assimliation is a two-way street (or why endogamy means mexicans will find it hard to become middle-class anglos)

ron unz is at it again — arguing that, given a little time, hispanic immigrants will assimilate into american society just like non-anglo europeans did a hundred years ago. from his latest article in The American Conservative [sic] entitled “Immigration, the Republicans, and the End of White America” (the front page description of the article says: “Ron Unz asks whether mass immigration will destroy the GOP—and our middle-class society):

“Similarly, there is overwhelming evidence that today’s immigrants want to learn English, gain productive employment, assimilate into our society, and generally become ‘good Americans’ at least as much as did their European counterparts of a century ago.”

well, perhaps they want to become good, middle-class americans, although i’m not convinced of that; but another critical question is are they able to? as steve sailer has repeatedly pointed out, there’s actually a real-life experiment on hispanic assimilation into middle-class american society that’s been running for 150+ years called new mexico and, so far, mexican-americans there have failed to become like your average minnesotan suburbanite — but mr. unz is obviously not bothered by mundane facts like that.

what really irritates me about the thinking of someone like mr. unz, tho, is that he seems to be under the impression that assimilation means that whatever immigrants we happen to be talking about will miraculously drop all of their traditions and (innate) ways of behaving and just become like the population in whatever country they’re migrating to — and that the culture of a receiving country will somehow be left unscathed by the addition of a new, unrelated people with a dissimilar culture.

i mean, does mr. unz really believe that america before and after all of the late nineteenth century immigration from non-anglo european countries is the same? did the italians and the irish and the swedes and the norwegians and the jews start behaving exactly like the founding anglo-americans — even after a few generations? to be blunt, only an idiot would think so.

no. the late nineteenth century immigrants might’ve changed their ways, some of them even becoming quite american-like in their behaviors and culture after a few generations (altho the process was arguably a struggle) — but the newcomers also altered america. many people today might like the changes — but many of the anglo-americans at the time prolly did not. and many of us today might not like some of the changes they brought: the mafia by the italians, for instance, and tammany hall-style politics thanks to the irish.

the italians (very much southern italians) have mafioso tendencies in large part because of their history of and particular pattern of inbreeding; same with the irish and their liking for machine-politics. these two groups are more given to corruption and nepotism than, say, the english simply because they have a longer history of inbreeding (which, due to inclusive fitness-related drives, leads to nepotism); the southern italians also have a very recent history of inbreeding. anglos, on the other hand, have a long history of outbreeding which has lead to an individualistic society based on middle-class values and trust between non-related individuals, a preference for democracy and little nepotism.

so, what are tens of millions of mexicans and other hispanics going to bring to the table? a lot more than tacos, i can assure you. in addition to whatever innate behavioral differences mexicans have compared to europeans (iq, temperament, etc.), there’s also all the stuff related to mating patterns and genetic relatedness that i’ve been exploring on this blog to be considered.

first of all, just looking at mexico alone, if we factor out the more recently arrived spanish and african mexicans for a sec, the base population of native mexicans is not one entity. there were (and still are) mayan mexicans, aztec mexicans, mixtec mexicans, and a myriad of other peoples in mexican that i’ve never even heard of. so, right there from the start, you’ve got relatedness differences that are bound to lead to discordance between so-called “mexicans” (and i’m not even dealing here with all the other hispanics from central america — guatemalans, salvadorans, costa ricans…).

on top of these ethnic differences — and this will not come as a surprise to regular readers — most of these groups also practiced endogamous mating. yes, even cousin marriage. most or all of it seems to have been cross-cousin marriage, the most common form found in the world — like amongst the chinese. the result? societies based on extended-families and clans — not nuclear families espousing middle-class values. here’s a little bit about aztec society, for example:

“Family and lineage

Family and lineage were the basic units of Aztec society. Ones lineage determined ones social standing, and noble lineages were traced back to the mythical past, as the nobles were said to be descended from the god Quetzalcoatl. Prestigious lineages also traced their kin back through ruling dynasties, preferably ones with a Toltec heritage. The extended family group was also the basic social unit and living patterns were largely determined by family ties, because networks of family groups settled together to form calpollis. Lineage was traced through both the maternal and paternal lines, although with a preference for paternal lineage.

