The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Cuckoo's Egg Babies in Europe Were Historically Rare, Except Among Urban Poor
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From The Guardian:

Who’s the daddy? Paternity mixed up in cities, study finds
Illegitimacy more likely over past 500 years among urban poor, say geneticists

Ian Sample Science editor

Thu 14 Nov 2019 12.15

The Romans had a phrase that summed it up nicely: mater semper certa est, pater semper incertus est. The mother is always certain, the father is always uncertain.

Now, researchers have found that some people have more reason to doubt their fathers than others, or at least have had over the past half millennium.

If the family tree is peppered with labourers and weavers who crammed into cities in the Industrial Revolution, a deep breath might be in order.

The scientists found that in western Europe over the past 500 years, births from extramarital couplings were as low as half a percent for farmers and the rural middle and upper classes – strata occupied by well-off merchants, lawyers, skilled craftsmen and the like.

But among the lower classes, populated with labourers and people without steady work, the rate of illegitimate births reached a peak of nearly 6% in the densely populated cities of the 19th century.

Maarten Larmuseau, who led the study at the Catholic University of Leuven, had anticipated more illegitimate children born into the higher echelons of society. After all, he notes, in paintings, plays and literature, dubious paternity controversies seem a particular affliction of the aristocracy. “I was surprised to see this signal so prominently,” he said. “It was not what I expected.”

Writing in Current Biology, Larmuseau describes how birth rates from extramarital sex were stable over the 500 years, standing at about 1% for Belgium and the Netherlands, despite their religious differences.

But the rates varied widely across different groups. Class had the greatest impact, with the rate falling from 4% in the lower classes to 1% in the middle and upper classes.

Where people lived had an impact too. Added together with class, the rates shifted to 0.5% among well-off country folk to 6% among the poorest in bustling cities.

This was measured by looking at pairs of distant male (apparent) cousins with the same surnames from the same forefather roughly 500 years ago. If there was no hanky-panky, they should both have the same Y-chromosome.

The sample size was 513 pairs, which sounds small, but you are looking at maybe 20 generations each, so the total sample size would be around 10,000 conceptions, with about 1% or 100 being cuckoo’s eggs.

There might be a slight downward bias from looking at males because it’s possible that the birth of a son might make a man more likely to marry or stay married to his son’s baby momma.

Then again, I can think of a number of highly successful men, such as Gerald Ford and Jeff Bezos, who were adopted by their mother’s second husbands, who proved to be fine stepdad.

Another methodological issue is that this 1% figure is probably depressed by survivor bias: Until 150 years or so ago, childhood mortality rates were huge, and were partially correlated with how much money dad brought in. If the husband had his reasons to suspect his wife’s fidelity, probably the chances that he’d one day walk out were higher, which could lower his nominal’s son’s chances of survival.

And yet another methodological issue that they might or might not have dealt with is that they can’t count multiple cuckoo’s eggs in the same line. Say they are looking at two distant nominal cousins, but they turn out discordant for the Y-chromosome. Was just one of the lineages over the last 20 generations discordant just once. What if both lineages were discordant three times? You might be able to adjust that with good math, I don’t know.

Okay, here’s another methodological issue: this tracks pairs of men who are both presumed by genealogists to have descended from about 20 generations of male line legitimacy. People who aren’t seen by genealogists as legitimate for the last 500 or so years aren’t in the study. For example, the late movie and opera director Franco Zeffirelli made a nice movie, Tea with Mussolini, about his upbringing as an illegitimate child of an adulterous affair between his biological parents, who were both married to somebody else at the time. Wikipedia says:

He was the result of an affair between Florentine Alaide Garosi, a fashion designer, and Ottorino Corsi, a wool and silk dealer from Vinci. Since both were married, Alaide was unable to use her surname or Corsi’s for her child. She came up with “Zeffiretti”, which are the “little breezes” mentioned in Mozart’s opera Idomeneo, of which she was quite fond. However, it was misspelled in the register and became Zeffirelli.

So a Zeffirelli wouldn’t be in the study.

My general perspective is that lots of people have rather complicated family histories. But this one thing that everybody talks about is one of the least likely forms of family history complication precisely because everybody talks about it.

 
Hide 277 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. nebulafox says:

    One particularly well-off illegitimate child was Leonardo Da Vinci. Walter Isaacson makes the case that being born out of wedlock helped spare him the fate of becoming an anonymous notary.

  2. Most of us can think of a highly successful Unz columnist who was adopted.

    • Replies: @Moshe
  3. Bill P says:

    People today are generally unaware of the prevalence of white prostitution in cities during the industrial revolution. It was rampant up to perhaps the 1920s.

    Combine that with the relatively crude methods of birth control and, presumably, scarcity of abortion providers, and it’s a wonder the numbers aren’t higher.

    Lots of men married prostitutes and adopted their kids in the West, where there weren’t many women to go around. Still happens, but it isn’t as common as it used to be, and the women can’t achieve respectability like they once could except in remote places like Alaskan fishing towns.

  4. Cortes says:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Kinship_in_East_London

    From memory there are a few cuckoo stories in that 1957 study.

    The presumption in Scots family law used to be “pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant”; a presumption which could be disapplied with appropriate evidence. Nowadays?

    • Replies: @Jake Barnes
  5. mater semper certa est, pater semper incertus est. The mother is always certain, the father is always uncertain.

    Or as a friend like to say, “Momma’s baby, daddy’s maybe.”

  6. I’ve done a good deal of genealogy and the addition of DNA evidence is very helpful.

    You can’t prove a negative. But I have connected with numerous cousins who could only be related through legitimate paternity back six or seven generations. On both sides of both sides of my tree.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Foreign Expert
  7. A study of Rosie The Riveters in WW II would be interesting, but there was a lot more availability of contraception and at least arguably ‘safe’ albeit illegal abortions in WWII.

  8. Whiskey says: • Website

    That’s the reverse of the US experience. On the frontier illegitimacy was not outside the norm and the Melengeons were descended from escaped Black make slaves and White women. In the 1680s. When White Women commanded a mate market premium.

  9. Also, this was the time of household servants. Lots of references to “the maid had to leave” in literature. As well, some young middle and upper class females had “extended visits to relatives”.

  10. Anon[384] • Disclaimer says:

    “Were as low as half a percent” vs. “reached a peak of nearly six percent”: without more information these two are not necessarily different.

    Sorry, a pet peeve, sort of like non-zero graph y-axis origins.

  11. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill P

    There was abortion back then. Frank Sinatra’s mother was known as “Hat Pin Dolly” and was busted for it a couple of times but never actually jailed. One of the reasons he really, really, really hated Kitty Kelley was that she brought this fact up. It was even at that time well known in Hoboken but the national press did not speak of it until then.

  12. Broglepup says:

    My friend never knew his father; he has his mother’s name. My cousin’s parents never married and so he had his mother’s name. Presidents Ford and Clinton had similar situations. Sometimes people are adopted by strangers. Occasionally a man would take his father-in-law’s name, upon marrying an heiress.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @Stan Adams
  13. Jeff Bezos stepdad was “good”? More likely Jeff’s stepdad was/is CIA.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  14. It would be interesting to see the surnames of the “upper class” that they studied.
    There’s upper class, then high above them is the elite ultra wealthy ruling class.
    The families that are never mentioned in the World’s Richest articles.
    They focus on individuals in those lists, so that you won’t see obscene wealth of those families.

  15. mater semper certa est, pater semper incertus est

    More succinctly put: Mommy’s baby, Daddy’s maybe?

  16. @Redneck farmer

    or went to a “finishing” school somewhere in Virginia.

  17. Don’t confuse three different issues– unwed father, unknown father, and false father. Even with the last, the stepfather may know the child isn’t his, especially if he marries her quickly to give the child a name, but the neighbors, children, and descendants may not.

    (I was told by a genealogist of French-Canadian that this was common in his community, with a couple’s first child. I hope not; my Scottish 3rd-great-grandfather ran off 30 miles to Detroit with his teenage bride.I hope he’s still mine.)

    It’s reassuring to know that adulterine bastardy– in which the wife actually cheats and cuckolds her husband– is that rare. But just 11 generations back, everyone has 1,024 ancestral couples (some repeated). That means around ten of them will have this– pardon the expression– issue.

    Someone researching blood tests in a major US city in the 1950s discovered to his horror that 10% of the children in his study could not have been the children of their putative fathers. (Which means that even more would not, in cases where there was no blood-group conflict.) He decided to bury his study.

    But my guess is that these data came from the sketchier precincts of that city. And not long after the war.

  18. Speaking of physical encounters I know one th g and that is that Black Men are irresistible to white girls

  19. @Broglepup

    Winston Churchill didn’t have the Y-chromosome of his beloved ancestor John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough. John and Sarah Churchill didn’t have any male heirs but their daughter married a Spencer (as in Princess Di), and their heirs were Spencer-Churchill, but Randolph and Winston used just Churchill for their political careers, maybe because it sounds Anglo-Saxon rather than the Norman-sounding Spencer.

  20. syonredux says:
    @Whiskey

    Another reason why New England was superior: more White women. In the Massachusetts Bay colony, the sex ratio was nearly 50/50.

  21. Lot says:

    “ least likely forms of family history ”

    1% isn’t nothing over time. Chances are one of your 64 4x great-grandparents would be from a different father than recorded.

    Also, as you note, the study doesn’t capture where the same non-marital father sired both sons. Nor would it include instances of infidelity with a brother, brother’s son, or paternal uncle.

  22. syonredux says:
    @Whiskey

    On the frontier illegitimacy was not outside the norm

    Bastardy and cuckoldry are not the same thing.

  23. Lot says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    “ my Scottish 3rd-great-grandfather ran off 30 miles to Detroit”

    I think you are missing some zeros there. 30 miles will get you to Carlisle or the outskirts of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  24. Haha says:
    @Cedric Jefferson

    But the cheating would show up as soon as the baby came out!

  25. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:

    “It is a wise child who knows his own father.”
    ~ Act 2, Scene 2 of The Merchant of Venice

  26. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Henry

    back six or seven generations

    I haven’t done the math, but isn’t everyone a “cousin” of everyone else in the world at that remove? Except for Andaman Islanders, and Keven Bacon, who isn’t related to anyone.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  27. Buck says:

    This study was conducted on a past society which was highly religious, structured and had relatively low mobility. All I can imagine is this study in 500 more years. It makes me think humans have already apexed. If diversity is our strength, we are rapidly screwing ourselves out of genetic diversity.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
  28. nymom says:

    It was recently found when they discovered the burial remains of former King Richard III, that there had been a ‘cuckoo egg’ event back in the original line; maybe dating as far back as his grandfather. To verify this they would have had to dig up and test further the remains of a few past Kings, but the current royal family gave a firm no and that was that.

    So who knows really. The royal family of Britain could have been originally sired by a cute stable hand for all we know. Probably equivalent to today’s pool boy…

    Oh well!

  29. @John Henry

    Indeed. Brevity is the soul of wit.

  30. songbird says:

    I’m guessing it wasn’t all cuckolding. I recall reading a funny entry in an old parish register.

    The priest noted that the “mother” was in her fifties, and that the baby seemed stronger than it should be, based on how old he was told it was. It was apparently eager, more so than other children present, to hold the reigns of his horse.

  31. @Steve Sailer

    Winston Churchill didn’t have the Y-chromosome of his beloved ancestor John Churchill

    Several levels below Sir Winston on the class food chain is Elvis Presley, with a similar story. His grandfather was one of ten children born out-of-wedlock and bearing their mother’s surname. Which is not of the usual Scottish derivation, but from the German Presslar.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Sam Coulton
  32. Alden says:
    @Bill P

    The miners came in 49
    The whores in 51
    And between the two of them
    They made a Native Son

    • LOL: Rosie
  33. newrouter says:

    >Illegitimacy more likely over past 500 years among urban poor, say geneticists<

    clickbait bs with an appeal to "authority".

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  34. @Lot

    I think you are missing some zeros there. 30 miles will get you to Carlisle or the outskirts of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.

    He was born in England to Scottish parents, who brought him to Nigg (!) the next year. He didn’t stay there.

  35. anonymous[391] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    That being said Elvis had much more access to beautiful women than Winston.

    Life is a lot less unfair than we think it is.

    Of course, you couldn’t pay me a billion dollars to switch with Elvis with respect to the women in our life.

    Or Churchill.

    Can you imagine waking up to Winnie every morning?

  36. @Cortes

    I believe in the US (at least in the two states where I have applied for birth certificates) the presumption is similar — if a woman was married to a man in the year preceding the birth of a child then that man is presumed to be the father. If he isn’t, I gather there’s some more complicated process to establish another man’s paternity.

    • Replies: @Alden
  37. Elli says:

    One of my family lines becomes untraceable when it reaches “the widow Trask” who had five children during her widowhood. The firstborn, possibly a true posthumous Trask; the others, no.

    There is a confounding factor in that the biological father in a non-paternal event can still be a male-line relative. Daniel Boone is said to have accepted a child fathered by his brother during an absence so long he was thought dead. “If the name’s the same, it’s all the same.”

    • Replies: @Cortes
  38. A lot of famous men had dubious parentage in ancient times, for example Moses and Jesus, Romulus and Remus.

    Of course virgin birth was much more common in those times and there was a general feeling that outstanding people of distinction could not really be who they seemed to be. Moses could not really be an Egyptian prince, could he (?), so maybe his mother found him in the bulrushes–yes, that makes sense.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @dearieme
  39. @Bill P

    Lots of men had second families, and sometimes these women were already with another man or got with another man shortly after the illegitimate child was born. My great grandfather had an affair & had a child as a consequence (I’m from the legitimate line, who was totally unaware of any of this until about a decade ago) then basically arranged for a young soldier to marry his mistress. He provided pretty well for that whole family until the kid was a teenager and they moved across the country. He was a very wealthy man for the time- worth a few million. This was during the late 30s.

    • Replies: @Bill P
    , @Reg Cæsar
  40. Ano says:
    @Cedric Jefferson

    Hello Tiny (sorry, I mean Cedric),

    Just did an image search.
    Nice mugshot.
    Pity there aren’t any white girls to share your cell with.

  41. James Joyce considers this problem of who-knows-who-is-really-your-father in Ulysses. Of course, he considers about 10 million other things in Ulysses.

  42. I’m surprised Steve doesn’t tie this in with inbreeding. Every single one of us is the product of a lot of inbreeding, and even a lot of things that aren’t quite inbreeding but today seem icky today (e.g. second-cousins marrying, distant cousins raised as your “ward” until they come of age and you marry them, etc.).

    The Catholic Church put a huge stop to all this when it could (even excommunicated a famous, saintly king for a while when he married his first cousin). Eventually , Europe got the idea that cousin-marrying was bad, but most of the rest of the world still is more lax on the issue.

    It might be said that, in terms of pure gene movement, the Catholic/Orthodox Church has three great legacies: (1) ending consanguineous couplings/forcing outbreeding; (2) the war on murder and other violence-prone persons; and (3) voluntary genetic removal of whole swaths of the population (Priests/Monks/Nunneries).

