A British politician has caused quite a stir with his statements regarding the defective results of the arrangements Asians accede to…
A minister who warned about birth defects among children of first cousin marriages in Britain’s Asian community has sparked anger among critics.
Phil Woolas said health workers were aware such marriages were creating increased risk of genetic problems.
The claims infuriated the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) which called on the prime minister to “sack him”. [BBC]
As far as Woolas is concerned, he’s bravely confronting a worrisome issue which is politically incorrect; he has been quoted as saying he has an obligation to bring this up. He isn’t attacking the marriages as illegal or even a religious problem, his point is that this is a cultural practice which should be examined. Children of such unions are 13x more likely to suffer from recessive disorders.
“The issue we need to debate is first cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins, and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability [in children]. If you talk to any primary care worker they will tell you that levels of disability among the… Pakistani population are higher than the general population. And everybody knows it’s caused by first cousin marriage….Awareness does need to be raised but we are very aware of the sensitivities,” [BBC]
Critics wonder about his motives, since his political position deals with the environment instead of health. The timing for this hullabaloo in the empire’s orchard is awesome:
His comments follow the storm sparked by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who suggested some aspects of Islamic Sharia law could be allowed in Britain. [mirror]
Anti-green team, please note, both Woolas and the the cabinet minister who has his six, Geoff Hoon, are taking pains to point out that this conniption about cousin-coupling doesn’t involve the “wider Muslim community”; oh no, this backwardness is alll Asian.
The junior Minister has other vocal supporters besides Hoon:
Ann Cryer, MP for Keighley, said she was delighted that Phil Woolas had triggered a public debate on the issue which she said affected some sections of the Pakistani population in her constituency.
An expert in genetics, Steve Jones, also defended Woolas today, saying that first-cousin marriages doubled the risk of babies being born dead or disabled. [Guardian]
Cryer, like Woolas, reps significant numbers of Pakistanis. She has plenty of gasoline for this fire:
“I am delighted we are talking about. I have been fretting about this for 10 years and at last we are having a debate about something that is having a very large impact on my Pakistani constituents,” Cryer told the Today programme.
She stressed that she was only talking about “certain sections” of the Pakistani community. The problem related to families who engaged in “trans-continental marriages” because most of those marriages were between cousins.
There was often “a price to pay”, she went on. “The price to pay is often babies being born dead, or babies being born very early or babies being born with very severe genetically-transmitted disorders.” [Guardian]
“This is to do with a medieval culture where you keep wealth within the family.”
“I have encountered cases of blindness and deafness. There was one poor girl who had to have an oxygen tank on her back and breathe from a hole in the front of her neck,” she added.
“The parents were warned they should not have any more children. But when the husband returned from Pakistan, within months they had another child with exactly the same condition.” [BBC]
Anyone seen Razib? 🙂 Someone page him. He HAS to chime in on this…
This is true. But not all the ‘first cousins’ are valid partners. It should be mom’s brother’s boy/girl or dad’s sister’s boy/girl (unlike the Muslims where I believe there is no restriction). it is “cultural” and in rural areas still the norm. And as razib remarked, even the “educated” go for this arrangement if the girl is “hoooot”. We make fun of our friend that he really didn’t deserve the girl “lookswise” and has just lucked out because he was the “athai magan / maaman magan” .
This is another reason why the term ‘Asian’ ends up hurting Hindus and Sikhs in the U.K. There are too many cultural and behavioral differences with U.K. Muslims that get glossed over by that term.
For those of you who clamor for Government sponsored Universal Healthcare in the US, this is exhibit A to demonstrate how it is bound to eventually invade the privacy of citizens and infringe on the cultural practices of selected minorities.
The government has no business in telling private citizens whom they can marry, how many children they can have, if they should have more children etc etc. Unless of course, the Government pays for it. Then they will start conducting studies on “The effect of sambar powder on the reproductive tendencies of south Indians“. The end result would be to pass a law telling south Indians that they can have at most 2 1/2 children.
By no means am I endorsing first-cousin marriage. My point is that cultural practices evolve over time and people following the practices should be free to stumble and make mistakes (for generations, if necessary). The last thing we need is for the Government to stick its nose into private affairs.
M. Nam
and
In the hindu system there’s something called a “Gotra”. Although endogamous groups marry within their varna and jati (“caste”) they do not marry within the same gotra (whatever that is). This supposedly prevents inbreeding.
Razib can ask an outrageous question about “bringing up how they’re inbred tards” or whatever because he has shown over the past four years that he’s not a bigot.
