I’ve discussed this before: Back when I was just a high school kid (I’m now in my 30s), I started phoning up the late great J.P. Rushton, who I regard as the Darwin of the 20th century, at the University of Western Ontario.   One of his theories was that blacks were the most primitive race, in part because they were the first race to branch off the human evolutionary tree.  Another of his theories was that humans (and other animals) are more altruistic to genetically similar others.

One day I asked Rushton if one of the reasons why the black community was having so many problems is that blacks, being the oldest race, were the most genetically diverse, and thus were the least internally altruistic.

“You’ve stumbled upon an inference that never even crossed my mind,” he said.  “Very astute of you to connect the two concepts like that.”

To me it made perfect sense.  When one looks at the lack of social organization in black populations, you could just say that blacks are more primitive, but an additional explanation is that blacks are just too genetically diverse to get along, and thus you see a lot of black on black violence, a lot of back self-hatred (skin bleaching), a lot of black on black jealousy (crab in the barrel syndrome).

For how can blacks be a unified people when they’ve been evolving in sub-Saharan Africa for 200,000 years, and there’s been all that time for genetic mutations to accumulate, causing different black tribes to be genetically very different?

And yet eventually these extremely different tribes mixed, and so you would have parents raising kids who have genetic variants very alien to their own, and this probably contributed to the breakdown of the black family: it’s harder for kin altruism to get selected when the kids you are altruistic to, don’t resemble you that much genetically because their other parent is so unlike you that they don’t inherit your high degree of kin altruism or inherit it as a recessive unexpressed trait.  And when kin altruism gets only weakly selected for, racial loyalty (which is probably just an outgrowth of kin loyalty) is probably weakly selected for too.

Of course, being an old race can probably be negated if there’s a lot of cousin marriage, which brings us to HBD Chick’s theory: ethnic groups that historically engaged in a lot of cousin marriage are more clannish, which she defines as:

clannishness is (and i reserve the right to alter this definition) a set of behaviors and innate behavioral traits and predispositions which, when found in a population, result in the members of that population strongly favoring, in all areas of life, themselves, their family members — both near and extended, and even closely allied associates (esp. in clannish societies which are not arranged into clans), while at the same time strongly disfavoring those considered to be non-family and all unrelated, non-allied associates.

So is she saying clannish people are more racist?  I can’t tell from her definition.  But I would argue that clannish people are indeed more racist, because it sounds like clannish people are just people who were more efficiently selected to favour kin (since doing so confers more fitness benefits if your kin are inbred and thus more related to you via the cousin marriage HBD Chick describes) and I argue that people who are selected to favour kin are also selected to favour their own race, because the same instinct that gets you to favour your sister over your cousin over your second cousin, would likely also get you to favour your race over another race, even if racial favoritism was not the reason it evolved and even if the fitness benefits are fewer.

So for example, HBD Chick argues that Northwest Europeans are very low in clannishness because they historically had a low rate of cousin marriage.  And doesn’t she use this to argue that Northwest Europeans are especially accepting of outsiders (high rates of non-white immigration)?  Meanwhile Arabs, who are very high in cousin marriage, are also very high on ethnocentrism (i.e. Palestinian suicide bombers).

Thus, it would seem groups that are low on clannishness are low on ethnocentrism and vice verca.

But I would argue that it’s not just the rate of cousin marriage that allows a group to be selected for “clannishness” but also the age of the group.  Ethnic groups that emerged very recently are going to be more genetically homogenous because they have very recent common ancestors, just as ethnic groups that practiced a lot of cousin marriage will be genetically homogenous.  So it seems in both groups, kin favoritism would be especially fitness enhancing.

So ethnic groups that are BOTH extremely young, AND extremely incestuous, are going to be especially clannish, and thus especially ethnocentric.  Does that make sense?

Advertisements