The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Appalachians"
 All Comments / On "Appalachians"
    Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • […] Cultures of North America A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers Maps of the American Nations Demography is Destiny, American Nations Edition Assortative migration patterns A Dialect Map of […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • […] From what I have read, the founding stock of both the Deep South and the British West Indies was drawn heavily from the West and Metropolitan London in England. Scots-Irish settled all over the backcountry while Cavaliers tended to settle the river valleys: […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] the Tidewater and Deep South, the home of the English Cavaliers (see The Cavaliers) in Southwest England is evidence. The Scottish link (presumably Scots-Irish that settled in the […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • […] were featured in my post More Maps of the American Nations (as well as in the earlier post Maps of the American Nations). The pattern we see above (and many other patterns)  – while clearly partially the result of […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • […] of the country (see A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” and the The Cavaliers). To these peoples, there are is a natural division of and natural hierarchies and (and in this […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • […] a more in depth look at the American Nations and their biological/historical origins look here at a post from […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] of JayMan’s pieces are masterpieces of blogging, if there can be such a thing. Look at his “Maps of the American Nations” post, for example: two thousand words, twenty maps, two video clips, and full engagement with […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I don’t even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was great.
    I do not know who you are but definitely you are going to a famous blogger if you
    are not already ;) Cheers!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” Flags of the American Nations Maps of the American Nations More Maps of the […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • […] areas of the British Isles. In the case of the settlers of the Tidewater and the Deep South, the Cavaliers, their ancestors hailed from southwest England. The founders of Greater Appalachia were the […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Another map of the American nations: This is where the states stand on Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid. As you can see, it's far from universally embraced. Now let's compare that to this map: And for that matter, this map: Most of the usual suspects. Most prominent among those who reject the Medicaid expansion are those...
  • […] seen in my previous post, Healthcare and the American Nations, the various nations have responded to aspects of the law depending on their clannish […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • […] we see, the Tidewater, the historic seat of the Cavalier Lowland South, leans towards team blue mostly because of the large Black population there (however, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • […] we saw previously (see My Most Read Posts), my post Maps of the American Nations is the single most popular post so far here on my blog. Americans all over are supremely interested […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] 1.Maps of the American Nations – My post based on the works of David Hackett Fischer (Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (America: A Cultural History) and Maine’s own Colin Woodard (American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America). Here, I recount the story as told by these men and add supporting evidence for the existence of the ethnocultural nations as delineated by the latter. In addition, I give background on and evidence for the genetic underpinnings of these distinctions, relying on the work of the venerable hbd* chick. I feature plenty of maps, showing how the American nations live on in our politics, our language, even our drugs. The primary message is that HBD works within nation states, and that a group, like White Americans, should NOT be thought of a monolithic collection at all, but a highly diverse and significantly varied collection of distinct peoples. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Reblogged this on Kent's space.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] found maps! And they explain American (United States) culture: Jayman's Blog: Maps of the American Nation A lot of neat ancestry and settlement maps that square with cultural and political differences. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] 9/18/13 Maps of the American Nations […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] you wonder sometime. Why haven’t the corrupt institutions of America polluted them yet? [See Maps of the American Nations and Rural White Liberals – a Key to Understanding the Political […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] I hope Wade also realizes that just as not all human populations are interchangeable, not all Europeans are interchangeable. Nor, for that, matter, are all White Americans interchangeable. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] of the American Nations The Cavaliers Maps of the American Nations Rural White Liberals – a Key to Understanding the Political […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • […] of the American Nations The Cavaliers Maps of the American Nations Rural White Liberals – a Key to Understanding the Political […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • […] American nations are […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] behaviors (and many other aspects) of the United States and Canada according to these maps (see Maps of the American Nations and Nations of Canada). Most poignant among them (and the one that interests most people) is the […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @KFJ
    The Pennsylvania "Dutch" came from the whole Rhineland: particularly Alsace, but also the Palatinate, and as far upstream as Switzerland. The first group of settlers came from Krefeld, on the lower Rhine, and founded Germantown.

    http://www.loc.gov/folklife/events/BotkinArchives/2011flyers/YoderFlyer.html

    http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~original13/history.htm

    Thanks! I will check them out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “,,,and immediately battled the Natives in an attempt to subjugate and/or exterminate them.”

    This is grossly inaccurate. The cavaliers were under strict orders from London to maintain peaceful trade relations with the indians and for the most part did so except when responding to indian aggression. After Samuel Argall’s diplomacy with Princess Pocahontas and her marriage to an English planter, peace was the norm until more indian surprise attacks and widespread slaughter of the English.

    Governor Sir William Berkeley tried his best to suppress Bacon’s rebellion where some planters without authorization sought revenge for indian violence. Berkeley put down the anti-indian rebel planters and severely punished them.

    Please revisit your history of Anglo-indian relations in tidewater Virginia.

    Otherwise, good post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • @Benjamin David Steele
    About the Pensylvania Germans, it has been something I've been trying to figure out. In all of my readings, I've only come across two specifically stated regions they came from.

    First, the most well known region of origins is Alsace-Lorraine. That is how I became interested. I have ancestors from the region which I discovered through census records. One census stated France, another Germany and a third Alsace. Obviously, the people there didn't have any strong attachment to national identity or else a very nuanced/confused identity. Alsace-Lorraine is one of those typical mountainous borderlands that is difficult to conquer and control, but France and Germany sure did try (and the Roman Empire before them).

    Second, I recetly came across mention of borderland between France and Netherlands. This presently Belgium and Luxembourg, but used to be the Spanish Netherlands. Spain controlled from the 1500s until the Calvinist uprisings. The loss of this territory was the beginning of the end for the Spanish Empire. Their control, however, wasn't entirely lost for several decades after William Penn received his royal land grant. It was for a long time a contested and war-ravaged region, just like Alsace-Lorraine.

    Basically, the early Pennsylvania Germans came from all along the borderland that was North of France and occasionally controlled by France.

    The Pennsylvania “Dutch” came from the whole Rhineland: particularly Alsace, but also the Palatinate, and as far upstream as Switzerland. The first group of settlers came from Krefeld, on the lower Rhine, and founded Germantown.

    http://www.loc.gov/folklife/events/BotkinArchives/2011flyers/YoderFlyer.html

    http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~original13/history.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @KFJ:

    Thanks! I will check them out.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] to the individual states? It’s clear that there will be no seeing eye-to-eye among the competing factions of whites who still exercise some control over the management and direction of America. So any national open […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • […] Church. This group is perhaps the most divorced from its origins of the representative church of the Cavaliers of the lowland South (the Tidewater and the Deep South). It remains quite alive in the Tidewater […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • […] Maps of the American Nations – More on the geographic origin and distribution of the American nations and presents a series of maps and other evidence that shows their importance today […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • […] clannish elements of British American society, the descendants of the Cavaliers and the Ulster Scots, are indifferent to contributing a common pot, and they are certainly […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Another map of the American nations: This is where the states stand on Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid. As you can see, it's far from universally embraced. Now let's compare that to this map: And for that matter, this map: Most of the usual suspects. Most prominent among those who reject the Medicaid expansion are those...
  • […] course, that may take a long time to happen – if it happens at all. As we saw in my previous post on the matter, the ethnonational divisions that exist in the U.S. complicate such an expansion of healthcare […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • Reblogged this on American Info Maps and commented:
    I found this article fascinating, along with it’s detailed maps, and wanted to share it. It might assist those who are working on their family genealogy. Enjoy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Another map of the American nations: This is where the states stand on Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid. As you can see, it's far from universally embraced. Now let's compare that to this map: And for that matter, this map: Most of the usual suspects. Most prominent among those who reject the Medicaid expansion are those...
  • @Fourth doorman of the apocalypse
    The word racism has very little meaning these days.

    Obamacare is not, one little bit, about providing health care for the poor and unfortunate. It is about rewarding big pharma and insurance companies with money taken from the middle class as taxes.

    Even if it were about providing health care for the poor, the dysgenic effects of that should be opposed.

    @The fourth doorman of the apocalypse:

    The word racism has very little meaning these days.

    I wouldn’t say that.

    Obamacare is not, one little bit, about providing health care for the poor and unfortunate. It is about rewarding big pharma and insurance companies with money taken from the middle class as taxes.

    The latter is the practical execution of something which was made in the spirit of the former. Again, why did we end up with the flawed Obamacare system?

    Even if it were about providing health care for the poor, the dysgenic effects of that should be opposed.

    See this is where I part company with right-wingers. First of all, how dysgenic is health care, really? Do you think access to healthcare – which would include family planning services – really be all that dysgenic? And even if it were, is allowing the poor and sick to suffer and die the answer? Get serious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @laidnyc
    Many are against Obamacare because they believe it provides worse outcomes for the poor and middle class.

    Rising prices and premiums. Lower quality care. Less innovation.

    It is not such a simple a matter that if you don't support healthcare, you don't care about the poor. In fact, it may be the opposite.

    Let’s be honest. Why did we end up with Obamacare? Would a proper healthcare system, one that was truly universal and indeed single payer have even have been an option politically? Would the people who now oppose Obamacare have been happy with that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The word racism has very little meaning these days.

    Obamacare is not, one little bit, about providing health care for the poor and unfortunate. It is about rewarding big pharma and insurance companies with money taken from the middle class as taxes.

    Even if it were about providing health care for the poor, the dysgenic effects of that should be opposed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @The fourth doorman of the apocalypse:

    The word racism has very little meaning these days.
     
    I wouldn't say that.

    Obamacare is not, one little bit, about providing health care for the poor and unfortunate. It is about rewarding big pharma and insurance companies with money taken from the middle class as taxes.
     
    The latter is the practical execution of something which was made in the spirit of the former. Again, why did we end up with the flawed Obamacare system?

    Even if it were about providing health care for the poor, the dysgenic effects of that should be opposed.
     
    See this is where I part company with right-wingers. First of all, how dysgenic is health care, really? Do you think access to healthcare – which would include family planning services – really be all that dysgenic? And even if it were, is allowing the poor and sick to suffer and die the answer? Get serious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Many are against Obamacare because they believe it provides worse outcomes for the poor and middle class.

    Rising prices and premiums. Lower quality care. Less innovation.

    It is not such a simple a matter that if you don’t support healthcare, you don’t care about the poor. In fact, it may be the opposite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Let's be honest. Why did we end up with Obamacare? Would a proper healthcare system, one that was truly universal and indeed single payer have even have been an option politically? Would the people who now oppose Obamacare have been happy with that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • vastly different demographic profiles*

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The concise explanation you left on my side notes that the implementation of socialized health care (which, while it sounds tripe and cliche, essentially is what Obamacare becomes if companies begin dumping their employees onto the exchanges en masse) is both dysgenically redistributive and also hasn’t been much of an issue in other countries that have done it. This strikes me as simultaneously accurate and not especially relevant because of vastly demographic profiles. Perhaps ironically, half a century ago the composition of the country would’ve made implementation less rancorous than it is today but due to the demographic changes pushed by those supporting its implementation, said implementation has faced widespread resistance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Orthodox
    This is why some libertarians cynically support open borders: more diversity means less support for welfare. I think they're right as well. Hailing from Yankee-dom, I never saw anything wrong with government welfare programs, but as the nation becomes increasingly diverse, I don't why I should pay an ever rising share of taxes to people who do not share my culture, my ethics, my religion, or in some cases, even my language. It's one thing to give charity to others, but to be lumped into a "community" that exists of a constant one-way relationship of responsibility and resources seems absurd.

    This is why some libertarians cynically support open borders: more diversity means less support for welfare. I think they’re right as well.

    In fact, Bryan Caplan even said as much once.

    It’s one thing to give charity to others, but to be lumped into a “community” that exists of a constant one-way relationship of responsibility and resources seems absurd.

    Indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This is why some libertarians cynically support open borders: more diversity means less support for welfare. I think they’re right as well. Hailing from Yankee-dom, I never saw anything wrong with government welfare programs, but as the nation becomes increasingly diverse, I don’t why I should pay an ever rising share of taxes to people who do not share my culture, my ethics, my religion, or in some cases, even my language. It’s one thing to give charity to others, but to be lumped into a “community” that exists of a constant one-way relationship of responsibility and resources seems absurd.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    This is why some libertarians cynically support open borders: more diversity means less support for welfare. I think they’re right as well.
     
    In fact, Bryan Caplan even said as much once.

    It’s one thing to give charity to others, but to be lumped into a “community” that exists of a constant one-way relationship of responsibility and resources seems absurd.
     
