November 4, 2011

Your ancestors more likely to be pioneers than stay-at-homes

In the classic book series, Little House on the Prairie, Pa's wanderlust repeatedly drives the Ingalls family westward past the edges of civilization. That craving for open space is probably what drove Homo sapiens to leave Africa in the first place and spread across the globe. According to new research, the desire to expand into new territory may have provided an evolutionary advantage to those who had it over those who lacked it. 
The study, published November 4 in Science, analyzed the genealogies of settlers in Canada's Charlevoix Saguenay Lac-Saint-Jean region, northeast of Quebec City. Since the colony's initiation in 1608, it underwent several waves of geographic expansion. The researchers, led by population geneticist Laurent Excoffier of the University of Montreal, looked at the colony's marriage and birth records between 1686 and 1960. The analysis found that families living on the edges of the expansions had 20 percent more children than families living at the settlement's core. They also married one year earlier, on average, and contributed up to four times more genes to the region's current population. 
"This is a lovely paper," said Henry Harpending, an anthropologist at University of Utah, who did not participate in the study. Although the researchers could only include births registered in church records, which most likely excluded illegitimate births, Harpending said the researchers "did a thorough job, and analyzed lots of data."

Of course, these lands weren't unpopulated when the French Canadians settled them. They just overwhelmed the Indians.

Benjamin Franklin more or less pointed this out in 1754 in calling for immigration restriction in Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind. (By the way, somebody should post a more readable version with modern spelling and without Franklin's surfeit of capitalization -- this is one of the key documents in intellectual history, Franklin->Malthus->Darwin, but it's hard for 21st Century people to read in the original.)

After the outbreak of the French & Indian War in 1756, Franklin progressively lost interest in immigration restriction as the opportunity for his people to break out of their narrow coastal strip and violently conquer the great Mississippi watershed increased. (Now, in the Pinkerian imagination, immigration restrictionism is equated with war, while the Enlightenment is equated with peace and immigration, but in the mind of Franklin, one of the great geopolitical strategists of the Enlightenment, immigration restriction and war were alternatives. War against the French and Indians would obviate the need for immigration restriction by allowing the English to conquer vast new lands.After the war, the British government thought to give Canada back to the French in return for a sugar island, but Franklin managed to convince them not to do that: he recognized that the St. Lawrence watershed was key to controlling the Mississippi watershed, which he lusted after for his people.

Then, when the British government tried to restrict the colonists from expanding over the Appalachians, Franklin slowly turned toward war with Mother England to free up the center of the continent for Anglo-American settlement.

In the 21st Century, we witness the same kind of fertility explosions among illegal immigrants to the U.S.

You'll notice that there aren't a lot of Amerindians around these days.

119 comments:

Shouting Thomas said...

So, the moral is that we should be exploring and colonizing outer space!

Marlowe said...

Franklin did not pen that work: it was either Daniel Waterhouse or Enoch Root.

Dr. Timothy Leary made much the same point in various books he published back in the 70s about the Westward expansionist urge & (ahem) genetic superiority. California uber alles.

not a hacker said...

... the desire to expand into new territory may have provided an evolutionary advantage to those who had it over those who lacked it.

Is this what you call a tautology?

Steve Sailer said...

The best ideas are the ones that turn out to be tautologies, like survival of the fittest.

Whiskey said...

In Pinker's view, history began in 1933, or something. War has always been with us, it ebbs and flows based on technology, society, and the interplay between them.

Abolishing War is like abolishing drinking, drug use, and violence in general -- a utopian pipe dream requiring a brutal, world wide dictatorship regulating every aspect of life (which I suspect is Pinker's goal as it has been many utopians, from Rousseau to Lenin).

There is a new post on Hotair detailing a lengthy article by Goldberg and Armbinder in the Atlantic about how Pakistan is now moving around live, armed nukes in lightly armored/armed convoys, and ramping up nukes as the state collapses into total Jihadism.

What Pinker does not get about violence is that technology of mass destruction becoming affordable to even failed peoples/states like Pakistan, means that it increases not decreases. Some Jihadi jerk in Islamabad or Rawalpindi may decide if millions of New Yorkers die. For his own status/power/wealth/jihad reasons. Technology once it becomes a semi-commodity becomes a destabilizing force, the most violent wins.

You could argue that the Western societies lacking will to kill, basically, are like Amerindians facing Colonial Settlers. Unable to resist, not because of lack of technology but because modern Western society creates lack of will to survive.

Justin said...

The same could probably be said of European immigrants in general. The Irish, Germans, etc. who came to America ended up having way more descendents than the ones who stayed behind.

The comparison of Native Americans to modern American is highly spurious, however. The native Indians had extremely low population levels compared to Euro-American settlements. They were never "genocided". There were just too few of them to hold onto all the land they wanted to lay claim to.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey said...

There is a new post on Hotair detailing a lengthy article by Goldberg and Armbinder in the Atlantic about how Pakistan is now moving around live, armed nukes in lightly armored/armed convoys, and ramping up nukes as the state collapses into total Jihadism.

So what do you, Goldberg and the rest of the neocons at Hot Ait suggest we do about it?

You imperialists are just gonna have to accept that as technology advances, 'our' enemies are going to come into possession of ever more terrible weapons (biological, chemical etc.).

There's not much we can do about it.

Hunsdon said...

Only Whiskey could call abolishing drug use a pipe dream.

Marlowe said...

Don't sell the Injuns guns. Just give them whiskey.

Perl Cookbook said...

Sailer:
> You'll notice that there aren't a lot of Amerindians around these days.

Ouch! But, as Justin says:

> The native Indians had extremely low population levels compared to Euro-American settlements. They were never "genocided". There were just too few of them to hold onto all the land they wanted to lay claim to.

... we whites have brought it on ourselves, by not breeding.

Peter Frost said...

"these lands weren't unpopulated when the French Canadians settled them. They just overwhelmed the Indians."

No. There were virtually no Amerindians south of Lac Saint-Jean and the Saguenay and only scattered bands of Montagnais to the north, and they were on good terms with the French Canadians. Since they lived from hunting (and not from farming like the Iroquoians farther south), they had a very low population density. There were no Indian Wars in that part of Quebec.

Kaz said...

@Hunsdon

Yes, abolishing drug use is a damn pipe dream. Furthermore drug ABUSE will never die off until the people who are prone to addictions die off. But since they're subsidized by the state, that's never going to happen.

Short of a strict dictator drugs are going to stick around forever.

I don't see why that seems like an outlandish claim to you..

This is coming from a guy who has never smoked, drank alcohol, etc..

andres said...

"And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth"

Franklin thought Russians, Swedes and Germans were swarthy?

Anonymous said...

They were never "genocided".

Genocide doesn't have to involve the immediate killing of a group. It can result from the gradual encroachment of one group on another.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/10/taino-are-extinct.html

... we whites have brought it on ourselves, by not breeding.

Whether or not biological organisms reproduce themselves is not simply a matter of choice. There are conditions that organisms evolve to reproduce under, and changes in those conditions will affect reproduction. Animals in captivity removed from their wild environment often have lower reproductive rates.

Steve has documented the relationship between certain conditions and reproduction in his study of "affordable family formation". If these favorable conditions are being altered or destroyed, then it's not simply a matter of choice. And if there are parties who promote and benefit from the erosion of these conditions, then at least part of the blame is on these parties.

Anonymous said...

You imperialists are just gonna have to accept that as technology advances, 'our' enemies are going to come into possession of ever more terrible weapons (biological, chemical etc.).

There's not much we can do about it.



What is it with these suicide cultists?