    While celibacy is attacked today, and was by Protestants during the Reformation and beyond, I would love a large-scale historical-genetic study on how large celibacy groups (e.g. Catholicism/Orthodox Monks/Buddhist Monks) might have contributed to various civilizational properties later taken for granted. How did taking those genes out of the pool affect how other genes spread in that society?

    My hypothesis: it has the some similar effect of an invasion (genes taken out in large numbers), but those genes remain around to contribute in non-reproductive ways, such as art, philosophy, morale, science, etc.

    • Replies: @Emilia
    , @Bigby
  43. Altai [AKA "Altai_3"] says:

    Steve, you should retitle the post to ‘historically rare and substantially rarer among the rural and upper classes’. 4% is still not common.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  44. Wilkey says:

    Bezos knows very well that his biological father wasn’t surnamed Bezos, just as Steve Jobs, Bill Clinton, and Gerald Ford all knew their surnames weren’t from their biological fathers. Which raises the point that one thing these mass studies can’t determine is the number of cases where surnames don’t match up with Y chromosomes not because of cuckoos eggs, but because of children who have knowingly taken their stepfathers’ surnames, which used to be very common – perhaps even the rule, even in cases where the biological father was an honorable man who just happened to die when their child was still quite young. My guess is those cases outnumber, and by a wide margin, real cases of cuckoldry.

    • Replies: @Emilia
    , @Steve Sailer
    , @Cortes
  45. gcochran says:
    @Anon

    2^7 = 128.

    • LOL: Blinky Bill
    • Replies: @Anon
  46. Emilia says:
    @Wilkey

    There’s also adoption – including “grandparental adoption,” whereby the mother of a girl pregnant out of wedlock would pretend the resulting baby was her own. That might inflate the number of children believed to be born of extramarital affairs.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  47. @Buck

    I don’t think you factored in modern babykilling-on-demand-paid-for-by-insurance, The Pill, and low birth rate/feminism.

  48. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    In row house Catholic neighborhoods such as the ones my paternal grandparents inhabited, (theirs was in south Chicago, St. Francis de Sales parish, but Philly and Pittsburgh and Cleveland and several other cities had almost indistinguishable ones too) priests then as now honored their vows of chastity in the breach at times, but unlike today, usually it was with married housewives, for several reasons. This meant that a certain proportion of the Fathers were fathers, and in those pre-DNA days, no one knew.

    The average Catholic priest was higher IQ than the average steel mill or brick plant or aircraft plant worker. And he was exposed to few more serious industrial toxins than church incense smoke so he probably had less chance of genetic mutation from that source.

    I doubt seriously that a large percentage of the children were sired by priests, but it might have been one or two percent if a parish had a really randy reverend. Those kids might have been disproportionally bright though.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  49. @Broglepup

    I have my mother’s name and my father has his stepfather’s. His mother told him the truth of his origins on her deathbed.

  50. Anon[250] • Disclaimer says:
    @gcochran

    Thanks. Calling Dr. Evil.

    You computed the maximum number of great g g g g grandparents, each of whom could have a spouse, children and children-in-law, grandchildren, and so on down and across. Assuming no duplicates, 90 percent marriage, one spouse each, and an average of three children, how many cousins from cousin german through seventh cousins? Extra credit for the number through seventh cousins third removed.

    (This was on the GRE last year.)

  51. Alden says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    About 20 years ago the French national health service did the same study with new borns and their parents but with DNA. Results were kept completely confidential. Parents weren’t told the real purpose of the study was to verify paternity Parents were told the purpose was to test for genetic diseases. 10% of the babies were not the children of the man who thought he was their father.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Emilia
    , @gcochran
  52. Alden says:
    @Jake Barnes

    You’re right born in wedlock or 9 months after the date of the divorce, the husband is the legal father. DNA might change that.

  53. Alden says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    How many children did Zeus have with mortal women? Several I believe

    • Replies: @reactionry
  54. @Anonymous

    That would be a good story for why Bruce Springsteen didn’t get along with his dad: his real father was the smart, poetic priest. (Is Springsteen Catholic?)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Bardon Kaldian
  55. Anonymous[344] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: I don’t know if this was covered on here last year, but I just ran across an article about South Korean academics naming their children as coauthors to increase their chances of undergraduate admission.

    link to original 2018 article
    link to original recent article

  56. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    (Is Springsteen Catholic?)

    That’s like asking if the Pope is Catholic. Nominally by definition yes.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  57. @Reg Cæsar

    Imagine actually believing this schizophrenic bullshit.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  58. Bruno says:

    Myheritage showed that a grand-daughter of my grand-fathers sister has 3.25% genes in common with me, and they had no bio evidence of any links between us. I didn’t know she had passed the test :

    That means my grand-father and her sister had exactly the same two parents. Her son was really her son. And the girl was really her fathers daughter. My mother is really her parents daughter . And I am really my mums son. As my sister and me share 50% genes, we have also the same father.

    So this link with a once removed cousin (25% grand-father, 12,5% grand -aunt, 6,25% her son, my mum’s cousin, 3,1275%, this cousin daughter, my once removed cousin) validates big part of the tree (grznd father, grand grand father probably except if it was twice a neighbour, and the descendants).

  59. Bruno says:

    And my paternal grand-father had an illegitimate dad. His mother was a maid in a castle and was impregnated by the Lord son in Auvergne at age 19 yo and she was dismissed . She went back in the alps were she came from the poorest farm workers family.

    Allegedly my grand father went to see this Lord when he enlisted in the French army and was greeted with a gun. The guy told him that he would shot him for extorsion if he vale back. Everyone noticed because they were phenotypically the same giant brown hair men with electric blue eyes.

    I say thanks for the genes to this giant Lord !

  60. Kronos says:
    @Redneck farmer

    One of my favorite lines in the Harry Flashman series (Bismarck Book) is Flashman potentially siring a kid with a maid while impersonating royalty. He ponders that the child may think he’s of a royal line but is actually an “ignorant bastard.”

  61. @Wilkey

    How common was it 250 years ago for orphans whose widowed mothers remarried to take their stepfathers’ surnames? The only test case I could think of was George Washington’s stepchildren, who didn’t.

    OK, Isaac Newton’s father died before he was born. His mother remarried, but Isaac didn’t assume his stepfather’s name.

    • Replies: @Bill P
    , @Flip
    , @Lot
  62. We’d never know Freddy Mercury was adopted if he hadn’t blurted it out in “Another One Bites the Dust”.

    • Replies: @schnellandine
  63. Bill P says:
    @S. Anonyia

    Right. This kind of thing wasn’t “common,” but it wasn’t exactly rare, either. In a lot of cases people made arrangements for the mother and the child, and raised the kid without talking about it,. So I don’t think it was usually the case that the husband was cuckolded and never had a clue. For one thing, it’s really hard for a woman to hide an affair because it causes obvious changes in her behavior, and also because other women will usually tell on her. It takes a remarkably mercenary and cunning woman to carry on with several men at once without betraying herself, so in most cases of extramarital liaisons women would either get caught or run off with the lover, which was quite common in the 19th century.

    More typical was the unmarried woman who made a “mistake” and was made right by marrying a guy who was willing to take on the role of father to the child. However, just to be clear, mistresses are prostitutes. I have known several, and they carry on with lovers other than their benefactors, so the rich man who pays for it when his mistress gets pregnant is a lot more likely than a husband to be a cuckold.

    In fact, if you’re a cynical and handsome young man, carrying on with a rich man’s mistress can be a profitable pastime if you can get used to the idea of sharing a woman. Never suited me, but some of us just aren’t cut out for pimping.

  64. Moshe says:
    @reactionry

    If you mean “israel” shamir, we Jews never adopted him. He, like other 5th column pseudo-jews of late, kind of foisted his goy gamur ass upon us so that he could be in the tent pissing…in

    I’m joking though, I know who you mean 🙂

    I can totally see why writing about it could be something he’s wary of doing lest it become a red herring idee fixe for his ideological enemies but I still wish he’d come out of the closet and talk about the subject openly, including where he thinks it may and may not have influenced his interests and thoughts, as well as where he thinks he may be biased (e.g. perhaps some sensitivity to presumed jewish tribal loyalty because he grew up thinking that he was abandoned by his jewish parents) or not, and what he’s found out from 23andMe type tests or, if he hasn’t done it despite his fascination with the subject generally.

    But again, in addition to whatever personal reasons he may have not to open up too much about this I can see why he might not want to bring attention to it for professional reasons, as I said.

    • Replies: @reactionry
    , @Dissident
  65. Bill P says:
    @Steve Sailer

    250 years ago it wouldn’t be common because widows and their children have a special, protected status in Christianity, and there was no advantage in hiding it for her or her new husband. The real blunder in Anglo society was extending this special status to all unmarried mothers equally. I’m sure people saw it as a benevolent reform at the time, but over the last 50 years we’ve seen that the consequences have been less than ideal.

    • Agree: Autochthon
  66. @Anonymous

    Right, it’s hard to imagine Springsteen as Low Church.

    Although U-2 actually were kind of Low Church evangelical Protestants, but they grew up in mostly High Church Catholic Ireland, so their most characteristic stuff (e.g., “Gloria”) is pretty High Church:

  67. Emilia says:
    @R.G. Camara

    Just a little note: Orthodox priests are allowed to marry, although only before their ordination. It’s kind of a “middle way” between the Protestant and Catholic traditions on priests and celibacy.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @R.G. Camara
  68. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden

    French national health service … 10% of the babies were not the children of the man who thought he was their father.

    This just sounds more reasonable to me. Maybe it’s because I’m interested in birds (aka dinosaurs), and DNA studies of eggs in nests have turned up really high rates of mixed fathers. Of course, I realize that birds are not humans.

  69. Emilia says:
    @Alden

    Do you have a reference for that? Another French (published) study put that number at 2.8%.

    • Replies: @Anon
  70. dearieme says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    A lot of famous men had dubious parentage in ancient times, for example Moses and Jesus, Romulus and Remus

    Unlike the other three, Jesus might well have existed. If so his father was Joseph. Intrusion of a Greek yarn about a God fathering a child by a human woman is obvious bollocks in a tale about a Jewish milieu.

    • Replies: @nymom
  71. I always thought Bono was Catholic based on his windup intro for Sinatra:

    However, we see from Wikipedia this isn’t so.

    Bono was born in the Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, on 10 May 1960. He was raised in the Northside suburb of Finglas with his brother (who is eight years older than Bono) by their mother, Iris (née Rankin), a member of the Church of Ireland, and their father, Brendan Robert “Bob” Hewson, a Roman Catholic. His parents initially agreed that the first child would be raised Anglican and the second Catholic.[23] Although Bono was the second child, he also attended Church of Ireland services with his mother and brother.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  72. @Reg Cæsar

    Don’t confuse three different issues– unwed father, unknown father, and false father.

    Yeah, this crossed my mind, too.

    For instance, in contemporary Scandinavian counties many children are born outside of marriage, perhaps 20-50%, but in most cases father is very well known (and he contributes to the child’s upbringing).

    Cuckoldry & unknown father are, on the other hand, completely different things.

  73. @Bill P

    Vincent Van Gogh, son of a Protestant pastor, lived with a pregnant Catholic prostitute and her daughter (and eventual son) for nearly two years. The woman was the only live-in partner Van Gogh ever had and it is assummed that she infected him with gonorrhea in 1882. His brother Theo died from the effects of syphilis in 1890, most likely contracted in a brothel.

  74. Cortes says:
    @Elli

    That’s reasonable.

    Perhaps the best rationale for the agnatic family is access to the incoming women of childbearing age and the original core expression may be the ?surviving practice in remote, marginal areas of

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

  75. Cortes says:
    @Wilkey

    There used to be the conditional legacy acceptable by the beneficiary adopting the (seriously wealthy) testator’s surname. “Carrying on the family name” was a big deal. I meandered through the Schuyler family references on Wikipedia recently and there was at least one incidence.

    • Replies: @Anon
  76. @Bill P

    True. When I was reading about old West (South-West) in “classical” era, 1865-1900, I was astonished by the fact that prostitution was not only prevalent, but simply a way of life.

    Wyatt Earp’s common law wife, Josephine Marcus, had two miscarriages, with him, because she was syphilitic (on the other hand, she lived, I think, over 90). And most women, from our contemporary perspective, looked very unattractive.

  77. “The sample size was 513 pairs, which sounds small, but you are looking at maybe 20 generations each, so the total sample size would be around 10,000 conceptions”

    But… that’s still a very small number from which to start generalising about different social classes – and indicator perhaps. You wouldn’t bet a lot on a political poll with those numbers, but we can be sure Guardianistas will take that 6% figure as holy writ – the science is settled!

    There’s a famous (probably apocryphal) description of cuckooing in the old ballad “Queen Eleanor’s Confession”, about Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine.

    Queen Eleanor was a sick woman and sick like for to die
    And she has sent for two friars of France to come to her speedily

    The King called down his nobles all, by one, by two, by three
    Earl Marshal, I’ll go shrive the Queen and thou shalt wend with me

    A boon, a boon, quoth Earl Marshal, and fell on his bended knee
    That whatsoever the Queen may say, no harm thereof may be

    Oh, you put on a grey friar’s gown and I’ll put on another
    And we will away to fair London town like friars both together

    Oh no, oh no, my Liege, my King, Such things can never be
    For if the Queen hears word of this hanged she’ll cause me to be

    I swear by the sun, I swear by the moon, and by the stars so high
    And by my scepter and my crown, Earl Marshal shall not die

    The Queen confesses to losing her virginity to Earl Marshall, to poisoning the King’s mistress Rosamund, and to keeping poison to kill the King.

    Oh that was a vile sin, quoth the king, May God forgive it thee
    Amen, amen, groaned the Earl Marshall, and a frightened man was he

    Finally the Queen confesses that one of her children is by the Earl Marshal, and she loves him much more than her child by Henry. This is too much for him.

    Then the King pulled off his grey friar’s gown, and stood in his scarlet red,
    Queen Eleanor turned herself in bed and cried she was betrayed.

    The King looked over his left shoulder, and a grim look look-ed he,
    “Earl Marshal”, he said, “But for my oath, or hanged thou should’st be!”

  78. Anon 2 says:

    OT: Houellebecq’s Serotonin will be released in the United States on November 19.
    No one is as good at describing spiritual malaise as Houellebecq so the book will be
    a fine companion in the upcoming holiday season/sar

  79. @John Henry

    I also have several dna matches going back six or seven generations. That’s a lot of marriages without infidelity. I also have two or three cousins who “shouldn’t “ exist.

  80. Anon[211] • Disclaimer says:
    @Whiskey

    In a lot of states up until the 1950’s or early 60’s whites couldn’t legally marry blacks, Asians (I’m assuming the term used was Oriental), or Filipinos (I guess they considered Flips not under the Asian category because they aren’t really Oriental). I assume with anti-miscegenation laws banning interracial marriage that sexual relations between races was also considered verboten.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_Stat

    It’s amazing that in 1958 around 95% of people disapproved of interracial marriage while today only about 10-15% disapprove (or at least admit to disapproving).

    In my area of the country in a highly-educated, upper-middle class New England area it’s almost as common to see middle-aged white/Asian (NE Asian) married couples as it is to see white/white ones. I would guess that disapproval of interracial marriage in my area would be roughly 0%.

