What's your opinion on this blog post on inbreeding in Europeans?

Near Eastern/Mediterranean cultures are often "clannish" in terms of mentality. People get used to select partners from other families and usually with those whom they've been living side by side so long. First cousin marriages have a tradition in those regions, while Christianity considered cousin marriages as a sin, people in the non Christian regions viewed cousin marriages as a cultural strengthen of the community because they're not only in a relationship but show close genetic relatedness the same time.
European societies are more individualistic and the younger generation have a tradition to leave parents to look for a new home and to look for a new partner to settle down with.
It's still a common tradition in India, ME regions the parents select the wife for the child way before he would try to attempt seeking a partner for himself.
 
So his hypothesis is that Northern Europeans are less 'clannish' because of climate, high IQ, Protestantism and the feudal system. This is human pattern recognition gone haywire.

This is exactly why I usually don't read blogs.
 
What do I think of it? I think he'd better find another interest, one more suited to his IQ and the depth of his knowledge of genetics, history, and human cultures, maybe like basket weaving.
 
Continental Europe due to its geography and more "general European" cultural values viewed relationships between close family members as a sin, so religion and culture is a possibility to explain the close genetic relatedness between Mediterranean individuals.
For example the average Polish person will likely have way more distant cousins from even Norway or Western Europe because significant migrations happened since the middle ages, where as the Southern parts of Europe likely stayed more isolated and kept their more clannish, Mediterranean values.

italy-consanguinity-irfan.png


Notice the difference between Collectivist VS Individualist societies and see how the rates of genetic homogeneity decreases:

Notice Hungary is technically the melting plot of Europe, we've been able to allow various migrations and the region been colonized by various ethnic groups from Germanic to Turkic tribes which gave the opportunity to make a genetically heterogeneous population.


inbreed-collectivism.jpg
 
I don't expect that every poster will have spent decades studying European history and cultural developments, but a five minute google search shouldn't be too difficult.

There is some variation in the studies done on consanguinity in Europe, but none of them support your position.

Are England and Germany part of southern Europe now?
Globalcolorsmall.jpg


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2010/08/Globalcolorsmall.jpg

In this one Norway and Sweden seem to have the same rate as Italy.

12978_2009_70_MOESM2_ESM.jpeg

https://static-content.springer.com...17/MediaObjects/12978_2009_70_MOESM2_ESM.jpeg

Even the map by the "blogger" whose opinions you seem to admire doesn't support what you are saying. In case you have difficulty understanding the map, Poles and other eastern Europeans are much more inbred than southern Europeans.
inbreeding-gradient-europe-d.png

https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/inbreeding-gradient-europe-d.png

A few other tidbits that you might have missed:

Consanguineous marriages in Europe in the past often tracked very well with wealth and social class. Royalty practiced it the most, then aristocrats, then the upper middle class, like the family of Charles Darwin ironically enough, for example. It was all about the protection of wealth. We all know how that turned out.

Also, in Europe, consanguinity tracks with isolation. You just don't have much damn choice when you're perched on some mountain peak with mule tracks being the only way in and out. In fact, that applies to the New World to some extent too, although they normally were able to spread out. Perhaps, not being American, you're unaware that the most inbred groups in America are the people of the Appalachians and the Mormons, both representatives of the "purest" Northwest European ancestry.

Islands are another biggie. That's why both Sardinia and Ireland have high rates of genetic, hereditary disease.

Other than geography, religious/cultural practices can also have an effect. In fact, it has been suggested that Islam, which so severely limits access to women who aren't members of your family, is one of the causes of consanguineous marriages in the Near East.

Then, of course, there's the effect of what is, in my opinion, the racism enshrined in the Indian caste system.

Obviously, a lot of factors are at play, just not the ones you would prefer to cite.

Now, I'm done with this topic. There's a limit to how much time I'm willing to waste explaining the obvious.
 
In modern Greece, first cousin marriages are illegal. "Article 1357 of the Greek Civil Code prohibits the marriage of relatives of direct blood line in totality, and up the four degrees of consanguinity of the secondary blood line. Article 1358 of the Greek Civil Code also prohibits the marriage of relatives in law totally in direct blood line, and up the third degree of the secondary blood line.