“Calpolli

The calpolli (from Nahuatl calpōlli meaning ‘big house’) was a political unit composed of several interrelated family groups. The exact nature of the calpolli is not completely understood and it has been variously described as a kind of clan, a town, a ward, a parish or an agriculture based cooperative. In Nahuatl another word for calpolli was tlaxilacalli – ‘a partition of houses’.

“The calpolli was centered around the local chief (calpōleh), to whom its members were normally related and he provided the calpolli members with lands for cultivation (calpōllālli) or with access to non-agricultural occupations in exchange for tribute and loyalty….

“Altepetl

“The altepetl (from Nahuatl āltepētl ‘water-mountain’) was a citystate composed of several calpollis and ruled by a tlatoani. The altepetl was the unit that held sway over a given territory and defended and possibly expanded it by military might. The tlatoani was the head of the most influential calpolli, often because of having the most prestigious lineage. The word altepetl, however, did not only refer to the area but also to its population, and altepetl affiliation is thought to have been the primary criteria for ethnic divisions in Mesoamerica – rather than linguistic affinities.”

well, h*ck — change the wording a bit and that could be a description of almost any clan-based or tribalistic society from the clans of scotland to the pre-christian germanic tribes (whatever happened to them anyway?). the important thing to note about the mexicans, tho, is that they were marrying endogamously and living in these clan-based societies right up to first contact with the spaniards and, presumably, their conversion to christianity. so, native-mexicans, like the swedes, don’t have the depth of out-breeding that north-western europeans have, only much more so — mexicans inbred right up until at least the 1500s.

fast-forward to the 1950s and the mexicans appear to be very good catholics, hardly marrying their first-cousins at all. the rate of first-cousin marriage in mexico in 1956-57 (1.3% giving an inbreeding coefficient of 0.0003) is exactly the same as that for quebec in the 1960s-70s. and neither of these are really that far off the rate for catholics in the united states in 1959-60 (0.2%) [pg. 92] (click on chart for LARGER version):

while this might sound pretty good, it really isn’t all that hopeful because, while the mexicans dutifully refrain from marrying their first-cousins, they do have a tendancy to marry very locally — like the greeks — and we all know how well greek society works. greeks marry within their villages (i.e. likely to distant cousins of some sort, so still to family) — mexicans marry within their barrios, formerly known as calpollis (see the bit about the aztecs above — how’s THAT for continuity?!).

here is a quote from “The Barrios of San Andrés Cholula” in “Essays on Mexican Kinship” about the marriage patterns in the barrios of san andrés cholula in the 1960s. while mating patterns might’ve changed in mexico in the last generation or two, mexicans in their 30s and 40s today are the children of those who married in the 1960s, so the effects of endogamous mating in mexico in the 1960s are, no doubt, still very much in effect today [pgs. 78 & 80]:

“Today there is no rigid rule of mate selection in San Andres. Of the 385 married pairs for whom we have information on place of birth for both husband and wife, 35 (9.1 percent) have both partners originating from outside the community. In addition, 43 women have married into the community, primarily in San Juan, Santiago, San Adres, and San Miguel. Thirty men have married into the community, and they reside for the most part in Santiago, Santo Nino, and San Juan. Altogether, 18.96 percent of the married couple have one spouse from outside the community. These couples reside mostly in the natal barrio of the community spouse. The remaining 71.76 percent originated in the community.

“At the barrio level, however, of the 277 couples originating from San Andres, only 172 (62.09 percent) came from the same barrio, with 105 (37.91 percent) marriages uniting people of different barrios. Barrios with the greatest amount of land, cohesion, and traditional customes (San Juan, Santiago, and La Satisima) also exhibit a clear preference for endogamy. In contrast, the barrios of San Pedro Colomochoco, Santa Maria Cuaco, and Santo Nino share a strong tendency toward spouse exchange (see table 4)….

