"American Nations" and magical thinking

Vanishing American, in a longer post, which I highly recommend reading and which I'll probably write more about later, notes:
This whole notion of cultural DNA being passed on from long-ago departed former inhabitants of a place sounds a bit like the popular superstition that ghosts of long-past eras hang around their former home and ''possess'' the people who later inhabit their haunted territory. So if I understand it right, the WASPs and Puritans of old New England are now possessing the bodies of all the diversities who live in Boston and New Haven or Manchester, N.H., and maybe even those Somalis that live in Lewiston, Maine.

I found this observation amusingly apt, having just finished listening to an interview with Colin Woodard in which the following exchange occurs (around 39 minutes into this podcast):

Host: One of the big fears in many countries is how immigration will change the very nature of a city or a state or a place and what's interesting from what you're saying is actually you can be a little more relaxed about that because there's something almost secretive, deep-rooted, almost magical, you can't quite explain it logically that lives on generation to generation, that if you have a sensible immigration policy actually the people who come will be pulled into that story as well, because as you've said before when you go back to look at some of these communities the people for example in New York who trace their roots back to being Dutch is minimal but something from that settlement still affects New Yorkers.

Woodard: You are correct, in that in theory in any country or place in the world if one moves there you would assimilate maybe you personally wouldn't fully successfully do it because you'll always be a foreigner maybe in your own mind or can't master the language completely. But your children will and your grandchildren almost certainly will, if there aren't cultural impediments to being assimilated or allowed to assimilate.

13 comments:

spagetiMeatball said...

Racehist, sorry for off-topic question but something that has been bugging me for a while about haplogroups:

How is it possible that even though ANE and WHG form a clade (but separated very far in the past, because mal'ta boy was very distinctly ANE but lived 24,000 years ago) the males of those populations belonged to such disparate Y-haplogroups, I for WHG and R/Q for ANE people.

I is related to haplogroup J, and I is almost exclusive to europe now, whereas J is exclusive to the near east. Another strange set of circumstances...

n/a said...

The biggest issue is that a single locus is not going to be all that informative at the time-depths you're talking about there.

JayMan said...

For the record, I trashed the ideas of "cultural DNA" and assimilation specifically in my post:

More Maps of the American Nations | JayMan's Blog

For example, modern New England is quite divorced from its Yankee roots since, as you've quite well pointed out, it's not as Yankee anymore (and for the record, yes, I am saying you were right on that point).

Though, there is assortative migration: people do migrate to places that suit their character, so that can give some semblance of the existence of "cultural DNA."

But, all that said, do you think that that point was just (necessary) clever marketing/squid ink on Woodard's part? Follow him on Twitter, and see some of the stuff he retweets. Do you think he could write a book highlighting the importance of the minutia of ethnic origin and the continuity of cultural traditions and political attitudes without putting in some acceptable "environmentalist-friendly" cover? You need to look at his book and read between the lines, as I did. He's done quite a bit advance the case for heritable basis to persistent human differences.

n/a said...

While I don't doubt Woodard is in part trying to make a living by telling other leftwing journalists what they want to hear, nothing I've seen from him gives me the impression he's (intentionally) purveying any deeper message. His recent twitter activity seems to be that of a fairly run-of-the-mill liberal.

I have a copy of his book, and plan to read it at some point. But my expectations are low.


Though, there is assortative migration: people do migrate to places that suit their character, so that can give some semblance of the existence of "cultural DNA."

New England was not swamped with immigrants because these people were particularly simpatico with the original Puritan settlers. Nor do I see any reason in general that patterns of intranational migration today should serve to reinforce inter-regional cultural differences stretching back to first settlement.

JayMan said...

"New England was not swamped with immigrants because these people were particularly simpatico with the original Puritan settlers."

Post Civil War New England, no. But assortative migration has been powerful (see previous link) and continues on to this day.

You know, your general trope of modern SWPLs not being the descendents of the Puritans doesn't actually hold water. A simple comparison of both genetic and self-reported ancestry (again aforementioned link, partially supplied by you) shows that Democratic voting Whites are only found in areas Puritans settled. British ancestry backs it up. See also The Myth of the Expanding Circle or You Can’t Learn How to Be an English Vegetarian | Staffan's Personality Blog.

Now, in New England, some of that genetic British ancestry is Scottish, as opposed to English ancestry. I think we can be fairly certain the Scots aren't the ones pushing things Left.