Compare that law to the laws in Netherlands where almost everything is allowed. Germany isn't that 'liberal' but still first cousins can marry as far as I understand. I think most of Europe is like Germany.

In US they are legal in Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Florida, Hawaii .

Btw, an example from Christians from Africa (from Wikipedia)
Among the Christian Habesha highlanders of Ethiopia and Eritrea (the predominantly orthodox Christian Amhara and Tigray-Tigrinya), it is a tradition to be able to recount one's paternal ancestors at least seven generations away starting from early childhood, because "those with a common patrilineal ancestor less than seven generations away are considered 'brother and sister' and may not marry."
 
Also, that man probably believes that NW Europeans are a different species, much more evolved than the rest who practiced first cousin marriages, supposedly. He should be hospitalized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aha

Compare that law to the laws in Netherlands where almost everything is allowed. Germany isn't that 'liberal' but still first cousins can marry as far as I understand. I think most of Europe is like Germany.

where did you get that?
can you show me the law?
 
I hope Papadimitriou doesn't mind, but I came across this when I wrote my prior post on this thread.

See:
https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/360761

"According to the Dutch Civil Law, marriages betweenfirst cousins are allowed; Catholics, however, need dispensationfrom their church for such unions. Under DutchCivil Law, uncle-niece and aunt-nephew marriages arenot allowed, but dispensation by a Royal Decree can begiven."

I don't know if a ban has since gone into effect.

Otherwise, the story is the same for the Netherlands as it was for most of Europe in that consanguineous marriages declined starting in the 19th century. The earlier that a country industrialized and created efficient methods of modern transportation, leading to increased mobility, the earlier the decline began.

Another interesting fact is that consanguineous marriages are usually slightly more prevalent among Protestants than among Catholics, because Catholics require dispensations. Lutheranism got rid of those requirements.

"They were more frequent in 3 out of 6 socialclasses, and more prevalent among orthodox Protestantsin the so-called Bible Belt area, stretching from the SouthWesternprovince of Zeeland to the North-Western partof the province of Overijssel. The 6 distinguished socialclasses were: (1) higher managers and professionals; (2)lower managers and professionals; (3) farmers and fishermen;(4) lower skilled workers; (5) unskilled workers, and(6) farm workers. Classes 1, 2 and 3 were overrepresentedamong the consanguineous couples. Bras et al. [11] arguedthat for these social classes cousin marriages servedboth an economic and a political purpose."

"There are a number of communities in the Netherlands,in which certain autosomal recessive disordersand parental consanguinity or at least endogamy aremore prevalent. One-time islands in the former Zuiderzeeand fishing towns, such as the ones around it, arefamiliar examples."
 
Otherwise, the story is the same for the Netherlands as it was for most of Europe in that consanguineous marriages declined starting in the 19th century. The earlier that a country industrialized and created efficient methods of modern transportation, leading to increased mobility, the earlier the decline began.
Exactly. Before that time all villages in Europe looked like populations of cousins. Not much different than what we still see in Middle East and other places around the globe. Modern world definitely made population very mobile and better mixed.
 
I hope Papadimitriou doesn't mind, but I came across this when I wrote my prior post on this thread.

See:
https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/360761

"According to the Dutch Civil Law, marriages betweenfirst cousins are allowed; Catholics, however, need dispensationfrom their church for such unions. Under DutchCivil Law, uncle-niece and aunt-nephew marriages arenot allowed, but dispensation by a Royal Decree can begiven."

I don't know if a ban has since gone into effect.

Otherwise, the story is the same for the Netherlands as it was for most of Europe in that consanguineous marriages declined starting in the 19th century. The earlier that a country industrialized and created efficient methods of modern transportation, leading to increased mobility, the earlier the decline began.

Another interesting fact is that consanguineous marriages are usually slightly more prevalent among Protestants than among Catholics, because Catholics require dispensations. Lutheranism got rid of those requirements.