“The present-day pattern of regulating marriage, inheritance, and barrio membership may have existed during the pre-Hispanic and colonial periods. Perhaps theres was a greater tendency toward barrio endogamy when there was a communal system of land tenure. Today, marriage and inheritance practices support the solidarity of barrios.”

72% of marriages in this mexican municipality consisted of couples from the municipality, and 62% of marriages were between couples from the same barrio (really extended family)? that’s huge! that’s some serious endogamy — and, if the rest of mexico is at all similar (and it’s my understanding that it is/was), it’s not surprising that the mexican corruption levels look like those in greece (and italy).

to sum up: you can’t take a clan- (or tribal-)based population with a long history of inbreeding and turn it into a population of individuals with a yearning for individualistic rights and middle-class american (anglo) values overnight. you prolly can’t even do it in a couple of generations of strong out-breeding. the (biological) process that turned a few germanic tribes (the anglos and the saxons and the jutes) into a hard-working, non-violent, frugal, literate population took aaaaaaages — and it started in the early medieval period with the church’s demands for out-breeding. from “The Tribal Imagination” [pgs. 69-70]:

In the West we had to move from tribalism, through city-states and small nations, through empire, feudalism, mercantile capitalism, and the industrial revolution to reach our present state of fragile open universalistic democracy (shrugging off communism and fascism along the way). Athens and Rome had a period of republicanism and democracy — at least voting and elections for free males — but this did not last and succumbed to autocracy and dictatorship with the growth of empire. The English were helped in the shedding of dominant kinship groups by the relative individualism of the Angles and Saxons, with their emphasis on the independent nuclear family. (See Alan Macfarlane’s ‘The Origins of English Individualism.’) Christian monogamy and the banning of cousin marriages by the Catholic Church helped to break down extended kinship groups and encouraged even more individualism.

This breaking up of tight kin groups by expanding ‘prohibited degrees’ (as far as third cousins) is perhaps not sufficiently appreciated. Think what it would have done to the Arab cousin-marriage system. In England the institution of primogeniture — inheritance by the eldest son — also helped prevent the dissipation of family fortunes produced by partible inheritance: division of the patrimony among all sons, common on the continent (and in China, but not Japan). It reduced the power of aristocratic clans by forcing the younger sons into the professions: the army, the law, and the church.

This move away from kinship and into the world of voluntary and non-kin organizations was in turn infused with the Protestant work and reinvestment ethic, and the Miracle happened. It did not happen all at once, but over several centuries of cumulative effort that fed on the new humanism and the growth of science and industry. As labor became ever more specialized and more mobile, family groups became ever less self-sufficient, and individuals became more and more dependent on strangers and on the institutions that made dependence on strangers possible: in particular, the rule of law and the enforcement of contracts.

“And we had to do it by our own efforts, pull ourselves up by the social bootstraps, to make it stick. We have seen in Germany, in Italy, and in Spain how fragile this really is. Russia never did make it. France is always problematic. Latin America and the Balkans continue to be a mess. But in making this move we had to change the entire particularistic, communalistic, ritualistic, kin-dominated society that is natural to us, and we have to keep at it all the time….”

“It did not happen all at once, but over several centuries….”

exactly.
_____

p.s. – btw, endogamy in new mexico? h*ll, yeah.

previously: recap and “hard-won democracy”

(note: comments do not require an email. they do, however, require a little more thought into the matter of mass immigration than mr. unz has obviously given it.)

Advertisements

51 Comments

  1. More pro-immigration propaganda from the pro-immigration fanatic Ron Unz.

    In his last piece on Hispanic crime, Jason Richwine found that Unz miscalculated the data. Can’t wait to see the errors on this one.

    Unz is clearly blindsided by his ideological fanaticism about immigration. He is so pro-immigration that he cannot even see the forest through the trees.

    America historically has been a European nation, and many do not want it to become another failed mestizo nation, another Mexico. Regardless if Mexifornia votes Republican, it will still be a failed Mexifornia.

