Policing identity

by liberal japonicus

The question of identity is always one on my mind, so the CBC report of Buffy Saint-Marie's identity caught my attention. To summarise, Saint-Marie said that she was adopted by a white couple and was part of what is known as the Sixties Scoop, where First Nation children were taken from their parents and forcibly adopted by white middle class parents, the CBC report casts doubt on that. The Guardian article points out how the accusations and claims are not quite so cut and dry.

The fact that Saint-Marie was adopted into the tribe as an adult is not in question, the questions raised are dealing with her birth and youth. The CBC has published what they say are the questions that have to be answered affirmatively before they publish about so called 'pretendarian' claims. They are

• Is this a person of significant influence?
• Has this person benefited from their claims of Indigenous identity?
• Has this person shaped public perceptions of what it means to be Indigenous in Canada?
• Has this person taken space or opportunities away from others who might rightly deserve them?

I myself have a bit of difficulty seeing how the CBC was able to confidently answer yes to all those questions.

As often happens, a different article I read seems connected to this. This Guardian article discusses a case of harassment of an Australian doctor of aboriginal descent by another doctor, who was punished with a 1 year license renewal suspension. A few key grafs:

On 19 July 2022, the GP emailed Rallah-Baker’s ophthalmology practice, Sunshine Coast Ophthalmologists, with comments that had an “immediate, profound emotional toll” on the First Nations man, tribunal documents show.

According to the statement of facts agreed by both parties, the email read: “You are not full blood are you? Half? Quarter? One eight? Like a watered down bottle of Grange. Not the real thing. I have attached two photos of what real aboriginals look like just to remind you.”

The GP also went on to express his disaffection towards the Closing the Gap (CTG) pharmaceutical benefit scheme (PBS) co-payment program.

“To obtain a PBS subsidy for simple modified release paracetamol a patient MUST be aboriginal. This is not means tested. So rich dudes like you … could get your Panadol Osteo for absolutely NO CHARGE under the CTG legislation but my struggling old age pensioners with their osteoarthritis have to buy it at full cost.”

This paper by Ive Goddard, deals with Red Thunder Cloud, a famous pretendarian and this line from his last paragraph seems like a good line to end with. "Cromwell Ashbie Hawkins West's life as Red Thunder Cloud confronts us with basic questions of race and identity that are emblematic of our age."

Comments

[Nigel]

In a completely different context, this is also fascinating on the subject of identity.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2023/11/356_362731.html
...On Saturday, Ihn, a naturalized American Korean, visited a seminar in Busan to see Lee. However, Lee addressed Ihn in English, referring to him by his English name, John Linton, rather than addressing him in Korean using his Korean name.

"I really hoped that at today's seminar, you and I can come to a common ground at some point, but I have to tell you at this point that you have failed to meet the prerequisites for coming here," Lee said.

Lee cited the PPP's defeat in a recent by-election for a district mayor seat in Seoul, and claimed Ihn and the party are not hearing the voices of the people. "If you abide by their language and do not defy them, then I'll be more than happy to talk with you, but as of now, you have failed to meet the prerequisite."

Lee said that he spoke to Ihn in English because "you became one of us, but you don't look like one of us, as of now" urging him to speak "in the same language as we do."

Ihn, who was born and raised in Korea, is a fluent Korean speaker and regards Korean as his first language.

On Monday, he expressed his disappointment, saying, "I was born in Jeolla Province and naturalized as Korean, but Lee treated me like a foreigner by speaking in English."

Though Lee explained in a YouTube clip on Sunday that he used English "in consideration of language proficiency." This triggered controversy over whether Lee's choice of language was racially discriminative...

[liberal japonicus]

Nigel, thanks, that was interesting. It's hard to tell exactly what is going on, the constant churn of parties breaking up and reforming is a constant in recent Korean politics. Lee Jun-Seok seems to be damaged goods
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Young-head-of-South-Korea-s-ruling-party-ousted-by-old-timers

https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20221007000619

So I wonder if that figures into this. Here's an article with a bit more detail about the encounter
https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20231106004200315

[Girl from the North Country]

Fascinating. I did not know before the Buffy Saint-Marie case that pretendarian was even a word. Does it pre-date Rachel Dollezal, I wonder?