Of course we can do something about it. We can annihilate them. Do you think anyone would actually avenge them? Like who? China? India? Russia? or LOL Israel? Who the hell would nuke us because we nuked Pakistan? Who? Come on skeerdy cat? Tell us who would avenge Pakistan's demise? A bunch of jihadis? They only scare cowards who don't want to do collateral damage. They sure as hell don't scare warriors willing to kill anyone and everyone it takes to eliminate an enemy. This has to be the yellowest generation in history. Can't these guys even remember back as far as the fire bombing of Dresden. War is Hell.

Anonymous said...

yeah, wtf is up with that ... a very blond north european wants to know

David Davenport said...

You imperialists are just gonna have to accept that as technology advances, 'our' enemies are going to come into possession of ever more terrible weapons (biological, chemical etc.)

There's not much we can do about it.


Sez who? Neville Chamberlain in 1938? (1930's Nazi and Japanese propaganda frequently lamented British "imperialism." )

And no, I do not recommend that the USA attack Iran first, if you're alluding to Persia.

You're also assuming that indigenously Muslim technology is ever going to advance very far. Might as well wait for Native American science and tech. to catch up.

Basically, Islam is in its Ghost Dance phase.

Anonymous said...

Your ancestors were the original illegals, please keep that in mind.

AninImis said...

There was a study a year or two ago about how women have more children when they live further away from where they grew up. Gave up looking after a short google for it.

Does the article you linked to have implications for your family formation theory?

My guess is that historically, the chances of your dad being who you think your dad is go down when population density goes up. Men who want to put heavy investment in child creation might be drawn to the perimeters where the chances of keeping the strays out of the yard increases. Jealousy is a strong emotion, whose role is often undervalued when thinking about driving forces.

Hunsdon said...

Kaz said: I don't see why that seems like an outlandish claim to you..

Hunsdon replies: Kaz, my point was Whiskey's infelicitous use of "pipe dream." To the best of my information after reasonable inquiry and belief, a "pipe dream" is a dream brought on by hitting the pipe. Back in the day, I suppose that would have been opium. In my time, it would have been marijuana. I suppose today it would be crack.

I think man has a deep seated need to seek altered states of consciousness. (Once more, not for everyone, but for enough of mankind to be a general rule.) I don't think you can abolish drug use. Kids will huff paint, for crying out loud.

I just like mocking Whiskey.

And I did it without even referencing Jeffrey Goldberg and Armbinder and this whole "Pakis running armed nukes around in taxicabs" bit of fluff!

RA said...

In Pinker's view, history began in 1933, or something.

Yes, he just wrote an 800 page book about the history of violence which begins in 1933.

What do you do for a living, by the way?

RA said...

Abolishing War is like abolishing drinking, drug use, and violence in general -- a utopian pipe dream requiring a brutal, world wide dictatorship regulating every aspect of life (which I suspect is Pinker's goal as it has been many utopians, from Rousseau to Lenin).

Actually, Pinker believes that utopianism-trying to use government to remake man was what was responsible for the humanitarian disasters of the 20th Century and the thread that connected Nazism and Communism. He made this clear in a few of his books.

Of course, I have to explain this to you, because

1) You've never read a page of Pinker
2) If you did, you wouldn't be smart enough to understand his points
3) If you did read Pinker and understand what he was saying, you'd lie about it and somehow argue that your "refutation" proves white women lust after black men and the United States needs to attack Iran

Jonathan said...

"Of course, these lands weren't unpopulated when the French Canadians settled them. They just overwhelmed the Indians."

Not just the Indians. Many towns in Southern Quebec were first founded and settled by the Loyalists(Americans who wanted to stay loyal to the Crown). When the banks of the St. Lawrence River became too crowded for the French Canadians, many emigrated there. Nowadays, you'll find in Southern Quebec towns with English names with an entirely French Canadian population and the old Protestant churches turned into restaurants, librairies or theatres.

Kaz said...

@Hunsdon

Welp, I feel silly now

DYork said...

Steve - You'll notice that there aren't a lot of Amerindians around these days.

Some could argue that genetically the Mestizo Mexican and Central American demographic invasion of the US is a return to the AmeriIndian gene pool.

David Davenport said...

Basically, Islam is in its Ghost Dance phase.


Obviously not. The Plains Indians were demographically doomed, dance and dream of a return to the past all they wanted no matter, not enough babies. Islam doesn't lack babies. Not even in Europe.

RA said...(to commentor Whiskey)

3) If you did read Pinker and understand what he was saying, you'd lie about it and somehow argue that your "refutation" proves white women lust after black men and the United States needs to attack Iran.


Classic. Good job.

Stevoholics Anonymous said...

So, what does this mean? For us to keep evolving, we should do away with borders and keep migrating all over the world?

Anonymous said...

"Genocide doesn't have to involve the immediate killing of a group. It can result from the gradual encroachment of one group on another."

Is there a term for when the dominant group dissolves, vanishes, or merges into the group it oppresses or dominates? It seems like the Aryan invaders--if such really existed--of India eventually became part of the natives. And many Mongols and all Manchus eventually became part of the Chinese people and culture.
Genocide denotes the group with power exterminating or expelling people without power. But what if the people with power just merge and vanish into the people they've originally ruled over?
Fusocide? Mergocide?

Anonymous said...

Pinker is a fool, but immigration and invasion are the not same thing. Also, the nature of immigration in the past isn't the same as today. Long ago, immigration and invasion were complementary. Europeans arrived as immigrants into the East Coast of America but then might spread out westward as invaders.

Invasion is when one people/culture displace another by force. Immigration is when an established people/culture invite other peoples to come and share in the already-created system.

Today, immigrants, legal and illegal, are entering the US with the approval or indifference of most Americans. It could be the majority of Americans wanna end immigration, but most of them don't speak up or do anything about it; furthermore, they keep electing politicians who push for more immigration.

Yet, one could argue that the current immigration policy is more that of the Jewish elite than the majority of Americans. I suppose from this angle, the immigration policy in America is both a case of invasion and immigration. Though immigrants arrive according to the rule of American law, one could argue that the power centers of America have been 'invaded' by the hostile Jewish elite.

Anonymous said...

"Your ancestors were the original illegals, please keep that in mind."

Show me where in Native American Law ca. 1607 our settlement here was considered illegal.

Steve Sailer said...

"Your ancestors were the original illegals, please keep that in mind."

Indeed.

Anonymous said...

"Your ancestors were the original illegals, please keep that in mind."

Mebbe, and look what happened to the Injuns as a result of peckerwood illegal immigration. To be sure, Injuns resisted this illegal peckerwood immigration to the extent that they could but they got beat.
So, if the peckerwoods who took over this nation 'illegally' should remember one thing is, 'if we don't wanna go the way of the Injuns, we will stop new illegals who wanna displace us.'

Naturally, invaders should be wary of being invaded by OTHER peoples.

Gabe said...

Steve Sailer wrote:

"'Your ancestors were the original illegals, please keep that in mind.'

Indeed."

I'd really like to know what he meant by "Indeed" there.

Anonymous said...

"Your ancestors were the original illegals. Please keep that in mind."

Actually there were extremely few Aboriginals in Canada. That plus the fact that our population was historically only a tenth of America's, in an even bigger territory, probably explains our lack of any significant Indian wars.


But in any case... can we...

1) Scalp and kill the current illegals as Indians did to us in the distant past?

2) Did the Indians give our ancestors free schools and health care?

party of Science said...

whoever wrote the article, he lost me at "inhabitants of Mars and Venus." Now if someone cleaned up Jon Swift's spelling/punctuation that could go very badly very quick...


ps. Difference for "our" ancestors being that the red man, excluding one pilgrim-related event, was quite stingy with the SNAP cards

Justin said...

"Your ancestors were the original illegals. Please keep that in mind."

Not exactly. Historical fact check: the land at both Plymouth Colony and Jamestown was PURCHASED from the Indians.