"They were more frequent in 3 out of 6 socialclasses, and more prevalent among orthodox Protestantsin the so-called Bible Belt area, stretching from the SouthWesternprovince of Zeeland to the North-Western partof the province of Overijssel. The 6 distinguished socialclasses were: (1) higher managers and professionals; (2)lower managers and professionals; (3) farmers and fishermen;(4) lower skilled workers; (5) unskilled workers, and(6) farm workers. Classes 1, 2 and 3 were overrepresentedamong the consanguineous couples. Bras et al. [11] arguedthat for these social classes cousin marriages servedboth an economic and a political purpose."

"There are a number of communities in the Netherlands,in which certain autosomal recessive disordersand parental consanguinity or at least endogamy aremore prevalent. One-time islands in the former Zuiderzeeand fishing towns, such as the ones around it, arefamiliar examples."


they are refering to Urk, a once isolated fishing community on an island in the Zuiderzee, which today isn't an island any more
it is the only example I know of

I'm pretty sure consanguinity in the Netherlands is not higher than in Greece or Italy

As you point out, even if their were no laws against it, the community didn't allow cousins to marry. It was not done, and still is not done.
But marriage was still mostly within the same village because of limited contacts, at least for the lower classes.

I know however many Marrocan immigrants living in Belgium go back 'to their family' during summer holidays.
The whole village where they originate from is 'their family' and it is also there where many get their brides.
I don't know what their customs are over there.

I read in the study you mention:

'The public opinion at present is opposed to consanguineousmarriages, since it has long been generally feltthat consanguinity of the parents is a threat to the healthof the children. A ban on consanguineous marriages is beingprepared by the present government in an attempt tofight forced marriages.'

So, there was no need for a law before, but these 'forced marriages' are something new, it is about arranged marriages between immigrants, either among immigrated families or getting the bride from their 'home villages'.
 
where did you get that?
can you show me the law?

I wasn't clear. I meant that apart from first cousin marriages which are legal in most of Europe, they also don't have any laws against incest between 'consenting adults'. Correct me if I'm wrong. Most European countries have laws againist that, sometimes not for half-siblings (Finland, Denmark, Sweden for example) though (as if that isn't incest).

That's that probably it (they prohibit marriage between siblings, between parents and children but exceptions are possible theoretically if understand it correctly.)
1 Een huwelijk mag niet worden gesloten tussen hen die elkander, hetzij van nature hetzij familierechtelijk, bestaan in de opgaande en in de nederdalende lijn of als broeders, zusters of broeder en zuster.
2 Onze Minister van Justitie kan om gewichtige redenen ontheffing van het verbod verlenen aan hen die broeders, zusters of broeder en zuster door adoptie zijn.
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002656/2015-09-01#Boek1_Titeldeel5_Afdeling1_Artikel41

I understand, though, that incest laws aren't really enforceable, but banning first cousin marriages is and most (?) European countries have chosen not to do it.
 
they are refering to Urk, a once isolated fishing community on an island in the Zuiderzee, which today isn't an island any more
it is the only example I know of

I'm pretty sure consanguinity in the Netherlands is not higher than in Greece or Italy

As you point out, even if their were no laws against it, the community didn't allow cousins to marry. It was not done, and still is not done.
But marriage was still mostly within the same village because of limited contacts, at least for the lower classes.

I know however many Marrocan immigrants living in Belgium go back 'to their family' during summer holidays.
The whole village where they originate from is 'their family' and it is also there where many get their brides.
I don't know what their customs are over there.

I read in the study you mention:

'The public opinion at present is opposed to consanguineousmarriages, since it has long been generally feltthat consanguinity of the parents is a threat to the healthof the children. A ban on consanguineous marriages is beingprepared by the present government in an attempt tofight forced marriages.'

So, there was no need for a law before, but these 'forced marriages' are something new, it is about arranged marriages between immigrants, either among immigrated families or getting the bride from their 'home villages'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage
 
they are refering to Urk, a once isolated fishing community on an island in the Zuiderzee, which today isn't an island any more
it is the only example I know of

I'm pretty sure consanguinity in the Netherlands is not higher than in Greece or Italy

As you point out, even if their were no laws against it, the community didn't allow cousins to marry. It was not done, and still is not done.
But marriage was still mostly within the same village because of limited contacts, at least for the lower classes.

