JL pointed out that the non-Aboriginal admixture rate in adult “Aborigines” might be 36%.
According to genealogical information, the Australians involved in this study have assured maternal Aboriginal ancestry with some Aboriginal, European (Scottish), and other non-Aboriginal paternal connections. They come from the Riverine area of western New South Wales and are a subset of those described in previous investigations of mtDNA variation. We use the abbreviation AuR for the sample population throughout this report to be consistent with, and for the reasons described in, these publications….Personal contact and ongoing negotiation with the participants has been carried out by one of the authors (S.M.v.H.P.) over the past 18 years. Thirty-eight participants (30 female and eight male) gave informed consent to further genetic study….The Australian component ranged from 28% to 100% with an average of 64% (Figure 4). As a result of the strong ascertainment bias of HapMap and Affymetrix SNPs, however, which were largely identified from European ancestry populations, the Aboriginal component might be underestimated. (McEvoy, 2010. Whole-Genome Genetic Diversity in a Sample of Australians with Deep Aboriginal Ancestry)
The study led me to this one:
“Australian residents have shown an increased propensity to identify as indigenous. The number identifying as such in recent censuses rose from 250,738 in 1986 to 414,390 in 1996 (ABS 2006), and 455,028 in 2006, representing 2.4 per cent of Australia’s population (ABS 2007b). Over and above natural increase, more people have come to think of themselves as indigenous and/or are more inclined to declare themselves as such on the census returns over the past couple of decades. This in turn may imply greater pride in indigenous identity….According to the 2006 census, the majority of indigenous persons were partnered with non-indigenous persons: 52 per cent of indigenous males were partnered with non-indigenous females, while 55 per cent of indigenous females were partnered with non-indigenous males (see Table 1). Moreover, the trend is towards greater intermarriage. For both male and female indigenous persons there was an increase of three percentage points in the proportion who were partnered by non-indigenous persons over the five years 2001 to 2006.(INTERMARRIAGE IN AUSTRALIA:Patterns by birthplace, ancestry, religion and indigenous status)
So, aborigines seem to be getting a lot less Australoid. And this led me to this Wiki discussion:
As a result there arose court cases throughout the 1990s where excluded people demanded that their Aboriginality be recognised. In 1995, Justice Drummond ruled “..either genuine self-identification as Aboriginal alone or Aboriginal communal recognition as such by itself may suffice, according to the circumstances.” This contributed to an increase of 31% in the number of people identifying as Indigenous Australians in the 1996 census when compared to the 1991 census.
Judge Merkel in 1998 defined Aboriginal descent as technical rather than real – thereby eliminating a genetic requirement. This decision established that anyone can classify him or herself legally as an Aboriginal, provided he or she is accepted as such by his or her community.
As there is no formal procedure for any community to record acceptance, the primary method of determining Indigenous population is from self-identification on census forms.
Until 1967 official Australian population statistics excluded “full-blood aboriginal natives” in accordance with section 127 of the Australian Constitution, even though many such people were actually counted. The size of the excluded population was generally separately estimated. “Half-caste aboriginal natives” were shown separately up to the 1966 census, but since 1971 there has been no provision on the forms to differentiate ‘full’ from ‘part’ Indigenous or to identify non-Indigenous persons who are accepted by Indigenous communities but have no genetic descent.
If Adult aborigines are 36% admixed, and, given the exogamy rate of 50% in the 2000s, we assume that the exogamy rate was no less than 30% in the 90s, then we can infer that the most recent generation of “aborigine” adolescents (ages 10 to 20) — as there is no mixed classification — will at least be 50% admixed. And, of course, the next generation, thanks to Judge Drummond and Merkel and the existant color privelges, will merely be a social club.
And yet, we still have a 0.8 SD gap on the 2009 PISA (Thomson et al., 2010. Challenges for Australian Education: Results from PISA 2009 (see p. 63, 189, and 233). And, oddly, the gap hasn’t decreased since 2000 and possibily before. So perhaps instead of having a too small gap, we have a bit too large one. Whatever the case, since intermarriage is more common in some regions than others (as discussed in the linked paper), we should be able to map the magnitudes of the difference in those regions with rates of exogamy (in the 90s). And likewise with areas that have more Aboriginalish people.
Is anyone here familair with Australian geodemographics?
(I should note that Lynn was nonetheless in error. The best estimate of the aborigine IQ, at least for the most recent generation, is 85.)