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

Continuing my on-going series on the regional differences – genetic regional differences – between the different Euro-Americans in the United States and Canada, here I will present a series of maps demonstrating some of the evidence for the existence and significance of these differences, beyond the historical circumstances explored by David Hackett Fischer (DHF) in Albion’s Seed and Colin Woodard in American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America.

First, again, the American Nations as they exist today:

ColinWoodard_AmericanNations_map

Now, let’s look at regions of origin of the colonial Americans:

UK-origins3

These are the regions of Britain from which the Anglo-American settlers hail, as drawn from DHF’s research in Albion’s Seed. The Puritans (who are discussed by HBD Chick here: east anglia, kent and manorialism and here: clannish or not?) hail from East Anglia and Kent in southeastern England. The Quakers (see the myddle people | hbd* chick and geographical origin of the quakers | hbd* chick EDIT, 9/18/13: see also on the topographical origins of the quakers | hbd* chick and quaker individualism | hbd* chick) originate from the industrial North Midlands. The Cavaliers (see The Cavaliers) hail from southwestern England. And the Scotch-Irish Borderlanders (see “culture” of honor | hbd* chick and hatfields and mccoys | hbd* chick) originate in the English-Scottish border areas – some via Ulster.

The line on the above map is a division between the areas of Britain that practiced a greater degree of cousin marriage versus the areas that are more outbred. In general, the areas north and west of the line appear to have had a more recent history of cousin marriage. This division also marks the areas held by opposing sides in the English Civil War (as discussed by HBD Chick):

english-civil-war-outbreeders-vs-inbreeders

As for the non-British settlers, the settlers to New France originate from a few specific areas of northwestern France (see what’s up with french canadians? | hbd* chick and canadiens | hbd* chick):

france_departements_regions_narrow-02

The areas circled in red are from where the bulk of settlers to Quebec originated. The area circled in green is from where the Acadians originated (some of which later became the Cajuns of Louisiana).

(I am still collecting data on the regions of origin of the German settlers to America. The Germans – particularly the Pietists – were a significant fraction of the early settlers and continued to be a large fraction of the settlers to the United States and Canada throughout both countries early histories. If anyone has such data, feel free to let me know.

EDIT, 9/18/13: See also: Germania’s Seed?)

The expansion of the various settlements across the continent was detailed by Colin Woodard:

wood_landingwood_expansion

The Yankees and the Midlanders (mostly Germans) had the northern part of the country into which they could expand. The Borderlanders settled the interior, violently fighting they way across. The Lowland Southerners expanded their plantations along the fertile soils along the Gulf coast.

As for the New French colonies, the two main colonies – Quebec and Acadia – faced considerably different fates after each suffered British conquest. Acadia was essentially erased; its population dispersed and its lands becoming British settlements. EDIT, 5/10/14: But some of the colonists were able to eventually return to the Maritimes/Maine to reestablish a remnant of the colony. See Acadie. Some of its colonists survived in their exclave in Louisiana. On the other hand, the Québécois were already too numerous to be easily cleansed from their lands by the British, and were generally left alone under British rule.

In the North, the Yankees and Midlanders were joined by additional, newer Northwestern European settlers. In the Midlands, and parts of Yankeedom, this included Germans. These were joined by Scandinavians in Greater New England. As well, Catholic Irish dispersed all throughout this area. (See Those Who Can See: Were you Assimilable?)

All of these groups readily intermarried with each other, creating a new and genetically unique American (and Canadian) population.

alg-whitey-bulger-jpg As discussed in the previous link, the post 1880-immigrants included Southern and Eastern Europeans, who began to disperse across Yankeedom and the Midlands. These far more clannish groups began to cause all sort of new trouble for the outbred and well-behaved earlier residents, introducing new waves of ethnic violence and corruption to which the Puritans and Quaker settlers were unaccustomed (and still deal with to this day).

Never the less, despite the more recent augmentation, the well established earlier stock laid the biological foundation for the residents of the various American nations. And today, we see the results:

american-nations-politics3

This is a map of the 2012 presidential election results by county, also adjusted for county population, drawn by Chris Howard. On top of this, I have overlayed Colin Woodard’s divisions of the different American Nations. Here, the vote is represented by color on a red-blue scale: the redder, the more Republican; the bluer, more Democrat. The darkness of the county corresponds to its population – the darker, the more populous. While this would be clearer if I had a map of the White-only vote, we can see a pronounced regional breakdown in White voting patterns. Whites really only vote democratic in Greater New England (and its western offspring, The Left Coast) and in the Midlands, as well as in scattered urban areas across the rest of country (which are typically Puritan/Midlander exclaves – e.g., Austin, TX).

