At the Unz Review, on the iSteve blog, a post containing links and excerpts from a study on ‘IBD’, or ‘Identity-By-Descent’ connections in America, based on data from 770,000 genotyped individuals. Interesting, if you have the background and the savvy to decipher the data presented, as it is apparently not written for the layman.
I have a longstanding layman’s interest in genetics and HBD but I admit to finding the information hard to follow.
On blog posts such as this ‘Albion’s Gene’ example, invariably the book Albion’s Seed, by David Hackett Fischer, is invoked. And as usual it is invoked in the same spirit as a quote from the Holy Bible is cited by a believing Christians. I’ve made my views of the book known, at some length, on the subject of Fischer’s book. It certainly is impressive in its (physical) weight and size, but I don’t consider it Holy Writ as do many who follow the subjects of HBD or American History and demography. Too often there are political axes being ground, especially amongst those who want to champion their own ethnic group (usually Celtic or German or both) at the expense of the original majority, the English colonists of this country.
Refreshingly, though, commenter ‘Halvorson’ says what I myself feel:
I’m apparently the only guy on the Internet who really hates Albion’s Seed and so it’s my sacred duty to fight back against it at every opportunity.
Hackett Fischer goes through a huge number of pages on the Scotch Irish before giving his readers any sense of just how many of them there are in the South. Most readers in the isteve comment section walk away from the book thinking Appalachia or even the entire South is predominantly SI. This is an urban legend. If you dig through Fischer’s sources on Scotch Irish numbers the one study he gives most credence to is a colonial surname analysis done by Purvis. Here are his results:
The chart he links to above is interesting. It appears that some of the ‘evidence’ in favor of a Scots-Irish majority in certain places is nothing more than assessing the national or ethnic origin of surnames, which can be tricky. Some surnames are obviously used in various parts of the British Isles (Jones, Jackson, Johnson, and many others) and are often claimed as ‘Welsh’ or ‘Scots’ when they are not originally Celtic but English. So if that’s the best the proponents of the Celtic majority have, it isn’t exactly solid proof.
Now, if only most people in America were DNA-tested, that would at least provide some evidence beyond unreliable family lore or ‘oral history’ [as an example, see: the Cherokee princess myth] as to people’s actual origins. But even DNA testing is apparently not precise enough to distinguish amongst the various strains of ‘British Isles’ ancestry, which again says something: the Celt cult says that there is a world of difference between ‘fiery, passionate Celts’ and phlegmatic, cold-blooded Sassenachs. I don’t dispute the evidence showing close connections between the groups. Differences are real but not as stark as some would make them.
I notice that a couple of other comments to the article second what Halvorson says and also that commenter ‘FKA Max’ links to this blog. I appreciate the link.
Will we ever really know which side is correct in this ongoing dispute between those of English/Anglo-Saxon origin and the ‘Celtic’ proponents? Does it even matter? Well, yes it matters because the truth matters. Presumably only the left subscribes to the nonsense which asserts that ‘there is no truth, only competing narratives.’
And it does matter to me, personally, because it seems a crying shame that the people who founded the colonies which became the United States of America should be denied pride of place, or be forced into the background of history while later groups usurp their place of honor. If that happens and the English ethnicity is slowly expunged from the history of this land, it will just be a foreshadowing of the later erasing of White people generally from their rightful place in our national story.