    Indeed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • […] As for here in Yankee/New French Maine, we’re unfortunately stuck with the brilliance of our esteemed French-Canadian Governor Paul LePage. He vehemently opposes the Medicaid expansion here. Perhaps this may have something to do with his New French origin. The French Canadians seem to have either picked up some clannish elements here in America or perhaps brought these traits with them owing to their regional origin in France (see also Maps of the American Nations). […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • […] clannish elements of British American society, the descendants of the Cavaliers and the Ulster Scots, are indifferent to contributing a common pot, and they are certainly […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • […] political disarray speaks to the increased conflict between the distinct American Nations, as discussed by David Hackett Fischer and Colin Woodard. Both Turchin and Woodard noted that […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • […] were founded by two much more aggressive groups of fore-bearers than the northern nations were, the Cavaliers and the denizens of the English-Scottish border areas (also see Flags of the American Nations). […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • […] works. Needless to say, the map of states with legal corporal punishment in schools follows the Map of the American Nations (from Wikipedia) Red = allowed; blue = not […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] In his book American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America, Colin Woodard has made similar predictions about future internecine strife. Specifically, he forecast conflict between the various “nations” that make up the United States (and Canada). See Flags of the American Nations and Maps of the American Nations. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] cultural fault-line). As I’ve noted in my posts on the American nations (most recently here, see the category here), Germany has been one of the most important countries for seeding the […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • […] course, I don’t have to tell you that the Cavalier and Borderlander sentiment is still alive and well (the latter of which gave us the KKK – albeit […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • […] A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” Sound Familiar? Flags of the American Nations The Cavaliers Maps of the American Nations […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • […] of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” Sound Familiar? Flags of the American Nations The Cavaliers Maps of the […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • fair enough! i think i’ve been hyperfocused on the history of tobacco companies denying/fending off a causative link between smoking & cancer, b/c – hey all that research was just based on correlation. correlation (& environment) both pale in the face of genetic predisposition. & i should post this on your newer (& similarly excellent) post – that these studies might be done better as multiple regression, with IQ entered in first, to see what predicts above & beyond that. also be nice to throw in some genetic marker independent variables after IQ. we’d get much different results from what gets spouted as the conventional wisdom…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @panjoomby
    amen, excellent work. if one thing causes another they WILL be correlated. the whole "correlation does not mean causation" trope is WAY overused - it protects us from saying foot size must cause hair growth & other stupid things, but all it reminds us is not to take extremely stupid positions when variables correlate. in general, correlation tells us a great deal. But, things can be accidentally or randomly correlated (number of letters in a a team's name & their number of wins for that season, omg: p < .05) we already have a sneaking suspicion that's not causation at work - it's just random. the "correlation does not mean causation" red flag is waved WAY TOO MUCH. It's merely an easily memorized trope that is rarely needed - that flag is brought out at the drop of a hat & it's rather insulting.

    amen, excellent work.

    Thank you!

    if one thing causes another they WILL be correlated. the whole “correlation does not mean causation” trope is WAY overused

    I wouldn’t say that. In fact, I would argue, as I have in my newest post, the opposite, that that truth (which it is) is way underused.

    The truth is that it’s not used properly, it is missed entirely or wrongly stated – whichever happens to work – by those making erroneous arguments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • amen, excellent work. if one thing causes another they WILL be correlated. the whole “correlation does not mean causation” trope is WAY overused – it protects us from saying foot size must cause hair growth & other stupid things, but all it reminds us is not to take extremely stupid positions when variables correlate. in general, correlation tells us a great deal. But, things can be accidentally or randomly correlated (number of letters in a a team’s name & their number of wins for that season, omg: p < .05) we already have a sneaking suspicion that's not causation at work – it's just random. the "correlation does not mean causation" red flag is waved WAY TOO MUCH. It's merely an easily memorized trope that is rarely needed – that flag is brought out at the drop of a hat & it's rather insulting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @panjoomby:

    amen, excellent work.
     
    Thank you!

    if one thing causes another they WILL be correlated. the whole “correlation does not mean causation” trope is WAY overused
     
    I wouldn't say that. In fact, I would argue, as I have in my newest post, the opposite, that that truth (which it is) is way underused.

    The truth is that it's not used properly, it is missed entirely or wrongly stated – whichever happens to work – by those making erroneous arguments.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    All of these groups readily intermarried with each other, creating a new and genetically unique American (and Canadian) population.

    And a distinctively American phenotype -- or, rather, set of phenotypes. I've read that when various dog breeds are allowed to interbreed freely the offspring tend to revert to a generic cur appearance similar to the type from which all the breeds originally descended. I don't know whether this is true or not but, if it is, it would be interesting to know if something similar might happen in the case of humans?

    See here for more information about freely outbreeding dogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_dog

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • You do good work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • ”I’ve read that when various dog breeds are allowed to interbreed freely the offspring tend to revert to a generic cur appearance similar to the type from which all the breeds originally descended”.

    http://www.shiftjournal.com/2010/02/09/hybrid-vigor/

    This is interesting. One can not be true, but it is very interesting, that is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    For Germans look at the Palatinate. You need to also consider the Dutch.

    If it weren’t for the Dutch, we’d have “Biscuit Monster” on Sesame Street:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookie#Etymology

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    All of these groups readily intermarried with each other, creating a new and genetically unique American (and Canadian) population.

    And a distinctively American phenotype -- or, rather, set of phenotypes. I've read that when various dog breeds are allowed to interbreed freely the offspring tend to revert to a generic cur appearance similar to the type from which all the breeds originally descended. I don't know whether this is true or not but, if it is, it would be interesting to know if something similar might happen in the case of humans?

    I’ve read that when various dog breeds are allowed to interbreed freely the offspring tend to revert to a generic cur appearance similar to the type from which all the breeds originally descended.

    Was that from Steve Sailer?

    I don’t know whether this is true or not but, if it is, it would be interesting to know if something similar might happen in the case of humans?

    Very good question. Are Americans trending towards “the default European”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • All of these groups readily intermarried with each other, creating a new and genetically unique American (and Canadian) population.

    And a distinctively American phenotype — or, rather, set of phenotypes. I’ve read that when various dog breeds are allowed to interbreed freely the offspring tend to revert to a generic cur appearance similar to the type from which all the breeds originally descended. I don’t know whether this is true or not but, if it is, it would be interesting to know if something similar might happen in the case of humans?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I’ve read that when various dog breeds are allowed to interbreed freely the offspring tend to revert to a generic cur appearance similar to the type from which all the breeds originally descended.
     
    Was that from Steve Sailer?

    I don’t know whether this is true or not but, if it is, it would be interesting to know if something similar might happen in the case of humans?
     
    Very good question. Are Americans trending towards "the default European"?
    , @Luke Lea
    See here for more information about freely outbreeding dogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_dog
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • For Germans look at the Palatinate. You need to also consider the Dutch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon Winsor
    If it weren't for the Dutch, we'd have "Biscuit Monster" on Sesame Street:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookie#Etymology

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Gottlieb
    ''It’s worth noting that there are no two genetically identical humans on the planet. Even identical twins aren’t 100% genetically identical (though they are very nearly so). Hence, it’s generally impossible to declare a difference between individuals (and certainly groups of individuals) as being wholly environmental.''

    Yes, because egalitarians and social sciences (aka LOL) pushing this agenda based on the assumption that when we have two individuals randomly selected in a specific environment, both shall be same influenced by circumstances. For these people dishonest (or stupid), the role of genetics rests solely for physical traits or hereditary diseases.

    Precisely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • ”It’s worth noting that there are no two genetically identical humans on the planet. Even identical twins aren’t 100% genetically identical (though they are very nearly so). Hence, it’s generally impossible to declare a difference between individuals (and certainly groups of individuals) as being wholly environmental.”

    Yes, because egalitarians and social sciences (aka LOL) pushing this agenda based on the assumption that when we have two individuals randomly selected in a specific environment, both shall be same influenced by circumstances. For these people dishonest (or stupid), the role of genetics rests solely for physical traits or hereditary diseases.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Precisely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Viper
    This is a great post, thanks for the hard work. I’d add that Yankeedom is probably first among equals. Its influence is greater than its numbers suggest. While Yankees have their home base and borders, diluted Yankeedom is, in my opinion, closest to the default setting of White America. It’s so broad, that it’s not really seen. A guy from the South is a Southerner. A guy from the North or Midwest is just some American.

    Yankees won the Civil War. The started the great universities. Their Calvinist values of thrift, sobriety and temperance defined American culture nationwide. More importantly, Yankee culture also established the aspirational mores of the country.

    Thank you!

    Indeed, in many broad respect, the Yankees are the dominant force in the country. But, a lot of those things you mentioned and a lot of things we think of as quintessentially American are actually Midlander (Quaker/German) values. The Midlanders have had an effect nearly as strong as the Yankees on the tone of America. Indeed, as you note, someone from the (lower, in this case) Midwest is regarded as just “American”, and probably doesn’t even think of himself as anything different.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This is a great post, thanks for the hard work. I’d add that Yankeedom is probably first among equals. Its influence is greater than its numbers suggest. While Yankees have their home base and borders, diluted Yankeedom is, in my opinion, closest to the default setting of White America. It’s so broad, that it’s not really seen. A guy from the South is a Southerner. A guy from the North or Midwest is just some American.

    Yankees won the Civil War. The started the great universities. Their Calvinist values of thrift, sobriety and temperance defined American culture nationwide. More importantly, Yankee culture also established the aspirational mores of the country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Viper:

    Thank you!

    Indeed, in many broad respect, the Yankees are the dominant force in the country. But, a lot of those things you mentioned and a lot of things we think of as quintessentially American are actually Midlander (Quaker/German) values. The Midlanders have had an effect nearly as strong as the Yankees on the tone of America. Indeed, as you note, someone from the (lower, in this case) Midwest is regarded as just "American", and probably doesn't even think of himself as anything different.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Gottlieb
    When people talk about environmental factors they tend to conclude that the change in behavior or causal relationship (my parents are liberal, live in San Francisco, ready, I became one) happens outside of human beings, but all the time, changes happen inside. Therefore, all environmental explanations are actually organic explanations, partially genetic (epigenetic). I have an acne and was very shy. Millions of teenagers have acne (or acme) but are not shy. Some people may be more elastic in emotions than other. (degrees of bipolarity, the spectral one?)It is extremely simple to deconstruct any validity to the argument nurture, simple, just find in control populations, fleeing exceptions to the rule.
    How so? We share the same environment, we have the conditions, our parents are very similar in behavior and yet he became different from us?
    Yes, there is a genetic plasticity that may interfere with our choices, but I prefer to call her genetic predisposition.
    Genetics is like a deep lake, where certain features are on the sidelines while others are in the deepest parts, but can overwhelm.
    Bullshit nurture no there. No there point treating a wolf like a dog at some point he will caress her jugular.
    The animal domestication explains the theory inbreeding and outbreeding. But in this case, it could be interesting to analyze how dog mutts act. I have the impression that they are very docile, adaptable and smarter than dogs with pedigree. Or recent example of the domestication of foxes in Russia.

    When people talk about environmental factors they tend to conclude that the change in behavior or causal relationship (my parents are liberal, live in San Francisco, ready, I became one) happens outside of human beings, but all the time, changes happen inside. Therefore, all environmental explanations are actually organic explanations, partially genetic (epigenetic).

    Roughly correct.

    It is extremely simple to deconstruct any validity to the argument nurture, simple, just find in control populations, fleeing exceptions to the rule.
    How so? We share the same environment, we have the conditions, our parents are very similar in behavior and yet he became different from us?

    It’s worth noting that there are no two genetically identical humans on the planet. Even identical twins aren’t 100% genetically identical (though they are very nearly so). Hence, it’s generally impossible to declare a difference between individuals (and certainly groups of individuals) as being wholly environmental.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • When people talk about environmental factors they tend to conclude that the change in behavior or causal relationship (my parents are liberal, live in San Francisco, ready, I became one) happens outside of human beings, but all the time, changes happen inside. Therefore, all environmental explanations are actually organic explanations, partially genetic (epigenetic). I have an acne and was very shy. Millions of teenagers have acne (or acme) but are not shy. Some people may be more elastic in emotions than other. (degrees of bipolarity, the spectral one?)It is extremely simple to deconstruct any validity to the argument nurture, simple, just find in control populations, fleeing exceptions to the rule.
    How so? We share the same environment, we have the conditions, our parents are very similar in behavior and yet he became different from us?
    Yes, there is a genetic plasticity that may interfere with our choices, but I prefer to call her genetic predisposition.
    Genetics is like a deep lake, where certain features are on the sidelines while others are in the deepest parts, but can overwhelm.
    Bullshit nurture no there. No there point treating a wolf like a dog at some point he will caress her jugular.
    The animal domestication explains the theory inbreeding and outbreeding. But in this case, it could be interesting to analyze how dog mutts act. I have the impression that they are very docile, adaptable and smarter than dogs with pedigree. Or recent example of the domestication of foxes in Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Gottlieb:

    When people talk about environmental factors they tend to conclude that the change in behavior or causal relationship (my parents are liberal, live in San Francisco, ready, I became one) happens outside of human beings, but all the time, changes happen inside. Therefore, all environmental explanations are actually organic explanations, partially genetic (epigenetic).
     