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
  81. Only grotesquely insecure, inferior to everyone, Caucasian trash morons believe this shit.

  82. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @Emilia

    @Alden

    Do you have a reference for that? Another French (published) study put that number at 2.8%.

    Battle of the unreferenced claims! Who will capitulate first and provide a link? Or will a third party chime in with a new unreferenced percentage?

    Translation of Emilia’s comment:
    Would you sit down and spend 20 minutes on Google or Google Scholar and try to find me a reference for what you said, although there is nothing preventing me from doing it myself? By the way, another published study put the rate at 2.8 percent, I seem to recall … I don’t have time to look it up, and the whole matter is just not that important to me. I wonder what’s happening over at TMZ …

    • Replies: @Emilia
  83. @SaneClownPosse

    See, they wouldn’t tell you that on here. Guess why.

  84. Aj7575 says:

    I wonder what analysis on East Asian cultures would yield. The Japanese are famous for male adult adoptions when there is no suitable heir. Similarly a Chinese family with no sons would “adopt” an infant or baby from a poor family.

  85. @newrouter

    Good observation. Right on the money. I forget to use that word clickbait to describe most of the bate on here. Thanks for reminding me.

  86. @the one they call Desanex

    We’d never know Freddy Mercury was adopted if he hadn’t blurted it out in “Another One Bites the Dust”.

    Um… What?

  87. Clyde says:

    Who blew up de Unz? Who? Who? Who?

  88. Jack D says:

    OT – No Noose is Good Noose:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/nyregion/clinton-hill-halloween-decorations.html

    Obligatory Halloween noose story. White people forced to apologize.

    The other evening, I attended a community hearing in West Philly in relation to a zoning matter. At some point in the evening a black woman stood up and gave a long rant about how slaves had built all of America, including Philadelphia. Naturally, I didn’t want to get, ahem, lynched, so I didn’t point out to her and the audience that Pennsylvania abolished slavery in 1780, even before the Revolution concluded.

  89. AndrewR says:

    “son’s baby momma”

    I think you just mean “baby momma.”

    • Replies: @Alden
  90. Flip says:
    @Steve Sailer

    One of my great grandfather’s father died when he was a baby and his mother quickly remarried and had more children with her new husband. His name was changed to his stepfather’s name. He only had daughters so that name died out, but had he been my paternal ancestor, I might have considered changing my name to the genetically accurate name.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  91. @donvonburg

    His parents initially agreed that the first child would be raised Anglican and the second Catholic.

    The Reagan brothers were in a similar position:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Reagan#Life_and_career
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Religion

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  92. @Sam Coulton

    Do you have a source which contradicts the established genealogy, or are you just shooting off your mouth keyboard touchscreen?

  93. Cuckoo’s Egg Babies in Europe Were Historically Rare, Except Among Urban Poor

    They pretty much have to be for a civilized society.

    Trying to condense civilization down to a sentence:

    Civilization is men agreeing to and enforcing one-to-a-customer monogamy so that they can stop spending all their cycles fighting and mate guarding and cooperate to focus male energy on productive efforts, resulting in more, healthier and better skilled children and the invention of all the great stuff–from written language and chariots to airplanes and Internet–that we have.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  94. @Altai

    “Steve, you should retitle the post to ‘historically rare and substantially rarer among the rural and upper classes’. “

    And most of the UK was rural until the late 19thc i.e. at least 17 out of those 20 generations.

  95. HA says:

    Does the study assume that cuckoo-egg children have a similar TFR to the rest? That need not be the case. A father might well show preferential treatment to those children he strongly feels are his own and slight and mistreat the one who looks like the landlord who has been inordinately forgiving about the rent always being late. For that matter, the mother might also resent the “mistake”.

    And for whatever reason a child becomes a black sheep (note that folk literature is rife not just with cuckoo-egg children, but also with cruel stepfathers and stepmothers who show preferential treatment to “their” children), that will affect the odds of that child being able and willing to create a family of his or her own.

    In other words, there may be more such children here than are being counted, but because they are more likely to have to make their own way in the world, and therefore procure a living in some high-risk profession (military, prostitution, sailing), they are less likely to leave descendants behind.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  96. Bryan says:

    This would suggest that the level of mate-guarding activity should be higher in equilibrium among poor men in urban environments. Was it? It seems we have lots of stories about guys slapping their wives around in Hell’s Kitchen or wherever. Maybe they didn’t engage in enough of it.

    Or, possibly, that they engaged in sub-optimal mate-guarding activity because they didn’t know how high the risk was. Or, maybe it was efficiently higher in the city, but that the much higher exposure of mates to potential competitors still resulted in higher levels of cuckoldry.

    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
  97. @HA

    Bingo.

    Delayed my family formation 15-20 years. Was a close run thing to have happened at all. By traditional mores I’d have had the benefit of legitimacy. Not so much in Jaffeworld.

  98. El Dato says:

    Meanwhile in the Netherlands, Social Justice Tweeters who follow the stereotype of the imported eurowokster to a T protest against traditional St. Niklaus blackface:

  99. @Reg Cæsar

    In America, usually the mom wins because she takes the kids to church.

    That sounds like that was essentially the situation in the Bono household as well.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    , @GermanReader2
  100. El says:

    This conclusion does not take into account that the upper and middle class men went to the lower class women for casual sex. As they the saying goes: “Sex is the Currency of the Poor.” And “The attractive poor girls will be our mistresses.” Also, the modern birth control movement was started by a nurse, Margaret Sanger, who attended poor women in birth labor and saw the results of dangerous illegal abortions. She wondered why this was not the case with the upper class women; and found that the upper class women had access to birth control and safe abortion done by medical doctors. At that time, women were clueless as to how to keep from getting pregnant. It was illegal to educate women about sex. Margaret Sanger had to leave the United States to avoid prosecution for distributing educational pamphlets to women about sex and pregnancy. It took one hundred years before birth control became legal in the United States.

  101. gcochran says:
    @Emilia

    The study he referred to does not exist. It is an urban legend.

    I think it’s interesting how so many people are still sure that cuckoldry was far more common than 1% – even though they are provably wrong.

    There is actually an interesting caveat, but no one here is mentioning it.

  102. @El

    “At that time, women were clueless as to how to keep from getting pregnant”

    LOL.

    • Agree: Autochthon
  103. gcochran says:
    @Alden

    Not true, never happened.

  104. Given the chaos and chronic sickness and death of pre-germ-theory cities — when your notables like Bachs and Beethovens were dying like flies — I’d say that 6 percent sounds on the low side.

  105. Art Deco says:
    @AnotherDad

    No, she wins that round. Richard John Neuhaus used to cite social research on the point. Children tend follow their father’s religious practice. It’s not even close. The margin is > 4:1. (Also, the frequency of religious observance doesn’t differ much between men and women in the U.S.).

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @AnotherDad
  106. Art Deco says:
    @El

    She wondered why this was not the case with the upper class women; and found that the upper class women had access to birth control and safe abortion done by medical doctors.

    Cue Mandy Rice-Davies.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Lurker
  107. Emilia says:
    @gcochran

    I suspected as much. Let’s see if Anonymous can provide the source for the French study that purportedly found that 10% of French newborns had “fathers” not biologically related to them. We shall see.

  108. @Bryan

    Most of these cuckolded men’s genes were in rural environments just a couple generations earlier. No way for mate-guarding habits to adjust toward a new equilibrium appropriate for the urban environment in that time.

  109. Art Deco says:
    @Jack D

    James Baldwin, who had fewer excuses than this woman, once went on a rant which included the phrase, “If I hadn’t built the railroads for nothing”. The railway mileage in place in Southern states in 1860 amounted to about 2% of the total mileage in place in 1920 (and one doesn’t imagine that railroads were relying entirely on slave labor to built their antebellum Southern network).

    • Replies: @GermanReader2
  110. A group of my ancestors in southwestern Virginia in the mid-1800s were some kind of German Anabaptists. They married cousins for several generations. I found one whole set of siblings, 8 or 10, who all married first cousins, but they were careful not to marry double first cousins, of which there were many. 23andme will identify inbreeding by detecting autosomal homozygosity, but I don’t have a higher-than-average amount. Five subsequent generations seem to have been enough to wash it out. I did find a collateral ancestor from that group who had six fingers on one hand (it was on his WW I draft card.)

    There were two “non-paternity events” in a row in my paternal line. Grandpa’s biological father was a rake-hell politician (but I repeat myself). His mother married a couple years after his birth and he took the stepfather’s name. But the stepfather himself was also born out of wedlock. The stepfather kept his mother’s last name, and he has no living descendants that I could get Y-DNA from, so I have no way to find out who his biological father was.

    Then there’s my great-grandfather who had 17 kids by three different wives, none of whom he legally divorced. It was not a surprise when I got several 2nd-cousin-level 23andme matches to putatively unrelated people in the area of western NC where he sowed his seed so generously.

    • Replies: @Dtbb
  111. GermanReader2 [AKA "GermanReader2_new"] says:
    @AnotherDad

    I know several women who made the following deal with their husbands when they married:
    She would take on her husband’s name and in exchange the children would be baptised in her denomination.

  112. GermanReader2 [AKA "GermanReader2_new"] says:
    @Art Deco

    James Baldwin, who had fewer excuses than this woman, once went on a rant which included the phrase, “If I hadn’t built the railroads for nothing”. The railway mileage in place in Southern states in 1860 amounted to about 2% of the total mileage in place in 1920 (and one doesn’t imagine that railroads were relying entirely on slave labor to built their antebellum Southern network).

    Do a lot of Americans really think, that the railroads were built by slaves? I read in several publications that they were built mainly by the Irish (and the Chinese in California), because no slave-owner would risk the lives of his slaves (who were his capital!) in such a dangerous and arduous task.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  113. Anon[158] • Disclaimer says:

    Sexual cheating among lower-class women is a social climbing strategy. If the lower-class woman’s only mate prospects are lower-class men, her life will be spent in Loserville, and she knows it. Therefore, she tries to latch onto a man from the higher classes. He might, just might, dump his wife and decide to live with his mistress, which automatically creates more security for her and her offspring. Lawrence of Arabia’s father did this. The father was an English lord, and it was the scandal of the day. The father had 4 daughters by his first marriage and 5 sons by his mistress, so you can see that there was an odd gender response to this sort of mating strategy. Possibly the 4 daughters may have encouraged the father to be promiscuous to achieve a son.

    The other part of this strategy is that even if you don’t get a superior husband, you can get a superior child who can pull his mother out of poverty. For example, Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos were both adopted. Having a kid with superior genes who will make something of himself is a much better deal in life than having a loser kid.

    If you can’t make a superior husband latch onto you, the next best thing is to create a superior kid. A husband may not stick around with a mate, but a child nearly always will, and a winner in the family benefits the whole family. At the very least, they usually have extra resources they can use to get other family members out of trouble, and they can sometimes give jobs and opportunities to other family members who can’t make it by their own efforts.

    Darwin would understand this.

  114. @Emilia

    There’s also adoption – including “grandparental adoption,” whereby the mother of a girl pregnant out of wedlock would pretend the resulting baby was her own. That might inflate the number of children believed to be born of extramarital affairs.

    Good point.

    My guess would be that–back in the day–the overwhelming majority of “premature conceptions” simply resulted in marriage to the father. But young women’s judgement isn’t always on target, as well as actual rapes, so there may be more of these were the father took off or refused to acknowledge and marry.

    If the record keeping is fuzzy or there was intentional mispresentation, then some number of “looks like cuckoldry” hits are really just illegitimate births to daughters.

    • Replies: @Emilia
  115. Lot says:
    @Art Deco

    I think AD’s observation is truer after 1940 or so when men became more secular than women.

    For Catholic-Protestant marriages, Catholicism would often win out because it had quality schools that were cheap in general compared to secular or protestant private schools, and had additional subsidies based on income and number of siblings attending.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  116. Corvinus says:
    @AnotherDad

    “Civilization is men agreeing to and enforcing one-to-a-customer monogamy so that they can stop spending all their cycles fighting and mate guarding and cooperate to focus male energy on productive efforts, resulting in more, healthier and better skilled children and the invention of all the great stuff–from written language and chariots to airplanes and Internet–that we have.”

    That is classic SJW inspired, ivory tower, virtue signaling.

    • Agree: Sam Coulton
    • Disagree: Lot
    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
  117. @Jack D

    The other evening, I attended a community hearing in West Philly in relation to a zoning matter. At some point in the evening a black woman stood up and gave a long rant about how slaves had built all of America, including Philadelphia.

    Having to listen to this sort of utter nonsense from blacks, is one of the clear markers for the decline of this nation. There was a time–not very long ago–where white people could and would refuse to humor black stupidity/aggression and were unafraid to–even if politely–speak truth and censure black misbehavior.

    Naturally, I didn’t want to get, ahem, lynched, so I didn’t point out to her and the audience that Pennsylvania abolished slavery in 1780, even before the Revolution concluded.

    Remember Jack, if someone starts braying about their ancestors in slavery, you can pull out your “2nd generation Holocaust survivor” card. May not trump ’em, but it will generate confusion and give you an opportunity to make a run for it.

    (I got nothing but my 4th generation potato famine survivor card–laughing just thinking about the concept–and boringly that was caused by a fungus rather than an official evil white male.)

  118. Very interesting. Here’s a quickie: It was only a few years ago–nearly thirty years after my father passed away– after rummaging through some old papers that I found out that the man whom I thought was my late father’s older brother (whom I never met because he died before I was born) was in fact his HALF-brother! My father found this out only when my grandmother made what amounts to a deathbed confession–years after the man whom he thought was his biological sibling died (It seems as though as a young girl she had an affair and as a result she became a victim of a “hit and run” so to speak). My grandfather became his stepfather and from what I understand, and to his credit, raised him like he was his biological offspring.

    Who knows how many other skeletons are rattling away, not only my own family’s closet but in the closets of just about everyone’s family because, as iSteve puts it, “everyone probably has a complicated family history.”

  119. @Lot

    “Catholicism would often win out because it had quality schools that were cheap in general compared to secular or protestant private schools”

    There’s also the small matter that if a man wants to marry a Catholic girl in a Catholic church, he must promise that the kids are raised as Catholics.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  120. Lot says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Depends on the age of the widow, her children, and the extent of the dead father’s parents’ involvement in their life versus the step grandparents.

    In the US context, in the three cases of widows remarrying in my family, the kids took the name of the stepfather in 1. In the rename case, the widow was in her 20s with 2 young children and had several more with her new native born husband. No grandparental issue since the widow and first husband were immigrants.

    The other two cases, the kids were at least 10 and mother over 40, and had no further children.

    As for 250 years ago, I don’t know about the surname issue. However, in Germany in the 1600-1850 period I examined a lot of raw Lutheran church records, widows under 50 and widowers under 60 tended to remarry at a very high rate and pretty quickly.

    As a sign pressure to remarry was high, the age gaps had a higher average than first marriages. Widowed 62 year old with widowed 40 year old woman, or sometimes reversed with the widowed new wife a bit older than the new husband.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  121. @S. Anonyia

    Lots of men had second families, and sometimes these women were already with another man or got with another man shortly after the illegitimate child was born.