Also, Indian tribes loved to make treaties with Euro settlers to help battle other Indian tribes.

i.e. the idea that Euro settlers were uniformly unwelcome is simply false.

I find it odd that people who can argue fine points endlessly about European, MidEastern, and even Asian history on this site have such an ignorance related to American history.

beowulf said...

Ha ha, its always fun to respond to something Steve has written by quoting something else Steve has written. :o)

Turchin is not the first to notice this tendency of empires to arise on the margins. This is sometimes known as the "marcher lord" theory. A "march" is a margin, a border land. The term "marcher lord" is the English version of what the Germans call a "margrave," and marcher lords are the tough guys who who rule out on the frontier, like the Tudors on the Welsh border in the 15th Century, keeping the outsiders out and often bullying their way to take over central power themselves... another advantage of being out at the fringe of an advanced culture's geographical expanse is that your enemies, being from technologically more backward areas, are weaker, so you can easily expand territorially at their expense.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006_10_29_archive.html

Anonymous said...

"The White Indians of Colonial America"

http://www.shsu.edu/~jll004/colonial_summer09/whiteindians.pdf

"On the other hand, large numbers of Englishmen had chosen to become Indians - by running away from colonial society to join Indian society, by not trying to escape after being captured, or by electing to remain with their Indian captors when treaties of peace periodically afforded them the opportunity to return home."

"Benjamin Franklin wondered how it was that: 'When an Indian Child has been brought up among us, taught our language and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and makes one Indian Ramble with them, there is no perswading him ever to return. [But] when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho' ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them.'"

Anonymous said...

So, American pioneers relative to Europeans = more r, less K, or American pioneers relative to Europeans = more r, same K (because they had more resources to K with)?

Anonymous said...

The trouble is, Steve, is that all the modern day Franklins are fighting on behalf of the new immigrants and not the natives (rather like he 18th century in fact).
The modern Franklins effectively control government, public discourse and the media - and they are just as intellectually subtle and slippery in changing sides and definitions to suit their agenda.

Anonymous said...

Pinker uss a lo of sophistry to bullshit his way through his excuse that the mass violence that characterised early 20th century Europe was due to 'ideological utopias'.
The point is this: The violence and the bloodshed WAS committed, ideology, utopia or no, the violence WAS perpetrated and committed and untold millions were destroyed.If this doesn't indicate to you that there is some 'internal flaw' (if you forgive me for using that term when describing a biological, evolutionary system predicated on the survival of the species), in the make up the human psyche, and the human 'civilsation' (which after all is the product of those psyches and their evolved inter-personal behavior, hierarchies and submissibility), i don't know what will.I just cannot argue anything else, it's like tryig to argue against the fact bull-sharks bite people in half - it happens, and only the willfully deceitful will try to argue otherwise.
That's my problem with Pinker.I'm sure he is a vey good and worthy man, and really truly wants the world to be a non-violent place and is doing everything possible to achieve this - including self-delusion perhaps, perhaps he is guity of having faith in human beings.
But I fear he is trying to pull the wool over peoples' eyes.With the best motives, of course.

Simon in London said...

"in the Pinkerian imagination, immigration restrictionism is equated with war, while the Enlightenment is equated with peace and immigration"

Does Pinker actually say anything that stupid?

I can see a case that ethno-nationalist societies tend to restrict immigration, and some ethno-nationalist societies may be aggressive, especially if the homeland is small/poor/overcrowded, eg WW2 Imperial Japan. Other ethno-nationalist societies are isolationist.

Non ethno-nationalist societies may be more likely to allow unrestricted immigration. Some of those are peaceful externally (though they may well have internal conflict between competing groups); others are externally aggressive, like the USA or Imperial Rome.

Conversely,

Simon in London said...

Whiskey:
"You could argue that the Western societies lacking will to kill, basically, are like Amerindians facing Colonial Settlers. Unable to resist, not because of lack of technology but because modern Western society creates lack of will to survive."

The 'Dances with Wolves' explanation for Amerindian defeat?! Or do you mean that while Amerindians had plenty of will-to-kill they lacked technology, while Westerners have the tech but no will-to-survive? Obviously the West still has plenty of Will to kill fuzzy-wuzzies in foreign climes, qv Gadaffi. It's will to restrict immigration & mostly-peaceful displacement that's lacking. We're more like British red squirrels faced with greys.

Simon in London said...

BTW talking to a French colleague with 4 kids yesterday (compared to my 1), she was boasting about how France has the highest fertility rate in the EU (actually CIA World Factbook currently puts Ireland just ahead), and more importantly how middle class white women like her routinely have 3-4 children, 5 not unusual, because the government has a pro-natalist tax system; whereas the UK system imposes a crushing tax burden on the middle class to subsidise the underclass and even the wealthy, who typically pay less tax proportionally than the middle class do. The US has slightly better white fertility thanks to the heartland states, but on the coasts is similar to UK.

France also has more land of course, twice that of the whole UK, and mostly habitable, whereas the habitable parts of England are either incredibly crowded or are 'green belt' restricted development zones, basically preserves for the wealthy.

Although mass immigration has created vast no-go zones in France and is ruining many of her cities, demographically & culturally she seems in far better shape than the Anglo nations. Meanwhile Germany has terrible fertility but relatively low non-Western immigration - still too much but nothing like UK or USA.

I'm not sure what it means for the future, but it's probably a good thing that not all Western nations are falling into the abyss at the same rate. At least it raises the prospect that the death of canary-in-the-mine ethno-nations like the English may awaken other related groups, before all are wiped out.

Hunsdon said...

Kaz said:
Welp, I feel silly now

Hunsdon replied:

Happens to me a LOT, Kaz.

Anonymous said...

Pioneers?

Or maybe nomads? Refugees? Got-lost-ers?
I don't think people left Africa in the spirit of 'pioneering'.
Mebbe they were running from enemies. Or there was no food and so they went to other places(as animals do in the ocean, on land, and in the air). Or they followed certain prey animals. Or they just got lost and keep drifting. So maybe they were just unwitting drifters, but then all species of living things were, which is why we can find dinosaur bones in various continents. They didn't stay in one spot either.

Jim Bowery said...

The US is a nation of settlers. The rest are guests.

Vilko said...

Simon in London said:
BTW talking to a French colleague with 4 kids yesterday (compared to my 1), she was boasting about how France has the highest fertility rate in the EU (actually CIA World Factbook currently puts Ireland just ahead), and more importantly how middle class white women like her routinely have 3-4 children, 5 not unusual, because the government has a pro-natalist tax system

Either your French colleague is a fool, or she was pulling your leg.

White French people's birth rate is probably hardly superior, if at all, to the white German birth rate. The difference is due to the fact that we have millions and millions of prolific Muslims (about 11% of the population) and prolific Blacks.

Race isn't mentioned in official stats, but just use public transit practically anywhere in the Paris region, and sometimes you'll wonder if France isn't already majority Black.

In the Paris region, 54% of newborns carry the sickle cell anemia gene, a quarter of all newborns nation-wide. Sickle cell anemia is a hereditary disease of people with Black African ancestry. Most North African Arabs have some black ancestors, and are therefore at risk.

The stat was imprudently released by medical authorities in a pdf document, with maps, on the website of an association of parents of children with sickle cell anemia ("drépanocytose" in French). Since then, the document has disppeared from the website of the association, but many people (including myself) copied it.

I am a Cult, not a Cause. said...

"The US is a nation of settlers. The rest are guests."

Wishful thinking. All nations belong to those with THE WILL and/or THE NUMBERS.
Once, wasps had the will and the numbers. But with the massive arrival of ethnics, their numbers dipped... but many ethnics were Anglo-Americanized, and so Euro-Ameicans of all stock became 'white Americans'.
Percentage of whites keep dipping but whites have the lost the will.

There is no rule of what belongs to whom but WILL and NUMBERS. History is not determined by 'what should' but 'what will'.