    Roughly correct.

    It is extremely simple to deconstruct any validity to the argument nurture, simple, just find in control populations, fleeing exceptions to the rule.
    How so? We share the same environment, we have the conditions, our parents are very similar in behavior and yet he became different from us?
     
    It's worth noting that there are no two genetically identical humans on the planet. Even identical twins aren't 100% genetically identical (though they are very nearly so). Hence, it's generally impossible to declare a difference between individuals (and certainly groups of individuals) as being wholly environmental.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Tomás
    No, he has not done such a great work. Just graphs and more graphs thrown together to reinforce the correlation-like argument implicit throughout the whole article. He is just furthering the recent seductive fad, pushed by HBD Chick and Audacious Epigone, of "correlation implies causation". Of course, every half-educated layman knows that the the opposite is the case. Correlation does not imply causation. The most it allows you to do is to suspect relationships. It is the ground for a suspicion, that has to be substantiated afterwards.

    For some months I found the same error again and again in these three friends. Even acknowledging the higher pace of evolution during the last 10k years (of course) and the effects of the population boom of the latest two centuries, modern irish are pretty much the same people, genetically speaking, that they were in the XVIIth or XIVth centuries. I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the supposedly endogamy-leaning cousin-marrying irish from medieval times (in fact, a complete misrepresentation of the reality), supposedly pre-programmed by their inbreeding to be moderately ethnocentric and preservationist, are nowadays outbreeding immigrationists just like every other europoid in sight. The same goes for Scots or, for that matter, for almost any other european. And please, keep in mind that event the most "inbred" euopean populations have historically been regional outbreeders.

    Supposedly, the story goes, modern appalachians would be inbreeding-leaning low-IQ warrior-like ethnocentrists because of that "pre-programming". Why is it not the same case with modern swiss people, given their long past as warring montagnards? Nobody explains. How the irish changed their behavioral patterns so quickly (in fact, just like every other european)? Our friends have no answer. Why the pre-programming would keep working in the US but not in the rest of the Eurosphere? The water? The air? The mystic influx of the constellations? Nobody knows.

    Let's state it again: correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Right?

    It seems far more plausible than medieval irish (and scots, and iberians, and germanic peoples, and...) where culturally responding (culturally adapting) to the incentives structure of that surrounding environment. When land is the most important source of wealth, there's a low-density population and violence is not rare because resources are scarce, the cultural adaptation that gets selected is a moderately clannish culture, in order to keep the land inside the family and to be able to count on a big extended family of relatives to protect you. There's more consanguinity, but the level of homozygosity is always kept under control and the net result of that strategy, in that environment, is positive. It pays to be clannic.

    When the environment changes, people is transferred to cities, the land loses its role as the main factor behind wealth, and the nation-state keeps violence under control, suddenly it is not so adaptive to be clannish, specially because you're surrounded of a highly homogeneous population, very close to you (Europe before the colonizers invasion), and those clans are inadvertently abandoned for a "just-the-nuclear-family" model. It doesn't pay to be clannish anymore.

    So, you have clannish irish in the XVIIth century, and outbreeder irish in the XXth. And they're the same people.

    What these friends of us are always, systematically, consistently downplaying and underrating, is the behavioral plasticity of humans, which is huge. What they're always overrating, exaggerating, is what Richard Alexander warned us about: an excessive reliance on the "evolution inertia".

    Given the genocide-level changes occurring throughout the whole Eurosphere it wouldn't be a surprise if a new, third model, emerged. Universal ethnic nationalism, maybe. It's just a possibility, nobody can really know in advance. Maybe we turn into a castes society, just like Brazil, or Mexico, or India. It might also be that we get balkanized.

    @tomás – well, first of all, what jayman said above, especially about correlation/causation and that inbreeding/outbreeding probably alters the selection pressures on population, but also…

    @tomás – “He is just furthering the recent seductive fad, pushed by HBD Chick and Audacious Epigone, of ‘correlation implies causation’. Of course, every half-educated layman knows that the the opposite is the case. Correlation does not imply causation. The most it allows you to do is to suspect relationships. It is the ground for a suspicion, that has to be substantiated afterwards.”

    obviously finding a correlation does not guarantee that you’ve found a causation — far from it — but correlation does “waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there’.” i can’t speak for jayman or the awesome epigone, of course, but i’ve acknowledged many times on my blog that pretty much everything i write about the potential evolutionary effects of inbreeding/outbreeding on populations is a theory — with a small “t”. i know that i haven’t proven anything — nor do i claim that i have. so, don’t panic! i think of my blog as a place to do a bunch of brainstorming. you should, too.

    @tomás – “I’m still waiting for an explanation of why the supposedly endogamy-leaning cousin-marrying irish from medieval times (in fact, a complete misrepresentation of the reality)…”

    no it’s not. i guess you must’ve missed my series on the historic mating patterns of the native irish.

    - early and late medieval irish mating practices
    - clannish medieval ireland
    - early modern and modern clannish ireland

    the historians are quite in agreement that close marriages were preferred throughout the medieval period in ireland, i would guess more so earlier in the period than later, but that is just a(n) (educated) guess on my part. however, by the late-nineteenth and twentieth centuries the irish did avoid marrying their close cousins. unfortunately, there is a gap in my knowledge: i do not know what the mating patterns were in ireland between ca. 1500-1800 (as i explained in this post). were they still mating closely right up until the 1800s? or did the close marriages disappear gradually over this time period, or overnight at some point? like i said, i don’t know, but i intend to find out if possible.

    @tomás – “…supposedly pre-programmed by their inbreeding to be moderately ethnocentric and preservationist, are nowadays outbreeding immigrationists just like every other europoid in sight. The same goes for Scots or, for that matter, for almost any other european…. How the irish changed their behavioral patterns so quickly (in fact, just like every other european)? Our friends have no answer. Why the pre-programming would keep working in the US but not in the rest of the Eurosphere?”

    i don’t think that the irish (or the highland scots) did change their behavioral patterns so quickly. i think it was a gradual process that began later in ireland than in some other parts of europe (northeast france, the low countries, southwest england, northwest germany…).

    and the irish are absolutely NOT “like every other european.” do you really think that the english=the irish=the sicilians=the greeks=the albanians? really?

    and this “pre-programming” you speak of (not MY word at all) — if you mean the average sets of behavioral predispositions and traits of the various european sub-populations — obviously they are still present in europe as well as in the u.s. i’ve also said so many times on my blog. who, for instance, are the piigs of europe? they are all some of my long-term inbreeding europeans — the long-term outbreeders are not found amongst the piigs.

    “And please, keep in mind that event the most ‘inbred’ euopean populations have historically been regional outbreeders.”

    i’m not sure what you mean by this, but i think you may have missed/misunderstood my definitions of inbreeding and outbreeding.

    @tomás – “When the environment changes, people is transferred to cities, the land loses its role as the main factor behind wealth, and the nation-state keeps violence under control, suddenly it is not so adaptive to be clannish, specially because you’re surrounded of a highly homogeneous population, very close to you (Europe before the colonizers invasion), and those clans are inadvertently abandoned for a ‘just-the-nuclear-family’ model. It doesn’t pay to be clannish anymore.”

    first of all, please note that “clannishness” does not just mean “living in clans.” rather, it’s a whole set of behaviors ranging from nepotism to certain sorts of corruption to lack of focus on the commonweal to feuding (and more). several people have misunderstood this, and this is my fault. i should’ve defined the term much more clearly (not just in comments fields here and there) early on. a post defining “clannishness” is the next one in the works, so don’t anybody despair!

    secondly, if your explanation for why clans disappeared is correct, tomás, why did the anglo-saxon “clans” (really kindreds) disappear in england already by the 600-700s (or, more probably and more completely, by ca. 900-1000)?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • @Luke Lea
    How ironic that Tidewater Virginia produced Jefferson and Madison, embodiments of the Scottish Enlightenment (at least in theory). With Jefferson I think it was youthful idealism, which he eventually outgrew. Certainly his lifestyle was incompatible with democracy. His life ends in tragedy.

    Virginia was a very different place than the Deep South. From New England to North Carolina, there was a heavy concentration of religious dissenters and political dissidents. The Middle Colonies and North Carolina were particularly infested with rebellious people and radical thinkers, such as with Quakers clashing with Anglians in North Carolina which relates to the War of Regulation.

    The War of Regulation is seen by some as the beginning of the American Revolution. During the revolutionary era, Tidewater elites gave more freedom to religious dissenters in seeking their support. Later on, they were unable to fully regain their elite authority which made religious disestablishment inevitable. Plus, Tidewater lites like Jefferson had become influenced by Northern thinking. Jefferson looked to Quaker Pennsylvania for an example of successful religious disestablishment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    How ironic that Tidewater Virginia produced Jefferson and Madison, embodiments of the Scottish Enlightenment (at least in theory). With Jefferson I think it was youthful idealism, which he eventually outgrew. Certainly his lifestyle was incompatible with democracy. His life ends in tragedy.

    There’s diversity within regions too. Check out Fischer’s section on ideas of freedom that developed in Virginia in his book *Bound Away*:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=GFa7KVPWmKwC&pg=PA131&dq=%22new+patterns+of+social+thought+began+to+develop%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4MMLUvK5CdHB4APWnoC4DQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22new%20patterns%20of%20social%20thought%20began%20to%20develop%22&f=false

    Sounds like all Tidewater Virginians believed in what Fischer calls “hegemonic freedom”, but the western piedmont, where Madison and Jefferson were from, were much more pluralistic, and had Enlightenment notions that they got from John Witherspoon, etc.

    Note the nascent Appalachians wanted nothing to do with this. Patrick Henry opposed Madison in terms of non-establishment of state religion, was an autodidact, his populism was the opposite Madison’s gentlemanly political style, was against the US constitution (was an anti-federalist), and even tried to gerrymander Madison out of his congressional district…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in...
  • @Tomás
    No, he has not done such a great work. Just graphs and more graphs thrown together to reinforce the correlation-like argument implicit throughout the whole article. He is just furthering the recent seductive fad, pushed by HBD Chick and Audacious Epigone, of "correlation implies causation". Of course, every half-educated layman knows that the the opposite is the case. Correlation does not imply causation. The most it allows you to do is to suspect relationships. It is the ground for a suspicion, that has to be substantiated afterwards.

    For some months I found the same error again and again in these three friends. Even acknowledging the higher pace of evolution during the last 10k years (of course) and the effects of the population boom of the latest two centuries, modern irish are pretty much the same people, genetically speaking, that they were in the XVIIth or XIVth centuries. I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the supposedly endogamy-leaning cousin-marrying irish from medieval times (in fact, a complete misrepresentation of the reality), supposedly pre-programmed by their inbreeding to be moderately ethnocentric and preservationist, are nowadays outbreeding immigrationists just like every other europoid in sight. The same goes for Scots or, for that matter, for almost any other european. And please, keep in mind that event the most "inbred" euopean populations have historically been regional outbreeders.

    Supposedly, the story goes, modern appalachians would be inbreeding-leaning low-IQ warrior-like ethnocentrists because of that "pre-programming". Why is it not the same case with modern swiss people, given their long past as warring montagnards? Nobody explains. How the irish changed their behavioral patterns so quickly (in fact, just like every other european)? Our friends have no answer. Why the pre-programming would keep working in the US but not in the rest of the Eurosphere? The water? The air? The mystic influx of the constellations? Nobody knows.

    Let's state it again: correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Right?

    It seems far more plausible than medieval irish (and scots, and iberians, and germanic peoples, and...) where culturally responding (culturally adapting) to the incentives structure of that surrounding environment. When land is the most important source of wealth, there's a low-density population and violence is not rare because resources are scarce, the cultural adaptation that gets selected is a moderately clannish culture, in order to keep the land inside the family and to be able to count on a big extended family of relatives to protect you. There's more consanguinity, but the level of homozygosity is always kept under control and the net result of that strategy, in that environment, is positive. It pays to be clannic.

    When the environment changes, people is transferred to cities, the land loses its role as the main factor behind wealth, and the nation-state keeps violence under control, suddenly it is not so adaptive to be clannish, specially because you're surrounded of a highly homogeneous population, very close to you (Europe before the colonizers invasion), and those clans are inadvertently abandoned for a "just-the-nuclear-family" model. It doesn't pay to be clannish anymore.

    So, you have clannish irish in the XVIIth century, and outbreeder irish in the XXth. And they're the same people.

    What these friends of us are always, systematically, consistently downplaying and underrating, is the behavioral plasticity of humans, which is huge. What they're always overrating, exaggerating, is what Richard Alexander warned us about: an excessive reliance on the "evolution inertia".