I think Razib does not get banned here because he is from a Bangladeshi Muslim family. I suspect that if Razib was a random white dude from Oregon with the same views, he would have been banned in 2004.
I do agree that Razib is not a bigot. Plus as an apostate he has kind of earned the right to be extra critical of Muslims.
Slightly unrelated to the discussion:
I know in English we just have “uncle” and “aunt” used for representing siblings of parents. In Tamil, we have separate words for each relation, for example “athai” is dad’s sister and “chithi” is mom’s sister. I think Telugu has different words too. Clearly we treat siblings of parents differently based on whether they are related through a mom / dad and hence the need for separate words. Do we have different words in Hindi or other languages. I’m tryng to find out if the presence / absence of such words indicate any relationship to the “marital arrangements” in that particular culture.
Clearly we treat siblings of parents differently based on whether they are related through a mom / dad and hence the need for separate words. Do we have different words in Hindi or other languages.
Urdu: Moms sister: Khala Dads sistet: Phuppo Moms brother: Mama Dads brother: Chacha (younger) and older (taia)
I believe in Hindi the Dads sister is Bua and Moms sister is Masi/Kaka. Rest are the same as Urdu.
Thanks,
I have heard “chacha” and “masi” (mausi??) not the other ones..
I have heard “chacha” and “masi” (mausi??) not the other ones..
mausi
Time means I comment on SM far less than I used to (I’m sure only a few here remember me). But certain things remain unchanged.
I’m glad you posted this here Anna as I wanted to read what Razib had to say, we did our bit on PP and I had to stand in as the resident geneticist, in the absence of a real one. The “one third of British birth with genetic defects being Pakistani” is, IMO, nonsense. I spent a few minutes trying to look up where this widely-quoted and never-referenced stat comes from and found nothing. The reasoning I gave in our comments for why I think this is rubbish is that the most common genetic defects in the UK are cystic fibrosis, sick cell anaemia and thalassaemia, which are all racially biased away from south Asians. So I would sugges the BBC is wrong.
Rob, whilst purely anecdotal, I know many Oxbridge Pakistanis (naturally the only ones I socialise with, what what) who have hooked up with their first cousins. Including doctors who all took genetics classes, but then again plenty of doctors smoke.
Anna I don’t really see what this has to do with the Royal Family. I don’t recall Woolas saying “we wouldn’t do anything like this!”
What was I saying about things remaining unchanged? Oh yeah, MoorNam’s still talking sh*t. If this post pertained to British LAW, you’d have a point. But your desperate attempt to work in a critique of universal healthcare is groundless. Discussing public health issues is healthy, not the sign of a meddling gov’t.
52 · Amitabh said
I hear you and I thought of the exact same thing as I was reading about this pre-posting, but before one of the rabid anti-SM, anti-SouthAsian, anti-Islam, anti-Pakistan contingent seizes upon your comment, I am going to intervene as a preemptive measure.
I’d like to emphasize that the desi community in the U.K. is VERY different from the desi community in this country. We are an American blog and we are not going to change how we self-identify because of what goes on in other countries, nasty anonymous insults or a comment war, four years after the original comment wars; so if any of you feel the need to thread-jack as if this cousin-marriage issue is proof for your views, please refrain. You’ll find enough vicious verbal sparring about how Muslims ruin brand “India” in our archives.
Any comments in this vein on this thread will be off-topic and will be deleted. I have a grueling day at work in store for me and if things become uncivilized, I’ll close the thread, rather than extinguish a flame war. I’m sure I will not have to do that, though, because you’re a reasonable, considerate group of adults who can discuss things without being babysat. Back on topic.
60 · Bong Breaker said
He said it was a cultural thing. Part of royal culture is to marry within, to cousins who are also inbred. 😉 I can’t believe I have to explicitly say this to you of all people Bongsie, but I was trying to be snarky. That’s what this has to do with the Royal family. 🙂
Good to see you again! Thanks for bringing the local perspective. 🙂
Discussion of a health issue by a politician using a Government platform, and linking the health issue to the cultural practice of a certain class of people is a sign of meddling government. Universal healthcare will bring this to our doorsteps.
By all means, everyone has a right to discuss this (in blogs, papers, parties, private forums etc etc). When a politician opens his/her mouth in a public capacity, it’s unwelcome intrusion.
M. Nam
63 · MoorNam said
I’ll allow it. I thought, “Hmmm, interesting idea I’d like to ponder” after MoorNam commented, and that is about as likely as a Red Sox fan wearing a Yankees hat. 😉 That and others brought up similar thoughts up-thread.