[liberal japonicus]

The wikipedia page doesn't give a date of first usage, but lots of other details
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretendian

[Girl from the North Country]

Got it, thanks lj. I'm still in bed so it's hard to look things up on my phone.

[JanieM]

lj: The question of identity is always one on my mind

Me too. Just a couple of things for now, maybe more later:

1. I had a calendar print of this painting tacked on my wall for years. Valuable prizes to anyone who can match my own explanation of why. Let's just say that The Library of Congress factoids on this painting leave out something glaringly important, I would say the whole point of the painting, in fact. Whether that's political correctness, ignorance, or what, I have no idea.

2. Even at my half-assed level of dabbling in genealogical research, I have had to conclude that all "facts" are provisional. I say this after running across several instances of data (dates, particularly) that don't match across sources that you would wish to consider reliable. Nothing like birth certificates, mind you, among the items I found, but even then....

There's a damned if you do and damned if you don't quality to being of mixed race/ethnicity/etc. You can face boundary maintenance, or the equivalent of the "one drop rule" from both directions, or all directions, as the case may be.

And yes, I do realize that mixed ethnicity is not what's being alleged in Buffy Sainte-Marie's case. But mixed ethnicity (race, heritage, any of a number of axes) is certainly important in talking about "identity."

[JanieM]

Related: long ago, hairshirthedonist gave an explanation of what he thinks "Puerto Rican" might mean genetically. hsh -- correct me if I'm garbling it, but IIRC you postulated that the mixing of DNA from a variety of sources in a place like Puerto Rico would/might eventually settle into a stable pattern of its own.

I would put that observation/speculation next to my own musings about the variability of what *I* think "non-binary" means in relation to gender.

[wonkie]

I find it incredible that Buffy Ste Marie would be entirely Caucasian. To me, it is more likely that her mom had a fling and her parents decided to use adoption as a cover story, rather than get divorced over the cuckoo in the nest. But whatever.

I just finished reading a book called "Thinning Blood" written by a woman who is an enrolled member of the Jamestown S'Kallam based on one grandparent. She was raised in the South with very little contact with the tribe. Her grandmother married white and raised the kids to "pass" as white. Her mother didn't try to cover up being Native, but didn't "re-indigenize" either.

The author uses S'Kallam traditional motifs such as Raven, Hummingbird, and Bear to trace her family history and their identities both as individuals and as people with a genetic and cultural connection to the tribe. Because of tribal admission requirements, (You have to have one full blood grandparent) the author is the last person of her linage to be eligible for tribal membership. There are only about 600 enrolled tribal members, most mixed race, which means that the tribe, while affluent from tribal businesses, is only a generation or two from no longer existing, based on their blood quantum requirements. Ironically, the tribe is the largest employer in the county.

The question of "Are you Native?" has been in the author's face all of her life from every direction. Another factor (that doesn't come into the author's narrative) is wealth. Contrary to the stereotype of poverty, many Native communities are astonishingly wealthy. Every Seminole teenager gets half a million dollars upon graduation from high school. Chippewa tribe on the edge of Minneapolis pays every adult and annual income of fifty thousand a year. An SE Cherokee nation gives every 18 year old 250,000 plus pays all of their living expenses and tuition for any kind of post high school education they want.

Unearned wealthy tends to turn people into assholes. Are some tribes a generation away from being young Koch brothers shitheads? Playboys and girls flinging money around in pursuit of more wealth, more power, or more material stuff for me, me, me? This rags to riches happened at warp speed, fueled by casinos. The people who created the wealth are the current tribal leaders, but what will happen when the beneficiaries who didn't create the wealth take over?

Will there be a change in values?

This question of what is a Native is a real one. I have a friend who is without question Native. She took one of those DNA tests and was surprised to come out 3% Caucasian. She has four daughters by a white husband. All are eligible to be tribal members but only one is enrolled. The other three aren't interested. Her tribe is okay from some tribal enterprises but not wealthy. The enrolled daughter has no children. The others have all married out. So...her tribe, too, is losing members.

Weird how Native Americans may genetically disappear at about the same time that tribes become extraordinarily wealthy powerhouses with economic influence and the potential for political influence.

