“Correlation isn’t causation” is common reply when discussing science, but there is enough evidence to say consanguinity equals clannishness.
Some data demonstrating that a big correlation exists between nations with high consanguinity, and high levels of corruption.
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/
http://www.consang.net/index.php/Global_prevalence
Okay mid atlantic, those were better responses than I’d expected. I don’t remember how you usually respond to cultural issues, but usually when people talking about “losing" Western culture they’re talking about patriarchal family values, or “carrying a big stick" or something. I like the values you list, but I’m not so sure I see them as strictly Western. It’s just not that clear cut. For instance the US may be a leader in religious pluralism when you look at our laws, but in practice there are a lot of believers out there. Many of them are trying to roll back those laws."Western" values hav proven to be good for most people, but not necessarily US values, which started out fine but have been hijacked by the extreme right. LoisYou misunderstand, western values are not good for most people, they're good for us. Nor can they be lived by most people. Why not? Lois
2. First of all, prove it. This is post hoc bombast, cousin marriage is allowed therefore Middle Easterners are dysfunctional. If you look at the post you provided the accompanying map clearly shows that not only does the Middle East allow cousin marriage but so does several areas world wide, even (gasp) certain States in the U.S. Does this mean that all Floridians are dysfunctional because cousin marriage is allowed, or is The map flawed?Did you notice the regions of the world where cousin marriage is common are the most dysfunctional on a large scale? There is a lack of large scale cooperation in those places, because inbreeding causes clan-like behavior; i.e. an inability to trust those who aren't "close" to you. IOW, its bad for democracy. http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/04/24/0022022112443855
Cousin marriage was common in colonial America. Does this mean that their descendants are dysfunctional? My wife and I are distant cousins, should I worry about our children?It generally only causes trouble when its second cousins or closer, mating.
Also mentioned is the fact? That only one in ten participate in cousin marriage except in Syria.I think you misread - The Middle East has uniquely high rates of cousin marriage among the world's regions. Certain Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia, have rates of marriage to first or second cousins that may exceed 70%.[2] Iraq was estimated in one study to have a rate of 33%,[109] and figures for Afghanistan have been estimated in the range of 30–40%.
Also cousin marriage is allowed in the Jewish community, should they be concerned as well? I don't think so.Its allowed, but not prevalent among the high achieving Ashkenazi - From wiki Patai states in his other book The Myth of the Jewish Race that percentage of cousin marriage among Jews varies extensively with geographic location. Among Israeli Ashkenazi Jews, who originate mainly from Europe, the first-cousin marriage rate was measured in a 1955-7 study at 1.4% and other cousin marriages at 1.06% of all marriages. But among non-Ashkenazim the first-cousin marriage rate was 8.8% and an additional 6.0% of marriages were between more distant cousins. Thus a total 14.6% of marriages between non-Askenazim were consanguineous compared with only 2.5% for Ashkenazim. The highest frequencies of cousin marriages were found among Jews from Iraq (28.7%) and Iran (26.3%). High rates were also found among couples from Yemen (18.3%), Aden (17.8%), Tunisia (13.4%), and among Oriental Jews from the USSR (6.9%). Jews from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey saw rates of 7-10.7%. A later 1969-70 study rated the first-cousin marriage rate among Ashkenazim at 0.3% and other cousin marriages at 1.0%, while for non-Askenazim the respective figures were 6.2% and 8.1%. Among the Habbani Jews in Israel, 56% of marriages are between first cousins. The Samaritans also had very high rates of inbreeding, with 43% of marriages between first cousins and 33.3% between other cousins.