    Given the genocide-level changes occurring throughout the whole Eurosphere it wouldn't be a surprise if a new, third model, emerged. Universal ethnic nationalism, maybe. It's just a possibility, nobody can really know in advance. Maybe we turn into a castes society, just like Brazil, or Mexico, or India. It might also be that we get balkanized.

    I’m a both/and kinda guy. As far as I can tell, there is research that supports both your positions. The problem is that you are disagreeing about two facts that aren’t in conlict. I’m basing my conclusion on years looking at the research on personality traits which was my focus before my interest in culture developed. These traits do show regional differences and so one suspects they are part of what makes a culture distinct.

    Genetics are inherited and hence the genetic-related traits are inherited. However, most inherited traits are predispositions that require environmental factors for their expression and without these environmental factors they won’t manifest in behavior. As such, the behavioral expression of genetically inerited predispositions is plastic. Besides, research shows most people are closer to the middle than the extremes of traits and most people express a large spectrum along a trait, not so much an absolute one or the other.

    Let me describe two studies. The first one is about environment rather than genetics. But the second study is about genetics and might offer an explanation of how this environmental factor interacts with genetics.

    The first study looked at kids in different social settings and then returned to them as adults. The results were that the kids who grew up in a multicultural environment were more likely to be socially liberal as adults and those who grew up in a monocultural environment were more likely to be socially conservative as adults. I hear JayMans’ response. Yes, this could be an entirely genetic condition of kids inheriting multicultural and monocultural traits from their parents. However, the second study opensup the possibility of a more multi-causal explanation.

    The second study looked at people with a specific gene correlated to liberalism. The interesting thing they found was the gene alone wasn’t enough to make one liberal. Only if someone with this gene had a lot of friends as a child would they be predisposed to liberalism as an adult. I suspect that having a large group of friends is in this study acting as a proxy for diversity. The more friends a child has the more familiar they are likely to become with diverse worldviews and experiences.

    I find this evidence compelling. You two are arguing about the old nature vs nurture debate. There is just too much research at this point showing both contribute and there is no conclusive evidence that one contributes more than the other. Maybe further research will swing scientific consensus to one side of this debate, but until then a somewhat open-ended both/and approach appeals to me the most.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Tomás
    No, he has not done such a great work. Just graphs and more graphs thrown together to reinforce the correlation-like argument implicit throughout the whole article. He is just furthering the recent seductive fad, pushed by HBD Chick and Audacious Epigone, of "correlation implies causation". Of course, every half-educated layman knows that the the opposite is the case. Correlation does not imply causation. The most it allows you to do is to suspect relationships. It is the ground for a suspicion, that has to be substantiated afterwards.

    For some months I found the same error again and again in these three friends. Even acknowledging the higher pace of evolution during the last 10k years (of course) and the effects of the population boom of the latest two centuries, modern irish are pretty much the same people, genetically speaking, that they were in the XVIIth or XIVth centuries. I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the supposedly endogamy-leaning cousin-marrying irish from medieval times (in fact, a complete misrepresentation of the reality), supposedly pre-programmed by their inbreeding to be moderately ethnocentric and preservationist, are nowadays outbreeding immigrationists just like every other europoid in sight. The same goes for Scots or, for that matter, for almost any other european. And please, keep in mind that event the most "inbred" euopean populations have historically been regional outbreeders.

    Supposedly, the story goes, modern appalachians would be inbreeding-leaning low-IQ warrior-like ethnocentrists because of that "pre-programming". Why is it not the same case with modern swiss people, given their long past as warring montagnards? Nobody explains. How the irish changed their behavioral patterns so quickly (in fact, just like every other european)? Our friends have no answer. Why the pre-programming would keep working in the US but not in the rest of the Eurosphere? The water? The air? The mystic influx of the constellations? Nobody knows.

    Let's state it again: correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Right?

    It seems far more plausible than medieval irish (and scots, and iberians, and germanic peoples, and...) where culturally responding (culturally adapting) to the incentives structure of that surrounding environment. When land is the most important source of wealth, there's a low-density population and violence is not rare because resources are scarce, the cultural adaptation that gets selected is a moderately clannish culture, in order to keep the land inside the family and to be able to count on a big extended family of relatives to protect you. There's more consanguinity, but the level of homozygosity is always kept under control and the net result of that strategy, in that environment, is positive. It pays to be clannic.

    When the environment changes, people is transferred to cities, the land loses its role as the main factor behind wealth, and the nation-state keeps violence under control, suddenly it is not so adaptive to be clannish, specially because you're surrounded of a highly homogeneous population, very close to you (Europe before the colonizers invasion), and those clans are inadvertently abandoned for a "just-the-nuclear-family" model. It doesn't pay to be clannish anymore.

    So, you have clannish irish in the XVIIth century, and outbreeder irish in the XXth. And they're the same people.

    What these friends of us are always, systematically, consistently downplaying and underrating, is the behavioral plasticity of humans, which is huge. What they're always overrating, exaggerating, is what Richard Alexander warned us about: an excessive reliance on the "evolution inertia".

    Given the genocide-level changes occurring throughout the whole Eurosphere it wouldn't be a surprise if a new, third model, emerged. Universal ethnic nationalism, maybe. It's just a possibility, nobody can really know in advance. Maybe we turn into a castes society, just like Brazil, or Mexico, or India. It might also be that we get balkanized.

    Genetics is just one factor. Breeding patterns may help to create and reinforce culture, but so do many other factors (language, religion, environmental conditions, social practices/structures/institutions, etc). Even after particular breeding practices become uncommon, I don’t kno of any reason that these other factors couldn’t maintain a culture or aspects of a culture for centuries, even surviving some mixing of ethnic genetics. Of course, no culture lasts forever or remains unchanged. But certain cultures may be better adapted to survival amidst change and diversity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Tomás
    No, he has not done such a great work. Just graphs and more graphs thrown together to reinforce the correlation-like argument implicit throughout the whole article. He is just furthering the recent seductive fad, pushed by HBD Chick and Audacious Epigone, of "correlation implies causation". Of course, every half-educated layman knows that the the opposite is the case. Correlation does not imply causation. The most it allows you to do is to suspect relationships. It is the ground for a suspicion, that has to be substantiated afterwards.

    For some months I found the same error again and again in these three friends. Even acknowledging the higher pace of evolution during the last 10k years (of course) and the effects of the population boom of the latest two centuries, modern irish are pretty much the same people, genetically speaking, that they were in the XVIIth or XIVth centuries. I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the supposedly endogamy-leaning cousin-marrying irish from medieval times (in fact, a complete misrepresentation of the reality), supposedly pre-programmed by their inbreeding to be moderately ethnocentric and preservationist, are nowadays outbreeding immigrationists just like every other europoid in sight. The same goes for Scots or, for that matter, for almost any other european. And please, keep in mind that event the most "inbred" euopean populations have historically been regional outbreeders.

    Supposedly, the story goes, modern appalachians would be inbreeding-leaning low-IQ warrior-like ethnocentrists because of that "pre-programming". Why is it not the same case with modern swiss people, given their long past as warring montagnards? Nobody explains. How the irish changed their behavioral patterns so quickly (in fact, just like every other european)? Our friends have no answer. Why the pre-programming would keep working in the US but not in the rest of the Eurosphere? The water? The air? The mystic influx of the constellations? Nobody knows.

    Let's state it again: correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Right?

    It seems far more plausible than medieval irish (and scots, and iberians, and germanic peoples, and...) where culturally responding (culturally adapting) to the incentives structure of that surrounding environment. When land is the most important source of wealth, there's a low-density population and violence is not rare because resources are scarce, the cultural adaptation that gets selected is a moderately clannish culture, in order to keep the land inside the family and to be able to count on a big extended family of relatives to protect you. There's more consanguinity, but the level of homozygosity is always kept under control and the net result of that strategy, in that environment, is positive. It pays to be clannic.

    When the environment changes, people is transferred to cities, the land loses its role as the main factor behind wealth, and the nation-state keeps violence under control, suddenly it is not so adaptive to be clannish, specially because you're surrounded of a highly homogeneous population, very close to you (Europe before the colonizers invasion), and those clans are inadvertently abandoned for a "just-the-nuclear-family" model. It doesn't pay to be clannish anymore.

    So, you have clannish irish in the XVIIth century, and outbreeder irish in the XXth. And they're the same people.

    What these friends of us are always, systematically, consistently downplaying and underrating, is the behavioral plasticity of humans, which is huge. What they're always overrating, exaggerating, is what Richard Alexander warned us about: an excessive reliance on the "evolution inertia".

    Given the genocide-level changes occurring throughout the whole Eurosphere it wouldn't be a surprise if a new, third model, emerged. Universal ethnic nationalism, maybe. It's just a possibility, nobody can really know in advance. Maybe we turn into a castes society, just like Brazil, or Mexico, or India. It might also be that we get balkanized.

    He is just furthering the recent seductive fad, pushed by HBD Chick and Audacious Epigone, of “correlation implies causation”. Of course, every half-educated layman knows that the the opposite is the case. Correlation does not imply causation.

    OK, to start with, let’s get it right. Accurately, it’s correlation does not necessitate causation. The two are not one and the same. I of all people am pretty adamant about that.

    But, correlation does suggest causation. It does hint that there may be a causal relationship there. At the very least (as is often the cause), it suggest a shared causal factor. So saying that “correlation does not imply causation” is not exactly correct, depending on how strong you take the meaning of the word “imply” to be.

    For some months I found the same error again and again in these three friends. Even acknowledging the higher pace of evolution during the last 10k years (of course) and the effects of the population boom of the latest two centuries, modern irish are pretty much the same people, genetically speaking, that they were in the XVIIth or XIVth centuries.

    That’s not true at all, in any sense. First, in the case of the Irish, they are not even the same ethnic mix – there has been significant population movement in Ireland (as is the case all across Europe) since that time.

    Second, we have strong statistics for significant changes in the behavioral traits of Europeans since that time (see HBD Fundamentals: On the evolution of modern advanced civilized peoples

    I’m still waiting for an explanation of why the supposedly endogamy-leaning cousin-marrying irish from medieval times (in fact, a complete misrepresentation of the reality), supposedly pre-programmed by their inbreeding to be moderately ethnocentric and preservationist, are nowadays outbreeding immigrationists just like every other europoid in sight.

    This goes back to that population movement. Parts of Ireland, particularly the western part of the island, was and continues to be heavily settled by Anglos.

    Supposedly, the story goes, modern appalachians would be inbreeding-leaning low-IQ warrior-like ethnocentrists because of that “pre-programming”. Why is it not the same case with modern swiss people, given their long past as warring montagnards?

    The Alpine people are actually quite outbred. See here and here.

    As well, have you seen HBD Chick’s clannishness scales? “Clannish” behavior is a relative term.

    Nobody explains. How the irish changed their behavioral patterns so quickly (in fact, just like every other european)?

    As seen in one of the links on my HBD Fundamantals page, the behavioral changes we see weren’t all that sudden:

    historic european homicide rates … and the hajnal line | hbd* chick

    It seems far more plausible than medieval irish (and scots, and iberians, and germanic peoples, and…) where culturally responding (culturally adapting) to the incentives structure of that surrounding environment.

    First of all, let’s stop right here. Where does “culture” come from?

    The answer: All human behavioral traits are heritable.

    When land is the most important source of wealth, there’s a low-density population and violence is not rare because resources are scarce, the cultural adaptation that gets selected is a moderately clannish culture, in order to keep the land inside the family and to be able to count on a big extended family of relatives to protect you. There’s more consanguinity, but the level of homozygosity is always kept under control and the net result of that strategy, in that environment, is positive. It pays to be clannic.

    Remove “cultural” from in front of “adapatation” and you’ve got HBD Chick’s hypothesis in a nutshell here. Inbreeding and outbreeding alter the selective pressures on a population, which, over time, produces different sorts of traits.

    When the environment changes, people is transferred to cities, the land loses its role as the main factor behind wealth, and the nation-state keeps violence under control, suddenly it is not so adaptive to be clannish, specially because you’re surrounded of a highly homogeneous population, very close to you (Europe before the colonizers invasion), and those clans are inadvertently abandoned for a “just-the-nuclear-family” model. It doesn’t pay to be clannish anymore.

    So, you have clannish irish in the XVIIth century, and outbreeder irish in the XXth. And they’re the same people.

    Except that it doesn’t work that way (as Bostonians vs Mainers might tell you). Also, see modern Glasgow (filled with Highland Scots).

    What these friends of us are always, systematically, consistently downplaying and underrating, is the behavioral plasticity of humans, which is huge.

    Is it? Is that a fact, or your unsupported supposition?