I've been playing around with the idea of a futuristic novel where, two generations from now, wealthy, powerful tribal members re-take America, but with predatory capitalist values.

[Girl from the North Country]

All fascinating stuff, wonkie. I definitely think you should write that novel - I'd read it.

[wonkie]

The Seminoles are rich, but I was wrong on the payout system: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/far-right-moms-for-liberty-school-board-candidates-lose-races-in-5-states/ar-AA1jAGmM?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=2052ed3e61e6495b9bd340afffbfba1f&ei=10

[wj]

basic questions of race and identity that are emblematic of our age.

I expect that, in another generation, we will have to throw up our hands, and just struggle with identity. For the simple reason that DNA testing is getting really cheap -- and routinely finds that people have ancestors from racial and ethnic groups that they never imagined. (I definitely got a surprise that way.) Once you accept that pretty much everybody (especially in the US) is a mongrel, the question of race becomes either unanswerable or ludicrously superficial.

Identity is both easier and harder. A lot depends on just how (and where) you were raised. Which then becomes a question of how acculturated are you? And at what point does your identity change? If it does. I foresee a bull market in Anthropology PhDs on the topic.

[wj]

I did not know before the Buffy Saint-Marie case that pretendarian was even a word. Does it pre-date Rachel Dollezal, I wonder?

I don't know about the word. But there is a long history in the US of whites claiming to have a Native American ancestor. (Generally at least 3 generations back, and with the gender of said ancestor very carefully avoided.)

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Do I get a prize for having some Neanderthal DNA, or do I have to fight Ugh for it?

Maybe we need a club. In both senses.

[Michael Cain]

For the simple reason that DNA testing is getting really cheap -- and routinely finds that people have ancestors from racial and ethnic groups that they never imagined.

I've never bothered with DNA testing. The only surprising thing it could tell me is that I'm not a mongrel. Not only is there the US thing, but known family lines go back into the dockside parish in Liverpool where most anything could have been mixed in.

[wj]

I've never bothered with DNA testing.

I'm not sure I count as "having bothered." My siblings gave it to me (Ancestry, I think) as a birthday present -- no idea why. None of us saw 1/8 Ashkenazi coming.

[wonkie]

About policing identity: As a fan of Georgette Heyer Regency novels, I've also read several history books about that era. Policing for class was a big issue. Are you in the ton? Are you good enough for Almacks? Are you Quality? Who are you?
Policing for identity increases when there's a perceived threat. The threat to Native Americans is that their DNA will get diluted to the point of...meaninglessness (what does the DNA mean?). In the case of Regency England, the threat was to the smug assumption of innate superiority due to "breeding". The Quality actually spoke that way of themselves! Breeding, as in livestock, led to superior humans, in the views of the Quality. That superior status, which was associated with unearned wealthy from estates, was under attack by the "mushroom class", middle class upstarts who wanted to get entry into "the best circles" or rich merchants who wanted to buy their way in by selling their daughters to "Quality" who didn't have money.
That continued obsession about who was in and who was out continued for decades. "The Buccaneers" is about rich American woman cruising around Europe, hoping to marry an aristocrat who needed an infusion of cash.
I don't know how the class thing plays out in England anymore. I have the vague impression that the concept of hereditary class has disintegrated to class based on wealth.
We don't seem to have many people in the US pretending to be African American, though there was a case of that in Spokane several years ago. I remember what seemed to me to be a half-hearted discussion of whether or not Obama was Black, or a real Black person or whatever.
Oh, about pretendians: McCarthy's brother-in-law has profited from claiming to be Native :https://moguldom.com/370873/maga-congressmans-family-got-7-million-from-us-program-after-claiming-to-be-native-american/

The reason nearly anyone can claim to be Cherokee is because the criterion for membership is so open. All you need is someone who had a Cherokee grandparent back in the mind 1800's. Even if every other member of your family tree was white, you can still make the claim. The tribe has a two-tier system, however; to be a voting member or to get benefits, you need a closer connection than that.

[JanieM]

I remember what seemed to me to be a half-hearted discussion of whether or not Obama was Black, or a real Black person or whatever.

