OUTBREEDING, COUSIN MARRIAGE AND VIOLENCE I do understand that genetics are impo

OUTBREEDING, COUSIN MARRIAGE AND VIOLENCE

I do understand that genetics are important to the differences between groups, but I study institutions, not genes.

“…To get rid of violence, you could get rid of clannishness. and to get rid of clannishness, you need to get rid of inbreeding. which is exactly what happened in medieval Europe starting in the early part of the period. the roman catholic church, supported by secular authorities, banned cousin and other close marriages beginning in 506.

“Enforcement of the various cousin marriage bans, which ranged from first to sixth cousins depending on what century you’re talking about, wasn’t easy — at least not in the beginning. the church, for instance, didn’t require that a marriage ceremony take place in a church until something like 1000 or 1100, so enforcement by the church in the early middle ages was probably patchy at best.

“However, there were LOTS of secular laws throughout nw Europe banning close marriage, including very much so in anglo-saxon England. just a couple of examples: the law of Wihtred from the 690s outlawed cousin marriage — and the punishment for cousin marriage in another anglo-saxon law from sometime the 900s-1000s was slavery for the perpetrators. again, difficult to know how well these laws were enforced; but that there were plenty of such laws indicates that the authorities were keen to do something about all this close marriage.

“The law of Wihtred is, i think, the earliest anglo-saxon law that i’ve come across which made cousin marriage illegal (at least in the part of England where the law of Wihtred applied). so the push against inbreeding in anglo-saxon England started at least as early as 690 a.d. again, it may not have been very effective at that point, but England’s outbreeding project had begun by that point.

“lorraine lancaster, still considered the authority on anglo-saxon kinship, concluded that, although its importance was beginning to wane (as indicated by a shift in who would be awarded wergeld in the event of a crime against a person, that person’s kinsmen or their guild), an individual’s extended kindred remained of importance in anglo-saxon/english society well into the 1000s. that suggests to me that “clannishness” was still around in the 1000s in England. feuding was definitely still a regular event.

“The situation had changed quite a bit by the 1300s when nuclear families were all the rage and englishmen no longer relied so extensively on their extended families. people were still violent in 1300s England, but of course the shift from clannishness to non-clannishness — i.e. from violence to non-violence — would’ve taken some time. evolution doesn’t happen overnight.

_____

The state’s monopoly on violence and outbreeding don’t have to be mutually exclusive explanations for why there may have been a genetic change in nw europeans leading to a decline in violent behaviors. the answer might be both. like Jayman said…

–“Inbreeding, and hence clannishness, can interfere with this process, because while the State is selecting for less violent people, clan conflict presents a counteracting selective pressure for people who are more violent (and can fight feuds).”–

“…so in places where inbreeding has not abated or did not abate as early as in England — the arab world/middle east, china (or parts of it anyway), the highlands of Scotland, the Auvergne — the state hasn’t managed to quell violence as easily. the combo of outbreeding + an effective state seems to be a winning one. Better yet if you don’t need such a very strong state (modern nw Europe) and the population is just non-violent naturally.”

-HBD_Chick and Jayman (Doing what academia seems to be afraid to.)