The US had no chance of staying in first with so much immigration from Central and South America. I'm a 6' half Mexican, and that side of my family all come up to my armpits or lower, while the other side is all quite tall.
Latin American immigration is also one the reason that male infant circumcision rates are less than 20% in the Pacific States. In Washington the rate has fallen to around 10%.
There is a certain demographic of Anglo American people that donât practice infant male circumcision. But the data is clear that white Americans still circumcise their sons at a much higher percentage than Latinos regardless of the state of origin. With very few exceptions, mainly amongst Mexican and South American Jews, Latinos donât practice circumcision at all. In contrast, about half of white Americans in the western states still circumcise their infant males. In states without a significant latino population the infant male circumcision rate is still very high. In the upper Midwest and northeast of America, for instance, the rate of infant male circumcision is as high as 80%. So while it would be nice to believe in a progressive attitude amongst white Americans the truth is that the unwillingness of Latinos to circumcise their little baby boys is the main (though not only) reason for the statistical disparity between the Pacific states and places like Michigan, Ohio and New England. The practice is slowly being phased out amongst white families, but it will take a few generations to reach levels seen in Europe of less than 10%.
You must specify your question. Do you mean why the demographic difference? Or do you mean why the geographical disparity? Just asking âbut whyâ is insufficient. You need to provide context if you want an answer.
Perhaps it has to do with locker room talk? I know my husband was super self conscious because they made fun of how uncircumcised genitals were dirty... It's extremely dumb. I'm pregnant and we won't be circumcising our son...Insecurity and perceived ideas about masculinity of some kind is my guess... Outside of actual religion reasons for some obviously.
The attitude of looking like the other guys definitely has a role in perpetuating the practice. But in terms of what started it in the first place over 100 years ago, I agree it was a myth about cleanliness. All that science has since been widely debunked, yet some people really hold onto the belief that itâs cleaner. Which is just bizarre. We donât go around cutting off womenâs labias to make sure they have less bacteria. The human body is a subtle masterpiece and itâs ridiculous to remove parts of it for no good reason besides pseudoscientific nonsense. Or because some fairytale religion says you must. People need to wake up and leave their precious childrenâs bodyâs alone when they canât consent to having something permanent like that done. I realize itâs not as significant, but I donât even agree with piercing little girlsâ ears until they are old enough to request it for themselves.
As for your children, I donât think theyâll have the same regrettable experience with their peers as your husband did. Even in states with high circumcision rates there are now much more children who donât have it done so they donât stand out as radically different. And if you happen to be in a state like where I am, California, itâs pretty normal to be intact. More kids are intact here than are not, and the same goes for Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, etc..
Im going off what i've read and heard here.
Circumcision has cultural reasons but also if your hygene is bad its worse with foreskin because bacteria can start to build up. Now that hygene is generally good in western countries, it has lost popularity.
Iâve known about the hygiene part too. It starts off as a religious thing and now people even in their 30s do it for hygienic reasons. Itâs not necessary but the above comment felt like Latinos should do it too cause white families do it. It sounded like a bad thing
You are likely misunderstanding my intent because English is not your first language. I make no claims that Latinos should mirror the behavior of white Americans. I wouldnât say such a thing because I donât believe that to be true. In fact, I believe the exact opposite. I think white Americans should consider how the practice of circumcision is unnecessary.
Yeah, really sorry. I misunderstood the whole thing. Your English is perfect nothing wrong there. Itâs the sentence âunwillingness of Latinosâ that makes it sounded like itâs immigrants fault for not doing it.
There is also a sentence in my previous comment where I explicitly state my support for white Americans embracing a more progressive attitude about circumcision. Many have, but so many still have not. Where I live in California the circumcision rate amongst Anglos is around 50%. Thatâs far less than in states like Michigan where the rate for Anglos is still over 80%.
Guys in their 30's doing it because its hygienic. Those guys are not washing up the right way thats all. Its sad a grown man in their 30's not cleaning themselves right. They should have learned a long time ago.
