the bamileke of cameroon

been meaning to do a follow up post on the bamileke of cameroon since … well, since last november! always on top of things here at the hbd chick blog. (*^_^*) so, at long last, here we go….

oh. in case you don’t recall or didn’t realize, i’ve been trying to track down other outbreeders around the world — populations which have avoided close relative marriage (closer than second cousins) over the long term (say 30 or 40+ generations) — to see what they’re like: what their family structures are like, what their social structures are like, if they’re corrupt or nepotistic or have a lot of infighting between families/clans, etc. i’m interested in finding out if there are any general behavioral traits common to outbreeders. same for the inbreeders, too, actually.

the bamileke are outbreeders. they avoid all marriage with anybody on their mother’s side of the family (their matrilineage), and also tend to avoid marriage to third cousins or closer on the father’s side [pg. 149]:

“The matrilineage is comprised of all the people descended through women from a common female ancestor. Since all female descendants of the matrilineage are considered his sisters, a man must not marry within this group. No specific taboos exist against marriage within a patrilineage, although most Bamileke who share a common male ancestor four generations back [i.e. a great-great-grandfather-h.chick] will not intermarry. Whereas members of a patrilineage live close to each other and regularly commune with each other, those of a matrilineage are not close and may, in fact, belong to different chiefdoms.”

the bamileke, however, like many african groups, practice polygamy which probably narrows the genetic relatedness in the population. i don’t have any figures on how much polygamy is practiced there.

don’t know for how long the bamileke have been avoiding close cousin marriage, but i suspect that it is at least a few hundred years. the bamileke first came up here on the blog in a previous post, flatlanders vs. mountaineers revisited, in which we saw that they are some of the cameroon highlanders many of them living in very mountainous regions of cameroon, but yet their mating patterns — i.e. avoiding close cousin marriage — don’t seem to fit the broad pattern of highlanders or mountain folk typically inbreeding. apparently, however, the bamileke are fairly recent arrivals in the highlands, having migrated from the (flat) adamawa plateau somewhere around the 1600s [pg. 261 – links added by me]:

“As for the Bamileke, their ancient history is closely linked to that of the two previous groups. All came from the north, from the region today occupied by the Tikar. Their migration probably began in the seventeenth century and took place in successive waves.”

so, it could be that the bamileke are long-term outbreeders (because they originally came from a flatlander region) who transplanted themselves into more mountainous regions beginning ca. four hundred years ago. they don’t seem to have adopted a mountaineer economy — pastoralism for instance — but, rather, stuck to farming. what might have (ironically) saved them from eventually having to adopt pastoralism was the arrival of the germans who introduced coffee growing to the cameroon highlands. the bamileke quickly adopted the cash-crop system of coffee growing and trading with europeans. not sure about this, though — just a guess on my part.

it might be impossible to reconstruct the history of the bamileke people’s mating patterns from historical records (which will have been written almost solely by europeans, of course). if i find any published accounts by christian missionaries in cameroon, they might include some info on the bamileke. otherwise, genetic data (runs of homozygosity) would probably be the best way to discover how in- or outbred the bamileke are. for now, all i can say is that currently (in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries) the bamileke are outbreeders. and judging by their history, there’s a good chance that they’ve been outbreeders for a few hundred years, but that is just speculation on my part.

having said that, what are the bamileke like? what are their family types and social structures like?

traditional bamileke families do not appear to have been nuclear families, primarily because polygamy was (is) practiced, so that is unlike the outbred societies we’ve seen in western europe.

one subgroup of the bamileke, the bangwa (bangoua – in french), are described thusly [pg. 1]:

“Nor is Bangwa a ‘lineage-based’ society. Bangwa social life is not carried on in the all-embracing idiom of kinship, with personal loyalties and resources pooled in discrete unilineal descent groups. Kinship here is an individual business, with a person in the centre of a ramifying network of ties linking him with matrilineal and patrilineal kin, affines, creditor-lords, political superiors and so on. A Bangwa claims no clan or lineage membership, and no corporate group takes responsibility for any of his actions. Kinship is an aid to the business of making a living: tradiing, inheriting, acquiring a title, farming, ruling and marrying. And as the business of living is complex in Bangwa so is the kinship system.”

