Der Movement marches on.
An analysis of race, nation, and culture in the writings of Herodotus could in theory be an interesting exercise, albeit one not directly relevant to actualizing our goals in our present (and future) reality. Durocher’s Part I didn’t set off any alarm bells, but I knew it would just be a matter of time. Here we have Part II. Let’s look at this self-contradictory paragraph, with the offending sections highlighted:
I would argue that Herodotus’ observations are eminently compatible with a scientific and evolutionary perspective on race/genetics and ethnicity. Race is, especially in geographically contiguous land masses, typically a clinal phenomenon, with gradual change in genetic characteristics (i.e. allele frequencies) as one moves, for instance, from northern Europe to central Africa. While intermarriage tends to spread genes, gene flow is slowed by geographical and ethno-cultural boundaries, leading to significant racial-genetic clumping and differentiation.
First, “northern Europe to central Africa” is not a “geographically contiguous land mass” – being interrupted by that thing usually called “the Mediterranean Sea.” Further, while Africa itself is “contiguous” the Sahara Desert can impede gene flow. So, “northern Europe to central Africa” is hardly the best choice for any discussion of clinal changes in gene frequencies. Then he shifts gears and talks about factors causing “clumping and differentiation” including “geographical…boundaries” – which would actually be something to cite Europe-Africa about, rather than for clinal differences. So: clinal or clumpy?
Which is it? Answer: genetic differentiation tends to be more clinal within continental populations and more “clumpy” between such populations, although in some cases there could be some “somewhat clinal” clumpy differences within continental population groups and “somewhat clumpy” clinal differences at the edges separating some such groups.
Consider this from Durocher:
The birth of a nation, ethnogenesis, occurs when linguistic, cultural, and possibly genetic drift leads a particular population to acquire an ethnic identity distinct from its neighbors. Cultural chauvinism and ethnic sentiment work together in this, magnifying one another: cultural traits such as language and customs become more and more similar within the in-group, while differences with out-groups become more and more marked. Thus, a point on the genetic cline is hardened into a more-or-less discrete ethno-cultural node and genetic cluster: a nation. The degree of nationhood is defined precisely by the population’s level of genetic and cultural commonality.
Where did we ever read that before? Oh, here:
Thus, over time, genetic boundaries can become ever-more-aligned to political and cultural boundaries, particularly when those boundaries are fairly impermeable, distinguishing quite distinct national, political and socio-cultural entities.
Panmixia is NOT required for a better alignment of European genetic interests with actualization of a High Culture. Given a strict “in/out” barrier, over time, given natural processes of low-level gene flow within both “in” and “out” coupled with drift and selection increasing distances between “in” and “out,” the relative genetic distinctiveness between “in” and “out” will increase, and any potential areas of genetic overlap between “in” and “out” will no longer exist.
We have gene-culture evolution becoming gene-High Culture evolution as well as gene-political system evolution.
Hence, the association between genes and political boundaries goes in both directions.
How about this from Durocher:
One does not need a population with an absolutely “pure” lineage for ethnocentrism to be evolutionarily adaptive. On the contrary, one needs only sufficient genetic and cultural similarity for the members of the community to form a common identity and become a solidary in-group, and there must be greater average genetic similarity among individual in-group members than there is between individual in-group members and the members of out-groups they come into conflict with.
That sounds familiar as well:
However, regardless of how modern gene pools came to be, people are not genetically identical – there are differences in genetic kinship and hence in genetic interests, and it is there that we need to focus our attention.
Premise 1 is false. Race does not depend on “purity.” Race can be defined different ways, but is essentially a genetically distinct subpopulation that is characterized by a suite of heritable (i.e., genetic) phenotypic traits distinguished from other such groups. There’s nothing in any reasonable definition of race that includes the idea that a race has to be a hermetically sealed group, absolutely isolated from all other groups from the beginning of time. Thus, racial preservation deals with races and their gene pools as they actually exist today, “warts” and all. The possible existence of past admixture does not in any way suggest that future admixture is inevitable, necessary, or desirable. The ethnic and genetic interests of any group are forward-looking, based on the present and looking toward the future. How the group came into existence – including via admixture – does not change the interests that group has in its continuity and preservation today.
Of course, the concept of ethnic genetic interests (EGI) represents an argument against future admixture, particularly against admixture across wide racial lines; i.e., across a large genetic differentiation. EGI is forward-looking. Genetic interests are considered in the present, to influence decisions that affect the future. Admixture in the past affected the genetic interests of the people at that time. We cannot go back in time and alter decisions made by past peoples that created the ethnies and individuals that exist today.
Today’s peoples are what they are, with genomes that are what they are. We cannot change that. We can only change what future generations will be like, what their genomes, and consequent phenotypes, will be. Genetic interests always look forward. So, again, any individual or ethny today, with whatever ancestral mix, has genetic interests, regardless of how their genomes came to be.
I could cite more, but sifting through my old writings to find either:
1) Ideas generated later regurgitated by the “movement” or
2) Any of the endless series of predictions I’ve made that have come true
Is a tiresome exercise. Not as tiresome – predictably tiresome – as Der Movement, Inc. is though.