clannish or not?

do you think this group — “group X” — sounds clannish or not? and can you guess who they are?

“[group X] were [their deity’s] chosen people…. If they all did his will, they would be rewarded. If any member did not, they might all be punished….

“[those from other groups] were disfigured for easy identification, their nostrils slit, their ears cut off, or their faces branded…. [group X] doled out death sentences for infractions such as adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, sodomy, and even teenage rebellion….

“[group X] believed every community of the chosen should govern itself without interference from [religious authorities] or kings; every [sub-group of group X] was to be completely self-governing….

“[group X] tended to be affronted by and fearful of otherness, which could make them rather dangerous to have as one’s neighbors…. In one notorious incident they surrounded a poorly defended [other group’s] village and butchered virtually every man, woman, and child they found there, mostly by burning them alive…. [one of group X’s leaders] conceded that it had been ‘a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same’ but concluded that ‘the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice’ which [their deity] ‘had wrought so wonderfully for them.'”

(note: comments do not require an email. hint. don’t peek!)

133 Comments

  1. @luke – “They were congregationalists.”

    heh! but that is clannish — not wanting to submit to any authority. they’re like (southern) libertarians. or arab tribesmen. or pashtun warriors. (less so than those last two groups, tho.)

    edit: they’re like frisians!

    Reply

  2. Sorry, not buyin’ it. If you pick your cherries just so and squint really hard, you can make any group sound like this. For example, we express horror at the Puritans forcing sinners to wear letters identifying their sins on clothing (like Hawthorne’s A). But the Quakers sometimes had the letter branded onto one’s forehead. I would not contend from that that the Quakers were generally cruel and violent.

    Such descriptions must always be in the context of “compared to what?” From first contact in New England in 1620 to King Philip’s War in 1673, the intergroup violence rate in coastal New England was far less than both Europe and the surrounding Native tribes. Terrible things were done, certainly. I don’t know of evidence to suggest that they were worse, nor even equal to, other places.

    Other first contacts with better records are not coming to mind.

    Reply

  3. I figured you’d have fun with this. The Puritan/Scandinavian communal-but-tribal type of outbreeding seems like an interesting in between truly clannish groups and true universalists.

    When you think of the much-lamented behaviors of their SWPL descendants (e.g., locavorism, co-ops, hipster trendiness, putting down Dixie Whites – i.e., Whites not members of their group), it does seem to make sense.

    Then there’s this:

    Welcome to New England | JayMan’s Blog

    And this:

    Steve Sailer: iSteve: Opening borders as the Yankee missionary impulse

    And this:

    Steve Sailer: iSteve: Mormons as conservative New England Puritans

    Interesting, no?

    Reply

  4. The second edition of Kevin MacDonald’s book A People That Shall Dwell Alone has a preface with a description of several other diaspora peoples such as the gypsies, the overseas Chinese, Calvinists and Puritans, Anabaptists, Amish and Hutterites.

    Reply

  5. @avi – “I would not contend from that that the Quakers were generally cruel and violent.”

    it’s not so much the violence as the rather strong feelings of in-group vs. out-group:

    “[those from other groups] were disfigured for easy identification, their nostrils slit, their ears cut off, or their faces branded…”

    ““[group X] tended to be affronted by and fearful of otherness, which could make them rather dangerous to have as one’s neighbors….”

    also the dislike of higher authorities. clannish peoples hate authority — except their own.

    Reply

  6. @jayman – “The Puritan/Scandinavian communal-but-tribal type of outbreeding seems like an interesting in between truly clannish groups and true universalists.”

    yeah! the in-betweeners! (~_^)

    Reply

  7. Congregationalist just means that local churches are independent and sovereign and can basically believe and do whatever they want. It’s the opposite of the Catholic Church’s system of governance, where local churches are under the authority of the diocese’s bishop, who is under the archbishop, who is under the Vatican, etc.

    It’s independent of clannishness vs. non-clannishness.

    Local Islamic mosques also are organized along congregationalist lines.

    Reply

  8. @dale – “It’s independent of clannishness vs. non-clannishness.”

    just to be clear, clannishness is a set of behaviors, not the state of living in a clan (or a tribe).

    sicilians are clannish in that they favor their families and are nepotistic and corrupt in favor of their familiy members. the irish are clannish in that they are still oriented towards their extended families, both back in ireland and in the u.s. (see my previous post on familism in the u.s.a.), and have a load of patronage in their democratic system. the pashtuns are clannish because, at least in the countryside, they actully do live amongst their fellow clan members and they’re nepotistic and corrupt, etc., etc., all the time favoring their extended family members.

    different populations are more clannish than others: the arabs & pashtuns — very clannish; the irish and sicilians — less clannish than the arabs & pashtuns, but more clannish than the anglos/dutch. it’s a spectrum.

    i would say that the puritans were clannish. being congregationalist (not liking a higher authority) certainly fits this — and the fact that islamic mosques are congregationalist REALLY confirms to my mind that this is a clannish trait.

    Reply

  9. Just clicked the hint. Damn. The Puritans?! I could have sworn you were talking about the Old Testament Israelites.

    Remember that Calvinists like the Puritans rejected the authority of the Church and looked to the Bible as the authority. They were also more into the Old Testament than the Catholics and looked to the Old Testament Israelites as an inspiration and model.

    The South African Boers were also heavily Dutch Calvinist in religion and culture. They consciously viewed themselves as like the Old Testament Israelites searching for the Promised Land in South Africa.

    Reply

  10. i would say that the puritans were clannish. being congregationalist (not liking a higher authority) certainly fits this — and the fact that islamic mosques are congregationalist REALLY confirms to my mind that this is a clannish trait.

    Right, but Sicilians and the Irish are strongly Catholic and Catholicism isn’t run on congregationalist lines, it’s run on authoritarian, hierarchical lines. It doesn’t seem mutually exclusive.

    Reply

  11. @dale – “Right, but Sicilians and the Irish are strongly Catholic and Catholicism isn’t run on congregationalist lines….”

    but the sicilians and the irish inbred for longer than the east anglians (the puritans), so they’re still more clannish — or, at least, they definitely were at the time the puritans were having their heyday.

    the puritans are (were) in-betweeners. see my previous post on the radical reformation re. calvinism.

    Reply

  12. also the dislike of higher authorities. clannish peoples hate authority — except their own.

    Is it the case that non-clannish people love authority? Or is it the case that non-clannish people identity the authority as their own?

    Reply

  13. but the sicilians and the irish inbred for longer than the east anglians (the puritans), so they’re still more clannish

    So it’s independent of congregationalism, in other words.

    Reply

  14. @dale – “Or is it the case that non-clannish people identity the authority as their own?”

    yes. and it is their own, because these are the “of the people, by the people, for the people” people.

    clannish people can’t do — or have a really hard time doing — this, because they’re clannish and can’t work together as a bunch of individuals. they’re too busy thinking about/working for their extended families/clans (and if you take them out of that environment — if you take them away from their families and clans — they’ll still exhibit clannish behaviors, because these are a set of — or maybe sets of — behavioral traits which have been selected for).

    Reply

  15. @dale – “So it’s independent of congregationalism, in other words.”

    clannishness? no. now you’re misunderstanding.

    a dislike/distrust of authority is one aspect of clannishness. it can exhibit in different ways. congregationalism seems to be one of those ways.

    Reply

  16. “Compared to what”, precisely.

    These primates were transplanted into an odd environment, tailored to evoke the most clannish phenotype possible. I think you can get any group to act clannishly, even in less odd environments that this.

    What is noteworthy is if you get them to voluntarily act NOT clannishly, in any environment at all.

    Edward Snowden is in part descended from Pennsylvanian puritans, I’m brought to mind of a recent quote from his recent interview in Moscow:

    “I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: “Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.

    Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.”

    etc
    etc
    Read the whole transcript at http://xrepublic.tv/node/4375#sthash.J7JjGfJS.dpuf, he explains his motivations at some length.

    It’s growing increasingly apparent to me that this kind of mindset is alien and weird to many people. Literally unbelievable and inhuman.

    Reply

  17. yes. and it is their own, because these are the “of the people, by the people, for the people” people.

    clannish people can’t do — or have a really hard time doing — this, because they’re clannish and can’t work together as a bunch of individuals.

    I don’t know if this explains a Catholic’s submission to the authority of an Italian pope.

    Also, how do you define “own”? Genetically, a village elder will always be more of one’s “own” than a foreign potentate.

    Reply

  18. @HBDC, ah, you already write everything I just wrote, in your own comments while I was writing my comment.

    It’s been too long since I wrote here last, I’ve missed it. ^_^

    Reply

  19. as i said in a previous comment:

    clannishness should be viewed as a spectrum.

    the pattern seems to be that, the longer and greater the inbreeding, the more clannish — and the opposite — the longer and greater the outbreeding, the less clannish.

    if we take 1 as the least clannish and 10 as the most clannish, i would rate various groups as follows (these are today’s judgements — i reserve the right to alter these as i go forward and learn more about all of these populations!):

    1 – the english (not all of them — probably not the cornish, for instance), some of the dutch
    2 – the scandinavians
    3 or 4 – the irish
    6-7 – the italians, the greeks, the chinese
    7-8 – the albanians
    10 – the yanomamo
    11 – the arabs

    the puritans (the east anglians), and some other groups in europe like the swiss and the frisians and ditmarsians (again, see my post on the radical reformation), appear to be inbreeding/outbreeding “in-betweeners” as far as nw europe goes. they’re more outbred than, say, the irish or the scots, but not at all as outbred as the southern english and the dutch (and by dutch i mean people from holland — probably south holland) and belgians.

    so the puritans did manage to have some representative democracy — on a local level — but they very much wanted to keep all out-groups OUT. they weren’t like the multi-culti dutch of 15th century amsterdam welcoming everybody from hither and yon. and they weren’t very much like londoners, either.

    Reply

  20. @dale – “Also, how do you define ‘own’?”

    please, see the link i gave you.

    what i’m talking about is the difference in being able to build a large state versus just a village or a clan.

    outbreeding gets you individualism which gets you a sort of grand group collectivism — on a large scale.

    long-term outbreeding peoples — the english and the dutch (and kinda/sorta a few others) — were the first to be able to build nation-states based on representative, liberal democracy. they’re concerned about the commonweal, not just how well their family members are getting on. they view themselves as part of the whole, BIG society, because they are. clannish people look to their clan — or if they’re no longer living in clans, they look to something more locally. the puritans — being in-betweeners (i think) — looked to the pretty local — to their towns. and they wanted to run their own churches, too. they didn’t want to unite into one, huge group.

    Reply

  21. a dislike/distrust of authority is one aspect of clannishness. it can exhibit in different ways. congregationalism seems to be one of those ways.

    Yes, but clannish people don’t dislike authority per se, they dislike authority they don’t perceive as their own.