these features — not having tight clans or even lineages, individuals having to take responsibility for their own actions — are very much like what we see in the long-term outbreeding european populations. don’t know if the rest of the bamileke are like the bangwa in these regards, but i’m guessing yes, since i haven’t read any descriptions anywhere of bamileke peoples engaging in blood feuds or having a wergeld-like system. this absence of tight clans/kindreds seems outbred to me.

however [pg. 351]:

“Customary political structures revolve around kinship, which the Bamileke define by dual descent — patrilineal ties typically determine village residence and rights to land, but matrilineal ties define ritual obligations and the inheritance of movable property.”

so larger kinship groupings are not totally unimportant to the bamileke.

from the previous post (and from this article [pdf]):

“Although the group solidarity of the Bamileke is strong, individual achievement is highly valued. Members of the group are expected to exercise individual initiative in the pursuit of economic goals. Individual acquisition of economic resources including private property, money, and other remuneration is stressed. Other cultural characteristics of the group that have been invaluable to their entrepreneurial skills are discussed below….

“[T]he social status of an individual in this ethnic group is not rigidly fixed; individuals — male or female — can improve their condition in life and are expected to do so. Commercial and business success is one of the most highly valued routes to prestige and status. Bamileke women are also expected to achieve economic and comnercial success and there are few traditional limits placed on their economic participation….

“The traditional values of the Bamileke stress individual competition and overt displays of ‘getting ahead’. Individual Bamileke are expected to compete and to surpass each other’s accomplishments. The emphasis on competition is not limited to economic activities, but is a feature of personal relationships as well: within families, children are expected to compete with their siblings; sons and daughters are encouraged to surpass the achievements of their parents….

[P]oorer relatives are not expected or allowed to lay claim to or live off the riches of wealthier family members….

“A final feature of traditional society which must be noted is the system of succession and inheritance. Of all the elements characteristic of Bamileke social organization, this feature has been fundamental and has had far-reaching implications for the rate and pace of Bamileke participation in economic growth, development, and change. Succession and inheritance rules are determined by the principle of patrilineal descent. According to custom, the eldest son is the probable heir, but a father may choose any one of his sons to succeed him. An heir takes his dead father’s name and inherits any titles held by the latter, including the right to membership in any societies to which he belonged…. The rights in land held by the deceased were conferred upon the heir subject to the approval of the chief, and, in the event of financial inheritance, the heir was not obliged to share this with other family members. The ramifications of this are significant. First, dispossessed family members were not automatically entitled to live off the wealth of the heir. Siblings who did not share in the inheritance were, therefore, strongly encouraged to make it on their own through individual initiative and by assuming responsibility for earning their livelihood….

A notable feature of the group is the complementarity between individualism and collective unity. Individuals are expected to make their own way in the world while retaining a strong ethnic identity and group association. This interact is one of the factors accounting for their economic success. Each individual, for example, is expected to contribute as much to the group as he receives in return. Thus, cooperation is essential. The group is perceived of as an interdependent system based on the strength of individual links….

A principal Bamileke belief is that individuals are, in the final analysis, responsible for their own fate. One makes one’s way in society on the basis of individual qualities. Status distinctions and rank are not rigidly fixed and there is always the possibility of advancement.”

so here we have: individualism, extended family NOT being able to automatically rely on other members of the extended family, no precise inheritance rules (which is something emmanuel todd identifies as a trait of absolute nuclear family societies), and the collective unity of the larger group (NOT any family group). these are all traits that are found in outbred, “core” europe — although they are expressed somewhat differently in northwest europe vs. cameroon.

the bamileke also have a lot of voluntary associations, another characteristic common in outbred europe and not normally found in inbred populations — at least none of the inbred populations i’ve looked at so far [pg. 42]:

