The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Eastern English Are About 3/8ths Anglo-Saxon

East Englishman

There’s a new article in Nature about what they’ve learned from the DNA of ten very old dead bodies dug up from around Cambridge in the east of England.

British population history has been shaped by a series of immigrations, including the early Anglo-Saxon migrations after 400 CE. It remains an open question how these events affected the genetic composition of the current British population. Here, we present whole-genome sequences from 10 individuals excavated close to Cambridge in the East of England, ranging from the late Iron Age to the middle Anglo-Saxon period. By analysing shared rare variants with hundreds of modern samples from Britain and Europe, we estimate that on average the contemporary East English population derives 38% of its ancestry from Anglo-Saxon migrations. We gain further insight with a new method, rarecoal, which infers population history and identifies fine-scale genetic ancestry from rare variants. Using rarecoal we find that the Anglo-Saxon samples are closely related to modern Dutch and Danish populations, while the Iron Age samples share ancestors with multiple Northern European populations including Britain.

So, in the east of England, about 3/8ths of the ancestry comes from the Anglo-Saxon invasions of roughly 1500 years ago. (Of course, there were also subsequent invasions by Vikings and Normans (Frenchified Vikings), and the three are kind of hard to tell apart.)

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. The Independent reported last March on a detailed genetic study of the British population. Many historic and prehistoric demographic events show up, but some don’t:

    “Other major events in history, such as the Roman invasion and occupation between 43AD and 410AD, the large-scale invasion by the Viking Danes in 865AD and the subsequent establishment of Danelaw, as well as the Norman invasion of 1066, cannot be seen in the genetic profiles of Britons today.

    “This probably reflects the fact that often major cultural shifts are carried out by relatively few people within an elite who do not leave their genetic mark on the conquered masses, said Sir Walter Bodmer, the veteran population geneticist who first had the idea of the study.”

    • Replies: @Rob McX

    “Other major events in history, such as the Roman invasion and occupation between 43AD and 410AD, the large-scale invasion by the Viking Danes in 865AD and the subsequent establishment of Danelaw, as well as the Norman invasion of 1066, cannot be seen in the genetic profiles of Britons today".
     
    Gregory Clark has found that those with Norman surnames have higher incomes and live longer, if this article is accurate.
    , @Anonymous
    The Normans didn't just conquer the masses, they conquered the entire land mass, including ultimately Scotland and Wales. Ireland followed soon enough. The local aristocracy was basically wiped out, from the royal families on down. The people were simply taken over from their previous owners, as it were, and kept very firmly in their place for the next, oh, thousand years or so.
    They then went on to do the same in Sicily - wherever they wanted too really.
    Just one knight of that famous invasion (in the larger sense; he was not present at Hastings) is the direct male line progenitor of both the FitzAlans, Earls of Arundel and Dukes of Norfolk (to this day), and the Stewart Kings of Scotland and, all too briefly, England. Interestingly, as the later title of Duke of Norfolk suggests, he was intimately involved in East Anglian affairs from c. 1100.

    Greatest conquerers the world has ever seen, and I doubt that we have seen the last of them.
    , @Anonymous
    Actually, there are DNA markers that remain. For instance the E3b marker in the UK is believed by many geneticist to be a marker of Thaco-Dacian-Sarmatian cavalry legionaries. That it corresponds to noted Roman forts and units known to have been recruited in the Illyrian, Thracian, and Dacian provinces would appear to prove this hypothesis. Additionally, there is little to no known difference between the Belgae nation of Gaul, the Belgiums, and the British aristocracy. So, how could there be one today? Vikings are very similar to Anglo-Saxons. Indeed, Anglia isn't in England it is Denmark and Germany today. Consequently, this movement of peoples seems with a few noted exceptions to be one of various ethnicities of the same broad racial group around the English Channel and North Sea who have moved into around and back into one another being separated principally by language and religion and not be race.

    For instance, following Charlemagne's annihilation of the Saxon aristocracy in Germany and the Netherlands those who survived escaped into Scandinavia just prior to the Viking invasions. That would suggest not only that the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings were the same but had the same aristocracy. As to the Normans, consider that Normandy was erected by these same Vikings upon a surviving post-Roman province which included Britanny. The Britons weren't Franks but were displaced British aristocracy from modern day England seeking refuge amongst fellow Romano-British in the area of France near the English Channel. They were distinct from the Franks. Thus, the Franks weren't so keen on giving one of their provinces away to the Vikings as they were on giving away a troublesome tributary Kingdom of Britons in Gaul to the Vikings. Furthermore, supposedly a large number of the Northmen aristocracy intermarried with the British in Gaul giving rise to the Norman aristocracy. In turn, the Norman aristocracy was a mix of British, Viking, and Anglo-Saxon and indistinguishable from their conquered subjects except by language, religion, dress, culture, and weaponized aristocracy.

    In short, whilst it is certain many of these "invasions" were mostly minority colonizations of Britain in which a new ruling aristocracy displaced the old, and ultimately were bred out by the subject peoples, that isn't necessarily the explanation for why the genes appear to disappear. It could just as easily be there was no difference to speak of genetically, except one more of language, culture, and religion. In such a scenario what differences that existed were ones of class, not genetics. Lastly, there are genetic markers for some of the invasions or occupations, mostly of particular subset of the Romano-British who appear to have been Thraco-Dacian and Sarmatians. Intriguingly, these were all noted as heavy armored cavalry. In other words, Arthur and his knights which became the cohesive myth of medieval chivalry centered between the Seine, Rhine, Thames, Ouse, and Severn rivers appear to be a fusion of all the aforementioned tribes centered upon a distinct Thraco-Dacian-Sarmatian-Roman cavalry. This was the once and future King and his chivalry, which united similar but differentiated peoples around the medieval knight. Unlike today's "immigrants" the later were actually streams of the same river coming back to one another.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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 once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/eastern-english-are-about-38ths-anglo-saxon/#comment-1301909
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Isn’t it absurd to extrapolate from ten bodies?

    • Replies: @David
    I don't think so. It's analogous to drawing conclusions about the composition of the atmosphere based on a few samples.

    Incidentally, the fraction 3/8 expressed as a rounded percent uses the same two digits in the same order. For you math mavens looking for a puzzle, this is true for one other fraction.
    , @AndrewR
    Were these even Anglo-Saxon bodies or are they bodies who believed they were Anglo-Saxon?
    , @pyrrhus
    Ten bodies in one location--yes, it is a pretty big stretch....
    , @backup
    We have the Hinxton finds as well, plus a study of the fine grain genetic differences of the current day English populations. They fit this study well.

    http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2015/02/a-genetic-map-of-british-population.html
    , @5371
    Yes, especially when you're using a foolish method based on rare variants rather than overall distance.
  3. @John Mansfield
    The Independent reported last March on a detailed genetic study of the British population. Many historic and prehistoric demographic events show up, but some don’t:

    “Other major events in history, such as the Roman invasion and occupation between 43AD and 410AD, the large-scale invasion by the Viking Danes in 865AD and the subsequent establishment of Danelaw, as well as the Norman invasion of 1066, cannot be seen in the genetic profiles of Britons today.

    “This probably reflects the fact that often major cultural shifts are carried out by relatively few people within an elite who do not leave their genetic mark on the conquered masses, said Sir Walter Bodmer, the veteran population geneticist who first had the idea of the study.”

    “Other major events in history, such as the Roman invasion and occupation between 43AD and 410AD, the large-scale invasion by the Viking Danes in 865AD and the subsequent establishment of Danelaw, as well as the Norman invasion of 1066, cannot be seen in the genetic profiles of Britons today”.

    Gregory Clark has found that those with Norman surnames have higher incomes and live longer, if this article is accurate.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    The few Normans who came over stayed would have been the elite.

    Through off the Norman yoke my Anglo-Saxon brothers!

    , @advancedatheist
    The British gerontologist Aubrey de Grey reportedly inherited several million pounds when his mother died. An Anchetil de Greye came over with William the Conqueror, so you have to wonder how far back in time Aubrey's family fortune goes. Did it originate from the division of the spoils after the Norman Conquest?
    , @yaqub the mad scientist
    I think it has something to do with that weird word I saw once in the Preamble to the US Constitution: "posterity".
  4. @robot
    Isn't it absurd to extrapolate from ten bodies?

    I don’t think so. It’s analogous to drawing conclusions about the composition of the atmosphere based on a few samples.

    Incidentally, the fraction 3/8 expressed as a rounded percent uses the same two digits in the same order. For you math mavens looking for a puzzle, this is true for one other fraction.

    • Replies: @Justpassingby
    8/9
    , @Roger Sweeny
    It seems to me that it's more like drawing conclusions about the composition of the atmosphere based on ten samples of one molecule each. "According to a study in Nature, the atmosphere is 80% nitrogen, 10% oxygen, and 10% argon."
    , @Realist
    "I don’t think so. It’s analogous to drawing conclusions about the composition of the atmosphere based on a few samples."

    You're comparing distributions of human populations to the distribution of gas molecules???
    , @Realist
    Why the portrait of Isaac Newton?
    , @Anonymous
    1/6
  5. Many of us Englishmen have always thought those from East Anglia were a bit, well, weird.

    • Replies: @Jimbo
    I live in New England, which was settled mainly by people from East Anglia (Read "Albion's Seed") The weirdness is all around me (disguised as a crippling sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country...)
    , @AndrewR
    Your racism triggers me
    , @syonredux

    Many of us Englishmen have always thought those from East Anglia were a bit, well, weird.
     
    Perhaps weird is code for highly productive in the arts and the sciences:

    At about the same time that Lodge did this research (into intellectual achievement by region in the USA) , the English scholar Havelock Ellis made a study of intellectual achievement in his own country, and also found strong differences between regions. The eastern counties of England and East Anglia most of all accounted for a much larger proportion of literary, scientific, and intellectual achievement than any other part of England.
     
    David Hackett Fischer, Albion's Seed, page 134.
    , @Anonymous
    So that's why they say "Normal For Norfolk"?
  6. That would make sense the Anglo-Saxon invasion/immigration had a more definitive impact on East Anglia (diffusing as one goes further West/upland – I imagine Devon or Northumberland must have a negligible fraction) more so say than the Turks on Anatolian landscape.

    Also re the Normans I doubt that they had a great genetic landscape across the board however there is very little doubt there is a huge “ancestral” Norman component to the upper & upper middle classes.

    • Replies: @M
    @Zach Latif: Per the paper Anglo-Saxon ancestry varies from a high of around a high of 38% in East England to 30% in Scotland and Wales. Devon might be around 34%? So likely not negligible.

    I'd think Devon might be closer to EE than Wales though, since the large finestructure cluster analysis of Britain last year found much not much structure in England, generally (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632200/). Only small villages from the tip of Cornwall were found to be in a genetically different cluster from the Eastern English.

    I doubt there's much of a Norman component genetically, though I think it's quite possible the names are still associated with wealth - some Norman surname guy marries an Anglo-Saxon surname woman of good family and as this continues for generations the association of the name with wealth keeps up, even as the ancestry is washed through.
  7. @Rob McX

    “Other major events in history, such as the Roman invasion and occupation between 43AD and 410AD, the large-scale invasion by the Viking Danes in 865AD and the subsequent establishment of Danelaw, as well as the Norman invasion of 1066, cannot be seen in the genetic profiles of Britons today".
     
    Gregory Clark has found that those with Norman surnames have higher incomes and live longer, if this article is accurate.

    The few Normans who came over stayed would have been the elite.

    Through off the Norman yoke my Anglo-Saxon brothers!

  8. @David
    I don't think so. It's analogous to drawing conclusions about the composition of the atmosphere based on a few samples.

    Incidentally, the fraction 3/8 expressed as a rounded percent uses the same two digits in the same order. For you math mavens looking for a puzzle, this is true for one other fraction.

    8/9

  9. Wow! It sounds like those Anglo-Saxons had one helluva New Years Eve party in England!

    Joking aside, there are similar patterns in the New World.

    In Mexico (like Germany today) the invaders were male. They had to fornicate with somebody, so they started breeding with the local women. Hence the huge percentage of Mestizos in Mexico.

    Other countries, like the USA, were invaded by gender-mixed populations. These invaders (aka Pilgrims) fornicated with each other and maintained separate cultures and race purity.

    The choices that Germany faces are difficult.

    Do they let the Muslim male invaders bring in their own female breeders from Africa and the Middle East? If so, the Germans wind up like the American Indians, culturally and racially replaced in their own land.

    Or do the Germans keep the female Muslim breeders out (no “family reunification”) and start sexually servicing and mongrelizing with the male Muslim invaders a la Mexico? If so they will create a Germano-Muslim version of Mexico’s Mestizo “Raza Cosmica”.

    It is interesting to consider the American example.

    Massasoit (the Merkel-ish American Indian chief) opened his heart and welcomed the tiny band of poor pathetic Pilgrims as refugees.

    A half century later it was Massasoit’s own son, Metacom, who attempted to exterminate the now huge number of English invaders in “King Philip’s War”. Unfortunately, the Indians had agreed to a gun control law about ten years before and were defeated.

    There was a good result to the war, however: the scattered, divided Anglo invaders stopped fighting among themselves and forged a new identity as “Americans”.

    Maybe Merkel can do the same: fill up Germany with many warring, squabbling tribes of Muslims and Africans, disarm the Germans, and when the Germans finally fight back (after tens of millions of new invaders have arrived), forge a new cohesive Muslim/African/German identity among the invaders.

    The historical parallels are fascinating.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Other countries, like the USA, were invaded by gender-mixed populations.
     
    Otherwise known as "families".

    There was no "USA" at the time.

    These invaders (aka Pilgrims) fornicated with each other and maintained separate cultures and race purity
     
    .

    "Fornication" is an unusual term for having ten children in wedlock.

    The "race purity" went both ways. The near total lack of miscegenation in New England is remarkable, considering that the Englishmen there always had friendly relations with one tribe or another, even during the wars. (Philip's people were allies during the Pequot War, and the Pequots allies during King Philip's. It was never purely white vs red.

    Race mixing had already begun in Virginia. Disney made a movie about that.

    Unfortunately, the Indians had agreed to a gun control law about ten years before and were defeated.
     
    It's called "arms control" when applied to a foreign population. The Indians were free to manufacture their own weapons.
    , @AndrewR
    Well the ideal option is obviously repatriation ASAP, but the parallels do break down.

    Primarily, Germany is in a position to meet the sexual desires of its migrants via nonreproductive prostitution. Latex condoms, hormonal birth control and safer abortion did not exist in the 17th century. Germany could even subsidize the sexual liasons of the migrants while discouraging actual inter-ethnic marriage and breeding. I'm not saying this is ideal but just pointing out the weakness of your analogy.
    , @backup
    Archaeological evidence shows that the section of Germany where the Angles came from - an area still called Angeln - was completely abandoned during the migrations area. Considering the Germanic attitude towards marriage the men wouldn't have taken second wives. If anything was spread by these peoples it was the culture keeping ones sexual feelings in check.
    , @Anonymous
    Central America like other equatorial regions had greater native population density and an environment that Europeans were much less adapted to compared to North America and the Southern Cone of South America. Which is why North America and the Southern Cone become more demographically European. Even in more recent times, equatorial Africa never managed to host significant European settlement while South Africa did for the same reasons. Pilgrim families would have had difficulty establishing settlements in the more equatorial region of the Americas.
    , @anon
    "The historic parallels are fascinating".