    Reply

  22. @HBD Chick:

    “i would say that the puritans were clannish. being congregationalist (not liking a higher authority) certainly fits this — and the fact that islamic mosques are congregationalist REALLY confirms to my mind that this is a clannish trait.”

    As you read, you’ll see the Puritans, more than any other of the American nations, had the strongest faith in government. This is a trait that persists in Yankees to this day. Of course, the government was of the people (i.e., their people), but it is quite a ways different from the hostile attitudes towards government of say the Scotch-Irish.

    I think the resolution to these apparent contradictions is to consider your scale, which I think is pretty accurate, and the background behind these behaviors.

    If inbreeding vs outbreeding alter the selective pressures on peoples, then one would imagine that each group would develop their own flavor of clannishness/universalism accordingly, in part based where they are along that scale. If we think that a people who have a history of marrying cousins take up outbreeding, then, as time progresses and outbreeding selection kicks in, they would move up the scale towards more outbred behaviors, shedding some of their clannish behaviors with time. But what if different peoples do so unevenly? That is, people on roughly the same point on your clannish scale may have their own unique mix of clannish/universalist behaviors depending on the quirks of their evolutionary history and the traits they had going in. The Puritans and Scandinavians seem to have an interesting mix of clannish/non-clannish behaviors, and this may be why.

    My thoughts anyway, if that makes any sense.

    Reply

  23. @dale – “Yes, but clannish people don’t dislike authority per se, they dislike authority they don’t perceive as their own.”

    yes. problem is, their view is a very narrow one. the only authority they’ll recognize is a very local one (their clan or, maybe, village) — and, therefore, they seem to be congenitally unable to build large, cooperative societies. edit: without some sort of force or strong control, that is.

    Reply

  24. @jayman – “My thoughts anyway, if that makes any sense.”

    yes, that does make sense! i was sitting here the other night trying to write out a nice “clannishness spectrum,” and it occurred to me that, of course, evolution doesn’t work in a straight line. what i need is a “clannishness bush” — like the latest human evolution bushes! (*hbd chick pulls hair out!*)

    (^_^)

    Reply

  25. what i’m talking about is the difference in being able to build a large state versus just a village or a clan.

    Big states predate the nation-state, no?

    Isn’t the modern nation-state based on a fiction? They encourage people to view people from different regions, villages, etc as identical and as part of one big family even though it’s not true. Even if people sincerely believe it it’s not true.

    Reply

  26. @dale – “Big states predate the nation-state, no?”

    yes, but from one of my comments above:

    “long-term outbreeding peoples — the english and the dutch (and kinda/sorta a few others) — were the first to be able to build nation-states based on representative, liberal democracy.”

    and from another:

    “therefore, they [clannish groups] seem to be congenitally unable to build large, cooperative societies. edit: without some sort of force or strong control, that is.”

    non-clannish groups can build large, cooperative societies without strong control. think: england.

    @dale – “Isn’t the modern nation-state based on a fiction?”

    it’s not a fiction for long-term outbreeding, non-clannish peoples. edit: they are, comparatively speaking, very alike one another within those populations.

    (you must be from a clannish background to even ask that. (~_^) not that there’s anything wrong with that! i am, too.)

    Reply

  27. So you don’t mean state, then. You mean “representative, liberal democracy”, no?

    How do you define “strong control”? There was quite a bit of force expended in the formation of the English state, no? I mean it did take civil wars and stuff. It wasn’t exactly a picnic.

    Unless the citizens are clones or something, how is it not the case that the modern nation-state is based on a fiction? Genetic gradients still exist, no?

    Reply

  28. As soon as I read “noses slit”, I thought: Puritans.

    also the dislike of higher authorities. clannish peoples hate authority — except their own.

    Good comment. When someone who has “problems with authority”, it usually means: problems with other people’s authority. The arch-rebel Trotsky might well have out-murdered Stalin if he’d got the chance.

    Reply

  29. Re: Clannish Catholics

    Perhaps there’s some kind of tendency for clannish people to find a sense of “transcendence” in a structured, universalist hierarchical system. A One Big Truth that is the only thing that supersedes the clan, and perhaps acts as a “tie breaker” of sorts.

    Same for Arabs and Islam.

    Reply

  30. @hbd chick “do you think this group — “group X” — sounds clannish or not? and can you guess who they are?” Sounds like yankees to me. the old fashioned pre revolutionary kind, but they don’t change much at heart. I would say not clannish. If I follow the definitions clannish means identifying with groups in the thousands or greater. These sound like a few hundred per identity group. Swell from a biological standpoint but maybe not very cuddly.

    Reply

  31. this blog is smart, it is able to talk about clannish behaviour mentioning everybody but the J… good job

    Reply

  32. Of course, the Puritans justified many of the things they did by an appeal to the Old-Testament Israelites, who were definitely clannish.

    Reply

  33. @giovanni – “this blog is smart, it is able to talk about clannish behaviour mentioning everybody but the J… good job”

    see “mating patterns in europe series” below ↓ in left-hand column, the section entitled “jews.”

    i haven’t written much about the jews, yet, simply because i haven’t looked into the history (histories) of their mating patterns … yet. don’t worry. i’ll get to them, too!

    for some preliminary thoughts on the jews and clannish behaviors, see this comment of mine.

    Reply

  34. @georgia resident – “…the Old-Testament Israelites, who were definitely clannish.”

    very clannish. tribal, in fact. (12 tribes of israel, right?) some anthropologists think that it was the israelites who introduced father’s brother’s daughter’s (fbd) marriage to the arabs.

    it may be that clannish, or even slightly clannish, populations are quite attracted to the old testament, precisely because so much of it is so clannish.

    Reply

  35. @lesser bull – “But nearly any group will be clannish when pioneering on a new ethnic frontier.”

    really? not the dutch in new amsterdam according to colin woodard in American Nations:

    “Standing between Yankeedom and Tidewater, the city had emerged as a trading entrepôt for both, its markets, ships, and warehouses filled with Virginia tobacco, New England salt cod, Indian-caught beaver pelts, linens, dishes, and other manufactured goods from the mother country, and produce from the farms of Harlem and Brooklyn. Its population was equally diverse, including French-speaking Walloons; Lutherans from Poland, Finland, and Sweden; Catholics from Ireland and Portugal; and Anglicans, Puritans, and Quakers from New England. Jews were banned from setting foot in New France, Yankeedom, and Tidewater, but dozens of Ashkenazim and Spanish-speaking Sephardim settled in New Amsterdam in the 1650s, forming the nucleus of what would eventually become the largest Jewish community in the world. Indians roamed the streets, and Africans — slave, free, and half-free — already formed a fifth of the population. A Muslim from Morocco had been farming outside the walls for three decades. Visitors were shocked by the village’s religious, ethnic, and linguistic diversity. In 1643 Father Isaac Jogues, a Jesuit working in New France, estimated New Amsterdam’s population at 500 and the number of its languages at 18, an ‘arrogance of Babel’ that ‘has done much harm to all men….’ The government, desirous above all to promote trade, embraced diversity even as it eschewed democracy. The village was, to put it simply, New York, and many of its characteristics have endured to the present day.

    These characteristics — diversity, tolerance, upward mobility, and an overwhelming emphasis on private enterprise — have come to be identified with the United States, but they were really the legacy of the United Provinces of the Netherlands….

    “The Dutch Republic had also become a haven for persecuted people across Europe. While heretics were being burned at the stake in Spain, the 1579 treaty that created the Netherlands stated that ‘everyone shall remain free in religion and . . . no one may be persecuted or investigated because of religion.’ While Jews were barred from entering France or England, thousands of Sephardic refugees from Spain and Portugal lived in Amsterdam, worshipped in the world’s largest synagogue, and invested in the trading companies that founded New Netherland and the Dutch East Indies. Catholics, Mennonites, and Lutherans lived peaceably alongside the Calvinist majority. In 1607, the Englishman William Bradford and his band of Pilgrims arrived in Holland, where they were welcomed so long as they promised to ‘behave themselves honestly and submit to all the laws.'”

    Reply

  36. re Puritans “They are like frisians!

    Now that is interesting. Was there a lot of inbreeding among New England Puritans? Or their forebears? I’ve been away so not able to follow this thread closely, but will return.

    Reply

  37. @Luke Lea:

    “re Puritans “They are like frisians!

    Now that is interesting. Was there a lot of inbreeding among New England Puritans?”

    Fairly close marriage (3rd-5th cousins) persists in little New England towns to this day (like with some people I know). This primarily a consequence of isolation: if you exist in a small community for generations, with little influx of new blood (like me :p), eventually everyone becomes your cousin.

    Reply

  38. @luke – “Was there a lot of inbreeding among New England Puritans? Or their forebears?”

    to be completely honest with you, i don’t know! but i am working on finding out.

    i’ve been working backwards in my thinking here (not an unusual practice for me (~_^) ), concluding that, since extended families/clans/etc. seem to stem from close marriages, the east anglians (the forebears of the puritans) must’ve been marrying fairly closely since they had extended family households — and no manorialism — until quite late. (similarly with the frisians and the ditmarsians.)

    but that, of course, could be WRONG! so, i really need to find something out about their mating patterns, if i can.

    hold me to it! make sure i stay on the straight and narrow here! (^_^)

    Reply

  39. @linton – “If I follow the definitions clannish means identifying with groups in the thousands or greater.”

    right. i’ve got a different definition of “clannish” and that includes (but is not limited to) being more oriented towards one’s extended family/clan/tribe rather than to the commonweal. some symptoms of clannishness are: nepotism, corruption (esp. that which benefits the family), patronage; violence — especially being quick to violence — towards other clans/outsiders, esp. feuding; lack of liberal democracy and a preference for consensus democracy; dislike of authority (esp. authority that is viewed as being from the outside); etc., etc.

    Reply

  40. @dale – “So you don’t mean state, then. You mean ‘representative, liberal democracy’, no?”

    no. quit trying to put words into my mouth. i mean what i said:

    “long-term outbreeding peoples — the english and the dutch (and kinda/sorta a few others) — were the first to be able to build nation-states based on representative, liberal democracy.”

    @dale – “How do you define ‘strong control’?”

    by “strong control” i mean something like the aztec empire. or any of the chinese empires down to and including the current state, or singapore. a state which is held together by some degree of force or duress rather than a more voluntary system where “the people” feel they are “a nation.” there was a huge nationalism movement in the 1700s/1800s in europe — especially western europe — especially earliest in western europe. much of that was the opposite of “strongly controlled states.”

    @dale – “There was quite a bit of force expended in the formation of the English state, no? I mean it did take civil wars and stuff. It wasn’t exactly a picnic.”

    sure. but the english had the idea that they were english. they fought each other for the form that england would take, but it was still england to most of them. the same can’t be said for, say, italy.

