This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The key point is that religion and culture manipulates breeding behavior towards eugenic or dysgenic ends. Is the Brahmin being a hypocrite when he comes to America and joins the chorus of anti-racism and denounces eugenic-minded thinking for white people? It's his religion! There is, in fact, nothing hypocritical or paradoxical about preaching eugenics for your people and preaching dysgenics for your outgroup. If you are in competition with other tribes, this is going to be a powerful strategy, particularly if you can convince your outgroup that dysgenic behavior is the realization of a universal moral good, and eugenic behavior is the ultimate evil. It's ultimately tribalistic, not conspiratorial or hypocritical or paradoxical.
Religion, culture, and eugenics are one. This fact is understood foremost by the Jews, who have carried this knowledge through the millennia within their myths. Take the Book of Genesis: Jacob, the Patriarch of the Jewish people, swindles a herd of sheep from his father-in-law by peeling the bark off the tree. Seeing the striped tree, the white and black sheep interbreed and Jacob the Deceiver wins the flock of speckled sheep. This myth portrays ancient knowledge of the use of media for eugenic purposes, and it's important to recognize here that sheep are symbolic for people in biblical myth.
Of course Judaism is not the only religion that transmits an ancient knowledge of eugenics through the medium of religion, the Hindu caste system could be regarded as one of the most successful eugenic programs in human history, with most Brahmin to this day possessing the Aryan haplogroup R1a1 that has been inherited unbroken from the paternal line. It would be inaccurate to call this a conspiracy or eugenics with the veneer of religion, the religion is eugenics and eugenics is the religion.
There are of course some instances of outright hypocrisy, like LessWrong advocates for polygenic embryo screening falling over themselves trying to explain why it's not eugenics:
Here is a case where we see a sheer hypocrisy, but I don't even know if the author of this LW article is Jewish- although I suspect many Jews will make a similar argument as they use polygenic embryo screening. The more profound behavior we see in this article is the familiar use of the Holocaust to denounce eugenic thinking for white people, which is actually the crux of the issue.
With the understanding that religion, culture, and eugenics are inseparable, then we must relate the genetic trajectory of the nation and Europe to its sacred myths, and there is no myth more sacred today than the Holocaust. Understanding the Holocaust as the body of myth that formulates the prevailing civic religion, the issue becomes much deeper than merely a question of hypocrisy. It's a religion that denounces European race consciousness as the ultimate evil and all behaviors against European race consciousness as the ultimate good. It's the anti-caste system, where the civic religion is used to deconstruct and destroy rather than moralize a race consciousness that would be required for eugenic-minded behavior and culture.
The article you link traces the use of this civic religion to derail eugenic-minded thinking within the Academy and culture writ large. There is a full knowledge and recognition of where this breeding program is headed, best illustrated by Lise Funderburg's National Geographic feature, The Changing Face of America: We've become a country where race is no longer so black or white.
There's a recognition, celebration, that this is what Americans will look like in 2050, and this is absolutely downstream of the prevailing cultural and religio-political myth that defines the boundaries of our ways of thinking about race and eugenics. This is far more important than any individual-level hypocrisy, and after all pointing out a hypocrisy can be cathartic but it never motivates a rethinking of things and doesn't reach the crux of the issue in any case.
I'm confused why you think the caste system is eugenic. Indians, like Jews, suffer from a surfeit of genetic diseases from their excessive endogamy norms. And the extreme endogamy norms seem to be inherited from the Harappans the Aryans conquered not the Aryans themselves. You don't see anything like it from the Iranian branch of the Aryans.
You also seem to be confusing eugenics with kin/group selection in your argument. Unless you think the only genes that are 'good' are your own despite how objectively inferior they might be on other metrics.
Propensity for genetic disease is only one dimension of fitness for some objective like maintaining a ruling class or group survival as a diaspora with strong loyalties to an ancient, foreign religion. There are tradeoffs, but propensity for genetic disease isn't strictly inferior to other traits like IQ or religious zealousness in realizing these group-level objectives.
I'm not sure where the attribution of the caste system to the Harappans comes from, if you have anything to read about that I would be interested. The earliest description of the caste system comes from the Sanskrit (Aryan language) Rigveda. All indications are that the caste system was created to preserve the genes of a conquering ruling class in the framework of a religion with inherited priestly function.