    My kids have many more cousins than we thought. Their grandmother’s “biological” father, who was thrown out by grandma while she was pregnant with their second daughter, was busy siring children with several other women at the time. My half-aunts-in-law and their half-brothers are popping up on Ancestry.com. Through DNA, not records.

    The cad was of pure Scandinavian descent, by the way.

    Grandma’s first, better husband was killed in an accident. Their only child married at 16, to a 17-year-old girl. Today is the latter’s birthday party. They’re closing in on sixty years together.

    Once in awhile it does work out.

  122. @Art Deco

    No, she wins that round. Richard John Neuhaus used to cite social research on the point. Children tend follow their father’s religious practice. It’s not even close. The margin is > 4:1. (Also, the frequency of religious observance doesn’t differ much between men and women in the U.S.).

    Thanks Art. Good correction.

    I should have been a little more clear about what i meant. (Lot is touching upon it.)

    I wasn’t really talking about the cases where there is a “family religion”–i.e. where one partner converts and everyone’s on the same page. There i would think the father overwhelmingly wins. Wives submit–the very sex act is submission–to their husbands. My mom converted to Catholicism to marry my dad. Ivanka converted to marry the toad. Etc.

    But when a couple gets married without any conversion or agreement that the family will become , i’d think that then the mom tends to win, just because in those cases she is more likely to drag the kids to church. (As Lot points out this is more common now where men are more secular.

    However, after thinking about your comment, it could well be that indeed mom’s victory is pyrrhic. She might get the kids to church, but unless dad is involved–giving it the imprimatur of male authority–the religion probably doesn’t stick.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  123. @Art Deco

    She wondered why this was not the case with the upper class women; and found that the upper class women had access to birth control and safe abortion done by medical doctors.

    Cue Mandy Rice-Davies.

    Cue Borinquen:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Puerto_Rico

    Legal secrecy: abortion in Puerto Rico from 1937 to 1970

    How Thousands of Americans Received Abortion Care Abroad Before “Roe v. Wade”

  124. @Cedric Jefferson

    You know the old saying Tiny, “once you go black, you’re a single mom”

    • LOL: HammerJack, Bubba
    • Replies: @Moshe
  125. @Lot

    As a sign pressure to remarry was high, the age gaps had a higher average than first marriages. Widowed 62 year old with widowed 40 year old woman, or sometimes reversed with the widowed new wife a bit older than the new husband.

    I’d guess that pressure was probably more economic than social.

    There was much more work involved in daily life. It helped to have a couple together to make the household work. The government wasn’t around to offer women benefits. And men could marry without worry about getting divorce raped. Plus women weren’t on their phones or facebook all day–helping them be saner and more pleasant.

    In that “before time” world, sure if AnotherMom died, the thought of taking on a replacement wife–even someone else’s widow–sounds fairly pleasant. Today? LOL. Why would any sane man marry one of these modern women, except to start a family with a young and fertile girl? (And then only with, great, great care in selection.)

    • Agree: Dtbb, Jim Don Bob
  126. Emilia says:
    @AnotherDad

    It also may have happened that the boy was willing to marry the girl he impregnated but her parents didn’t approve of him, so no marriage took place.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  127. Emilia says:
    @gcochran

    There are always these tales of some researcher doing a study and finding that 10% of individuals involved couldn’t be related to the man they call (or called) father, but somehow these studies never manage to get published. Wonder why…

  128. Lurker says:
    @Art Deco

    Cue a gratuitous pic of Mandy Rice-Davies:

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  129. @El

    At that time, women were clueless as to how to keep from getting pregnant.

    If you believe this nonsense, please contact me about some oceanfront property I have for sale in Kansas.

    I expect you mean to say women were once not so knowledgable about how to dodge the consequences of fornication, but that is bot at all the same thing….

    • Replies: @El
  130. @Jack D

    It’s patently unfair of these characters to demand I register with them before they will provide more information about the enticing stories “I Found Work on an Amazon Website. I Made 97 Cents an Hour” and “Man in Sex Kidnapping Case Had Zip Ties and Ropes, U.S. Says.”

    (Who cares about uppity Negroes and nooses anymore? It’s like a story reporting that a pigeon somewhere shat on a statue(!).)

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Johann Ricke
  131. @gcochran

    I remember reading about legendary British soap “Coronation street”. There, the authors calculated, false paternity/cuckoldry was about 10%.

    While in reality, it was c. 1-2%.

    I don’t count cases where husband, for some reasons, knows the child is not his- but, he doesn’t care. Judging by looks alone, I would say this is the case with Bill & Chelsea Clinton.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  132. Moshe says:

    It is absolutely incredible how much of the South is like that.

    I mean, of all American men these days the absolute biggest losers have got to be these son-of-a-racist white boys who keep being out-bred by the stray black boy who meets his would-be baby-momma at her place of employment or otherwise outdoor hangout.

    I mean. What. The. Hell.

    It really shocked me when I first discovered it as I had hitherto believed the hype about Bible-Thumping Family Folk.

    Oh, and these aren’t even high quality black guys like that fella who writes for the New York Times about Miller or someone else who has been to college or even been to high school or even been capable of staying out of prison long enough to witness his mulatto child’s first birthday.

    It’s quite a thing the first time you meet some bearded gun totting fellow proudly declaiming against “ni**ers” lesst han half an hour before he comes back from the indoors coddling his half-black grandchild who is the light of his life as well as his responsibility because his daughter is at her menial job and her black baby daddy is in prison.

    It’s less of a thing the third time around.

    I have a question for anyone who can speak to this with more knowledge than myself: What in the hell is going on in the south?

    I should clarify that the region I’m most specifically referring to is the less urban parts of South Caroline through Georgia and down to Central Florida.

    Much of North Carolina, Georgian Suburbs and Southern Florida hold a different class of Southerner while Southern Alabama and Southern Louisiana make no pretensions to any sort of religious, racial, moral, cultural or ideological pride, even less so when presenting themselves to a yankee, Western Texas aint the South to anyone but the geographically and culturally ignorant…and wishful Texans, and the rest of the South I have yet to visit and therefore can’t speak to.

    I’ll end on a funny note though.

    Back when the Confederate Flag still flew at the state capital I took a bar catch baby over to see it at 3am after she told me it was a few minutes drive away and I climbed up on the platform thingee for her to take a picture of me as I made a mischeviius face and gave the flag both middle fingers. Of course this wasn’t due to any ideological or moral concern or any similar nonsense, it’s because I was entertaining a drunk chick from Connecticut who made herself feel better about attending college at the wrong Columbia by acting as swipple as her low class new england irish mind could manage. A point clarified for her when within 30 seconds of my ascent to the mount a police car swerves off the road unto the state house lawn and, a cop out of a John Grisham novel jumps out of his still reverberating car to deep-voice “you’re coming with me!”, accompanied by authoritative gesticulations that further corporealized his intent.

    The girl trembled, dropped the camera and froze.

    I switched from kiddle fingers to thumbs, kept the smile, instructed her to “pick up the camera, take the picture” and when she did (insanely blurry from her trembling) I hopped down and walked over to the now slightly less confident cop with my arms open for a warm embrace and explained that I didn’t mean to disrespect the flag and I hope that he didn’t think I did(!) but that I needed to get the picture because I was so loved to see the flag because in New York I never get to see it, etc etc, so he smiled sheepishly at his prior ill judgement and offered for me and my girl to stand by the flag so that he could take our picture for us.

    Cool story bro. (All exactly true tho.)

  133. nymom says:
    @dearieme

    I think the point of that story was that Mary was pregnant BEFORE Joseph married her and if he hadn’t married her she probably would have been stoned to death…as that was the penalty for out of wedlock pregnancy then.

    The ‘son of God’ part probably came later I’ll admit but there could have been some truth to Joseph not being Jesus’s actual father.

    I guess we will never know.

    • Replies: @J
  134. Moshe says:
    @William Badwhite

    It is absolutely incredible how much of the South is like that.

    I mean, of all American men these days the absolute biggest losers have got to be these son-of-a-racist white boys who keep being out-bred by the stray black boy who meets his would-be baby-momma at her place of employment or otherwise outdoor hangout.

    I mean. What. The. Hell.

    It really shocked me when I first discovered it as I had hitherto believed the hype about Bible-Thumping Family Folk.

    Oh, and these aren’t even high quality black guys like that fella who writes for the New York Times about Miller or someone else who has been to college or even been to high school or even been capable of staying out of prison long enough to witness his mulatto child’s first birthday.

    It’s quite a thing the first time you meet some bearded gun totting fellow proudly declaiming against “ni**ers” lesst han half an hour before he comes back from the indoors coddling his half-black grandchild who is the light of his life as well as his responsibility because his daughter is at her menial job and her black baby daddy is in prison.

    It’s less of a thing the third time around.

    I have a question for anyone who can speak to this with more knowledge than myself: What in the hell is going on in the south?

    I should clarify that the region I’m most specifically referring to is the less urban parts of South Caroline through Georgia and down to Central Florida.

    Much of North Carolina, Georgian Suburbs and Southern Florida hold a different class of Southerner while Southern Alabama and Southern Louisiana make no pretensions to any sort of religious, racial, moral, cultural or ideological pride, even less so when presenting themselves to a yankee, Western Texas aint the South to anyone but the geographically and culturally ignorant…and wishful Texans, and the rest of the South I have yet to visit and therefore can’t speak to.

    I’ll end on a funny note though.

    Back when the Confederate Flag still flew at the state capital I took a bar catch baby over to see it at 3am after she told me it was a few minutes drive away and I climbed up on the platform thingee for her to take a picture of me as I made a mischeviius face and gave the flag both middle fingers. Of course this wasn’t due to any ideological or moral concern or any similar nonsense, it’s because I was entertaining a drunk chick from Connecticut who made herself feel better about attending college at the wrong Columbia by acting as swipple as her low class new england irish mind could manage. A point clarified for her when within 30 seconds of my ascent to the mount a police car swerves off the road unto the state house lawn and, a cop out of a John Grisham novel jumps out of his still reverberating car to deep-voice “you’re coming with me!”, accompanied by authoritative gesticulations that further corporealized his intent.

    The girl trembled, dropped the camera and froze.

    I switched from kiddle fingers to thumbs, kept the smile, instructed her to “pick up the camera, take the picture” and when she did (insanely blurry from her trembling) I hopped down and walked over to the now slightly less confident cop with my arms open for a warm embrace and explained that I didn’t mean to disrespect the flag and I hope that he didn’t think I did(!) but that I needed to get the picture because I was so loved to see the flag because in New York I never get to see it, etc etc, so he smiled sheepishly at his prior ill judgement and offered for me and my girl to stand by the flag so that he could take our picture for us.

    Cool story bro. (All precisely true tho.)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  135. @Cedric Jefferson

    Cedric Jefferson? Steve’s impish sense of humor. That’s why I come here. And to be admonished by the Jesus is King guy.

  136. Spangel says:

    If widows tended to remarry quickly and give their existing children the new husbands last name, perhaps the 6% figure is inflated. Surely the lower and more urban classes had higher mortality rates. To some existent their higher “cuckoo” rate might actually reflect a higher rate of male mortality and widow remarriage.

  137. @gcochran

    I think it’s interesting how so many people are still sure that cuckoldry was far more common than 1% – even though they are provably wrong.

    And 10% of people are homosexuals. “Studies have shown”.

  138. Maarten Larmuseau, who led the study at the Catholic University of Leuven, had anticipated more illegitimate children born into the higher echelons of society. After all, he notes, in paintings, plays and literature, dubious paternity controversies seem a particular affliction of the aristocracy.

    Where a transgression is rarer, it’s naturally considered more scandalous and dramatic. And for cuckoldry in particular, it’s a bigger deal if there’s a large inheritance at stake.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
  139. @Lurker

    I am old enough to remember when this happened, and thinking something like, “What! Ruin my life over these broads?”

  140. @Redneck farmer

    Speaking of “maid”, I guess it has been proven conclusively–Or has it?— that Hitler’s grandfather was NOT the product of an illegitimate union between his grandmother, who was a maid in the service of a wealthy Jewish family named Frankenberger, and one of the Frankenberger sons. If so, that would have made his father half Jewish and The Bohemian Corporal himself a quarter Jewish ( drugstore psychologists have suggested this as a basis of his antisemitism).

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  141. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Emilia

    ROMAN catholic priests may not marry but Eastern Rite Catholic priests may.

    However, Eastern Rite Catholicism has not flourished in the US.

    • Replies: @Emilia
  142. Cortes says:

    Around 1999 I had the daughter in tow for the afternoon (Christmas holidays – she’d have been 8) and after painful trudging through shops I saw a poster for

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ever_After

    at the nearby art house cinema.

    We went and she duly fell asleep in the warm theatre and I watched a superb film about the Cinderella story. One of the few intelligent Hollywood movies of the last couple of decades.

  143. @Flip

    I might have considered changing my name to the genetically accurate name.

    Uh, names actually are a social construct.

    • Replies: @reactionry
  144. @gcochran

    The study he referred to does not exist. It is an urban legend.

    Well, it got past a major publisher thirty or so years ago.

    And do you really believe adulterine bastardy, or cuckoldry, is below one percent even in the worst American ghettoes?

    Now that’s an extraordinary claim!

    • Replies: @Emilia
    , @gcochran
  145. Alden says:
    @AndrewR

    If son and his baby mamma got married the baby mamma would be a daughter in law.

  146. Emilia says:
    @Anonymous

    Yes, the Eastern Rite churches retained many Orthodox customs even after coming in communion with Rome.

    In Canada, where I live, there are some Eastern rite Catholic churches, particularly Ukrainian ones.

  147. Emilia says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Can you provide us a reference to that study?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  148. @AnotherDad

    That also depends on whether they experience effective male authority through the church. Of course if that were the case Dad wouldn’t be avoiding it in the first place.

  149. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    There’s also the small matter that if a man wants to marry a Catholic girl in a Catholic church, he must promise that the kids are raised as Catholics.

    But as you say yourself, a small matter.

    Often what made the decision as geography. If you were a military or retail or tech industry brat and dad got transferred a lot, if you went to an area where one religion or the other dominated, a lot more kids went that way. That was especially true in the 70s given the Catholic emphasis on ecumenism and the charismatic movement, which made a few Catholics out of Pentecotals and a lot of Pentecotals out of Catholics.

  150. @gcochran

    Jared Diamond referenced it in his book ” The Third Chimpanzee “. Going on memory it came across like he knew or met the physician that did the study, I assumed he might be referencing his father, who was a professor at Harvard Medical School. I remember thinking the explanation as to how the doctor knew this seemed a bit murky, but I would have to go back and re-read it to be sure.

    • Replies: @Emilia
    , @Anonymous
  151. gcochran says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    So show me – but you can’t.

    Baker & Bellis built careers around another similar (but even more dramatic) imaginary study.

    Is nonpaternity a lot higher in slum blacks? I know of only one half-decent publication on that , a long time ago, and there the number was indeed 10%. Needs to be redone: won’t be.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  152. Emilia says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    I looked at that “study” cited by Jared Diamond. Supposedly the researcher who conducted it (referred to as “Dr. X”) didn’t publish his findings or let his name be known. Diamond then said that later genetic studies confirmed that between 5% and 30% of babies were conceived extramaritally, but he never provided references for them. Sounds a bit like “the dog ate my homework” explanation???

