Skip to comments.Book Review: 'A Troublesome Inheritance' by Nicholas Wade
Posted on 05/03/2014 1:51:51 PM PDT by globelamp
".. The orthodoxy's equivalent of the Nicene Creed has two scientific tenets. The first, promulgated by geneticist Richard Lewontin in "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" (1972), is that the races are so close to genetically identical that "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."
The second, popularized by the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, is that human evolution in everything but cosmetic differences stopped before humans left Africa, meaning that "human equality is a contingent fact of history," as he put it in an essay of that title in 1984."
"Since the sequencing of the human genome in 2003, what is known by geneticists has increasingly diverged from this orthodoxy, even as social scientists and the mainstream press have steadfastly ignored the new research. Nicholas Wade, for more than 20 years a highly regarded science writer at the New York Times, has written a book that pulls back the curtain."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
By law. Primogeniture law. Younger sons did not inherit, only the firstborn. This also drove many younger sons of minor nobility and merchants to the colonies. Many indentured themselves willingly. They had a word for doing this but can't recall it.
I guess that depends on your definitions.
It’s certainly differential survival of groups, but that might not result in real evolution unless those groups were significantly different from each other to begin with.
As I said, I’m a little vague on the details of the idea, but it seems to be based on the notion that the English upper classes of 1300 were genetically more competent than the lower classes. Which is at minimum a debatable proposition
The article seemed to be implying a divergence of genetic profiles between upper and lower classes, which I don't think makes sense.
Here's a review that I think makes a lot more sense than the book does.
Historically, rich people always had more surviving children than poor people. Rich people never starved, always had good clothing, and got better medical care. (To the extent there was any such thing.)
So it's likely that rich people throughout history have generally been more successful at reproducing their genes. Especially because upper-class men have generally had a lot more children than those borne by their wives.
Unless I’m mistaken, primogeniture applied to landed estates, not other forms of property.
Of course, in the earlier days we’re talking about, that would have been a distinction without much difference, since there wasn’t much in the way of other types of property.
Interestingly, when Anglicans dominated Ireland, they enforced equal division between his sons of the inheritance of a Catholic. Unless one of them converted, in which case he got it all.
Younger sons of nobles and gentry often had a commission purchased for them in the Army or Navy, or went into the Church.
In Catholic countries that generally meant their genes disappeared. In Protestant countries the clergy was often quite prolific.
Gentry and merchants often bought younger sons an apprenticeship in some trade, in which they could become journeymen and eventually masters. An apprenticeship, at least in one of the more desirable guilds, was expensive, and was viewed as the rough equivalent today of sending a child to college.
“Which is at minimum a debatable proposition”
Yes, I’m not sure those groups (one quite large, the other rather small) were different enough that differences in mortality can’t be explained by circumstances (food, shelter, etc.) rather than genetics.
I’m not sure about that for any group in historical memory actually.
The new tool also has implications when it comes to the study of the geographical origin of certain populations, such as the Roma Gypsies or European Jews. In fact, Dr. Elhaik believes that GPS may significantly alter our perception of ethnicity. "It is impossible for any of us to tick one box on a form such as White British or African as we are much [more] complex models with our own unique identities," he said. "The notion of race is simply not plausible."
For obvious reasons, there is no effective firewall between the two -- no matter how properly the social niceties are observed in choices of marriage partners, there are too many opportunities for hanky-panky between the gentry and the hired help.
Jews are a distinct group who are not (and I doubt they really see themselves as) White.
The Jews survive because they always as “is it good for the Jews?” unlike Whites who always ask “is it good for everyone else?”
Jews will viciously attack anyone who threatens (or even questions) their interests; Whites will invite hostile aliens into to their countries and hand over control.
Their high intelligence and intellectual aggressiveness allow them make best use of that ethnocentric outlook. That is why we have the American Israel Public Affairs Committee but not the American British Public Affairs Committee which would make much more sense given our historical, cultural, linguistic, and racial connections to Britain.
