Comments by "Kate S" (@KateeAngel) on "THE SHY HISTORIAN" channel.

This disparity in gender is declining now. There are more women immigrants than before
5
10+ subsequent sibling marriages would have roughly the same result. Don't forget to have many many kids in every generation, so that at least one turns out more or less ok, and can produce the next one. Basically, like making a pure lineage of lab mice
2
Conquest doesn't necessarily mean r*pe. For example in Russia, everyone believed that we all have Mongol DNA due to Mongol conquest, but DNA studies showed it is not true. I think in Estonia people just married people of different ethnic groups as long as they had the same religion, and that prevented inbreeding. Finland having inbred population is a common myth, very false and untrue as well, Finns descended from multiple migrations into their area since prehistoric times, they have diverse gene pool.
2
Valyrians could be human/dragon hybrids, through magic, for sure
2
White Afrikaners tracked their genealogy though. And Calvinism didn't like close cousin marriages. Also, most of them have admixture from Africans and Asians, 4-5%
1
Surnames actually prove only one common ancestor on the male line, all other parts of family tree can be unrelated and people will still have one surname. That is a result of surnames being passed only from men to children.
1
Genetically there is no difference between mothers and fathers sides. Also, no, no cousins are preferable.
1
@joanhuffman2166 it is legal cause there was no reason to ban it to begin with. First cousin marriage has been very rare for the last century. Now when immigrants from countries like Pakistan are moving in, and first cousin marriage becomes more common, some of these countries are considering banning it. Also, marriage today no longer fully correlate with reproduction. Same-sex couples can get married and many couples are childfree. And many people have kids without marriage. In the past almost 100% marriages meant biological kids and almost all kids were born in marriage, so banning 1st cousin marriage was a way to stop them from reproduction. But today? Will it even be effective?
1
Usually it is banned only in places where it was somewhat common and government tried to solve that problem by bans. That is why most Western nations don't have bans, they didn't think they need them
1
 @AbuHajarAlBugatti nope, they are not! And they have specific genetic disorders which are studied often
1
Yeah, creating reservations was a biological warfare on natives. They are stuck in relatively small communities far away from other reservations and so cousin marriages became more common
1
It can exist anywhere. Even if not in mainstream society, then in immigrant communities, Romani communities, very strict fundamentalist sects of different religions etc. I am from Russia, and I also didn't know for a long time how many messed up things happen here in North Caucasus or in Romani communities. Many people in the USA are also shocked when they learn about fundamentalist mormon sects etc. And many other examples in many countries. Never dismiss such problems. When people don't believe it is happening in their country, barely anyone helps the victims and they stay trapped 😢
1
It is when cousin marriage is repeated generation after generation when problems get especially severe. That is why having a "tradition of marrying cousins" is so bad for population health.
1
I guess that is why most of them lost everything
1
Worst of all, many of girls and women can't decline to marry their cousin or have kids with possible genetic decease. It is bad enough when women can't decide to stay single or childfree if they want and are forced to endure intimacy with a man they didn't want, and endure pregnancies they didn't want... It is much worse when it's a cousin marriage and kids can have a genetic disease
1
But isn't it only about father's lineage? What about cousins on mother's side?
1