I know however many Marrocan immigrants living in Belgium go back 'to their family' during summer holidays.
The whole village where they originate from is 'their family' and it is also there where many get their brides.
I don't know what their customs are over there.

I read in the study you mention:

'The public opinion at present is opposed to consanguineousmarriages, since it has long been generally feltthat consanguinity of the parents is a threat to the healthof the children. A ban on consanguineous marriages is beingprepared by the present government in an attempt tofight forced marriages.'

So, there was no need for a law before, but these 'forced marriages' are something new, it is about arranged marriages between immigrants, either among immigrated families or getting the bride from their 'home villages'.

As you can see from the maps above, different studies show slightly varying percentages by country in Europe, probably mostly because of different definitions of consanguinity. Some would look only at first cousin marriages, some would include second cousins, or even third cousins, although I think by the time you're talking about the inbreeding coefficient of third cousins you're no longer talking about appreciable risk so long as the group you're looking at hasn't been inbreeding for generations already. In that case, third cousins might actually be closer to "real" first cousins.

The fact is that first cousin marriage is pretty rare in most of Europe today. That wasn't always the case, however. It differed in the past based on when a country became industrialized and when modern transportation, leading to increased mobility, came about. As Le Brok pointed out, many people in Europe, rural people in particular, were marrying within villages of cousins until that new era.

I don't know how much of a difference it made in those days before the industrial revolution that Protestants were able, since the Reformation, to freely practice first cousin marriage, given the fact that dispensations were indeed given in Catholic countries. It's been studied in Italy back hundreds of years in some areas, but I don't know if similar studies were done in Protestant countries, so I don't know what a comparison would show. I don't think there would be a huge difference.

It's an interesting fact of history that it did linger on as a practice even into the 19th century in industrialized countries among "propertied" people for, as the article points out, reasons of economics and politics. In addition to Charles Darwin, all of the following married first and second cousins: H.G.Wells, Thomas Jefferson, Edgar Allan Poe, Einstein, Bach, etc. Royalty and nobility are notoriously inbred.

There's no comparison between modern rates for Europeans, where first cousin marriage in most places hovers around 1%, and those for immigrants foitrom Turkey or Morocco or India, where you're talking about 20, 30 and 40% rates, usually, interestingly enough all in the paternal line, which is very different from Italy, where, at least in my area, it was through the maternal line. In other words, mothers in our area handled the matchmaking, arranging marriages for their children with members of her family and friendship networks. Still, for whatever reason, the risks were known to most people, so the degree was important. My nonna's list of "don'ts" in terms of marriage always included a warning about first, second, and even third cousin marriage. It was unnecessary, given I had imbued modern attitudes toward it, no matter how handsome they were, and how well we got along, but I can see how it was indeed necessary in the world of her youth, where these were the people among whom you spent your life, and choices were much more limited. They were smart about this in my father's villages, given that the breeding pool had been so small for so many generations.

In terms of the actual effect on fitness:

"In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.1–2.0 percentage points over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40.[187] In terms of mortality, a 1994 study found a mean excess pre-reproductive mortality rate of 4.4%,[188] while another study published in 2009 suggests the rate may be closer to 3.5%.[7]Put differently, first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30.[189] Critics argue that banning first-cousin marriages would make as much sense as trying to ban childbearing by older women.Repeated consanginous marriages within a group are more problematic. After repeated generations of cousin marriage the actual genetic relationship between two people is closer than the most immediate relationship would suggest. In Pakistan, where there has been cousin marriage for generations and the current rate may exceed 50%, one study estimated infant mortality at 12.7 percent for married double first cousins, 7.9 percent for first cousins, 9.2 percent for first cousins once removed/double second cousins, 6.9 percent for second cousins, and 5.1 percent among nonconsanguineous progeny. Among double first cousin progeny, 41.2 percent of prereproductive deaths were associated with the expression of detrimental recessive genes, with equivalent values of 26.0, 14.9, and 8.1 percent for first cousins, first cousins once removed/double second cousins, and second cousins respectively.[190]"

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

A general thing that also has to be kept in mind is that a lot depends on the mutations floating around in the "breeding pool". In other words, how many deleterious mutations did the "founding" members carry, and how many occurred in the centuries of isolation. It differs by group. Some isolated communities show a lot of genetic disease, others almost none, as Cavalli Sforza found in the Parma Valley, thank goodness.

 
from what I remembered the Catholic church doesn't allow marraiges usually under third cousins, and at least in Slovakia priests would keep matricula books(as in outher countries) specifically to make sure people were not related when they got married.
 