    Reply

  41. @dale – “Unless the citizens are clones or something, how is it not the case that the modern nation-state is based on a fiction? Genetic gradients still exist, no?”

    sure. but the differences between the individuals — or clusters of individuals (eg. clans) — within the population are fewer. again, see the map on this post.

    Reply

  42. @dale – “Yes, but clannish people don’t dislike authority per se, they dislike authority they don’t perceive as their own.”

    i forgot to say that very often, the authority that clannish people don’t perceive as their own isn’t actually their own — eg. think of libya and all the different tribes in conflict there, and how most of them felt being governed by the qadaffi+partnering tribes. for most people in libya at the time (and now!), authority was not their own. think, too, of saudi arabia — pretty much run by and for the house of saud. or syria!

    authority never is in the hands of the majority in a clannish society, nor can it be, by definition really. otoh, it can be in an outbred, liberally democratic society (that hasn’t been co-opted by more clannish peoples).

    Reply

  43. @dale – “Right, but Sicilians and the Irish are strongly Catholic and Catholicism isn’t run on congregationalist lines, it’s run on authoritarian, hierarchical lines.”

    @ihtg – “Perhaps there’s some kind of tendency for clannish people to find a sense of ‘transcendence’ in a structured, universalist hierarchical system. A One Big Truth that is the only thing that supersedes the clan, and perhaps acts as a ‘tie breaker’ of sorts. Same for Arabs and Islam.”

    i think it’s important to look at two things: 1) what sorts of systems (religious or whatever) populations “invent” for themselves; and 2) how those systems actually work in fact.

    i don’t know about the structure of the early church in italy, but the early church in ireland (and scotland and amongst the britons) — i.e. the system that they “invented” for themselves — was quite different from the hierarchy that eventually came out of rome. see here for just one example. ecclesiastical power in the celtic church was — according to most scholars, although there is some amount of debate around it all — more diffuse than in the later roman system. i only have a limited knowledge of what all the differences were, but the fact that there were these differences makes me think that we ought to pause before concluding that all populations that are now a part of the holy roman catholic church prefer the authoritarian system. i, for one, would like to know more about it all first.

    edit: i forgot point number 2! and that is, just look at how the church’s hierarchy was used — or ABused — in italy throughout the medieval period. the medicis and the borgias and who knows who else all scamming the papacy for ALL that it was worth — because they were clannish. they misused the whole set-up in ways in which it was (probably) not intended. iow, it’s important to keep in mind what people do (use the papal office for their own corrupt ends) rather than what they say they do (some sort of holy business for god’s people — yeah, right!).

    as for islam — mohammed certainly tried to make his new religion the “great unifier” for the arabs — and he succeeded for a while. there’s so much sectarian (read: clannish, imho) infighting now, though, that i don’t think his grand plan has worked so far. maybe it’ll pan out in the end. who knows?

    Reply

  44. @jayman – “As you read, you’ll see the Puritans, more than any other of the American nations, had the strongest faith in *government*. This is a trait that persists in Yankees to this day.”

    yes. i’m having a hard time getting my head around this, to tell you the truth! i’m not denying that it is the case — because it certainly seems to be — but i don’t get how that happened. i guess already with the middling inbreeders/outbreeders — the in-betweeners — that an appreciation for government took hold? at that early stage, i mean?

    the inbreeding/outbreeding thing has been full of surprises, though: that inbred peoples should feel very “independent” (when they’re not in reality!), that outbred peoples should be individualistic and, yet, very collectivistic. these seem like contradictions, but they’re not! (*hbd chick scratches head*) so, i guess i shouldn’t be surprised at yet another puzzle/surprise! (^_^)

    Reply

  45. The cherry of piece…

    ”The second edition of Kevin MacDonald’s book A People That Shall Dwell Alone has a preface with a description of several other diaspora peoples such as the gypsies, the overseas Chinese, Calvinists and Puritans, Anabaptists, Amish and Hutterites.”

    Well, chinese diaspora don’t have strong cultural or political influence or ‘megalomaniackly’ believe that are an ”engineer of the world” (specially western world).
    Gypsies don’t have higher cognitive abilities to this. Amish people should be to me very lovely and don’t push any destructive agenda against their neighbors.

    Reply

  46. hbdchick: Sure, the tribalists twist institutions into their own image, but one still wonders why they believed in them in the first place.

    Reply

  47. @ihtg – “…but one still wonders why they believed in them in the first place.”

    true.

    oftentimes — but not all the time — institutions are imposed on people from the outside, though. or they adopt institutions “invented” by some other group but for their own ends.

    take democracy in egypt today. i mean … what they h*ck?! they certainly didn’t invent it, and they don’t manage to get it working right. but here’s the crazy western world pushing it on them (and on all sorts of places … like afghanistan!) … and, meanwhile, all sorts of forces within egypt are paying lip-service to democracy because they want to game it somehow.

    that’s why i feel it’s more informative to understand what a people are about by just looking at the systems they, themselves, invented — not what they adopted from the outside, because then it all gets so … confusing.

    for example, the afghani jirga — that’s one of their traditional institutions, “designed” by them with their own needs and requirements in mind (at least subconsciously). understand the jirga (i don’t), and you’ll probably have gotten a long way in understanding the afghanis/pashtun.

    trying to work out how egyptians relate to democratic principles — or how, say, the polish or the irish relate to the hierarchy of the roman catholic church — are more difficult routes to getting to an understanding of those groups, since you’re dealing with institutions foreign to them.

    Reply

  48. This definition of clannish includes everyone. That Colin Woodard, who is locked into the idea of New Amsterdam as the founding force of everything good, sees one great hour of sharing and tolerance in NY doesn’t make everyone else clannish in any nontrivial sense. All situated peoples tend to marry people close by and within their religious and ethnic tradition. Heck, even people in more mobile, trading groups tend to do that. Everyone dislikes authority that the perceive as outsiders. As said Lesser Bull, any group will cling together on the frontier, at least at first. Note: Woodard mentions the Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Quakers of New England, which rather undermines your point, and his. Of those New York groups who traded nicely – okay traded, anyway – did they become unclannish, all those Jews and Dutch Reformed, those Finns and Irish?

    The Puritans went on to move westward and settle the whole top of the US.

    If you are going to call that group clannish, because they actually believed their religion was the right one and didn’t like outsiders telling them what to do, who in the world are you qualifying as not clannish? Your list has the South English at the top, but if they are still measurably different from their neighbors after 946 years, mightn’t they be just a little bit clannish? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8424904/People-with-Norman-names-wealthier-than-other-Britons.html

    You may be having trouble getting your head around the contradictions because the original premise is only about half-true.

    Reply

  49. Two things this thread brings to mind:

    1. I wonder how the divide between the English and the Welsh around South Pembrokeshire maintained itself unmoving for 700 years or so.

    2. How inbred are the Jews anyway? These are the people who thought up the Samson Option; there must be *something* going on.

    Reply

  50. @avi – “This definition of clannish includes everyone.”

    no, it does not. it doesn’t include: a large portion of the populace in england, mostly in the south and central parts of the country; a large portion of the populace in france, mostly in the northeast; a large portion of the populace in belgium and luxembourg (all of them, i think — not recent immigrants, obviously); a large portion of the populace in the netherlands, mostly the dutch (i.e. not the frisians); a large portion of the populace in germany, mostly those in the north and northwest.

    @avi – ” All situated peoples tend to marry people close by….”

    sure. but my outbreeding “core europeans” have been studiously avoiding close cousin marriage for several hundreds of years now (see my upcoming post on medieval england which should pop up any minute now).

    @avi – “Everyone dislikes authority that the perceive as outsiders.”

    yes, but some peoples see “outsiders” as the clan in the next valley over, while other peoples see “outsiders” as the population in the next country over. THAT is the difference.

    once again, clannishness should be viewed as a spectrum (or maybe an evolutionary bush). there are a range of traits, and a variety of traits, which are dependent upon the history of mating patterns in populations (i think).

    and you’ve missed the point that the east anglians (the puritans) are middling inbreeders (or middling outbreeders, depending on how you want to look at it). see the radical reformation post if you haven’t already.

    @avi – “Of those New York groups who traded nicely – okay traded, anyway – did they become unclannish, all those Jews and Dutch Reformed, those Finns and Irish? “

    i would guess no. but the point is, it was the very outbred DUTCH (not the frisians) who established firstly very liberal amsterdam, and then very liberal new amsterdam. of course the liberalness didn’t rub off on the other groups you named who moved to new york. they would’ve had to have been outbreeding! which they hadn’t been. (not sure about the finns.)

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick “@avi – “This definition of clannish includes everyone.”

      no, it does not. it doesn’t include: a large portion of the populace in england. ”
      But they were quite willing to fight for England, hence were clannish and the Dutch were eager to seek their own advantage. As you say it’s a spectrum. So far as I have heard, the only people who believe or claim to believe in the good of all of undifferentiated humanity are the communists, Methodists and modern Liberals. If somebody in there was honest then mabye it doesn’t include everyone. But I certainly acknowlege your idea of a specturm and thank you for taking such an interest in it.

      Reply

  51. @nydwracu – “1. I wonder how the divide between the English and the Welsh around South Pembrokeshire maintained itself unmoving for 700 years or so.”

    good question! dunno. few people moved/interbred across the line, i guess. -?-

    @nydwracu – “2. How inbred are the Jews anyway? These are the people who thought up the Samson Option; there must be *something* going on.”

    don’t know about that, yet, either. haven’t investigated the histories of their mating patterns much yet — but i have some ideas. or, more like suspicions, i guess.

    Reply

  52. @avi – “Your list has the South English at the top, but if they are still measurably different from their neighbors after 946 years, mightn’t they be just a little bit clannish?”

    you forgot about the anglo-saxons. intermarriage between the normans and anglo-saxons was very common. the normans tended to “go native” wherever they went … in ireland, too.

    Reply

  53. @Jayman
    “If inbreeding vs outbreeding alter the selective pressures on peoples, then one would imagine that each group would develop their own flavor of clannishness/universalism accordingly, in part based where they are along that scale.”

    Exactly. If there’s anything to the idea then it will be a braod spectrum.

    .

    @Dale
    “Big states predate the nation-state, no?”

    I’d say no – big *voluntary* states don’t predate the nation-state. Big involuntary empires made up of collections of city-states and tribes and held together by force predate the nation-state yes but as soon as imperial control weakens they break into their constituent parts.

    .

    Puritans

    I think there’s a danger here of not taking time into account. I can see the genesis of the East Anglian Puritans as in-betweeners – basically because of living in a swamp. They had the religious impetus of the cousin ban but in the geographical context of swampy lower population density leading to being less out-bred than the Southern and Central English. However once they landed in America they bred and expanded like crazy. They weren’t limited by the swamp any more so over time in terms of the out-breeding spectrum it seems to me there’s no reason they wouldn’t have become ultra out-breeders.