    It’s worth noting that the thesis of this post – that the persistent behavioral differences between Whites in different parts of North America have genetic roots, thanks to founder effects – doesn’t depend on HBD Chick’s hypothesis (which she adequately defended against similar objections in the previous link). It’s sufficient to note that these people were different to begin with, and those differences persist (HBD Chick’s hypothesis addresses why they were different).

    Indeed, individually, the bits of evidence here are mostly associative. Each – by itself – wouldn’t mean much. But, when taken in toto (and this includes all the evidence of the type on my HBD Fundamentals page), they do indeed strongly support the root assertion I’ve made here. Indeed, the lack of an alternative explanation for the totality of the evidence is also telling. Would you have another explanation for all the facts? If so, I’d like to hear it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • About the Pensylvania Germans, it has been something I’ve been trying to figure out. In all of my readings, I’ve only come across two specifically stated regions they came from.

    First, the most well known region of origins is Alsace-Lorraine. That is how I became interested. I have ancestors from the region which I discovered through census records. One census stated France, another Germany and a third Alsace. Obviously, the people there didn’t have any strong attachment to national identity or else a very nuanced/confused identity. Alsace-Lorraine is one of those typical mountainous borderlands that is difficult to conquer and control, but France and Germany sure did try (and the Roman Empire before them).

    Second, I recetly came across mention of borderland between France and Netherlands. This presently Belgium and Luxembourg, but used to be the Spanish Netherlands. Spain controlled from the 1500s until the Calvinist uprisings. The loss of this territory was the beginning of the end for the Spanish Empire. Their control, however, wasn’t entirely lost for several decades after William Penn received his royal land grant. It was for a long time a contested and war-ravaged region, just like Alsace-Lorraine.

    Basically, the early Pennsylvania Germans came from all along the borderland that was North of France and occasionally controlled by France.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KFJ
    The Pennsylvania "Dutch" came from the whole Rhineland: particularly Alsace, but also the Palatinate, and as far upstream as Switzerland. The first group of settlers came from Krefeld, on the lower Rhine, and founded Germantown.

    http://www.loc.gov/folklife/events/BotkinArchives/2011flyers/YoderFlyer.html

    http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~original13/history.htm

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Tomás
    By the way: the use of the modern Spain's flag with a chile as coat of arms is completely grotesque. Funny, for sure, but completely moronic.

    It was Woodard’s. I agree, it sucks, but I couldn’t think of a better one, so I kept it.

    Perhaps I should have used the logo from the film Machete?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dr James Thompson
    By God Sir, you have done a lot of great work on this! James Thompson

    Thank you!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Seems consistent with the idea that the regions where the Normans first occupied in the British Isles, or southeast English, has become the liberal American northeast. And also that the American elite wasp is predominantly Yankee, the same way that the British elite is more French than briton.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • By the way: the use of the modern Spain’s flag with a chile as coat of arms is completely grotesque. Funny, for sure, but completely moronic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    It was Woodard's. I agree, it sucks, but I couldn't think of a better one, so I kept it.

    Perhaps I should have used the logo from the film Machete?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • No, he has not done such a great work. Just graphs and more graphs thrown together to reinforce the correlation-like argument implicit throughout the whole article. He is just furthering the recent seductive fad, pushed by HBD Chick and Audacious Epigone, of “correlation implies causation”. Of course, every half-educated layman knows that the the opposite is the case. Correlation does not imply causation. The most it allows you to do is to suspect relationships. It is the ground for a suspicion, that has to be substantiated afterwards.

    For some months I found the same error again and again in these three friends. Even acknowledging the higher pace of evolution during the last 10k years (of course) and the effects of the population boom of the latest two centuries, modern irish are pretty much the same people, genetically speaking, that they were in the XVIIth or XIVth centuries. I’m still waiting for an explanation of why the supposedly endogamy-leaning cousin-marrying irish from medieval times (in fact, a complete misrepresentation of the reality), supposedly pre-programmed by their inbreeding to be moderately ethnocentric and preservationist, are nowadays outbreeding immigrationists just like every other europoid in sight. The same goes for Scots or, for that matter, for almost any other european. And please, keep in mind that event the most “inbred” euopean populations have historically been regional outbreeders.

    Supposedly, the story goes, modern appalachians would be inbreeding-leaning low-IQ warrior-like ethnocentrists because of that “pre-programming”. Why is it not the same case with modern swiss people, given their long past as warring montagnards? Nobody explains. How the irish changed their behavioral patterns so quickly (in fact, just like every other european)? Our friends have no answer. Why the pre-programming would keep working in the US but not in the rest of the Eurosphere? The water? The air? The mystic influx of the constellations? Nobody knows.

    Let’s state it again: correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation. Right?

    It seems far more plausible than medieval irish (and scots, and iberians, and germanic peoples, and…) where culturally responding (culturally adapting) to the incentives structure of that surrounding environment. When land is the most important source of wealth, there’s a low-density population and violence is not rare because resources are scarce, the cultural adaptation that gets selected is a moderately clannish culture, in order to keep the land inside the family and to be able to count on a big extended family of relatives to protect you. There’s more consanguinity, but the level of homozygosity is always kept under control and the net result of that strategy, in that environment, is positive. It pays to be clannic.

    When the environment changes, people is transferred to cities, the land loses its role as the main factor behind wealth, and the nation-state keeps violence under control, suddenly it is not so adaptive to be clannish, specially because you’re surrounded of a highly homogeneous population, very close to you (Europe before the colonizers invasion), and those clans are inadvertently abandoned for a “just-the-nuclear-family” model. It doesn’t pay to be clannish anymore.

    So, you have clannish irish in the XVIIth century, and outbreeder irish in the XXth. And they’re the same people.

    What these friends of us are always, systematically, consistently downplaying and underrating, is the behavioral plasticity of humans, which is huge. What they’re always overrating, exaggerating, is what Richard Alexander warned us about: an excessive reliance on the “evolution inertia”.

    Given the genocide-level changes occurring throughout the whole Eurosphere it wouldn’t be a surprise if a new, third model, emerged. Universal ethnic nationalism, maybe. It’s just a possibility, nobody can really know in advance. Maybe we turn into a castes society, just like Brazil, or Mexico, or India. It might also be that we get balkanized.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Tomás:

    He is just furthering the recent seductive fad, pushed by HBD Chick and Audacious Epigone, of “correlation implies causation”. Of course, every half-educated layman knows that the the opposite is the case. Correlation does not imply causation.
     
    OK, to start with, let's get it right. Accurately, it's correlation does not necessitate causation. The two are not one and the same. I of all people am pretty adamant about that.

    But, correlation does suggest causation. It does hint that there may be a causal relationship there. At the very least (as is often the cause), it suggest a shared causal factor. So saying that "correlation does not imply causation" is not exactly correct, depending on how strong you take the meaning of the word "imply" to be.


    For some months I found the same error again and again in these three friends. Even acknowledging the higher pace of evolution during the last 10k years (of course) and the effects of the population boom of the latest two centuries, modern irish are pretty much the same people, genetically speaking, that they were in the XVIIth or XIVth centuries.
     
    That's not true at all, in any sense. First, in the case of the Irish, they are not even the same ethnic mix – there has been significant population movement in Ireland (as is the case all across Europe) since that time.

    Second, we have strong statistics for significant changes in the behavioral traits of Europeans since that time (see HBD Fundamentals: On the evolution of modern advanced civilized peoples


    I’m still waiting for an explanation of why the supposedly endogamy-leaning cousin-marrying irish from medieval times (in fact, a complete misrepresentation of the reality), supposedly pre-programmed by their inbreeding to be moderately ethnocentric and preservationist, are nowadays outbreeding immigrationists just like every other europoid in sight.
     
    This goes back to that population movement. Parts of Ireland, particularly the western part of the island, was and continues to be heavily settled by Anglos.

    Supposedly, the story goes, modern appalachians would be inbreeding-leaning low-IQ warrior-like ethnocentrists because of that “pre-programming”. Why is it not the same case with modern swiss people, given their long past as warring montagnards?
     
    The Alpine people are actually quite outbred. See here and here.

    As well, have you seen HBD Chick's clannishness scales? "Clannish" behavior is a relative term.


    Nobody explains. How the irish changed their behavioral patterns so quickly (in fact, just like every other european)?
     
    As seen in one of the links on my HBD Fundamantals page, the behavioral changes we see weren't all that sudden:

    historic european homicide rates … and the hajnal line | hbd* chick


    It seems far more plausible than medieval irish (and scots, and iberians, and germanic peoples, and…) where culturally responding (culturally adapting) to the incentives structure of that surrounding environment.
     
    First of all, let's stop right here. Where does "culture" come from?

    The answer: All human behavioral traits are heritable.


    When land is the most important source of wealth, there’s a low-density population and violence is not rare because resources are scarce, the cultural adaptation that gets selected is a moderately clannish culture, in order to keep the land inside the family and to be able to count on a big extended family of relatives to protect you. There’s more consanguinity, but the level of homozygosity is always kept under control and the net result of that strategy, in that environment, is positive. It pays to be clannic.
     
    Remove "cultural" from in front of "adapatation" and you've got HBD Chick's hypothesis in a nutshell here. Inbreeding and outbreeding alter the selective pressures on a population, which, over time, produces different sorts of traits.

    When the environment changes, people is transferred to cities, the land loses its role as the main factor behind wealth, and the nation-state keeps violence under control, suddenly it is not so adaptive to be clannish, specially because you’re surrounded of a highly homogeneous population, very close to you (Europe before the colonizers invasion), and those clans are inadvertently abandoned for a “just-the-nuclear-family” model. It doesn’t pay to be clannish anymore.

    So, you have clannish irish in the XVIIth century, and outbreeder irish in the XXth. And they’re the same people.
     

    Except that it doesn't work that way (as Bostonians vs Mainers might tell you). Also, see modern Glasgow (filled with Highland Scots).

    What these friends of us are always, systematically, consistently downplaying and underrating, is the behavioral plasticity of humans, which is huge.
     
    Is it? Is that a fact, or your unsupported supposition?

    It's worth noting that the thesis of this post – that the persistent behavioral differences between Whites in different parts of North America have genetic roots, thanks to founder effects – doesn't depend on HBD Chick's hypothesis (which she adequately defended against similar objections in the previous link). It's sufficient to note that these people were different to begin with, and those differences persist (HBD Chick's hypothesis addresses why they were different).

    Indeed, individually, the bits of evidence here are mostly associative. Each – by itself – wouldn't mean much. But, when taken in toto (and this includes all the evidence of the type on my HBD Fundamentals page), they do indeed strongly support the root assertion I've made here. Indeed, the lack of an alternative explanation for the totality of the evidence is also telling. Would you have another explanation for all the facts? If so, I'd like to hear it.

    , @Benjamin David Steele
    Genetics is just one factor. Breeding patterns may help to create and reinforce culture, but so do many other factors (language, religion, environmental conditions, social practices/structures/institutions, etc). Even after particular breeding practices become uncommon, I don't kno of any reason that these other factors couldn't maintain a culture or aspects of a culture for centuries, even surviving some mixing of ethnic genetics. Of course, no culture lasts forever or remains unchanged. But certain cultures may be better adapted to survival amidst change and diversity.
    , @Benjamin David Steele
    I'm a both/and kinda guy. As far as I can tell, there is research that supports both your positions. The problem is that you are disagreeing about two facts that aren't in conlict. I'm basing my conclusion on years looking at the research on personality traits which was my focus before my interest in culture developed. These traits do show regional differences and so one suspects they are part of what makes a culture distinct.

    Genetics are inherited and hence the genetic-related traits are inherited. However, most inherited traits are predispositions that require environmental factors for their expression and without these environmental factors they won't manifest in behavior. As such, the behavioral expression of genetically inerited predispositions is plastic. Besides, research shows most people are closer to the middle than the extremes of traits and most people express a large spectrum along a trait, not so much an absolute one or the other.

    Let me describe two studies. The first one is about environment rather than genetics. But the second study is about genetics and might offer an explanation of how this environmental factor interacts with genetics.

    The first study looked at kids in different social settings and then returned to them as adults. The results were that the kids who grew up in a multicultural environment were more likely to be socially liberal as adults and those who grew up in a monocultural environment were more likely to be socially conservative as adults. I hear JayMans' response. Yes, this could be an entirely genetic condition of kids inheriting multicultural and monocultural traits from their parents. However, the second study opensup the possibility of a more multi-causal explanation.

    The second study looked at people with a specific gene correlated to liberalism. The interesting thing they found was the gene alone wasn't enough to make one liberal. Only if someone with this gene had a lot of friends as a child would they be predisposed to liberalism as an adult. I suspect that having a large group of friends is in this study acting as a proxy for diversity. The more friends a child has the more familiar they are likely to become with diverse worldviews and experiences.

