Hein de Haas in How Migration Really Works shows that it's pretty predictable for it to take 3 generations to assimilate to a new culture, whether the immigrant is a 19th century German or a 21st century Honduran. The first generation barely assimilates, maintaining language and cultural attitudes. The second has one foot in each culture. The third just maintain snippets of the old language and, even if they enjoy their grandparents' cooking, are indistinguishable from their peers in worldview and mannerisms.
If only it were a question of waiting three generations. However, We are now into three generations of UK Muslims and this third generation is often less assimilated than the first. Also crime among our Caribbean-British poulation, who have often been here for over 50 years, is still much higher than among whites and I can't see that changing if genetics plays a part in crime-proneness.
He addresses that in the book. One huge roadblock is lack of housing in a country. When housing is scarce, a population continues to cluster together.
More fundamentally though, "waiting three generations" is not a sole solution, since immigration continues and you are therefore continually receiving *first* generation immigrants. It would seem the actual third generation - the grandchildren of those who arrived - are at least slightly more assimilated if they speak more English, have a higher education, and accept at least some Western liberal democratic values.
Finally, "crime-proneness" is not genetic in any meaningful way that could be separated from environment/epigenetics, and it certainly wouldn't map well onto a population (Caribbean British) that has been around long enough inter ethnic union has made it less of a natural genetic category than an human-conceived category.
Maybe I was unclear. I wasn't seriously suggesting we wait three generations. I was merely stating my view that third generation Muslims are often more hostile to the west and in some ways much worse disposed to non-Muslims than their grandparents.
Regarding crime-proneness, we will have to disagree to what extent genetics plays a part. Of course, the black population in the US has been there far longer than our own black population has been in Britain and there too there has been some 'inter ethnic union', as you put it, but I think it would be incorrect to say that the overrepresentation of black people in US prisons is 100% due to their culture. Their culture, of course, is influenced by their genetics. If not, where does culture arise from? Randomly and out of thin air?
Now you're mixing genetics and race. They're not the same thing. But anyway, if you can show me a good scientific study that strongly *correlates* genetics to crime rate, I'd start to believe you that they're correlated, which would then make it a long leap to causation. But even so, it'd be hard to establish correlation. What I've read has indicated that any genetic predisposition to crime is pretty well scattered amongst all genotypes. Oh you'd also have to tease out epigenetic factors too!
'if you can show me a good scientific study that strongly *correlates* genetics to crime rate, I'd start to believe you that they're correlated'
Adopted children with biological parents who have criminal records face a higher likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior, particularly property crimes, according to foundational adoption research.
That's not surprising. 9 months in the womb is a long time for the environment to control gene expression. And many children aren't adopted right away, so they have extra time in dysfunctional home during key formative months (first three years are absolutely critical). Add to that the trauma of broken attachment and resettlement. This isn't just me making up excuses to not believe you. All of this can easily be learned, e.g. in an appendix (don't even have to read the whole book) of *In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts* by Gabor Matte. He dismantles adoption studies' link to genetics pretty handily.
And yes, of course, genetics - the objective, observable phenomenon of which genes a person carries - is linked to race - the sociological construct. But they're far from being the same thing. If you aren't able to distinguish between the two then you're really never going to be able to make a convincing argument.
You made a claim about genetics and crime. I was, ironically, trying not to be prejudiced against your claim. You've shown you don't really understand what you're talking about, since in this entire conversation you've interchanged race (a sociological construct), genetics (an objective scientific field), and even thrown religion in there (in referring to Muslims).
I've only just come across this series of articles. I wish I'd known about them before. I just read the first part and thought it terrific. It explained things I've always been unclear about. Unfortunately got to go and play bowls before I rush back and read part two.
You perhaps know already but I went back over the article, clicking on various links and the one to 'Against the ethnic food festival conception of culture' came up blank.
I sometimes listen to The rest is politics just to get the idea what the establishment thinks, maybe it would be better to say regime (Labour/Tory regime)
My favorite parts are comments after they finish an interview with someone who they disagree with
It’s the best kind of insight into the heads of these people
Great article. Summarises the situation and history clearly.
I learned recently that one of the cornerstones of English civic national identity, the England football teams, doesn’t even require British citizenship to qualify for eligibility. A player only has to be born in the country (or to have one grandparent who was a citizen) to be eligible to play for the national team. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case for most if not all European teams.
Wonderful article.