    Personally, knowing lots of the ultra universalist type from places like England and Holland “Yankees” today like Elizabeth Warren are exactly of that same type. So yes i can see Puritans *originally* as in-betweener clannish but not now – now i think their descendents are ultra-universalists.

    Reply

    1. @GW:

      “They weren’t limited by the swamp any more so over time in terms of the out-breeding spectrum it seems to me there’s no reason they wouldn’t have become ultra out-breeders.

      Personally, knowing lots of the ultra universalist type from places like England and Holland “Yankees” today like Elizabeth Warren are exactly of that same type. So yes i can see Puritans *originally* as in-betweener clannish but not now – now i think their descendents are ultra-universalists.”

      Except the Mormons…

      It’s worth keeping in mind that Yankees are descended from about 50,000 (or perhaps 25,000, I forget the exact number) settlers. Though they continued to outbreed in the States/Canada (sort of), their numbers were small to begin with, and they received little by way of new blood until the 19th century (northern New England did receive a Scotch-Irish contingent in the 1700s – and believe me, they are visible). But, perhaps the selective pressures were such that the trend continued towards more universalism.

      Reply

      1. @Jayman “But, perhaps the selective pressures were such that the trend continued towards more universalism.” As usual you make good sense and your habit of using numbers is heartennig. I may have missed something though. Seems to me the Puritans were from East Anglia and according to Albion’s Seed (and suggested by The Nine Taylors) East Anglia was very Dutch. Could it be that they were at the clannish end of the spectrum early on (with resulting high reproductive success of course) and now have sort of reverted to type (with less spectacular reproductive success)?

  54. @Avi
    ““Your list has the South English at the top, but if they are still measurably different from their neighbors after 946 years, mightn’t they be just a little bit clannish?”

    If clannishness as a set of bahaviors is a product of close cousin marriage – either deliberately or simply as a result of low population density or a mixture of both – then beyond a certain level of out-breeding the scale may well flatten out i.e. if a population in a region average out as 6th cousins then there might not be much difference between that and averaging 8th cousins or 12th cousins.

    Reply

  55. Jayman

    “It’s worth keeping in mind that Yankees are descended from about 50,000 (or perhaps 25,000, I forget the exact number) settlers.”

    Yes but even if they were in-betweeners they would still have been a lot more outbred than most people in history. Personally I don’t think any Puritan streak in *modern* Yankees is related to relative clannishness in their past – i think that is long gone. I think if that Puritan streak still exists – which i think it probably does – it’s due to inheriting very high levels of religiosity combined with the long-term outbreeders universalist morality (as religiosity can just as easily apply to secular religion – aka political idealogy – as theist religion).

    Reply

    1. @ Greying Wanderer “I think if that Puritan streak still exists – which i think it probably does – it’s due to inheriting very high levels of religiosity combined with the long-term outbreeders universalist ” When I lived in New England I had a sense that the Puritan streak was very strong, stronger than average descent. For instance they don’t tell jokes. What pases for a joke is usually a sort of homily, a little tale with a moral. For instance there was the story of the guy who woke up one morning and found his motorcyle had been stolen. He called the police and reported it. When they asked whether his motorcycle had been stolen from in front of his own apartment he said no, had had slept with his girlfriend that night. They said they’d be right over. When they got there they arrested him for sleeping with his girlfriend. It was not legal in those days. It’s a real knee slapper. I kind of sense a bit of the old Puritan attitude. But Jay Man would know better and know of more recent times.

      Reply

  56. @Linton
    “But they were quite willing to fight for England, hence were clannish”

    They were quite willing to fight for England, hence *not* clannish.

    Fighting for nation, rather than clan or tribe or region is one of the effects the theory predicts – as you reduce kin-gravity small groups form into larger groups.

    Reply

    1. @Greying wanderer “Fighting for nation, rather than clan or tribe or region is one of the effects the theory predicts ” All right. That makes sense. You cut it off at some level and any larger group you identify with is not being “clannish.” I have noticed the most prejudiced people I know are among the ones who claim universal identity. Gosh to they hate fundamentalists and Mormons. About what size would you say a group must be not to be called clannish?

      Reply

  57. I think it’s worth stressing the influence of terrain on this. If you have two populations with the same marriage culture the end result may not be the same if the terrain they live on isn’t the same. For example the euro marriage model in relatively flat, fertile, high population density Southern England with lots of manorialism and lots of potential marriage partners might (and imo would) lead to a higher level of outbreeding than the same model in lower population density, swampy East Anglia.

    If for the sake of illustration the default marriage model used in most of the world produced villages where the average relatedness was second cousins and the euro marriage model (in fertile flatland) produced villages where the average relatedness was 6th cousins then the euro model in more marginal terrain like the swamps of East Anglia and Frisia or the more rugged terrain of Lowland Scotland or Switzerland might produce villages with an average relatedness of 4th cousins.

    The numbers are just to illustrate the idea that marginal (and/or border) terrain could be “in-betweeners” on the out-breeding spectrum through lower population density. So *if* Protestantism was an outgrowth of out-breeding then the theory would predict that the *form* of Protestantism adopted might vary with the level of out-breeding and therefore if the level of out-breeding varied with terrain then the form of Protestantism would vary with terrain.

    I think it looks like the theory predicts correctly for the time in question although personally i wouldn’t extrapolate it into the modern day just yet.

    Reply

    1. @Greying Wanderer again “If for the sake of illustration the default marriage model used in most of the world produced villages where the average relatedness was second cousins and the euro marriage model (in fertile flatland) produced villages where the average relatedness was 6th cousins then the euro model in more marginal terrain like the swamps of East Anglia and Frisia or the more rugged terrain of Lowland Scotland or Switzerland might produce villages with an average relatedness of 4th cousins.” Thanks. That works for me. You’ve answered my last question.

      Reply

  58. @grey – “I think it’s worth stressing the influence of terrain on this. If you have two populations with the same marriage culture the end result may not be the same if the terrain they live on isn’t the same. For example the euro marriage model in relatively flat, fertile, high population density Southern England with lots of manorialism and lots of potential marriage partners might (and imo would) lead to a higher level of outbreeding than the same model in lower population density, swampy East Anglia.”

    yeah, i think you’re absolutely right. thanks for spelling it out clearly! something like this has been floating around in the back of my head, but it’s been kinda muddled. (~_^)

    two things that relate (although not entirely directly) to what you’re saying here:

    1) i was planning on doing a post about this, and i might yet: the fact that the early germanic tribes apparently had looser kindreds rather than tighter clans (like the scots and the irish) was probably/possibly an effect of the fact that they, of course, lived on your north european plain, so, even if they were pastoralists, they probably had better inter-tribal (or whatever you want to call it) contact, and so were probably more outbred. (duh! right? seems obvious now!) i’d like to check out some other populations out there who have these bilateral kindreds to see what sorts of environments they come from.

    2) the continental anglos and saxons and jutes (before they migrated to england) — and all the populations who lived in the swampy areas along the north sea coast (the the frisian islands PLUS the areas along the mainland which were also swampy — the north sea coastal area) — when they lived in the swamps, they were really quite isolated, both from other populations and from other communities within their own populations. so they’re almost like mountaineers, in a way, in their isolation. from The Continental Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century, the chapter entitled The North Sea Coastal Area:

    “The salt marshes represent a special settlement area with very specific ecological conditions. Before diking, which started in the later Middle Ages, salt marshes were much wider than today. The land use in the undiked marshes reveals a close correlation between relief, settlement and agriculture. Near the coast, tidal creeks and high marshland formed a landscape with irregular parcellings…. Settlements in the salt marshes were mostly built, from prehistoric times, on artificial mounds, called ‘Terpen’ or ‘Wierden’ in the Netherlands, ‘Wurten’ or ‘Warften’ in Germany. In prehistoric times, the grassland areas, necessary for grazing cattle, existed naturally in the salt marshes….

    “In spite of their integration into the Carolingian empire, the population of the Frisian and Saxon coastal regions and their leading families (*nobilitas et libertas*) kept their political and economic independence. *Frisia* belonged to an economically developed coastal zone with different core regions, separated by rivers, large tidal inlets, and bays….”

    and, very interestingly:

    We do not see the spread of churches in the villages before late medieval times, giving an impression of the later settlement pattern on wooded landscape of the moraine. If we look at the distribution of the latest place-names ending in -stedt (Tellingstedt, Weddingstedt, Norderhastedt, Suderhastedt), which are related to the founding of churches in the twelfth century, and if we compare this settlement pattern with earlier place-names, which are related with the deforestation of the woodlands, like -rade, -wohld, -holt and -lohe, or the colonization of peat-covered areas, we get an idea of the early medieval landscape on the Pleistocene moraine islands in Dithmarschen. The settlement areas in early medieval times were isolated from each other by woods and valleys, which were partly covered with peat. The settlement with the crop fields and infield were located on the edge of the sandy areas, the valleys were partly used for cattle grazing. With medieval land use of the peat zone and the swampy marsh areas, the physical isolation of these different core regions came to an end.”

    and then there’s a discussion following this article (these papers were presented at some sort of seminar — there’s a whole series of these publications which are really cool!):

    “AUSENDA: When there was this marshland the mounds were like islands, and they were raised by human labour, by piling earth on them. How did they walk from one to the other in the marshland?

    “MEIER: In the beginning of the settlements in the wetlands we have a natural salt marsh area with a lot of tidal creeks. The first settlements normally are founded near these tidal creeks, because these were waterways and trade was very important. For house building they needed oak, so they needed waterways, otherwise they could not reach the moraines which were covered with woods. The settlements were often erected on the high clay deposits near the tidal creeks. In the periods without storm floods, for example at the beginning of the Christian era, houses were built directly on the marshland. Wurten had to be built during more stormy periods.”

    i imagine that life in the fens in east anglia was rather similar.

    Reply

  59. @grey – “Yes but even if they were in-betweeners they would still have been a lot more outbred than most people in history.”

    yes, exactly!

    @grey – “Personally I don’t think any Puritan streak in *modern* Yankees is related to relative clannishness in their past – i think that is long gone.”

    one thing to keep in mind, of course, is that we’ve got an almost 400 year gap here between the puritans and yankees of today — that’s almost 16 generations (25 yr/gen) — so we’ve got some time for more outbreeding and more natural selection to happen. it’s not an enormous amount of time, but it is some.

    edit: or what you said here!:

    “I think there’s a danger here of not taking time into account. I can see the genesis of the East Anglian Puritans as in-betweeners – basically because of living in a swamp. They had the religious impetus of the cousin ban but in the geographical context of swampy lower population density leading to being less out-bred than the Southern and Central English. However once they landed in America they bred and expanded like crazy. They weren’t limited by the swamp any more so over time in terms of the out-breeding spectrum it seems to me there’s no reason they wouldn’t have become ultra out-breeders.”