Kylie said...

"Your ancestors were the original illegals, please keep that in mind."

Oh, goodie, just what we need--a mind-reading genealogist.

Can you stop condemning the family trees of the (mostly anonymous) commenters here long enough to tell me what my husband is going to get me for Christmas?

Kylie said...

"I think man has a deep seated need to seek altered states of consciousness."

That's what art, religion and the contemplation of nature are for.

"(Once more, not for everyone, but for enough of mankind to be a general rule.) I don't think you can abolish drug use."

No, but you don't have to encourage it, either.

Anonymous said...

No, Marlowe, I think it was Jack Shaftoe. He had more experience with the "tawny" folks...

the Dude said...

"Your ancestors were the original illegals."
Forget about the "illegal" part (obviously not correct for XVII century America). But why is "immigration" associated with large movements of people across large swaths of land? Is there no difference between immigration/emigration and colonization? Were Phoenicians, Ionians, Dorians and other ancient people "immigrants" or colonizers? Why were the original 13 American colonies called...colonies? How about the French in XIX century Algeria? If there is a fairly large territory with low or very low native demographic density, why can we not call the newly arrived people "colonists"?

Hacienda said...

Whiskey says:

"because modern Western society creates lack of will to survive."

It wants to survive, it just can't. Something happened between simulation and reality. Apparently simulated reality destroys reality reality. It's a good thing too. The West needs to die. It's just that simple.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for going OT, but I found this from today's Reuters' obit on Andy Rooney interesting:


"In 1990 he was suspended for three months after being quoted by a Los Angeles interviewer as saying blacks had 'watered down their genes because the less intelligent ones are the ones that have the most children.'

"The suspension was reduced to one month after CBS received thousands of calls and letters from viewers, as well as internal pressure from '60 Minutes' executive producer Don Hewitt and longtime anchorman Walter Cronkite.

"Rooney denied any racist sentiments and upon his return from suspension said on the air: 'Do I have any opinions that might irritate some people? You’re damn right I do. That’s what I’m here for.'

"Rooney also came under fire in 2007 for saying many people joined the U.S. military because of problems in their lives and that the Army would be better off drafting soldiers from all classes of society."

Hmmm. Had forgotten about Rooney's banishment for stating the obvious. Way back in 1990. I guess things have just gotten worse, as in the subsequent decades. One reason I stopped watching 60 Minutes about 10 years ago is because I noticed that even Rooney had grown pc.

Let's! said...

I wish our current generation of gentrification shock troops, living at the edge of civilization, would get together and have enough babies to crowd out the NAMs in inner-city schools.

Anonymous said...

Everyone in the US who shares my surname descends from a single man who came over from England in the 1600s, yet today are far more people with this surname living in America than in England.

corvinus said...

It's funny how you made this remark about illegals taking over, Steve, when the NCHS just released its final birth stats for 2009:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/

If one is of European descent, the new report should cheer your heart. I suggest you look at it!

Also, Indian tribes loved to make treaties with Euro settlers to help battle other Indian tribes.

i.e. the idea that Euro settlers were uniformly unwelcome is simply false.


Agreed. Sort of how the British and French used nonwhite troops from India, Africa, and so forth to fight the Germans. Or how we Americans supported the Chinese to fight the Japanese.

Georgia Resident said...

I wonder if white Americans and Europeans differ significantly in our overall degree of wanderlust? This presumes, of course, that the more naturally pioneering Europeans moved to the Americas while the more sedentary ones stayed home.

Anonymous said...

To survive in Greek: Epiviosum.

Unnatural fear of one's survival: Epiviphobia.

Libs suffer from epiviphobia.

Anonymous said...

"After the war, the British government thought to give Canada back to the French in return for a sugar island"

Always thinking about next quarter's results, aren't they? How much more is Canada, with tar sands and everything else, today worth than one of those Afro-dominated "sugar islands"? English immune systems survived well in Canada. In sugar islands not so much. There are probably 12-20 million people of primarily British ethnicity living in Canada today. In Jamaica there are fewer than 100,000.

Svigor said...

Your ancestors were the original illegals, please keep that in mind.

I know leftoids love to conflate the colonists and pioneers with illegal immigrants, but I am mystified as to why enough normal people buy into it to have it repeated so often. It never seems to be met with the derision and scorn it deserves.

No, the Germanic tribes that ate the Roman Empire from within (and without) were not colonists and pioneers. No, the mestizos (and other immigrant groups) eating America from within are not colonists or pioneers.

Show me where in Native American Law ca. 1607 our settlement here was considered illegal.

Yes, one of the first things that struck me about the actual history of the Indian Wars was how little resemblance they bore to the Leftoid Narrative of Indian Victimization by The White Man. Indian tribes were constantly teaming up with White settlers against other Indian tribes, for instance. The fact that banditry was a way of life (one insufferable to the settlers) for the Plains Indians, for another. The fact that it was essentially impossible for the settlers and Indians to get along (in most cases), for another; how is a relatively orderly, law-abiding, people supposed to get along with a relatively very disorderly, disparate, non-law-abiding people? You make an agreement with one tribe, and guess what? The other 5 are still robbing you. You make an agreement with one of the 5, and guess what? You just pissed off the tribe you previously had an agreement with. Indians kidnapped your family? Guess what? You got NO way to redress this grievance without hunting them down yourself. Reading about it reminds you of trying to police the ghetto, squared. Then there's the fact that a nomadic people must claim vast swathes of land to support them at low density; what, sedentary peoples are supposed to just sit on the borders so claimed and not make vastly more efficient use of the land? All a farmer needs is a few acres. A nomadic bandit and scavenger needs miles and miles of territory.

The distinctions that I find important here are civilized vs. barbarous, and pioneer vs. immigrant. An immigrant comes into an established system and, as you point out, there was no established system so classifying the colonists, pioneers, and settlers as immigrants is nonsensical. They're both migratory, and that's the end of the relevant similarity. Today's immigrants are pioneering and settling precisely nothing. They're hitching a ride on someone else's legacy. They could be argued as colonists, though. And then there's civilized vs. barbarous; the CPEs brought a drastically technologically and culturally superior system with them. Mestizos bring nothing.

gcochran said...

"In the Paris region, 54% of newborns carry the sickle cell anemia gene, a quarter of all newborns nation-wide."


Well, that would mean that the gene frequency for HbS among Parisian newborns was 32%, higher than anywhere in Africa - higher than anywhere in the world, for that matter. 10% of the those newborns would have sickle-cell anemia.

You're lying.

Almonzo said...

Three generations after Pa, there were no more Ingalls. Unless you count that Vietnamese kid that his only (childless) granddaughter brought over to the land he'd pioneered.

Anonymous said...

Our ancestors were the ones who didn't want to be around the blacks...

beowulf said...

OT but I wonder if Yglesias got mugged yet again while on his Paris holiday. He links to a research paper that makes the interesting assertion that firefighters aren't the only ones who run towards danger.
voucher use in a neighborhood increases in tracts with rising crime, suggesting that voucher holders tend to move into neighborhoods where crime rates are increasing.
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/11/05/362086/housing-vouchers-and-crime/#comment_link

I am a Cult, not a Cause. said...

"I wonder if white Americans and Europeans differ significantly in our overall degree of wanderlust?"

Back in the day, it had little to do with wanderlust but maybe-we-can-eke-out-a-better-living-in-America-lust.

I am a Cult, not a Cause. said...

I think prior to agriculture, it was natural for man to move around since prey-animals moved around and it made sense to migrate to warm areas during winter and etc.