Sure, today's SWPLs are heavily admixed with other groups in addition to their Puritan roots. And sure, small numbers of liberals are found everywhere. And sure, not all Puritan descendants vote Left (e.g., Mormons – but they have been specially selected). But today, the consistent Blue states are found only in areas which have Puritan (as well as Scandinavian, and possibly Quaker) descendants. It does limited (some, but limited) good to compare their attitudes 200-400 years ago with current ones – all groups have undergone considerable change during that time (the moral circle expanded to fill its genetic potential). You also can't blame it on the Jews because A) there's not that many of them B) their putative influence resonates with some and not others, putting us back to the original problem.

n/a said...

"Democratic voting Whites are only found in areas Puritans settled."

And, if Puritan-descendants made up the entirety, or majority, or even a significant plurality of whites in those areas, you might have something.


"I think we can be fairly certain the Scots aren't the ones pushing things Left."

Clearly. It's not like Scotland is to the left of England, or Canada is to the left of the US.


"You also can't blame it on the Jews because A) there's not that many of them B) their putative influence resonates with some and not others, putting us back to the original problem."

I see. The 6.5% self-identified English in Wisconsin (not all of whom will be Puritan descendants) are responsible for Wisconsin voting for Obama, but it's impossible Jews wield any influence.

Obviously, voting patterns are multifactorial.

- Jewish influence will be greater in some areas than others (e.g., New York and California vs. Alabama; cities vs. rural areas).

- Whites in whiter states are more open to voting for Democrats, perhaps in part because they're more comfortable with economic redistribution to other whites than to blacks and/or law and order becomes a higher priority in blacker states.

- Urban whites are more leftist, partly for reasons related by Steve Sailer (involving marriage and housing costs); partly because of selective migration of those innately susceptible to leftism to cities; and partly because of selective migration to cities of aspirational strivers, who in other times and places might have no particular predilection for liberalism but who readily internalize via mass media and academia (neither of these power centers being free of Jewish influence) that failing to toe the relevant lines may be hazardous to their status.

JayMan said...

@n/a:

"And, if Puritan-descendants made up the entirety, or majority, or even a significant plurality of whites in those areas, you might have something."

They don't need to make up a plurality or majority. They just need to be more common there than they are in non-Democratic voting areas, and they are (Mormons excepted).

Now, you can (correctly) point out that this is just a correlation, and may co-vary with the true cause. But if you have any idea what that is, I'm all ears.

"Clearly. It's not like Scotland is to the left of England, or Canada is to the left of the US."

(Is Canada more Scottish than the U.S., the Maritimes or Prairie provinces notwithstanding?)

Let's talk about "Left" and "Right". You do know they're somewhat situationally dependent, yes? In Europe, most of the clannish groups are "Left" for economic reasons: they stand to benefit from redistribution from the more productive unclannish groups. See:

http://twitter.com/JayMan471/status/555287111306600449

I don't think the clannish groups are more socially liberal. They're just in it for all they can get.

"I see. The 6.5% self-identified English in Wisconsin (not all of whom will be Puritan descendants) are responsible for Wisconsin voting for Obama, but it's impossible Jews wield any influence."

Because the even tinier fraction of Jews there (~1%) is what makes the difference – as well as here in Maine where they're just as nonexistent (also ~1%).

For the record, genetically, the British fraction (English, Scottish, Welsh) in MI, WI, IA, and MN is 25%, 21%, 19%, and 29%, respectively.

And if Jews can wield power despite insignificant numbers, why doesn't it work in the Deep South or Greater Appalachia?

"Jewish influence will be greater in some areas than others (e.g., New York and California vs. Alabama; cities vs. rural areas)."

WHY?

Like I (and Peter Frost for that matter) said, blaming the Jews doesn't solve the original problem, it just brings you back to it.

"Whites in whiter states are more open to voting for Democrats, perhaps in part because they're more comfortable with economic redistribution to other whites than to blacks and/or law and order becomes a higher priority in blacker states."

Nope. The presence of minorities has little effect on White voting patterns, at least once you subtract the Tidewater/Deep South and the Southwest (and not even so much there) and look at the map. See “More Maps” again.

(cont’d next comment)

JayMan said...