“The original function of these societies was to administer initiation rites, but in societies with a more complex economy and polity, both male and female associations grew in importance by assuming a plurality of administrative and commercial functions as well, such as tax collection, price control in markets, maintenance of public order, and organization of collective work. The *mandjon* societies of Bamileke men and women provide good examples of such traditional associations. The women’s *mandjon* are presided over by the mother of the *fon* or chief — there are over a hundred such chiefdoms in Bamileke territory — and its members help each other in agricultural work. The *mandjon* used to meet on a weekly basis to organize such work. In addition to associations that fit into the political structure of Bamileke society, there are also many autonomous associations based on neighborhood. Aside from ritual functions (such as divination and faith healing) they also act as savings groups and associations for mutual assistance. More recently, Bamileke associations…have been adapted to the needs of urban living and have led to a proliferation of voluntary membership clubs that provide mutual aid, companionship for immigrants, and entertainment. The savings groups are maintained by members paying in fixed amounts at weekly meetings, taking turns in receiving the entire sum. Membership is not restricted to a single saving association and the Bamileke tend to join them as soon as they earn money.”

interestingly, the bamileke are probably the most successful group in cameroon economically speaking — and they are also strongly nationalistic [pg. 65]:

“In the towns and cities, they are known for their skills at running small and large businesses and for their professional abilities…. During the years of the French colonial empire, the Bamileke were leaders in the nationalistic rebellion, especially the 1955 uprising that led to Cameroon’s independence. Today the Bamileke are extremely influential in the Cameroonian commercial economy. They are also one of the major constituencies of the Union de Populations du Cameroun (UPC), the fiercly nationalistic political party.”

i haven’t found out anything yet on corruption in bamileke society — although there seems to be plenty of it in cameroon. can’t imagine that they’re very nepotistic since the members of extended families are not obliged to help one another out — nor is aid to be expected — but you never know. i will endeavor to find out more!

(^_^)

previously: guess the population! and the semai

(note: comments do not require an email. bamileke elephant masks!)

Advertisements

31 Comments

  1. While lots of corruption is nepotistic, a lot of it isn’t. The crooked cop who lets you pay him $20 to avoid a $100 fine probably isn’t doing this to help his cousins, and in more corrupt places, offers this to everyone, regardless of relatedness. Inbreeding makes it easier to protect corrupt individuals from the institution, and inbreeding societies will generally have little or no respect for institutions which are supposed to transcend clans, but those conditions can exist in outbreeding societies as well.

    Reply

  2. Regarding corruption: it’s also possible that the Bamileke are all related to each other more so than they are to any other Cameroonians, so they are in effect, one big clan relative to the state (or what we call an “ethnic group” or a “nation”), and as such, don’t feel any real loyalty to the state of Cameroon – not enough to make them feel any guilt about stealing from the state, anyway.

    Reply

  3. Interesting about the (to seems) difference of pattern marriage nature of Bamilekes compared to other Cameroonians, like inbreed ashkenazis to outbreed native europeans. One of the possible explanation of success of ethnic minorities beyond higher intelligence (than natives) could be ”divergent ingroup strategies”. Outbreeding societies, was proved to seems more organized than inbreeding, exactly because the less levels of corruption. As parsees in India, parsees (to seems) isn’t in any caste or respect the historical caste laboral division. Beyond the higher intelligence (well, many other higher castes indians are so smart than parsees) also the difference between found in the restrictions of job because of castes system and their ingroup strategies for competition transformed parsees on the ”ideal people” to occupy different cognitivelly exigent jobs in India. Ethnic web and nepotism work very well to ashkenazi in West, outbreed ”strategy” work (to seems accord this text) very well to bamilekes and non-castes system adesion work very well to parsees in India.

    Reply

  4. “While lots of corruption is nepotistic, a lot of it isn’t. The crooked cop who lets you pay him $20 to avoid a $100 fine probably isn’t doing this to help his cousins”

    True but the theory isn’t only that direct corruption is driven by nepotism but that *attitudes* to corruption are different in nepotistic societies because the attitude to the concept of commonweal is different i.e. there isn’t a concept of commonweal – only clanweal. Or stronger yet, that nepotistic societies select for (or don’t select against) traits related to corruption and vice versa for outbred societies.

