution of Marriage Affects Women a Lot

[Whites’ Views on Obama] By Income

Whites are mostly negative about Obama, as consistently only around 30% approve of him (despite the Nobel Peace Prize). This 30% figure is far from the whole story. Wide differences in outlook on Obama within the White population are worth considering.

Modern polling allows us to open up a window onto, and look closely at, these differences. There are some surprises.

---

Using data collected by Reuters’ scientific polling in 2014 and 2015 (for a sample group of over 50,000 Whites), I present an in-depth analysis of White attitudes towards Obama:

1. Whites’ Views on Obama by Age Group, Sex, and Political Involvement
2. Whites’ Views on Obama by Religious Identification (and Race)
3. Whites’ Views on Obama by Sexual Orientation
4. Whites’ Views on Obama by Income [This Post]
5. Whites’ Views on Obama by Marital Status and Children
6. Whites’ Views on Obama by Education Attained

In this post:

Income

White Views on Barack Obama by Income Level. [Click to Enlarge]

---

Summary of Key Points
Richer Whites support Obama a little more. Overall, not much difference by income.

---

Analysis / Commentary

“No Story on Income” is Itself a Story

[Whites’ Views on Obama] By Sexual Orientation

Whites are mostly negative about Obama, as consistently only around 30% approve of him (despite the Nobel Peace Prize). This 30% figure is far from the whole story. Wide differences in outlook on Obama within the White population are worth considering.

Modern polling allows us to open up a window onto, and look closely at, these differences. There are some surprises.

---

Using data collected by Reuters’ scientific polling in 2014 and 2015 (for a sample group of over 50,000 Whites), I present an in-depth analysis of White attitudes towards Obama:

1. Whites’ Views on Obama by Age Group, Sex, and Political Involvement
2. Whites’ Views on Obama by Religious Identification (and Race)
3. Whites’ Views on Obama by Sexual Orientation [This Post]
4. Whites’ Views on Obama by Income
5. Whites’ Views on Obama by Marital Status and Children
6. Whites’ Views on Obama by Education Attained

In this post:

Sexual Orientation

White Americans’ Views of Barack Obama by Sexual Orientation, 2014-2015. [Click to Enlarge].

---

Summary of Key Points
No Gender Gap at all among White heterosexuals. Yes Gender Gap among LGBTs — a surprise. LGBTs more pro-Obama, but Gay men most of all. Tangentially, possible evidence in this data for the social prestige of male homosexuality by the mid-2010s.

---

Analysis

No Gender Gap at All Among Heterosexuals
“The Gender Gap” is one of the most consistently implied ideas in U.S. political discourse, with it claimed that women (as a whole) are significantly to the left of men. The “Women’s Vote” is often talked about on the basis of this. (This was discussed in the first post in this series as well: White Views on Obama by Age Group ans Sex.) In this data, no gender gap is present at all among White heterosexuals.

The “Core Approval”