*I appreciate the shout-out re: public health from BongBreaker, but I’m respectfully disagreeing, especially since it’s election season and health care is a hot and relevant issue.
No no, I knew about the Royals’ pairing preferences (and haemophilia etc) but what I meant that you have brought in the Royal Family as an example of British culture. Arguable, but point taken. If Prince William had said the above statement, then I’d understand your tack, but a British politician doesn’t have to be a de facto supporter of Royal practices. (btw I hope you’re feeling better A)
is FACT, in this case.
I think that granting of that right has been rather subjective by the public. What about Ayaan Hirsi Ali ? She’s an apostate too…has she earned that right too ?
A current story in the news about how a cultural practice can become a health issue:
Vikram — by brother in Kram — if Ayaan Ali Hirsi wanted to comment on the Sepiboard, I would welcome her. If Razib decided to work for the American Enterprise Institue (right down the hall from David “Axis-of-evil” Frum!), I would mock his sorry ass.
Neither Razib nor Ayaan are defined solely by their lack of religion — for example, Razib is the wackest Bangladeshi-American rapper this side of Kevin Gnapoor. Can Ayaan rap? Does she rap about bombing Iran? Context matters.
(But I promise you, Vikram, that if you went to work as assittant-torture-justifier to Donald Herbert Walker Frumsfeld, I would defend you always. Kram Solidarity. Peace.)
another pro-1st-cousin marriages reason i’ve heard is that it helps to keep the “traditions”/”values” in the clan/family.
E.g. when your mum-in-law is also your dad’s sister (for example), whom you’ve known since young, there’s less chance of gossip, scurrilous or otherwise, going around.
In Singapore, the main Indian groups known to be into 1st-cousin marriages are: – some North Indians: mainly Muslims/Pakistanis, but also some well-to-do Sikhs from “old” families, for whom keeping the “traditions” intact matters – some South Indians: not sure what caste/group my friend was from, but his mama (mum’s brother) married his sister
68:
Uh ok… that was more than a bit muddled in syntax and meaning… but I’ll indulge you and assume you actually had something relevant to say… Peace.
Razib — do you have the cite for the inbreeding co-efficients you list? The numbers look a little funny. Punjab is 60% of Pakistan, yet the all-Punjab number is .0280 and the all-pakistan number is .0332. That gives a non-Punjab figure of .041. But the numbers for given for NWFP — Pindi (.0286) and Swat (.016) — are well below the all-Pak number, which means Sindh must be unbeleivable inbred to bring the all-Pak average up to .0332.
But it isn’t. So what’s going on?
Re: 61 · A N N A said
another pro-1st-cousin marriages reason i’ve heard is that it helps to keep the “traditions”/”values” in the clan/family.
The best way to keep traditions/old values is not to move to the west.
41, I agree Sikhs are somewhat a result of the hindu muslim civilization collision-the founders being tired of both religions orthodoxy (course over generations we are starting to go that way). On the topic of marriage with cousins-its looked down upon especially in the Jat Sikhs. I have heard of family members saying that traditionally, ppl avoid arranging marriage if the groom or bride’s parents or grandparents have the same last name. Of course, most Jats marry other Jats so there is always some level of inbreeding. Punjabis, though, contain genes from a LOT of invaders-Turks/Afghan/Persian/Greek/Mongol-so there is more diversity to go around (?)
Why wouldn’t they? Desi people in America (yes, even 2nd gens) have family and friends everywhere and beyond that, some of us are interested in what happens in diasporic communities. What an odd question.
Implicit in this is the notion that we should have certain areas of coverage and that we don’t deserve to post about something global, without a disclaimer.
We are an American blog because we were founded by desis who were born and raised in this country, not because we chose to be hemmed in to subject-ive straightjackets. The point of stating that we are American is to express that we write from an American perspective, not that we only write about things with explicit connections to this country.
This entire exchange is off-topic and has the potential to derail the thread. I’d respectfully ask that going forward, if you respond, to please do so via email. Back on topic, everyone.
Just wanted to say that I find this thread fascinating! I remember there being a discussion in my genetics course in college about the risk that inbreeding poses on a fetus, and the numbers for 1st cousins was generally small. However, this post is pointing out the fact that multiple 1st-cousin marriages over a string of generations can have a negative cumulative effect on the genetic pool of a family.
I come from a very small caste in Gujarat..so small in fact that my Mom told me that she’s glad we moved to the States because there wouldn’t have been any guys in my caste for me to marry. Totally weird to hear that.
While many places in the world have some sort of taboo against inbreeding, Britain also has a cultural taboo against people who keep trying to breed with themselves, so much so that it is now a generic insult in British English for anything, including losing at cards.