    Reply

  5. @anthony – “While lots of corruption is nepotistic, a lot of it isn’t….”

    oh, yeah, sure! i view corruption and nepotism as two different things — or, i suppose, nepotism as a subset of corruption. like grey said above:

    “…*attitudes* to corruption are different in nepotistic societies because the attitude to the concept of commonweal is different i.e. there isn’t a concept of commonweal – only clanweal. Or stronger yet, that nepotistic societies select for (or don’t select against) traits related to corruption and vice versa for outbred societies.”

    it’s usually all one big package. but, yeah, they are distinct things: nepotism vs. other forms of corruption (like bribing cops).

    Reply

  6. @grey – “there isn’t a concept of commonweal – only clanweal.”

    clanweal!! that’s brilliant! i am totally gonna steal that. (^_^)

    Reply

  7. @anthony – “it’s also possible that the Bamileke are all related to each other more so than they are to any other Cameroonians, so they are in effect, one big clan relative to the state (or what we call an ‘ethnic group’ or a ‘nation’), and as such, don’t feel any real loyalty to the state of Cameroon – not enough to make them feel any guilt about stealing from the state, anyway.”

    but i don’t know that the bamileke are particularly corrupt at all or that they do steal from the state. i haven’t found any data on that (may not exist).

    i said that there is a lot of corruption in cameroon (like nearly everywhere in sub-saharan africa), but i don’t know that the bamileke are driving that. in fact, there are some hints in the literature that perhaps it’s the other groups in cameroon who are corrupt — or more corrupt maybe [pg. 115]:

    “In general terms, the Bamileke are viewed as the most skilled and wealthy entrepreneurs in the country. A long history of land shortages and a history of highly structured social relations have propelled them into a highly skilled proficiency in using urban areas as a platform for substantial accumulation and investment. This proficiency goes so far as to result in the self-serving claim of many Cameroonians that non-Bamileke are forced into corruption because they have little opportunity otherwise to economically compete.”

    Reply

  8. @jayman – “Crooked cops seem to be a feature of inbred ethnicities.”

    and maybe the assumption that cops are definitely crooked is found more frequently amongst clannish people? and maybe they’re right — about their own societies. (sheesh! and i thought that *I* was the clannish person around here! (~_^) wouldn’t even *occur* to me to do what b&b suggested. =/ )

    Reply

  9. Great write up, good to see an example of outbreeding in a non-European population by way of comparison. They certainly seem to have a number of features in common with the outbred European societies.

    “and they are also strongly nationalistic”

    This seems to be true of west Africans in general, at least in the case of Cameroonians, Nigerians, Ghanaians etc. At first I thought that it was superficial and didn’t extend beyond football but that seems not to be the case. They are definitely way more nationalistic than, say, the Arabs. However in the case of Cameroon the Anglophone Cameroonians seem to resent the stronger Francophone political and economic influence in their country.

    Reply

  10. In Cameroon the Bamileke,
    Now mark what I do say,
    In Cameroon the Bamileke,
    Are tall and dark and blithe and gay,
    ……

    Reply

  11. “…*attitudes* to corruption are different in nepotistic societies because the attitude to the concept of commonweal is different i.e. there isn’t a concept of commonweal – only clanweal. Or stronger yet, that nepotistic societies select for (or don’t select against) traits related to corruption and vice versa for outbred societies.”

    the idea that dividing a single population into two and breeding each differently will by definition lead to different frequencies in alleles in the two groups, should be simple Mendelian genetics?

    the allelic transition from in to out bred societies must be quite complex. face recognition + flight/fight is one pathway but moving from protecting a cousin to understanding the public sphere must involve a wider range of behaviours?

    Reply

  12. Now, this is real social science: it has a hypothesis, on the basis of which certain (far-from-obvious) predictions are made, which are then confirmed. I’ve never seen anything quite like it.

    Reply

  13. The null-hypothesis — namely that mating patterns have no effect on the cultural values (individual responsibility, etc.) underlying Western societies? — has now been nullified (falsified) to a significant extent. This is empirical science in its essence!