As you can see from the maps above, different studies show slightly varying percentages by country in Europe, probably mostly because of different definitions of consanguinity. Some would look only at first cousin marriages, some would include second cousins, or even third cousins, although I think by the time you're talking about the inbreeding coefficient of third cousins you're no longer talking about appreciable risk so long as the group you're looking at hasn't been inbreeding for generations already. In that case, third cousins might actually be closer to "real" first cousins.

The fact is that first cousin marriage is pretty rare in most of Europe today. That wasn't always the case, however. It differed in the past based on when a country became industrialized and when modern transportation, leading to increased mobility, came about. As Le Brok pointed out, many people in Europe, rural people in particular, were marrying within villages of cousins until that new era.

I don't know how much of a difference it made in those days before the industrial revolution that Protestants were able, since the Reformation, to freely practice first cousin marriage, given the fact that dispensations were indeed given in Catholic countries. It's been studied in Italy back hundreds of years in some areas, but I don't know if similar studies were done in Protestant countries, so I don't know what a comparison would show. I don't think there would be a huge difference.

It's an interesting fact of history that it did linger on as a practice even into the 19th century in industrialized countries among "propertied" people for, as the article points out, reasons of economics and politics. In addition to Charles Darwin, all of the following married first and second cousins: H.G.Wells, Thomas Jefferson, Edgar Allan Poe, Einstein, Bach, etc. Royalty and nobility are notoriously inbred.

There's no comparison between modern rates for Europeans, where first cousin marriage in most places hovers around 1%, and those for immigrants foitrom Turkey or Morocco or India, where you're talking about 20, 30 and 40% rates, usually, interestingly enough all in the paternal line, which is very different from Italy, where, at least in my area, it was through the maternal line. In other words, mothers in our area handled the matchmaking, arranging marriages for their children with members of her family and friendship networks. Still, for whatever reason, the risks were known to most people, so the degree was important. My nonna's list of "don'ts" in terms of marriage always included a warning about first, second, and even third cousin marriage. It was unnecessary, given I had imbued modern attitudes toward it, no matter how handsome they were, and how well we got along, but I can see how it was indeed necessary in the world of her youth, where these were the people among whom you spent your life, and choices were much more limited. They were smart about this in my father's villages, given that the breeding pool had been so small for so many generations.

In terms of the actual effect on fitness:

"In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.1–2.0 percentage points over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40.[187] In terms of mortality, a 1994 study found a mean excess pre-reproductive mortality rate of 4.4%,[188] while another study published in 2009 suggests the rate may be closer to 3.5%.[7]Put differently, first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30.[189] Critics argue that banning first-cousin marriages would make as much sense as trying to ban childbearing by older women.Repeated consanginous marriages within a group are more problematic. After repeated generations of cousin marriage the actual genetic relationship between two people is closer than the most immediate relationship would suggest. In Pakistan, where there has been cousin marriage for generations and the current rate may exceed 50%, one study estimated infant mortality at 12.7 percent for married double first cousins, 7.9 percent for first cousins, 9.2 percent for first cousins once removed/double second cousins, 6.9 percent for second cousins, and 5.1 percent among nonconsanguineous progeny. Among double first cousin progeny, 41.2 percent of prereproductive deaths were associated with the expression of detrimental recessive genes, with equivalent values of 26.0, 14.9, and 8.1 percent for first cousins, first cousins once removed/double second cousins, and second cousins respectively.[190]"

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

A general thing that also has to be kept in mind is that a lot depends on the mutations floating around in the "breeding pool". In other words, how many deleterious mutations did the "founding" members carry, and how many occurred in the centuries of isolation. It differs by group. Some isolated communities show a lot of genetic disease, others almost none, as Cavalli Sforza found in the Parma Valley, thank goodness.