But with agriculture, man took possession of plots of land and had to defend them as his own. Also, food surplus meant he could stick out long cold winters with the supply.
Or, with the rise if agriculture came the rise of big cities.
Cities, in this sense, is paradoxical. They are the most rooted and unmovable things created by man--imagine moving NY to Paris or London to Tokyo--, yet due to their dependence on trade and as magnets for people in outlying areas, they faciliate movement of peoples.
Also, a person with a home in a city may feel more confident about wandering around the world because he knows he can always return to his cozy place in a mighty city.
But a man who owned a farm in the old days may not wanna move out of his farm cuz in his absence, someone else might take it or claim it. And a farm has to be constantly worked on.

I think many Europeans left for the New World not because they were filled with new ideas but because there was no land for them.

old settler said...

I find this an odd post. Only in places like America and Australia would this be true. The data also stops before 1965. An up-to-date study would yield a theory that your ancestors are as likely to be immigrants as natives. A more nuanced study would reveal your great grandparents are more likely to be immigrants.

I must say I miss Sailer; he's the only one who might be able to elaborate numerically on my idea that economic opportunities are greater for people who move into new territory. I postulate this is because they are relatively unhindered by high expectations, i.e. vying for status or restrictive societal norms, i.e. local traditions that inhibit creative problem solving. Once this expansion phase ends, you get stagnation that may include: reduction in opportunities for the next generation; fewer resources so fewer children or it could all be due to hostile takeovers by ever new waves of mass immigration...

Anonymous said...

-Can't these guys even remember back as far as the fire bombing of Dresden. War is Hell.-

Had a relative who was involved in WW2. He would rather have dealt with the result of an atomic device rather than what Dresden got...

David Davenport said...

Obviously the West still has plenty of Will to kill fuzzy-wuzzies in foreign climes, qv Gadaffi.

On the one hand, I'm against the USA starting a war with Iran.

On the other hand, what if operations in Afghanland, Iraq, and Libya are the beginning of a 21st century trend, instead of anomalies? Maybe a new era of American and European imperialism is only just getting started.

As Euro and American economies get worse, one wonders, why not take foreigners' oil wells into, mmmm, protective custody? Put the oil revenue into accounts earmarked for The Plant-Wide Improvement of Mankind, or something similar.

... Planetary Improvement to include humanitarian re-settlement of uprooted indigenous peoples.

Offshore oil wells should be rather easy to defend from terrorists.

Future history may go this way whether or not I or Steve approve of history's course.

Anonymous said...

Indian tribes were constantly teaming up with White settlers against other Indian tribes, for instance.

Doesn't that happen today with various white groups teaming up with minorities against other white groups?

An immigrant comes into an established system and, as you point out, there was no established system so classifying the colonists, pioneers, and settlers as immigrants is nonsensical. They're both migratory, and that's the end of the relevant similarity.

The established system was hunting and gathering. Civilization tends to overwhelm hunter gatherers, and the settlers were obviously better adapted to civilization than the Indians. A major element of civilization is centralized control over relatively large populations, and part of being adapted to civilization is being able to attain and mantain centralized control. The settlers have lost a good deal of control. Just as the Indians were replaced by those better adapted to civilization, the settlers may have been/be being replaced by those better adapted to civilization.

David said...

Steve said

>[S]omebody should post a more readable version with modern spelling and without Franklin's surfeit of capitalization -- this is one of the key documents in intellectual history, Franklin->Malthus->Darwin, but it's hard for 21st Century people to read in the original.<

Done.

It's at my hobby blog, here.

Jim Bowery said...

Dear "I am a Cult, not a Cause",

I understand your perspective: Might doesn't make right -- its just that right doesn't matter.

There are a couple of problems with that perspective:

1) The whole "Nation of Immigrants" narrative of the United States is a psychological weapon targeting the linkage between "right" and "will" that exists in the kind of folks that the Constitution referred to as "the posterity of the founders". If a simple truth like "The US is a nation of settlers..." is wishful thinking then what is "The US is a nation of immigrants."?

2) The stable end-point of the kind of evolution you are talking about is, at best, the multicellular organism.

Been there. Done that.

It hardly matters whether the cells of that organism share my genes or those of my race. It will be, basically, a pulsating blob of protoplasm (at best). More likely it will resemble a naked mole rat colony.

ben tillman said...

So, the moral is that we should be exploring and colonizing outer space!

Absolutely.

Kevin B said...

With all due respect Greg, according to this report, the poster is not lying.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31803808/Depistage-Neonatal-Drepanocytose

The report opens with (rough translation) "Hemoglobin (Hb) S is now one of the most common genetic traits in France."

Refer to figure 4.

ben tillman said...

Who the hell would nuke us because we nuked Pakistan? Who?

It is not possible for "us" to nuke Pakistan. "We" do not have nukes.

If, however, you or someone else nuked Pakistan I would certainly hope that someone retaliated. It would be richly deserved.

Anonymous said...

It's not a tautology. Fitness is not the survival of those who survive. It is the survival of those with the desired traits.

DoJ said...

You'll notice that there aren't a lot of Amerindians around these days.

Er, most Hispanics in the US are part-Amerindian...

They're also part-white, so I won't go so far as to say the Amerindians are getting the last laugh, but nevertheless it's worth noting that history wasn't actually that cruel to their bloodlines.

ben tillman said...

Of course, I have to explain this to you, because

1) You've never read a page of Pinker


Irrelevant. He criticizes others' books (like Kevin MacDonald's) without reading them, so we can criticize his in the same way.

Vilko said...

gccochran wrote:
"In the Paris region, 54% of newborns carry the sickle cell anemia gene, a quarter of all newborns nation-wide."

Well, that would mean that the gene frequency for HbS among Parisian newborns was 32%, higher than anywhere in Africa - higher than anywhere in the world, for that matter. 10% of the those newborns would have sickle-cell anemia.

You're lying.


Oops! It looks like I mistook being "at risk" for sickle-cell anemia and actually carrying the faulty gene.

56% rather than 54% of all newborns are at risk, according to recent data. They don't all carry the gene, but they could carry it, for they all have African ancestry.

More information here, in English:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease
Wikipedia says:
In 2007, 28.45% of all newborns in mainland France had at least one parent originated from a region defined "at risk" (mainly Africa and Overseas departments and territories of France) and were screened for SCD. The Paris metropolitan district (Île-de-France) is the region that accounts for the largest number of people at presumably higher risk of SCD. Indeed, nearly 56% of all newborns in this area in 2007 had at least one parent originated from a region defined as "at-risk" and were screened for SCD. The second largest number of at-risk is in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur at nearly 42% and the lowest number is in Brittany at 4.40%.

I'm glad that Wikipedia is spreading info which used to be hidden from public view.

Anonymous said...

Er, most Hispanics in the US are part-Amerindian...

They're also part-white, so I won't go so far as to say the Amerindians are getting the last laugh, but nevertheless it's worth noting that history wasn't actually that cruel to their bloodlines.


See: "The Taino are extinct"

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/10/taino-are-extinct.html

Also, the Amerindians weren't uniform across the Americas. The Amerindian component in Hispanics isn't the same as the extinct or reduced Amerindian tribes of North America.

Anonymous said...

Vilcro said:

"....In the Paris region, 54% of newborns carry the sickle cell anemia gene..."

I call BS on this one.

edgy gurl said...

"Well, that would mean that the gene frequency for HbS among Parisian newborns was 32%, higher than anywhere in Africa - higher than anywhere in the world, for that matter. 10% of the those newborns would have sickle-cell anemia."

Or, could it be that

Inbreeding happens?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the 32% figure from the French study lumps in thalassemics with HbS carriers?

David Davenport said...

I must say I miss Sailer; he's the only one who might be able to elaborate numerically on my idea that economic opportunities are greater for people who move into new territory. I postulate this is because they are relatively unhindered by high expectations, i.e. vying for status or restrictive societal norms, i.e. local traditions that inhibit creative problem solving.