This raises a features of "identity" that lj's post has had me thinking about today: that we use the same labels for citizenship, culture, and DNA/race/ethnicity, in a very fuzzy and overlapping way. What is "French"? What is "Canadian"? How is "Canadian" Buffy S-M's heritage if she has never lived in Canada? (Just a rhetorical question. I dislike the sanctimonious, gotcha tone of the CBC article and would lean more toward the feeling of the Guardian follow-up.)

This relates to Obama because starting at about the time of Jesse Jackson's first run for president, it seemed likely to me that the first Black president (if we ever got that far) would be someone whose Black ancestry was *not* on this continent. And -- lo and behold. (Maybe this opinion will get me in trouble. Well, it's hard to talk about any of this without getting in trouble with someone.)

So -- Obama is genetically Black on his father's side, but culturally...well, as far as his upbringing goes, that's kind of complicated, isn't it? There's the life he led, and the assumptions and conditions forced on him from the outside because of the color of his skin. (Not that that tension is unique to him.)

[Dave Wallace]

@wonkie at 11:26: That link doesn't seem to be relevant. Here's one I found that suggests "it's complicated," although it doesn't list specific dollar values: https://www.indiancountryextension.org/how-much-do-seminole-indians-receive-in-tribal-payments

[Hartmut]

What about people of black (genetic) heritage that claimed to be of American Indian descent in the one-drop era (because the official discrimination for the latter was less)? Are they the same kind of pretendians?
I remember reading that this became such a 'problem' for white racists that they erased the disctinction and even changed the public records (far back into the past) in order to not let a single n-word get through the net (so many actual American Indians suddenly became n-words in the eye of the state).

[hairshirthedonist]

Related: long ago, hairshirthedonist gave an explanation of what he thinks "Puerto Rican" might mean genetically. hsh -- correct me if I'm garbling it, but IIRC you postulated that the mixing of DNA from a variety of sources in a place like Puerto Rico would/might eventually settle into a stable pattern of its own.

I'd go as far as to say that it may have already.

I have one Puerto Rican great grandparent and AncestryDNA can identify ancestry specifically from central and eastern Puerto Rico and southeastern Puerto Rico. The Puerto Ricans among the people who share identical strands of DNA with me far outnumber the non-Puerto Ricans. Beyond that, the number of genetic matches I share with a given Puerto Rican genetic match is, on average, vastly greater than that of a given non-Puerto Rican genetic match.

Even if I randomly pick a Puerto Rican genetic match with whom I share a small amount of identical DNA, they will typically have more genetic matches in common with me than a non-Puerto Rican 2nd cousin.

I'm guessing that part of the high numbers of Puerto Rican genetic matches and genetic matches in common with them is that a high percentage of Puerto Ricans get their DNA tested because they're admixed and often don't know how much European, African, and Taino (and other, but those are predominant) ancestry they have, so there's a high level of curiosity. The rest is that Puerto Rico is a relatively small island that's been without significant immigration for more than a century.

So I'd say Puerto Ricans are as genetically distinct as most other populations you can come up with - probably more so than many of them. It's just that the mindset of the people doing the sampling is to figure out where your ancestors lived between 500 and 1000 years ago. To them, places like Puerto Rico are "genetic communities," not places of ethnic origin (other than for the category of "Indigenous Puerto Rico," which is estimated at 1% for me).

[bobbyp]

As a self identified hair brained utopian socialist (with anarcho-syndicalist leanings)...this discussion reminds me why I call for ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT...well that, and to drive conservative nutjobs crazy.

[JanieM]

a self identified hair brained utopian socialist (with anarcho-syndicalist leanings)

We are kindred spirits, as I have suspected all along. ;-)

Let's start a club! And keep "the wrong kind" out!

But seriously, this whole conversation has been reminding me of a Guardian piece someone sent me recently by a woman who IIRC had been diagnosed with ADHD as an adult. And somewhere in the article she talked about how these distinctions and diagnoses have to be made because social services help, or special help in school, isn't available without an official diagnosis and label.

My response, in talking to the friend who sent me the article was: everyone should just get what they need educationally. Sheesh. Is that so damned hard? But no, we have to dribble out help as stingily as possible, because for some reason we also *have to* allow assholes like Elon Musk et hoc genus omne can hoard the wealth.

The relevance to ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT is that that too (to me) is a way of saying everyone should get what they need. But it wouldn't eliminate tribalism, cultural distinctions, etc. Who owns the definition of pizza? Or sushi....