    Reply

  2. If we were getting mostly middle to upper middle class mexicans, they might well assimialte, but i think we tend to get peasants

    Reply

  3. @anon – “If we were getting mostly middle to upper middle class mexicans, they might well assimialte….”

    possibly. h*ck, if we were selective at all about mexican immigrants — only those who had a college degree (master’s and above, preferably) or only european-mexicans — they might well assimilate. but to take in tens of millions of peasants, like you say. bad idea.

    Reply

  4. The CIA World Fact books puts Mexico at:

    60% Mestizo

    30% Amerindian

    and

    less than 10% European

    Using genetic testing, Ruben Lisker has found lower-class mestizos to be:

    59% Amerindian

    34% European (mostly Spaniard)

    and 6% Black

    Average mestizo IQ: 86

    Reply

  5. You are so good! I will be 70 in a couple of months and over that long period of time there have only been a small handful of people who have changed the way I understand the world. You are one of them. I tout hbd chick every chance I get, saying I don’t know who she is but I think she’s Scots-Irish and lives in the MidWest. (Just kidding about that last part). You make my day!

    Reply

  6. I don’t think they care about facts or rational arguments. Like Gould and Boas and the rest all they care about is turning White Americans into a minority as quickly as possible.

    .
    @anon – “If we were getting mostly middle to upper middle class mexicans, they might well assimialte….”

    I think the critical thing is that there are biological reasons why immigration works or not. I’d say the two most critical are IQ and what you might call high-scale co-operativeness which i think comes about from either long-term out-breeding or the long-term selection of conscientous traits. I’ve no doubt there are *individuals* all over the place that could pass a test based on those conditions but tests like that are what immigration should be based on imo.

    (I also thinks there’s a diversity penalty to co-operativeness related to Putnam’s trust research and potential cultural conflict penalties as well e.g religious fundamentalism but my gut feel is that high-scale co-operativeness would be negatively related with those two issues anyway.)

    (High-scale co-operativeness = national scale co-operativeness rather than extended family only or ethnic group only.)

    Reply

  7. “Like Gould and Boas and the rest all they care about is turning White Americans into a minority as quickly as possible.”

    This is a good insight. Gould and Boas lied to promote their agenda. Jason Richwine showed that Unz “miscalculated the data” in his “Hispanic crime is a myth” piece, but who’s to say that it wasn’t deliberate? Birds of a feather. Like Boas and Gould, Unz’s obsession seems to be to turn the US brown.

    Reply

  8. @luke – “I will be 70 in a couple of months and over that long period of time there have only been a small handful of people who have changed the way I understand the world. You are one of them.”

    awww, shucks. (*^_^*) well, everything i ever learned i learned from steve sailer (and, afterwards, bill hamilton) — specifically from his classic “Cousin Marriage Conundrum” article. after i read that, i just started to think — well, if you get tribes and anti-democratic sentiments from inbreeding, then the opposite must be…. and, voila! (^_^)

    @luke – “I tout hbd chick every chance I get…”

    i know! i see the links coming in. thnx! (^_^) (i’ve been waiting for you to ask for a commission or referral fee or something…. (~_^) )

    @luke – “…saying I don’t know who she is but I think she’s Scots-Irish and lives in the MidWest.”

    well, truth to be told, i am a midwestern gal! (^_^)

    btw, happy birthday in case i forget! (^_^)

    Reply

  9. @rm9 – “Birds of a feather.”

    well, yes. that’s another example of what the meta-topic of this blog is all about — genetic relatedness and inclusive fitness-related behaviors. no matter what anybody wants to claim, blood is thicker than water — and some blood is thicker than others, in part ’cause of differing degrees of genetic relatedness within and between populations.

    Reply

  10. one other thing about assimilation is that numbers count. if we only had a few tens of thousands of mexicans in the states, they just wouldn’t be very noticeable, and they’d probably assimilate pretty quickly, especially if they weren’t living all in the one place. but once you start to have millions of individuals from another ethnic group in your country, you’ve got an assimilation problem on your hands.