    I find this evidence compelling. You two are arguing about the old nature vs nurture debate. There is just too much research at this point showing both contribute and there is no conclusive evidence that one contributes more than the other. Maybe further research will swing scientific consensus to one side of this debate, but until then a somewhat open-ended both/and approach appeals to me the most.

    , @hbd chick
    @tomás - well, first of all, what jayman said above, especially about correlation/causation and that inbreeding/outbreeding probably alters the selection pressures on population, but also...

    @tomás - "He is just furthering the recent seductive fad, pushed by HBD Chick and Audacious Epigone, of 'correlation implies causation'. Of course, every half-educated layman knows that the the opposite is the case. Correlation does not imply causation. The most it allows you to do is to suspect relationships. It is the ground for a suspicion, that has to be substantiated afterwards."

    obviously finding a correlation does not guarantee that you've found a causation -- far from it -- but correlation does "waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'." i can't speak for jayman or the awesome epigone, of course, but i've acknowledged many times on my blog that pretty much everything i write about the potential evolutionary effects of inbreeding/outbreeding on populations is a theory -- with a small "t". i know that i haven't proven anything -- nor do i claim that i have. so, don't panic! i think of my blog as a place to do a bunch of brainstorming. you should, too.

    @tomás - "I’m still waiting for an explanation of why the supposedly endogamy-leaning cousin-marrying irish from medieval times (in fact, a complete misrepresentation of the reality)..."

    no it's not. i guess you must've missed my series on the historic mating patterns of the native irish.

    - early and late medieval irish mating practices
    - clannish medieval ireland
    - early modern and modern clannish ireland

    the historians are quite in agreement that close marriages were preferred throughout the medieval period in ireland, i would guess more so earlier in the period than later, but that is just a(n) (educated) guess on my part. however, by the late-nineteenth and twentieth centuries the irish did avoid marrying their close cousins. unfortunately, there is a gap in my knowledge: i do not know what the mating patterns were in ireland between ca. 1500-1800 (as i explained in this post). were they still mating closely right up until the 1800s? or did the close marriages disappear gradually over this time period, or overnight at some point? like i said, i don't know, but i intend to find out if possible.

    @tomás - "...supposedly pre-programmed by their inbreeding to be moderately ethnocentric and preservationist, are nowadays outbreeding immigrationists just like every other europoid in sight. The same goes for Scots or, for that matter, for almost any other european.... How the irish changed their behavioral patterns so quickly (in fact, just like every other european)? Our friends have no answer. Why the pre-programming would keep working in the US but not in the rest of the Eurosphere?"

    i don't think that the irish (or the highland scots) did change their behavioral patterns so quickly. i think it was a gradual process that began later in ireland than in some other parts of europe (northeast france, the low countries, southwest england, northwest germany...).

    and the irish are absolutely NOT "like every other european." do you really think that the english=the irish=the sicilians=the greeks=the albanians? really?

    and this "pre-programming" you speak of (not MY word at all) -- if you mean the average sets of behavioral predispositions and traits of the various european sub-populations -- obviously they are still present in europe as well as in the u.s. i've also said so many times on my blog. who, for instance, are the piigs of europe? they are all some of my long-term inbreeding europeans -- the long-term outbreeders are not found amongst the piigs.

    "And please, keep in mind that event the most 'inbred' euopean populations have historically been regional outbreeders."

    i'm not sure what you mean by this, but i think you may have missed/misunderstood my definitions of inbreeding and outbreeding.

    @tomás - "When the environment changes, people is transferred to cities, the land loses its role as the main factor behind wealth, and the nation-state keeps violence under control, suddenly it is not so adaptive to be clannish, specially because you’re surrounded of a highly homogeneous population, very close to you (Europe before the colonizers invasion), and those clans are inadvertently abandoned for a 'just-the-nuclear-family' model. It doesn’t pay to be clannish anymore."

    first of all, please note that "clannishness" does not just mean "living in clans." rather, it's a whole set of behaviors ranging from nepotism to certain sorts of corruption to lack of focus on the commonweal to feuding (and more). several people have misunderstood this, and this is my fault. i should've defined the term much more clearly (not just in comments fields here and there) early on. a post defining "clannishness" is the next one in the works, so don't anybody despair!

    secondly, if your explanation for why clans disappeared is correct, tomás, why did the anglo-saxon "clans" (really kindreds) disappear in england already by the 600-700s (or, more probably and more completely, by ca. 900-1000)?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • By God Sir, you have done a lot of great work on this! James Thompson

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Thank you!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Continuing my series on the American nations (see also A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”; Flags of the American Nations; Sound Familiar?), I take a look at the Cavaliers. The founders of the U.S. Tidewater and Deep South were people of noble blood that originated primarily from southwestern England, in an...
  • […] the myddle people | hbd* chick) originate from the industrial North Midlands. The Cavaliers (see The Cavaliers) hail from southwestern England. And the Scotch-Irish Borderlanders (see “culture” of honor | […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” and The Cavaliers – from […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “These men represented the best of their culture; the sexual activities of other planters made even William Byrd appear a model of restraint. An old tidewater folk saying in Prince George’s County, Maryland, defined a virgin as a girl who could run faster than her uncle.”

    Are these the “good ol’ days” and “American values” I keep hearing lamented today?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Whiskey
    I'd also note that Maryland and Delaware were heavily slave, and indeed would have joined the Confederacy had it not been for federal troops, as was the case with Kentucky. Meanwhile, Virginia came agonizingly close to abolishing slavery in the state in the 1830's, failing by IIRC, a mere 17 votes. This was not surprising because Virginia was the most industrial of the Southern States and had the most Freedmen of color, about 7.2 percent or so.

    Virginia was about the last state to vote to join the Confederacy, had Lincoln not dithered for "jobs for the boys" instead of heading off rebellion, he could have packed his cabinet with Virginians, made Lee General of the Army, early, not on the eve of Virginia's Secession, and promised to do nothing quickly to end slavery without Virginia's sign-off. This would have prevented Texas and Arkansas and Tennessee and North Carolina from joining, allowing him to pressure and persuade most of the other states excluding South Carolina to reconsider. Given that a Confederacy of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana alone was not sustainable and anyone could see that. South Carolina of course would have had to be reduced, they were not willing to do anything but fight and this had been the case since Jackson's day.

    Virginia by 1860 was at least as Northern as Southern. It had the most rail of any Southern State, the most iron works, the most ties to western states, the most exports to the outside world excluding cotton and tobacco.

    Sadly Buchanon was a drifting lame duck who did nothing, and Lincoln was focused on pork not politics, allowing Viginia to drift into the Confederacy uncontested by persuasion and pork. It would have been a lot cheaper and better to promise jobs and high ranking ones at that to prominent Virginians to keep them in the Union than diddle around with interviewing Republican stalwarts for postmaster positions as Lincoln did mostly before he took office.

    Florida was filled with "crackers" aka mostly poor White small farmers, the land not being very suitable for plantations, and filled with angry Seminoles in the swamps who were formidable fighters and still a danger (Sherman mentions the dread they instilled in the Federal troops while he was stationed there in his memoirs -- Sherman's tactical and strategic genius in his Southern campains stems largely from the fact that he rode on horseback all over the South during his Quartermaster days and understood supply very well, as he did the terrain). That place was always going to Secede with a Lincoln as President promising to free the slaves and double the amount of people: renegade White outlaws, Seminole Indians aided by the British and Spanish, etc. wanting to kill them. But Virginia was different. Settled. Safe. And more Northern in outlook.

    Interesting set of posts–thanks for writing them!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Whiskey
    I would also like to add that Fischer notes the manifest difference in Puritans and Tidewater Cavaliers. Puritans hanged old lady Quaker preachers because it threatened social unity. As they did "witches." No one was ever hanged for Witchcraft by Cavaliers, they themselves practiced divination and such. The one instance where a ship made port and was found to have hung witches, resulted in the hangers being hung themselves or imprisoned -- the Cavaliers found themselves unhappy at their monopoly of punishment being challenged.

    The Cavaliers were total Anglicans, yet tolerated Quakers and all sorts of other freethinkers that the Puritans hung. The last Witch was killed in America in ... New York City ... in 1799. By a mob of Puritans, mostly.

    As long as you paid due deference to the exalted social station of Cavaliers, they did not care much what anyone did, or thought, or expressed. Whereas Puritans were the very model of witch burning and 1984 Social Conformity. Cavaliers by their nature could not even care what their social inferiors got up to, as long as they bowed and curtseyed when they were around.

    Those who came into conflict with Indians the most and in radically different ways were the Borderer people. Who were as likely as not to intermarry. James Garner and other people from this culture credibly claim Cherokee ancestry; Andrew Jackson deported the Cherokee and other Indians in the aftermath of the Red Stick War (basically because no one could distinguish a White allied tribe or Indian from a Red Stick warrior). Yet he adopted a Cherokee infant as his own son and lavished everything upon him. You did not see intermarriage among the Puritans or the Cavaliers, with Indians or anyone else.

    Attitudes towards Blacks by Borderers were different too. Puritans faced no labor competition, as Borderers did, nor violence directed at them by slave uprisings or freed slaves. In places with few potential freed blacks to wreak vengeance on the nearest available unprotected White person (Cavaliers had big houses with many armed men on the payroll), Borderer people were pro-Union. In places with quite a number of such Blacks looking to kill the first White person they could (common among Slave revolts, in Haiti, and other places much discussed then) even a man like Samuel Clemens was likely to join the Confederate militia. It was one thing to be anti-slavery in safe Boston, another in Hannibal Missouri where a freed slave was likely to hack your aunt to death in a fit of rage. [FWIW, Harry S. Truman's grandfather owned two slaves IIRC David McCullough's mammoth biography correctly.] This was also the case with Indians. The Red Stick Wars were the same sort of thing that Puritans experienced, and responded with basically deportation or annihilation in the case of King Philip's War and other wars with Indians. It just happened about 150 years later, that's all. Wasn't Lincoln's major military experience two weeks in a militia in the Black Hawk Wars in Illinois?

    At any rate both the Tidewater and Boston had centuries of safety from Indian attack whereas the Borderer areas had far greater experience with Indian ... and White violence.

    The Regulators were not aimed at Black violence, but rather backwoods violent murderers corruptly tolerated by Royal Governors who got kickbacks. Twain notes extensively on his Life on the Mississippi the story of John Murel (whose treasure Injun Joe discovers in Tom Sawyer). Murel was reputed to have murdered thousands of Black and White men alike in the 1820's and 1830's. Murel seems to have had the aid of Meleungens and Redbones and was rumored to have plotted a Slave uprising in New Orleans to establish himself as king. Point being is that the South then and now had no real security and thus arms were needed against all comers -- White, Black, and Indian.

    @whiskeysplace:

    I would also like to add that Fischer notes the manifest difference in Puritans and Tidewater Cavaliers. Puritans hanged old lady Quaker preachers because it threatened social unity. As they did “witches.” No one was ever hanged for Witchcraft by Cavaliers, they themselves practiced divination and such. The one instance where a ship made port and was found to have hung witches, resulted in the hangers being hung themselves or imprisoned — the Cavaliers found themselves unhappy at their monopoly of punishment being challenged.

    The Cavaliers were total Anglicans, yet tolerated Quakers and all sorts of other freethinkers that the Puritans hung. The last Witch was killed in America in … New York City … in 1799. By a mob of Puritans, mostly.

    As long as you paid due deference to the exalted social station of Cavaliers, they did not care much what anyone did, or thought, or expressed. Whereas Puritans were the very model of witch burning and 1984 Social Conformity. Cavaliers by their nature could not even care what their social inferiors got up to, as long as they bowed and curtseyed when they were around.

    Yankee society was and remains aggressively conformist. The Puritans were convinced that they were “God’s chosen people”, and were determined to spread their way of life to their neighbors. Modern-day Puritans – their Yankee descendants – retain this character, to the dismay of the other nations.

    Attitudes towards Blacks by Borderers were different too. Puritans faced no labor competition, as Borderers did, nor violence directed at them by slave uprisings or freed slaves. In places with few potential freed blacks to wreak vengeance on the nearest available unprotected White person (Cavaliers had big houses with many armed men on the payroll), Borderer people were pro-Union. In places with quite a number of such Blacks looking to kill the first White person they could (common among Slave revolts, in Haiti, and other places much discussed then) even a man like Samuel Clemens was likely to join the Confederate militia. It was one thing to be anti-slavery in safe Boston, another in Hannibal Missouri where a freed slave was likely to hack your aunt to death in a fit of rage. [FWIW, Harry S. Truman's grandfather owned two slaves IIRC David McCullough's mammoth biography correctly.] This was also the case with Indians. The Red Stick Wars were the same sort of thing that Puritans experienced, and responded with basically deportation or annihilation in the case of King Philip’s War and other wars with Indians. It just happened about 150 years later, that’s all. Wasn’t Lincoln’s major military experience two weeks in a militia in the Black Hawk Wars in Illinois?