Here’s another version that makes the actual voting percentage more clear:

American Nations 2012nationwidecountymapshadedbypercentagewonD

This map details the straight voting percentage, outlining the red and blue counties. The blueness of Greater New England, the Left Coast, and the Midlands compared to the rest of the country becomes clear.

Despite the fact that the “borders” between these nations are drawn on these maps as solid lines, these maps also make clear that they should not be thought of as such. Rather, the various nations generally transition roughly smoothly into to the others. This is especially true in the multicultural Midlands, which – rather than representing a contiguous, distinct “cultural” zone – represents an area in which Greater Appalachia transitions into Greater New England. Indeed, while Colin Woodard places the northeastern end of Greater Appalachia in southwestern Pennsylvania, it actually extends well into central Pennsylvania and New York – even into Maine to an extent. (That said – as my wife notes – the first map indicates that the seemingly anomalous red areas of New England, such as Piscataquis County in Maine and Hamilton County in New York are sparsely populated. The three people who live there voted for Romney, that’s all.)

Note that our nation’s capital sits at the confluence of three nations (The Midlands, The Tidewater, and Greater Appalachia). This was no accident.

The blue areas outside the Old North on the previous map represent minority havens (from Wikipedia):

Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg

That is, Blacks in the Deep South/Tidewater; Mexicans in El Norte; and Native Americans across the Interior West (and Alaska).

The European ancestries on this now well-known map should not be taken at face value. There has been extensive intermixing between different White American groups, such that self-reported ethnicity is generally meaningless.

As can be seen, the regional nations cut across state lines, often diving a state into two or more nations. This can be seen in Delaware, which is divided between a blue Midlander northern part and a red Tidewater southern part:

http://on.cc.com/OCKFnr

Notice the Cavalier observation from the lady at 6:47, noting – correctly – that in north Delaware “there’s just a different breed of people up there.”

The evidence for the different American nations can also be seen in the language of the people, as can be seen on this map of regional dialects across North America (from The Aschmann Clan: American English Dialects; go there for a comprehensive collection of speech samples):

983672_578332438878592_1848053944_n Note the tight correspondence to the nations as demarcated by Woodard. Indeed, as DHF noted, the different North American speech patterns can trace their origin to the speech of the colonial stock: the New England accent to the speech of East Anglia (such as the New England doo-yahd); the Lowland Southern drawl to the speech common in Southwestern England; the Appalachian twang to the Scots of the Borderlanders. (See also A Dialect Map of American English)

The gradients in the dialects – such as the one we see as one moves westward across Yankeedom – perhaps reflect the waves of settlement and the influence of subsequent immigrants.

DHF also investigated historical trends in national elections, a sample of which was also discussed by Razib Khan:

1856

As Razib put it (emphasis in original):

In the Deep South to a good approximation to be white is to be a Republican, and vote for Republicans. In contrast, in Greater New England there is a slight tilt toward the Democratic party among white voters. When you aggregate white voters nationally there is a tendency for it to lean toward the Republican party, but this masks deep regionalism. In Vermont 31% of whites voted for John McCain in 2008. In Alabama that figure was 88%.

And so it has always been. In the 1856 election the Republicans contested for the presidency, and as you can see on the map to the left only the Yankee regions supported their candidate.

The regional differences are also visible in the psychological traits of American Whites – here in IQ (from Audacious Epigone):

US IQ White

The Yankees, having descended from an artisan and academic elite (the Puritans even required letters of recommendation before allowing a prospective immigrant to venture to New England), score highly. The Lowland South on the other hand – which received a much more representative cross section of the English population (indeed, many were slaves) – is broadly much less intelligent, on average. And Greater Appalachia, having been settled by inbred common folk (see clannish dysgenics | hbd* chick) performs relatively poorly (don’t trust Texas’s seemingly high score).

As well, we can see the regional differences in the behavior of these Whites (see previous link culture of honor) – in particular, rates of violence. Here are the White murder rates by state (also from the Audacious Epigone):

White Murder rates

Rates of violence are substantially lower in the Puritan and Midlander areas (indeed, the Quakers were pacifists) and substantially higher in the Borderlander and Cavalier areas. (Indeed, Puritan Maine was ranked as the most peaceful U.S. state in the Vision of Humanity United States Peace Index). The anomalously and suspiciously high rates of White violence in the Southwest likely stem from the conflagration of Hispanics with Whites in statistics there. That said, the Interior (“Wild”) West was settled by violent settlers of Appalachian extraction, so that they’d be higher rates of White violence there is perhaps not horrendously surprising.