    Reply

  11. David Frum and Jason Richwine are a lot more realistic on this issue.

    “They’re not just like the Irish — or the Italians or the Poles, for that matter. The large influx of Hispanic immigrants after 1965 represents a unique assimilation challenge for the United States. Many optimistic observers have assumed — incorrectly, it turns out — that Hispanic immigrants will follow the same economic trajectory European immigrants did in the early part of the last century. Many of those Europeans came to America with no money and few skills, but their status steadily improved. Their children outperformed them, and their children’s children were often indistinguishable from the “founding stock.” The speed of economic assimilation varied somewhat by ethnic group, but three generations were typically enough to turn “ethnics” into plain old Americans.

    This would be the preferred outcome for the tens of millions of Hispanic Americans, who are significantly poorer and less educated on average than native whites. When immigration skeptics question the wisdom of importing so many unskilled people into our nation at one time, the most common response cites the remarkable progress of Europeans a century ago. “People used to say the Irish or the Poles would always be poor, but look at them today!” For Hispanics, we are led to believe, the same thing will happen.

    But that claim isn’t true. Though about three-quarters of Hispanics living in the U.S. today are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, a significant number have roots here going back many generations. We have several ways to measure their intergenerational progress, and the results leave little room for optimism about their prospects for assimilation.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=YjQ4N2EyMTQ4NzZjZmNlOWQwN2RiNTZjMWZiZDY4YzQ

    http://www.frumforum.com/the-future-costs-of-todays-cheap-labor

    Reply

  12. ***He is so pro-immigration that he cannot even see the forest through the trees.***

    I’m not sure that’s entirely correct, Unz does identify problems with US population growth in the article. He notes the environmentalists negligence and sell out on the issue. Also, his suggestion to cut off work attraction by raising the minimum wage is tactically very clever. The Democrats can hardly argue against that.

    I do agree though that he seems to ignore the human capital problem, which is interesting because he is clearly HBD aware generally. Plus he’s supported HBD research (eg Hawks, Harpending & Cochran’s work on recent accelerated evolution and the 10,000 Year Explosion).

    Reply

  13. @kiwiguy – “David Frum and Jason Richwine are a lot more realistic on this issue.”

    it really pays to read steve sailer if you wanna be ahead of the crowd. he said what frum and richwine said, only (at least) two years earlier. (~_^)

    Reply

  14. @kiwiguy – “I do agree though that he seems to ignore the human capital problem, which is interesting because he is clearly HBD aware generally. Plus he’s supported HBD research….”

    maybe he doesn’t bring it up ’cause it’s not politically possible to do so? you don’t win many friends or influence many people by talking hbd stuff in the world today.

    Reply

  15. “his suggestion to cut off work attraction by raising the minimum wage”

    raising the minimum wage would increase attraction as employers sought to undercut it with ilegals.

    .
    “maybe he doesn’t bring it up ’cause it’s not politically possible to do so?”

    however that wouldn’t force him to argue the opposite case.

    .
    “you don’t win many friends or influence many people by talking hbd stuff in the world today”

    but you do by arguing the opposite case. he obviously knows about the HBD angle but chooses to ignore it and *actively* promote policies that harm the existing population.

    Reply

  16. @g.w. – “…and *actively* promote policies that harm the existing population.”

    yes, he certainly does do that. maybe i shouldn’t give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Reply

  17. @hbdchick
    i dunno. i get too angry about it so maybe i’m being unreasonable but as far as i’m concerned they’re coldly and calmly promoting a slow, stealth genocide.

    “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.”

    Reply

  18. Dear hbdchick, almost all the Mexican immigrants are Catholic. Has their Catholicism affected their marriage patterns like it did in Europe?