Don't forget the lower cost of real estate in new territory.

"Creative problem solving" --> conquest of indigenous population.

NOTA said...

I think the big die-off of american indians happened before most white men got there, from diseases introduced by the Spanish and later everyone else.  There were definitely massacres and ethnic cleansing and general shafting of indians when they had something worth taking, but the big body counts were from disease.  

Some indians integrated into the surrounding civilization, one way or another.  There are lots of people around with a little indian blood.  The trail of tears is basically a story of what happened to one group that tried to do that, but found themselves on land that had silver on it, and got shafted.  I wonder how often that progressed normally and the indians just melted into the surrounding civilization, either individually or as a larger community.  

According to this wikipedia article, about 1.5% of Americans have some american indian blood, so this sort of thing prwesumably happened fairly often.  

FWIW, some of our ancestors probably *were* illegal immigrants, in the sense of being sooners.  I imagine this troubled their consciences just about as much as it does the consciences of all the drywall hangers and gardeners working in the US without papers.  

Mr. Anon said...

"Your ancestors more likely to be pioneers than stay-at-homes"

The corollary to that is that for British people, at least over a time scale of several hundred years, their ancestors are more likely to be stay-at-homes than pioneers.

Anonymous said...

Pinker likes the idea of global free trade because it means gentile elites will betray and sell their own people down the river for greater profit. (This is a less a problem for Jews since rich/powerful Jews care about all Jews first and foremost and look out for their own--and have used the media and academia to make even gentiles care more about Jews than about their own kind. American conservatives, after all, are more concerned about Jews in Israel than white people robbed or killed by black criminals or illegals. Jewish elites not only look out for less fortunate Jews, but there are fewer less-fortunate Jews, especially in the West. 50% of Jews in America make more than $100,000 a year and even those making below that make pretty good money. So, it's safe to say the majority of Jews qualify as members of the elite class or near-elite class--thus more socio-economic unity. Even most leftist Jews are richer than most libertarian white conservatives.)
Even in the Deep South, rich white conservatives in sports business will offer white girls like pieces of meat to black athletes to attract'black bucks' to their teams.
White manufacturing elites will dump white workers and send factories overseas to maximize profits. This causes a rift between white elites and white working masses. This is less of a problem among Jews since most Jews working in urban professions better situated/suited to adjust to the global business order. Many Jews work in finance, information, and networking industries which do not suffer from globalization but gain from it.

Once the division between white elites and white masses grows wider, Jewish 'progressives' exploit this 'injustice of inequality' in New America--though their globalist agenda is the main cause of it--and argue for bigger government to help the People; but bigger government means more power for Jewish progressives as social engineers over us and into our lives. It also means more white Americans are no longer proud independent-minded workers but dependent-minded wards of the state controlled by Jewish liberals and their henchmen.

There is a lot of violence in the new arrangement--especially social and economic against white American masses--but Pinker sees more peace because it means less likelihood of white elites and white masses uniting to challenge Jewish power. So, Pinker's peace-theory is essentially Judeocentric.

But Pinker misses out on one thing. He says globalism is wonderful because EVERYONE around the world now has a chance to profit by trading with everyone else in the world. Thus becoming interdependent, we'd all want to expand globalism.
But in fact, the expansion of global opportunities have favored a small number of people over everyone else. Most people aren't very talented or keen on globe-trotting business and communication. Only a tiny minority is really good at that, and it's that small group that is raking in most of the dough. So, even though globalism has made the world more interdependent economically, the people who are actually involved in the deals and reap most of the rewards are not the masses but the new elites. And that may be the downfall of globalism.

Anonymous said...

So the English and the Saxons are the only true white people. Fitting.

Steve Sailer, what is your ancestry? Are you truly white? Or tawny and swarthy and self-hating?

gcochran said...

Maybe not lying: certainly illiterate in French and ignorant of genetics. They screened _some_ of the kids born in France, those from ethnic groups that had some chance of carrying HbS - about a quarter of the population. About 1/715 of those tested had sickle-cell disease, which translates to an HbS gene frequency of about 3.7% - which is at least a possible number. The gene frequency in the newborn population as a whole is about a quarter of that.

The real conclusion is that about a quarter of all births in France are to populations that originated in North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. In the Paris area, more than half. That much is true.

Anonymous said...

"The settlers have lost a good deal of control. Just as the Indians were replaced by those better adapted to civilization, the settlers may have been/be being replaced by those better adapted to civilization."

That would be the Mestizos who have done such a great job of civilization in their own countries, or are you referring to Jews and other non-WASP elites?

I don't think the real problem is that the non-settler elites (Jews, etc.) are better at running civilization than the settler elites (WASPs, etc.). It's that the will of the white majority has been weakened by prosperity funded, of late, by borrowed money. True economic crisis will make people more considerate of traditional virtues, like frugality, or the learning of economically useful skills. More importantly, it will make them think long and hard about the economic value of immigration, or of welfare for the lazy and non-productive.

People under economic pressure conserve, or they die.

Fire Hydrant said...

@old settler - I don't have a cite, sorry, but Samuel Huntington said in either 'Clash of Civilizations' or 'Who We Are', that in 1990 fully half of Americans were descended from settlers - they had big families in those days.

Anonymous said...

Why are gays favored by the elites? Suppose the gay community were not associated with creativity, arts, intellectualism, design, decor, fashion, and other STUFF RICH PEOPLE LIKE. Suppose most gays were culturally conservative--'xenophobic','antisemitic', and/or 'fascist-leaning'(like Jack Donovan). Would there be much fuss about all this 'gay rights'?
People who control the media get to decide which people or group receives our sympathy and attention, and the criterion for this seems to be based on the appeal of certain groups to the Western elites who control the media. For example, Tibetan Buddhism has appeal to many New Agey celebrities, and that seems to be the main reason for all the attention paid on that issue. If Tibetans didn't have Buddhism and were just an oppressed group in the world, why would the media pay special attention to them? And we know the media don't give a damn about what's happening to white farmers in South Africa--and even white conservatives remain mum on the issue. Shame.

Though homosexuality was officially banned for most of Western history(at least during the Christian era), the elites had a long special relation with gays cuz gays were good at stuff rich people like: decor, design, fashion and clothes, art, music, etc. Though most gays officially remained in the closet, there was an understanding among the aristocratic elites(and even among upper clergy) that gays have the special creative touch in certain areas and therefore should be recruited, protected, and rewarded. Just as the Christian aristocratic elites saw special talent among Jews as money-lenders, middlemen, and tax collectors and therefore forged a special relation with Jews, the Christian elites felt the same way about gays. Though homosexuality was officially condemned, talented gays were often protected, promoted, and lavished with prizes and wealth by the rich aristocrats who wanted to look good--hairdressing and dress--and collect beautiful artworks(made by neo-paganistic gays).
The relationship between the Christian aristocrats and Jews/gays was mutualistic. The gentile elites gave protection to talented Jews and gays and showered them with money and special privileges. In return, talented Jews and gays loyally served their Christian elite aristocratic masters.

Today, Jews are no longer seen as 'Christ killers' and can ply their trade openly. If anything, we are all supposed to love Jews no matter what they do.
Gay power hasn't come as far, but it seems to be getting there.
Also, Jews and gays no longer have to seek the protection and approval of the Christian elites. If anything, the Jewish elites are more powerful than Christian elites, especially in America. And gay power has reached such level--often in tandem with Jewish power--that it often calls the shots. Indeed, in order for straight gentiles to rise up in this world, they have to seek approval from the Jewish and gay elites. They must prove that they are completely disinfected of 'antisemmitism' and 'homophobia'. So, it is ambitious straight white gentiles who must seek approval and protection from Jews and gays with the 'stamp of approval for anti-racism and anti-homophobia'.

Anonymous said...