    Reply

  14. @BNK
    “the allelic transition from in to out bred societies must be quite complex. face recognition + flight/fight is one pathway but moving from protecting a cousin to understanding the public sphere must involve a wider range of behaviours?”

    Yes although I wonder how much understanding would be necessary.

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

    Take the coefficient of relationship between various levels of cousinage

    1st cousin 12.5%
    2nd cousin 3.13%
    3rd cousin 0.78%
    4th cousin 0.2%

    Then imagine an island of 1000 people divided into 10 clans of 100 each where each individual averages at the 1st cousin level of relatedness to the 100 people in their clan and at an average of 4th cousin to the other 900 people on the island. Then imagine a behavior which gave an equal benefit to the 100 clan members and disbenefit to the 900 non-members.

    In terms of fitness that behavior would score

    (100 x 12.5) – (900 x 0.2) = 12,500 – 180 = positive 12,320

    But if the clans inter-married more such that over time they became a little less closely related to their clan members and a little more closely related to everyone else so that each individual became on average related as 2nd cousins within their extended clan and 3rd cousin to everyone else then the cost-benefit of that behavior shifts to

    (100 x 3.13) – (900 x 0.78) = 313 – 702 = negative 389

    So a behavior which was strongly positive in terms of fitness could become mildly negative if the pattern of relatedness changed.

    It’s simply an extension of the quote ‘I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins’ to large groups.

    So it seems to me the pattern of relatedness within any population *automatically* creates a fitness filter on behavior.

    So if evolution is driven by chaos – random mutation – with natural selection only acting as a *filter* on the chaos then this relatedness filter would operate automatically on random mutations creating new **instinctive** behaviors.

    (For example I have been in situations where people might have sought to bribe me but no one ever went beyond a hint possibly because they could tell how violent my response would have been. I can feel my temper and heart rate shoot up just thinking about the possibility. That reaction isn’t rational it’s emotional so I assume it’s some random quirk that one of my ancestors developed but that random quirk may have been a reproductive advantage to them in their environment whereas the opposite pro-bribery reaction might be an advantage in other environments.)

    #

    I think hubchik’s theory could be shown mathematically but not with my level of mathematics.

    #

    nb that wiki list of relationship coefficients illustrates the point hubchik made about FBD marriage and double first cousins.

    Reply

  15. I’d be surprised if the Bamileke aren’t quite corrupt by English standards, even if they’re fairly uncorrupt by African standards.

    Corruption doesn’t require clannishness – the English and French have been corrupt at periods in their history when they were outbreeding. Corruption seems to become a *necessity* when society is clannish and the state isn’t the clan, but the concept of the commonweal doesn’t automatically displace the clanweal. It probably *can’t* among clannish people without some outbreeding, but the transition isn’t automatic when people have a more fluid boundary for who is in their clan.

    A hypothetical Bamileke nation-state might be de-corruptible (or non-corrupt, depending on existing conditions and history), but a multi-ethnic state like Cameroon is probably doomed to a certain high-by-European-standards level of corruption.

    Reply

  16. @Myself

    “So it seems to me the pattern of relatedness within any population *automatically* creates a fitness filter on behavior.”

    This doesn’t explain how a particular behavioral trait which benefits others can be selected *for* directly. I’m currently thinking it’s more a question of being selected *against* less strongly. That is trait A and trait B are randomly generated among all populations but in environment A trait A is optimal and trait B is selected against whereas in environment B trait B is optimal and trait A is selected against so it’s a question of the relatedness pattern fitness filter selecting the *relative frequencies of the same traits* rather than environment A having trait A and environment B having trait B.

    Reply

  17. @Myself
    I’m so glad you said that. Lock and key is what evolution seems to boil down to. Not totally random rather, happy coincidence.

    I think this is what Gottlieb is talking about with respect to IQ. For example, ‘self-made’ people might only have made themselves _because_ of having difficult childhoods. Somehow the challenge brought out their umph. In other words, not everyone will be suited to the household environment they end up in. And also he’s been saying that culturally we are selecting for pragmatism now, rather than brain boxes. I agree with that; pragmatism is a good word for it.