    Reply

  19. @bob – “Has their Catholicism affected their marriage patterns like it did in Europe?”

    absolutely. the mayans, for instance, practiced cross-cousin marriage (to what extent i’m not sure and, of course, it’s difficult to know for certain, like with the tribes of europe), and nowadays mexicans are hardly marrying their first-cousins at all. in other words, they’re good catholics and following the church’s regulations on inbreeding. (^_^) (of course, they could be marrying their second and third cousins, etc. don’t have any info on that.)

    exactly how long they’ve been doing this is another question. obviously they weren’t following the church’s precepts before they converted to christianity, and i don’t know the exact dates for that — 1500s? 1600s? so, they haven’t been avoiding marrying their first-cousins for very long. (actually, in the 1500 and 1600s, the ban was up to third cousins.)

    Reply

  20. I really don’t see what’s wrong with some inbreeding. Depending how and among whom it’s done, the effects can be good. Ashkanazis, for instance, raised their IQs through endogamy.

    Also, the other extreme, inter-racial exogamy, is worse. Do you want a world of Barack Obamas?

    Besides, endogamy promotes relatedness which overall improves one’s genetic fitness and increases altruism: there more closely one is related to someone else the more genes he will share with him and thus will shore more altruism.

    Perhaps both extreme endogamy and extreme exogamy are bad, but, in general, we should error on the side of favoring endogamy.

    http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/629/

    It is in our genetic interest to do so.

    Reply

  21. There’s no information on how the correlations in Unz’s “White Voting Behavior” graph were calculated and where the data are from. Can someone point me towards data on the Republican share of the white vote in each state in presidential elections between 1992 and 2008, and on the racial composition of each state in the same years? It would be interesting to check how robust Unz’s findings are.

    Reply

  22. @jl – “Can someone point me towards data on the Republican share of the white vote in each state in presidential elections between 1992 and 2008, and on the racial composition of each state in the same years?”

    it was razib @gnxp who did the calculations. you could always ask him where the data were drawn from.

    Reply

  23. @nigel
    “Besides, endogamy promotes relatedness which overall improves one’s genetic fitness and increases altruism: there more closely one is related to someone else the more genes he will share with him and thus will shore more altruism.”

    Endogamy increases altruism towards extended family while reducing it towards everyone else. Both have their pros and cons so no doubt there’s a sweet spot but i think the two main points to take from it are:

    1) Peoples who are more exogamous for historical reasons and who have developed a high trust social structure based on that cannot compete with more endogamous groups on their living space as the more endogamous group will not play by the same rules. For example, honest media reporting of the propensities for fraud, welfare fraud and tax evasion by ethnicity would clearly show this. The only exceptions would be those groups without the brains who will show up in violent crime stats instead.

    (Exceptions could be made for individuals from more endogamous groups who are themselves from the more out-bred segments of their population.)

    .
    2) This is just a theory but i personally think that at the national scale, maximum co-operation, maximum synergy and therefore maximum carrying capacity, GDP/capita, maximum innovation etc of a nation would result from maximal homogeny-exogamy i.e where everyone was ethnically part of the nation and equally related to everyone else.

    (A possible exception to that might be the NE Asian route where you could maybe reach a similar point through selecting for certain personality traits.)

    .
    The benefit of national-exogamy is it allows for large-scale co-operation and is one of the reasons for western advances over the last 500 years or so (imo). The cost is it creates a weakness to internal ethnic competition from more endogamous groups.

    .
    In short you can’t create or maintain an American style society and economy with Mexican or Arab levels of endogamy even if everyone is Arab or Mexican. If there are multiple groups like it then it’s even worse. Once the exogamous glue in America dips below a minimum tipping point America as nation is going down.

    This is separate to the IQ question.

    Reply

  24. “If we were getting mostly middle to upper middle class mexicans, they might well assimialte”

    LIke the mexicans and hispanics that populate the HIspanic Caucus? Or that are members of LaRaza for example?