    But not the demographic or civilizational ones.

    In the whole of the landmass that eventually became the lower 48 states there were probably well less then 2 million Indians. Germany about thirty times smaller has a population of 80 million. The Indians had built virtually nothing, no roads, bridges, towns, cities, just simple hunter-gatherers. Germany has a very advanced technological civilization.

    Why not compare apples to apples instead of oranges.
    , @Simon in London
    "Maybe Merkel can do the same: fill up Germany with many warring, squabbling tribes of Muslims and Africans, disarm the Germans, and when the Germans finally fight back (after tens of millions of new invaders have arrived), forge a new cohesive Muslim/African/German identity among the invaders.

    The historical parallels are fascinating."

    That's pretty grim. But makes sense.
    , @Wilkey
    "Do they let the Muslim male invaders bring in their own female breeders from Africa and the Middle East...Or do the Germans keep the female Muslim breeders out (no “family reunification”) and start sexually servicing and mongrelizing with the male Muslim invaders a la Mexico?"

    Neither. No visas for wives or arranged marriages, and no German women to marry them. If they want families they can return home. Otherwise they can die off childless and alone, or perhaps like men in prison they can learn to, uh, enjoy the company of each other.
  10. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Cambridge is in the south. There’s an obvious difference between northern and southern English. The north has high unemployment and lackluster post post industrial cities while the south is the dynamic economic engine of the country.

    I remember from Outline of History by HG Wells (1920), he noted that there were probably racial differences in origins of northern v. southern English. Further exploration nowadays might have been suppressed by the PC climate.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I've always intuitively assumed that the Northern English were more Celtic in origin. Basically southern Scots.
    , @dearieme
    Whereas in the second half of the 19th century the North and Midlands were the thriving areas and much of the South was mired in agricultural depression. Golly their genes must have changed quickly.
    , @Joe Walker
    The way I understand it, the main genetic difference in Britain is between west and east, not north and south.
  11. @albion
    Many of us Englishmen have always thought those from East Anglia were a bit, well, weird.

    I live in New England, which was settled mainly by people from East Anglia (Read “Albion’s Seed”) The weirdness is all around me (disguised as a crippling sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country…)

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I live in New England, which was settled mainly by people from East Anglia (Read “Albion’s Seed”) The weirdness is all around me (disguised as a crippling sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country…)
     
    Today's New England is about as Anglo-Saxon as Hawaii, which was also settled/invaded/whatever by Calvinist Yankees. Barney Frank, Thomas Menino, and Whitey Bulger hardly evoke East Anglia. And let's not get into the wild Kennedy tribe... other than they put paid to any notion of Yankee dominance.

    sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country...
     
    I have lived in about fifteen states, in almost every corner of the country, and can attest that this sense is pretty much universal. Nothing unusual there.

    However, depending on the individual and the subject, people are also ready to admit their inferiority. New Englanders-- and New Yorkers, Midwesterners, Westerners, etc.-- seem to think the South is particularly good at making music. Where they got this fanciful idea is beyond me. As with England, selling music is not the same art as making it.

    That New England has never produced a native rock star (unless you count Billy Squier) should be a source of pride, not shame.
    , @syonredux

    I live in New England, which was settled mainly by people from East Anglia (Read “Albion’s Seed”) The weirdness is all around me (disguised as a crippling sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country…)
     
    New Englanders have a lot to feel superior about: Francis Parkman, William Hickling Prescott, Josiah Willard Gibbs, Charles Sanders Peirce, Benjamin Franklin, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Robert Goddard, Emily Dickinson, Robert Frost, TS Eliot (born in St Louis to a community of New Englanders), Thoreau, .....
  12. @Rob McX

    “Other major events in history, such as the Roman invasion and occupation between 43AD and 410AD, the large-scale invasion by the Viking Danes in 865AD and the subsequent establishment of Danelaw, as well as the Norman invasion of 1066, cannot be seen in the genetic profiles of Britons today".
     
    Gregory Clark has found that those with Norman surnames have higher incomes and live longer, if this article is accurate.

    The British gerontologist Aubrey de Grey reportedly inherited several million pounds when his mother died. An Anchetil de Greye came over with William the Conqueror, so you have to wonder how far back in time Aubrey’s family fortune goes. Did it originate from the division of the spoils after the Norman Conquest?

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I would imagine that after 900 years there wouldn't be a whole lot of hereditary continuity in wealth, although I am open to contradictory data.
  13. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Can Anglo-Saxons genes be really be distinguished from Viking and Norman genes? If you were from most parts of Denmark, you could either be an Angle, Saxon, Jute, Viking or Norman, depending on the time period.

    So if you were if were in southern England, the Jutes could be there in 600 AD, the Vikings could have taken over in 800 AD, more Vikings in 900 AD, and the Normans in 1066. All of these newcomers could have come from the same Danish village.

  14. Didn’t a lot of the immigrants to the Massachusetts Bay Colony come from this same area?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Didn’t a lot of the immigrants to the Massachusetts Bay Colony come from this same area?
     
    Yes. In Albion's Seed, David Hackett Fischer notes that approx 60% of the immigrants to Puritan Massachusetts came from the nine eastern counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Linconshire, Bedfordshire, and Kent. And, of these nine counties, Suffolk, Essex, and Norfolk sent the largest contingents (p. 33)
  15. @Big Bill
    Wow! It sounds like those Anglo-Saxons had one helluva New Years Eve party in England!

    Joking aside, there are similar patterns in the New World.

    In Mexico (like Germany today) the invaders were male. They had to fornicate with somebody, so they started breeding with the local women. Hence the huge percentage of Mestizos in Mexico.

    Other countries, like the USA, were invaded by gender-mixed populations. These invaders (aka Pilgrims) fornicated with each other and maintained separate cultures and race purity.

    The choices that Germany faces are difficult.

    Do they let the Muslim male invaders bring in their own female breeders from Africa and the Middle East? If so, the Germans wind up like the American Indians, culturally and racially replaced in their own land.

    Or do the Germans keep the female Muslim breeders out (no "family reunification") and start sexually servicing and mongrelizing with the male Muslim invaders a la Mexico? If so they will create a Germano-Muslim version of Mexico's Mestizo "Raza Cosmica".

    It is interesting to consider the American example.

    Massasoit (the Merkel-ish American Indian chief) opened his heart and welcomed the tiny band of poor pathetic Pilgrims as refugees.

    A half century later it was Massasoit's own son, Metacom, who attempted to exterminate the now huge number of English invaders in "King Philip's War". Unfortunately, the Indians had agreed to a gun control law about ten years before and were defeated.

    There was a good result to the war, however: the scattered, divided Anglo invaders stopped fighting among themselves and forged a new identity as "Americans".

    Maybe Merkel can do the same: fill up Germany with many warring, squabbling tribes of Muslims and Africans, disarm the Germans, and when the Germans finally fight back (after tens of millions of new invaders have arrived), forge a new cohesive Muslim/African/German identity among the invaders.

    The historical parallels are fascinating.

    Other countries, like the USA, were invaded by gender-mixed populations.

    Otherwise known as “families”.

    There was no “USA” at the time.

    These invaders (aka Pilgrims) fornicated with each other and maintained separate cultures and race purity

    .

    “Fornication” is an unusual term for having ten children in wedlock.

    The “race purity” went both ways. The near total lack of miscegenation in New England is remarkable, considering that the Englishmen there always had friendly relations with one tribe or another, even during the wars. (Philip’s people were allies during the Pequot War, and the Pequots allies during King Philip’s. It was never purely white vs red.

    Race mixing had already begun in Virginia. Disney made a movie about that.

    Unfortunately, the Indians had agreed to a gun control law about ten years before and were defeated.

    It’s called “arms control” when applied to a foreign population. The Indians were free to manufacture their own weapons.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    True. The treaty with the Indians kept them from getting their hands on guns. It didn't keep them from making their own bows and arrows. I suppose Merkel could do the same:take the Germans guns away but let them make bows and arrows to defend against the Muslim invaders.
  16. Eastern English Are About 3/8ths Anglo-Saxon

    Damn. I thought I was 3/8ths Anglo-Saxon, mostly eastern English. Now this makes me only 9/64ths at most.

    A septroon!

  17. @robot
    Isn't it absurd to extrapolate from ten bodies?

    Were these even Anglo-Saxon bodies or are they bodies who believed they were Anglo-Saxon?

  18. @albion
    Many of us Englishmen have always thought those from East Anglia were a bit, well, weird.

    Your racism triggers me

  19. @Big Bill
    Wow! It sounds like those Anglo-Saxons had one helluva New Years Eve party in England!

    Joking aside, there are similar patterns in the New World.

    In Mexico (like Germany today) the invaders were male. They had to fornicate with somebody, so they started breeding with the local women. Hence the huge percentage of Mestizos in Mexico.

    Other countries, like the USA, were invaded by gender-mixed populations. These invaders (aka Pilgrims) fornicated with each other and maintained separate cultures and race purity.

    The choices that Germany faces are difficult.

    Do they let the Muslim male invaders bring in their own female breeders from Africa and the Middle East? If so, the Germans wind up like the American Indians, culturally and racially replaced in their own land.

    Or do the Germans keep the female Muslim breeders out (no "family reunification") and start sexually servicing and mongrelizing with the male Muslim invaders a la Mexico? If so they will create a Germano-Muslim version of Mexico's Mestizo "Raza Cosmica".

    It is interesting to consider the American example.

    Massasoit (the Merkel-ish American Indian chief) opened his heart and welcomed the tiny band of poor pathetic Pilgrims as refugees.

    A half century later it was Massasoit's own son, Metacom, who attempted to exterminate the now huge number of English invaders in "King Philip's War". Unfortunately, the Indians had agreed to a gun control law about ten years before and were defeated.

    There was a good result to the war, however: the scattered, divided Anglo invaders stopped fighting among themselves and forged a new identity as "Americans".

    Maybe Merkel can do the same: fill up Germany with many warring, squabbling tribes of Muslims and Africans, disarm the Germans, and when the Germans finally fight back (after tens of millions of new invaders have arrived), forge a new cohesive Muslim/African/German identity among the invaders.

    The historical parallels are fascinating.

    Well the ideal option is obviously repatriation ASAP, but the parallels do break down.

    Primarily, Germany is in a position to meet the sexual desires of its migrants via nonreproductive prostitution. Latex condoms, hormonal birth control and safer abortion did not exist in the 17th century. Germany could even subsidize the sexual liasons of the migrants while discouraging actual inter-ethnic marriage and breeding. I’m not saying this is ideal but just pointing out the weakness of your analogy.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams

    Primarily, Germany is in a position to meet the sexual desires of its migrants via nonreproductive prostitution. Latex condoms, hormonal birth control and safer abortion did not exist in the 17th century.
     
    Do latex condoms, hormonal birth control, and abortion-on-demand keep white American women from making babies with black men? I don't think so.

    It's not a technological issue, but a social one.

    If you don't want white women to mate with the non-white men in their midst, then you have to make the social punishments for breaking the taboo so severe that neither a white woman nor a non-white man will want to risk it.

    Without a strong taboo against miscegenation, backed up by severe social penalties (total ostracization from polite society, at the very least), white women will mate with non-white men. Not all white women, and maybe not the best and brightest white women, but a good number of white women will be willing and even eager to do so, yes.

    In this day and age, would anyone in any position of authority in Germany be willing to stand up publicly and say, "If a white German woman has a child by a non-white non-German man, she should be forced to forfeit all of her rights to any and all forms of welfare and become a social outcast?" I think not.

    That's the kind of social prohibition it would take - and that might not even be enough.

    (I won't talk about the kinds of social prohibitions that would have to be used to motivate the men. In the American South, they involved ropes and trees.)

    Germany could even subsidize the sexual liasons of the migrants while discouraging actual inter-ethnic marriage and breeding.
     
    You want the German government to pimp out prostitutes to service "downtrodden refugees" - on the taxpayer's dime? Can you hear yourself?

    Maybe the oh-so-tolerant Teutons would go for this.
  20. @anonymous
    Cambridge is in the south. There's an obvious difference between northern and southern English. The north has high unemployment and lackluster post post industrial cities while the south is the dynamic economic engine of the country.

    I remember from Outline of History by HG Wells (1920), he noted that there were probably racial differences in origins of northern v. southern English. Further exploration nowadays might have been suppressed by the PC climate.

    I’ve always intuitively assumed that the Northern English were more Celtic in origin. Basically southern Scots.

    • Replies: @al gore rhythms

    I’ve always intuitively assumed that the Northern English were more Celtic in origin. Basically southern Scots.
     
    It's the other way around. Southern Scots are basically Anglo-Saxon.
  21. @robot
    Isn't it absurd to extrapolate from ten bodies?

    Ten bodies in one location–yes, it is a pretty big stretch….

  22. @advancedatheist
    The British gerontologist Aubrey de Grey reportedly inherited several million pounds when his mother died. An Anchetil de Greye came over with William the Conqueror, so you have to wonder how far back in time Aubrey's family fortune goes. Did it originate from the division of the spoils after the Norman Conquest?

    I would imagine that after 900 years there wouldn’t be a whole lot of hereditary continuity in wealth, although I am open to contradictory data.

  23. @Jimbo
    I live in New England, which was settled mainly by people from East Anglia (Read "Albion's Seed") The weirdness is all around me (disguised as a crippling sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country...)

    I live in New England, which was settled mainly by people from East Anglia (Read “Albion’s Seed”) The weirdness is all around me (disguised as a crippling sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country…)

    Today’s New England is about as Anglo-Saxon as Hawaii, which was also settled/invaded/whatever by Calvinist Yankees. Barney Frank, Thomas Menino, and Whitey Bulger hardly evoke East Anglia. And let’s not get into the wild Kennedy tribe… other than they put paid to any notion of Yankee dominance.

    sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country…

    I have lived in about fifteen states, in almost every corner of the country, and can attest that this sense is pretty much universal. Nothing unusual there.

    However, depending on the individual and the subject, people are also ready to admit their inferiority. New Englanders– and New Yorkers, Midwesterners, Westerners, etc.– seem to think the South is particularly good at making music. Where they got this fanciful idea is beyond me. As with England, selling music is not the same art as making it.

    That New England has never produced a native rock star (unless you count Billy Squier) should be a source of pride, not shame.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Um, the band Boston. Others:

    Aerosmith

    The Cars (Rick Ocasek)

    Phish

    The Pixies
    , @AMH
    "That New England has never produced a native rock star (unless you count Billy Squier) should be a source of pride, not shame."

    I guess that is a matter of perspective - James Taylor, Carly Simon, Norman Greenbaum and Gene Pitney are/were all native New Englanders. Not to mention Joe Perry, and most of Aerosmith.
    , @Davosbane
    Ronnie James Dio, Boston (the band), Aerosmith
    , @Anon
    Other than Aerosmith, the Pixies and the Cars.
  24. @David
    I don't think so. It's analogous to drawing conclusions about the composition of the atmosphere based on a few samples.

    Incidentally, the fraction 3/8 expressed as a rounded percent uses the same two digits in the same order. For you math mavens looking for a puzzle, this is true for one other fraction.

    It seems to me that it’s more like drawing conclusions about the composition of the atmosphere based on ten samples of one molecule each. “According to a study in Nature, the atmosphere is 80% nitrogen, 10% oxygen, and 10% argon.”