I think there are folks out there with skin sensitivity and issues that may warrant a circumcision but they are rare. And a man in his 30's has every right to make choices about his own body. It's the doing it to children who have no say in how their body is mutilated that I take issue with.
A lot of hospitals in Washington State just stopped doing it unless parents specifically requested it, and then there's a whole process you have to go through. Like, the hospital won't do it. They have to refer you out.
Given that Washington State is only 13.7% Hispanic, I'd say it's probably more liberal, bodily-autonomy based than religiously based. We're a pretty secular state. 43% of us are religiously unaffiliated.
Specific circumcision data would provide greater insight than general demographic data. Propensity to circumcise infant males in the United States is less about religious affiliation. Most white Americans have historically circumcised their baby boys over the last 80 years, irrespective of religious affiliation. A significant distinction can be noticed by comparing Italian-Americans who have routinely circumcised their boys versus in Italy where virtually no boy is circumcised. Despite the persisting cultural links to Italy, Italian-Americans have been Americanized in their approach to circumcision. I donât disagree that a strong bodily autonomy push has made significant impact in recent years, especially in the Pacific states. I live within 30 miles of the coast my entire life so I have witnessed the growth of that dynamic. However, that is only part of the overall picture, not comprehensive. You mention 13% of Washington is Latino, but I wonder what percentage of new births are to Latinos? From the demographic studies Iâve done Iâd suspect MUCH higher than 13% of new births are Latino babies, which would have a sizable impact on circumcision rates. There is also a significant political distinction between the heavily populated, though relatively small urban strip of Washington versus the vast tract of plains and high desert east of the cascades. As you are well aware, that part of the state is sparsely populated and substantially more conservative. I would hypothesize that the circumcision rate amongst white infants east of the cascades is consistent with white populations in the rest of the US. While I agree that body positivity in the west plays a role in the lowering rates of circumcision, the significant demographic shift from increasing numbers of Latinos is profound.
In addition to the ethnicity of patients, I also wonder if the national origin of doctors in Washington State has anything to do with declining circumcision rates. I can't find any data on it, but a doctor who comes from a country where infants are rarely circumcised might steer patients away from the surgery.
I suspect most doctors bring their values into treatment. Hence why so many advocated for circumcision for so long. They had drunk the koolaid. I know my white American doctor was firmly against it when I was born. This was California in the 1970âs so I was definitely an outlier amongst me peers. Though I kind of have a large one so I didnât really get made fun of too much. They would start up and when I pulled it out they shut up. Hahaha
Iâm rather surprised the Latino birth rate in Washington is that low. My girlfriend works in healthcare in northern California and Oregon and at least half the babies are latino in those regions (Kaiser facilities along the I-5 corridor between Sacramento and Portland).
Please help me understand what the visas have to do with it. Because the doctors are arriving from countries workout the practice of snipping little boys?
We have a very good teaching hospital here in Seattle. Doctors come from all over the world to work and/or study here. As a result, they often stay and practice locally. H-1B visas are the documents that allow them to do that.
I have a genetic disorder that affects my vision, so I interact with a bevy of eye specialists. I don't think any of them were born in the US. I deeply appreciate their expertise.
ETA because I didn't actually make the connection: Yes. A significant number of our doctors come from places where circumcision is not done routinely, so they wouldn't consider it necessary.
Do your data reflect 'mixed race' subpops? And the rigor of adherence to the groups' means? Eg, Orthodox Jews and traditional and Catholic Mexicans as the 'mixed individual's...
(I won't even suggest a model of Upper East Side Orthos and Zona Rosa Ortos (ritzy area in DF)!)
The human race, by and large, is sleep walking through life. They are finally waking up to the ridiculousness of this practice, but, sadly, most humans are still slumbering when it comes to awareness of predatory economic systems and warfare. Though itâs worth pointing out that the two are intimately connected and mutually interdependent. Preach your knowledge to whoever will listen mindfully and hopefully they will awaken from their multi generational slumber.