    Back to outbreeding – I came to the conclusion at 4 in the morning that it can’t be possible to produce liberal democracy by reducing inbreeding because inbreeding is the default social structure of homsap. Inbreeding is selected for by evolution, it’s who we are in our unconscious state.

    Outbreeding was selected for by individual people – the Frankish kings and manorialism, the Saxon kings and town planning, Thomas and others and church bans. These were men with a vision for society, they were social engineering. The Normans and Plantagenets were not so interested in members of the society. They built cathedrals, changed the law a bit, liked land, but daily life was virtual slavery. People were prisoners of the locality where they were born.

    Part of the Saxons plan must have included mixing ethnic groups, homogenising the welsh-saxon population (welsh as in people who didn’t go to wales when the romans came). What is happening now is not so very different. The advertising industry is going big on the mixed-ethnicity family. It’s the continuation of outbreeding – out of the tribe, out of the ethnic group.

    I think what outbreeding does is to create a malleable population. Loyalty can be transferred to guilds, institutions, fashions, etc. In a tribal society, 50 tribes will have 50 elders. In an outbred society those same 50 tribes blended together can have one elder. It’s a recipe for totalitarianism, or benevolent dictatorship.

    British values are currently held together by the remnants of the christian population. I already see people reverting to selfishness. People are withdrawing and rediscovering family networks. The government encourages this because it allows public services to be withdrawn eg care of the aged. But long term it could lead to a different type of society than the one anticipated, if tribalism returns.

    When outbreeders use the pavement they don’t take ownership of it so much as borrow it; they are constantly aware of other people in the public space and amenable to giving up their bit of pavement if necessary. Tribal people have a different attitude to pavement – the bit that they are on belongs to them while they are on it. That may seem like a silly example but it is actually quite a sophisticated mechanism and I don’t think it is the result of outbreeding but the result of outbreeders being persuadable as to rules of the pavement that apply to everyone. It won’t last once christianity ceases to inform British culture.

    People like you who have fight/flight systems attuned to a set of values such as ‘honour before profit’ (you cowboy!), will soon be phased out. No one will marry people who lack pragmatism. Unless of course the moralists set up their own territory; seems unlikely. The nationalist movements in Europe are in effect a single outlawed clan. It would be interesting to see what would happen if nationalists were given some territory to do their own thing – would they keep the outbred style society or revert to smaller tribes? It depends whether they had a leader to unite them in a common vision of the minutiae of living, like how to use a pavement?

    Interested in your thoughts.

    Reply

  18. @Gottlieb

    somewhere on this blog, I think you mentioned society selecting for pragmatism rather than absolute intelligence, and somewhere on Jayman’s blog I think you said something about the fit between organism and environment determining whether potential is actualised, if not, sorry for misquoting you.

    Reply

  19. BNK,
    yes, to seems, when i talk about ”china meritocracy system”. Public job exames are based in memorization, superficial and pragmatic, obviously. People use the knowledge to earn more Money, they generally are the ”high iq, technical smart” ones. The majority of east asians are like that, very good to memorize, average above iq but without ”psychological intensity” and creativity. They are the non-soo ambitious smart people, the super normal people. Some them, also are the pragmatic smart people. Pragmatism is, my thought, a very common asian trait, quintessential traits them.
    The last part, i do know if i said it, i don’t understand.
    Probably, higher symmetrical iq people tend to be super normals or pragmatics, they used their intelects to earn more Money, specially…
    Super smarts or genius (and similars), my thoughts again, will tend to be assymmetrical iq people, because it cause much more concentration in its strenghts, the passion and some mental ill personality traits (schizophrenia and autism). The ”mental ill traits” related to ”smart personality”, as controlled madness.

    Reply

  20. @BNK

    “Interested in your thoughts”

    As you say I think inbreeding is the natural state and I don’t think outbreeding could occur naturally. It had to be culturally created.