  25. @albion
    Many of us Englishmen have always thought those from East Anglia were a bit, well, weird.

    Many of us Englishmen have always thought those from East Anglia were a bit, well, weird.

    Perhaps weird is code for highly productive in the arts and the sciences:

    At about the same time that Lodge did this research (into intellectual achievement by region in the USA) , the English scholar Havelock Ellis made a study of intellectual achievement in his own country, and also found strong differences between regions. The eastern counties of England and East Anglia most of all accounted for a much larger proportion of literary, scientific, and intellectual achievement than any other part of England.

    David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed, page 134.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    There's a difference between Cambridge (eastern) and Oxford (western) in scientific output down through the centuries in Cambridge's favor.
  26. @Luke Lea
    Didn't a lot of the immigrants to the Massachusetts Bay Colony come from this same area?

    Didn’t a lot of the immigrants to the Massachusetts Bay Colony come from this same area?

    Yes. In Albion’s Seed, David Hackett Fischer notes that approx 60% of the immigrants to Puritan Massachusetts came from the nine eastern counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Linconshire, Bedfordshire, and Kent. And, of these nine counties, Suffolk, Essex, and Norfolk sent the largest contingents (p. 33)

  27. A quibble. “Norsemen” means the Norse in general, not Normans in particular. In fact maybe it doesn’t even include Normans.

  28. @David
    I don't think so. It's analogous to drawing conclusions about the composition of the atmosphere based on a few samples.

    Incidentally, the fraction 3/8 expressed as a rounded percent uses the same two digits in the same order. For you math mavens looking for a puzzle, this is true for one other fraction.

    “I don’t think so. It’s analogous to drawing conclusions about the composition of the atmosphere based on a few samples.”

    You’re comparing distributions of human populations to the distribution of gas molecules???

  29. @David
    I don't think so. It's analogous to drawing conclusions about the composition of the atmosphere based on a few samples.

    Incidentally, the fraction 3/8 expressed as a rounded percent uses the same two digits in the same order. For you math mavens looking for a puzzle, this is true for one other fraction.

    Why the portrait of Isaac Newton?

  30. @Reg Cæsar

    I live in New England, which was settled mainly by people from East Anglia (Read “Albion’s Seed”) The weirdness is all around me (disguised as a crippling sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country…)
     
    Today's New England is about as Anglo-Saxon as Hawaii, which was also settled/invaded/whatever by Calvinist Yankees. Barney Frank, Thomas Menino, and Whitey Bulger hardly evoke East Anglia. And let's not get into the wild Kennedy tribe... other than they put paid to any notion of Yankee dominance.

    sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country...
     
    I have lived in about fifteen states, in almost every corner of the country, and can attest that this sense is pretty much universal. Nothing unusual there.

    However, depending on the individual and the subject, people are also ready to admit their inferiority. New Englanders-- and New Yorkers, Midwesterners, Westerners, etc.-- seem to think the South is particularly good at making music. Where they got this fanciful idea is beyond me. As with England, selling music is not the same art as making it.

    That New England has never produced a native rock star (unless you count Billy Squier) should be a source of pride, not shame.

    Um, the band Boston. Others:

    Aerosmith

    The Cars (Rick Ocasek)

    Phish

    The Pixies

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Origins of leaders of "New England" bands:

    Aerosmith: New York
    Boston: Ohio
    Cars: Ohio
    J Geils Band: New York
    Pixies: California, Ohio, Philippines
    Phish: Texas, Pennsylvania, New York

    Although formed in Burlington, Phish is about as Yankee as Ben, Jerry, and Bernie Sanders.

    Dick Dale may be Massachusetts's greatest rock product. He's Lebanese.
  31. @Jimbo
    I live in New England, which was settled mainly by people from East Anglia (Read "Albion's Seed") The weirdness is all around me (disguised as a crippling sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country...)

    I live in New England, which was settled mainly by people from East Anglia (Read “Albion’s Seed”) The weirdness is all around me (disguised as a crippling sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country…)

    New Englanders have a lot to feel superior about: Francis Parkman, William Hickling Prescott, Josiah Willard Gibbs, Charles Sanders Peirce, Benjamin Franklin, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Robert Goddard, Emily Dickinson, Robert Frost, TS Eliot (born in St Louis to a community of New Englanders), Thoreau, …..

  32. Why the portrait of Isaac Newton?
    This comment is not meant for David

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Why the portrait of Isaac Newton?
    This comment is not meant for David
     
    Reasons of birth and education:

    Isaac Newton was born according to the Julian calendar (in use in England at the time) on Christmas Day, 25 December 1642 (NS 4 January 1643[1]), at Woolsthorpe Manor in Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, a hamlet in the county of Lincolnshire.
     

    In June 1661, he was admitted to Trinity College, Cambridge, on the recommendation of his uncle Rev William Ayscough. He started as a subsizar—paying his way by performing valet's duties—until he was awarded a scholarship in 1664, which guaranteed him four more years until he would get his M.A
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
  33. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Was Newton an East Englishman?

    Newton was from 60 miles north of Cambridge, over the border into the next county. Cambridgeshire is officially part of “the East of England,” but Lincolnshire is not. And we probably are really talking about East Anglia, which doesn’t match current counties very well. Probably the boundary should go through the middle of Cambridgeshire, encompassing Cambridge but not Newton’s birthplace.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    Lincolnshire is on the east coast of England. Stop being silly.
  34. OT: Oberlin president tells black separatist students to stick it.

    http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/01/oberlin_college_president_refuses_to_respond_to_black_students_who_submitted_14_pages_of_demands.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home_pop

    • Replies: @iffen
    Yes, but he had to genuflect first.

    .....structural and systemic racism in American higher education."

    He didn't go with #freespeechismoreimportantthanblacklives#
  35. @anonymous
    Cambridge is in the south. There's an obvious difference between northern and southern English. The north has high unemployment and lackluster post post industrial cities while the south is the dynamic economic engine of the country.

    I remember from Outline of History by HG Wells (1920), he noted that there were probably racial differences in origins of northern v. southern English. Further exploration nowadays might have been suppressed by the PC climate.

    Whereas in the second half of the 19th century the North and Midlands were the thriving areas and much of the South was mired in agricultural depression. Golly their genes must have changed quickly.

  36. @Rob McX

    “Other major events in history, such as the Roman invasion and occupation between 43AD and 410AD, the large-scale invasion by the Viking Danes in 865AD and the subsequent establishment of Danelaw, as well as the Norman invasion of 1066, cannot be seen in the genetic profiles of Britons today".
     
    Gregory Clark has found that those with Norman surnames have higher incomes and live longer, if this article is accurate.

    I think it has something to do with that weird word I saw once in the Preamble to the US Constitution: “posterity”.

  37. @Reg Cæsar

    I live in New England, which was settled mainly by people from East Anglia (Read “Albion’s Seed”) The weirdness is all around me (disguised as a crippling sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country…)
     
    Today's New England is about as Anglo-Saxon as Hawaii, which was also settled/invaded/whatever by Calvinist Yankees. Barney Frank, Thomas Menino, and Whitey Bulger hardly evoke East Anglia. And let's not get into the wild Kennedy tribe... other than they put paid to any notion of Yankee dominance.

    sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country...
     
    I have lived in about fifteen states, in almost every corner of the country, and can attest that this sense is pretty much universal. Nothing unusual there.

    However, depending on the individual and the subject, people are also ready to admit their inferiority. New Englanders-- and New Yorkers, Midwesterners, Westerners, etc.-- seem to think the South is particularly good at making music. Where they got this fanciful idea is beyond me. As with England, selling music is not the same art as making it.

    That New England has never produced a native rock star (unless you count Billy Squier) should be a source of pride, not shame.

    “That New England has never produced a native rock star (unless you count Billy Squier) should be a source of pride, not shame.”

    I guess that is a matter of perspective – James Taylor, Carly Simon, Norman Greenbaum and Gene Pitney are/were all native New Englanders. Not to mention Joe Perry, and most of Aerosmith.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    James Taylor, Carly Simon, Norman Greenbaum and Gene Pitney are/were all native New Englanders. Not to mention Joe Perry, and most of Aerosmith.
     
    Wikipedia on Taylor: "His father was from a well-off family of Southerners of Scottish ancestry."

    Greenbaum: What Yankee steeped in Calvinism could possibly sing "Never been a singer, I never sinned"?

    Aerosmith: The names Tallarico and Pereira weren't on the Mayflower manifest.

    Pitney: Claimed as one of their own by several Polish Web sites
  38. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Yep.

    And it only took 13 years of New Labour to flush all that down the toilet.

    • Replies: @anon
    So true and so sad. What an act of treason.
    , @inselaffen
    If you think it woz New Labour whodunnit, you need to read more. They just continued the trend.
  39. @robot
    Isn't it absurd to extrapolate from ten bodies?

    We have the Hinxton finds as well, plus a study of the fine grain genetic differences of the current day English populations. They fit this study well.

    http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2015/02/a-genetic-map-of-british-population.html

  40. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    steve, I think other bloggers have said that the Normans brought along a significant number of bretons and non-norman french, along with probably assimiliated normans and normans with matrilineal french blood. Wouldn’t this cancel out the germanic component?

  41. @Big Bill
    Wow! It sounds like those Anglo-Saxons had one helluva New Years Eve party in England!

    Joking aside, there are similar patterns in the New World.

    In Mexico (like Germany today) the invaders were male. They had to fornicate with somebody, so they started breeding with the local women. Hence the huge percentage of Mestizos in Mexico.

    Other countries, like the USA, were invaded by gender-mixed populations. These invaders (aka Pilgrims) fornicated with each other and maintained separate cultures and race purity.

    The choices that Germany faces are difficult.

    Do they let the Muslim male invaders bring in their own female breeders from Africa and the Middle East? If so, the Germans wind up like the American Indians, culturally and racially replaced in their own land.

    Or do the Germans keep the female Muslim breeders out (no "family reunification") and start sexually servicing and mongrelizing with the male Muslim invaders a la Mexico? If so they will create a Germano-Muslim version of Mexico's Mestizo "Raza Cosmica".

    It is interesting to consider the American example.

    Massasoit (the Merkel-ish American Indian chief) opened his heart and welcomed the tiny band of poor pathetic Pilgrims as refugees.

    A half century later it was Massasoit's own son, Metacom, who attempted to exterminate the now huge number of English invaders in "King Philip's War". Unfortunately, the Indians had agreed to a gun control law about ten years before and were defeated.

    There was a good result to the war, however: the scattered, divided Anglo invaders stopped fighting among themselves and forged a new identity as "Americans".

    Maybe Merkel can do the same: fill up Germany with many warring, squabbling tribes of Muslims and Africans, disarm the Germans, and when the Germans finally fight back (after tens of millions of new invaders have arrived), forge a new cohesive Muslim/African/German identity among the invaders.

    The historical parallels are fascinating.

    Archaeological evidence shows that the section of Germany where the Angles came from – an area still called Angeln – was completely abandoned during the migrations area. Considering the Germanic attitude towards marriage the men wouldn’t have taken second wives. If anything was spread by these peoples it was the culture keeping ones sexual feelings in check.

  42. OT: when thinking about Trump’s Scottish roots, etc., and your post today…I wanted to say that Sarah P. coming together with Trump yesterday “was a disaster,” the very words used by T often. I know she was there to gin-up votes from the Tea Party clan, and alert the Corn Industry supporters to go with T, but what was he thinking? She is radioactive.

    I don’t understand what clever, hidden idea perhaps, he has, or his handlers, to bring Palin (even trying to embarrass Cruz is a stretch with this move) in this close to the primaries.

    Palin is not someone I want to hear from ever again, but I may be alone in this. This could be potentially bad for Trump since all my secret, suburban security-moms, who want to vote for Trump, find her radioactive. She just says really annoying things, always bashing O (clue: he’s not running) without making any sense or being coherent; classic, sneering “mean girl.” She, if anyone, is “unhinged,” like Jeb said of T – Jeb’s gonna use that.. This worries me. The bimbo-factor is always a weakness for powerful men.

    Ha ha! Have to admit, the bimbo-factor may haunt Hillary, too!

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Still OT: Sigh, I know it is all about the ethanol...and trying to take down Cruz/get the Tea Partiers behind him...but I cringe anytime I hear her speak. I so wish Huntsman magically rode in from the west to run as an independent!

    If T was smart he would try to reach-out to Huntsman. But, Palin is radioactive, and viable VP candidates will be less inclined to be tied to T if Palin's tar baby mouth is too much - just her family's problems/disasters (The show "Shameless" reminds me of hers) alone will deter conservative VP candidates. It's all too icky for me...but I'm probably alone about this.

    I always thought Utah should be considered the state with solid conservative values, maybe the most conservative; having one of the better economies helps, too. Huntsman was "the one that got away."

  43. @Zachary Latif
    That would make sense the Anglo-Saxon invasion/immigration had a more definitive impact on East Anglia (diffusing as one goes further West/upland - I imagine Devon or Northumberland must have a negligible fraction) more so say than the Turks on Anatolian landscape.

    Also re the Normans I doubt that they had a great genetic landscape across the board however there is very little doubt there is a huge "ancestral" Norman component to the upper & upper middle classes.

    @Zach Latif: Per the paper Anglo-Saxon ancestry varies from a high of around a high of 38% in East England to 30% in Scotland and Wales. Devon might be around 34%? So likely not negligible.

    I’d think Devon might be closer to EE than Wales though, since the large finestructure cluster analysis of Britain last year found much not much structure in England, generally (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632200/). Only small villages from the tip of Cornwall were found to be in a genetically different cluster from the Eastern English.

    I doubt there’s much of a Norman component genetically, though I think it’s quite possible the names are still associated with wealth – some Norman surname guy marries an Anglo-Saxon surname woman of good family and as this continues for generations the association of the name with wealth keeps up, even as the ancestry is washed through.

  44. If a method has a stupid hipster name like rarecoal, you can bet it’s crap.

  45. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @John Mansfield
    The Independent reported last March on a detailed genetic study of the British population. Many historic and prehistoric demographic events show up, but some don’t:

    “Other major events in history, such as the Roman invasion and occupation between 43AD and 410AD, the large-scale invasion by the Viking Danes in 865AD and the subsequent establishment of Danelaw, as well as the Norman invasion of 1066, cannot be seen in the genetic profiles of Britons today.

    “This probably reflects the fact that often major cultural shifts are carried out by relatively few people within an elite who do not leave their genetic mark on the conquered masses, said Sir Walter Bodmer, the veteran population geneticist who first had the idea of the study.”

    The Normans didn’t just conquer the masses, they conquered the entire land mass, including ultimately Scotland and Wales. Ireland followed soon enough. The local aristocracy was basically wiped out, from the royal families on down. The people were simply taken over from their previous owners, as it were, and kept very firmly in their place for the next, oh, thousand years or so.
    They then went on to do the same in Sicily – wherever they wanted too really.
    Just one knight of that famous invasion (in the larger sense; he was not present at Hastings) is the direct male line progenitor of both the FitzAlans, Earls of Arundel and Dukes of Norfolk (to this day), and the Stewart Kings of Scotland and, all too briefly, England. Interestingly, as the later title of Duke of Norfolk suggests, he was intimately involved in East Anglian affairs from c. 1100.

