I used to be a fan of Bill Maher (Religilous is a great movie) but since Israel began massacring Gaza civilians he has become almost a raving Zionist and in spite of his professed atheism a reborn fundamentalist Semite.
That's to say nothing of his being an utter scab during the writers and actors strike of last year.

According to Pew Research it is more like 19% of blacks who marry outside of their race.

From my point of view, there is actually only one race, the human race.

Bill has certainly become quite the political conundrum. [ricochet.com]

My ex of 12 years is from Kenya. I went out of my way to marry her and we lived together for 10 years. A friend of mine simply told me "I was destroying my race." WTF is that? The racial question is bigoted. We never had any children and my black wife was not an American. That makes my contribution here of little value but I can say that Kenyans do not think the way Americans do. I still have the nay sayers who claim she used me to get to America. Oh, yes, and then stayed with me for 10 years. I sometimes hate people for the dumb things they say.

Maher was talking to Coleman Hughes who represents a black conservative or libertarian view that tends to give the side-eye to “wokeness”. Thomas Sowell is an intellectual grandfather of this sort of contrarian viewpoint, but Glenn Loury and John McWhorter are among the current pundits. You might detect a common theme below (he says with appropriate snark):

Coleman Hughes: [manhattan.institute]

John Mc Whorter: [manhattan.institute]

Glenn Loury: [manhattan.institute]

It does show that black people are not monolithic in their views (there is no “the black community” ) and there is a spectrum of standpoints politically (looking at you Clarence Thomas). But there is also a cottage industry in attacking woke bogeys and the evil far left mob. These guys are the black go-to pundits that someone can point to as a means of making their own cringey views less problematic. ‘Look, this black guy is critical of the woke mob too!’ Hey the three above are no where near as bombastic and WTF as Candace Owens so…

I’ve seen a few of Loury’s casts on Youtube and have found them interesting or provocative. McWhorter and Hughes I’m less sure about. Whatever.

That aside, I think Maher was trying to point out progress in race relations which is an important thing to acknowledge lest we wave our hands in defeatist fatalism, but it’s also too easy to then downplay the problems that still remain with racially oriented police brutality, food insecurity, disparate educational institutions, mass incarceration (see critical race theorist Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow) etc.

But an upside is that post Loving (I really need to see that movie), mixed marriages have become more common place and widely accepted.

I've never seen a white woman with a white man.

Did Maher take the trouble to even discuss what constitutes a Black person? Because a kid who has one Black parent and one White parent is generally labelled Black. As is one who is only ¼ Black and is ¾ White. In fact, there are lots of Black people with so many white progenitors that they can and do "pass" for White. My point is that there is really no adequate definition for what constitutes Black, or White, or any race. There is a very good reason for this: the idea that there are today different human races is purely a human invention, not a biological reality.

If we analyze the phenotypic traits of any so-called racial group, we find that there is more diversity WITHIN that group (more differences among the group's individuals) than there are if we compare that so-called racial group to another so-called racial group. So the whole concept of different human races in the current human population simply falls apart.

There was a time when there were different human races living contemporaneously. This ended when the last of the Neanderthals died out, about 30,000 years ago.

According to the Linean system of taxonomic nomenclature, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis are two different species. And the general rule in biology is that different species cannot mate and produce fertile offspring. A lion and a tiger, if mated, can produce offspring, but the "liger," is infertile. Lions and tigers are different species. The offspring of a horse and a donkey, called a mule, is infertile. Horses and donkeys are different species.

But we know that Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis mated and produced fertile offspring. My own parents had their DNA analyzed and it contains about 1.5% Neanderthal genes. So Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis were not really different species; they were different races. And we can see very striking morphological differences in their bone structures. Neanderthals were more stout, with a broader rib cage, and relatively shorter legs than Homo sapiens. There are also notable differences in the craniums. We find no such consistent differences comparing so-called racial groups of today.

The idea that Asians are all of diminutive stature is just an illusion. That's why one of the best players in the NBA, and one of the best pitchers in American Baseball can both be Asian guys. There are also some so-called White people that have darker skin than some so-called Black people.

Homo neanderthalis and Homo sapiens are not the only races in the genus Homo ever to exist. There were many others: Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo chadensis, Homo ergastor, Homo floresienis, etc. In many cases there was temporal and geographic overlap among the different races. All were descendants of one species of ape that branched off from Pan troglodytes (chimpanzees) some 12 million years ago. Human DNA and chimp DNA are still 98.8% identical.

The numbers were small in all of the different races in the genus Homo. A new race was formed when a small group broke off from a larger group and became reproductively isolated. Over time, and under differing environmental pressures, different genetic mutations would accumulate in separate gene pools. And if a given lineage did not die out (most did), then some members might cross paths with their distant cousins, mate, and produce fertile offspring. Some of their descendants might go off in a small group and become isolated for a time, maybe a few generations, only to later link back up with long-lost cousins. This pattern was repeated over and over. Thus, rather than view human descent as a linear chain, we are better advised to see it as a braided stream (see two examples below), with some currents at times flowing away from the main body, only to join up again later on. And along the way, many rivulets ended up in dead-end pools that eventually dried up. In fact, all but one dried up. And if we don't learn how to focus on our shared humanity instead of our superficial differences, our pool will dry up too.

I googled it and came up with this which I find believable.

Completely totally wrong, it's about 18%. So I'm assuming he's a racist douchebag?

Yeah, I’m not buying those numbers either…..

And he gets that idea from?
And did it include Every race they could possibly marry?
Because I see plenty of black people totally committed to only marrying within their race in my immediate life.
However, once when you fall in love you do Not dismiss the love object because of their color...who would do that????
Oh wait, apparently Bill Maher.......

His evidence or his sobriety.

At least to some extent, these statistics should confirm people are more aware of the character of their significant other, and not the color of the person's skin. These stats can then be waved in the nose of those who are bothered by them.

According to 2010 figures 17.1% of Black Americans marry outside their race, however why this is something we even talk about is beyond me. After all we are all the same race, human race and all have different skin colors. Not even the whites are the same shade of white always.

I find that hard to believe, but who knows. Has anyone actually done a study?