(cont’d from previous comment)

"Urban whites are more leftist, partly for reasons related by Steve Sailer (involving marriage and housing costs); partly because of selective migration of those innately susceptible to leftism to cities"

Sure (assortative migration). But you do know that the whole point of Colin Woodard's book and my whole series on posts on it, especially the post Rural White Liberals
was all about showing how voting patterns can't be reduced to an urban-rural divide, nor can affordable family formation theory best explain the pattern, right?

"who in other times and places might have no particular predilection for liberalism but who readily internalize via mass media and academia (neither of these power centers being free of Jewish influence"

You also know that according to behavioral genetics, one's political views isn't shaped by college environment and such, right? See:

The Son Becomes the Father

Specifically, the extended twin study on political views within.

Not to mention that there's plenty of ultra-liberal countries in the world, who all manage to be so without Jews.

See: the one where i draw squiggly lines all over the welzel-inglehart cultural map | hbd chick

But I'm sure the Jews are responsible for that pattern too, somehow…

Look, we can keep running Occam's Razor in reverse and ignore inconvenient facts. Or you could at least try to run with the facts and come up with a plausible alternative explanation. If and when you do that, please let me know.

Anonymous said...

This debate has carried over to Twitter:

https://twitter.com/HBDBibliography/status/572751985193046016

n/a said...

"(Is Canada more Scottish than the U.S., the Maritimes or Prairie provinces notwithstanding?)"

Yes, by a huge margin (this being part of the reasons Canadians pronounce "about" wrong).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ontario#Ethnic_groups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia#Ethnic_groups_and_languages


"Because the even tinier fraction of Jews there (~1%) is what makes the difference – as well as here in Maine where they're just as nonexistent (also ~1%)."

I just got done telling you multiple factors will influence voting behavior. I did not claim Jews "make the difference" in any particular case. You're the one latching onto a shiny theory and refusing to let go, regardless of the evidence.


"For the record, genetically, the British fraction (English, Scottish, Welsh) in MI, WI, IA, and MN is 25%, 21%, 19%, and 29%, respectively."

Some fraction of Western European and Irish ancestry will be misclassified as British in the AncestryDNA estimates, and Puritan-descendants likely account for less than half the English population in the Upper Midwest.


"And if Jews can wield power despite insignificant numbers, why doesn't it work in the Deep South or Greater Appalachia?"

(1) Jewish influence without question distorts politics everywhere in the country (see Lindsey Graham).

(2) Jews are a coherent ethnic group. Descendants of Puritans mixed freely with the general Northwestern European population and for the most part do not remain as a distinct group. Of course they do not wield the sort of disproportionate influence as Jews. Yet you're happy to attribute effects to Puritans on the flimsiest grounds, while dismissing the obvious reality of Jewish influence.

(3) "as much as 2/3 of Democratic money comes from Jewish donors", along with "more than a third" of Republican money, which hardly leaves a lot of room for any other ethnic group to wield comparable influence.


"Jewish influence will be greater in some areas than others (e.g., New York and California vs. Alabama; cities vs. rural areas)."

WHY?


Why do you think?



"especially the post Rural White Liberals"

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/03/yankeeland-in-middle-west-v-finnish.html

hailtoyou said...

"If Jews can wield power despite insignificant numbers, why doesn't it work in the Deep South or Greater Appalachia?"

Is this a serious statement? Trolling? Just muddleheaded?

Jewish influence in the Deep South is substantial, arguably moreso than in places like the urban northeast.

It's not like U.S. politics over the past decades has been a White racial-nationalist David Duke Party vs. a Jewish-led Multicultural Democratic Party. No, both parties are heavily influenced by Jewish ideas, Jewish money, Jewish leaders, and the "Jewish narrative" of the world (including obsession with the Big H and irrational pro-Israel-ism). Especially in the South and Appalachia, even Christian theology has been influenced by Jewish power in the USA. Note the rise of the term "Judeo-Christian". Ngramming that would be useful.

Tanstaafl said...

not the jews
not the jews
not the jews
...

Methinks the JayMan doth protest too much.

Santoculto said...

Jayman,

this dommino explain hierarchy social and cultural structure, specially in times of globalization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARM42-eorzE


http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/images/rb1f1.gif

You don't need dominate all regions to dominate certain nation, you need dominate the most important pieces to dominate it.

But i know you know that, ;)

Is just to gain time..