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
  153. Another–i’ll grant obvious–point here, is that most women historically had much less opportunity and motivation for ex-martial relations.

    Oppotunity:
    — Most work was in the household, on the farm, in the shop. Husbands were not away at work during the day, much less away for business trips.
    — And even if your husband was out in the fields or working at a neighbors all day, children were around. You weren’t alone as in the 1.5 kids off at the local public school of today.
    — Women did not have the mobility they have. No automobiles. No easy way–and certainly not anonymous way–to shoot over to a hotel or someone’s home.
    — There was no anonymity in rural or small town environment–the norm for most people. Walking over to some neighbor’s house or some neighbor man coming to your house would be seen.
    — Your prospective lover will be worried about the consequences of getting caught, which could easily be death. And even if not, would be severe in rural/small town community.

    Motivation:
    — Most people had religious faith, and adultery was a mortal sin.
    — As noted above in any rural or small town environment–the norm for most people–there was no anonymity. So extra-martial relations–of any extent–will likely be found out. And social shame and its impact on your life and happiness would be profound in this environment.
    –There were no government benies to support you, no divorce rape and no soft jobs sitting at a desk with heat and AC. Furthermore there was often father custody. So adultery potentially pulls the economic rug out from under oneself, plus potentially loses one’s kids. Very, very different than today.
    — The media wasn’t a constant source promoting entitlement, self-accualization, partner fault-finding and “greener pastures”.

    The only powerful motivator i know of that would work against that for many women would be to have children–if a woman was not having children and suspected that her husband was to blame. Divorce might be possible in Protestant nations, but would still be scandalous. And would not leave her as a great marriage prospect–especially as her own fertility would be the usual cause. Lack of children might be enough to motivate some women to find out if there husband was the cause.

    But overall, the opportunities were much less and the consequences much greater. So i would surmise that cuckoldry was considerably less common in the past than today. So whatever rate you believe is common now–it was a fraction of that then.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  154. @gcochran

    So show me – but you can’t.

    But you can show me. I’m sure there has been more than one study of paternity, and they would differ, even if only marginally, and there must be a range of figures. So what is the high figure? And if we discount the highest and lowest result, as they do in the Olympics, what do we have left for a range?

    American Renaissance once worked out that a black male teenager in Chicago was 777 times as likely to be murdered as was an elderly woman in rural Austria. But we’re supposed to believe that the boy’s baby-momma is no more likely to cheat on him than die alte Frau is on her husband? That’s counterintuitive.

    If one population can have a murder conviction rate 20 times that of an adjacent population, as was the case in 2011 with blacks and Asians in Chicago, why is it incredible that one population’s cuckoldry rate might also be a large multiple of another’s?

    It’s those who claim they’re the same who should be asked to present evidence.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  155. @Emilia

    Can you provide us a reference to that study?

    Unfortunately I read of it over thirty years ago. I was only reading serious books on such subjects at the time, so I took the author’s word. Also, the original researcher didn’t publish his findings, so this is reportage, not peer-reviewed academics.

    I have no idea if this story is true, or an “urban legend”. But it is certainly plausible, considering the great differences in behavior across various groups living in large cities.

    • Replies: @Emilia
  156. gcochran says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    The last one of blacks, that I’m aware of, was in 1957. 10%, like I said. Highly dated – old techniques.

    For Europeans, less than 2%.

    I couod swear that I already said all this. Something about this topic clouds men’s minds.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    , @TWS
  157. gcochran says:
    @AnotherDad

    since we have done both this-generation and long-term, many-generations studies, we know that the numbers are about the same.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  158. @John Henry

    Thanks for posting that again. I was trying to remember it, but my memory failed me.

  159. Love that extra-martial relations.

  160. @gcochran

    Many topics cloud the mind of a man. One wonders why we spend time on the topic of behavioral differences of whites and blacks at all. Almost certainly minds are matched on the topic. Dozens of television serials and Hollywood pics have mined the ore. Maybe we should move on to pressing matters.

  161. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    I googled “cuckold and The Third Chimpanzee ” and found a website that contains this quote, which is what you may be remembering:
    “In the late 1940s Dr X was studying the genetics of human blood
    groups. . . to Dr. X’s shock, the blood groups (collected from
    1000 newborns and parents at a highly respectable hospital)
    revealed nearly ten percent of the babies to be the fruits
    of adultery.”
    Here’s the website —
    https://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/amit/books/diamond-1991-rise-fall-of.html
    Scroll down to the heading “Adultery.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  162. @Emilia

    Just a little note:

    Orthodox priests are allowed to marry.

    Orthodox monks are not.

    Please reread what I wrote.

    • Replies: @Emilia
  163. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Is this like “The Chimp Paradox”?

  164. @Emilia

    “It also may have happened that the boy was willing to marry the girl he impregnated but her parents didn’t approve of him, so no marriage took place.”

    In the pre-abortion era I’d have thought that pretty rare. Parents want a good marriage for their daughter, but how likely would that have been pre-1960s when she’s got someone else’s bastard in tow? You might make an exception if the father was dead in war, I suppose.

    In John Braine’s 1957 “Room At The Top” the wealthy father whose daughter is pregnant by the antihero threatens to send her to a “nursing home” for a then-illegal abortion.

    • Replies: @Emilia
  165. Thanks for these helpful comments. Re. the possibility that there could have been multiple extra-pair conceptions among the ancestors of each genealogical pair – this is something we do correct for statistically in our study, as mentioned in the paper!

  166. Emilia says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    See my note about Jared Diamond’s “study,” which he discussed in his book The Third Chimpanzee.

  167. Anon[265] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cortes

    Octavian/Augustus made out pretty well with the family name.

  168. Emilia says:
    @R.G. Camara

    I did reread it, and you did talk about the Orthodox Church making large parts of the population celibate and did mention priests. However, my impression is that for the Orthodox Church, celibacy is a bit the “gold standard” for priests, but they’re willing to tolerate married priests to some degree (ex. priests in the Orthodox Church can marry before but not after ordination). Any Orthodox readers want to comment?

  169. Emilia says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    I did know of families who didn’t want their pregnant daughter to marry the boy who impregnated her out of wedlock. Also, the “bastard in tow” might have been raised by his or her grandparents, so the mother was free to marry unencumbered. I guess I have mixed feelings about this arrangement. On one hand, I didn’t like the shame to which unwed mothers were subjected. On the other hand, who do you think is more suited to raising a baby: an adult woman (i.e. the grandmother) or a teenage girl?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  170. 0.5% among well-off country folk to 6% among the poorest in bustling cities.

    Regarding cuckery amongst the poor — when you’re at the bottom virtually any movement will take you higher. When you’re at the South pole every direction is North. When your partner’s genes aren’t that great to begin with maybe cuckooing becomes a genetically viable path forward.

  171. Bigby says:
    @R.G. Camara

    I’ve always thought that Catholic priestly celibacy must be dysgenic, especially during the period when priests were among the few literate members of the population, which suggests that they were among the most intelligent segment.

    As the last few decades’ clerical abuse scandals have confirmed, however, a lot (maybe up to a third?) of these priests would’t have reproduced anyway because of their sexual orientation.

  172. @gcochran

    since we have done both this-generation and long-term, many-generations studies, we know that the numbers are about the same.

    Greg, do you have a good current study in mind? The only one i saw referenced here in the comments was the French one Emila referenced with the 2.8% figure. (Which is high relative to the past study and strikes me as high for actual US marriages.)

    It strikes me that the contemporary environment is much more like the “urban poor” environment of the past–with the modestly higher cuckholdry values in this study–in terms of annonimity/opportunity.

    But at the same time, i think there are some modern factors that suppress both cuckholdry and even more so cuckholdry leading to bastardry.

    I think there are a few big factors that keep the modern cuckhold bastardy rate low:
    — Divorce. If a women is tired of her husband and wants excitment she can dump him.
    — Birth control. Women don’t have many kids and those are planned and usual occur early in the marriage by mutual plan when the couple still has a lot of the feelings that led to marriage. Women generally aren’t going to have a kid when they are screwing around unless they decide to do so … in which case … why not divorce?
    — Selection. With social breakdown, marriage has become ever more the preserve of the “ducks in a row” people, who are more conscientious and committed to the project. I think in the just-shacking-up category you’d find a higher figure.
    — DNA testing. Women really aren’t going to get away with it today. You’re basically going to blow up your marriage and *not* have the guy paying child support. (Although some state laws are very abusive, put on time limits, etc. etc.)

    My overall take:
    — In terms of anonymity/opportunity the modern environment is much more like the “urban poor” environment of the past (that had high bastardry rate.
    — In terms of motivation, the modern environment with the decline of religion and modern media is much more encouraging to women to cheat.

    But
    — Divorce is much more common, socially acceptable and economically non-disastrous so women who are unhappy with their spouse can just … leave.
    — Marriage is much more the province of those who want to be in it both because of ease of divorce and because it is now optional and becoming the preserve of more conscientious middle class people.
    — Birth control allows cuckholding women to suppress the chance of bastardry. (Which would be caught by DNA tests.)

    My guess is that these roughly balance out. I would guess that there is more modern cuckholdry–certainly if you include cheating in “partner” relationships and not just marriages. But that there is still very little actual bastardry–again especially inside actual legal marriages.

    • Replies: @Emilia
  173. Emilia says:
    @AnotherDad

    Here is another recent study (well, within the last 30 years) that shows an even lower EPP rate than the French one:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7860087

  174. gcochran says:

    Here are some good numbers from recent studies:

    Contemporary Germany: 1% From checking for HLA type in medical cases.

    contemporary Switzerland: 0.83%

    Contemporary Iceland 1.49% (from DeCode)

    Contemporary Dogon, in Mali. Mildly polygynous. : 1.8%

    The caveat about past numbers, which I was foolishly waiting for someone else to mention, is that in the old days, bastards died like flies.

    • Replies: @J
  175. ATBOTL says:

    Most of this was probably from fathers dying or running away from young children and just disappearing as was known to happen back then and the young children taking the name of the mother’s second husband husband. I doubt prostitutes with unknown fathers or married women having affairs accounts for most of this.

  176. @Emilia

    Yes, Diamond also later in the chapter cites Kinsey as some kind of authority on human sexual behavior. He also once wrote a scientific defense of Freud that I saw online, I know his wife is a shrink. Just found my paperback edition of book I got at a used bookstore, yep, no citations for the 5-30 percent figure.

    • Replies: @Emilia
  177. Neoconned says:
    @Whiskey

    True, Abe Lincoln’s mom, Nancy Hank’s….famously was illegitimate….an oddity among presidential figures at the time…..also goes to show the predominantly Anglo female equality thing has been a cucked thorn in white dudes sides since the 1600s at least.

  178. @Anon

    In states where it actually mattered (i.e. california and New York), interracial marriage between white men and Asian women was never illegal.

    Lol @ thinking it actually mattered that podunk states like West Virginia (where there were <5 Asians) banned marriage between whites and Asians.

  179. This issue seems to be a very poignant one in the United States, and a great deal of research has been done by Maurice Povich.

    In this case the lady has already DNA tested 6 men for paternity of her 4-year-old son, but has not yet found the father. Now could the 7th man to be tested be the father? (The mother admits to having made some mistakes in her life.)

    Nope! The search goes on.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  180. Art Deco says:
    @GermanReader2

    The 1st transcontinental line was built by competing crews of Irish and Chinese labor. It was completed in 1869, after slavery had been abolished. Not sure when construction began.

    • Replies: @Lurker
  181. El says:
    @Autochthon

    We’re talking about women in the 1800’s. Sex was not talked about back then. It was illegal to talk about it. Google the history of reproductive rights.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  182. Anonymous[251] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Bill shoots blanks and a child was needed or at least desired for political purposes. So a pinch hitter was used. Webb Hubbell was as suitable as anyone, they figured. Of course getting real high achiever sperm from a sperm bank would have been better but the Clintons weren’t that motivated.

    • Replies: @Flip
  183. Stevenson’s Rocket won the competition in 1829, but high-powered long distance locomotives took a bit longer to develop, so as it happens, there was not a whole lot of time left for slaves to build railroads before slavery was abolished–although before steam locomotives there were horse-drawn railroads–however a significant factor in the Civil War was that the North had more and better railroads to move troops and supplies.

    Of 31,256 miles of rail in the United States in 1861, Confederate states controlled only 9,283 miles, which Union captures soon reduced to about 6,000 miles.

    Much of the Southern railroad network had been built by slaves and the railroad companies both leased slaves from slaveholders–who could take out life insurance policies on the slaves through companies like Aetna–and owned their own slaves.

    The insurance policies apparently had a loophole regarding losses caused by abolition.

    The Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad President, for example, reported after the Civil War on the railroad’s investment in slaves. “We find from the books,” he explained to the stockholders, “that there has been invested in negroes, in Georgia, the sum of $154,348 and negroes sold amounting to $32,805.25 leaving negro investment $121,542.71.” The investment, he noted, “is now, manifestly, a total loss.”

    http://railroads.unl.edu/blog/?p=32

    Had the South won the Civil War, then slavery would have spread westwards and very likely large corporations would have acquired huge slave work forces to build railroads, and then a few decades later, roads for motor vehicles. Probably cars and airplanes and washing machines would have been built by slave labor too.

  184. Jack D says:
    @Autochthon

    As it happens, I actually pay to have that birdcage liner delivered to my house, but it’s possible, with a little effort, to get past 99% of the paywalls on the internet should you wish to undercover the secrets of how to make 97 cents/hr. on Amazon.

    As for who cares about uppity Negroes and nooses anymore, I would say that a lot of important people and institutions in America do, or at least pretend to. You should too because when Negroes get agitated (and they get agitated pretty easily – it doesn’t take much and it doesn’t have to have much of a factual basis) your business, your property and even your life may be in danger.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  185. Wilkey says:
    @WowJustWow

    Maarten Larmuseau…had anticipated more illegitimate children born into the higher echelons of society. After all, he notes, in paintings, plays and literature, dubious paternity controversies seem a particular affliction of the aristocracy.

    Some people act like they’ve never heard of soap operas. What appears in soap operas is behavior that makes for good drama (according to some people, anyway).

    Life is messy. I’ve known plenty of people who bear surnames other than those of their biological dad, and these clearly weren’t cases of cuckoldry. These cases could easily surpass one percent of the population, especially 100+ years ago when people died younger and reliable and safe methods of birth control (apart from abstinence) were hard to come by, and especially in poor urban areas. That’s not to say that women are all saints and above tricking men into raising children that aren’t theirs. It’s just to say that life is messy, and that separating the genuine cases of cuckoldry from this common messiness isn’t easy. You can’t just say “Only 50% of men surnamed Snufflepuff have the Snufflepuff chromosome! The rest are all cuckoos eggs and women are all liars and cheats!”

    Twenty generations provides a lot of opportunity for these incidences to break the genetic link between Snufflepuff ancestor and his real and alleged descendants. In cases where the children inherited a substantial sum of money from their bio fathers (like George Washington’s two surviving stepchildren) or dad was otherwise a man of great importance, they’ll probably keep bio dad’s name. But in hardscrabble places like the urban slums honorable men doing honorable things like raising children not their own may still want to protect their reputation and assaults on their dignity by giving their adopted children their own surname.