3. The concept of recreating Israel initially came as a result of the holocaust and our insistence on giving the remaining Jews a safe haven. I agree that it morphed into an expansionist State and with an ultraconservative leader they're headed for more trouble. He definitely needs to be reigned but the neo-Cons in the Rep. Party won't allow it. For that I lay the blame on their constituents.It was mainly about having an ally in the postwar Mideast. Cousin marriage is most prevalent where there are arranged marriages and least prevalent where people make their own choices. The reason cousins are chosen to marry is to keep the family's values and the famiy wealth intact. One cousin marriage doesn't generally do any harm when it comes to offspring, but everytime the offspring marry another cousin, the line becomes weaker and weaker. It's arranged marriages rather than cousin marriages, per se, that do the most harm to a family and society, biologically and socially. Women seldom have many rights in a society with arranged marriages. It creates a very lopsided and often cruel society. Lois Lois
Okay mid atlantic, those were better responses than I’d expected. I don’t remember how you usually respond to cultural issues, but usually when people talking about “losing" Western culture they’re talking about patriarchal family values, or “carrying a big stick" or something. I like the values you list, but I’m not so sure I see them as strictly Western. It’s just not that clear cut. For instance the US may be a leader in religious pluralism when you look at our laws, but in practice there are a lot of believers out there. Many of them are trying to roll back those laws."Western" values hav proven to be good for most people, but not necessarily US values, which started out fine but have been hijacked by the extreme right. LoisYou misunderstand, western values are not good for most people, they're good for us. Nor can they be lived by most people. Why not? LoisCulture is genetic. You can't be Japanese or Pakistani or Masai, for example; in the same way they, can't be western.
1) The entire south doesn’t have high rates of cousin marriage, it only does compared to the rest of the country. The area in the US where people are the most inbred (Appalachia) is incapable of large scale cooperation, that’s why its in the shape it’s in. 2) Yes, the risk of deformities caused by cousin marriage is low, but that’s not the point….the point is that clannish behavior is caused by cosanguinity. 3) All human personality traits are heritable, it’s always genetic.1. Then clearly you don't know the history of Appalachia. This region has a poor economy due to the lack of industrial development and with only two exceptions lumber and coal, has always (since 1800) composed of small farms. More importantly, landlords and coal mine owners kept the workers dependent on the company and created a form of legal slavery,keeping them powerless and poor until the union was organized in the twenties. Also, Cousin marriage was allowed here due to the small population. Even today this region is sparsely populated. It has absolutely nothing to do with inbreeding which you contend. And your statement that the entire South doesn't have a high rate of cousin marriage doesn't negate the fact that most southeastern states allow cousin marriage, and now there appears to be a movement to allow it in other states as well. 2. You have this argument standing on it's head; i.e. Consanguinity is caused by clannish behavior as both Lois and I pointed out in an earlier post. 3. Nope. Read anything by Steven Pinker. It's at best 50-50. Here's another author who disagrees with your contention, Judith Harris. In her book The Nurture Assumption she discusses the balance of nature (your contention) with nurture and finds that nurture trumps, barely but it does, nature. people tend to conform to the society in which they live. So, yes a Masai or an Asian would eventually adopt the cultural traits of the environment they find themselves in despite their genetic differences. Actually, look around, the U.S. Is a whole country of immigrants; you're probably at least a second or third generation with a European background. Even here in Appalachia we now have Middle Eastern residents in many fields who have assimilated since the turn of the last century. Cap't Jack
Okay mid atlantic, those were better responses than I’d expected. I don’t remember how you usually respond to cultural issues, but usually when people talking about “losing" Western culture they’re talking about patriarchal family values, or “carrying a big stick" or something. I like the values you list, but I’m not so sure I see them as strictly Western. It’s just not that clear cut. For instance the US may be a leader in religious pluralism when you look at our laws, but in practice there are a lot of believers out there. Many of them are trying to roll back those laws."Western" values hav proven to be good for most people, but not necessarily US values, which started out fine but have been hijacked by the extreme right. LoisYou misunderstand, western values are not good for most people, they're good for us. Nor can they be lived by most people. Can you elucidate and give some examples? LoisI mean trying to impart western values on non-westerners hasn't worked, but more importantly, that isn't even possible because values are biologically determined. The values of the West evolved because of the unique pressures the West has faced throughout its history - all environments select for something. 