    (^_^)

    Reply

  60. @grey – “Personally, knowing lots of the ultra universalist type from places like England and Holland ‘Yankees’ today like Elizabeth Warren are exactly of that same type. So yes i can see Puritans *originally* as in-betweener clannish but not now – now i think their descendents are ultra-universalists.”

    and maybe they wound up being the some of the strongest of ultra-universalists because they kept some of their religious fervor, too? you know — a slightly different evolutionary path than some of the other outbreeders. dunno. just speculatin’.

    Reply

  61. @linton – “Seems to me the Puritans were from East Anglia and according to Albion’s Seed (and suggested by The Nine Taylors) East Anglia was very Dutch.”

    an historian by the name of homans made the argument that the early germanic settlers of east anglia were frisians (and not anglos or saxons or jutes). not sure if that’s right or not. when i first read what he had to say, i was pretty convinced (at least judging by what i said in that previous post!). i’ll have to go back and read him to see if i’m still convinced.

    some amount of immigration from the low countries to england, including east anglia, did happen over the course of the medieval period. anybody have any idea how much?

    Reply

  62. Bryan Sykes’ data would suggest not much of England, on either side of the Danelaw, was much Angle/Saxon/Jutish/Frisian. It was moreso on the Eastern side, and more still as one went north, but we are at well less than 20% at all locations. The Celtic substrate remained dominant.

    The Danes and surrounding came in and took over the place, the Normans after, so the institutions and customs of East Anglia might have been more affected than the genetic total would suggest. Narrowing that to a “mostly Frisian” influence would seem to require a fair bit of evidence to be plausible.

    To the OP: Your original point was that the Puritans, based on a handful of examples (though there are more), acted in this really clannish, clannish, way, and isn’t that a surprise! They aren’t usually thought of that way! I thought the case was weak. For a founding population that was rather forced into greater closeness by religious persecution, encountering a culture that was not merely different but extremely different, in a geography of more difficult mobility than in NW Europe generally, I think their behavior was remarkably un-clannish. The violence against their neighbors is horrendous by current standards, but was pretty typical worldwide, including NW Europe, at the time. Including the region around NYC, BTW. If we are holding up the Dutch as this leading edge of tolerance because of Amsterdam and New Amsterdam, my counter is that no, the difference is quite slight, and the evidence given, drawn from Woodard, is cherry-picked. New York had the highest proportion of slaves in the north, after all. It was founded to be a trading center more than a colony. As modern as its values may seem to us, they did not obtain outside the city all that much.

    I might make a case myself that the upper reaches of Boston society, the Cabots, Saltonstalls, Winthrops, Lodges, Chafees, Endicotts, etc, were deeply clannish and still are. That seems different.

    As to the Normans and Saxons, I think the link is its own argument.

    As to the ongoing New England culture being identifiably descended from Puritans, as others have suggested, I tend to think so. But such things are easy to imagine, and easy to fit into preconceived notions, so I shrink back from it a bit. I did a series years ago on the concept of “wyrd” being somewhat retained in New England, especially Unitarian culture.
    http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2010/07/wyrd-and-providence-series.html

    Reply

  63. @avi – “Your original point was that the Puritans, based on a handful of examples (though there are more), acted in this really clannish, clannish, way….”

    no! i did NOT say that they acted in a “really clannish, clannish way.” i simply said (or suggested, rather) that they acted in a clannish way. to quote myself:

    “do you think this group — ‘group X’ — sounds clannish or not?”

    note that i did NOT say “really clannish, clannish” or “extremely clannish” or even “very clannish” — i just said clannish.

    as i’ve pointed out several times now, i think that clannishness should be viewed as a spectrum of behavioral traits (see previous comments above) — some populations are more clannish than others (and they seem to be the ones that have longer histories of closer inbreeding). i DON’T think that the puritans/east anglians were the MOST clannish or even VERY clannish, but they were still much MORE clannish than the dutch of the same period.

    again, see my post the radical reformation where i clearly said:

    “we’ve also seen previously that east anglia (and eastern kent) never experienced manorialism AND had a tendency towards extended families, so this, too, was probably a region that didn’t experience as much outbreeding as south-central england did. the east anglians don’t sound at all as clannish as, say, the medieval or even early modern irish, but extended family ties lingered until quite late, so it may be that this region of england saw some sort of intermediary range of outbreeding. (further research is required!)”

    i think that the puritans/east anglians were some of the inbreeding/outbreeding “in-betweeners” of europe in the late medieval/early modern period. they’re NOT as crazy clannish as the scots or the irish of the day, but they weren’t as universailistic as the “core europeans” either.

    Reply

  64. @avi – “As to the Normans and Saxons, I think the link is its own argument.”

    i’m sorry, but it wasn’t much of an argument, when it’s well known that the normans interbred freely with the saxons (see the link which i provided). just because people today with norman surnames (i.e. are of full or, much more likely, partial norman heritage) have more money than other brits does not mean that the normans in england remained clannish. they obviously did not. i’ve never read anything, anywhere about people of norman heritage today in britain being more nepotistic, corrupt, undemocratic, and/or particularistic in their morality. if you can provide a link or two to such evidence, then i might believe it.

    Reply

  65. no. quit trying to put words into my mouth. i mean what i said:

    “long-term outbreeding peoples — the english and the dutch (and kinda/sorta a few others) — were the first to be able to build nation-states based on representative, liberal democracy.”

    I’m not putting words in your mouth. I’m trying to figure out what precisely you mean. Do you mean that nation-states and representative, liberal democracies existed separately before, but that what was unique was the development of nation-states based on representative, liberal democracy?

    a state which is held together by some degree of force or duress rather than a more voluntary system where “the people” feel they are “a nation.” there was a huge nationalism movement in the 1700s/1800s in europe — especially western europe — especially earliest in western europe. much of that was the opposite of “strongly controlled states.”

    How do you define force? Do you restrict it to physical force and exclude social, political, cultural, etc. force? Do you mean that the nation-state is not based on force, violent or otherwise?

    Weren’t the nationalist movements opposed to absolutism, not strongly controlled states? Centralized states became more powerful following the downfall of the ancien regimes. In many cases, the nationalist movements, such as the French revolutionaries, wanted stronger, more centralized states.

    sure. but the english had the idea that they were english. they fought each other for the form that england would take, but it was still england to most of them. the same can’t be said for, say, italy.

    Right, but your point was that they formed a large, cooperative state which you’ve defined as a nation-state based on liberal democracy. It took force, physical, violent, military and otherwise, to form the English nation-state based on liberal democracy. Just as it took force for Garibaldi to unify Italy into a nation-state.

    Reply

  66. sure. but the differences between the individuals — or clusters of individuals (eg. clans) — within the population are fewer.

    Yes, but isn’t relative difference, not absolute difference, all that’s necessary? Why wouldn’t this apply to the nation-state themselves? Why are Denmark and Norway separate nation-states?

    Reply

  67. i forgot to say that very often, the authority that clannish people don’t perceive as their own isn’t actually their own — eg. think of libya and all the different tribes in conflict there, and how most of them felt being governed by the qadaffi+partnering tribes.

    authority never is in the hands of the majority in a clannish society, nor can it be, by definition really. otoh, it can be in an outbred, liberally democratic society (that hasn’t been co-opted by more clannish peoples).

    What is your criteria for whether or not an authority is actually one’s own or in the hands of the majority? Is it genetics? In that case, wouldn’t a Libyan from one tribe be more related to an authority from another tribe, than say an white American soldier under the authority of Pres. Obama, the black Commander-in-Chief of the US military?

    Reply

  68. I’d say no – big *voluntary* states don’t predate the nation-state. Big involuntary empires made up of collections of city-states and tribes and held together by force predate the nation-state yes but as soon as imperial control weakens they break into their constituent parts.

    I’m not sure what you mean. This could also describe nation-states. I’m not sure how the modern nation-state can be described as “voluntary”.

    Reply

  69. the puritans (the east anglians), and some other groups in europe like the swiss and the frisians and ditmarsians (again, see my post on the radical reformation), appear to be inbreeding/outbreeding “in-betweeners” as far as nw europe goes. they’re more outbred than, say, the irish or the scots, but not at all as outbred as the southern english and the dutch (and by dutch i mean people from holland — probably south holland) and belgians.

    Weren’t the Cavaliers from southern England? The Cavaliers were Royalists and Anglicans. They were opposed to more representative, liberal, democratic, etc government. The Puritans and Presbyterians were the Roundheads who fought the Cavaliers in the English Civil War. They were Parliamentarians who wanted more representative politics and were opposed to monarchism.

    Reply

  70. How would American political identification fit into the universalism paradigm?

    The general view is that liberals are more universalistic than conservatives.

    White Protestants are most likely to be Republican, followed by white Catholics, then Jews and others. For Democrats, it’s the reverse.

    Reply

  71. If I remember correctly, the New England population along with their Mormon descendants are among the most genetically pure English in the United States. This is to say that they have the least amount of non-English genetics, including that of other non-English British people. The Midlands maybe created a buffer for New England between that region and the rest of the US. New Englanders spread their culture across the northern areas of the US and into northern California, but they didn’t as much spread their genetic English purity besides the Mormons.

    As a buffer, I wonder how Midlands culture influenced New England society over time. Quakers were also English like the Puritans, but on the other side of this buffer were the hordes of Dutch and non-English British, particularly those disorderly trouble-making law-breaking Scots-Irish. Quakers were among the original challengers to New England society, and the Puritans loved to maim, torture, kill or publicly humiliate Quakers. Even when Quakers got their own colonial government, they retained this element of anti-authoritarianism and they really were pathetic at governing. Their live-and-let-live attitude seems to have been as much grounded in their unwillingness or inability to govern well as anything else.

    I think this is why ethnic enclaves/islands became common in the Midlands. Quakers didn’t go about promoting this kind of culture, but neither did they try to stop it. Puritans never would have allowed other ethnic groups to create their own communities and towns. Neither would the Chesapeake aristocracy. Quakers were made as unwelcome to the South as they were to the North, but I wonder if the closer proximity of Quakers to New England had a greater impact there over time.

    How did the Middle Colonies multiculturalism become so dominant in the North? They weren’t called the Northern colonies. They were in the middle, a border region between more clannish ethnicities. This ethnic tolerance for some reason became more common in New England. Why? Does it have something to do with the Northern Europeans who settled the entire North and brought with them a particular culture (and maybe genetics)? A New England liberal like Ralph Nader comes from Northern European stock, a combination that apparently encouraged in him a love of social democracy.

    As Midlands is a border region in the US, it is interesting how it has attracted border people from elsewhere. Many of the Northern Europeans who settled in the Midlands and later the Upper Midwest were often fleeing the war-torn borderlands such as Alsace-Lorraine. So, it wasn’t just that they were Northern European, but a particular demographic group which I suppose included a specific culture(s) and genetics. The Northern Europeans who embraced ethnic fighting had little desire to escape it and hence come to America. The Midlands live-and-let-live multiculturalism was built up from those who not only were fleeing conflict but who specifically sought to not bring it with them.