    Greatest conquerers the world has ever seen, and I doubt that we have seen the last of them.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Greatest conquerers the world has ever seen,
     
    Probably not. Cf Genghis Khan:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan
    , @Rich
    "Greatest conquerors"? I don't know about that. They were very good conquerors, but they are actually just a subset of both the Vikings and the French, although they did their share of damage. Compared to the Romans, the Russians, the Spanish, the Mongols, the Persians, the Ottoman Turks, the Macedonian Greeks, even the Babylonians and Egyptians they were probably toward the bottom of the list. They took the British Isles, parts of France and a couple villages in Southern Italy, that doesn't make them the Romans or the Mongols by any stretch.
  46. @anonymous
    Cambridge is in the south. There's an obvious difference between northern and southern English. The north has high unemployment and lackluster post post industrial cities while the south is the dynamic economic engine of the country.

    I remember from Outline of History by HG Wells (1920), he noted that there were probably racial differences in origins of northern v. southern English. Further exploration nowadays might have been suppressed by the PC climate.

    The way I understand it, the main genetic difference in Britain is between west and east, not north and south.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    Yes, the east coast up through Aberdeenshire is much more Saxon (& Danish) Viking, the west is much more Celtic - with some Norwegian Viking introgression especially in the NW, eg the MacDonalds of the Isles started as a Norse/Celt mix. You can see today the Romano-British areas that did not go Saxon by their names, from south to north: Cornwall ('land of foreign people'), Wales/Cymri (likewise), Cumbria, and Strathclyde.
  47. @Lagertha
    OT: when thinking about Trump's Scottish roots, etc., and your post today...I wanted to say that Sarah P. coming together with Trump yesterday "was a disaster," the very words used by T often. I know she was there to gin-up votes from the Tea Party clan, and alert the Corn Industry supporters to go with T, but what was he thinking? She is radioactive.

    I don't understand what clever, hidden idea perhaps, he has, or his handlers, to bring Palin (even trying to embarrass Cruz is a stretch with this move) in this close to the primaries.

    Palin is not someone I want to hear from ever again, but I may be alone in this. This could be potentially bad for Trump since all my secret, suburban security-moms, who want to vote for Trump, find her radioactive. She just says really annoying things, always bashing O (clue: he's not running) without making any sense or being coherent; classic, sneering "mean girl." She, if anyone, is "unhinged," like Jeb said of T - Jeb's gonna use that.. This worries me. The bimbo-factor is always a weakness for powerful men.

    Ha ha! Have to admit, the bimbo-factor may haunt Hillary, too!

    Still OT: Sigh, I know it is all about the ethanol…and trying to take down Cruz/get the Tea Partiers behind him…but I cringe anytime I hear her speak. I so wish Huntsman magically rode in from the west to run as an independent!

    If T was smart he would try to reach-out to Huntsman. But, Palin is radioactive, and viable VP candidates will be less inclined to be tied to T if Palin’s tar baby mouth is too much – just her family’s problems/disasters (The show “Shameless” reminds me of hers) alone will deter conservative VP candidates. It’s all too icky for me…but I’m probably alone about this.

    I always thought Utah should be considered the state with solid conservative values, maybe the most conservative; having one of the better economies helps, too. Huntsman was “the one that got away.”

    • Replies: @ic1000
    No, you are not alone in cringing upon hearing Palin speak.

    Jon Huntsman has a lot going for him, but IIRC he is very on board with the pro-immigration, globalist agenda.
    , @Wilkey
    "If T was smart he would try to reach-out to Huntsman."

    A) Who the hell is "T"? Is that an abbreviation for Trump? Well then spell the damn name.

    B) No one worth noting, anywhere, ever said that reaching out to Jonny Huntsman, Jr, is a smart thing. The man has no natural constituency. He is a pompous prick only elected because daddy was a billionaire. He isn't remotely conservative. He only ran in Utah as a Republican because Utah is a Republican state and his name in any other state would have meant nothing. His political career is finished.
    , @Wilkey
    "I always thought Utah should be considered the state with solid conservative values, maybe the most conservative; having one of the better economies helps, too. Huntsman was “the one that got away."

    Utah is one of the most conservative states, however it's politicians have also made it the red state friendliest to illegal immigrants. We gave driver's licenses and and in-state tuition to illegals well ahead of any other Republican state. Our leaders are batshit crazy when it comes to coddling illegals. If it weren't for high Mormon birthrates the state would be going down the crapper faster than it is.
  48. @Reg Cæsar

    Other countries, like the USA, were invaded by gender-mixed populations.
     
    Otherwise known as "families".

    There was no "USA" at the time.

    These invaders (aka Pilgrims) fornicated with each other and maintained separate cultures and race purity
     
    .

    "Fornication" is an unusual term for having ten children in wedlock.

    The "race purity" went both ways. The near total lack of miscegenation in New England is remarkable, considering that the Englishmen there always had friendly relations with one tribe or another, even during the wars. (Philip's people were allies during the Pequot War, and the Pequots allies during King Philip's. It was never purely white vs red.

    Race mixing had already begun in Virginia. Disney made a movie about that.

    Unfortunately, the Indians had agreed to a gun control law about ten years before and were defeated.
     
    It's called "arms control" when applied to a foreign population. The Indians were free to manufacture their own weapons.

    True. The treaty with the Indians kept them from getting their hands on guns. It didn’t keep them from making their own bows and arrows. I suppose Merkel could do the same:take the Germans guns away but let them make bows and arrows to defend against the Muslim invaders.

  49. My Y haplotype is R1a1, which started out somewhere around modern Ukraine, then spread out in all directions, including NE Asia (Uigur), India and Arabia. My bunch trekked across Northern Europe and intermarried with Germanic tribes. Some took a right turn and wound up in Norway or Normandy. Most instances in Britain entered through East Anglia and spread to the north and west. My surname is a locative which is most common in NW England, which they reached around 800 CE.

    One account, somewhat controversial, is that after the last Ice Age people walked across to the BI on what is now sea bottom. They spoke a language related to Basque, judging from ancient place names. Next were the Celts who replace the language and culture, but only about 50% of the gene pool. Then the German tribes around 300-400, with incomplete replacement of language and another 50% replacement of genes where they prevailed. The Romans had a negligible effect. There were only 15,000 Norman invaders, so not much effect on the total gene pool, but almost total replacement of the gentry.

  50. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @David
    I don't think so. It's analogous to drawing conclusions about the composition of the atmosphere based on a few samples.

    Incidentally, the fraction 3/8 expressed as a rounded percent uses the same two digits in the same order. For you math mavens looking for a puzzle, this is true for one other fraction.

    1/6

    • Replies: @David
    1/6 = 17% rounded, but that's a really good try.
  51. @Lagertha
    Still OT: Sigh, I know it is all about the ethanol...and trying to take down Cruz/get the Tea Partiers behind him...but I cringe anytime I hear her speak. I so wish Huntsman magically rode in from the west to run as an independent!

    If T was smart he would try to reach-out to Huntsman. But, Palin is radioactive, and viable VP candidates will be less inclined to be tied to T if Palin's tar baby mouth is too much - just her family's problems/disasters (The show "Shameless" reminds me of hers) alone will deter conservative VP candidates. It's all too icky for me...but I'm probably alone about this.

    I always thought Utah should be considered the state with solid conservative values, maybe the most conservative; having one of the better economies helps, too. Huntsman was "the one that got away."

    No, you are not alone in cringing upon hearing Palin speak.

    Jon Huntsman has a lot going for him, but IIRC he is very on board with the pro-immigration, globalist agenda.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    I'm genuinely curious to know what Huntsman has going for him.

    This place has just enough deranged envy based populism to keep a class enemy like me stand-offish, but then several people have an affinity for a complete non-entity rich kid like Hunstman.
    , @Kylie
    "No, you are not alone in cringing upon hearing Palin speak."

    The sounds emitting from Palin could be more fairly characterized as vocalizing rather than verbalizing.

    Still cringe-worthy, though.

  52. @Reg Cæsar

    I live in New England, which was settled mainly by people from East Anglia (Read “Albion’s Seed”) The weirdness is all around me (disguised as a crippling sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country…)
     
    Today's New England is about as Anglo-Saxon as Hawaii, which was also settled/invaded/whatever by Calvinist Yankees. Barney Frank, Thomas Menino, and Whitey Bulger hardly evoke East Anglia. And let's not get into the wild Kennedy tribe... other than they put paid to any notion of Yankee dominance.

    sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country...
     
    I have lived in about fifteen states, in almost every corner of the country, and can attest that this sense is pretty much universal. Nothing unusual there.

    However, depending on the individual and the subject, people are also ready to admit their inferiority. New Englanders-- and New Yorkers, Midwesterners, Westerners, etc.-- seem to think the South is particularly good at making music. Where they got this fanciful idea is beyond me. As with England, selling music is not the same art as making it.

    That New England has never produced a native rock star (unless you count Billy Squier) should be a source of pride, not shame.

    Ronnie James Dio, Boston (the band), Aerosmith

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Ronnie James Dio
     
    Ronald James Padavona, of Cortland, NY.

    Nice little college town, but not New England. (I played a game or two of high school ball there.) Hardly anybody of note came from Cortland, or anywhere else in Central NY, so Ronnie sticks out in our minds.

    Coincidentally, I'm now reading a book by a SUNY Cortland professor, Robert J Spitzer: Guns Across America. Another, Judith Best, wrote the classic The Case Against Direct Election of the President, which we Electoral College fans will be quoting quite a bit throughout the year.

    Dio is a native of New Hampshire the way Winona Ryder is a native of Winona-- his parents were passing through. I should have been clearer; by "native" I meant native Yankee stock. Not boat people.
  53. @ic1000
    No, you are not alone in cringing upon hearing Palin speak.

    Jon Huntsman has a lot going for him, but IIRC he is very on board with the pro-immigration, globalist agenda.

    I’m genuinely curious to know what Huntsman has going for him.

    This place has just enough deranged envy based populism to keep a class enemy like me stand-offish, but then several people have an affinity for a complete non-entity rich kid like Hunstman.

  54. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Big Bill
    Wow! It sounds like those Anglo-Saxons had one helluva New Years Eve party in England!

    Joking aside, there are similar patterns in the New World.

    In Mexico (like Germany today) the invaders were male. They had to fornicate with somebody, so they started breeding with the local women. Hence the huge percentage of Mestizos in Mexico.

    Other countries, like the USA, were invaded by gender-mixed populations. These invaders (aka Pilgrims) fornicated with each other and maintained separate cultures and race purity.

    The choices that Germany faces are difficult.

    Do they let the Muslim male invaders bring in their own female breeders from Africa and the Middle East? If so, the Germans wind up like the American Indians, culturally and racially replaced in their own land.

    Or do the Germans keep the female Muslim breeders out (no "family reunification") and start sexually servicing and mongrelizing with the male Muslim invaders a la Mexico? If so they will create a Germano-Muslim version of Mexico's Mestizo "Raza Cosmica".

    It is interesting to consider the American example.

    Massasoit (the Merkel-ish American Indian chief) opened his heart and welcomed the tiny band of poor pathetic Pilgrims as refugees.

    A half century later it was Massasoit's own son, Metacom, who attempted to exterminate the now huge number of English invaders in "King Philip's War". Unfortunately, the Indians had agreed to a gun control law about ten years before and were defeated.

    There was a good result to the war, however: the scattered, divided Anglo invaders stopped fighting among themselves and forged a new identity as "Americans".

    Maybe Merkel can do the same: fill up Germany with many warring, squabbling tribes of Muslims and Africans, disarm the Germans, and when the Germans finally fight back (after tens of millions of new invaders have arrived), forge a new cohesive Muslim/African/German identity among the invaders.

    The historical parallels are fascinating.

    Central America like other equatorial regions had greater native population density and an environment that Europeans were much less adapted to compared to North America and the Southern Cone of South America. Which is why North America and the Southern Cone become more demographically European. Even in more recent times, equatorial Africa never managed to host significant European settlement while South Africa did for the same reasons. Pilgrim families would have had difficulty establishing settlements in the more equatorial region of the Americas.

  55. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Big Bill
    Wow! It sounds like those Anglo-Saxons had one helluva New Years Eve party in England!

    Joking aside, there are similar patterns in the New World.

    In Mexico (like Germany today) the invaders were male. They had to fornicate with somebody, so they started breeding with the local women. Hence the huge percentage of Mestizos in Mexico.

    Other countries, like the USA, were invaded by gender-mixed populations. These invaders (aka Pilgrims) fornicated with each other and maintained separate cultures and race purity.

    The choices that Germany faces are difficult.

    Do they let the Muslim male invaders bring in their own female breeders from Africa and the Middle East? If so, the Germans wind up like the American Indians, culturally and racially replaced in their own land.

    Or do the Germans keep the female Muslim breeders out (no "family reunification") and start sexually servicing and mongrelizing with the male Muslim invaders a la Mexico? If so they will create a Germano-Muslim version of Mexico's Mestizo "Raza Cosmica".

    It is interesting to consider the American example.

    Massasoit (the Merkel-ish American Indian chief) opened his heart and welcomed the tiny band of poor pathetic Pilgrims as refugees.

    A half century later it was Massasoit's own son, Metacom, who attempted to exterminate the now huge number of English invaders in "King Philip's War". Unfortunately, the Indians had agreed to a gun control law about ten years before and were defeated.

    There was a good result to the war, however: the scattered, divided Anglo invaders stopped fighting among themselves and forged a new identity as "Americans".

    Maybe Merkel can do the same: fill up Germany with many warring, squabbling tribes of Muslims and Africans, disarm the Germans, and when the Germans finally fight back (after tens of millions of new invaders have arrived), forge a new cohesive Muslim/African/German identity among the invaders.

    The historical parallels are fascinating.

    “The historic parallels are fascinating”.

    But not the demographic or civilizational ones.

    In the whole of the landmass that eventually became the lower 48 states there were probably well less then 2 million Indians. Germany about thirty times smaller has a population of 80 million. The Indians had built virtually nothing, no roads, bridges, towns, cities, just simple hunter-gatherers. Germany has a very advanced technological civilization.

    Why not compare apples to apples instead of oranges.

    • Replies: @Roger Sweeny
    There were a hell of a lot more than 2 million Indians before Columbus. Many were agriculturalists, and there were "roads, bridges, towns"--cities if you count the Aztec and Indian capitals. But European diseases literally decimated (reduced to one tenth) most of the native population. Diseases usually preceded the Europeans so they saw empty land and bedraggled survivors. Check out Charles C. Mann's 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (2005).
  56. OT – Steve, the NYT notices Racial Identity, and Its Hostilities, Are on the Rise in American Politics.

    I’m not sure if I’m imagining a tone to the article but I get a sense of disapproval inherent in the reporting regarding the failure of white Americans to transform into the New Soviet Man, as seen by the NYT elite. This likely arises from the unexamined positions incorporated into the writing. Here’s an example.

    Such voters are nostalgic for the country they lived in 50 years ago, when non-Hispanic whites made up more than 83 percent of the population. Today, their share has shrunk to 62 percent as demographic change has transformed the United States into a nation where others have a shot at political power.

    Well, how did that happen? Was it like a hurrican hitting the coast or did this demographic transformation come about because of policy choices?

    Their fear is understandable. In general, the concerns of Hispanic and black American voters are often different from those of white voters. But the reaction of whites who are struggling economically raises the specter of an outright political war along racial and ethnic lines over the distribution of resources and opportunities.