    However – and I think this has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt by the history of Europe over the last few hundred years – out breeding *up to a point* is a vastly more efficient way of organizing society due to the synergy effects it produces *as long as* a minimum level of average relatedness is maintained to glue society together. If that minimum level of average relatedness is breached then those synergy bonuses will disappear and the supercharged society created by those synergy bonuses will collapse.

    (This has already started imo.)

    I think the minimum level of relatedness can be breached two ways 1) too much or too rapid immigration or 2) a homogenous population getting so big that exogamy among that population also leads to very low levels of average relatedness even without any immigration i.e. everyone might have the same distant ancestry but there are so many of them they are now all 12th cousins on average or 16th cousins or whatever the cutoff might be.

    Say there were three traits, A B and C and they all popped up regularly in all populations through chaos aka random mutations where:
    Trait A made people benign to anyone up to 2nd cousin and malign to everyone beyond that
    Trait B made people benign to anyone up to 4th cousin and malign to everyone beyond that
    Trait C made people benign to everyone including whales and bunny rabbits.

    1) In a clannish population B and C might be selected against very strongly.
    2) In an early outbred population A and C might start to be strongly selected against allowing B to become dominant over time
    3) In theory if that out-breeding continued to the point where average relatedness was beyond 4th cousin then trait C might start to increase in frequency to compensate but not if the outbred population expands too fast.

    So if correct there’s only one way to Utopia and that is turning everywhere into Denmark first i.e. homogenous populations who are exogamous among themselves leading to cantons of c. 6 million-ish 4th cousins (or whatever the actual numbers come to) and then allowing enough time for the frequency of trait C to spread widely enough to support “we are the world.”

    Part of the West’s problem is we had a lot of trait C upper middle class people in politics who didn’t know they were trait C, that most of their population were still trait B and most of everywhere else were still trait A.

    Reply

  21. @Grey
    thanks for replying.

    “So if correct there’s only one way to Utopia”

    via an algorithm apparently.

    but if there is more than one way to inbreed I don’t see why there shouldn’t be more than one way to outbreed. perhaps that is what the unique-but-similar dimension of european natives and nations is all about.

    “Part of the West’s problem is we had a lot of trait C upper middle class people in politics who didn’t know they were trait C”

    It’s not a problem if where we’re at is simply the next phase of cultural evolution; another layer of organisation, with vestigial nations hanging around like subsistence farmers and tribes do.

    btw I read your idea about ‘heavy dependence on cattle’ triggering lactase persistance, and I’ve just read your comment about iodine. both seem plausible, thanks for the insight.

    Reply

  22. @BNK

    “I don’t see why there shouldn’t be more than one way to outbreed.”

    Coefficients of relatedness are fixed numbers so – assuming natural breeding with two parents, four grand-parents etc – the patterns of average relatedness must follow certain mathematical patterns.

    .

    “It’s not a problem if where we’re at is simply the next phase of cultural evolution;”

    It’s a problem for the people whose nations are being targeted for deliberate, planned and targeted genocide through mass immigration no matter how you may wish to rationalize it.

    Reply

  23. @Grey

    “the patterns of average relatedness must follow certain mathematical patterns”

    yes. I see that, but what I’m getting at, thrashing around, is that different ecological niches might suit different mathematical patterns? maybe FBD works well for desert pastoralism, MBD for rice paddy cultivation, and similar for outbreeding, maybe 4th cousin suits welfare-industrialism, maybe 12th cousin suits internet-globalism? I’m extrapolating from primate studies so it may not work with humans, I was hoping you might have a better idea of the maths and whether ecology could still be a factor in what mating systems emerge when and where. Different mating systems produce different social structures. Denmark has produced collective national institutions but, nowadays is the era of the global network so, we shouldn’t be surprised if mating patterns start to change?

    “It’s a problem for the people whose nations are being targeted”

    yes of course, it’s a ‘tragedy of the commons’ on a global scale, but it is also the logic of human biodiversity, that more successful cultures grow, isn’t it? How can cultures grow – by high performance and/or by high fertility? Is there another mathematical relationship between those two and resources available?

    Reply

  24. i just wish to ask was the any social conflict in the Bamenda grass field during the presence of the Bamileke?

    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