While Americans tend to be more relaxed about making relations weirder than usual.
/removes tongue from cheek
This is yet another fave topic to rile people up that’s linked to this trend of bringing up anti muslim sentiment. The whole thing comes up every once in a while in he media about genetic defects and inbreeding and as mentioned there seems to be no valid references.
There are too many cultural and behavioral differences with U.K. Muslims that get glossed over by that term.
Again the majority of British public are aware of the differences of the different asain communities but no need to go there. Anyhow there is nothing in Islamis thats about marrying cousins. It’s probably just about ‘keeping tradition and wealth in the family’.
Am I too late to comment on this post? I always miss the interesting stuff.
My grandparents were first cousins. I don’t really know the history of my family, but I’m betting a very sizeable proportion of their forebears were pretty closely related before marriage as well. The whole thing has to do with keeping the property within the family, as ours is a matriarchal system. I blame most of my health related issues on them. I was one of those who got lucky and only got Asthma as my share of the family inheritance [/barf]. I’ve got a few close relatives who got blessed with double soda glasses since they could barely walk, and a nice dose of depression as an added bonus (you know how well that gets treated in India. The ignorance is horrifying).
I think they’re completely justified in bringing up this topic, and (expletive) all those tender societal sensibilities of those (expletive) ignorant morons. It is us, the product of their arrant avarice and ignorance who end up paying the cost.
P.S: Uh .. SM Intern, is there an acceptable word for the expletive, which kinda has the same force of expression that I can use without crossing boundaries here. I swear I’m tryingto clean up my language, but sometimes, those words are needed 🙂
Most of my relatives use the words “cousin-brother” or “cousin-sister” when referring to cousins. Its also customary to call older cousins bai or ben (brother or sister). Do Pakistanis or Indian Muslims do this? I’m guessing probably not since that would make cousin marriage even more weird.
From what i’ve seen in the uk and met people in this marriages, when the marriages happen it’s normally to a cousin the bride or groom has never had any contact with either cos they are from abroad or they didn’t grow up together.
Dr1001:
Um, were you not reading the comments nor the article? There’s plenty of evidence – a simple MedLine or Ovid search reveals extensive research into it.
Apologies. that read incorrectly: of course there are references and im aware of these, but i meant this is not the predominant cause of defects …
I don’t know about Pakistani Muslims, but Indian Muslims just say cousin brother inshallah.
Thank goodness, politicians does not indulge in any comments about other cultures in the US, except when it comes to senior citizens or the extremely poor. Oh, I forgot. Pandering is permissible, it’s only negative comments that aren’t.
79 • lostingeekdom said
Yes, there is an acceptable word; it is often referred to as “the F-bomb”. I realize that if you’re trying to clean up your language, that suggestion is not going to help. We don’t moderate profanity, per se. If –to borrow from a current Orbit commercial–you say “Why the french toast are we discussing the kama sutra again?”, that is fine. If you say, “You know what, Abhi? You can go french toast yourself for not appreciating Modi”, that’s a bit different.
Excellent!
Razib, the data you’ve presented is for the most part from surveys in the 60s and 70s. Come across anything more recent?
Jumping in mid-thread, but has anyone seen this? Arrived in my Sci Am weekly digest just now.
When Incest Is Best: Kissing Cousins Have More Kin
85 · SM Intern said
<
blockquote>79 . lostingeekdom said
Yes, there is an acceptable word; it is often referred to as “the F-bomb”. I realize that if you’re trying to clean up your language, that suggestion is not going to help. We don’t moderate profanity, per se. If –to borrow from a current Orbit commercial–you say “Why the french toast are we discussing the kama sutra again?”, that is fine. If you say, “You know what, Abhi? You can go french toast yourself for not appreciating Modi”, that’s a bit different. Excellent!
Ah .. don’t tempt me. I’m not really trying to clean up my language, just trying to ensure that I don’t incur the wrath of the almighty SM Intern and get kicked out before I’ve made enough mischief to warrant getting kicked out 😉 Though French Toasting my previous comment would reduce the sting of my long fermenting, deep seated bitterness at the asininity of my ancestors, and I’m not quite ready to let go of that yet 😛
And .. blech about Modi. I don’t want to think about the maroons who still think he’s all peaches and cream.
We are an American blog because we were founded by desis who were born and raised in this country,
But what would you do. if you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom.
JGandhi:
I have heard this usage widely but not universally, and it was once explained to me that “cousin-brother” and “cousin-sister” refers to a cousin that one is not allowed to marry using society’s rules, while “cousin” refers to a cousin one IS allowed to marry using the same rules.