    Why do blacks and Hispanics like Big Government? Because Big Government is the enforcer in the racial spoils game, where wealth and opportunity are taken from whites and trasnferred to NAMS. That’s not a problem for the NYT so long as whites are willing to be tax farmed but once they resist, then we’re heading into a racial war. I suppose that when the Nazis rolled into Norway and didn’t face Norwegians in a house to house war that there was actually no war taking place, never mind the Nazi war on Norway, so long as Norway wasn’t taking the fight to Germany there was no war. Or something.

    The article does a good job of documenting how diversity destroys communities but the writer leaves a lot of points out of the article such that the current regime cannot be scrutinized, why is “Diversity our strength” when the points he cites demonstrate otherwise? One thing is clear though, whites are the culprits for supporting Trump.

  57. @ic1000
    No, you are not alone in cringing upon hearing Palin speak.

    Jon Huntsman has a lot going for him, but IIRC he is very on board with the pro-immigration, globalist agenda.

    “No, you are not alone in cringing upon hearing Palin speak.”

    The sounds emitting from Palin could be more fairly characterized as vocalizing rather than verbalizing.

    Still cringe-worthy, though.

  58. OT

    When the UK law criminalising homosexual acts between consenting adults was repealed in 1967, the speeches in favour of the bill were basically “These are sad people who can’t help their inclinations, it’s cruel to lock them up if no one’s harmed“. Opponents warned in apocalyptic terms that homosexuals wouldn’t be content with legality but would in time demand full cultural equality – and those in favour said “don’t be ridiculous – that’ll never happen“.

    But not even the most fervent speaker on either side could have imagined that less than 50 years later a Tory MP (and chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee) would make a speech in the house about how he regularly liked to inhale a chemical (which relaxes the anal sphincter), and how banning said chemical was “fantastically stupid“.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/20/tory-mp-crispin-blunt-poppers-drug-policy

    • Replies: @5371
    [The government recognises that representations have been made to the effect that ‘poppers’ have a beneficial health and relationship effect in enabling anal sex for some men who have sex with men, amid concern about the impact of the ban on these men]

    As penance for Churchill's sins, he might be set to peruse this passage in purgatory.
  59. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Reg Cæsar

    I live in New England, which was settled mainly by people from East Anglia (Read “Albion’s Seed”) The weirdness is all around me (disguised as a crippling sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country…)
     
    Today's New England is about as Anglo-Saxon as Hawaii, which was also settled/invaded/whatever by Calvinist Yankees. Barney Frank, Thomas Menino, and Whitey Bulger hardly evoke East Anglia. And let's not get into the wild Kennedy tribe... other than they put paid to any notion of Yankee dominance.

    sense of superiority toward those in the rest of the country...
     
    I have lived in about fifteen states, in almost every corner of the country, and can attest that this sense is pretty much universal. Nothing unusual there.

    However, depending on the individual and the subject, people are also ready to admit their inferiority. New Englanders-- and New Yorkers, Midwesterners, Westerners, etc.-- seem to think the South is particularly good at making music. Where they got this fanciful idea is beyond me. As with England, selling music is not the same art as making it.

    That New England has never produced a native rock star (unless you count Billy Squier) should be a source of pride, not shame.

    Other than Aerosmith, the Pixies and the Cars.

  60. @Anonymous
    The Normans didn't just conquer the masses, they conquered the entire land mass, including ultimately Scotland and Wales. Ireland followed soon enough. The local aristocracy was basically wiped out, from the royal families on down. The people were simply taken over from their previous owners, as it were, and kept very firmly in their place for the next, oh, thousand years or so.
    They then went on to do the same in Sicily - wherever they wanted too really.
    Just one knight of that famous invasion (in the larger sense; he was not present at Hastings) is the direct male line progenitor of both the FitzAlans, Earls of Arundel and Dukes of Norfolk (to this day), and the Stewart Kings of Scotland and, all too briefly, England. Interestingly, as the later title of Duke of Norfolk suggests, he was intimately involved in East Anglian affairs from c. 1100.

    Greatest conquerers the world has ever seen, and I doubt that we have seen the last of them.

    Greatest conquerers the world has ever seen,

    Probably not. Cf Genghis Khan:

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

  61. @syonredux

    Many of us Englishmen have always thought those from East Anglia were a bit, well, weird.
     
    Perhaps weird is code for highly productive in the arts and the sciences:

    At about the same time that Lodge did this research (into intellectual achievement by region in the USA) , the English scholar Havelock Ellis made a study of intellectual achievement in his own country, and also found strong differences between regions. The eastern counties of England and East Anglia most of all accounted for a much larger proportion of literary, scientific, and intellectual achievement than any other part of England.
     
    David Hackett Fischer, Albion's Seed, page 134.

    There’s a difference between Cambridge (eastern) and Oxford (western) in scientific output down through the centuries in Cambridge’s favor.

    • Replies: @NickG
    No doubt true, yet Oxford and Cambridge are less than 85 miles apart!
  62. @Realist
    Why the portrait of Isaac Newton?
    This comment is not meant for David

    Why the portrait of Isaac Newton?
    This comment is not meant for David

    Reasons of birth and education:

    Isaac Newton was born according to the Julian calendar (in use in England at the time) on Christmas Day, 25 December 1642 (NS 4 January 1643[1]), at Woolsthorpe Manor in Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, a hamlet in the county of Lincolnshire.

    In June 1661, he was admitted to Trinity College, Cambridge, on the recommendation of his uncle Rev William Ayscough. He started as a subsizar—paying his way by performing valet’s duties—until he was awarded a scholarship in 1664, which guaranteed him four more years until he would get his M.A

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

    • Replies: @Realist
    I am aware of that but what does that have to do with the article?
  63. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @albion
    Many of us Englishmen have always thought those from East Anglia were a bit, well, weird.

    So that’s why they say “Normal For Norfolk”?

  64. Havelock Ellis on British genius:

    I find that 76.8 per cent, of eminent British men and women are English, 15 per cent. Scotch, 5.3 per cent. Irish and 2.9 per cent. Welsh. The proportion of English is very large, but if we take the present population as a basis of estimation it fairly corresponds to England’s share; this is not so, however, as regards the other parts of the United Kingdom; Wales, and especially Ireland, have too few people of genius, while Scotland has produced decidedly more than her share.[2] If we consider separately the eminent persons in whose ancestry two or more of the elements of British nationality (English, Welsh, Scotch and Irish) are mixed we find that the English proportion is only 51 per cent., the Scotch 16.8, while the Irish element has risen to equality with the Scotch, 16.8, and the Welsh is as high as 15.4. This would seem to indicate that the Irish and the Welsh are especially adapted for cross-breeding in the production of genius.

    While British genius is thus spread in a fairly impartial manner over the British Islands, and while all the chief physical types appear to have contributed men of genius, there are yet certain districts which have been peculiarly prolific in intellectual ability. In England there are two such centers, the most important being in Norfolk and Suffolk, and to some extent the adjoining counties; Norfolk stands easily at the head of British counties in the production of genius.f The other English center is in Devonshire and Somerset. In Scotland a belt running from Aberdeen through Forfar, Fife, the country round Edin- burgh, Lanark (including Glasgow), Ayr and Dumfries is especially rich in genius. In Ireland the chief center (if we leave Dublin out of consid- eration) is in the southeastern group of counties: Kilkenny, Tipperary, Waterford and Cork; there is a less important north-eastern center in Antrim and Down.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_58/March_1901/A_Study_of_British_Genius_II

  65. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Um, the band Boston. Others:

    Aerosmith

    The Cars (Rick Ocasek)

    Phish

    The Pixies

    Origins of leaders of “New England” bands:

    Aerosmith: New York
    Boston: Ohio
    Cars: Ohio
    J Geils Band: New York
    Pixies: California, Ohio, Philippines
    Phish: Texas, Pennsylvania, New York

    Although formed in Burlington, Phish is about as Yankee as Ben, Jerry, and Bernie Sanders.

    Dick Dale may be Massachusetts’s greatest rock product. He’s Lebanese.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Dick Dale may be Massachusetts’s greatest rock product. He’s Lebanese.
     
    I disagree. I'd say Freddy "Boom Boom" Cannon (born Frederick Picariello) from Lynn, MA.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JBgaf5gXJcc
    , @n/a
    "Pixies: California, Ohio, Philippines"

    Charles Michael Kittridge Thompson IV was born in Boston and spent at least part of his childhood / adolescence there; his parents, grandparents, etc., were born in New England (I think his family still own a bar there); and he has significant actual New England ancestry (though I believe mixed with Irish). The drummer, David Lovering, was also from Massachusetts and also has significant actual New England ancestry (though mixed with Irish and Italian).
  66. The South East of England – even London included – is not notable for its scientists. The North of England and Scotland are. Even Faraday’s family were from Cumbria.

  67. @syonredux

    Why the portrait of Isaac Newton?
    This comment is not meant for David
     
    Reasons of birth and education:

    Isaac Newton was born according to the Julian calendar (in use in England at the time) on Christmas Day, 25 December 1642 (NS 4 January 1643[1]), at Woolsthorpe Manor in Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, a hamlet in the county of Lincolnshire.
     

    In June 1661, he was admitted to Trinity College, Cambridge, on the recommendation of his uncle Rev William Ayscough. He started as a subsizar—paying his way by performing valet's duties—until he was awarded a scholarship in 1664, which guaranteed him four more years until he would get his M.A
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

    I am aware of that but what does that have to do with the article?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    I am aware of that but what does that have to do with the article?
     
    Lincolnshire

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


    Cambridge:

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

  68. Henry Cabot Lodge’s “The Distribution of ability in the United States”:

    By the table showing the distribution according
    to States (Table C) it will be seen, as
    might be expected, that the oldest communities
    with the largest white population have been
    most prolific in ability of all kinds. At the same
    time this rule is by no means absolute in its
    application. In Virginia, Massachusetts, and
    Connecticut the percentage of ability in proportion
    to the total white population is higher
    than in the two other leading States, New York
    and Pennsylvania. In proportion to its population,
    Connecticut leads every other State in
    the total amount of ability.
    In the matter of
    groups, not only the absolute amount of ability
    but the percentage in proportion to population
    is higher in the New England and Middle
    States than in those of the South and West,
    outside Maryland and Virginia.

    Even more interesting than the percentages
    shown by the totals is the distribution by
    occupation. There are eighteen departments
    enumerated in which distinction has been
    achieved. New York leads in eight: soldiers,
    lawyers, artists, navy, business, engineers, architects,
    and actors. Massachusetts leads in eight
    also: clergy, physicians, literature, science, educators,
    philanthropy, inventors, and musicians;

    while Virginia leads in the remaining two :
    statesmen and pioneers.

    This table also shows that the production
    of ability has been remarkably concentrated,
    and has been confined, on the whole, to comparatively
    few States. A few comparisons will
    prove this. Two States, Massachusetts and
    New York, have furnished more than a third
    of the abihty of the entire country. Three,
    Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania,
    have supplied almost exactly one-half, and five,
    Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut,
    and Virginia, have produced twothirds
    of the total amount. In the arrangement
    by groups, we find that the New England group
    and that formed of the four Middle States must
    each be credited with more than a third of all
    the ability produced. The six New England
    and the four Middle States furnish together
    almost exactly three-quarters of the abihty of
    the country. If Virginia be omitted, it also
    appears that Massachusetts alone has furnished
    a little more and New York alone a trifle less
    ability than all the Southern and Western
    States together—that is, than twenty States
    and the District of Columbia.
    In the Western
    States the wide difference which exists is owing,
    of course, in large measure to their very recent
    settlement, for which proper allowance must
    be made in drawing any deductions from the
    figures given in the tables.

    If we turn now from the distribution by totals
    and examine that by professions, we find that
    while the Southern and Southwestern States,
    including Virginia and Maryland, are comparatively
    strong in statesmen, soldiers, and
    pioneers, and in a less degree in lawyers, they
    are weak in all other classes. The ability of
    the South, less in amount than that of the
    New England and Middle States, was confined
    to three or four departments. In other
    words, there was in the South but little variety
    of intellectual activity. In the Middle States
    and New England ability sought every channel
    for expression, and was displayed in various
    ways

    But almost all
    the literature, art, science, business, philanthropy,
    and music; almost all the physicians,
    educators, inventors, engineers, architects, and
    actors were produced by the Middle and New
    England States.

    Interestingly, Lodge blames slavery for the South’s low levels of achievement:

    No finer people ever existed
    than those who settled and built up our Southern
    States, but when slavery became, in the
    course of the world’s progress, and in a free
    country, nothing less than a hideous anomaly,
    it warped the community in which it flourished,
    limited the range of intellectual activity,
    dwarfed ability, and retarded terribly the advance
    of civilization. It is wonderful that the
    people who labored beneath the burden of a
    slave system achieved as much as they did, and
    the mass of ability which they produced under
    such adverse conditions is a striking proof of
    the strength of the race. The effects of slavery
    are painfully apparent in these tables, and only
    time will enable the people who suffered by
    the evil system to recover from them.

    https://www.unz.org/Pub/Century-1891sep-00687

  69. @AMH
    "That New England has never produced a native rock star (unless you count Billy Squier) should be a source of pride, not shame."

    I guess that is a matter of perspective - James Taylor, Carly Simon, Norman Greenbaum and Gene Pitney are/were all native New Englanders. Not to mention Joe Perry, and most of Aerosmith.

    James Taylor, Carly Simon, Norman Greenbaum and Gene Pitney are/were all native New Englanders. Not to mention Joe Perry, and most of Aerosmith.

    Wikipedia on Taylor: “His father was from a well-off family of Southerners of Scottish ancestry.”

    Greenbaum: What Yankee steeped in Calvinism could possibly sing “Never been a singer, I never sinned”?

    Aerosmith: The names Tallarico and Pereira weren’t on the Mayflower manifest.

    Pitney: Claimed as one of their own by several Polish Web sites

  70. @Realist
    I am aware of that but what does that have to do with the article?

    I am aware of that but what does that have to do with the article?

    Lincolnshire

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

    Cambridge:

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

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I looked up driving directions from Newton's hometown to Cambridge. It was like 51 miles.
  71. @Davosbane
    Ronnie James Dio, Boston (the band), Aerosmith

    Ronnie James Dio

    Ronald James Padavona, of Cortland, NY.

    Nice little college town, but not New England. (I played a game or two of high school ball there.) Hardly anybody of note came from Cortland, or anywhere else in Central NY, so Ronnie sticks out in our minds.

    Coincidentally, I’m now reading a book by a SUNY Cortland professor, Robert J Spitzer: Guns Across America. Another, Judith Best, wrote the classic The Case Against Direct Election of the President, which we Electoral College fans will be quoting quite a bit throughout the year.

    Dio is a native of New Hampshire the way Winona Ryder is a native of Winona– his parents were passing through. I should have been clearer; by “native” I meant native Yankee stock. Not boat people.

  72. @syonredux

    I am aware of that but what does that have to do with the article?
     
    Lincolnshire

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


    Cambridge:

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

    I looked up driving directions from Newton’s hometown to Cambridge. It was like 51 miles.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    60 miles driving directions. 50 as the crow flies.

    50 miles doesn't sounds like much to an American, but that's 10% of the length of England (not including Scotland). Moreover, it's crossing the border from inside the Home Counties to outside.

    On the other hand, Cambridge is only marginally inside, being itself 50 miles north of London.
    , @Realist
    The Anglo-Saxon invasion was 40 or 50 generations before Newton was born. Probably not much pertinence.
  73. Totally off Topic:

    Steve, have you ever investigated/considered that one utilitarian element of Obamacare was to hurry the exit of old white guys who vote republican?