Interesting topic. Did a little survey. First of all I think this has something to do with individualism vs collectivism and hierarchy vs egalitarian society. I suppose that in societies where is less individualism combined with unequal relationships between man and woman the chances of (arranged) inbred are higher. In Europe this is pretty differentiated, given the old patterns of how families are constructed. Drawn from the French anthropologist Emannuel Todd the "family ties" are as follows in Europe:


https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/todd-traditional-family-systems-of-europe-frisians.jpg


Within this system the absolute nuclear family system is the most individualistic and egalitarian. This is very typical voor the North Sea region in Europe. From at least the early middle ages this is the area of the "free farmer" the land of the churl (anglo saxon) or Kerl (german). This is also the area of the early commerce. This free minded, capitalistic spirit (avant la lettre) went (in exaggerated form) to New Amsterdam and further....(in front of your nose Angela!).


Even till to day most people from more central Europe (Belgium, France, Germany) find it striking how families from the North Sea coast are characterized by their individualistic and equal way of behavior between man and woman and especially the relationship between parents and children (from a more authoritarian point of view especially Dutch children are very liberated and big mouthed).

Regarding to inbred I assume (as said) that this is in individualistic and more equal societies less the case than in more communal and hierarchical. Forced marriages and inbreed are I assume close to each other. They combine less with an individualistic and equal spirit. As far as I know this was and is in Northwestern Europe a big tabu. Even forbidden. The only thing which in some sense stimulated endogamie, and this is very remarkable, a modern differentiation in these societies along social economic status and religious lines. It was sometimes difficult in the (early) modern period to find someone from your own social economic class and religion in your own neighborhood. But this as a different background because 'classical' inbred is more characteristic of area's with less differentiation and so fort.

So Angela when you must pinpoint inbred in Europe the chances are (or were?) higher in the mountains of let's say Sicily or Albania than along the marshes North Sea coast.
 
Last edited:
Within this system the absolute nuclear family system is the most individualistic and egalitarian. This is very typical voor the North Sea region in Europe. From at least the early middle ages this is the area of the "free farmer" the land of the churl (anglo saxon) or Kerl (german). This is also the area of the early commerce. This free minded, capitalistic spirit (avant la lettre) went (in exaggerated form) to New Amsterdam and further....(in front of your nose Angela!).
It is not that simple to present it as a case between individualism and collectivism. It was 15th century Italy after all, where modern capital market and banking was invented. It is Northern Europe, where societies are more united in ideologies and direction, and South more divided, with thousands of small political parties, with everybody having own opinion on everything, and voiced loudly.
People in North care less how they dress, people in south are more flashy to stand out.
In WW2, German army was very coherent and sacrificial, Italian army not even close, they quit and went home.
 
It is not that simple to present it as a case between individualism and collectivism. It was 15th century Italy after all, where modern capital market and banking was invented. It is Northern Europe, where societies are more united in ideologies and direction, and South more divided, with thousands of small political parties, with everybody having own opinion on everything, and voiced loudly.
People in North care less how they dress, people in south are more flashy to stand out.
In WW2, German army was very coherent and sacrificial, Italian army not even close, they quit and went home.

No it's not that simple, but related to inbreeding, forced marriages etc this is pretty convincing at least according to me:
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/where-do-emmanuel-todds-family-types-come-from/

and
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/lexplication-de-lideologie/
 
No it's not that simple, but related to inbreeding, forced marriages etc this is pretty convincing at least according to me:
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/where-do-emmanuel-todds-family-types-come-from/

and
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/lexplication-de-lideologie/

Even on the first glance I noticed some glaring errors. For example, she included South Slavs who have unique kinship terms for cousins up to the 11th degree due to their strong taboo on inbreeding among the populations prone to counsin marriage.

There's also the weird association between family patterns and ideology. To illustrate my point, which do you deem more likely: 1. that communism spread in Eastern Europe due to cousin marriage and family structure or 2. that communism spread as far as the Red Army's tanks went.

In the same vein the expansion of Islam matches far more accurately the extent of the Umayyad Caliphate than the rather arbitrary model of the 'endogamous community family'.
 

This thread has been viewed 22020 times.

Back
Top