    The best you can get from these studies is a measure of life’s general messiness. You’d have to go through every generation with a fine-toothed comb – an implausible task – to try to tease out actual cuckoldry from the rest of it.

  186. Jack D says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Possibly, but there was a worldwide movement toward the abolition of slavery. Slavery was abolished in Cuba in 1886 and Brazil in 1888. The British had abolished it before the US Civil War. The serfs of Russia were freed in 1861. Even if the South had won the war, I don’t think they could have kept slavery going for much longer. It was really on the way out with or without the Civil War.

  187. GermanReader2 [AKA "GermanReader2_new"] says:
    @Bigby

    I heard somewhere that about a third of priests are celibate, a third are gay and a third have sex with women. I heard from several sources that the catholic church in my region even provides child support for the first two children as long as the mother|mothers keep silent about the identity of the father.

  188. TWS says:
    @Bill P

    My step-great grandmother was a prostitute. She had children before she married my great grandfather but none with him. She left him after being married for a while. Her own children wanted nothing to do with her. My grandmother said she went back to prostitution and died of cancer alone except for brief help from my great grandfather who had already divorced her.

    Her life had hardened her past the norm even for a frontier town in Indian territory.

  189. TWS says:
    @Whiskey

    I’ve heard several theories about Melungeons but never that one.

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
  190. TWS says:
    @gcochran

    You remind them regularly. I suspect some aspect of this triggers the readership here. Guys like Whiskey, he can’t help himself but others should know better. Perhaps it fills in some boxes that confirm their secret world view.

  191. nebulafox says:
    @Prester John

    Nah, that was a scurrilous rumor propagated by Hans Frank, who probably wanted to get a little posthumous revenge on the man he blamed for his date with the gallows. Jews had long been expelled from the Czech border area where Hitler’s ancestral county was anyhow.

    It is true that Adolf Hitler did not know who his paternal grandfather was. But this wasn’t the social obstacle you might think: illegitimate births were common and socially accepted in rural Austria at the time. Most likely it was the man his grandmother actually married shortly after, or his brother. As far as we know, Hitler and his siblings genuinely believed the family tree that he turned over to the press to quash this rumor was correct.

    >( drugstore psychologists have suggested this as a basis of his antisemitism).

    Almost as nonsensical as blaming the good Dr. Bloch who treated Klara on her deathbed. Hitler was so grateful to him that he granted him a level of protection unheard of for any other Jew in German-ruled Europe and let him and his wife emigrate to New York well before the Final Solution started.

    There’s not even good evidence that Hitler was a radical (by the standards of the time) anti-Semite until 1919.

  192. Flip says:
    @Jack D

    Even if the South had won the war, I don’t think they could have kept slavery going for much longer. It was really on the way out with or without the Civil War.

    Right. And then what would the independent CSA have done with a third or more of their population being black and no abililty to move north. I guess they would have worked it out in a Brazilian miscegenation sort of way.

  193. nebulafox says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    I think the South winning the Civil War would have taken British support to offset Northern industrial advantages. That’s far from implausible, given the pro-Confederacy sympathies there in the early 1860s, and the Royal Navy would have blasted apart any Union efforts to keep the blockade going.

    That said, slavery was an archaic system that was very grounded in the rural, agrarian economy of the South. Not only it would have taken increasing levels of state resources to artificially prop up, industrial work just didn’t mesh with the system: the slaves belonged to private owners, and you had to keep them as isolated and ignorant from the wider world as possible, something that would have been difficult to reconcile with the realities of modern industrial work. There were more grounded-in-reality Southern leaders who could see this: they favored long-term dismantlement, but on the South’s terms and timetable, which the rest of the nation (who had an increasing amount of tax dollars going to propping up an increasingly backwards and visibly immoral system) was never going to allow. Then, of course, you had people for whom a neo-feudal dystopia was the point, whether ideologically or for reasons of crass profit. Some things never change.

    I can see the South winning the Civil War if they can get foreign backing, but I cannot see a surviving Confederate States of America being anything other than a rural hellhole. At least the Taipings in China favored going forward, not heading back.

  194. fitzman says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Of course, Edmund Spencer was the illigitimate son of a tailor, who acquired money with which to purchase his “nobility” by serving the (Welch wool-merchant) Tudors in their genocidal wars in Ireland. A very interesting study could be made of how many proud aristocratic families bought their way into the upper classes. (I’m looking at you, Saxe-Coberg-Battenbergs!)

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  195. @nebulafox

    I think the South winning the Civil War would have taken British support to offset Northern industrial advantages. That’s far from implausible, given the pro-Confederacy sympathies there in the early 1860s, and the Royal Navy would have blasted apart any Union efforts to keep the blockade going.

    There is actually a ton of interesting history surrounding Bermuda and it’s role in the US Civil War.

    I feel like there is an HBO/AMC/A&E drama series somewhere in that history, but I am hardly enough of a screenwriter to put it together.

    Had the UK chosen to intervene on the side of the Confederacy, the Royal Navy could have easily used Bermuda as a forward base to help counter the Union Navy.

  196. Emilia says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    It’s unfortunate, because Diamond does have interesting things to say in that book (ex. that Indo-European languages originated in the Baltics rather than in Turkey). Somehow, though, Kinsey is hero-worshiped in some circles despite the fact much of his research is basically useless (granted, his opponents are somewhat disappointing in that they often limit themselves to personal attacks against him rather than against the quality of his research).

  197. @Emilia

    “I did know of families who didn’t want their pregnant daughter to marry the boy who impregnated her out of wedlock.”

    Who raised the child in such cases then? And if the mother, how did it affect her mating prospects?

    “who do you think is more suited to raising a baby: an adult woman (i.e. the grandmother) or a teenage girl?”

    My only concern would be that the child might well feel betrayed when told that her much bigger sister is in fact her mum and “mum” is in fact “granny”. Everyone likes to have a mother, perhaps the only absolute and unconditional love most of us experience.

    • Replies: @Flip
    , @Emilia
  198. Steve2 [AKA "StillStillSteve"] says:
    @Jack D

    Why bother with slaves when contract labor is available? H1-B coder is better than slave.

  199. @fitzman

    “Edmund Spencer was the illegitimate son of a tailor, who acquired money with which to purchase his “nobility” by serving the (Welch wool-merchant) Tudors in their genocidal wars in Ireland”

    And people say there was no social mobility before the 1950s!

  200. @Autochthon

    (Who cares about uppity Negroes and nooses anymore? It’s like a story reporting that a pigeon somewhere shat on a statue(!).)

    A Japanese commoner could privately have no respect for the samurai, but to express that sentiment in front of actual samurais was to invite a summary beheading.

  201. Flip says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    My grandfather was an obstetrician and handled lots of private adoptions of babies from high school and college girls. Nowadays they would be aborted.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  202. @nebulafox

    The South held out about as long as could you reasonably expect given the realities of the North’s economic and demographic advantages. Lincoln blundered early by not working to keep states like North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia in the Union. Had that happened the war would have certainly ended a lot sooner, since a lot of the top Confederate generals were from those three states, they had the largest populations and they all left the Union much latter than the Deep South states did. The British liked their Union food supply much more than their Southern cotton, and France wouldn’t support the South without the British doing so first.

    • Replies: @Gordo
    , @nebulafox
  203. Lurker says:
    @Art Deco

    I don’t think it ran through slave states?

  204. Flip says:
    @Anonymous

    From Wikipedia on Juanite Broaddrick

    “Broaddrick said that after the assault, Clinton told her not to worry about pregnancy because childhood mumps had rendered him sterile. When contacted about the issue, Gennifer Flowers, who Clinton later admitted to a sexual relationship with, also said that Clinton had thought he couldn’t have children.”

    • Replies: @Jack D
  205. Flip says:
    @nebulafox

    The South didn’t need to defeat the North but rather to get the North to decide that it wasn’t worth the hassle to keep them in the Union. Lincoln potentially could have lost in 1864 to Democrats who wanted to let the South go, but the fall of Atlanta to Sherman in September strengthened Lincoln’s position.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  206. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Slavery was on the way out no matter which way the war went, particularly the Negro slave, who was (sometimes) suitable for first line assembly labor under “Fordism”, but of little use in a jobbing machine shop and not someone any skilled person wanted around them in a foundry or steel mill.

    That’s why the “mill hunkies” and “Polacks” so resented blacks in south Chicago. They were manufacturing workers in steel mills and glass plants and sometimes foremen and high level tradesmen like millwrights and machinery repairmen and toolmakers and die sinkers. Blacks would get hired and prove to be dangerous to be around usually not on purpose, they just didn’t have good judgment or much cognitive ability even if they could talk a decent game. You could get killed at a place like USS Chicago Works or LTV/Republic Steel or Gray across Avenue O or IH Wisconsin Steel.
    There wasn’t much in the way of OSHA then, things were not idiotproof. Gantry cranes had 20, maybe 50 ton steel coils held by electromagnets and if the power went off anyone underneath would be squashed into the coil so badly only the outline of their boots might be found. Men were hit with globs of molten iron and dissolved.

    They did not want to work around them in that environment. They made that clear to my ten, eleven, twelve year old self. I thought they were stupid hicks who listened to accordion music and never read books and believed the horseshit they heard at Mass on Sunday.

    And they were not verbally facile. They did not read much, they did like hokey and uncool music, the younger ones drove jackmobiles and had never heard of that guy all the “real blue collar workers” were supposed to like according to Rolling Stone.

    But they were real and my twelve year old self was full of shit. And they were right to not want blacks around in a steel mill if you worked in one.

  207. Emilia says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The idea was not only that the grandmother’s “pregnancy” would shield the family from public shame but also, perhaps, that the child could be raised by someone more suited to do so (i.e. mature woman vs. teen who might basically be not much more than a baby herself). About the child feeling “betrayed,” that might have occurred, but that could also happen in a case where the child was adopted by non-family members and informed belatedly that they were not born to the people who raised them. I still go by the belief that most teenage girls aren’t mature enough to raise children (I surely would not have been at 16) and it’s better that someone “older and wiser,” to quote the song from The Sound of Music, do the job, whether it’s the grandmother or non-family adoptive mother.

  208. @Jonathan Mason

    Building railroad tracks and building trains, just like building roads versus building cars, are too radically different things. The Antebellum South built almost zero locomotives versus the North. Just like the South would not have built cars had it won. Every 3rd world hellhole can manage some train tracks and roads, those actions are not really an impressive example of societal or industrial development.

    Slavery was a horrible institution, but it’s risible it contributed greatly to making the United States a powerful industrial nation. In fact, slavery greatly retarded that process, outside of the Civil War, in which the war itself greatly accelerated the development of the North, that is, the non-slavery side.

    Besides typical grievance politics, I do believe some stress the contributions of American slaves in an attempt to make their hard, brutal lives more meaningful, like something good came of it in the end.

    That, of course, is asisine nonsense. The vast majority of slaves in human history lived and died outside of America, and did not produce great prosperity in the rest of the world. The American South did not vault the United States into global power because of the efforts of slaves.

  209. @Jack D

    Possibly, but there was a worldwide movement toward the abolition of slavery. Slavery was abolished in Cuba in 1886 and Brazil in 1888. The British had abolished it before the US Civil War. The serfs of Russia were freed in 1861. Even if the South had won the war, I don’t think they could have kept slavery going for much longer. It was really on the way out with or without the Civil War.

    I know all that, but it seems that the United States was peculiarly intellectually isolated while all this was going on. As recently as 1857 in the famous Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that no person of African descent could ever be a citizen of the United States and that slaves therefore had no legal standing before the court and that the Missouri Compromise of 1850 was void.

    At first glance it would look as if Chief Justice Roger Taney was making this ruling tongue-in-cheek as a way of forcing Congress to amend the Constitution, but, no, he and the other justices who voted with him really believed that they had permanently solved the problem of slavery.

    Mrs Taney: Hello, Roger, your lunch is on the table. Anything interesting this morning in the Supreme Court?

    Roger Taney, Chief Justice: Nope just routine administrative stuff, though we did solve the problem of slavery for eternity, so not a complete waste of time.

    Mrs. Taney: Good job Rog, speaking of which do you have a few bucks so I can run by Slavemart and pick up a new gardener at this aft.

    Roger: I wish I had never mentioned the matter. Here, take my Wachovia debit card and make sure you get a healthy one this time.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  210. @XYZ (no Mr.)

    The American South did not vault the United States into global power because of the efforts of slaves.

    No indeed, but perhaps if the South had won the world today would have been quite different and the US would be no more a global power than Brazil or Mexico.

    • Replies: @XYZ (no Mr.)
  211. Jack D says:
    @XYZ (no Mr.)

    After the British abolished slavery in the Caribbean (1834) the British planters switched to importing contract laborers from India (and to a lesser extent from China) without much of a dent to the plantation economy. Maybe this labor was slightly more expensive than slave labor but not by much.

    As you say, the economic (or other positive) contributions of blacks throughout American history have been risible and we would have been much better off in a thousand different ways if they had never graced our shores. 999 time out of 1,000 when you hear someone talking about how the slaves built America, they are just airing racial grievances, nothing more and such a statement is mostly a lie. The slaves on their own built nothing and were incapable of building anything on their own beyond grass huts. If they were used on construction sites it was mostly to dig ditches and carry bricks and do other unskilled work.Eventually a few of the smarter ones were taught some of the white mans skills but most were only suited for unskilled labor which required little or no training or brains.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  212. Jack D says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Taney’s decision was reactionary in the true sense of the word – a sort of last ditch Hail Mary play because the slavery side knew that they were in the 4th quarter and well behind. A judicial Battle of the Bulge and equally doomed to failure. He did indeed force Congress to amend the Constitution a few short years later – the 13th and 14th Amendments were tailored to overrule Dred Scott. All that the decision did was bring the day of war even closer and darken Tany’s record for all of history, attaching it to the decision that most scholars consider to be the worst Supreme Ct. decision evah.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  213. Jack D says:
    @Flip

    This is the kind of thing that a sociopath might say in the interest of getting in a girl’s drawers. Usually they claim to have had a vasectomy. Usually they are lying.

  214. @Jonathan Mason

    The South could never have occupied the Union, even if it wished, so the South ‘winning’ would have been a (perhaps temporary) loss of around 750,000 square miles of territory. And that would solely be because the Union decided the war was not worth the cost, not because the North itself was ever threatened existentially in any way. Slavery was too much of a retardant on Southern development for it to threaten the North much.

    Now, the idea that a Southern victory would cause the Union, i.e., the United States of America, to somehow end up more like Mexico or Brazil is frankly bizarre and ahistorical. The South would have ended up closer, true, because of the ill effects of slavery, but not the Union. The Union would still have had over 2 million square miles of territory, including the entire west coast, almost all industry, and important 19th Century natural resources like coal, timber, and the entire Great Plains for agriculture and settlement. It would have developed regardless, and even if a smaller United States only had 200 million people now, per capita it would still be more advanced than most European countries, and hence a global power.

  215. @XYZ (no Mr.)