Persia was conquered by the Arab Muslim jihad- and jihad, it should be noted, is another stark example of group-level genetic strategy as religion along with Hinduism and Judaism. The Jihad is the reason for the ethnic composition of Iran today, and a quick search shows < 9% frequency of R1a in Iran compared to a 57% frequency among Rajasthan Brahmin.
So we see persistence of a caste system where Aryan genes have been preserved, and no caste system where they were conquered. All Indo-European civilizations have had some form of a caste system, with the Phratry in Ancient Greece, which also contained elements of inherited priestly function, attributed to Indo-European origins. And of course the Patrician class in ancient Rome emerged with the Italian conquest by the Indo-European derived peoples who became the founders of Rome. This is not to deny by any means that the caste system and Hinduism in India is heavily influenced by contributions from all its indigenous populations, it's to say that this is a common a feature of Indo-European civilizations, and we don't see it where those genes no longer exist.
Edit: As an aside, here's a really interesting comparison of Sanskrit with Lithuanian that puts the cultural similarity in perspective:
And
You are confusing Varna with Jati as caste. Other Indo-Europeans had a Varna like tripartite division between warriors, priests and commoners, but there wasn't the extreme level of endogamy that you find in India that has let upper caste Indians remain genetically extinct from lower caste ones. You don't see that in other Indo-European societies, but you do see it in the Dravidians.
I'm glad to mention Greece, because in Mycenean Greece there was absolutely no correlation between steppe ancestry and social status. The gryffin warrior a steppe style chariot riding warrior aristocrat with his ostentatious grave was found to have no steppe ancestry at all. Despite them clearly having close contact with the proto-Indo-Iranian peoples before they entered Greece. The Basque have a higher percent of the Indo-European r1b then there fellow Iberians. The non-Indo-European Etruscans were genetically identical to their Itallic neighbors.
Edit: I'm also a little confused about your obsession with Y-haplogroups. We have lots of studies on autosomal DNA. Eastern Iranians are more Aryan than Brahmins and a quarter of Iranian citizens are Turks.
I doubt anyone truely cares about the actual proportion of various ancestries. What they care about is ethnogenesis, how their people came to be.
For this purpose, Y and Mt DNA shed light in some aspects that autosomal DNA only cannot, such as the type of intermingling that gave birth to your ethnic group, power dynamics, etc.
For example almost all Latin Americans have y-haplogroups denoting European paternal descent but their Mt DNA shows near complete Native American ancestry for Maternal descent.
Hence we can infer that Latin Americans of today originate from European men and Native American women.
What about European maternal ancestry? The conquistadors were almost all men.
Native American paternal ancestry? You can guess.
This pattern of ancestry turns up in many other populations.
Most modern Europeans attribute their ethnogenesis to such asymmetric gender mixing.
There is actually pretty strong evidence that the original proto-Indo-European speakers were from Armenia/Northwest Iran and the new population that formed the late proto-Indo-European in Ukraine that became the modern Europeans was actually mostly from the y-haplogroup the EHG who lived there before, and the mitochondrial DNA is mostly from the original proto-Indo-Europeans from Armenia. Because, ancient DNA from Hittites in Anatolia had absolutely no EHG ancestry and certainly no y-haplogroups from any EHG. Of course, it's controversial to people like the starter of this thread who cares so much about y-haplogroups.
I'm an Anglo, but our culture was spread by proto-Germanic people with the haplogroup I1, a non-Indo-European haplogroup, and we are mostly not I1 now. We are mostly the Bell Beaker R1b, even in Germany and Denmark we are mostly R1b, with lots of R1a. If you look at a map of what the most common haplogroup Germanic speaking people have its a pastiche of all 3. I'm not ashamed of any of my ancestors and I think this whole thing is ridiculous.
No, why would I? My ancestors were from an amalgamation of very divergent groups in relatively recent history. My cousins are descended partly from similarly divergent groups. Unless we hope to drive the various non-white racial groups that exist in the USA to extinction, I see no reason to oppose interracial marriage. That we should support eugenics in general, then sure, but I'm not advocating for miscegenation laws, genocide, or sterilization.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The level of endogamy in India is more likely due to natural pressures of a small ruling class in a highly diverse, increasingly urbanized continent. There are high levels of endogamy among Afrikaners, Québécois, and ruling elite like the Habsburg family. There is ample precedent. Are you saying that the level of endogamy among the Brahmin caste is not motivated by perpetuating the ancestry of a ruling class, it's motivated coincidentally by an unrelated indigenous tradition? I don't quite understand the point you are making here.