    My father is 85, Catholic, former Marine, and general grumpy conservative old guy. He had a stroke two weeks ago, and the family is amazed at how many insurance firewalls we’ve bumped up against that were not there ten years ago when my 92 year old grandmother required similar care.

    It being the election year that is is, it occurred to me that yes, the left would certainly like my dad to be gone by election day.

    Just a thought.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Sarah Palin, whatever else you think about her, was right about the Death Panels.

    Rationing care, especially for the about to die old folks, is the only way to control health care costs.
  74. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Reg Cæsar
    Origins of leaders of "New England" bands:

    Aerosmith: New York
    Boston: Ohio
    Cars: Ohio
    J Geils Band: New York
    Pixies: California, Ohio, Philippines
    Phish: Texas, Pennsylvania, New York

    Although formed in Burlington, Phish is about as Yankee as Ben, Jerry, and Bernie Sanders.

    Dick Dale may be Massachusetts's greatest rock product. He's Lebanese.

    Dick Dale may be Massachusetts’s greatest rock product. He’s Lebanese.

    I disagree. I’d say Freddy “Boom Boom” Cannon (born Frederick Picariello) from Lynn, MA.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JBgaf5gXJcc

  75. @Realist
    "I don’t think so. It’s analogous to drawing conclusions about the composition of the atmosphere based on a few samples."

    You're comparing distributions of human populations to the distribution of gas molecules???

    Why not?

    • Replies: @Realist
    They are not analogous at all. It is an ignorant comparison.
  76. @Chris from Gresham
    Totally off Topic:

    Steve, have you ever investigated/considered that one utilitarian element of Obamacare was to hurry the exit of old white guys who vote republican?

    My father is 85, Catholic, former Marine, and general grumpy conservative old guy. He had a stroke two weeks ago, and the family is amazed at how many insurance firewalls we've bumped up against that were not there ten years ago when my 92 year old grandmother required similar care.

    It being the election year that is is, it occurred to me that yes, the left would certainly like my dad to be gone by election day.

    Just a thought.

    Sarah Palin, whatever else you think about her, was right about the Death Panels.

    Rationing care, especially for the about to die old folks, is the only way to control health care costs.

  77. @Anonymous
    The Normans didn't just conquer the masses, they conquered the entire land mass, including ultimately Scotland and Wales. Ireland followed soon enough. The local aristocracy was basically wiped out, from the royal families on down. The people were simply taken over from their previous owners, as it were, and kept very firmly in their place for the next, oh, thousand years or so.
    They then went on to do the same in Sicily - wherever they wanted too really.
    Just one knight of that famous invasion (in the larger sense; he was not present at Hastings) is the direct male line progenitor of both the FitzAlans, Earls of Arundel and Dukes of Norfolk (to this day), and the Stewart Kings of Scotland and, all too briefly, England. Interestingly, as the later title of Duke of Norfolk suggests, he was intimately involved in East Anglian affairs from c. 1100.

    Greatest conquerers the world has ever seen, and I doubt that we have seen the last of them.

    “Greatest conquerors”? I don’t know about that. They were very good conquerors, but they are actually just a subset of both the Vikings and the French, although they did their share of damage. Compared to the Romans, the Russians, the Spanish, the Mongols, the Persians, the Ottoman Turks, the Macedonian Greeks, even the Babylonians and Egyptians they were probably toward the bottom of the list. They took the British Isles, parts of France and a couple villages in Southern Italy, that doesn’t make them the Romans or the Mongols by any stretch.

  78. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    Yep.

    And it only took 13 years of New Labour to flush all that down the toilet.

    So true and so sad. What an act of treason.

  79. So if East Anglians are 38% Anglo-Saxon, then what is the remaining 62%–mostly Celtic?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    More or less. A lot of people moved in as the Ice Age glaciers receded. But there were also prehistoric subsequent prehistoric invasions, so it's pretty complicated.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    So if East Anglians are 38% Anglo-Saxon, then what is the remaining 62%–mostly Celtic?
     
    Ever heard of the Danelaw?
  80. Two obvious contenders for the title of greatest Englishman:

    Isaac Newton : Lincolnshire

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

    William Shakespeare:Warwickshire

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

    Newton: Science (physics, mathematics, optics)

    Shakespeare: Literature (playwright and poet)

    Newton: 38% Anglo-Saxon?

    Shakespeare: a smaller percentage?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Yeah, that's kind of my very vague hunch from looking at lists of Cambridge and Oxford men over the centuries:

    East of England: Newton, science, progressive

    West of England: Shakespeare, literature, conservative

  81. @syonredux
    Two obvious contenders for the title of greatest Englishman:


    Isaac Newton : Lincolnshire

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



    William Shakespeare:Warwickshire

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

    Newton: Science (physics, mathematics, optics)

    Shakespeare: Literature (playwright and poet)

    Newton: 38% Anglo-Saxon?

    Shakespeare: a smaller percentage?

    Yeah, that’s kind of my very vague hunch from looking at lists of Cambridge and Oxford men over the centuries:

    East of England: Newton, science, progressive

    West of England: Shakespeare, literature, conservative

  82. @Oscar Peterson
    So if East Anglians are 38% Anglo-Saxon, then what is the remaining 62%--mostly Celtic?

    More or less. A lot of people moved in as the Ice Age glaciers receded. But there were also prehistoric subsequent prehistoric invasions, so it’s pretty complicated.

  83. If you are a WN, why should you even care if HBDers are all persecuted? After all they are pro-Asian anyway.

  84. @Steve Sailer
    Yeah, that's kind of my very vague hunch from looking at lists of Cambridge and Oxford men over the centuries:

    East of England: Newton, science, progressive

    West of England: Shakespeare, literature, conservative

    we have no proof. OK I have proof…our lands.

  85. @Hibernian
    Why not?

    They are not analogous at all. It is an ignorant comparison.

  86. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Steve Sailer
    I looked up driving directions from Newton's hometown to Cambridge. It was like 51 miles.

    60 miles driving directions. 50 as the crow flies.

    50 miles doesn’t sounds like much to an American, but that’s 10% of the length of England (not including Scotland). Moreover, it’s crossing the border from inside the Home Counties to outside.

    On the other hand, Cambridge is only marginally inside, being itself 50 miles north of London.

  87. @Steve Sailer
    I looked up driving directions from Newton's hometown to Cambridge. It was like 51 miles.

    The Anglo-Saxon invasion was 40 or 50 generations before Newton was born. Probably not much pertinence.

  88. @Oscar Peterson
    So if East Anglians are 38% Anglo-Saxon, then what is the remaining 62%--mostly Celtic?

    So if East Anglians are 38% Anglo-Saxon, then what is the remaining 62%–mostly Celtic?

    Ever heard of the Danelaw?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    So if East Anglians are 38% Anglo-Saxon, then what is the remaining 62%–mostly Celtic?

    Ever heard of the Danelaw?
     

    Current evidence indicates that the Vikings (surprisingly) didn't have much of a demographic impact on England.
  89. @Reg Cæsar

    So if East Anglians are 38% Anglo-Saxon, then what is the remaining 62%–mostly Celtic?
     
    Ever heard of the Danelaw?

    So if East Anglians are 38% Anglo-Saxon, then what is the remaining 62%–mostly Celtic?

    Ever heard of the Danelaw?

    Current evidence indicates that the Vikings (surprisingly) didn’t have much of a demographic impact on England.

  90. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @John Mansfield
    The Independent reported last March on a detailed genetic study of the British population. Many historic and prehistoric demographic events show up, but some don’t:

    “Other major events in history, such as the Roman invasion and occupation between 43AD and 410AD, the large-scale invasion by the Viking Danes in 865AD and the subsequent establishment of Danelaw, as well as the Norman invasion of 1066, cannot be seen in the genetic profiles of Britons today.

    “This probably reflects the fact that often major cultural shifts are carried out by relatively few people within an elite who do not leave their genetic mark on the conquered masses, said Sir Walter Bodmer, the veteran population geneticist who first had the idea of the study.”

    Actually, there are DNA markers that remain. For instance the E3b marker in the UK is believed by many geneticist to be a marker of Thaco-Dacian-Sarmatian cavalry legionaries. That it corresponds to noted Roman forts and units known to have been recruited in the Illyrian, Thracian, and Dacian provinces would appear to prove this hypothesis. Additionally, there is little to no known difference between the Belgae nation of Gaul, the Belgiums, and the British aristocracy. So, how could there be one today? Vikings are very similar to Anglo-Saxons. Indeed, Anglia isn’t in England it is Denmark and Germany today. Consequently, this movement of peoples seems with a few noted exceptions to be one of various ethnicities of the same broad racial group around the English Channel and North Sea who have moved into around and back into one another being separated principally by language and religion and not be race.

    For instance, following Charlemagne’s annihilation of the Saxon aristocracy in Germany and the Netherlands those who survived escaped into Scandinavia just prior to the Viking invasions. That would suggest not only that the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings were the same but had the same aristocracy. As to the Normans, consider that Normandy was erected by these same Vikings upon a surviving post-Roman province which included Britanny. The Britons weren’t Franks but were displaced British aristocracy from modern day England seeking refuge amongst fellow Romano-British in the area of France near the English Channel. They were distinct from the Franks. Thus, the Franks weren’t so keen on giving one of their provinces away to the Vikings as they were on giving away a troublesome tributary Kingdom of Britons in Gaul to the Vikings. Furthermore, supposedly a large number of the Northmen aristocracy intermarried with the British in Gaul giving rise to the Norman aristocracy. In turn, the Norman aristocracy was a mix of British, Viking, and Anglo-Saxon and indistinguishable from their conquered subjects except by language, religion, dress, culture, and weaponized aristocracy.

    In short, whilst it is certain many of these “invasions” were mostly minority colonizations of Britain in which a new ruling aristocracy displaced the old, and ultimately were bred out by the subject peoples, that isn’t necessarily the explanation for why the genes appear to disappear. It could just as easily be there was no difference to speak of genetically, except one more of language, culture, and religion. In such a scenario what differences that existed were ones of class, not genetics. Lastly, there are genetic markers for some of the invasions or occupations, mostly of particular subset of the Romano-British who appear to have been Thraco-Dacian and Sarmatians. Intriguingly, these were all noted as heavy armored cavalry. In other words, Arthur and his knights which became the cohesive myth of medieval chivalry centered between the Seine, Rhine, Thames, Ouse, and Severn rivers appear to be a fusion of all the aforementioned tribes centered upon a distinct Thraco-Dacian-Sarmatian-Roman cavalry. This was the once and future King and his chivalry, which united similar but differentiated peoples around the medieval knight. Unlike today’s “immigrants” the later were actually streams of the same river coming back to one another.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    "...Thraco-Dacian and Sarmatians. Intriguingly, these were all noted as heavy armored cavalry. In other words, Arthur and his knights..."

    I've seen the Hollywood movie, but is there any actual evidence of this? I get the impression that making Arthur & co mounted knights is a later myth accretion from the post-Norman era when mounted knights had become dominant.
  91. @Big Bill
    Wow! It sounds like those Anglo-Saxons had one helluva New Years Eve party in England!

    Joking aside, there are similar patterns in the New World.

    In Mexico (like Germany today) the invaders were male. They had to fornicate with somebody, so they started breeding with the local women. Hence the huge percentage of Mestizos in Mexico.

    Other countries, like the USA, were invaded by gender-mixed populations. These invaders (aka Pilgrims) fornicated with each other and maintained separate cultures and race purity.

    The choices that Germany faces are difficult.

    Do they let the Muslim male invaders bring in their own female breeders from Africa and the Middle East? If so, the Germans wind up like the American Indians, culturally and racially replaced in their own land.

    Or do the Germans keep the female Muslim breeders out (no "family reunification") and start sexually servicing and mongrelizing with the male Muslim invaders a la Mexico? If so they will create a Germano-Muslim version of Mexico's Mestizo "Raza Cosmica".

    It is interesting to consider the American example.

    Massasoit (the Merkel-ish American Indian chief) opened his heart and welcomed the tiny band of poor pathetic Pilgrims as refugees.

    A half century later it was Massasoit's own son, Metacom, who attempted to exterminate the now huge number of English invaders in "King Philip's War". Unfortunately, the Indians had agreed to a gun control law about ten years before and were defeated.

    There was a good result to the war, however: the scattered, divided Anglo invaders stopped fighting among themselves and forged a new identity as "Americans".

    Maybe Merkel can do the same: fill up Germany with many warring, squabbling tribes of Muslims and Africans, disarm the Germans, and when the Germans finally fight back (after tens of millions of new invaders have arrived), forge a new cohesive Muslim/African/German identity among the invaders.

    The historical parallels are fascinating.

    “Maybe Merkel can do the same: fill up Germany with many warring, squabbling tribes of Muslims and Africans, disarm the Germans, and when the Germans finally fight back (after tens of millions of new invaders have arrived), forge a new cohesive Muslim/African/German identity among the invaders.

    The historical parallels are fascinating.”

    That’s pretty grim. But makes sense.

  92. @Joe Walker
    The way I understand it, the main genetic difference in Britain is between west and east, not north and south.

    Yes, the east coast up through Aberdeenshire is much more Saxon (& Danish) Viking, the west is much more Celtic – with some Norwegian Viking introgression especially in the NW, eg the MacDonalds of the Isles started as a Norse/Celt mix. You can see today the Romano-British areas that did not go Saxon by their names, from south to north: Cornwall (‘land of foreign people’), Wales/Cymri (likewise), Cumbria, and Strathclyde.

  93. @Anonymous
    Actually, there are DNA markers that remain. For instance the E3b marker in the UK is believed by many geneticist to be a marker of Thaco-Dacian-Sarmatian cavalry legionaries. That it corresponds to noted Roman forts and units known to have been recruited in the Illyrian, Thracian, and Dacian provinces would appear to prove this hypothesis. Additionally, there is little to no known difference between the Belgae nation of Gaul, the Belgiums, and the British aristocracy. So, how could there be one today? Vikings are very similar to Anglo-Saxons. Indeed, Anglia isn't in England it is Denmark and Germany today. Consequently, this movement of peoples seems with a few noted exceptions to be one of various ethnicities of the same broad racial group around the English Channel and North Sea who have moved into around and back into one another being separated principally by language and religion and not be race.

    For instance, following Charlemagne's annihilation of the Saxon aristocracy in Germany and the Netherlands those who survived escaped into Scandinavia just prior to the Viking invasions. That would suggest not only that the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings were the same but had the same aristocracy. As to the Normans, consider that Normandy was erected by these same Vikings upon a surviving post-Roman province which included Britanny. The Britons weren't Franks but were displaced British aristocracy from modern day England seeking refuge amongst fellow Romano-British in the area of France near the English Channel. They were distinct from the Franks. Thus, the Franks weren't so keen on giving one of their provinces away to the Vikings as they were on giving away a troublesome tributary Kingdom of Britons in Gaul to the Vikings. Furthermore, supposedly a large number of the Northmen aristocracy intermarried with the British in Gaul giving rise to the Norman aristocracy. In turn, the Norman aristocracy was a mix of British, Viking, and Anglo-Saxon and indistinguishable from their conquered subjects except by language, religion, dress, culture, and weaponized aristocracy.