[Michael Cain]

I remember what seemed to me to be a half-hearted discussion of whether or not Obama was Black, or a real Black person or whatever.

As I recall, when Harris was named for the VP slot, there was a rash of things printed about her not being "authentically" Black. My impression at the time was that if you grew up west of about 100° west longitude, or outside the US, you weren't authentic.

[wonkie]

Embarrassing! Yeah, I posted the wrong link. Here's some better ones: https://compacom.com/blog/seminole-tribe-story-of-success#:~:text=The%20thriving%20casinos%20and%20related%20ventures%20have%20paved,of%20%2484%2C000%2C%20primarily%20from%20profits%20generated%20through%20casinos.
https://moneyinc.com/richest-native-american-tribes/

Casino money has transformed the tribe nearest where I live in a positive way. Socialism works! I used to work there, and they have a thriving community.

[wj]

My impression at the time was that if you grew up west of about 100° west longitude, or outside the US, you weren't authentic.

My impression was that it was more like, unless both of your parents were at least partially descended from those who were slaves, you aren't authentic.

[Girl from the North Country]

well that, and to drive conservative nutjobs crazy.

Sufficient reason for almost anything.

Reminds me of the marvellous, and possibly true, story of Gilbert Harding (the irascible late British journalist and TV personality) applying for a US visa, and having to answer a question which I seem to remember was still on the form when I first applied years ago:

Asked on a US visa application "Do you intend to undermine the Constitution of the United States of America" he replied "Sole purpose of visit", a reply that many people in Britain felt was the only sensible reply to a very silly question. He was nearly denied a visa.

[Michael Cain]

"Do you intend to undermine the Constitution of the United States of America?"

I wonder what they would do with "No, I intend to convince 38 state legislatures to call a convention and rewrite the damned thing."

[Snarki, child of Loki]

hsh, about genetic testing in PR: "so there's a high level of curiosity. The rest is that Puerto Rico is a relatively small island"

IIRC, there's a gov't program test does genetic testing on close to 100% of Icelanders.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"Do you intend to undermine the Constitution of the United States of America?"

I prefer the one about immigration to Australia: "Have you been convicted of a felony?"

"I didn't know that was still a requirement."

[nous]

IIRC, there's a gov't program test does genetic testing on close to 100% of Icelanders.

Not only this, but there is an app they can download that lets them put in their IDs while they are at a bar and check percentages of DNA match before hooking up with someone.

Seriously.

[hairshirthedonist]

I probably related (no pun) the story of my friends (a married couple) being propositioned with the question, “Are you interested in hooking up with locals?” while in Iceland. I wonder if it’s an easy way for Icelanders to avoid, um … relations with relations.

[nous]

I wonder if it’s an easy way for Icelanders to avoid, um … relations with relations.

So I have been told by Icelanders (though not in the midst of that specific context;).

[JanieM]

I realize that Icelanders are far more closely related to each other (on average? can I say it that way?) than, let's say, Americans. But even the Catholic Church allows marriages between second cousins, or even first cousins with special permission, assuming it's legal in the relevant location. (See here.)

So ... at what degree of relatedness are Icelanders hesitant to have ... relations?

Look, I'm not the one who brought up the subject... ;-)

[hairshirthedonist]

The problem for Icelanders is that they may be 3rd cousins and 4th cousins once removed and half-2nd cousins once removed and double-5th cousins all at once, thereby not having an obvious close relationship but still sharing lots of DNA.

[JanieM]

Thanks hsh. And -- whew.

But then, in a context where tourists are being propositioned (?), and presumably birth control of some sort will be used, i.e., no offspring are expected ... what's the difference?

[JanieM]

I mean, more seriously, it seems like it would matter if you were going to have kids. If you weren't going to have kids, but you still didn't want to have sex with someone too closely related to you, that's a different kind of hesitation.

And in the kind of scenario you give as an example, I wonder how people decide how much consanguinity is too much consanguinity?

[liberal japonicus]

I thought that Auden, when he visited Iceland before WWII, commented on Iceland's free spirited ways, but I can't find a reference for that.

