i’m glad i’m not the only
crazy person who’s noticed this! now i don’t feel so all alone…. (~_^)
from robin fox’s “The Tribal Imagination: Civilization and the Savage Mind” [pg. 136]:
“More common is the systematic marriage with cousins, most commonly the children of brother and sister, but sometimes, as with the Arab peoples, with the children of brothers — as we saw in Iraq and will see again with the ancient Hebrews.
“Stephen Faraone, a geneticist, pointed out to me that through marriage with the son of her father’s brother, a woman ensures that her own sons have their father’s X chromosome**; it is the closest she can get, genetically, to mating with the father or brother.”
that’s what i said! well, nearly. i came at it from the other direction (typical):
“i mentioned over here that i thought the practice [father’s brother’s daughter marriage] should really be called father’s brother’s son marriage … because it seems to me to be the father-of-the-bride … who really wins out here genetically speaking (which is all that matters, right?). the father-of-the-bride gets to ‘reunite’ his y-chromosome (that he shares with his nephew, his brother’s son) with a quarter of his autosomal dna (his daughter carries half of his autosomal dna) in any male grandkids that he has. what other grandfather gets to do that?”
i missed noticing fox’s observation ’cause i haven’t (yet) considered all these cousin marriages from the p.o.v. of a female EGO. (ironic, huh?)
i’m pretty sure that should read “y chromosome” and not “x chromosome” ’cause x chromosome doesn’t make any sense. hmmmmmm. at first i thought that was a typo, but now i don’t think it is. but it’s still not right. a male child from an fbd union would not inherit his father’s x chromosome via his mother. ego and his fbd don’t share any x chromsomal dna. not sure what fox is talking about here. ??
(note: comments do not require an email. i’m…!)