    In short, whilst it is certain many of these "invasions" were mostly minority colonizations of Britain in which a new ruling aristocracy displaced the old, and ultimately were bred out by the subject peoples, that isn't necessarily the explanation for why the genes appear to disappear. It could just as easily be there was no difference to speak of genetically, except one more of language, culture, and religion. In such a scenario what differences that existed were ones of class, not genetics. Lastly, there are genetic markers for some of the invasions or occupations, mostly of particular subset of the Romano-British who appear to have been Thraco-Dacian and Sarmatians. Intriguingly, these were all noted as heavy armored cavalry. In other words, Arthur and his knights which became the cohesive myth of medieval chivalry centered between the Seine, Rhine, Thames, Ouse, and Severn rivers appear to be a fusion of all the aforementioned tribes centered upon a distinct Thraco-Dacian-Sarmatian-Roman cavalry. This was the once and future King and his chivalry, which united similar but differentiated peoples around the medieval knight. Unlike today's "immigrants" the later were actually streams of the same river coming back to one another.

    “…Thraco-Dacian and Sarmatians. Intriguingly, these were all noted as heavy armored cavalry. In other words, Arthur and his knights…”

    I’ve seen the Hollywood movie, but is there any actual evidence of this? I get the impression that making Arthur & co mounted knights is a later myth accretion from the post-Norman era when mounted knights had become dominant.

  94. @robot
    Isn't it absurd to extrapolate from ten bodies?

    Yes, especially when you’re using a foolish method based on rare variants rather than overall distance.

  95. @Big Bill
    Wow! It sounds like those Anglo-Saxons had one helluva New Years Eve party in England!

    Joking aside, there are similar patterns in the New World.

    In Mexico (like Germany today) the invaders were male. They had to fornicate with somebody, so they started breeding with the local women. Hence the huge percentage of Mestizos in Mexico.

    Other countries, like the USA, were invaded by gender-mixed populations. These invaders (aka Pilgrims) fornicated with each other and maintained separate cultures and race purity.

    The choices that Germany faces are difficult.

    Do they let the Muslim male invaders bring in their own female breeders from Africa and the Middle East? If so, the Germans wind up like the American Indians, culturally and racially replaced in their own land.

    Or do the Germans keep the female Muslim breeders out (no "family reunification") and start sexually servicing and mongrelizing with the male Muslim invaders a la Mexico? If so they will create a Germano-Muslim version of Mexico's Mestizo "Raza Cosmica".

    It is interesting to consider the American example.

    Massasoit (the Merkel-ish American Indian chief) opened his heart and welcomed the tiny band of poor pathetic Pilgrims as refugees.

    A half century later it was Massasoit's own son, Metacom, who attempted to exterminate the now huge number of English invaders in "King Philip's War". Unfortunately, the Indians had agreed to a gun control law about ten years before and were defeated.

    There was a good result to the war, however: the scattered, divided Anglo invaders stopped fighting among themselves and forged a new identity as "Americans".

    Maybe Merkel can do the same: fill up Germany with many warring, squabbling tribes of Muslims and Africans, disarm the Germans, and when the Germans finally fight back (after tens of millions of new invaders have arrived), forge a new cohesive Muslim/African/German identity among the invaders.

    The historical parallels are fascinating.

    “Do they let the Muslim male invaders bring in their own female breeders from Africa and the Middle East…Or do the Germans keep the female Muslim breeders out (no “family reunification”) and start sexually servicing and mongrelizing with the male Muslim invaders a la Mexico?”

    Neither. No visas for wives or arranged marriages, and no German women to marry them. If they want families they can return home. Otherwise they can die off childless and alone, or perhaps like men in prison they can learn to, uh, enjoy the company of each other.

  96. @Lagertha
    Still OT: Sigh, I know it is all about the ethanol...and trying to take down Cruz/get the Tea Partiers behind him...but I cringe anytime I hear her speak. I so wish Huntsman magically rode in from the west to run as an independent!

    If T was smart he would try to reach-out to Huntsman. But, Palin is radioactive, and viable VP candidates will be less inclined to be tied to T if Palin's tar baby mouth is too much - just her family's problems/disasters (The show "Shameless" reminds me of hers) alone will deter conservative VP candidates. It's all too icky for me...but I'm probably alone about this.

    I always thought Utah should be considered the state with solid conservative values, maybe the most conservative; having one of the better economies helps, too. Huntsman was "the one that got away."

    “If T was smart he would try to reach-out to Huntsman.”

    A) Who the hell is “T”? Is that an abbreviation for Trump? Well then spell the damn name.

    B) No one worth noting, anywhere, ever said that reaching out to Jonny Huntsman, Jr, is a smart thing. The man has no natural constituency. He is a pompous prick only elected because daddy was a billionaire. He isn’t remotely conservative. He only ran in Utah as a Republican because Utah is a Republican state and his name in any other state would have meant nothing. His political career is finished.

  97. @Lagertha
    Still OT: Sigh, I know it is all about the ethanol...and trying to take down Cruz/get the Tea Partiers behind him...but I cringe anytime I hear her speak. I so wish Huntsman magically rode in from the west to run as an independent!

    If T was smart he would try to reach-out to Huntsman. But, Palin is radioactive, and viable VP candidates will be less inclined to be tied to T if Palin's tar baby mouth is too much - just her family's problems/disasters (The show "Shameless" reminds me of hers) alone will deter conservative VP candidates. It's all too icky for me...but I'm probably alone about this.

    I always thought Utah should be considered the state with solid conservative values, maybe the most conservative; having one of the better economies helps, too. Huntsman was "the one that got away."

    “I always thought Utah should be considered the state with solid conservative values, maybe the most conservative; having one of the better economies helps, too. Huntsman was “the one that got away.”

    Utah is one of the most conservative states, however it’s politicians have also made it the red state friendliest to illegal immigrants. We gave driver’s licenses and and in-state tuition to illegals well ahead of any other Republican state. Our leaders are batshit crazy when it comes to coddling illegals. If it weren’t for high Mormon birthrates the state would be going down the crapper faster than it is.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    If white non-Mormon birthrates in the United States as a whole were as high as white Mormon birthrates in Utah, then the country might not be going down the crapper at all.
  98. @Anonymous
    Yep.

    And it only took 13 years of New Labour to flush all that down the toilet.

    If you think it woz New Labour whodunnit, you need to read more. They just continued the trend.

  99. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Okay, but that means only in the year 2015!

    Fact is, a thousand years ago the share of Anglo-Saxon may have been more like 70%+, I am sure the stock has declined in frequency over the last generations (less children for those of the higher classes, more for the pre-Saxon stock from the lower classes)

    • Replies: @BB753
    According to Clark, the opposite is true. If Anglo-Saxon Saxon was weeded out, it could be for other reasons. Most likely, smaller relative numbers compared to the natives.
  100. @anon
    "The historic parallels are fascinating".

    But not the demographic or civilizational ones.

    In the whole of the landmass that eventually became the lower 48 states there were probably well less then 2 million Indians. Germany about thirty times smaller has a population of 80 million. The Indians had built virtually nothing, no roads, bridges, towns, cities, just simple hunter-gatherers. Germany has a very advanced technological civilization.

    Why not compare apples to apples instead of oranges.

    There were a hell of a lot more than 2 million Indians before Columbus. Many were agriculturalists, and there were “roads, bridges, towns”–cities if you count the Aztec and Indian capitals. But European diseases literally decimated (reduced to one tenth) most of the native population. Diseases usually preceded the Europeans so they saw empty land and bedraggled survivors. Check out Charles C. Mann’s 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (2005).

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Decimate means reduce by 10%, not reduce to 10%.
    , @anon
    I am talking about Indian populations in the 48 contiguous states. The Aztecs, with their cities, where they performed human sacrifices, were in modern day south-central Mexico. Take a look at a map sometime.

    Numbers for the 'lower 48' were vastly lower as just about all the tribes (apart from the fact that they regularly fought and killed each other) were hunter-gatherers types. This type of existence is not conducive to large-scale populations.

    I also take exception, if not offense, to your term "European diseases". Nobody calls the Bubonic plague, that wiped out as much as half of all medieval Europeans an "Asian disease".

    Whatever the exact number of Indians may have been in the lower 48 it must be conceded that the population density was incomparably lower then in Germany today.
  101. @Anonymous
    Was Newton an East Englishman?

    Newton was from 60 miles north of Cambridge, over the border into the next county. Cambridgeshire is officially part of "the East of England," but Lincolnshire is not. And we probably are really talking about East Anglia, which doesn't match current counties very well. Probably the boundary should go through the middle of Cambridgeshire, encompassing Cambridge but not Newton's birthplace.

    Lincolnshire is on the east coast of England. Stop being silly.

  102. @Reg Cæsar
    Origins of leaders of "New England" bands:

    Aerosmith: New York
    Boston: Ohio
    Cars: Ohio
    J Geils Band: New York
    Pixies: California, Ohio, Philippines
    Phish: Texas, Pennsylvania, New York

    Although formed in Burlington, Phish is about as Yankee as Ben, Jerry, and Bernie Sanders.

    Dick Dale may be Massachusetts's greatest rock product. He's Lebanese.

    “Pixies: California, Ohio, Philippines”

    Charles Michael Kittridge Thompson IV was born in Boston and spent at least part of his childhood / adolescence there; his parents, grandparents, etc., were born in New England (I think his family still own a bar there); and he has significant actual New England ancestry (though I believe mixed with Irish). The drummer, David Lovering, was also from Massachusetts and also has significant actual New England ancestry (though mixed with Irish and Italian).

  103. @Wilkey
    "If T was smart he would try to reach-out to Huntsman."

    A) Who the hell is "T"? Is that an abbreviation for Trump? Well then spell the damn name.

    B) No one worth noting, anywhere, ever said that reaching out to Jonny Huntsman, Jr, is a smart thing. The man has no natural constituency. He is a pompous prick only elected because daddy was a billionaire. He isn't remotely conservative. He only ran in Utah as a Republican because Utah is a Republican state and his name in any other state would have meant nothing. His political career is finished.

    Thanks for enlightening me.

  104. @Jean Cocteausten
    OT: Oberlin president tells black separatist students to stick it.


    http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/01/oberlin_college_president_refuses_to_respond_to_black_students_who_submitted_14_pages_of_demands.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home_pop

    Yes, but he had to genuflect first.

    …..structural and systemic racism in American higher education.”

    He didn’t go with #freespeechismoreimportantthanblacklives#

  105. @Anonymous
    Okay, but that means only in the year 2015!

    Fact is, a thousand years ago the share of Anglo-Saxon may have been more like 70%+, I am sure the stock has declined in frequency over the last generations (less children for those of the higher classes, more for the pre-Saxon stock from the lower classes)

    According to Clark, the opposite is true. If Anglo-Saxon Saxon was weeded out, it could be for other reasons. Most likely, smaller relative numbers compared to the natives.

  106. @Roger Sweeny
    There were a hell of a lot more than 2 million Indians before Columbus. Many were agriculturalists, and there were "roads, bridges, towns"--cities if you count the Aztec and Indian capitals. But European diseases literally decimated (reduced to one tenth) most of the native population. Diseases usually preceded the Europeans so they saw empty land and bedraggled survivors. Check out Charles C. Mann's 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (2005).

    Decimate means reduce by 10%, not reduce to 10%.

  107. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Roger Sweeny
    There were a hell of a lot more than 2 million Indians before Columbus. Many were agriculturalists, and there were "roads, bridges, towns"--cities if you count the Aztec and Indian capitals. But European diseases literally decimated (reduced to one tenth) most of the native population. Diseases usually preceded the Europeans so they saw empty land and bedraggled survivors. Check out Charles C. Mann's 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (2005).

    I am talking about Indian populations in the 48 contiguous states. The Aztecs, with their cities, where they performed human sacrifices, were in modern day south-central Mexico. Take a look at a map sometime.

    Numbers for the ‘lower 48′ were vastly lower as just about all the tribes (apart from the fact that they regularly fought and killed each other) were hunter-gatherers types. This type of existence is not conducive to large-scale populations.

    I also take exception, if not offense, to your term “European diseases”. Nobody calls the Bubonic plague, that wiped out as much as half of all medieval Europeans an “Asian disease”.

    Whatever the exact number of Indians may have been in the lower 48 it must be conceded that the population density was incomparably lower then in Germany today.

    • Replies: @David
    For the only first hand account of pre-European disease agriculture in North America see Cabaza de Vaca's Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America in which he, de Vaca, is able to buy corn from natives all over the place in what's now the contiguous 48.

    For a fairly modern account of native American agriculture in the pre-Eurpean northeastern US, Diana Muir's Reflections in Bollough's Pond is really good.

    The hunter gatherer cultures that we associate with Indians in North America were largely the result of social disintegration brought on by the 80 or 90% death rate over a couple of decades following the introduction of new diseases by Europeans. The account by de Vaca is the only one to depict North America before this catastrophe.

    The huge herds of bison we think were natural were the result of their principle predator, natives, vanishing overnight.

    The Iroquois were in the process of wiping out their neighbors through territorial expansion due to superior crops and farming techniques when the Black Robes and the civilizaiton they represented got in the way.
  108. @Realist
    They are not analogous at all. It is an ignorant comparison.

    I think you’re overstating your case.

  109. @AndrewR
    Well the ideal option is obviously repatriation ASAP, but the parallels do break down.

    Primarily, Germany is in a position to meet the sexual desires of its migrants via nonreproductive prostitution. Latex condoms, hormonal birth control and safer abortion did not exist in the 17th century. Germany could even subsidize the sexual liasons of the migrants while discouraging actual inter-ethnic marriage and breeding. I'm not saying this is ideal but just pointing out the weakness of your analogy.

    Primarily, Germany is in a position to meet the sexual desires of its migrants via nonreproductive prostitution. Latex condoms, hormonal birth control and safer abortion did not exist in the 17th century.

    Do latex condoms, hormonal birth control, and abortion-on-demand keep white American women from making babies with black men? I don’t think so.

    It’s not a technological issue, but a social one.

    If you don’t want white women to mate with the non-white men in their midst, then you have to make the social punishments for breaking the taboo so severe that neither a white woman nor a non-white man will want to risk it.

    Without a strong taboo against miscegenation, backed up by severe social penalties (total ostracization from polite society, at the very least), white women will mate with non-white men. Not all white women, and maybe not the best and brightest white women, but a good number of white women will be willing and even eager to do so, yes.

    In this day and age, would anyone in any position of authority in Germany be willing to stand up publicly and say, “If a white German woman has a child by a non-white non-German man, she should be forced to forfeit all of her rights to any and all forms of welfare and become a social outcast?” I think not.

    That’s the kind of social prohibition it would take – and that might not even be enough.

    (I won’t talk about the kinds of social prohibitions that would have to be used to motivate the men. In the American South, they involved ropes and trees.)

    Germany could even subsidize the sexual liasons of the migrants while discouraging actual inter-ethnic marriage and breeding.

    You want the German government to pimp out prostitutes to service “downtrodden refugees” – on the taxpayer’s dime? Can you hear yourself?

    Maybe the oh-so-tolerant Teutons would go for this.

    • Replies: @Rob McX

    In this day and age, would anyone in any position of authority in Germany be willing to stand up publicly and say, “If a white German woman has a child by a non-white non-German man, she should be forced to forfeit all of her rights to any and all forms of welfare and become a social outcast?”
     