    The Quakers were the same way. Even the Quakers were involved in the fighting back in England, but they were brutalized by it. Maybe if they had been more successful in their fighting, they wouldn’t have created their pacifist theology. But maybe there was something in their culture and genetics in the first place that made them less bloodthirsty and so less effective in fighting. Either way, they came to America with the hope of creating a peaceful society.

    Interestingly, they partly inherited their good relations with the natives from the French. The French by way of Champlain sought to create a more peaceful multicultural society. Champlain also was escaping ethno-religious wars and purposely implemented cultural and religious tolerance in his settlement. He even encouraged settlers to learn from, live among and even intermarry with the natives. The French influence with the natives extended down to the region where the Quakers settled.

    Even the Puritans had an element of this culture of tolerance that was continually erupting from within. There was the earliest example of this with Thomas Morton who settled Merrymount. A later example was Roger Williams who founded Providence Plantation which became Rhode Island. Both Morton and Williams were extremely tolerant and friendly with the natives. Even when directly attacked by Native Americans during King Philip’s War, Williams refused to fight back and have his colony join the other colonies in fighting them. Instead, he went out and talked to the Native Americans and shamed them into not further attacking his settlement. He took his friendship with the natives very seriously.

    I suspect this inherent element of non-clannishness within New England society, even from early on, combined the multicultural influence of the Midlands to create a particular flavor of culture in the North. The only commonality among the Puritans, Quakers, German and French settlers is that they were all fleeing religious persecution and warfare. The Puritans and Quakers specifically were seeking to create a new kind of religious community in the New world. That doesn’t seem to have been the case in the other colonies further South. What stands out about the Southern aristocracy was how secularized they were for the times. The Methodists and Baptists who later helped make the South so evangelical and fundamentalists largely came from the North.

    Religiosity seems to be a key aspect to clannishness. What I feel unsure about is if or how universalism forms the opposite end of the spectrum with clannishness. I wonder if universalism is a factor unto itself. Universalism can lead to an oppressive society that forces everyone to be part of the same uber-clan nation-state or it can lead to a multicultural society that includes diverse ethnic islands and enclaves. So, what causes universalism to go one direction or the other?

    Reply

    1. @Benjamin David Steelt “Quakers were made as unwelcome to the South as they were to the North” Maybe, but it wasn’t universal. I had Quaker ancestors in South Carolina way back when. We were never concerned about being maimed, tortured, killed or publicly humiliated. Everybody got along fine. The only tensions arose with our fellow Quakers, who kept throwing us out of the church, something about being disorderly trouble-making law-breaking Scotch-Irish (but the next generation would be right back in). Then on an evil day they left us. Nobody wanted them to go but they could’t stomach slavery any longer. It took my family another generation to come to the same opinion.

      Reply

      1. @Linton Herbert

        I would never be one to argue against most rules having exceptions. There were people of diverse religious and ethnic varieties in all regions of early America. My point wouldn’t be that there weren’t exceptions to the rule, but that they were exceptions rather than the norm.

        Besides, I was most specifically thinking of Tidewater region during the colonial era. I’m not familiar with the history of Quakers in early South Carolina. I have some Virginia aristocratic ancestry. One line of the family, not mine, did become Quakers and went to the Midwest. By line of the family headed south and some lines remained in South Carolina, but I’m not sure which churches they attended.

        Even among Amish, there are regional differences. Around where I live in Iowa, the Amish are fairly prosperous and respectable. There are also some communities that are referred to as the Dirty Amish. All that I know about them is that they tend to be more isolated and even less modern which is saying lot since the Amish around here aren’t particularly modern. I’m not sure exactly how this may or may not fit into larger regional differences in the US. I know there are some Amish in Appalachia, but I don’t know much about them.

      2. @Benjamin David Steele “I was most specifically thinking of Tidewater region ” Ah, that explains all. We were Piedmont. Dirt farmers. Scotch Irish. Independant. Besides, it seems to me in the Tidewater the aristocrats were rather few in number. Most of the people were servants from Africa. Just a handful of aristocrats. In the PIedmont we pretty mucy all expected to work. My own family was an exception to that for a very few generations; yes, cough, we had some servants. When I think about it I’m not so sure “clannish” fits my family. We are extemely affectionate with each other but it’s totally personal. How can I say this? Your Scotch Irish person doesn’t like any central government. In fact, numerous as we have been we have never actually had a country. But that does not imply any great loyalty to family. Loyalty to individuals within the family, oh yes. But as I said it was personal. It was definitely not a point of principle. I remember a family document in which the writer was in agonies because he had done a favor for a family member when he might just has well have done it for somebody else. So he was writing another family member explaining himself and insisting he had been fair. I have a good friend who is maybe fifth cousin. My father was in a position to help him professionally and his father in a postition to help me likewise. Yet it never occured to any of us even to speak of it.

  72. @Dale:

    “Weren’t the Cavaliers from southern England? The Cavaliers were Royalists and Anglicans. They were opposed to more representative, liberal, democratic, etc government. The Puritans and Presbyterians were the Roundheads who fought the Cavaliers in the English Civil War. They were Parliamentarians who wanted more representative politics and were opposed to monarchism.”

    The Cavaliers and the ancestors of the Deep South plantation class were primarily from southwestern Britain (primarily the Liverpool/Birmingham/Bristol corridor). I suspect that they are another “in-between” group as clannishness goes, though much more towards clannish than atomized on HBD Chick’s scale, though probably not as clannish as the Borderlanders.

    They certainly rank much more highly on authoritarianism and less on egalitarianism (embracing a hierarchical society) than the Puritans, and certainly less so than the Quakers.

    Reply

  73. Interestingly, the areas of SW Britain that I mentioned which are the areas of origin of the settlers of the U.S. Tidewater and the Deep South face Celtic frontiers (Wales and Cornwall). In accordance with G.W.’s ideas, the areas just beyond are uplands. I wonder if having to fend off Celtic interlopers (who presumably were more clannish than the lowland English to the east) maintained the more aggressive edge of the Cavaliers?

    Reply

    1. @Jayman “the areas of SW Britain that I mentioned ” I don’t know whether it is interesting or not, but the same area was pretty close to where William Tyndale the bible translator was born, and there are those who say the Industrial Revolution started there, not elsewhere in England.

      Reply

  74. @hubchik
    “when they lived in the swamps, they were really quite isolated, both from other populations and from other communities within their own populations. so they’re almost like mountaineers, in a way, in their isolation…i imagine that life in the fens in east anglia was rather similar.”

    I think that’s the link. The same marriage model has less effect in a smaller population pool. 200 people trying religiously to avoid close cousin marriage are going to end up more closely related than 2000 people following the same model. So a correlation between different forms of Protestantism and more fertile vs more marginal / isolating terrain like mountains and swamps would make sense – if the outbreeding idea has legs.

    .

    “and maybe they wound up being the some of the strongest of ultra-universalists because they kept some of their religious fervor, too? you know — a slightly different evolutionary path than some of the other outbreeders.”

    It seems to me if religiosity has a genetic component then what you say would almost certainly be true. And if religiosity doesn’t have to be religious i.e. it can be applied to a secular religion like a political idealogy, then even more so.

    .

    “an historian by the name of homans made the argument that the early germanic settlers of east anglia were frisians…some amount of immigration from the low countries to england, including east anglia, did happen over the course of the medieval period. anybody have any idea how much?”

    Given the physical proximity and the mirrored terrain and the need in that terrain to be skilled boatmen i’d have thought the populations would be very similar. Plus Frisian is well known as being the closest language to Anglo-Saxon after Scots.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_languages

    Reply

  75. AVI
    “Bryan Sykes’ data would suggest not much of England, on either side of the Danelaw, was much Angle/Saxon/Jutish/Frisian. It was moreso on the Eastern side, and more still as one went north, but we are at well less than 20% at all locations. The Celtic substrate remained dominant.”

    I think the problem with his model is the assumption that R1b is the Celtic substrate and I is the Germanic one representing the Saxons and as that is c. 20% then the saxons etc were only 20%.

    However Denmark is 50% R1b also.

    So if the Saxons were 50/50 and I is 20% now then based solely on these simple numbers the Saxon proportion would have been 40% of the population but made up of both R1b and I.

    Also the Danes came from pretty much exactly the same place as the Saxons did with a 400 year gap and the Normans ultimately came from the exact same place as well with a further 200 year gap and a detour in Northern France so the Anglo-Saxons/Danes/Normans were basically the same.

    Reply

  76. @Dale
    “I’m not sure what you mean. This could also describe nation-states. I’m not sure how the modern nation-state can be described as “voluntary”.”

    What i mean is if you take away coercive state military power from Rome, Ancient Egypt, Assyrian Empire, Persian Empire, British Empire, Austro-Hungatrian Empire what happens? The empire breaks down into its constituent voluntary parts – voluntary in the sense that the people within that unit want to be part of that unit.

    What would happen to Holland or England if you took away coercive state military power? The English and Dutch would try to reconstitute it.

    It’s really just a question of scale. In the past the scale of the *voluntary* component parts that made up coercive empires was limited to smaller-scale units like city-states and tribes. The nation-state – at least according to the outbreeding theory – is the result of people being able to reach a larger scale of voluntary cohesion through reducing their clannishness.

    Reply

  77. @Dale
    “Weren’t the Cavaliers from southern England? The Cavaliers were Royalists and Anglicans. They were opposed to more representative, liberal, democratic, etc government. The Puritans and Presbyterians were the Roundheads who fought the Cavaliers in the English Civil War. They were Parliamentarians who wanted more representative politics and were opposed to monarchism.”

    I think its best represented as three sides:
    – cavaliers who wanted everyone to be monarchist and everyone to be catholic
    – parliamentarians who wanted everyone to be parliamentarian *and* wanted everyone to be Anglican
    – religious dissenters like the Puritans who wanted parliament and religious freedom

    The Puritans won the war for the parliamentarians – partly because they were both the most fanatical and the most disciplined – but they lost the peace – hence America.

    .

    “White Protestants are most likely to be Republican”

    Yes but which Protestants. The idea hubchik is presenting should predict different patterns for different denominations.

    Reply

  78. @Linton

    “All right. That makes sense. You cut it off at some level and any larger group you identify with is not being “clannish.” I have noticed the most prejudiced people I know are among the ones who claim universal identity. Gosh to they hate fundamentalists and Mormons. About what size would you say a group must be not to be called clannish?”

    You’re right. Some of this is just a question of scale – how big the “us” in “us” vs “them” is. Some of these behaviors could equally be called clannish, tribalistic or nationalistic depending on the scale of the group in question.