Yup. I think of how cultural, knowledge, and other factors influence disease rates, treatments avail and allowed, mean IQ, and just about anything associated with economic, health, political progress....
Another commenter added that a significant body positivity and body autonomy movement has shaped values associated with circumcision in some regions. I think several factors are converging to shift culture in that respect, and immigration is prominent. Trans cultural diffusion is the defining characteristics of human society. All human identities and associated values are an amalgam. And with the emergence of information technology it has only accelerated in ways our ancestors couldnât even conceive.
I thought the entire chart would be influenced by nutrition (and that in the 50s in the US is where all the weird subsidies and propaganda started - food pyramid, breakfast is most important meal of the day and sugar cereals are a hearty breakfast, etc)
immigration isn't so high it's affecting it, people from around the world HAVE ALWAYS been immigrating here .... It's because this country is becoming the wealthiest country where most its citizens live like it's a developing nation.
It's not the sole factor, but it definitely has a large impact.
Immigration from other regions does play a role in stuff like this. Not sure why you thought to make your comment, especially worded the way it is, but feel free to comment however you'd like.
My guy, in 1940 the racial make-up of the US was 0.2% Asian and 1.5% Hispanic. The US is now 6.2% asian and about 19% hispanic. You don't think a shift of a quarter of the population is a reasonable explanation?
Also French immigration from Africa with taller people in general. Germans were mixing with the viking bloodlines in scandanavia hence the hight increments.
Found this in a comment right below yours here.
It isnt any proven source, but still another way to aproach this topic.
"Our professor was of the belief that it was diet/ food related, particularly America becoming hooked on highly processed food post WWII, They even took recent Latin and Asian immigrants out of the equation for Americans so we canât blame short immigrants or their kids"
Well yeah itâs no surprise with the whole country getting royally fucked at very corner by companies cutting costs and adding whatever the fuck they want to their hyper processed food - but you know regulations are a threat to their freedom, so itâs good they donât have themâŚ
Oh except when it comes to unpasteurised cheeses and kinder surprise eggs for some reason. And yanks will seriously tell you with a straight face that they are the freest country in the world just because they have the right to get shot by every mentally unstable person they might encounter smh
Look at the older French and German data, which had practically zero Asian or Latin population when they were much shorter than men in the US and Australia, while the latter already had at least some.
What the US always had much more of than Europe was food. I'll go out on a limb here and say this isn't just about vitamins, but the availability of food in general, and meat in particular. Global population figures increased pretty rapidly after 1913, when the Haber-Bosch process made it possible to produce large amounts of artificial fertilizer. In Europe, artificial fertilizer meant that more farmland became available for use as pastures and the production of animal feed.
Good point on the fertilizer timing. Right at the same time vitamins were discovered according to this chart... and likely just as much of an influence.
I think Australia is like 85 percent white tbf, US has a higher Latin American population than Ausâs Asian population. Also, the US doesnât have an insignificant Asian population either, around an additional 7%.
The USA is predominantly white. My main argument was regarding the initial argument about height and immigration. Other nations on the chart have significant similar or higher levels of immigration.
It has a much lower percentage of Caucasian folks, relatively speaking. Less than 60% of the US is Caucasian.
My point was, in response to your height comment, the United States does have a higher proportion of immigrants from countries that are often shorter. Thus, this very well could impact the average height.
What also gets problematic here is how reluctant Australia is to collect data based on ethnic groups. Which is reasonable, but also makes it very difficult to evaluate proportions of the population based on race accurately. We do have country, of origin, however.
Trust me my friend, iam from Europe too. But what we eat from processed foods here is nothing compared to the Americans. At least for the North and mid of Europe.
A,though as a side. Due to changes in eating patterns including more meat, Asians are taller than a few generations ago, both across Asia and after immigrating to the US.