In the past, Christian elites prized the talents of Jews and gays, two pariah groups, and often gave certain Jews and gays special privileges as long as Jews and gays loyally served the Christian elites in money-handling and hair-dressing/decor. But it was an uneasy alliance because the Christian order was supposed to be officially anti-Christ-killer and anti-sodomite.
But with the erosion of anti-Jewish feelings and anti-gay feelings, the rich people can now hire and employ talented gays and Jews as much as they like. Rich people prize Jews and gays cuz Jews know how to handle money and gays know how to do their hair. If anything, it seems like Jews and gays have gained even more power over their former Christian elite masters.

Anyway, rich people love talent, skills, and things of beauty. Jews have lots of talent in business and science; and gays have lots of talent in arts and creativity. And both groups are culturally very engaged. So, even rich white gentiles, with their love of money and arts/culture, would prefer to cozy up with Jews and gays than with philistine white conservative masses.
So, it is the REVENGE OF THE JEWS AND GAYS.

I am a Cult, not a Cause. said...

"Sorry for going OT, but I found this from today's Reuters' obit on Andy Rooney interesting"

Rooney, like Royko, was the last of his kind. People who saw real life and had thick skin.
But new generations of journalists have been pampered and socially engineered from cradle. They are used to approval, consensus, and correct.

I am a Cult, not a Cause. said...

"Your ancestors were the original illegals, please keep that in mind."

Human species is an illegal invasive species. So, what does that mean? We should allow cougars and bears to live next to us again cuz we stole their land?
If liberals wanna do that, I say go right ahead. I'm for releasing 10,000 grizzly bears and 10,000 cougars in NY. Let them eat liberals.

I am a Cult, not a Cause. said...

Here comes the big one. Perfect timing. Due to the political mess and disunity in Egypt, the chaos in Libya following Gaddafi's fall, the desperation of the Syrian regime(allied with Iran), and worries in Iraq over the looming withdrawal of US troops, the Arab/Muslim world is divided and weak as ever(though in the long run, recent turmoil may lead to something good). With the Arab/Muslim in such disarray and without clear leadership or unity, it is the perfect time for Israel to strike Iran. Also, the NATO annihilation of Gaddafi's regime has put wind in the sail of the anti-Iran crusade. There is a new momentum.
Israel may also use the war to invoke emergency measures to deal very harshly with Palestine that is on the verge of declaring for nationhood. Under the cover of war, Israelis may enforce dramatic demographic policies.
Obama may see this as the opportunity to divert our attention from the economy--with the aid of the media of course. GOP will back Obama cuz it's the war party and rolls over/plays fetch for neocons in the vain hope that if it smooches AIPAC butt, more Jews will join the ranks of GOP. There won't be any real resistance from the GOP--and critics of the war will be called 'antisemites who wanna see Israel wiped off the map'--, and most liberals and Democrats will not oppose the war(at least not vociferously)since they remember how the anti-war movement in the 60s was a boon to Nixon and since Obama is a black guy(and of course it would be 'racist' and 'uncool' to oppose a black guy.)

The war is coming. Report after report, it's in the news. American foray into Uganda was just a ruse to show that Americans are for 'human rights' intervention everywhere. Not just in Iran but in Uganda too. Jews are good. Really really good. They know how to play the game.

Georgia Resident said...

"They're also part-white, so I won't go so far as to say the Amerindians are getting the last laugh"

Especially considering that the Indian tribes in the southwest typically tried to scalp the mestizos who did try to settle there. Which is a large part of the reason why these areas ended up getting settled by White Americans, who apparently had less fear of death by scalping than mestizo Mexicans.

old settler said...

"... that in 1990 fully half of Americans were descended from settlers - they had big families in those days."

Yes, here we get into a comparison of why families of new settlers were large then and now. There were no child labor laws preventing kids from tending to animals or harvesting crops. School attendance was hit or miss as well so you had labor that only required payment in cheap food. Fast forward to the future; those having the biggest families do seem to be benefitting economically per each additional birth.

It's almost as if some group was very aware of why the white population grew exponentially then ingeniously brought about modern day circumstances that would make it financially feasible if not profitable for certain populations to procreate more than others.

Anonymous said...

Some could argue that genetically the Mestizo Mexican and Central American demographic invasion of the US is a return to the AmeriIndian gene pool.

These people must also believe that Lebanese immigration to Haiti represents the reconquest of Saint-Domingue by the French. There is no going back, and the 15th century meant that the macroracial purity of the Americas was destroyed forever.

Anonymous said...

"The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe..." ~Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice

JR Stuckey said...

@old settler

It's almost as if some group was very aware of why the white population grew exponentially then ingeniously brought about modern day circumstances that would make it financially feasible if not profitable for certain populations to procreate more than others.

1. Why did the white population grow exponentially?

2. What is it about contemporary circumstances that make it financially feasible if not profitable for certain populations to procreate more than others?

Vilko said...

gccochran said:
The real conclusion is that about a quarter of all births in France are to populations that originated in North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. In the Paris area, more than half. That much is true.
Exactly what I meant.

I am a Cult, not a Cause. said...

The power of Jews and gays teaches us a crucial lesson: the important of SPECIAL talents. Jews are VERY GOOD at business, law, science, etc. Gays are very good arts, fashion, decor, etc.
The problem among conservatives is they prefer mediocrity and, at best, a kind of middle-brow-ness. So, even though a lot of white conservatives are pretty decent at something and above-average, few are excellent or very special at something. Maybe we can learn something from Amy Chua on this account. Her guidance of her kids may have been somewhat narrow, but she made sure her kids would be very very good at something. Especially in our age of specialization, if you're not extremely good at something, you aint worth much.

Alwyn said...

Ungrateful immigrants like Hacienda are a good argument against nonwhite immigration and the fever dreams of clever-silly IQ fetishists like Ron Unz. One wonders why Hacienda wants to see the West die, when he clearly prefers nipping at the heels of whitey to life in his native East.

Anonymous said...

Like someone said, there are no more Ingallses after the last of them, Rose Ingalls Lane, died childless.

She was also a fan of libertarianism; and guess one of the last things she did was import an Asian 'to carry her legacy'.

In fact, few pioneers left descendants, contrary to popular wisdom. Their birth rate had been higher but their death rate were higher too.

Check the bloodlines of the governors in the "Pioneer" states. Chances are they are somewhere from the Eastern big cities.

Sorry, stay-at-homes have the last laugh.

Ancestral Spirit said...

"Especially in our age of specialization, if you're not extremely good at something, you aint worth much."

Take heart, Cause. I know plenty of people with highly specialized though unmarketable skills. I've known of some generalists who were none too bright neither who still managed to find a special niche which allowed them to become wealthy, famous even.

So it's not so much specialization as specialness that counts.

Maya said...

"Like someone said, there are no more Ingallses after the last of them, Rose Ingalls Lane, died childless."

Seriously? Didn't Ma and Pa Ingalls have 4 children who reached adulthood? I believe Mary lost her eyesight, but she still got married. Didn't Carrie or Grace have any children and grandchildren?

Hacienda said...

"Ungrateful immigrants like Hacienda"

I think you misunderstood me. I'm grateful for Western innovations like the 3 way breakup of governmental power. Modern nutrition, electrical power etc. I'm not grateful for what I call "whitey" genocides and scaled up total war and trashed culture. But I can clearly see that you can't have one without the other. Apparently you can't. I actually think you should be grateful for people like me that bring a new perspective into the death dance of white/black, North/South power politics.

Anonymous said...

"So, the moral is that we should be exploring and colonizing outer space!"

There is still an incredible amount of, while extremely marginal, land still vastly better suited to human habitation than "outerspace". That we aren't settling that land indicates that we've bascially maxed out what can be done with earth. The moral is that we should slam the borders the hell shut.

Anonymous said...