    Every 3rd world hellhole can manage some train tracks and roads, those actions are not really an impressive example of societal or industrial development.

    The building of railroad tracks is actually a serious industrial undertaking. So much so that Chinese railroad bonds were sold to finance the rail tracks that are used to this very day. Needless to say, the Communists immediately repudiated this debt as soon as they assumed power. The current day value of these bonds is probably on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars. The undertaking is arduous enough that most railroads I’ve heard of in Third World countries are mostly the work of foreign experts, with the local portion mostly accounted for by unskilled laborers.

    https://southfront.org/trump-seeks-to-use-chinese-imperial-debt-bonds-to-pressure-beijing-in-trade-war-bloomberg/

    Southfront is a Russian disinformation outlet, but they’ve provided a pretty good summary of a Bloomberg article (requiring a paid subscription to access) on an issue I’ve followed ever since I was targeted by a Nigerian e-mail scam that referenced the subject.

  216. @El

    Let me understand you: You are claiming that females in the nineteenth century did not know that coitus causes pregnancy?

    Is that your final position on the matter? The position you are taking as a serious person…?

    (I applaud your hilarious suggestion that it was illegal in the nineteenth century to discuss sex, and that no one talked about it, accompanied by the citation “Google the history of reproductive rights.”)

  217. J says: • Website
    @nymom

    Nonsense. They were a normative family in a fanatically Orthodox Jewish society. Non-paternity is almost unknown.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  218. J says: • Website

    Another unsolved non-paternity case was Adolf Hitler.

  219. @TWS

    Wbiskey is our resident low-T matriarchal crackhead. White women never commanded a sexual market value in America.

  220. Gordo says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    There was strong and widespread anti-slavery feeling in Britain, the chances of Britain supporting the CSA were effectively nil.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  221. Jack D says:
    @Flip

    Adoptable American white and even Jewish infants were once much more common in the past. My wife’s mother comes from a very large family because her father had 10 brothers and sisters and one of her cousins was a family physician working mostly in the Philadelphia Jewish community (immigrants tended to stick with their own ethnic group – Italians would go to an Italian doctor, etc. Sometimes for the older people this was a necessity because they couldn’t speak English.) When pregnant Jewish teens came into his office in the 1950s he would arrange private adoptions – there are several cousins in my wife’s generation who were adopted into the family in this way. It’s like if you have extra kittens or puppies – first you ask your family and friends if they want one. That period was also the Dark Ages for infertility treatments – if you had trouble conceiving it was either adopt or remain childless. No fertility drugs, no in vitro, no surrogates.

    • Replies: @Emilia
  222. Jack D says:
    @J

    Judean society at that time would bear little resemblance to shtetl society. Probably closer to Arab societies today, where you just don’t see women on the street. In shtetl society, women were often quite active in business because the men were busy studying.

    I agree that non-paternity would have been rare, mainly because they would have kept a close eye on their women.

    • Replies: @J
  223. Emilia says:
    @Jack D

    Didn’t they have artificial insemination if a woman’s husband was infertile?

  224. J says: • Website
    @gcochran

    Everybody in this conversation assumes that non-paternity means adultery. In fact, about 15% of couples these days are infertile, and “adopt” a good-looking friend’s sperm. Presumably, before pennicilin, infertility rates were higher, there were even “pockets” of sterility in Africa mostly. Men are secretly obsessed by potential non-paternity and spend time wondering if the child looks like them. I have many maternity-ward hours in my CV and the first thing the family comments is how the baby has the exact looks of the father! to reassure the happy father of his paternity. In such a paranoid atmosphere, Jewish women (and men) are most careful. Uniquely, in Israel the Rabbinate has mashgihim = religious supervisors in every IVF process. Conclusion: In stable middle-class societies, there may be LESS than 1% cheating. East Asian, North European villages were closeknit and stable. Yet I may be too naive and everybody was/is having great fun outside.

  225. J says: • Website
    @Jack D

    For a pedant like me, they were Galileans, not Judeans.

  226. Anonymous[182] • Disclaimer says:
    @Moshe

    It sounds like Southerners are going the way of ‘white’ Brazilians, most of whom aren’t actually white, just lighter-skinned than most of their countrymen.

    • Replies: @Emilia
  227. nebulafox says:
    @XYZ (no Mr.)

    My point exactly. If it were true that slavery actually helped in building a powerful, functional modern nation, Brazil would have been a superpower in the mid-19th Century. Near as I can tell, the legacy of African slavery was economic retardation.

    This is why I advocate *not* indulging plutocratic desires to rig market mechanisms in their favor, not least by giving them a permanent subsidy on labor. Those who’ve paid attention to history will know it doesn’t tend to work out well for national interests.

  228. nebulafox says:
    @Flip

    Potentially, but I don’t see it happening that late in the game: by 1864, it was crystal clear that the war was not going well for the Confederacy, which precluded any foreign support. Without the backing of another power, Union industrial might was going to be simply be too much for them to overcome long-term. Lincoln was very aware that he held the demographic and industrial advantage: the only way you were going to change his confidence in that was through the Confederacy enlisting outside help, no matter how good their army was.

    Given the broad sympathy to the CSA in 1861-1862 in Britain, that was probably the most realistic option, and also the most useful one: Britain’s navy being hands-down the best in the world, it would have been trivial to blow the blockade out of the water. I suspect the Confederate leaders would have been more than happy to give them trade advantages as an incentive provided the British didn’t mess with their little neo-feudal fantasies, which Palmerston would have been happy to do. It is particularly interesting to note that the other major market of Britain’s-China-was also in the middle of a vicious civil war, one which Britain would eventually side with the Qing dynasty against the Taiping rebels after much hemming and hawing. Had Palmerston been as sympathetic to the Taiping as he was to the Confederacy, the economic catastrophe facing Britain might have been interpreted entirely differently, especially as the Taiping controlled the richest parts of China… and who knows where that might lead?

    If you ultimately side with one insurgency, hard not to argue you shouldn’t recognize the other. Palmerston and Russell’s argument against giving official recognition to the Taiping revolved around them taking a “strictly neutral” position on the United States, and he was already on thin ice considering he’d dissolved Parliament over earlier run-ins with the Chinese.

  229. Anonymous[182] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    This is naive. More people were enslaved in the 20th century than the 19th. (Solzhenitsyn wrote a famous book about it.)

    People will always try to get others to work for them for free if they can get away with it. This urge will never go away.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  230. nebulafox says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    >Lincoln blundered early by not working to keep states like North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia in the Union. Had that happened the war would have certainly ended a lot sooner, since a lot of the top Confederate generals were from those three states, they had the largest populations and they all left the Union much latter than the Deep South states did.

    Maybe, but my gut says that bad blood ran too deep for dividing the slave states up by 1860: both sides were totally polarized in a way that is eerily disturbing when you look at American politics today.

    >The British liked their Union food supply much more than their Southern cotton, and France wouldn’t support the South without the British doing so first.

    I think the level of Franco-British cooperation after the Crimea is often overstated: it was a new, tenuous alliance that could be disrupted, as Bismarck would eventually show when he decided to secure British non-intervention in the Franco-Prussian War through some well-timed strategic leaks. At any rate, Napoleon III would soon have his hands full with a declining domestic position and his Mexican misadventure, and he ruled autocratically in a way the British didn’t, so I don’t see the French coming to the CSA’s side.

    However, the British were a different matter: and in 1861, they were looking at a serious economic crisis as their main two markets were now both embroiled in civil wars. Southern cotton fed the mills that got you Chinese goods: and now the resource producing southern regions of both countries were both controlled by rebels. The British aristocracy were the ones who were truly pro-Confederacy, and they were the ones who dominated the Foreign Office.

    It would have been a risky venture: the lower classes in the UK would have felt the food pinch and would be outraged that a bunch of elites were gambling with their livelihoods so they could tinker with the Great Game. But elites have done stupider things in history, and had the Confederate advantage been somewhat stronger in 1862…

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Unladen Swallow
  231. Dutchie says:

    The study tracks back to the 16th century Low Countries.

    Relevant to comprehend: the Low Countries didn’t have arranged marriages from late Medieval time onward except for the highest aristocracy.

    Frankish heritage customs (by far the largest tribe in the Low Countries of 1500), differ from Saxon and Frisian in particular on property rights and heritages: woman could own property and pass on their inherited wealth to their children. Their husbands didn’t have a claim.

    When a man died, a widow could act in legal standing and continue his business as many did.

    These customs were strengthened due to the Dutch Revolt (1568 – 1648) that a.o. saw the rise of all-female militia after in 1572 the citizenry of Naarden was slaughtered.

    Wartime is a great emancipator. In particular 80 years War of Liberation. It changes social customs.

    The most famous Dutch female militia leader, during the Siege of Haarlem in 1572/1573, was Kenau Simonsdochter Hasselaer.

    Mrs Hasselaer was a widow, a wood trader who ran a shipyard with both her daughters.
    Yes, in the late 16th century.

    Just picture it: a female shipyard owner in the late 16th century in Holland, at the eve of the age of Exploration and during the rise of modern free market economy. That’s like being a woman heading a sizeable Silicon Valley enterprise today.

    Historians have found that during the Dutch Revolt 20% of all businesses were lead by women.

    There are many reasons man, who married women who had ample means by herself or expected a legacy of substance, would think twice before commiting adultery.

    Also women were able to act quite independent in choosing their husband.

    One shouldn’t project too easily on other nations what one remembers from American history books. They often have an Anglosaxon bias, projecting too much the English/British values.

    American historians have found that in the New Netherlands colony, the position of women was also very different from the English Colonies too.

  232. Jack D says:
    @nebulafox

    Maybe, but my gut says that bad blood ran too deep for dividing the slave states up by 1860: both sides were totally polarized in a way that is eerily disturbing when you look at American politics today.

    But Kentucky and Missouri did not join the Confederacy, nor did MD and Del. Virginia was the only state north of the 36 degrees and 30 minutes line to leave the Union (and in the end only 1/2 of it left because W. Virginia broke away). Without VA’s leadership the Confederacy would have been even less viable than it was. SC voted to secede in December of 1860. As late as April 4, 1861, the Virginia secession convention votes 89-45 against an ordinance of secession but then the attack on Ft. Sumter and Lincoln’s proclamation calling for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion on April 15 swung the balance. On April 17, Virginia convention voted to secede from the Union.

    I don’t think anything was going to persuade the hardcore states south of 36/30 – Lincoln backed the Corwin Amendment which was an (illogical) Constitutional amendment which was supposed to permanently enshrine slavery by saying you could never amend the Constitution to prohibit it in any state that wanted it. (But presumably you could amend the Constitution to repeal the amendment so that wouldn’t have worked anyway). The point was not to be logical but to give the South psychological reassurance that if you want your slavery, you can keep your slavery.

    But as you say, that was not enough for the firebrands who hated Lincoln in the way that today’s Democrats hate Trump. There is literally nothing that Trump could ever say or do at this point that would change their opinion about him and the same was true of Lincoln at that time.

  233. Emilia says:
    @Anonymous

    It seems there are two kinds of “White” Brazilians: those who are actually mixed race but call themselves White and people who are descended from waves of (non-Portuguese) immigration and actually lack any non-European ancestry (ex. Gisele Bundchen).

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @BB753
  234. @nebulafox

    A lot of border states didn’t leave, and Virginia had it’s pro-Union component leave it after it left the Union, so Virginia could have certainly stayed. There was also a divide within the South between the old aristocracy and the new ones in the Deep South, the later wanted secession a lot more.

  235. Maarten Larmuseau, who led the study at the Catholic University of Leuven, had anticipated more illegitimate children born into the higher echelons of society. After all, he notes, in paintings, plays and literature, dubious paternity controversies seem a particular affliction of the aristocracy. “I was surprised to see this signal so prominently,” he said. “It was not what I expected.”

    This acted as morality tales, warnings. Who is more likely likely to heed warnings? We’ve had warnings on cigarette packages for about 50-years now. Demographically, the higher echelons of society are the one’s that have followed them the most, either never started or stopped smoking. The lower classes, still smoke.

  236. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous

    There is a difference between being a slave laborer in the gulag or in the Nazi concentration camps (as my father was) and being a hereditary slave. Being a slave laborer was worse but the term of service was relatively brief because no one lasted more than a few years (some much less).

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @BB753
  237. Anonymous[182] • Disclaimer says:
    @Gordo

    For the first 2 years of the war the conflict wasn’t about slavery. Lincoln at first had no intention of getting rid of slavery. His sole concern was to preserve the union. It was only in 1863 that the war became a crusade to abolish slavery.

  238. trelane says:
    @AKAHorace

    Yup, have a pleasant day and nice tomorrow

  239. nebulafox says:
    @Jack D

    I got the impression that slave life expectancy depended heavily on the type of plantation. Slaves who were unlucky enough to end up on the Brazilian sugar plantations had an average life expectancy of 4-7 years: not quite modern concentration camp levels, but definitely short. Reproduction was discouraged because it was expected the slaves would die fast enough that simply buying new ones would be cheaper.

    This was partly because sugar cultivation was an inherently miserable process to the point that masters in the US could scare their slaves by threatening to sell them to sugar plantations, and partially because as horrible as slavery was in the US, there was truly a culture of institutionalized sadism among the Portuguese masters (a non-trivial proportion of whom were hardcore felons-we’re talking rapists, murderers, arsonists, not the debtors and drunks and petty thieves the Brits deported-back in the Old World) that lacked an equivalent elsewhere. The usual tropical epidemics probably also contributed, though I’d guess Africans tended to be more resistant than the Europeans to them.

    • Replies: @donvonburg
  240. nebulafox says:
    @Emilia

    Prior to the gargantuan European immigration wave of the early 20th Century, Brazil had antebellum South Carolina-esque demographics in which the African slaves outnumbered the European ruling class. The culture of cruelty that reigned on Brazilian plantations was partially rooted in this: the slaves needed to be kept in a state of constant terror.

    I think it is safe to say the Brazilian government wanted to re-engineer demographics ASAP when slavery ended. You can still find Theodore Roosevelt’s old article from 1913 on the website, commenting on the Brazilian efforts to “whiten” the populace, through a mix of immigration and intermarriage. The idea was that through enough of both, black people would be swamped by the European gene pool, and that the long-term payoff of not having an angry black minority around would be worth the “temporary hit” of the racial mixing that’d have to occur. (The Brazilian government, like everybody else at the time, was into eugenics.) That did not happen-black people are around in Brazil-but the proportion of Africans vs. Europeans did radically shift.

    • Replies: @Emilia
  241. @Moshe

    FWIW, I’m not Jewish and was disappointed not to have any “Semitic” hits through 23andMe, apart from K2a2. One of my daughters used a different genetic service which came up with some apparently Jewish relatives of my maternal Grandfather who had a very Jewish-sounding name. B F D.

    I had to Google the name of the schmuck, “Israel Shamir.” The only Shamir I’d heard of was Yitzhak Shamir, whose name reminded me of an old joke repeated by mine Yiddisher Frau:

    “Sarah Yitzhak at the kibbutz.”

  242. @Alden

    About 2330 Google hits for, “Take me to your Leda.”