    Reply

  25. @g.w. – “This is just a theory but i personally think that at the national scale, maximum co-operation, maximum synergy and therefore maximum carrying capacity, GDP/capita, maximum innovation etc of a nation would result from maximal homogeny-exogamy i.e where everyone was ethnically part of the nation and equally related to everyone else.”

    yes, this sound right to me, too.

    as an aside: both ethnicity (or race) AND the degree of inbreeding/outbreeding within a society affects the genetic relatedness between the members of that society (and as compared to any outside society). you’ve got to keep both in mind in order to understand the patterns of social behaviors any given society exhibits, since social behaviors are very much tied to inclusive fitness.

    Reply

  26. A word in Ron Unz’s defense:

    This post got me thinking. My wife happens to be third-generation Irish on both sides of the family (grew up on Staten Island), and my bestest friend is second-generation Italian on both side (well, strictly, half Neapolitan, half Sicilian, but close enough) from Buffalo, New York. From these fct I conclude that full assimilation into American society is possible in as little as two or three generations. But to pull it off you have to move down South and marry into the Scotts-Irish (in my wife’s case) or old-line Southern Ashkenazi lineages (in my friend’s case). :)

    Guess I should add that on my twin brother’s side of the family we’ve got two African Americans and one American Indian; and on my wife’s son’s side (by a previous marriage) we have a hot chaquita number from Peru with two lovely children who live right across the street. Believe me he has his hands full — and is himself half-Ashkenazi to boot!

    So, you see, I may not talk the talk but my family walks the walk! So it is that I favor an across-board-moratorium on all immigration from all countries for at least a couple of generations — or until more stuff like this can dilute the consanguinity (if that’s the right word) of our immigrant population. America could come through yet if we make the right moves.

    Reply

  27. @luke – “So, you see, I may not talk the talk but my family walks the walk!”

    in case i haven’t made it clear, i feel now’s my chance — i’m not opposed to immigration 100%, of course. it’s just mass immigration. it’s a numbers game.

    neither am i opposed to people marrying out of their ethnic group or race. i really have no problems with that! i’m all for individual choice. (got poles and germans and scandinavians and a token black (~_^) in my family, as well — and i have not married someone of my same ethnic group, either.)

    assimilation into american (or any other) society is, of course, possible via inter-marriage. but then we all should keep in mind that what we’re making is a new society. it won’t be the same as the old one.

    that’s my message for mr. unz and all the immigration enthusiasts out there.

    Reply

  28. Sorry..that was already posted here.

    [edit: i deleted it ’cause it was a duplicate. – hbd chick]

    Reply

  29. Luke,

    Ashkenazis have been living among Westerners for 1,000 years and still haven’t assimilated. Compare, statistically, the average Ashkenazi’s views on immigration in the US to the average white American or in the UK to the average British ethnic. You will see quite the divergence. Ashekenazis, even after 1,000 years, still do not think in terms of helping or preserving the native stock.

    Besides, in terms of inclusive fitness, multiracial families often have major problems. The amount of shared genes among multi-racial families is less than among same-race families so there’s less of a genetic investment and less of a genetic basis for altruism. For example, a white woman who has a baby with a black man will share more genes with a random white person off the street than she will with her own child. In terms of Cavalli Sforza’s genetic distance charts, the white mother could up to 70x more closely related to another random co-ethnic than to her own child. Sure, some white women may threat a mixed-race child well, but statistically parents of mixed-race children are more negligent.

    See:

    http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct03/udry10302003.html

    and

    http://www.mankindquarterly.org/samples/SalterMQXLVIII-3.pdf

    Reply

  30. Ashkenazis have been living among Westerners for 1,000 years and still haven’t assimilated.

    The Ashkenazis you’re referring to are descended from a tiny population which exploded demographically in Eastern Europe in the last three centuries. They’ve been exposed to the true ‘West’ for only a century or so.

    Also, “assimilated” to what? Have the Irish and the Scots assimilated into the English?

    Reply

  31. @ihtg – “Also, ‘assimilated’ to what? Have the Irish and the Scots assimilated into the English?”

    well, exactly. the very fact that we talk about italian-americans and irish-americans and polish-americans and african-americans clearly means that everyone has not fully assimilated yet into what started off as an anglo nation (the united states).

    and, seeing as everybody’s always talking about jews in the united states and europe — including jews, themselves — that’s a good indication that they haven’t assimilated to american, or whatever european country they live in, society either. if they had, we wouldn’t be talking about them, no?