The common rule for deciding marriageability in Tamil Nadu is the bitwise parity rule, which says that you’re allowed to marry a relative if the bit parity of the path you trace to him/her is odd, assigning bits (0/1) based on the gender of intermediate relatives, and XORing the bits as you go along. According to this rule, the examples that Ponniyin Selvan gave (father’s sister’s child and mother’s brother’s child) are odd parity and allowed, while the converses (mother’s sister’s child and father’s brother’s child) are even parity and not allowed.
Hey, I didn’t come up with this stuff!
You can find a brief write-up on Wikipedia however, which I paste below:
Apparently not used only in Tamil Nadu.
90 · pingpong said
Yep, you’re right. Not just in Tamilnadu. I’m from coastal Karnatak, and this rule is applicable in my community. I’m betting this also applies for parts of Kerala as well.
Except that one might expect Kerala to be matrilineal and assign 0 to males and 1 to females, while TN usually does the opposite. (This won’t matter if the number of intermediate relatives is itself even, like first cousins or second cousins, but it will matter for relations like “mother’s brother’s daughter’s daughter’s child”).
In your earlier comment, you said that
Did you mean that they had to wear glasses from the time they could walk or did you mean that their vision was so bad that they kept walking into obstacles?
“The last thing we need is for the Government to stick its nose into private affairs.”
It is probably too late for that. The corruption of the democratic process began with the income tax and the subsequent vote-buying through wealth redistribution policies.
Are you kidding? If not, I am not sure I understand. Mother’s brother’s daughter’s daughter’s child should be acceptable by the odd parity rule, independent of the gender assignment of 0s and 1s, right? What might matter is which link takes precedence if there is a conflict i.e. both parents have conflicting relative links, and you need to pick one for the rule (i.e. you are not checking all possible link combinations).
92 · pingpong said
Ok, my brain is a little addled with flu, so you’re losing me with the parity bits. My community is also matrilineal, and here’s what’s acceptable and what isn’t, as far as I’m aware of:
Brother and sister’s kids: yes. Brother and brother or sister and sister’s kids won’t work. The family name goes through the mother, so those with the same family names cannot marry.
I think people use simple rules to calculate who is “murai” paiyan or “murai” ponnu meaning with whom matrimony is allowed instead of the complex boolean math across generations.
mom’s brother’s kids / dad’s sister’s kids are allowed. They are “murai”. If you want to go back one generation, that is mom’s mom’s brother’s son’s daughter, you need to take the relationship of mom with her mom’s brother’s son. Mom and him are “murai”, since they are not married, he becomes a brother (in relationship terms) of the dad. And his kids are not legal.
I just found this article from British paper today. It’s about a Britsh Pakistan educated girl who forced to marry her father fat uneductated cousin who is 20 years older then her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=513757&in_page_id=1879
When will the goverment of England see the light, and changes it immigration laws, to not only saves the lifes of thousands of young south asian women, but also it country in the long run.
I try to post this, in the news section. But the stupid thing said my password was wrong again.
Crap. I mistakenly put in one too many “daughter’s” for whatever reason. Apologies. Apparently I like having daughters around.
And yes, it might be easier to just see if the number of ones is odd or even instead of doing a full XOR (though both give the same answer).
But it isn’t. So what’s going on?
re: inbreeding coefficients, my cites came from many different studies. the “all punjab” study might not have draw on the same data as the specific location studies. the inbreeding coefficient numbers for humans give a general sense, but can’t be taken as that precise.
re: the iceland study, i blogged it here. note that the 1st and 2nd cousin marriages were less fertile, while the 3rd and 4th cousin marriages were the most fertile. 3rd and 4th cousins are not generally an issue for deleterious recessives unless you have A LOT of repeated inbreeding in your family tree.
finally: re: universal health care, i’m pretty sure that we’re going to have similar discussions in the USA without or without it. after al, even without universal health care we have medicare and medicaid and what not. selective abortions of babies with down syndrome means that the number of these children has decreased greatly in the past generation, but some individuals (often religious conservatives for obvious reasons) continue to go to term with these fetuses. one can calculate the economic cost of health care and services for this individuals, so these parents often feel that they are judged that they went to term. we might as well start talking about these things since we’re not isolated islands, the choices of other people do affect you.
Well, independent of all that, my basic question is why the mapping of genders to 0s or 1s matters. It should be the same whether female=1 or 0, right? The only implication of matriarchy or patriarchy is which link should take precedence in case of conflicting relative links, isn’t it?
Sorry to be nitpicking, I am not sure if I am missing something.