My favorite bit of Icelandic trivia is that if you become an Icelandic citizen, you have to take a name from a list of acceptable Icelandic names. Vladimir Ashkenazy was given a dispensation, and so iiuc, the name is on the list of acceptable names.

Ashkenazy's naming isn't in the wikipedia page on the Icelandic naming committee because the process was overhauled in the 90's and foreigners and their children can retain their names, but there are a few other interesting controversies.

[nous]

I’ve always figured that the issue wasn’t the consanguinity as much as it is the dangerous recessives, and tracking where you might end up with that being a potential problem with an unplanned pregnancy.

[Hartmut]

But to my knowldge it is still necessary to adjust one's name, so it can be properly declined according to Icelandic grammar.

[Hartmut]

Wouldn't be a problem for me: Harmoður Jörgensson.
I once tried to learn Icelandic but I was not overly successful.
Just enough to go Lovecraftian:

þađ er Cþul(h)u
þursa drottnari
Skrímsli stjörnur
Skelfing hann er manna
Dauður en dreymandi
Sinn dagur mun koma
Rikir brjálædi
En birta er ekki

[liberal japonicus]

forgot to add the link

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

[liberal japonicus]

Hartmut's 2:09 is very interesting, in that 'pretendarian' seems to only be applicable if there is a particular kind of advantage. If someone is forced to pretend in order to stay alive, I don't think the label would apply.

For African-Americans and Native Americans, wonkie mentioned about Cherokee and how anyone could claim that heritage, but it's a bit trickier than that. There was the issue with black Cherokee that has been adjudicated, but

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

As Janie pointed ut

[liberal japonicus]

Whoops, didn't finish that.

Janie pointed out the policing that goes one, and the last paragraph is interesting to read when thinking about that.

"In 2021, the Cherokee Nation's Supreme Court ruled to remove the words "by blood" from its constitution and other legal doctrines because "[t]he words, added to the constitution in 2007, have been used to exclude Black people whose ancestors were enslaved by the tribe from obtaining full Cherokee Nation citizenship rights."[6] However, all citizenship is still based on finding an ancestor tied to the Dawes Rolls, which is not without its own controversy apart from blood quantum.[131][132] Some people of descent are still excluded, like the author Shonda Buchanan who states in her memoir Black Indian that she has ancestors on Cherokee Rolls that were not the Dawes, so would thus still not be recognized.[133] Basing citizenship off the Dawes Rolls and other rolls is what scholar Fay A. Yarbrough calls "dramatically different from older conceptions of Cherokee identity based on clan relationship’s, in which individuals could be fully Cherokee without possessing any Cherokee ancestry" and that by the tribe later "developing a quantifiable definition of Cherokee identity based on ancestry", this "would dramatically affect the process of enrollment late in the nineteenth century and the modern procedure of obtaining membership in the Cherokee Nation, both of which require tracing and individuals’ lineage to a ‘Cherokee by blood.’" Thus, the Dawes Roll itself still upholds "by blood" language and theory.[134]"

[Pro Bono]

I don't know how the class thing plays out in England anymore. I have the vague impression that the concept of hereditary class has disintegrated to class based on wealth.

It still exists. Alan Clark, an unpleasant Conservative MP, wrote in his diary about Michael Heseltine, best known for his leadership challenge against Margaret Thatcher:

The trouble with Michael is that he had to buy all his furniture

He claimed to be quoting Michael Jopling, then Chief Whip, so that's at least two Tories who think it vulgar not to have inherited one's furniture.
So far as I know Heseltine and Jopling are both still alive, and in the Lords. (I'm not trying to contradict myself in saying that.)

More snobbery: when Clark's relations with three related women were reported in the tabloids, his wife remarked of the unwelcome publicity

Well, what do you expect when you sleep with below-stairs types?

[wj]

I’ve always figured that the issue wasn’t the consanguinity as much as it is the dangerous recessives, and tracking where you might end up with that being a potential problem with an unplanned pregnancy.

But the whole point of consanguinity restrictions** is to avoid reinforcing recessives in times when the very concept of genes and recessives (let alone DNA) was unknown. Our ancestors may have lacked the science to explain why. But they were observant enough to notice that too close relationships let to problems. And not just with hemophiliac European royalty.