That's a strong statement based on a small number of samples... The societal organizations which are most relevant to our discussion, the phratry, the phyle appeared to emerge in the 1st century B.C. Asserting that these organizations were unrelated to steppe ancestry is premature and most likely incorrect given the likely indo-european origin of these social organizations. Granted there is a lack of ancient DNA from Greece and the small number of samples we do have from Mycenean Greeks shows lower steppe ancestry than other Southern Europeans, and in particular their northern Macedonian neighbors. And it's worth pointing out Alexander the Great was Macedonian.
My understanding is that Etruscans derived slightly over 50% from Bell Beaker-derived peoples who migrated there during the Bronze Age. Of course the Bell Beakers did not have pure steppe ancestry, but there is still a significant base of Steppe ancestry in Italy before Roman conquest of the peninsula. The Romans who conquered the Etruscans and became ruling class almost certainly had greater Bell Beaker admixture than the Etruscans and therefore more steppe ancestry. The Etruscans did not speak an Indo-European language so the Roman conquerors certainly had more steppe ancestry as IE speakers.
The linked study found the Etruscans derived [their] entire ancestry from other European populations such as the earlier Bell Beaker group from northern Italy and Iron Age populations from southern Europe so the Roman empire is absolutely inseparable from IE ancestry and culture:
Of course as Rome conquered foreign nations (with less IE ancestry), we again see the emergence of a caste system correlated with European steppe ancestry in a sprawling empire. Notably, Rome never conquered Germania and was itself conquered by foreign barbarians with more steppe ancestry than the increasingly-admixed Roman ruling class.
I'm aware that Y-haplogroups highly correlate with urban centers in Iran like Tehran, and therefore social and political class, but I'm not aware of Eastern Iranians having more European steppe ancestry than Brahmins. I'll take a look later.
The Dalits are the most endogamous populations in India not the Brahmins. European aristocrats don't have anything close to the levels of endogamy as seen in Indian Jatis lower and high caste. Afrikaners also have rates of endogamy far higher than Indian Jatis with Afrikaners having about 5% non-European ancestry, while Indian Jatis have endogamy rates of less than 1%.
Yeah they did initially, but by the time of the Roman Republic they were identical that's my point. No one was practicing eugenics or enough endogamy to erase the genetic distinction between class and ethnic groups. Even very small amounts of exogamy will erase genetic differences in the long run. Just look at the breeder's equation!
I get the feeling you don't understand how extreme endogamy has to be to maintain genetic differences over long periods of time. Population geneticists were absolutely startled how extreme the genetic distances between Indian Jatis living in the same area were. You don't see that in Europe or other places colonized by Indo-Europeans. You don't see it anywhere except places where there have been recent migrations. It just doesn't exist.
How can you not tell you can see it on their faces. Genetically the Eastern and Western Iranians are very different (for western Eurasian populations that share an ethnicity). I'm still not sure what your obsession with Y-haplogroups is. Why aren't we talking about autosomal DNA if we are talking about eugenics and ancestry?
Again, can you explain your point with respect to my claim? Are you claiming the caste system in India has non-Indo European origins? Is it not an example of a genetic strategy as a religion as I have said? Hinduism is the expression of the unique combination of genes and environment on the continent, I wouldn't expect it to be identical to all IE civilizations. But caste endogamy is absolutely a common feature in IE civilization and that feature in Indian civilization has IE origins.
The Roman Republic certainly experienced genetic change as it expanded, and the prominence of the Patrician class waned as the empire decayed (isn't there a lesson there if we contrast Rome with the longevity of Indian civilization?) But we still see an IE civilization with a caste system that correlated with steppe ancestry, conquering nations with lower steppe ancestry until it itself was conquered by barbarians with greater steppe ancestry.
According to David Reich, "the population that contributed genetic material to South Asia was (roughly) 60% Yamnaya [my note: European steppe ancestry], ~30% European farmer-like ancestry".
Even with the particularly endogamous features of Indian civilization, modern day Northern Europeans bear far greater genetic similarity to the bronze age migrants, including the Aryans, than any peoples in India. I would likewise say the Bell Beaker-derived Patricians of Rome bore far greater genetic similarity to these Aryans than any modern population in India, with that similarity decaying as the Roman Empire integrated other nations into civic society.