    At any rate both the Tidewater and Boston had centuries of safety from Indian attack whereas the Borderer areas had far greater experience with Indian … and White violence.

    Indeed, the Borderlanders conquered the American frontier.

    As well, about Appalachian-Black relations, you’re correct. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan was founded not by Deep Southerners, but by Appalachians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Whiskey
    I think you're glossing over some important aspects of Tidewater culture. First, the mortality rate among the aristocrats was extremely high, David Hackett Fischer notes that this led to constant churning of marriages and step children and half-siblings, creating a fairly nasty inheritance battle, and a very fatalistic attitude because disease the constant killer tended to prune significant amounts of aristocratic families every Summer. Hence, no real fertility advantage.

    The best places to breed families and gain a numerical advantage were New England #1, and the Appalachians #2, because it had the lowest disease incidence and lowest mortality rate.

    Secondly, the Puritans DID fight fairly horrific wars against Indians, King Philip's War was pretty awful in killing both Puritans and Indians. New England and New York suffered "the Great Warpath" down from Canada through the Revolutionary War, with awful results for unprotected Whites without guns and men and fortifications. Schenectady was wiped out to nearly the last man and woman and child in the 1720's IIRC. Puritans had peace for about forty years because the initial settlement area had belonged to a tribe wiiped out by plague doubtless brought by French, Spanish, and Portugese fisherman wintering there.

    Thirdly, the Deep South was not and is not monolithic. Northern Alabama contains counties that Seceeded from Secession, remaining pro-Union as did Eastern Tennesee. Much of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Misssippi remained White tenant farming, unsuitable for plantation farming. If you've ever traveled there you can see this immediately -- poor soil, piney woods, no rivers (for crop transport) etc. Mark Twain's experience as a Confederate Soldier was typical of men in Northern Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, an initial fight with Union forces followed by quick desertion, as noted by both Sherman and Grant in their Memoirs (handily available on Project Gutenberg btw).

    Fourthly, the Indian Wars in the Deep South were fought mainly by the Borderer/Appalachian forces, not the Aristocrats. The Bacon Rebellion against Virginia's Royal Governor Berkeley was all about Berkeley's desire to allow Indian attacks without reprisals to make Western lands worthless and his own Tidwater lands thus more valuable. In general, Tidewater Aristocrats were hostile to Western expansion because it put more land on the market and devalued their main source of income: land and the tobacco and cotton it produced.

    @whiskeysplace:

    I think you’re glossing over some important aspects of Tidewater culture. First, the mortality rate among the aristocrats was extremely high, David Hackett Fischer notes that this led to constant churning of marriages and step children and half-siblings, creating a fairly nasty inheritance battle, and a very fatalistic attitude because disease the constant killer tended to prune significant amounts of aristocratic families every Summer.

    That’s quite true. The regional climates likely had a big impact of the trajectories of the Tidewater and the Deep South vs. New England.

    Hence, no real fertility advantage.

    I’m not sure that follows. Do you think life was any easier for the White underclass?

    Secondly, the Puritans DID fight fairly horrific wars against Indians, King Philip’s War was pretty awful in killing both Puritans and Indians. New England and New York suffered “the Great Warpath” down from Canada through the Revolutionary War, with awful results for unprotected Whites without guns and men and fortifications.

    Yes indeed. As I noted on my earlier post about the clannishness of each group, the Puritans ranked very high on being “nationalistic”. They were indifferent to hostile to outsiders and expansionist. Their zeal for conquest wasn’t quite the same as the Deep South’s or Greater Applachia’s, however.

    Thirdly, the Deep South was not and is not monolithic. Northern Alabama contains counties that Seceeded from Secession, remaining pro-Union as did Eastern Tennesee. Much of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Misssippi remained White tenant farming, unsuitable for plantation farming. If you’ve ever traveled there you can see this immediately — poor soil, piney woods, no rivers (for crop transport) etc. Mark Twain’s experience as a Confederate Soldier was typical of men in Northern Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, an initial fight with Union forces followed by quick desertion, as noted by both Sherman and Grant in their Memoirs (handily available on Project Gutenberg btw).

    Well, those areas of the states you mentioned aren’t actually part of the “Deep South”, as Colin Woodard delineates…

    Fourthly, the Indian Wars in the Deep South were fought mainly by the Borderer/Appalachian forces, not the Aristocrats.

    The Deep Southerners were happy to use the Borderlanders to do their dirty work for them. Indeed, they played an instrumental role in clearing the Native populations ahead of expansion by the other nations.

    The Deep Southerners themselves were indeed aggressively expansionist, particularly along the coastal South were the soil was well suited to plantation farming.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I’d also note that Maryland and Delaware were heavily slave, and indeed would have joined the Confederacy had it not been for federal troops, as was the case with Kentucky. Meanwhile, Virginia came agonizingly close to abolishing slavery in the state in the 1830′s, failing by IIRC, a mere 17 votes. This was not surprising because Virginia was the most industrial of the Southern States and had the most Freedmen of color, about 7.2 percent or so.

    Virginia was about the last state to vote to join the Confederacy, had Lincoln not dithered for “jobs for the boys” instead of heading off rebellion, he could have packed his cabinet with Virginians, made Lee General of the Army, early, not on the eve of Virginia’s Secession, and promised to do nothing quickly to end slavery without Virginia’s sign-off. This would have prevented Texas and Arkansas and Tennessee and North Carolina from joining, allowing him to pressure and persuade most of the other states excluding South Carolina to reconsider. Given that a Confederacy of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana alone was not sustainable and anyone could see that. South Carolina of course would have had to be reduced, they were not willing to do anything but fight and this had been the case since Jackson’s day.

    Virginia by 1860 was at least as Northern as Southern. It had the most rail of any Southern State, the most iron works, the most ties to western states, the most exports to the outside world excluding cotton and tobacco.

    Sadly Buchanon was a drifting lame duck who did nothing, and Lincoln was focused on pork not politics, allowing Viginia to drift into the Confederacy uncontested by persuasion and pork. It would have been a lot cheaper and better to promise jobs and high ranking ones at that to prominent Virginians to keep them in the Union than diddle around with interviewing Republican stalwarts for postmaster positions as Lincoln did mostly before he took office.

    Florida was filled with “crackers” aka mostly poor White small farmers, the land not being very suitable for plantations, and filled with angry Seminoles in the swamps who were formidable fighters and still a danger (Sherman mentions the dread they instilled in the Federal troops while he was stationed there in his memoirs — Sherman’s tactical and strategic genius in his Southern campains stems largely from the fact that he rode on horseback all over the South during his Quartermaster days and understood supply very well, as he did the terrain). That place was always going to Secede with a Lincoln as President promising to free the slaves and double the amount of people: renegade White outlaws, Seminole Indians aided by the British and Spanish, etc. wanting to kill them. But Virginia was different. Settled. Safe. And more Northern in outlook.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EvolutionistX
    Interesting set of posts--thanks for writing them!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    You might mention black males in modern day America (right now) rape one hundred white females each and every day of the year, rain or shine. Black males are from eight to twenty times more likely to be infected with the AIDS virus than white males. Our prison population has tripled since the 1980's. Our prison population is eighty percent black.

    Black people in the US have a fraction of the rates of say, African rape and murder metrics. South Africa is a case in point, about 27% have admitted rape and half those said they raped more than one person. This matches the appalling numbers found anecdotally in West Africa. But still, Black men in America rape and murder at far higher rates than Asians (lowest) and Whites (next lowest). Black people just rape and murder, at far higher rates, than other peoples.

    What third-party observers have found regarding Black violence, is that Black people have very high rates of it; this may or may not be part of the generally low IQs (about 70 for Africans, about 85 average, Flynn Effect for Black Americans) given that Bushmen, Pygmies, and Aborigines also have sky-high rates of murder and rape; which matches that of New Guinea and Amazonian stone age tribes. For whatever reason the gap between feel and do among Black people is amazingly short; without much social condition, pondering, or anything really in between a feeling and a deed. This is as true in Haiti, site of the most successful slave revolt (and coincidentally, massacres of White people slavers and not, infants and elderly) as well as a conquering and oppression (for a while anyway) of the Mestizo Dominican Republic. Black people in Haiti staged a violently successful slave revolt, killed every last White they could on the Island; and then thirty years later conquered and oppressed the Mestizo Dominincans. Haiti remains among the most violent places in the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I would also like to add that Fischer notes the manifest difference in Puritans and Tidewater Cavaliers. Puritans hanged old lady Quaker preachers because it threatened social unity. As they did “witches.” No one was ever hanged for Witchcraft by Cavaliers, they themselves practiced divination and such. The one instance where a ship made port and was found to have hung witches, resulted in the hangers being hung themselves or imprisoned — the Cavaliers found themselves unhappy at their monopoly of punishment being challenged.

    The Cavaliers were total Anglicans, yet tolerated Quakers and all sorts of other freethinkers that the Puritans hung. The last Witch was killed in America in … New York City … in 1799. By a mob of Puritans, mostly.

    As long as you paid due deference to the exalted social station of Cavaliers, they did not care much what anyone did, or thought, or expressed. Whereas Puritans were the very model of witch burning and 1984 Social Conformity. Cavaliers by their nature could not even care what their social inferiors got up to, as long as they bowed and curtseyed when they were around.

    Those who came into conflict with Indians the most and in radically different ways were the Borderer people. Who were as likely as not to intermarry. James Garner and other people from this culture credibly claim Cherokee ancestry; Andrew Jackson deported the Cherokee and other Indians in the aftermath of the Red Stick War (basically because no one could distinguish a White allied tribe or Indian from a Red Stick warrior). Yet he adopted a Cherokee infant as his own son and lavished everything upon him. You did not see intermarriage among the Puritans or the Cavaliers, with Indians or anyone else.

    Attitudes towards Blacks by Borderers were different too. Puritans faced no labor competition, as Borderers did, nor violence directed at them by slave uprisings or freed slaves. In places with few potential freed blacks to wreak vengeance on the nearest available unprotected White person (Cavaliers had big houses with many armed men on the payroll), Borderer people were pro-Union. In places with quite a number of such Blacks looking to kill the first White person they could (common among Slave revolts, in Haiti, and other places much discussed then) even a man like Samuel Clemens was likely to join the Confederate militia. It was one thing to be anti-slavery in safe Boston, another in Hannibal Missouri where a freed slave was likely to hack your aunt to death in a fit of rage. [FWIW, Harry S. Truman's grandfather owned two slaves IIRC David McCullough's mammoth biography correctly.] This was also the case with Indians. The Red Stick Wars were the same sort of thing that Puritans experienced, and responded with basically deportation or annihilation in the case of King Philip’s War and other wars with Indians. It just happened about 150 years later, that’s all. Wasn’t Lincoln’s major military experience two weeks in a militia in the Black Hawk Wars in Illinois?

    At any rate both the Tidewater and Boston had centuries of safety from Indian attack whereas the Borderer areas had far greater experience with Indian … and White violence.

    The Regulators were not aimed at Black violence, but rather backwoods violent murderers corruptly tolerated by Royal Governors who got kickbacks. Twain notes extensively on his Life on the Mississippi the story of John Murel (whose treasure Injun Joe discovers in Tom Sawyer). Murel was reputed to have murdered thousands of Black and White men alike in the 1820′s and 1830′s. Murel seems to have had the aid of Meleungens and Redbones and was rumored to have plotted a Slave uprising in New Orleans to establish himself as king. Point being is that the South then and now had no real security and thus arms were needed against all comers — White, Black, and Indian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @whiskeysplace:

    I would also like to add that Fischer notes the manifest difference in Puritans and Tidewater Cavaliers. Puritans hanged old lady Quaker preachers because it threatened social unity. As they did “witches.” No one was ever hanged for Witchcraft by Cavaliers, they themselves practiced divination and such. The one instance where a ship made port and was found to have hung witches, resulted in the hangers being hung themselves or imprisoned — the Cavaliers found themselves unhappy at their monopoly of punishment being challenged.

    The Cavaliers were total Anglicans, yet tolerated Quakers and all sorts of other freethinkers that the Puritans hung. The last Witch was killed in America in … New York City … in 1799. By a mob of Puritans, mostly.

    As long as you paid due deference to the exalted social station of Cavaliers, they did not care much what anyone did, or thought, or expressed. Whereas Puritans were the very model of witch burning and 1984 Social Conformity. Cavaliers by their nature could not even care what their social inferiors got up to, as long as they bowed and curtseyed when they were around.
     