**once you get past incest relationships, which are a whole separate issue

[JanieM]

Not exactly a pretendian phenomenon, but in the same general vicinity of boundary maintenance, group rivalries, etc., a tweet about last night's debate:

Too little discussion of Ramaswamy’s contempt for Haley bc her family is Sikh & his family is Brahmin

H/T Anne Laurie at BJ.

But also, if you think there is enough knowledge in the electorate at large (aside from Indian-Americans themselves) to know that Brahmins look down on Sikhs (and everyone else, for that matter?), then you are delusional. I guess if all you care about is pundits talking to pundits, you might have a point.

[Hartmut]

What percentage of the voters will even know that Haley is of Indian descent (I mean before her rivals will use it to disqualify her in the eyes of the racist base)? And (male) Sikhs are notoriously confused with Muslims (beard and turban can only mean one thing). She doesn't look that part.
I still have doubts that the GOP will choose her should The Orange One be unavailable. She is female after all. In Congress that could be tolerated (see MTG) but actually leading the ticket???

[nous]

But the whole point of consanguinity restrictions** is to avoid reinforcing recessives in times when the very concept of genes and recessives (let alone DNA) was unknown.

Yes, but my point was that once you have a database with every member of your population in it, you don't have to filter by degree of relation and can skip straight to the problematic genes as the field for which to select. Not all close relations would have the problematic genes and not all people with the problematic genes need be closely related.

[wj]

Oh, no question that checking genetics (and "gene cleaning", once the technology gets that far) is a better way to go. On the other hand, getting a culture to change, as we have seen repeatedly, is a much slower and more problematic deal.

[hairshirthedonist]

Gattaca?

[nous]

Gattákur.

[wonkie]

I don't think ethnicity or gender or race makes much difference to MAGAS. If anything, they like having someone who is not white male because then they can say, "See! Nominating (Tim Scott/Nikki Haley) proves that we aren't racist or sexist! The Democrats are the real racists of sexists!" However to get the nom from the MAGAs, the candidate does need to be an asshole.

[liberal japonicus]

I don't think ethnicity or gender or race makes much difference to MAGAS

I think this is considering that racism and sexism is simply a binary choice and people who suffer from these -isms are simply choosing to hate gender or race, and that seems too simple. You can often hear statements like 'well s/he is not like all those other [xxx]". We've glommed on to a definition of racism and sexism as a simple unrelenting hate for other races or the opposite sex, which then has people get upset when they fall afoul of the term. How many politicians have argued that they have no issues with feminism because they are married or have daughters? Though it's kind of played out, the 'I have friends who are [XXX] used to be a go to move.

I'd argue that this means that MAGAs actually pay much closer attention to gender and race.

[wj]

I don't think ethnicity or gender or race makes much difference to MAGAS. If anything, they like having someone who is not white male because then they can say, "See! Nominating (Tim Scott/Nikki Haley) proves that we aren't racist or sexist! The Democrats are the real racists of sexists!"

I believe the technical term is "tokenism." They like having an acquaintance, or an employee (preferably a junior manager of some kind), that they can point to. But that's far different from accepting someone female, or of a different race, in a position of power over them. That's a bridge too far for a lot of them.

So no, I can't see them giving the nomination to Haley or Scott. If they feel it's absolutely necessary, they might let one of them get the nod as VP. Not happily, but they might. But the top slot? Not gonna happen.

[Hartmut]

See Sarah Palin who needed an official approval by her husband and her pastor (a former witch hunter btw) to get accepted as McCain's VP by parts of the religious right. Some there still did not approve even with assurances that she would not 'really' be the one calling the shots but just the mouthpiece of males. [Iirc there was a general assumption that McCain would soon die in office and a 'real' conservative could thus take over, one who would otherwise have no chance to get elected.]

[Nigel]

I don't know how the class thing plays out in England anymore. I have the vague impression that the concept of hereditary class has disintegrated to class based on wealth. ..

Pretty well so these days - though of course wealth is also eminently heritable, and far more so from one generation to the next than is any genetic one.

The Regency 'breeding' thing actually make a small amount of sense in the context of the times. Wealth was up until the industrial revolution largely based on agriculture - and systematic selective breeding of livestock was introduced in England around the middle of the eighteenth century.
So the rich were effectively comparing themselves with farm animals.