    On the other hand some of the traits of the smaller scale version wouldn’t fit that model e.g. attitude to corruption. A clannish group might be us vs them and pro-corruption while a nationalistic group could be equally us vs them but anti-corruption. Some of the traits are the same but some of the traits are a product of the scale.

    Reply

  79. @Jayman

    “I wonder if having to fend off Celtic interlopers (who presumably were more clannish than the lowland English to the east) maintained the more aggressive edge of the Cavaliers?”

    It does make sense for hostile border regions to be somewhat different.

    Reply

  80. @dale – “Do you mean that nation-states and representative, liberal democracies existed separately before….”

    no. these things go hand-in-hand together, not appearing at all — or not fully — before the enlightenment, although the build up to liberally democratic nation-states was happening throughout the high middle ages and onwards in my “core europe” (nw france+the low countries, england, n+ne germany).

    @dale – “How do you define force? Do you restrict it to physical force and exclude social, political, cultural, etc. force? Do you mean that the nation-state is not based on force, violent or otherwise?”

    greying wanderer has already said above pretty much what i would’ve answered in response to these questions. except for, no, i don’t restrict “force” in this case to strictly physical force — e.g. how singapore works.

    @dale – “Right, but your point was that they formed a large, cooperative state which you’ve defined as a nation-state based on liberal democracy. It took force, physical, violent, military and otherwise, to form the English nation-state based on liberal democracy. Just as it took force for Garibaldi to unify Italy into a nation-state.”

    it took force in england to oust monarchists who wanted to hold absolute — or fairly absolute — power. it took force in italy to force the different sub-populations of italy to think of themselves as “italians”! many parts of italy seriously want out of italy to this day. not too many parts of england do — except maybe for some folks down in cornwall (a remote, clannish corner, i will note).

    the english thought of themselves as “english” way before the italians thought of themselves as “italian” — if they even do. (~_^)

    Reply

  81. @dale – “Yes, but isn’t relative difference, not absolute difference, all that’s necessary?”

    no, absolutely not.

    forget about how similar or different populations are genetically. forget about anything like salter’s degrees of relatedness and genetic interests. that’s not what we’re talking about here, and that’s not how it works — not entirely anyway.

    what we’re talking about is how different populations become universalistic vs. particularistic (or something in between).

    i think that with long-term inbreeding, a population will become clannish (particularistic) — it will both literally divide into clans AND acquire clannish behaviors (genes) for what i’ve termed “familial altruism” — strongly favoring family members, especially including extended family members, over other unrelated individuals. and the reverse: with long-term outbreeding, a population will (or can, maybe) become individualistic and (somewhat counter-intuitively) collectivistic — universalistic — since the population will be composed of individuals and their nuclear families who will be inclined to cooperate with neighbors and friends because they no longer have extended families to fall back on.

    in the clannish/particularistic societies, because the population’s members are strongly oriented towards their extended families, you wind up with: nepotism and corruption; low levels of civicness; problems handling liberal democracy (certainly no clannish society ever invented true liberal democracy [fwiw]) although many handle other forms of democracy, esp. consensus democracy; and fun things like interclan feuding.

    in the individualistic/universalistic societies, because the population’s members are less oriented towards their extended families, you wind up with (see links above, too): low levels of nepotism and corruption; high degrees of civicness; liberal democracy (they invented it!); and low levels of violence. you also, i think, wind up with movements like nationalism because of the general universalistic sentiments.

    some of the divisions between certain nations today are historic accidents in a way — i’m sure that sweden and norway could be combined as one scandinavian nation with few complaints (ok, i’ve probably offended half of scandinavia now! (~_^) ). perhaps fewer norwegians would be happy with such an arrangement than swedes, since norway’s a rather mountainous country, so my theory would predict that they would’ve been serious inbreeders at some points. dunno. need to check into their mating patterns histories. anyway, with the apparent strong feelings of universalism in scandinavia today (witness the majority of people in sweden welcoming immigrants from the third world), you’d think they wouldn’t mind uniting as one nation. (in fact, sweden is part of the e.u., but norway has repeatedly voted against joining, hasn’t it? hmmm….)

    my point here is: it’s not the genetic distance that drives feelings of universalistic or familial altruism. it’s whether or not a population has a history of close matings which can drive the selection for clannish behaviors/sentiments (i.e. “familial altruism”).

    of course, spotting how different (genetically) an outsider is from one’s own group is important when it comes to in-group vs. out-group conflicts or cooperation. but the degree of difference is going to trigger a different sort-of reaction reaction in clannish vs. universalistic peoples.

    Reply

  82. @dale – “What is your criteria for whether or not an authority is actually one’s own or in the hands of the majority? Is it genetics? In that case, wouldn’t a Libyan from one tribe be more related to an authority from another tribe, than say an white American soldier under the authority of Pres. Obama, the black Commander-in-Chief of the US military?”

    it’s not MY criteria that matters, it’s how the various clannish or universalistic peoples feel about these things. (~_^)

    see my comment above for more details (in particular the final two paragraphs).

    Reply

  83. @dale – “How would American political identification fit into the universalism paradigm?”

    not sure yet! haven’t come that far in the analysis. stay tuned! (^_^)

    Reply

  84. @HBD Chick:

    “i think that with long-term inbreeding, a population will become clannish (particularistic)…”

    That comment there is your hypothesis in a nutshell! ;)

    Reply

  85. @dale – i said: “the degree of difference is going to trigger a different sort-of reaction reaction in clannish vs. universalistic peoples.”

    let me put it this way: human biodiversity. the 10,000 year explosion.

    human evolution hasn’t stopped (in fact, it’s sped up since the agricultural revolution), so not all populations have the same sets of behaviors.

    thanks to a curious set of historic circumstances, a handful of northern european populations began an outbreeding (i.e. avoiding close cousin marriage) project in the early medieval period and, thanks to that, a rather unique set of behavioral traits has been selected for in those populations including (but not limited to): individualism, collectivism (on a large scale), and universalism.

    the rest is, as they say, history!

    Reply

  86. @jayman – “That comment there is your hypothesis in a nutshell! ;)”

    (^_^)

    i really feel that that’s steve sailer’s (and parapundit’s) idea, and that i’ve (WE’VE! – you all know who you are! (~_^) ) just been building on it. (following some articles by stanley kurtz, parapundit first noticed the inbreeding and lack of democracy in iraq, and then steve sailer added the inclusive fitness.)

    imho, my contribution was just inverting that: ok. if inbreeding hinders democracy, maybe not inbreeding promotes it? hmmm … lemme see …

    and here we are. (~_^)

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick

      “if inbreeding hinders democracy, maybe not inbreeding promotes it?”

      I’ve come to a similar conclusion from a different direction. The Midwest has a strong sense of social democracy which I didn’t grasp when I was younger. It was only after living in the South (South Carolina and North Carolina) and coming back to the Midwest (Iowa) that I realized there was some massive differences between these regions. It has taken me years to even begin to disentangle my experiences in the two regions.

      Your hypothesis fascinates me immensely.

      There is a book I have that is about the Quakers helping to spread the nuclear family in American society (Quakers and the American Family: British Settlement in the Delaware Valley by Barry Levy). I’ve often thought about how our modern, mainstream concept of family values is grounded in the nuclear family which gives short shrift to the larger clannish familial ties/loyalty that are found in societies centered on kinship. That difference seems so key and so many of us in America forget about non-nuclear ways of structuring family and society.

      I love Midwestern social democracy, but at the same time I feel like something is lost with the disintegration of a larger sense of family that is grounded in a sense of place. Maybe it has to do with my familiarity of my mom’s Appalachian/Hoosier family. My mom grew up surrounded by family with a grandmother living in the house next door. That is something I never had and I regret having missed out on that kind of close relationship with extended family.

      It is a predicament for society, from my perspective. There are benefits to both. If destroying a larger sense of family was necessary to promote a more well functioning democracy, that would seem like a high price to pay. But obviously I wouldn’t want to live in one of the most corrupt societies where kinship rules through nepotism and such.

      Reply

  87. @Linton Herbert

    “When I think about it I’m not so sure “clannish” fits my family. We are extemely affectionate with each other but it’s totally personal. How can I say this? Your Scotch Irish person doesn’t like any central government. In fact, numerous as we have been we have never actually had a country. But that does not imply any great loyalty to family. Loyalty to individuals within the family, oh yes. But as I said it was personal. It was definitely not a point of principle.”

    I spent 8th grade through college in South Carolina. My closest friend for most of those years was a fairly typical ‘redneck’. He had a lower class Southern accent (no the upper class lilt). He was working class, hunted, drove a truck with a gun rack, was constantly working on trucks and motors, he was crude and openly spoke about sex, etc.

    There was nothing prudish about him or his parents. He was a very physically active and somewhat rough guy. We would wrestle just for the fun of it, but he wasn’t mean and didn’t pick fights. He came from a large family and they had regular family reunions that were larger than anything I’ve ever experienced in my own family.

    There was a big difference with my own more Midwestern family. My parents weren’t prudish either, but there was more of a properness that had less directly to do with class identity or any such thing. My mom’s family, though, were working class people who came up from Appalachia and there is more of a similarity with my friend’s family in South Carolina. My mom says one side of her family was known for having large family reunions and they were a closer family.

    Family background aside, my mom seemed to put a lot of effort in embracing a more Midwestern sensibility, including trying to lose her Southern accent. I was never as directly and regularly around her family as much since I grew up in other states, most importantly Iowa which is a lot more Midwestern in culture than is Indiana where my parents grew up. So, in a single generation, the last traces of Southerness was lost with my brothers and I.

    There is a subtle difference that can be seen in how the Upper South of Appalachia transitions into the Lower Midwest. Once you cross the Mississippi into Iowa or go North into Wisconsin and Minnesota, you are entirely outside of that transition zone. It’s hard to explain the difference as people like my mom’s family have elements of both Appalachia and Midwest. If anything, it was the industrialization of factory and railroad jobs in the Midwest that lured many Appalachians away from their kinship ties.

    Reply

    1. @Benjamin David Steele “So, in a single generation, the last traces of Southerness was lost with my brothers and I.” I really like your description. Your friend, rought but not mean, sounds like what I call Scotch Irish, not a murderding lawbreaking monster but as you say not refined. As for losing the last traces of Southerness, tha can be subtle. I notice, for instance, that you sign you name. To me that means you take full responsibility for your own decisions. That’s easy for me to respect. Sounds kind of Southern. “Here I am and you can come get me any time you like.” Oh, sorry, that was Martin Luther, and he went into hiding.
      I know the evidence presented suggest inbreeding leads to clannishness, leads to corruption, but the sequence in my own family was honesty, then outbreeding;now we are dying out.