Hein de Haas in How Migration Really Works shows that it's pretty predictable for it to take 3 generations to assimilate to a new culture, whether the immigrant is a 19th century German or a 21st century Honduran. The first generation barely assimilates, maintaining language and cultural attitudes. The second has one foot in each culture. The third just maintain snippets of the old language and, even if they enjoy their grandparents' cooking, are indistinguishable from their peers in worldview and mannerisms.
If only it were a question of waiting three generations. However, We are now into three generations of UK Muslims and this third generation is often less assimilated than the first. Also crime among our Caribbean-British poulation, who have often been here for over 50 years, is still much higher than among whites and I can't see that changing if genetics plays a part in crime-proneness.
He addresses that in the book. One huge roadblock is lack of housing in a country. When housing is scarce, a population continues to cluster together.
More fundamentally though, "waiting three generations" is not a sole solution, since immigration continues and you are therefore continually receiving *first* generation immigrants. It would seem the actual third generation - the grandchildren of those who arrived - are at least slightly more assimilated if they speak more English, have a higher education, and accept at least some Western liberal democratic values.
Finally, "crime-proneness" is not genetic in any meaningful way that could be separated from environment/epigenetics, and it certainly wouldn't map well onto a population (Caribbean British) that has been around long enough inter ethnic union has made it less of a natural genetic category than an human-conceived category.
Maybe I was unclear. I wasn't seriously suggesting we wait three generations. I was merely stating my view that third generation Muslims are often more hostile to the west and in some ways much worse disposed to non-Muslims than their grandparents.
Regarding crime-proneness, we will have to disagree to what extent genetics plays a part. Of course, the black population in the US has been there far longer than our own black population has been in Britain and there too there has been some 'inter ethnic union', as you put it, but I think it would be incorrect to say that the overrepresentation of black people in US prisons is 100% due to their culture. Their culture, of course, is influenced by their genetics. If not, where does culture arise from? Randomly and out of thin air?
Now you're mixing genetics and race. They're not the same thing. But anyway, if you can show me a good scientific study that strongly *correlates* genetics to crime rate, I'd start to believe you that they're correlated, which would then make it a long leap to causation. But even so, it'd be hard to establish correlation. What I've read has indicated that any genetic predisposition to crime is pretty well scattered amongst all genotypes. Oh you'd also have to tease out epigenetic factors too!
'if you can show me a good scientific study that strongly *correlates* genetics to crime rate, I'd start to believe you that they're correlated'
Adopted children with biological parents who have criminal records face a higher likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior, particularly property crimes, according to foundational adoption research.
That's not surprising. 9 months in the womb is a long time for the environment to control gene expression. And many children aren't adopted right away, so they have extra time in dysfunctional home during key formative months (first three years are absolutely critical). Add to that the trauma of broken attachment and resettlement. This isn't just me making up excuses to not believe you. All of this can easily be learned, e.g. in an appendix (don't even have to read the whole book) of *In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts* by Gabor Matte. He dismantles adoption studies' link to genetics pretty handily.
And yes, of course, genetics - the objective, observable phenomenon of which genes a person carries - is linked to race - the sociological construct. But they're far from being the same thing. If you aren't able to distinguish between the two then you're really never going to be able to make a convincing argument.
You made a claim about genetics and crime. I was, ironically, trying not to be prejudiced against your claim. You've shown you don't really understand what you're talking about, since in this entire conversation you've interchanged race (a sociological construct), genetics (an objective scientific field), and even thrown religion in there (in referring to Muslims).
God bless you.
'Now you're mixing genetics and race'.
Race is genetics. This is why 23 and Me can tell what race you are from a blood or saliva sample. They are not sampling your culture.
I've only just come across this series of articles. I wish I'd known about them before. I just read the first part and thought it terrific. It explained things I've always been unclear about. Unfortunately got to go and play bowls before I rush back and read part two.
Thank you!
You perhaps know already but I went back over the article, clicking on various links and the one to 'Against the ethnic food festival conception of culture' came up blank.
Oh you're right thanks, fixed
Brilliant article, Will! Clear and concise 👏
I sometimes listen to The rest is politics just to get the idea what the establishment thinks, maybe it would be better to say regime (Labour/Tory regime)
My favorite parts are comments after they finish an interview with someone who they disagree with
It’s the best kind of insight into the heads of these people
Great article. Summarises the situation and history clearly.
I learned recently that one of the cornerstones of English civic national identity, the England football teams, doesn’t even require British citizenship to qualify for eligibility. A player only has to be born in the country (or to have one grandparent who was a citizen) to be eligible to play for the national team. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case for most if not all European teams.
Probably, they're desperate for the best players
Owen Jones, that's a Welsh name, not English, isn't it?