If Whites Westerners were to adopt the same attitudes we would not have many of the problems we do. It is interesting that Jews like Chuck Schumer for the Democrats and Sheldon Adelson for the Republicans push strongly for open borders for us but want to preserve the particular ethnic makeup of Israel.
These attitudes are why Jews survive and White nations are dying. We would do well to adopt these attitudes for ourselves.
“Apprenticed out,” that’s it. It was a euphemism for being transported to the North American colonies. Most of the time it was arranged, so they knew where they were going and were treated reasonably well, or at least better than run-of-the-mill indentured servants. Then, after their term of indenture was served, they got land, fifty or a hundred acres, depending upon where they were. It wasn’t unusual to go from servant to prominence in Maryland over the course of one’s life due to this.
If by White you mean Caucasian, Jews certainly are, at least if you limit the categories to the five in the article.
I don't really know how Jews think of themselves.
I've always found it interesting that Jews led the way in the fight against quotas that limited their enrollment in colleges. Then turned around just a few decades later and led (and still lead) the fight for quotas that limited the number of white people who could get into colleges. Which is of course what affirmative action is.
They have also insisted that "whites," including Jews, be classified as a single group. This results in Jews being allowed to be wildly over-represented at elite colleges, while other sub-groups of "whites" are wildly under-represented.
Ran across a loonnnggg article on how American elite colleges decide who will attend.
In effect, somewhat dim and over-worked admissions officers, generally possessing weak quantitative skills, have been tasked by their academic superiors and media monitors with the twin ideological goals of enrolling Jews and enrolling non-whites, with any major failures risking harsh charges of either anti-Semitism or racism. But by inescapable logic maximizing the number of Jews and non-whites implies minimizing the number of non-Jewish whites.
Wad’s “Before the Dawn” was generally good for the time it was written. A fair amount has changed even in the last couple of years. I’ve just pre ordered this book and will see. To me, there is always the danger of working with too large a group so the generalizations don’t really mean anything. In Africa, you see great variations physically between the San, Bantu and Ethiopian for instance. The same is true for all racial groups.
“Apprenticed out” may indeed sometimes have meant being indentured to America, but most of the time it meant being indentured to a master in a trade to learn the trade. In England or wherever.
Orphans were bound to a master to learn a trade, children of the poor were bound to a master as a servant or to learn a trade, on up the line to apprenticeship. One of my seventh great grandfathers was bound as an orphan after his father was killed in an indian attack and his mother disappeared, to learn “arithmetick and blacksmithing.” He ran off before his obligation was complete, and joined the militia to find his brother during the Revolution. Another came through Maryland in the 1600’s and cost of his transport was paid by a tobacco planter, he was basically sought and apprenticed at sixteen, his father was an apothecary in the southwest of England, his uncle was high sheriff of Exeter. The system sounds cruel to modern ears and perhaps it was to some, but it worked.
You are quite right.
There is an obvious problem here.
We can over-focus on the fact that “races,” as defined by Wade, are not really distinct separate groups. Which causes us to ignore the very real commonalities.
Turks, Arabs, Indians, Malaysians, Chinese?
I think even Murray might have been hesitant to use those old anthropological designations for the races: caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid.
You probably know that Turks, Arabs and Indians are caucasians. Malaysians and Chinese are mongoloids.
Or go really old school and say the three races descend from the three sons of Noah.
First, the book is written by Wade, not by Murray. Second, this is merely the usual selective inability to understand the problem of categorization.
The epicycles are provided by those that seriously push the notion that broad racial cateories have no informational or predictive value. Designing your own “microrace” will of course provide even more pinpoint-accurate information, but that is besides the point.
“Race” is merely a term for what begins where “family” ends (with some inbreeding on top).
As I say, I am not really doing their presentation justice, but, FWIW, that's what I got out of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.