Additionally, the warrior spirit of the Borderlanders and the Cavaliers is visible in military enlistment-to-population ratios (from The Heritage Foundation):

US_enlisted_recruits_by_state_map While these data aren’t broken down by race, broadly speaking, the Borderlander and Cavalier states are overrepresented among recruits, while the Puritan and Midlander states are underrepresented.

Edit, 2/6/15: [Here's another map, which compiles enlistment rates over a longer time period and breaks it down regionally by ZIP code (from here):

MilitaryHere, we see it is clearly the Tidewater, the Deep South, and the Far West that are overrepresented.

The two maps disagree somewhat (especially in Greater Appalachia) due to a difference in each's respective methodology. The Heritage Foundation's is based on the state's population of males aged 18-24. The Atlantic's map is based on total population. Couple that with this map of median age per county (from here, click to enlarge), we see that many places, like Greater Appalachia, are deficient in young people relative to a few others (like the Deep South).

(EDIT 4/14/15: Voluntary enlistment in the military is known to be highly heritable – see Beaver et al 2015. The heritability of any sort of military enlistment was found to be 82%, with a zero shared environment. The high heritability and lack of shared environment in a national sample underscores the genetic nature of this pattern, but it also rules out local environmental effects. This demonstrates the genetic nature of all the other patterns we see.)

***End Edit***]

Left Coast2 EDIT, 9/18/13, And, coupled with the map above, in defense of the “Pot & Peace” flag I’ve drawn for the Left Coast (and, in this case, Yankeedom to a lesser extent) here’s one more map for you (from Wikipedia):

*

Map-of-US-state-cannabis-laws.svgCannibis map key

The United States (and Canada) was never quite “one nation, indivisible”; rather, persistent regional differences exist – thanks to the differential patterns of settlement and the as yet imperfect genetic mixing among the people. This means that the divisions that exist in our country will remain for some time. Thanks to the apparent recent erosion in social cohesion (see Peter Turchin, The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America and The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America II – Social Evolution Forum), these divisions are likely to become sharper in the years to come. Hopefully the American Nations will once again will be able to cooperate for their sake of their mutual self-interest. In the mean time, I’ll stay deep in peaceful Maine… :)

I’m back but not back. I’m going to remove comment moderation for the time being (to be temporarily restored once again).

Previously: A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”, Sound Familiar?, Flags of the American Nations, The Cavaliers

Edit, 6/30/14: Be sure to also see the follow up post to this one, with much more on this matter and even more maps:

More Maps of the American Nations

(Reprinted from JayMan's Blog by permission of author or representative)
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. By God Sir, you have done a lot of great work on this! James Thompson

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Thank you!
    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/jman/maps-of-the-american-nations/#comment-1062198
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. No, he has not done such a great work. Just graphs and more graphs thrown together to reinforce the correlation-like argument implicit throughout the whole article. He is just furthering the recent seductive fad, pushed by HBD Chick and Audacious Epigone, of “correlation implies causation”. Of course, every half-educated layman knows that the the opposite is the case. Correlation does not imply causation. The most it allows you to do is to suspect relationships. It is the ground for a suspicion, that has to be substantiated afterwards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Tomás:

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

    The answer: All human behavioral traits are heritable.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  3. By the way: the use of the modern Spain’s flag with a chile as coat of arms is completely grotesque. Funny, for sure, but completely moronic.

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

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

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

    Read More
  5. @Tomás
    By the way: the use of the modern Spain's flag with a chile as coat of arms is completely grotesque. Funny, for sure, but completely moronic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The answer: All human behavioral traits are heritable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Gottlieb:

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

    It is extremely simple to deconstruct any validity to the argument nurture, simple, just find in control populations, fleeing exceptions to the rule.
    How so? We share the same environment, we have the conditions, our parents are very similar in behavior and yet he became different from us?
     