"> The native Indians had extremely low population levels compared to Euro-American settlements. They were never "genocided". There were just too few of them to hold onto all the land they wanted to lay claim to.
"

virgin soil epidemics.

Anonymous said...

"1. Why did the white population grow exponentially?"

1)Conquering infant mortality.
2)Increased farm yields.
3)Navigational technology to colonize the far flung, and un or underused areas of planet earth.
Technology,Technology,Technology.

"2. What is it about contemporary circumstances that make it financially feasible if not profitable for certain populations to procreate more than others?"

The spread of that technology to those who don't have the respect for what it is capable of. World population(3rd world rather) has grown 4 billion in the last half century, and it will not end well. And, had it not been for us it would have ended in the last century.

Anonymous said...

@Maya:

Only two of the Ingalls sisters married, but one was sickly and there is no mention of children.

The other, Laura Ingalls Wilder, had only one live child, Rose Wilder Lane, who did married and had a child who died young.

For some reason unknown to us, instead of trying to have another child, Rose spent the rest of her life promoting libertarianism, ensuring Pa's line to die out.

Sorry. Today's people are more likely to be descended from city slickers. That's a fact.

Charlotte said...

"Seriously? Didn't Ma and Pa Ingalls have 4 children who reached adulthood? I believe Mary lost her eyesight, but she still got married. Didn't Carrie or Grace have any children and grandchildren?"

Mary married only on the TV show. In real life she did not. She did graduate from a college for the blind in Davenport, Iowa, with honors though. In later years she taught Sunday school. One thing about Rose: she said that Laura made it appear in the book as if the family saved all the money for Mary's college education. In fact, Mary was assisted by a State grant. Laura, like her daughter, was against government "interference" and wanted to promote the idea that true Americans were self-sufficient. That's a little dishonest, and what's the use of being in a great, rich & powerful country if you don't reap some of the overflow (they paid taxes) when you need it?


Two other of the sisters married in their 20s-30s and both lived to old age, but had no children. Laura married at 18 to Almanzo, 28, and had two children of whom only one lived to grow up. I always wondered about that. Birth control was actually widely practiced among the more informed & smart (naturally)by the 1890s and maybe this was a deliberate decision on the part of L&A, because the first 15 yrs of their marriage were extremely hard financially. Eventually they built a properous farm in the Ozarks, and each lived to be 90.
It is true that Laura's only child, Rose, just had one baby and that did not survive, but Rose divorced shortly afterwards c. 1909, and in those days unmarried women who aspired to any sort of respectability did not have babies. A journalist & brilliant letter writer (some other journalists/authors considered her the best they'd ever encountered), she just never found someone attuned enough to her to marry again. She did adopt a couple teenaged boys, one an Albanian mountaineer who stayed in Albania, not the Ozarks.
Rose, b. 1886, was also a crusader for civil rights, and other causes esp promoted by the left, yet she was conservative on many issues. She went as a reporter to Vietnam, aged in her 70s before she moved to Connecticut, home of her grandmother's Yankee ancestors, to whom she was fairly true to type.

It is an interesting case of a fairly fecund family pretty much defunct in its direct line only two generations later.

Makes you understand how the 11,000 or so members listed in the knighthood/peerage in England, c. 12th century, had not one direct descendant among the lot of them listed by the 20th century. At least not officially.

Anonymous said...

So Rose Lane died a city slicker...

Yes, the city slickers have the last laugh. I doubt the person who wrote the article "Pioneers..." were descended from pioneers either.

Only children of kings and queens have survived in the long run; not nobles. If a dynasty survived for more than 3 generation, it's very unlikely for the founder of the dynasty to have no progeny. Genghis Khan's genes are in at least 10% of the population of Central Asia.

I am a Cult, not a Cause. said...

I think the aristocratic legacy hurts the White Right. When there were wars, the ariocratic/noblemen/warrior caste was not only useful but indispensable. They were needed for security and expansion.
But once security and stablity had been established, the aristocratic class rarely fought wars. Since they couldn't justify their power and status on military necessity, they found all sorts of highfalutin excuses to rationalize their superiority and privilege. Yet, the real basis for their privilege was birthright. If you were born to aristocrats, you too were an aristocrat no matter how dumb, lazy, stupid, and imbecile you were. Sure, aristocrats were groomed to have finer manners, received higher education, dressed better, and etc. But all these things weren't earned but provided to those born into the privileged caste. So, even a dumb aristocrat could take his privileges, position, and power for granted. He'd been born 'high'.

But Jews could never take their power and privilege for granted. No Jew was favored by gentile aristocrats simply cuz he was Jewish. If anything, it was a disadvantage to be Jewish. For a Jew to gain power and privileg, he had to PROVE time and time again that he could deliver in areas that required special skills or talent. So, while gentile aristocrats developed a culture of complacency(and maybe some noblesse oblige, a form of compassionate complacency), Jews developed a culture of feisty competitiveness and fierce ambition.
Aristocrats were competitive in the art of honor, and some were good with dueling with swords and guns, but those were not really useful talents in any stable society. Pen and purse were gonna be mightier than the sword or gun.
What was true of Jews was also kinda true of gays. For gay artists, musicians, and etc to gain power and privilege, they too had to deliver. Even if they served the vanity of rich aristocrats by designing clothes and painting pictures, it took a lot of creative talent and originality. Gays too learned the art of struggle.

With the rise of meritocratic capitalism, the fiercely ambitious and creative were bound to win over the complacently privileged. Jews and gays were gonna be favored over huffy puffy aristocratic types.

I am a Cult, not a Cause. said...

In the 19th century, some aristocratic types understood how the world was changing and intelligently sought to adapt to these changes by appropriating some of them. Bismarck was good at this. But WWI was brought forth by the vanity of aristocratic class seeking to maintain control by fanning nationalist flames, and it all blew up in their faces. Aristocrats were so badly discredited that even in New Right nations like Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany had little use for them except as puppets.

Though aristocracy is a thing of the past, the problem of the American Right is the lingering sensibility of aristocratism. With William F. Buckely, we often got the sense that his ilk deserved all power and privilege simply because they were of a certain breed. Though of bourgeois than aristocratic background, Buckley acted as if he was the descendant of a long lines of princes.
And there is a sense even among ordinary conservatives that "America belongs to us because, well, we're wasps", and then they are befuddled that things are not going their way. They expect the world to conform to their desires as if history had been pre-programmed to grant the wish of the wasps or white majority. But what one wishes or wants is immaterial or irrelevant if one is not willing to fight for it. In other words, 'should' is determined by the fierce 'will' and 'cunning' to make it so. But conservative mentality, still steeped in aristocratism, seems to feel that things that shouldn't be happening are happening and could may be stop happening if we show more disdain, disapproval, and disregard. But history doesn't care what they think or feel. It only sides with those with the bloody will to struggle and fight.
Gays have more balls than conservatives. Gays, taking nothing for granted, keep fighting for more power(no matter how ridiculous their demands are).

David said...

>In fact, Mary was assisted by a State grant. Laura, like her daughter, was against government "interference" and wanted to promote the idea that true Americans were self-sufficient. That's a little dishonest<

A little dishonest, but a common pattern in American history.

Ancestral Spirit said...

"Only children of kings and queens have survived in the long run; not nobles."

What?

Only those with pedigrees keep track, you mean.

Ma and Pa Ingalls, for instance, had siblings who married and had large families too. And those siblings married people who generally had procreating brothers and sisters too. Despite the bloodline of this one famous family dying out, there are close relatives whose descendants survive to this day. If they were royalty, this interrelatedness would be well documented.

Unlike some people on this blog, I don't see the loss of node on a genealogy chart that important. Probably because I'm thinking in terms of surviving rather than evolving. I'd assume most of the genes that created the Ingalls family are still swimming in the pool.