      Reply

  88. @linton – “About what size would you say a group must be not to be called clannish?”

    it’s not just the size that matters here — in fact, i’m not certain that size matters at all ( (~_^) ) given that some arab tribes number in the millions.

    the point is the behavioral patterns — the innate sentiments and attitudes towards life and other people(s).

    where size enters into it is in how large of a group unrelated individuals manage to form a well-functioning society (not plagued with corruption, nepotism, violence, etc., etc.)

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick “it’s not just the size that matters here — in fact, i’m not certain that size matters at all ( (~_^) ) given that some arab tribes number in the millions.” Well for mating purposes so far as I can find out size is all that matters. And I think you have said that the Arabs to not mate at random throughout any of those tribes of millions, so following your logic they should be ready to cheat the rest of the tribe for their own line. Is that not true?

      Reply

  89. @jayman – “I wonder if having to fend off Celtic interlopers (who presumably were more clannish than the lowland English to the east) maintained the more aggressive edge of the Cavaliers?”

    yes.

    Reply

  90. @grey – “The same marriage model has less effect in a smaller population pool. 200 people trying religiously to avoid close cousin marriage are going to end up more closely related than 2000 people following the same model.”

    another yes. (^_^)

    @grey – “Given the physical proximity and the mirrored terrain and the need in that terrain to be skilled boatmen i’d have thought the populations would be very similar.”

    yeah, i imagine that the people/cultures were very similar all along the coastline, from northern france/the netherlands to denmark. reading what teh archaeologists have to say, they have a hard time distinguishing the various “cultures.”

    it’s interesting that the dithmarsians (corner of northern germany there) were literally clannish for the longest there. i wonder what happened? modernity sorta passed them by for quite a long while.

    Reply

  91. @linton – ” I don’t know whether it is interesting or not, but the same area was pretty close to where William Tyndale the bible translator was born, and there are those who say the Industrial Revolution started there, not elsewhere in England.”

    those are interesting! thanks!

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick “those are interesting! thanks!” Well if want to pursue it, that is kind of sort of at least overlaps with Wessex, which wast he kingdom of Alfred the great and from which he unified England and, well if you consider England being the grand unifier of the British empire, in tern the fouder of America in tern bent on unifying the world, then some day we shall all live in Greater Wessex … biology permitting of course.

      Reply

  92. @benjamin – “There is a book I have that is about the Quakers helping to spread the nuclear family in American society (Quakers and the American Family: British Settlement in the Delaware Valley by Barry Levy).”

    ah! thanks for that reference. (^_^)

    have you read emmanuel todd (sorry, i’m losing track of who’s read him and who hasn’t)? if you haven’t, you’ll like this (forget about the hajnal line to start off with — just look where the nuclear familiy is found in the late medieval/early modern period):

    todd’s family systems and the hajnal line

    (^_^)

    i summarized a bit of todd’s work on the family here. and, in what seems to have turned into emmanuel todd week, here’s a (lengthy!) post on another of todd’s books by craig willy, and our very own t. greer has just written a post on todd, too.

    @benjamin – “There are benefits to both. If destroying a larger sense of family was necessary to promote a more well functioning democracy, that would seem like a high price to pay. But obviously I wouldn’t want to live in one of the most corrupt societies where kinship rules through nepotism and such.”

    well, that’s the thing. there are positive and negative aspects to both types of societies (well, to ALL of them, because there’s a range of types) — but i think it really took outbreeding+nuclear families to produce modernity — and, personally, i am rather fond of modernity. most of it, anyway. (~_^)

    Reply

  93. @linton – “When I think about it I’m not so sure ‘clannish’ fits my family. We are extemely affectionate with each other but it’s totally personal. How can I say this? Your Scotch Irish person doesn’t like any central government. In fact, numerous as we have been we have never actually had a country. But that does not imply any great loyalty to family. Loyalty to individuals within the family, oh yes. But as I said it was personal. It was definitely not a point of principle.”

    well, perhaps you and your family are an example of middling clannish. clannishness-lite! (~_^)

    (dunno. just speculating. there are always exceptions to the rules, too. or certain bloggers’ theories could be [*ahem*] completely and utterly wrong! (~_^) )

    Reply

  94. @Benjamin
    “I love Midwestern social democracy, but at the same time I feel like something is lost with the disintegration of a larger sense of family that is grounded in a sense of place.”

    There’s definitely a trade-off i think – which means there might be an optimum.

    Reply

  95. As a science fiction fan this information is interesting to me because it speaks to the future as much as the past. I often lament how bad it looks these days, how we seem to muddle around making the same mistakes as a species over and over, how our own human nature seems to work against us as much as for us. As things are now with predator multinationals, megabanks run like (and possibly by) sicilian crime families, and states, nations, and cities run like personal piggy banks for the biggest toughest families, I have felt for some time that we’re stumbling toward the ugly dark corrupt blade runner future as envisioned by P. K. Dick. However this understanding of clannishness gives me hope. If this is truly the issue at the core of corruption then all that needs to happen is a worldwide ban on in-breeding, a concerted effort to show how terribly it is, even a push to talk about how it has horrible supernatural consequences and is punished in the afterlife (whatever works for a given population)… then it could be possible to have a humanity in 500-1000 years that looks a lot more like the Roddenberry future.

    Reply

    1. @Sisyphean:

      “However this understanding of clannishness gives me hope. If this is truly the issue at the core of corruption then all that needs to happen is a worldwide ban on in-breeding, … then it could be possible to have a humanity in 500-1000 years that looks a lot more like the Roddenberry future.”

      It’s very possible, in principle. All you’d have to do is have NW Europeans replace the populations of the rest of the world, coupled with some strong selection for intelligence, non-violence, and honesty.

      Indeed, notice the Earth colonies in Star Trek? You could also replicate this effect with the correct seed population.

      Not saying that I recommend any of these (I don’t), but the utopian world of Star Trek could be attained with the correct genetic selection/engineering (which, ironically, is banned in the Star Trek universe).

      Reply

  96. @Linton Herbert – “Sounds kind of Southern”

    I have wondered about which elements of Southerness might remain in me. I’m the youngest brother and so I spent the most time in SC. My oldest brother had already graduated high school before we moved to SC and he only stayed a year or so before returning to the Midwest.

    I know I picked up some Southerness while down there. I’d occasionally fall into a Southern accent when speaking to the fiend I mentioned, but I couldn’t speak Southern right now if my life depended on it. I have retained a fondness for particular words became accustomed to such as “ain’t”.

    I’m far from unusual as an American that has moved around in my life. That is one factor that stands out about America and differentiates it from most other countries. This complicates the issue of regions. A population that moves a lot will encourage a lot more outbreeding.

    This also leads to a kind of self-selected breeding. Th uprooted probably will be more likely to marry those who were born into uprooted families or are willing to uproot themseves. The less restless will stay in place and marry others in that place. In doing genealogy research, I’ve found so many lines of family that split between those stayed put and those who moved on. My Virginia line of family still has descendants in Virginia and South Carolina, but my direct line of descent headed to Texas from where some headed to California and elsewhere.

    Virginia at one point had a massive exodus. But what caused some to stay? There could be genetics also involved in this and it might fit into an inbreeding/outbreeding explanation.

    “I know the evidence presented suggest inbreeding leads to clannishness…”

    I hae done as much genealogical research on my Deep South family, but I have come across no evidence of inbreeding so far. However, they moved to a new state every generation or two and so that would make it harder to inbreed.

    My Appalacian/Hoosier family moved more slowly and over less distance, mostly within a few contiguous states: Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky and Indiana. I haven’t discovred any extremely close inbreeding, no first cousin marriages for sure and I don’ even recall any second cousin marriages. However, there are some cases of two brothers marrying two sisters and family lines separating only to merge again a few generations later. There were close kinship ties where nearly entire intermarried families would move together to the same town.

    I would consider my Appalachian/Hoosier family to be middling on the inbreeding/outbreeding scale. I don’t know if it is being less prone to inbreeding that allows for more mobility or moving more often that makes inbreeding less common. About very state my ancestors lived in still have descendants who are still living there, but I don’t know any of those people. I couldn’t say what made them different, less willing to move for work and/or adventure.

    Reply

    1. @Benamin David Steele Thanks for the history. I also miss ain’t. I do use it for emphasis myself but not in formal writing. What you say about Americans routinely moving long distances sounds right. Of coure here in Florida that’s exaggerated although it has long been said that people who move away from florida soon move back.

      Reply

  97. this might be significant: except for New Hampshire, all of t6he New England states allow first cousinsto marry. I don’t know how old or recent the laws are. The only region of the US where cousins are not allowed to arry, excet in certain cases of infertility, is the Midwest.

    Reply

  98. Cousin marriage is illegal in West Virginia and Kentucky. I’m sure that fact will have no effect on popular stereotype.

    Reply

  99. @HBD Chick:

    You might be interested in this. In his on-going attempt to prove that New England liberalism isn’t at all related to the traits carried on by the descendants of the colonial Puritans, “n/a” has stumbled on an analysis of mating patterns of Puritans within New England. Here we find that they tended to marry locally, giving us a high frequency of 3rd and 4th cousin marriages (which apparently continues to this day to some extent):

    race/history/evolution notes: Puritan names

    For some reason, I suspect 4th or even 3rd cousin marriage pushes a population much less towards clannishness than say 1st or even 2nd cousin marriage would.

    Reply

    1. @ Jayman ” a high frequency of 3rd and 4th cousin marriages” ( in New England) Cool. Numbers. I like that. on the basis of available evidence that would be consistent with the very high birth rate mentioned in Albion’s Seed. And coming down to the present, bright kids from New England tend to go to California to fill the ranks of Silicone Valley. California gets the credit in the public mind, but don’t undersell New England’s contriubution.

      Reply

  100. @jayman – “…’n/a’ has stumbled on an analysis of mating patterns of Puritans within New England. Here we find that they tended to marry locally, giving us a high frequency of 3rd and 4th cousin marriages (which apparently continues to this day to some extent).”

    oh, oh, oh! WONDERFUL! thank you, thank you! actual numbers. love those! (^_^)

    as linton said above: “Cool. Numbers. I like that.” (^_^)

    @jayman – “For some reason, I suspect 4th or even 3rd cousin marriage pushes a population much less towards clannishness than say 1st or even 2nd cousin marriage would.”

    well, the inclusive fitness payoff is a lot less, isn’t it? if you’re altruistic (in the scientific sense) towards eight first cousins, you’re aiding the equivalent of one “self” (one “you”). you’d have to be altruistic towards 500 fourth cousins to get the same sort of payoff!

    the push for clannishness is not really there with regular fourth cousin marriage. or not even third, really. (although i think those sorts of marriages within a society which regularly practiced first-/second-cousin marriages would clearly reinforce the genetic structure within that society.)

    edit: and, of course, those kinship coefficients change in inbreeding societies — first cousins in the arab world, for instance, share, on average, more genes with one another than first cousins in the western world. so the push towards clannishness is even greater in long-term inbreeding societies.

    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