1) Colonial African nations are a good example. 2) Latin America - the huge difference between predominately white areas compared to predominately non-white areas. (e.g. Bolivia vs Uruguay) Why is then that people from other cultures, when they settle in western countries, assimilate and become very like their neighbors? It has always happened throughout history. There wre always a few hangers on and some who will take longer than others, but for the most part people take on the culture they are living in. You can't just point to colonial African nations and Latin America. They have not yet reached full change. It doesn't happen overnight, and there are many factors to consider such as how advanced they were before immigrating, how many advanced people were in the new country, the level of poverty among the immigrants and in the host country, educational opportunities, whether the immigrants were oppressed marginalized and discriminated against plus a whole lot of other factors neither you nor I have thought of but which are always present and affecting outcomes. Lois
1. Then clearly you don't know the history of Appalachia. This region has a poor economy due to the lack of industrial development and with only two exceptions lumber and coal, has always (since 1800) composed of small farms. More importantly, landlords and coal mine owners kept the workers dependent on the company and created a form of legal slavery,keeping them powerless and poor until the union was organized in the twenties. Also, Cousin marriage was allowed here due to the small population. Even today this region is sparsely populated. It has absolutely nothing to do with inbreeding which you contend. And your statement that the entire South doesn't have a high rate of cousin marriage doesn't negate the fact that most southeastern states allow cousin marriage, and now there appears to be a movement to allow it in other states as well.The legality of cousin marriage doesn't matter, it's legal in most of the Northeast and California also; it's the prevalence that matters. Yes, the small population meant that cousin marriage was a necessity, but the population were descended from Scotch-Irish settlers - who had been practicing cousin marriage for a long time already. The age at marriage was much younger than in any of the groups of British immigrants. The average age for men was 21 and for women 19. Weddings were wild affairs, full of ritual, and costly. Sometimes brides were abducted, usually (but not always) willingly. First cousins often married to "keep it in the clan". There was a shortage of clergy in the back country and sometimes couples got tired of waiting. Premarital pregnancies were common. But they were not thought to be scandalous. They often made a joke of it! http://www.ulsterscotssociety.com/about_immigrants.html
2. You have this argument standing on it's head; i.e. Consanguinity is caused by clannish behavior as both Lois and I pointed out in an earlier post.Because the genes for clannishness are prevalent in the entire group as a result of the inbreeding.
3. Nope. Read anything by Steven Pinker. It's at best 50-50. Here's another author who disagrees with your contention, Judith Harris. In her book The Nurture Assumption she discusses the balance of nature (your contention) with nurture and finds that nurture trumps, barely but it does, nature. people tend to conform to the society in which they live. So, yes a Masai or an Asian would eventually adopt the cultural traits of the environment they find themselves in despite their genetic differences. Actually, look around, the U.S. Is a whole country of immigrants; you're probably at least a second or third generation with a European background. Even here in Appalachia we now have Middle Eastern residents in many fields who have assimilated since the turn of the last century. Cap't JackWhere did you hear this? Pinker is very much on the "Nature" side. He doesn't totally discount "Nurture" http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/papers/nature_nurture.pdf And Harris's thesis is that kids turn out the way they do because of genes mainly and their peer group, rather then their parents guidance. The heritability of behavioral traits is well studied. It seems the main question is how should these traits be defined. http://www18.homepage.villanova.edu/diego.fernandezduque/Teaching/PhysiologicalPsychology/zCurrDir4200/CurrDirGeneticsTraits.pdf
There is also the factor of inter-marriage, which was rampant among immigrants to the US. As an example, my father came from two fairly pure Irish parents. My mother came from two fairly pure German parents. I have taken on characteristics of both. I am neither Irish nor German, but a combinaion of both. Once there is a second and third generation the original culture(s) dissipates. It happens among all cultures and ethnicities, epecially if intermarriage is not artificially prevented as it is in some patriarchal societies. Even in those, most of the succeeding generations manage to break away from the old cultures and form new ones.
You are right that it’s difficult to impose Western values on old cultures that have not emigrated or intermarried. Clannishness prevails where it is firmly rooted.
Lois