    Yankee society was and remains aggressively conformist. The Puritans were convinced that they were "God's chosen people", and were determined to spread their way of life to their neighbors. Modern-day Puritans – their Yankee descendants – retain this character, to the dismay of the other nations.

    Attitudes towards Blacks by Borderers were different too. Puritans faced no labor competition, as Borderers did, nor violence directed at them by slave uprisings or freed slaves. In places with few potential freed blacks to wreak vengeance on the nearest available unprotected White person (Cavaliers had big houses with many armed men on the payroll), Borderer people were pro-Union. In places with quite a number of such Blacks looking to kill the first White person they could (common among Slave revolts, in Haiti, and other places much discussed then) even a man like Samuel Clemens was likely to join the Confederate militia. It was one thing to be anti-slavery in safe Boston, another in Hannibal Missouri where a freed slave was likely to hack your aunt to death in a fit of rage. [FWIW, Harry S. Truman's grandfather owned two slaves IIRC David McCullough's mammoth biography correctly.] This was also the case with Indians. The Red Stick Wars were the same sort of thing that Puritans experienced, and responded with basically deportation or annihilation in the case of King Philip’s War and other wars with Indians. It just happened about 150 years later, that’s all. Wasn’t Lincoln’s major military experience two weeks in a militia in the Black Hawk Wars in Illinois?

    At any rate both the Tidewater and Boston had centuries of safety from Indian attack whereas the Borderer areas had far greater experience with Indian … and White violence.
     

    Indeed, the Borderlanders conquered the American frontier.

    As well, about Appalachian-Black relations, you're correct. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan was founded not by Deep Southerners, but by Appalachians.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I think you’re glossing over some important aspects of Tidewater culture. First, the mortality rate among the aristocrats was extremely high, David Hackett Fischer notes that this led to constant churning of marriages and step children and half-siblings, creating a fairly nasty inheritance battle, and a very fatalistic attitude because disease the constant killer tended to prune significant amounts of aristocratic families every Summer. Hence, no real fertility advantage.

    The best places to breed families and gain a numerical advantage were New England #1, and the Appalachians #2, because it had the lowest disease incidence and lowest mortality rate.

    Secondly, the Puritans DID fight fairly horrific wars against Indians, King Philip’s War was pretty awful in killing both Puritans and Indians. New England and New York suffered “the Great Warpath” down from Canada through the Revolutionary War, with awful results for unprotected Whites without guns and men and fortifications. Schenectady was wiped out to nearly the last man and woman and child in the 1720′s IIRC. Puritans had peace for about forty years because the initial settlement area had belonged to a tribe wiiped out by plague doubtless brought by French, Spanish, and Portugese fisherman wintering there.

    Thirdly, the Deep South was not and is not monolithic. Northern Alabama contains counties that Seceeded from Secession, remaining pro-Union as did Eastern Tennesee. Much of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Misssippi remained White tenant farming, unsuitable for plantation farming. If you’ve ever traveled there you can see this immediately — poor soil, piney woods, no rivers (for crop transport) etc. Mark Twain’s experience as a Confederate Soldier was typical of men in Northern Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, an initial fight with Union forces followed by quick desertion, as noted by both Sherman and Grant in their Memoirs (handily available on Project Gutenberg btw).

    Fourthly, the Indian Wars in the Deep South were fought mainly by the Borderer/Appalachian forces, not the Aristocrats. The Bacon Rebellion against Virginia’s Royal Governor Berkeley was all about Berkeley’s desire to allow Indian attacks without reprisals to make Western lands worthless and his own Tidwater lands thus more valuable. In general, Tidewater Aristocrats were hostile to Western expansion because it put more land on the market and devalued their main source of income: land and the tobacco and cotton it produced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @whiskeysplace:

    I think you’re glossing over some important aspects of Tidewater culture. First, the mortality rate among the aristocrats was extremely high, David Hackett Fischer notes that this led to constant churning of marriages and step children and half-siblings, creating a fairly nasty inheritance battle, and a very fatalistic attitude because disease the constant killer tended to prune significant amounts of aristocratic families every Summer.
     
    That's quite true. The regional climates likely had a big impact of the trajectories of the Tidewater and the Deep South vs. New England.

    Hence, no real fertility advantage.
     
    I'm not sure that follows. Do you think life was any easier for the White underclass?

    Secondly, the Puritans DID fight fairly horrific wars against Indians, King Philip’s War was pretty awful in killing both Puritans and Indians. New England and New York suffered “the Great Warpath” down from Canada through the Revolutionary War, with awful results for unprotected Whites without guns and men and fortifications.
     
    Yes indeed. As I noted on my earlier post about the clannishness of each group, the Puritans ranked very high on being "nationalistic". They were indifferent to hostile to outsiders and expansionist. Their zeal for conquest wasn't quite the same as the Deep South's or Greater Applachia's, however.

    Thirdly, the Deep South was not and is not monolithic. Northern Alabama contains counties that Seceeded from Secession, remaining pro-Union as did Eastern Tennesee. Much of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Misssippi remained White tenant farming, unsuitable for plantation farming. If you’ve ever traveled there you can see this immediately — poor soil, piney woods, no rivers (for crop transport) etc. Mark Twain’s experience as a Confederate Soldier was typical of men in Northern Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, an initial fight with Union forces followed by quick desertion, as noted by both Sherman and Grant in their Memoirs (handily available on Project Gutenberg btw).

     

    Well, those areas of the states you mentioned aren't actually part of the "Deep South", as Colin Woodard delineates...

    Fourthly, the Indian Wars in the Deep South were fought mainly by the Borderer/Appalachian forces, not the Aristocrats.
     
    The Deep Southerners were happy to use the Borderlanders to do their dirty work for them. Indeed, they played an instrumental role in clearing the Native populations ahead of expansion by the other nations.

    The Deep Southerners themselves were indeed aggressively expansionist, particularly along the coastal South were the soil was well suited to plantation farming.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Hindu Observer
    Jayman, you got a sister? I found another non-religious black Caribbean HBD blogger here;

    http://ladybuginschiedam.wordpress.com/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    How ironic that Tidewater Virginia produced Jefferson and Madison, embodiments of the Scottish Enlightenment (at least in theory). With Jefferson I think it was youthful idealism, which he eventually outgrew. Certainly his lifestyle was incompatible with democracy. His life ends in tragedy.

    DHF was sure to point out the inconsistencies between the Tidewater Founding Father’s words and ideas on the fledgling nation and their actions at home. Jefferson and Washington were both very much Tidewater plantation lords despite their great ideas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @helvena
    Some interesting facts:
    Black slaves were in Rhode Island by 1652, and by the end of that century Rhode Island had become the only New England colony to use slaves for both labor and trade. After overtaking Boston by 1750, Newport and Bristol were the major slave markets in the American colonies. Slave-based economies existed in the Narragansett plantation family, the Middletown crop workers, and the indentured and slave craftsmen of Newport.

    Little Rhode Island generally had a smaller population of black slaves than its neighbors, Massachusetts and Connecticut, but with a very small white population as well, Rhode Island's blacks made up a higher percentage of the total population than elsewhere in New England. In the mid-18th century, Rhode Island had the highest proportion of slave-to-white of any colony in the North. This tended to make slave laws more severe in Rhode Island.

    As early as 1708, slaves outnumbered white indentured servants in the colony almost 8 to 1. The biggest increase in black population fell in the years from 1715 to 1755, which coincided with the industrial development of the colony and its emergence into the slave trade. Commercial success bred a wealthy class that became a slaveowning aristocracy. Rhode Island's black population tripled from 1715 to 1730, and almost tripled again by 1755. http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm

    On the very same day that THE BOSTON GAZETTE AND COUNTRY JOURNAL (July 22, 1776) published the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE they also published and advertisement for the sale of "a stout, healthy, negro man, about twenty-five years of age"

    New Englanders practiced Indian slavery, black slavery and white slavery and only gave it up when they found wage slavery more profitable for their factories.

    The Cavaliers were not as motivated by profit as the god fearing New Englanders were.

    Yup, slavery was found all across the colonies. And of course, New Netherland was the business capital of the slave trade. However, nowhere did slavery become the foundational institution like it did in the coastal South. Even in Rhode Island, the African slave population never went over 15% (compared to well over 50% in the Tidewater and over 80% in the Deep South).

    Of course, Puritans being as they are, after freeing their slaves, they expelled the Black population.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @bleach
    The 2nd amendment was also supported by New englanders who had a citizen militia tradition irrelevant to slavery. You're not helping your essay with naked partisan crap.

    Did I say that the Second Amendment was only a Southern invention? Nonetheless, the Deep South was heavily responsible for the Second Amendment as it was made, as described in the link on the topic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @chrisdavies09
    Excellent post. I think you may well be correct that the regions of western England which the Cavaliers derived from may historically have been more similar to Wales and Cornwall in terms of mating patterns and culture [as opposed to Southern/Eastern England and the Midlands]. eg. potentially less outbred/more inbred, more clannish, potentially more violent or prone to feuding, etc.

    In fact the regions which you highlighted in purple were occupied by Brythonic language-speaking tribes in earlier times [prior to the Saxons]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britain.circa.540.jpg

    And of course correlates closely with territory of royalists vs. parliamentarians in English Civil War: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/sites/www.open.edu.openlearn/files/imported/o_69212/map_brit3.gif

    Thank you!

    Excellent post. I think you may well be correct that the regions of western England which the Cavaliers derived from may historically have been more similar to Wales and Cornwall in terms of mating patterns and culture [as opposed to Southern/Eastern England and the Midlands]. eg. potentially less outbred/more inbred, more clannish, potentially more violent or prone to feuding, etc.

    Well, the current working idea is that either cousin marriage was fairly prevalent across the board in those regions, or that it was generally more prevalent in the landowning classes. In the second case, since – through Gregory Clark’s internal population replacement – these folks would have been most successful, we may have ended up with a population that was a bit more clannish than the other English. The third possibility is introgression from the Welsh and/or Cornish. Or maybe more than one or all of these are at play.

    In fact the regions which you highlighted in purple were occupied by Brythonic language-speaking tribes in earlier times [prior to the Saxons]

    Thanks, good find. But the demographic landscape in Britain has been greatly historically altered by conquest and population replacement, so that may be of limited impact for the Cavaliers.

    And of course correlates closely with territory of royalists vs. parliamentarians in English Civil War

    Indeed. That’s not a coincidence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    You might mention black males in modern day America (right now) rape one hundred white females each and every day of the year, rain or shine. Black males are from eight to twenty times more likely to be infected with the AIDS virus than white males. Our prison population has tripled since the 1980's. Our prison population is eighty percent black.

    That brings to mind an interesting point. Black Americans share as most people with an HBD blog know a relatively large amount of European genes. One would think that would have had a pacifying effect on blacks, but if all or most of those genes came from unpacified white sex slave rapists than perhaps that explains in part why American blacks are more violent than one would expect.otherwise, you wouldmight have thought that slave life would select forpeacefulness…since the rebels didn’t survive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The 2nd amendment was also supported by New englanders who had a citizen militia tradition irrelevant to slavery. You’re not helping your essay with naked partisan crap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Did I say that the Second Amendment was only a Southern invention? Nonetheless, the Deep South was heavily responsible for the Second Amendment as it was made, as described in the link on the topic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Excellent post. I think you may well be correct that the regions of western England which the Cavaliers derived from may historically have been more similar to Wales and Cornwall in terms of mating patterns and culture [as opposed to Southern/Eastern England and the Midlands]. eg. potentially less outbred/more inbred, more clannish, potentially more violent or prone to feuding, etc.

    In fact the regions which you highlighted in purple were occupied by Brythonic language-speaking tribes in earlier times [prior to the Saxons]:
    And of course correlates closely with territory of royalists vs. parliamentarians in English Civil War:

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Thank you!

    Excellent post. I think you may well be correct that the regions of western England which the Cavaliers derived from may historically have been more similar to Wales and Cornwall in terms of mating patterns and culture [as opposed to Southern/Eastern England and the Midlands]. eg. potentially less outbred/more inbred, more clannish, potentially more violent or prone to feuding, etc.
     
    Well, the current working idea is that either cousin marriage was fairly prevalent across the board in those regions, or that it was generally more prevalent in the landowning classes. In the second case, since – through Gregory Clark's internal population replacement – these folks would have been most successful, we may have ended up with a population that was a bit more clannish than the other English. The third possibility is introgression from the Welsh and/or Cornish. Or maybe more than one or all of these are at play.

    In fact the regions which you highlighted in purple were occupied by Brythonic language-speaking tribes in earlier times [prior to the Saxons]
     
    Thanks, good find. But the demographic landscape in Britain has been greatly historically altered by conquest and population replacement, so that may be of limited impact for the Cavaliers.

    And of course correlates closely with territory of royalists vs. parliamentarians in English Civil War
     
    Indeed. That's not a coincidence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.