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  243. @Reg Cæsar

    OT
    You might have made a number of posts about gender being a linguistic construct and I don’t think that anyone has replied with Mark Twain’s hilarious take:

    [MORE]

    “To continue with the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female, —Tom-cats included, of course; a person’s mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and not according to the sex of the individual who wears it, —for in Germany all the women wear either male heads or sexless ones; a person’s nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven’t any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay.
    —Mark Twain, “The Awful German Language”
    Jump to Toolbar

  244. Emilia says:
    @nebulafox

    Also, much of the European (non-Portuguese) immigration to Brazil occurred in the southern part of the country, perhaps because the climate was more amenable to them (less tropical).

  245. anon[282] • Disclaimer says:
    @gcochran

    >There is actually an interesting caveat, but no one here is mentioning it.

    Assume you’re speaking of a non-paternity event where the other guy has the same Y-DNA (brother/cousin) and thus isn’t counted in these studies.

    What makes it interesting? Do you believe that happens at a high enough frequency to be material to anything? Or is it interesting more in the theoretical sense– the battle the selfish genes are engaging in. Which wins the push/pull: higher trust with male kin or heavy mate guard/keep ’em at healthy distance.

  246. BB753 says:
    @Emilia

    Why non-Portuguese? Portugal kept sending hundreds of thousands of immigrants to its former colony/Empire. The majority of immigrants were Italians, Portuguese, Lebanese and some Spaniards, Japanese, Jews and Germans.
    But you’re right that there are two kinds of White Brazilians: those descended from ancient settlers and gentry, with some Indian and African blood,(the Whitish ones) and those descended from the late 19th and 20th century waves of immigration, often unmixed Europeans. Unless you consider Southern Europeans, particularly the Portuguese, to be non-white, a purely subjective appraisal, your statement makes no sense.
    Very much the same situation as in Argentina and Uruguay, where old stock nationals, even upper-class, are mixed, no matter how White they might look, while slightly less than half of the population are mostly descendants of recent European immigrants.
    Of course, over the years, the distinction between these two groups are becoming blurry, with intermarriage and social mobility.
    As an anecdote, I’ll mention the very first Brazilian national I ever met as a youngster was a girl of 100% Japanese pedigree, in Edinburgh, Scotland, of all places!

    • Replies: @Emilia
  247. @nebulafox

    Black slaves in the American South were extremely valuable livestock and were not risked in the way that indentured servants and even white hired hands were. And the smartest ones, after a period of service as what their detractors amongst blacks would call “house N’s”, often got released when their owners neared death and headed North, so there was a “boil-off” of intelligence genes. The white slaveowners wanted a slave who wasn’t too stupid or too smart, and was physically robust enough, so they bred for that, as “Jimmy The Greek” correctly observed.

    That does not justify slavery, it was a bad idea, it was bad for the blacks spiritually if not physically and it was corrosive for whites then and now. We would now be infinitely better off had negro slaves never been allowed on the continent. And as a couple of writers here have commented, it would be smart of us to indeed offer reparations-so long as those who accept them also accept permanent banishment from our country.

    We will never be completely free of the taint of slavery as long as we are still the United States of America, but we could ameliorate the problem a lot by offering a palatable out to those who want it and openly telling the rest that it is they who will have to conform to white standards and not the other way around. Black criminality will be dealt with ruthlessly and affirmative action will cease, it being accepted that on average blacks will not do as well as whites as long as their IQs and future time orientations and levels of judgment remain as they are. Still, they will have a better life here than they could in Africa, and those who do have the intelligence and other “necessities” will be allowed to succeed to the limits of their own abilities in a society with rule of law. Those who do not consider that a fair deal can apply for reparations and be given a nest egg to live on in Africa.

    I remember when I was a kid that I got a job with a friend of mine in a place where they made fiberglass items-they had a contract for satellite dishes and another for the little cars and boats and stuff used on amusement park rides. It was hot, you always itched, and it stunk of the resins and adhesives all the time. One time we were talking and he was saying how bad the place was and how the owner was a cheapskate and so forth. (All true.) I said nothing because I had a bad sore throat and cough, not because I disagreed. Well, the owner was hiding behind some stuff and heard the whole thing and that Friday, he fired my friend. He told him that it was obvious he was not happy there and he, the owner, only wanted happy employees. I was very upset because the guy showed up on time, worked hard, and did a good job, but I said nothing because I needed the job.

    After a few weeks, my friend found a much better job and wound up making a career out of the place. I later found another job myself that paid no better but was, I figured, a leg up on getting me where I wanted to be and quit the cheapskate’s place on a Friday. Three weeks later the other place folded and I was on the streets. Desperate, I went back to the cheapskate, and he told me “no dice”-he had a no rehire policy and that was that. It took me two months to find something else while this guy was now paying more than I’d quit at to get new people in the door and working them overtime.

    I resented the cheap bastard, but in fact, he’d done me a huge favor in the long run. I learned that you have to think ahead and not do things because you resented someone, and it was at the new job I got the chance to work with a guy who made mandolins, which gave me the idea to go to instrument repair school and gave me what turned into a decent career.

    Meanwhile the cheapskate, who was hiring parolees on work release from halfway houses because of the pay they’d work for and the fact that he could order them around, wound up getting beat up and having his shop burned down by some former ’employees’ of that type with a grudge against him. Since he was underinsured, he wound up closing his business and taking a job at a casino and his wife dumped him. By then I was a Christian and realized that I’d be pretty stupid to gloat at him, but it was yet again a learning experience. Maybe if a few blacks go to Africa and their friends find out what life is like there they will be forced to admit that they have it pretty good here. Blacks in America live better than blacks in any other country. They do not do as well as Whites because they do not have White intelligence, discipline or judgment.

  248. ErisGuy says:
    @Jack D

    Even if the South had won the war, I don’t think they could have kept slavery going for much longer.

    Nice theory. Modern politics provides a once-living (but now dormant) counter-example.

    In May 1941 the allied powers of National and International Socialism governed from Pyrenees to Pacific and both were slave states with millions enslaved.

  249. @reactionry

    In Russia, it’s “Take me to your Lada.”

  250. @Jack D

    the decision that most scholars consider to be the worst Supreme Ct. decision evah.

    Certainly a contender, though the Supremes have made idiotic rulings a bit of a tradition with corkers like Kelo, Bush vs Gore, and Citizens United.

    The thing is that the Sups are kind of legal Rainmen who are brilliant in law, but have no personal understanding of how legal decisions affect the real world, so they are just pawns in the hands of whomever appoints them to their lifetime sinecures.

    The present trend is to appoint them as young as possible so that they can grow into fossil status over the decades.

    Even a person with no legal training whatsoever, for example myself, can confidently predict ahead of time exactly how each Supreme Court Justice will rule on many cases after a process of prolonged mental gymnastics, simply because the justices first decide what outcome they will vote for, and then try to make up some plausible legal-sounding reasons to support their decision.

    It will be interesting to see how the new dudes on the SC will vote in future cases. Perhaps there is some hope for the future.

    Gorsuch has written a book called The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. His main conclusion is that these practices will have no future, at least not in his lifetime. He is married to an English woman whom he met at Oxford and is said to be a fan of Winston Churchill.

    Kavanaugh also shares something with Churchill. He is a heavy drinker with a history of blacking out. Churchill once summed up his relationship with drink thus: ‘I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me.’”

    He married the personal secretary of George W. Bush, so clearly he knows how to network.

    There were allegations that he thrust his penis into the face of a woman called Ramirez at Yale University.

    She said she did not see his face, but was sure she knew the penis from somewhere. Kavanaugh said he was drunk at the time and would not have been capable of unzipping himself. In any case she looked like a gargoyle and he would not have touched her with a ten foot sterilized bargepole, but he had never met her anyway and was in the company of Prince Andrew at a Pizza Hut on the night in question.

  251. Emilia says:
    @BB753

    I meant Portuguese after the initial wave of Portuguese colonization in Brazil. With regard to the later waves of European immigrants, they and at least some of their descendants are the only truly “White” Brazilians. An example might be Gisele Bundchen, who does not appear to have any non-German ancestry, although she identifies as Brazilian and, as far as I know, speaks Portuguese and not German as her mother tongue.

    I’m not sure how much the “new Whites” (i.e. newer European immigrants) have mixed with the general population. It might be interesting to find out.

    • Replies: @BB753
  252. @Bigby

    Yeah, that’s not true. Certainly in corrupt times, the church attracted homos, but when the Church was cleaned out the degenerates left and straight men went back to leading it. Guys like St. Gregory the Great and St. Peter Damien can attest to those Augean stable-cleansing times working well.

    The dysgenic argument is decent, but really doesn’t work, given we have 2000 years of celibacy and countries thriving under it for generations. There is the idea that a lot of shut ins and too-smart-to-reproduce types found a home in the Church doing scientific research and art and history in many of the universities the Church ran, which of course was a boon to society. Anyone who’s been to or seen video of a comic book/scifi convention can note a lot of guys too awkward and smart to get out of their own way and reproduce; they aren’t gay, and, anyway, homosexuality in men is only 1.5% of the population, so its not major.

    I read an article a few years ago about the programming geeks in Silicon Valley, and how many of them are so awkward they hire sex therapists/ other type therapists to help them merely to relate to women and figure out basic social cues so they can at least find a girlfriend. You’d think a six-figure job and being straight in San Francisco would be enough to get a lot of dates, but many guys in the article seemed hopeless to even bathe regularly or not bring up Star Wars. I’ll bet there are some high-end hookers up there who do nothing but cosplay as Princess Leia.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  253. nebulafox says:
    @R.G. Camara

    To be fair to them, the sex ratio in the Bay Area makes things more difficult for men, and a six digit salary does not mean what it would elsewhere. Outside of SF and to a lesser extent a few other coastal outliers, making six digits before you hit 30 means you are doing damned well for yourself. In the Bay, a typical buck coder at one of the big N makes at least 120K base. You can live pretty solidly on that as a single person, contrary to what some say (the real problem is family formation), but you will not stand out from your peers.

    That said, when I was thinking about moving to the Bay a couple of years back, I worried to the guy who I was talking to about my prospects on the dating scene. He said by virtue of the fact that I already did basic stuff like showering daily and dressing normally, I was guarenteed to be ahead of a sizable chunk of my cohort. My subsequent visit confirmed that perception.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
  254. @nebulafox

    That said, when I was thinking about moving to the Bay a couple of years back, I worried to the guy who I was talking to about my prospects on the dating scene. He said by virtue of the fact that I already did basic stuff like showering daily and dressing normally, I was guarenteed to be ahead of a sizable chunk of my cohort. My subsequent visit confirmed that perception.

    Agreed. I have visited San Francisco, and I was almost instantly the most attractive man in any bar or club, and had the female dalliances to prove it. I’m not some model-looking guy or smooth game-spitting stud or in any way famous, but by virtue of the fact that I was straight, unapologetic of my masculinity (not meathead or domineering, just not insecure or withering or gelded), and dressed /groomed appropriately, women could smell it on me and lined up.

  255. Dissident says:
    @Moshe

    If you mean “israel” shamir, we Jews never adopted him. He, like other 5th column pseudo-jews of late, kind of foisted his goy gamur ass upon us so that he could be in the tent pissing…in

    While I am no fan of featured Unz writer Israel Shamir, I am unclear as to just what you meant to imply in characterizing him as a “pseudo-Jew”. As far as I know, Shamir claims to have been born a Jew but to have long-since converted-to Christianity (and to still practice the latter religion). Wouldn’t that (in the traditional Judaic view, which I happen to subscribe-to) make him an apostate Jew? Is it Shamir’s claim to have been born a Jew that you dispute? If so, what is your basis for doing so?

    I also noticed that you referred, in one of your past comments, to YouTube personality Luke Ford as a “fake Jew”. Here, too, I wonder what your basis or reasoning for making such a characterization is.

    [MORE]
    Do you dispute Mr. Ford’s claim to have undergone a proper, halakhic, Orthodox conversion to Judaism? Or perhaps you accept that Mr. Ford underwent a conversion process but you dispute the validity of said process? Again, please clarify any specific claims that you are making, as well as what your basis is for making them. The accusations you have implied are quite serious, and, forgive my bold frankness, but it is simply irresponsible and indefensible to throw them around in the reckless and ambiguous manner that you have here.

    Concerning Luke Ford, having listened to many of the archived audio recordings of his YouTube stream, I feel compelled to mention that I have heard him make a number of egregiously inaccurate statements concerning Judaism. (Apparently out of ignorance; I am not suggesting that he has ever been intentionally misleading.) Additionally, from both any number of statements that I have heard him make, as well as any number of instances of behavior that he has exhibited, I have no choice but to conclude that it has been sometime since Mr. Ford last took either Judaic belief or practice all that seriously. It seems entirely plausible and even likely to me that Mr. Ford’s conversion to Judaism was nothing short of entirely earnest and sincere. Assuming that is true, it would appear that Mr. Ford has, unfortunately, lapsed considerably since undergoing his conversion. Can a legitimate conversion retroactively become invalidated? I would have thought not but I am not clear on what the halakha is here.

    For the most part, I find Ford’s shows both highly informative and highly enjoyable. Ford himself can at times be downright hilarious; he’s had me in stiches more than once. For some time now, the main attraction of Ford’s show has been his co-host, the redoubtable Kevin Michael Grace. The erudite, eloquent, seasoned, and mostly affable Kevin Michael Graces the show with his commentary on current events and news stories; his commentary on the scholarly books and related topics that (for some time now) the show’s discussion centers around; and his anecdotes and insights from his own life. Additionally, both book as well film reviews from Mr. Grace are regular features of the show. Lest I have created the impression that I worship or even always agree with Mr. Grace, I note that neither is the case.

  256. Emilia says:
    @gcochran

    Do you actually believe this caveat (here “bastard” having the same meaning as the word “mamzer” for the Jews, not a child born to an unmarried woman but to a married woman and a man other than her husband)?

  257. Anon[314] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Colonial Philadelphia was already a pretty nice city; if anything it got worse over the next century.

  258. BB753 says:
    @Emilia

    The difference between Whitish and fully White Brazilians is becoming increasingly blurry, as those two groups do intermarry at a great rate.
    Same thing in Uruguay and Argentina, and to a lesser degree in Mexico, where 19th and 20th European immigration was very modest in numbers. Mexicans with no Amerindian ancestry are probably less than 1 % of the population and do not include the older stock landed gentry which rules the country.

  259. Emilia says:

    I suppose there are some Brazilian “Whites” who are so isolated in their own communities that they don’t mix with others. Such might have been the case with Gisele Bundchen’s family (my impression is that the Italian immigrants mixed more with the Brazilian general population than the German immigrants did).

    Whenever somebody in Latin America claims to be of pure Spanish ancestry and have a long history in whatever country they live in, I’m always sceptical. The fact is that very few of the early Spanish (and Portuguese) immigrants to the New World were women, so race mixing was inevitable. Then again, you’ll occasionally get a person from a very mixed country who turns out to be of pure European ancestry, like an ex-boyfriend of mine who was born to a father of German and mother of Italian descent.

  260. Emilia says:

    It’s also the case that many countries in Latin America that consider themselves “White” aren’t so all-European genetically (ex. Argentina, Uruguay and Costa Rica).

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 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
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS