# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  What's your opinion on this blog post on inbreeding in Europeans?

## Voight

jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/how-inbred-are-europeans/

----------


## Seanp

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.

----------


## MarkoZ

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.

----------


## Angela

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.

----------


## Seanp

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. 



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.

----------


## Angela

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?


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn...colorsmall.jpg

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


https://static-content.springer.com/...OESM2_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. 

https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/...t-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.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

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."_

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

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.

----------


## bicicleur

> 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?

----------


## Angela

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."

----------


## LeBrok

> 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.

----------


## bicicleur

> 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.
> 
> ...



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'.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> 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/BWBR000265...ing1_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.

----------


## Angela

> 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.
> ...


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

----------


## Angela

> 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.
> ...


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.

----------


## Karol šiška

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.

----------


## Northener

> 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. 
> ...


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...e-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.

----------


## LeBrok

> 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.

----------


## Northener

> 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/...pes-come-from/

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

----------


## MarkoZ

> 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/...pes-come-from/
> 
> and
> https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/...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'.

----------


## Northener

It's obvious that the family structures survived the red tanks......


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Templar

I believe that he didn't use any data to make that map. It seems as if he created it based on stereotypes and liberal guesswork.

----------


## Northener

> I believe that he didn't use any data to make that map. It seems as if he created it based on stereotypes and liberal guesswork.


It doesn't look as classical Marxism to me either Marxism turned upside down
I don't know which data the anthropologist has used, but what I do know that for the situation along the the Northsea it's pretty accurate. This was undoubtedly the area of the free farmer, with his own territory, and with less or no obligation to some kind of nobleman. That's indeed different from the most of Europe (in the past). So be it. And you can look all the way down to Beowulf to see some (embryonic) individualism in it....
And individualism and some equal position between man and woman are giant forces against forced marriages and inbreeding! No Le Brok this doesn't rule out that this has taken place, the reality is always with more paradoxes and is always messy. But I think the gross picture looks clear.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## bicicleur

> 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.


what do you mean by 'being able to allow' ?

----------


## LeBrok

> 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/...pes-come-from/
> 
> and
> https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/...de-lideologie/


Here is another good example. People in north are more bylaw obeying. For example in north people will wait for a green light to cross the road. People in south treat red light more like a suggestion. Same goes for all traffic regulations. How does this go with individualism vs collectivism?
Here is one more. People in north will lie more often not to hurt someone's feelings, about their cooking, how others dress or behave, and generally are more politically correct. I'm not sure if it denotes more tolerance or compassion, or obedience, but definitely helps a collective life of a group by avoiding confrontation. People in south are more direct with their opinion. Again, I'm not sure if it is due to being more emotional, or contrarian, more egoistic, strong willed, but surely it is more individualistic.

Also, statistically speaking, people in north tend to share more with others, either by obediently paying taxes or giving freely to charities. People in south tend to share less with strangers but are more generous to immediate family. Which one, you might think, is more collective? My pet hypothesis is that this is hunter-gatherer vs farmer issue, expressed through natural selection. 
South is more farmer like, farmers have private fields which benefit family first. If they have more then they share with a village. If father and mother die, kids usually die too (in the past). Hunters-gatherers live in multifamily groups, they all hunt and gather together, then they share and eat together. Whole group is the "family", a big commune. When mother and father dies there is not much change for their kids, because the group will still share equally. In this case, by law of natural selection, Europeans with more h-g admixture should be more sharing/collective, while with more farmer admixture more possessive/individualistic, well family sharing oriented.

I know the big argument, for north being more individualistic, is an example of people of the north being entrepreneurial capitalist in nature, therefore more greedy-individualistic. I'm sure the entrepreneurs need to be individualistic-leader like, but the biggest part in it is that ones from north are more collective (more hunter gatherer). It means that they will embrace anybody from society to work in their company and most importantly in management, as long as they have the best skills for positions. Entrepreneur from south will be more inclined to give positions to immediate family first, the farmer's way. Therefore he will not get the best talent to run the company. Multiply this by last couple of hundreds of years of capitalism and voila, this little advantage of hiring better talent for positions is giving north Europe economic advantage over south. Mind you that south was economically ahead most of the history till 17th century, thanks to family-feudal oriented ways. The best way how to control production from the land. It sees that now however, in times of industrial and free market capitalist economy, the north is ahead. And it might be due to more collective nature of running business.

Off course there will be other differences in character of people to account for north/south differences and how economies and countries are run. I was just emphasizing things suiting current discussion best.

----------


## Angela

I tell you what, LeBrok, you understand us very well. 

There's a famous saying about Jews which applies to Italians and most Southern Europeans for that matter: two Jews, three opinions. It makes it hard to make governments work, but it's a better safeguard of individual liberty, in my opinion.

I would only quibble on one thing. Italians tell white lies too, but it depends on the situation. Every time I go home, one of the first things my family members will usually blurt out is that I've gained ten or fifteen pounds over the previous months in America. They walk me off my feet to get rid of it. :) I assure you that Italian men trying to pick you up tell you you're absolutely perfect. Like I said, it depends on the situation. 

Contrarian is a good word. It fits me, anyway. Whenever too many people spout an opinion, my instinct is to find out what's wrong with it. It's stood me in good stead professionally. 

Maybe another way of looking at it is that it's just a difference in the size of the group. For an Italian, at least until pretty recently, the only group that counted was his extended family, maybe the people within sound of his campanile. For northerners, they think of their group as the country or even the "tribe". 

Or maybe these outdated, in my opinion, social "science" theories have so focused on the relative lack of attachment between individual and family in the north versus the south that they ignore other societal and cultural manifestations. Again, in my opinion, it's just the same old self-glorifying, bias driven examination of phenomena as was engaged in by old Weber and his "Protestant work ethic." It's bunk. I grew up where the "old days" were within memory of my relatives. Indeed, some of them had lived through them themselves. The poor peasants worked every hour God sends. What made them less hard-working? Was it that they didn't work during the three hours of the day when the sun beating down on you can give you heat stroke? I've seen northern Europeans trying to carry on during the hours of 12-3 during the summer. They drop like flies. The peasants woke before dawn and worked as long as the light held. Then they fixed tools or sewed and knitted by lamp light. People spout a bunch of nonsense which just shows their ignorance. The hardship and hard work was carved into their faces and their bones. They didn't need to tell you about it.

Plus, as you pointed out, modern banking and capitalism was invented in Italy, primarily as family enterprises, but also as associations of families. "Family firms" as we call them here, have their benefits, but they also have their disadvantages, as you pointed out, and in some cases, indeed, more disadvantages than advantages. (One you didn't mention is the reluctance to relocate because of family reasons.) Still, just speaking personally, I tried working for a huge national firm, and I found it soul destroying and creativity destroying. It's been either a family firm or self-employment for me, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Anyone who thinks they can trust a corporation with their destiny is fooling themselves, in my opinion. I want to control my own destiny as much as possible, economically as well as in every other way. If at all possible, I want to work for myself, or if not, for my family, whom I know I can trust.

----------


## Northener

> Here is another good example. People in north are more bylaw obeying. For example in north people will wait for a green light to cross the road. People in south treat red light more like a suggestion. Same goes for all traffic regulations. How does this go with individualism vs collectivism?
> Here is one more. People in north will lie more often not to hurt someone's feelings, about their cooking, how others dress or behave, and generally are more politically correct. I'm not sure if it denotes more tolerance or compassion, or obedience, but definitely helps a collective life of a group by avoiding confrontation. People in south are more direct with their opinion. Again, I'm not sure if it is due to being more emotional, or contrarian, more egoistic, strong willed, but surely it is more individualistic.
> 
> Also, statistically speaking, people in north tend to share more with others, either by obediently paying taxes or giving freely to charities. People in south tend to share less with strangers but are more generous to immediate family. Which one, you might think, is more collective? My pet hypothesis is that this is hunter-gatherer vs farmer issue, expressed through natural selection. 
> South is more farmer like, farmers have private fields which benefit family first. If they have more then they share with a village. If father and mother die, kids usually die too (in the past). Hunters-gatherers live in multifamily groups, they all hunt and gather together, then they share and eat together. Whole group is the "family", a big commune. When mother and father dies there is not much change for their kids, because the group will still share equally. In this case, by law of natural selection, Europeans with more h-g admixture should be more sharing/collective, while with more farmer admixture more possessive/individualistic, well family sharing oriented.
> 
> I know the big argument, for north being more individualistic, is an example of people of the north being entrepreneurial capitalist in nature, therefore more greedy-individualistic. I'm sure the entrepreneurs need to be individualistic-leader like, but the biggest part in it is that ones from north are more collective (more hunter gatherer). It means that they will embrace anybody from society to work in their company and most importantly in management, as long as they have the best skills for positions. Entrepreneur from south will be more inclined to give positions to immediate family first, the farmer's way. Therefore he will not get the best talent to run the company. Multiply this by last couple of hundreds of years of capitalism and voila, this little advantage of hiring better talent for positions is giving north Europe economic advantage over south. Mind you that south was economically ahead most of the history till 17th century, thanks to family-feudal oriented ways. The best way how to control production from the land. It sees that now however, in times of industrial and free market capitalist economy, the north is ahead. And it might be due to more collective nature of running business.
> 
> Off course there will be other differences in character of people to account for north/south differences and how economies and countries are run. I was just emphasizing things suiting current discussion best.


I can see that you have never cycled through Amsterdam or another major city in the Netherlands LeBrok ;) That's the art of crossing trough the street, sometimes take the footpath, just enough not to make accidents, but no more no less, on the edge;) And you can ask the neighboring Belgians here (Maciamo, Bicicleur); the Dutch are famous for their blunt, rude behavior....There are differences between calvinistic North and much more law abiding Lutheran North....

Of course the Italians have an awe-inspiring and grand old culture!! Deep bow. And my twelve years old twins still learn Latin (besides Greek). No Italian learns Dutch so I know my place.....

But in the case of the development of the modern society the North Sea area did accelerate! The HBD chick made this very clear:

“‘Rather than focus on why Europe diverged from the rest in 1800 we should be asking why the North Sea diverged from the rest in 1000.

By 1200 Western Europe has a GDP per capita higher than most parts of the world, but (with two exceptions) by 1500 this number stops increasing. In both data sets the two exceptions are Netherlands and Great Britain. These North Sea economies experienced sustained GDP per capita growth for six straight centuries. The North Sea begins to diverge from the rest of Europe long before the ‘West’ begins its more famous split from ‘the rest.’


“[W]e can pin point the beginning of this ‘little divergence’ with greater detail. In 1348 Holland’s GDP per capita was $876. England’s was $777. In less than 60 years time Holland’s jumps to $1,245 and England’s to 1090. The North Sea’s revolutionary divergence started at this time.“

Seems without discussion.

Her explanation is as follows:
" The combination of two not wholly dissimilar groups (franks+frisians, for instance), with one of the groups being very outbred (the franks) and the other being an in-betweener group (the frisians), seems perhaps to be a winning one. the outbred group might provide enough open, trusting, trustworthy, cooperative, commonweal-oriented members to the union, while the in-betweener group might provide a good dose of hamilton’s “self-sacrificial daring” that he reckoned might contribute to renaissances."

Interesting :Thinking: 

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/going-dutch/


And yes this Dutch golden age culture was a blue print for New York:

“While short-lived, the seventeenth-century Dutch colony of New Netherland had a lasting impact on the continent’s development by laying down the cultural DNA for what is now Greater New York City. Modeled on its Dutch namesake, New Amsterdam was from the start a global commercial trading society: multi-ethnic, multi-religious, speculative, materialistic, mercantile, and free trading, a raucous, not entirely democratic city-state where no one ethnic or religious group has ever truly been in charge. New Netherland also nurtured two Dutch innovations considered subversive by most other European states at the time: a profound tolerance of diversity and an unflinching commitment to the freedom of inquiry. Forced on the other nations at the Constitutional Convention, these ideals have been passed down to us as the Bill of Rights.”

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2016/...w-york-values/

And the Italians, always the clannish family comes first. Sometimes a strength. But in modern days sometimes a weakness, family first and not the common wealth and it doesn't always combine with a free liberated spirit.....

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/la-famiglia/
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/...an-inbreeding/

----------


## Angela

Yada, yada, yada. Don't you people ever get a new song book?

----------


## Northener

> Yada, yada, yada. Don't you people ever get a new song book?


Just for fun, see this (ok romanticized) movie fragment of John Adams visiting the Dutch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj1cgBI5rdI

And Obama who went recently to the Rijksmuseum not just to watch the Nachtwacht but also to watch 'het plakkaat van verlatinge' (1581) in which the Dutch declared their independence from the Spanish. This is a blue print for the Declaration of Independence (1776)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOEBQQEPCVY

Know your history Angela! ;)

----------


## Northener

> People in north will lie more often not to hurt someone's feelings, about their cooking, how others dress or behave, and generally are more politically correct. I'm not sure if it denotes more tolerance or compassion, or obedience, but definitely helps a collective life of a group by avoiding confrontation. People in south are more direct with their opinion. Again, I'm not sure if it is due to being more emotional, or contrarian, more egoistic, strong willed, but surely it is more individualistic.


I just saw a review about this book on tv I thought immediately about your remark LeBrok.
It's called Praise of Bluntness with a ;) reference to Erasmus Praise of Folly. The book is about the Dutch Golden Age....
http://www.singeluitgeverijen.nl/que...f-der-botheid/

----------


## LeBrok

> I just saw a review about this book on tv I thought immediately about your remark LeBrok.
> It's called Praise of Bluntness with a ;) reference to Erasmus Praise of Folly. The book is about the Dutch Golden Age....
> http://www.singeluitgeverijen.nl/que...f-der-botheid/


Thanks for consideration. 
I have one more example that points to the fact that faster economic development does not denote individualistic society. Have a look at Japan. The most developed country in Asia, on par with Northern Europe. Yet, we both agree, that Japan can be classified more as collective society, with individualism in very short supply. Perhaps more collective than any single European country could be?

----------


## Angela

> Just for fun, see this (ok romanticized) movie fragment of John Adams visiting the Dutch:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj1cgBI5rdI
> 
> And Obama who went recently to the Rijksmuseum not just to watch the Nachtwacht but also to watch 'het plakkaat van verlatinge' (1581) in which the Dutch declared their independence from the Spanish. This is a blue print for the Declaration of Independence (1776)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOEBQQEPCVY
> 
> Know your history Angela! ;)


You know my intellectual history some how? Obviously not, or you would know that I got both an undergraduate and graduate degree in European history before getting a doctorate in another subject.

I don't need you to instruct me in history. You may know something about the history of your own country, but you clearly haven't studied anything else in any depth.

I would also suggest that you read some European social history or sociology written after 1980 or so, or maybe even 1970 or so, and perhaps remove your Nordicist blinders.

As to "bluntness", which is just another way of saying "rudeness" and "bad manners", I do remember seeing some survey by Europeans about Europeans where it was claimed the Dutch are the most "blunt". I concede the award to you.

----------


## Northener

> You know my intellectual history some how? Obviously not, or you would know that I got both an undergraduate and graduate degree in European history before getting a doctorate in another subject.
> 
> I don't need you to instruct me in history. You may know something about the history of your own country, but you clearly haven't studied anything else in any depth.
> 
> I would also suggest that you read some European social history or sociology written after 1980 or so, or maybe even 1970 or so, and perhaps remove your Nordicist blinders.
> 
> As to "bluntness", which is just another way of saying "rudeness" and "bad manners", I do remember seeing some survey by Europeans about Europeans where it was claimed the Dutch are the most "blunt". I concede the award to you.


Thanks ;) When you were rewarding, 19.09 local time, me I enjoyed a delicious 'saltimbocca' in an Italian restaurant in the city!

Of course I don't need to instruct you in history.....may be this was the blunt Dutchman. I really enjoy most of your postings. But I must admit that you sometimes show some Latin prejudices and typical style (in my more northern eyes fast furious).....No problem..... Like that. Different spices stimulate the quality of the diner. 

But come on sometimes a little teaser, nothing more nothing less, from a Dutchman won't hurt..does it? (I think NY city bluntness is famous too....you probably are used to it, and your president elect has it at least to the max, I guess we will get more bluntness than we will appreciate ;)

And besides some posting I really don''t know your intellectual history, ar you an historian?

----------


## Northener

> Thanks for consideration. 
> I have one more example that points to the fact that faster economic development does not denote individualistic society. Have a look at Japan. The most developed country in Asia, on par with Northern Europe. Yet, we both agree, that Japan can be classified more as collective society, with individualism in very short supply. Perhaps more collective than any single European country could be?


I think it's balanced LeBrok, yes individualistic, but also embarrassment of the riches, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Em...ment_of_Riches.....

----------