Endogamy is a greater concern in IE civilizations with greater diversity including: South Africa, Latin America, Colonial America, the British Empire. Granted none of those are like the Hindu caste system, and those are all examples of post-Christianization European civilizations which would again support my argument for religious changes being synonymous with changes in genetic strategy (the Catholic church outlawing cousin marriage is significant here). Still, those civilizations had caste system with high levels of endogamy including in America, where the colonials resisted mixing with the natives.
Well we have more precise ways for understanding genetic similarities. I would be interested to know the Yamnayan ancestry for different sub-populations in Iran, including the sub-populations you claim are more genetically similar to the Aryans than the Brahmin. I don't necessarily doubt it I'm just not aware of that data. I see this guy on Reddit, that's significant Yamnaya ancestry but not that close to the Brahmin.
No it is not, not anywhere close to the extent of Indian society. And the non-Indo-European Dravidians have this endogamy too. I have gave you examples of Indo-European exogamy like the non-Indo-European Etruscans who were found to be identical to the Romans next to them even before they were assimilated to a Roman identity.
The Bell Beakers who both groups were half assimilated were almost 50% EEF. Far more than the Corded Ware Culture people like the Aryans who were only 20-30%. The Latins had nothing like the endogamy in India. Over 2000 years they became identical to their non-Indo-European neighbors. In 3500 years the Brahmins still have more steppe and Harappan ancestry. The Shudras in South India (who are denied, categorically, upper caste status by the Northern Indian Brahmins) have higher steppe and Harappan ancestry than the Dalits.
There is no evidence the Patrician class was more Indo-European in ancestry than the lower classes. Even the Etruscans had similar rates of R1b to the Romans. The Basque who are more EEF shifted than fellow Iberians have higher rates of R1b. The extremely steppe Swedish are modally the non-steppe I1 haplogroup.
The colonials resisted a little bit, but look at them now. They are not quite thoroughly mixed, but they are making great progress, and that is with large amounts of immigration from Europe and even the Middle East and Asia! It isn't panmixia, but you don't need that to remove genetic distinctions between populations. You only need a little.
Finally:
Here's a link on the Indian caste system being Harappan.
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/tag/india-genetics/
Here's a line on Eastern Iranian genetics.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/12/descendants-of-ancient-european-fair.html
And here, note Brahmins are less than 30% Sintashta like ancestry even in the North-West.
https://razib.substack.com/p/among-afghans-jewel-of-the-dragon
Only the Jats and Rors who are clearly descended of ancient Eastern Iranian peoples, who invaded later, have more steppe ancestry, despite being considered low-caste Shudras.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, that was the article I saw and I realized the interviewee was a different person working on a similar project:
It's interesting to contrast the description of that television campaign with the campaigns we see in the United States, which would be a good example of what the article you linked is identifying.
The "both-sidesing" is so tiresome, we are allowed to take stock of the net impact while recognizing there is a distribution of advocacy and influence among Jews. The net impact is that we see Jewish influence hostile to European race consciousness and heavily affine to Jewish race consciousness. Even assuming an exogamy rate of 50% in the United States, given the small proportion of Jews among the population in America that implies an enormous endogamous influence from Jewish identity.
Not necessarily, I think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be resolved if they all just loved and married each-other and became one peoples. The Jewish religion is passed matrilineally, so there could be TV campaigns in Israel promoting Jewish women to take Palestinian men and I wouldn't have a principled opposition to that.
Upvoted this in appreciation of the cleverness of the reply - I'm a big fan of dirty rhetorical tricks like that.
This is absurd, I am not evading the question. One of the best aspects of the American project is the formation of a pan-European ethnic identity, which has entailed the mixing of distinguishable European groups into a "white" identity. That is a political project, and ethnogenesis, that I support.
I don't support the political project of Sweden becoming Middle Eastern. I doubt Jews would support the project of racially integrating with the Palestinians.
I answered your question: I am not against it in principle, but I am concerned with the political motives and outcomes of that social organization, which everyone always has been throughout all of human history, and this concern took the form of religion.
My tongue-in-cheek answer was meant to demonstrate the hostility of encouraging endogamy for your ingroup and exogamy for your outgroup. Seems pretty hostile, doesn't it? It's only tongue-in-cheek, I have an unreciprocated respect for Jewish ethnic identity and I wouldn't seriously demand that they race-mix with the Palestinians to smooth racial tension.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link