Sounds like bad conjecture and exaggerating the impact of fast food, like the graph is trying to do. Itâs pretty evident when you see it broken down further by state, the shorter states have higher Latino/Asian diasporasâŚthe fatter regions (Midwest / South) are taller. With the Midwest (more Northern European ancestry) is still taller than average for under 40s.
If anything, Latinos and Asians that grow up in the US tend to be taller than their ancestral countries.
It definitely has at least something to do with the amount of calories and the type of foods we're eating. At least at first, it was because we had better nutrition. That's why kids were experiencing puberty younger, too. But everyone started blaming hormones in milk đ
No worries, we've exported a lot of that around the world. Just as our culture was mass produced and exported, witness how poor nutrition, chemically toxic & processed foods, and cultural habits spread obesity and cancer through the vast swaths of Earth's populations.
Itâs funny you say that, because the end of the graph might actually show that. Towards the end, all nations start to taper off, right around the time we start sending our shitty food out into the ecosphere.
The massive lead we had was because of the quality of our food and food scarcity in other parts of the world. So I guess people can say immigration, and they wouldnât be wrong. But in the early 1900s when we were still predominantly European descent we were significantly taller than people in other countries of the same descent.
Or maybe we just all taper off because humans have some sort of maximum average hight. (Except for the Dutch, they are freaks.)
Also other countries had big immigration waves as well in the 20th century. France mainly from North Africa, also not a place known for its tall people.
"immigration" always seems to be the go-to scapegoat, doesnt it. No one thought "Wow, look at all that immigration" while height increased. JFC with predictable humanity.
Processed food has nothing to do with height growth. Certain Health issues yes, but not height. Itâs a just a lazy handwaving accusation which people buy into big has no basis in the literature
*NOT an anti-Asian statement, I'm pro immigration from everywhere...but they're lowering our average height (which is another thing I couldn't care less about).
Same for Canada, they donât really account for averages for ethnic groups at all (although a lot of second generations from poorer countries are taller then their parents)
Like I stand a good head height above everyone in my wifeâs family (Filipino) and everyone in her friend group. But their kids born here are almost as tall as the parents are, better nutrition such as vitamins and that make a huge difference
I'm British. I went to the states for the first time as an adult last year.
Obviously I've only really seen South/Central American people on telly. I did not realise how short it they are. Like, really quite noticeably short compared to white people!
Itâs reaching a plateau and further height will lead to increasing health issues. We already see that in tall people having issues with knees, the heart working harder to pump blood and other issues that arise when humans near the point it doesnât benefit to get taller
Not just central America but Asia as well. To be fair though 2nd Gen people tend to be taller than their parents. Although America will never be as tall as the Europeans ever again.
Well France has huge amounts of immigration as well, so idk why that would influence anything. Maybe cos thereâs more mixed couples in France and the taller genes win over?
I really doubt that there is a higher percentage of mixed couples in US than in FR. Most people I know who are not white are in mixed couples.. and certainly most families I know with children are mixed⌠I actually only know two fully white children and one fully black child in my entire circle of friends.
No, they took the Asian/latin immigration out of the equation. The processed food is what most think contributed the most.
Btw, Mexico is in North America.
Or...maybe it ha to do with not having universal healthcare or a robust social safety net. How many expectant mothers fail to get proper medical care while pregnant leading to small babies. Or live in polluted areas especially in red states with lax environmental regulation? How many kids go malnourished because republicans think if your parents don't make enough money the child must be punished
Overall, better nutrition even amongst the poor is what brought all the countries up, but all sorts of immigration patterns play a part. The UK and France have had a lot of inward migration from African and from former colonies they once repopulated with African slaves after slaughtering most of the original population.
400
u/Dufranus Feb 09 '24
The US had no chance of staying in first with so much immigration from Central and South America. I'm a 6' half Mexican, and that side of my family all come up to my armpits or lower, while the other side is all quite tall.