    Reply

  32. Part of the success of assimilation depends on genetic distance. Given that the genetic distance between the Irish and English is almost non-existent, the differences between the two were largely religious. People can change religion, but not their genes. But when you consider that blacks are 140X more distant from the English than the Danish are from the English, you can see how and why it would be much easier for a Dane to assimilate to English society.

    Reply

  33. OT, but after you’ve looked at all the variations of first cousin marriage and their effects on society, how about looking at second cousin marriage. What would a community in which everyone married a second cousin be like? (Heck, what is a second cousin anyway?) Would clan networks be weaker? More extensive? You’ve alluded to a golden mean between (unpatriotic) individualism and (unpatriotic) familism in which average relatedness is equivalent to being third cousins. Euro-Americans are on average more like 5th cousins I believe you have noted. So what about second cousins? I want to hear more. thanks

    Reply

  34. @anon – well, as i’ve already said in different places (mostly comments) on this blog, i’m of (pretty recent) european ancestry with a catholic background. that’s as specific as i’m going to get on the public street-corner that is the internet.

    Reply

  35. @luke – “What would a community in which everyone married a second cousin be like? (Heck, what is a second cousin anyway?) Would clan networks be weaker? More extensive?”

    what is a second cousin? that’s easy! imagine one of your own first cousins. now imagine your kids … and then your first cousin’s kids. well, all those kids? they’re second cousins to one another. (^_^) (you are first-cousins once-removed to your first cousin’s kids, and vice versa for everybody.)

    since second-cousins are all related to each other less than first-cousins are (first-cousins share 1/8th of their genes, more or less — second-cousins just 1/32nd of their genes — these are averages, remember), a society where everyone married their second-cousins ought to be more open than one where everyone married their first-cousins. the genetic ties are looser.

    of course, which cousins they marry also seems to matter. in the arab world, everyone marries their paternal first cousin (fbd) — traditionally in china everyone married their maternal first cousin (mbd). (well, not *everyone* — but these types of marriages were preferred.) totally different outcomes because the fbd form doesn’t allow for alliances with outside clans. everyone is from the same patrilineage.

    the modern greeks have a preference for marrying their third cousins and beyond (unfortunately, i don’t know what the actual rates are), so take a look at greek society to see what that gets you. (in other words, i think second-cousin marriage is probably way too close — but it all depends on what sort of society you want at the end of the day!)

    Reply

  36. well, as i’ve already said in different places (mostly comments) on this blog, i’m of (pretty recent) european ancestry with a catholic background. that’s as specific as i’m going to get on the public street-corner that is the internet.

    I’m a new reader so I haven’t followed your comments.

    I don’t know why ancestry is such a secret, unless someone has something to hide.

    In my opinion it’s important and gives a lot of perspective to the person’s interests and behavior.

    Do you consider Jews to be European?

    Reply

  37. @anon – “Do you consider Jews to be European?”

    afaiac, it’s not a matter of whether or not i (or anyone else) considers something to be one way or another. i’m interested in the facts.

    and the genetic facts are that ashkenazi and sephardic jews, to differing degrees, are partly european. oriental jews, since they didn’t really inter-breed with europeans, are not.

    full disclosure: i’m not jewish. don’t have any jewish ancestors that i know of either. edit: i come from a long line of roman catholic european peasants.

    Reply

  38. You’re avoiding the question. By Jews I’m referring to the common Jew in the West, Ashkenazim.

    When dealing with hybrids it is a matter of what one considers them to be, where you draw the line.

    Reply

  39. @anon – “You’re avoiding the question.”

    nope. i answered your question. q: are (ashkenazi) jews european? a: partly.

    if it makes you happy to think of it like this: that’s what i consider them to be (just like i consider obama to be partly white and partly black — i don’t consider him to be “a black man”), because i like to base my considerations on facts.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s