    If they were willing to do that, they wouldn't have let a single "migrant" get inside their national borders in the first place.
  110. @Wilkey
    "I always thought Utah should be considered the state with solid conservative values, maybe the most conservative; having one of the better economies helps, too. Huntsman was “the one that got away."

    Utah is one of the most conservative states, however it's politicians have also made it the red state friendliest to illegal immigrants. We gave driver's licenses and and in-state tuition to illegals well ahead of any other Republican state. Our leaders are batshit crazy when it comes to coddling illegals. If it weren't for high Mormon birthrates the state would be going down the crapper faster than it is.

    If white non-Mormon birthrates in the United States as a whole were as high as white Mormon birthrates in Utah, then the country might not be going down the crapper at all.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    If white non-Mormon birthrates in the United States as a whole were as high as white Mormon birthrates in Utah, then the country might not be going down the crapper at all.
     
    In the end, this is the only answer, for America, for Canada, and for Europe. If you care about Western culture, start cranking out children... lots of them. Nothing else -- not college, not career, not any personal fulfillment -- matters in the long run.

    The evil elites will never relent in their attempt to eliminate and replace us, but if we suddenly start breeding like our enemies, we'll be unstoppable.
  111. @anon
    I am talking about Indian populations in the 48 contiguous states. The Aztecs, with their cities, where they performed human sacrifices, were in modern day south-central Mexico. Take a look at a map sometime.

    Numbers for the 'lower 48' were vastly lower as just about all the tribes (apart from the fact that they regularly fought and killed each other) were hunter-gatherers types. This type of existence is not conducive to large-scale populations.

    I also take exception, if not offense, to your term "European diseases". Nobody calls the Bubonic plague, that wiped out as much as half of all medieval Europeans an "Asian disease".

    Whatever the exact number of Indians may have been in the lower 48 it must be conceded that the population density was incomparably lower then in Germany today.

    For the only first hand account of pre-European disease agriculture in North America see Cabaza de Vaca’s Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America in which he, de Vaca, is able to buy corn from natives all over the place in what’s now the contiguous 48.

    For a fairly modern account of native American agriculture in the pre-Eurpean northeastern US, Diana Muir’s Reflections in Bollough’s Pond is really good.

    The hunter gatherer cultures that we associate with Indians in North America were largely the result of social disintegration brought on by the 80 or 90% death rate over a couple of decades following the introduction of new diseases by Europeans. The account by de Vaca is the only one to depict North America before this catastrophe.

    The huge herds of bison we think were natural were the result of their principle predator, natives, vanishing overnight.

    The Iroquois were in the process of wiping out their neighbors through territorial expansion due to superior crops and farming techniques when the Black Robes and the civilizaiton they represented got in the way.

    • Replies: @5371
    Cabeza de Vaca probably never set foot in what is now any US state except Florida and Texas.
    , @anon
    One account from one guy? Seriously? That is your cited sources? How much of the 3,000,000 square miles of the lower 48 could one guy have possibly visited especially with no roads, bridges etc. Germany's population density is 583 people per square mile. For the Indian population to equal that would mean 1,749,000,000.
  112. @David
    For the only first hand account of pre-European disease agriculture in North America see Cabaza de Vaca's Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America in which he, de Vaca, is able to buy corn from natives all over the place in what's now the contiguous 48.

    For a fairly modern account of native American agriculture in the pre-Eurpean northeastern US, Diana Muir's Reflections in Bollough's Pond is really good.

    The hunter gatherer cultures that we associate with Indians in North America were largely the result of social disintegration brought on by the 80 or 90% death rate over a couple of decades following the introduction of new diseases by Europeans. The account by de Vaca is the only one to depict North America before this catastrophe.

    The huge herds of bison we think were natural were the result of their principle predator, natives, vanishing overnight.

    The Iroquois were in the process of wiping out their neighbors through territorial expansion due to superior crops and farming techniques when the Black Robes and the civilizaiton they represented got in the way.

    Cabeza de Vaca probably never set foot in what is now any US state except Florida and Texas.

    • Replies: @David
    Well, never went as far north as Georgia, true. But even today it's difficult to travel by foot from Florida to Texas.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Cabeza de Vaca probably never set foot in what is now any US state except Florida and Texas.
     
    For someone whose name means "cow's head", that should be enough. Those are top beef cattle states.
  113. @Anonymous Nephew
    OT

    When the UK law criminalising homosexual acts between consenting adults was repealed in 1967, the speeches in favour of the bill were basically "These are sad people who can't help their inclinations, it's cruel to lock them up if no one's harmed". Opponents warned in apocalyptic terms that homosexuals wouldn't be content with legality but would in time demand full cultural equality - and those in favour said "don't be ridiculous - that'll never happen".

    But not even the most fervent speaker on either side could have imagined that less than 50 years later a Tory MP (and chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee) would make a speech in the house about how he regularly liked to inhale a chemical (which relaxes the anal sphincter), and how banning said chemical was "fantastically stupid".

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/20/tory-mp-crispin-blunt-poppers-drug-policy

    [The government recognises that representations have been made to the effect that ‘poppers’ have a beneficial health and relationship effect in enabling anal sex for some men who have sex with men, amid concern about the impact of the ban on these men]

    As penance for Churchill’s sins, he might be set to peruse this passage in purgatory.

  114. @5371
    Cabeza de Vaca probably never set foot in what is now any US state except Florida and Texas.

    Well, never went as far north as Georgia, true. But even today it’s difficult to travel by foot from Florida to Texas.

  115. @Stan Adams

    Primarily, Germany is in a position to meet the sexual desires of its migrants via nonreproductive prostitution. Latex condoms, hormonal birth control and safer abortion did not exist in the 17th century.
     
    Do latex condoms, hormonal birth control, and abortion-on-demand keep white American women from making babies with black men? I don't think so.

    It's not a technological issue, but a social one.

    If you don't want white women to mate with the non-white men in their midst, then you have to make the social punishments for breaking the taboo so severe that neither a white woman nor a non-white man will want to risk it.

    Without a strong taboo against miscegenation, backed up by severe social penalties (total ostracization from polite society, at the very least), white women will mate with non-white men. Not all white women, and maybe not the best and brightest white women, but a good number of white women will be willing and even eager to do so, yes.

    In this day and age, would anyone in any position of authority in Germany be willing to stand up publicly and say, "If a white German woman has a child by a non-white non-German man, she should be forced to forfeit all of her rights to any and all forms of welfare and become a social outcast?" I think not.

    That's the kind of social prohibition it would take - and that might not even be enough.

    (I won't talk about the kinds of social prohibitions that would have to be used to motivate the men. In the American South, they involved ropes and trees.)

    Germany could even subsidize the sexual liasons of the migrants while discouraging actual inter-ethnic marriage and breeding.
     
    You want the German government to pimp out prostitutes to service "downtrodden refugees" - on the taxpayer's dime? Can you hear yourself?

    Maybe the oh-so-tolerant Teutons would go for this.

    In this day and age, would anyone in any position of authority in Germany be willing to stand up publicly and say, “If a white German woman has a child by a non-white non-German man, she should be forced to forfeit all of her rights to any and all forms of welfare and become a social outcast?”

    If they were willing to do that, they wouldn’t have let a single “migrant” get inside their national borders in the first place.

  116. @David
    Well, never went as far north as Georgia, true. But even today it's difficult to travel by foot from Florida to Texas.

    But easy by boat, which is what he did.

  117. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Stan Adams
    If white non-Mormon birthrates in the United States as a whole were as high as white Mormon birthrates in Utah, then the country might not be going down the crapper at all.

    If white non-Mormon birthrates in the United States as a whole were as high as white Mormon birthrates in Utah, then the country might not be going down the crapper at all.

    In the end, this is the only answer, for America, for Canada, and for Europe. If you care about Western culture, start cranking out children… lots of them. Nothing else — not college, not career, not any personal fulfillment — matters in the long run.

    The evil elites will never relent in their attempt to eliminate and replace us, but if we suddenly start breeding like our enemies, we’ll be unstoppable.

  118. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Greatest conquerers the world has ever seen,”

    and

    “Probably not. Cf Genghis Khan:”

    Although we are all posting here in English and English has become somewhat widespread and established in the world. Whereas Mongolian…

    • Replies: @syonredux

    “Greatest conquerers the world has ever seen,”

    and

    “Probably not. Cf Genghis Khan:”

    Although we are all posting here in English and English has become somewhat widespread and established in the world. Whereas Mongolian…
     
    On the other hand, we're also not posting in Norman French....
  119. @anonymous
    "Greatest conquerers the world has ever seen,"

    and

    "Probably not. Cf Genghis Khan:"


    Although we are all posting here in English and English has become somewhat widespread and established in the world. Whereas Mongolian...

    “Greatest conquerers the world has ever seen,”

    and

    “Probably not. Cf Genghis Khan:”

    Although we are all posting here in English and English has become somewhat widespread and established in the world. Whereas Mongolian…

    On the other hand, we’re also not posting in Norman French….

  120. @AndrewR
    I've always intuitively assumed that the Northern English were more Celtic in origin. Basically southern Scots.

    I’ve always intuitively assumed that the Northern English were more Celtic in origin. Basically southern Scots.

    It’s the other way around. Southern Scots are basically Anglo-Saxon.

  121. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “On the other hand, we’re also not posting in Norman French….”

    But we aren’t posting in a language that is not descended from it either. It is an interesting history, a 1000 years is a long time, and languages change. If you’ve ever had to try to read some of Beowulf in the original (it used to be a standard undergrad English assignment to at least look at it), well, it makes you wonder how things changed so much. Modern English wouldn’t exist the way it is without the Normans.

    English language:

    “…Middle English began in the late 11th century with the Norman conquest of England…

    …With the Norman conquest of England in 1066, the now norsified Old English language was subject to contact with the Old Norman language, a Romance language closely related to Modern French. The Norman language in England eventually developed into Anglo-Norman. Because Norman was spoken primarily by the elites and nobles, while the lower classes continued speaking Anglo-Saxon, the influence of Norman consisted of introducing a wide range of loanwords related to politics, legislation and prestigious social domains. Middle English also greatly simplified the inflectional system, probably in order to reconcile Old Norse and Old English, which were inflectionally different but morphologically similar. The distinction between nominative and accusative case was lost except in personal pronouns, the instrumental case was dropped, and the use of the genitive case was limited to describing possession. The inflectional system regularised many irregular inflectional forms, and gradually simplified the system of agreement, making word order less flexible…

    …By the 12th century Middle English was fully developed, integrating both Norse and Norman features; it continued to be spoken until the transition to early Modern English around 1500.”

    • Replies: @syonredux

    “On the other hand, we’re also not posting in Norman French….”

    But we aren’t posting in a language that is not descended from it either.
     
    English is not descended from Norman French; English is a Germanic language that possesses a large number of words that are derived from French.
  122. @anonymous
    "On the other hand, we’re also not posting in Norman French…."

    But we aren't posting in a language that is not descended from it either. It is an interesting history, a 1000 years is a long time, and languages change. If you've ever had to try to read some of Beowulf in the original (it used to be a standard undergrad English assignment to at least look at it), well, it makes you wonder how things changed so much. Modern English wouldn't exist the way it is without the Normans.

    English language:


    "...Middle English began in the late 11th century with the Norman conquest of England...

    ...With the Norman conquest of England in 1066, the now norsified Old English language was subject to contact with the Old Norman language, a Romance language closely related to Modern French. The Norman language in England eventually developed into Anglo-Norman. Because Norman was spoken primarily by the elites and nobles, while the lower classes continued speaking Anglo-Saxon, the influence of Norman consisted of introducing a wide range of loanwords related to politics, legislation and prestigious social domains. Middle English also greatly simplified the inflectional system, probably in order to reconcile Old Norse and Old English, which were inflectionally different but morphologically similar. The distinction between nominative and accusative case was lost except in personal pronouns, the instrumental case was dropped, and the use of the genitive case was limited to describing possession. The inflectional system regularised many irregular inflectional forms, and gradually simplified the system of agreement, making word order less flexible...

    ...By the 12th century Middle English was fully developed, integrating both Norse and Norman features; it continued to be spoken until the transition to early Modern English around 1500."

     

    “On the other hand, we’re also not posting in Norman French….”

    But we aren’t posting in a language that is not descended from it either.

    English is not descended from Norman French; English is a Germanic language that possesses a large number of words that are derived from French.

  123. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “English is not descended from Norman French; English is a Germanic language that possesses a large number of words that are derived from French.”

    I’ve got it, English has nothing to do with the Normans.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    “English is not descended from Norman French; English is a Germanic language that possesses a large number of words that are derived from French.”

    I’ve got it, English has nothing to do with the Normans.
     
    Oh, it has something to do with the Normans. English has, after all, received a huge infusion of French-derived words since 1066.That being said, English is not one of the Romance languages. It is part of the Germanic family.
  124. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @David
    For the only first hand account of pre-European disease agriculture in North America see Cabaza de Vaca's Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America in which he, de Vaca, is able to buy corn from natives all over the place in what's now the contiguous 48.

    For a fairly modern account of native American agriculture in the pre-Eurpean northeastern US, Diana Muir's Reflections in Bollough's Pond is really good.

    The hunter gatherer cultures that we associate with Indians in North America were largely the result of social disintegration brought on by the 80 or 90% death rate over a couple of decades following the introduction of new diseases by Europeans. The account by de Vaca is the only one to depict North America before this catastrophe.

    The huge herds of bison we think were natural were the result of their principle predator, natives, vanishing overnight.

    The Iroquois were in the process of wiping out their neighbors through territorial expansion due to superior crops and farming techniques when the Black Robes and the civilizaiton they represented got in the way.

    One account from one guy? Seriously? That is your cited sources? How much of the 3,000,000 square miles of the lower 48 could one guy have possibly visited especially with no roads, bridges etc. Germany’s population density is 583 people per square mile. For the Indian population to equal that would mean 1,749,000,000.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    One compromise possibility is that in 1491 North America, river bottoms tended to be heavily populated but not uplands?
  125. @anon
    One account from one guy? Seriously? That is your cited sources? How much of the 3,000,000 square miles of the lower 48 could one guy have possibly visited especially with no roads, bridges etc. Germany's population density is 583 people per square mile. For the Indian population to equal that would mean 1,749,000,000.

    One compromise possibility is that in 1491 North America, river bottoms tended to be heavily populated but not uplands?

  126. @5371
    Cabeza de Vaca probably never set foot in what is now any US state except Florida and Texas.

    Cabeza de Vaca probably never set foot in what is now any US state except Florida and Texas.

    For someone whose name means “cow’s head”, that should be enough. Those are top beef cattle states.

  127. @anonymous
    "English is not descended from Norman French; English is a Germanic language that possesses a large number of words that are derived from French."

    I've got it, English has nothing to do with the Normans.

    “English is not descended from Norman French; English is a Germanic language that possesses a large number of words that are derived from French.”

    I’ve got it, English has nothing to do with the Normans.

    Oh, it has something to do with the Normans. English has, after all, received a huge infusion of French-derived words since 1066.That being said, English is not one of the Romance languages. It is part of the Germanic family.

  128. @Steve Sailer
    There's a difference between Cambridge (eastern) and Oxford (western) in scientific output down through the centuries in Cambridge's favor.

    No doubt true, yet Oxford and Cambridge are less than 85 miles apart!

Comments are closed.

PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The unprecedented racial transformation of California and its political consequences.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.