    It's worth noting that there are no two genetically identical humans on the planet. Even identical twins aren't 100% genetically identical (though they are very nearly so). Hence, it's generally impossible to declare a difference between individuals (and certainly groups of individuals) as being wholly environmental.
  12. @Gottlieb
    When people talk about environmental factors they tend to conclude that the change in behavior or causal relationship (my parents are liberal, live in San Francisco, ready, I became one) happens outside of human beings, but all the time, changes happen inside. Therefore, all environmental explanations are actually organic explanations, partially genetic (epigenetic). I have an acne and was very shy. Millions of teenagers have acne (or acme) but are not shy. Some people may be more elastic in emotions than other. (degrees of bipolarity, the spectral one?)It is extremely simple to deconstruct any validity to the argument nurture, simple, just find in control populations, fleeing exceptions to the rule.
    How so? We share the same environment, we have the conditions, our parents are very similar in behavior and yet he became different from us?
    Yes, there is a genetic plasticity that may interfere with our choices, but I prefer to call her genetic predisposition.
    Genetics is like a deep lake, where certain features are on the sidelines while others are in the deepest parts, but can overwhelm.
    Bullshit nurture no there. No there point treating a wolf like a dog at some point he will caress her jugular.
    The animal domestication explains the theory inbreeding and outbreeding. But in this case, it could be interesting to analyze how dog mutts act. I have the impression that they are very docile, adaptable and smarter than dogs with pedigree. Or recent example of the domestication of foxes in Russia.

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

    Roughly correct.

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Viper:

    Thank you!

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

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

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

    Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

    Precisely.

    Read More
  17. For Germans look at the Palatinate. You need to also consider the Dutch.

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

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

  18. All of these groups readily intermarried with each other, creating a new and genetically unique American (and Canadian) population.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

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

    I don’t know whether this is true or not but, if it is, it would be interesting to know if something similar might happen in the case of humans?
     
    Very good question. Are Americans trending towards "the default European"?
    , @Luke Lea
    See here for more information about freely outbreeding dogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariah_dog
  19. @Luke Lea
    All of these groups readily intermarried with each other, creating a new and genetically unique American (and Canadian) population.

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

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

    Was that from Steve Sailer?

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

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

    Read More
  20. @Luke Lea
    For Germans look at the Palatinate. You need to also consider the Dutch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @panjoomby:

    amen, excellent work.
     
    Thank you!

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

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

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

    amen, excellent work.

    Thank you!

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

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

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

    Read More
  25. fair enough! i think i’ve been hyperfocused on the history of tobacco companies denying/fending off a causative link between smoking & cancer, b/c – hey all that research was just based on correlation. correlation (& environment) both pale in the face of genetic predisposition. & i should post this on your newer (& similarly excellent) post – that these studies might be done better as multiple regression, with IQ entered in first, to see what predicts above & beyond that. also be nice to throw in some genetic marker independent variables after IQ. we’d get much different results from what gets spouted as the conventional wisdom…

    Read More
  26. […] A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” Sound Familiar? Flags of the American Nations The Cavaliers Maps of the American Nations […]

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

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

    Read More
  29. […] works. Needless to say, the map of states with legal corporal punishment in schools follows the Map of the American Nations (from Wikipedia) Red = allowed; blue = not […]

    Read More
  30. […] political disarray speaks to the increased conflict between the distinct American Nations, as discussed by David Hackett Fischer and Colin Woodard. Both Turchin and Woodard noted that […]

    Read More
  31. […] As for here in Yankee/New French Maine, we’re unfortunately stuck with the brilliance of our esteemed French-Canadian Governor Paul LePage. He vehemently opposes the Medicaid expansion here. Perhaps this may have something to do with his New French origin. The French Canadians seem to have either picked up some clannish elements here in America or perhaps brought these traits with them owing to their regional origin in France (see also Maps of the American Nations). […]

    Read More
  32. Anonymous says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Reblogged this on American Info Maps and commented:
    I found this article fascinating, along with it’s detailed maps, and wanted to share it. It might assist those who are working on their family genealogy. Enjoy.

    Read More
  33. […] Maps of the American Nations – More on the geographic origin and distribution of the American nations and presents a series of maps and other evidence that shows their importance today […]

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

    Read More
  35. @Benjamin David Steele
    About the Pensylvania Germans, it has been something I've been trying to figure out. In all of my readings, I've only come across two specifically stated regions they came from.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thanks! I will check them out.

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

    Read More
  38. […] of the American Nations The Cavaliers Maps of the American Nations Rural White Liberals – a Key to Understanding the Political […]

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

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

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

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

    Read More
  43. […] we saw previously (see My Most Read Posts), my post Maps of the American Nations is the single most popular post so far here on my blog. Americans all over are supremely interested […]

    Read More
  44. […] Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” Flags of the American Nations Maps of the American Nations More Maps of the […]

    Read More
  45. Anonymous says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

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

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

    Read More
  47. […] a more in depth look at the American Nations and their biological/historical origins look here at a post from […]

    Read More
  48. […] were featured in my post More Maps of the American Nations (as well as in the earlier post Maps of the American Nations). The pattern we see above (and many other patterns)  – while clearly partially the result of […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All JayMan Comments via RSS