The White Man Has No Friends

Recently from Aporia Magazine, an article by Canadian* anthropologist Peter Frost: The White Man Has No Friends. It is an anthropological look at how whites are viewed by native peoples worldwide, including our preference for individualism rather than group-mediated behavior. He is certainly not the first to notice this. I recall Theodore Dalrymple describing his time as a young doctor in Africa, and the relative luxury he got to live in despite a modest salary - because he could keep his money and use it on himself, while the African doctors, though paid the same, were expected to share it with numerous relatives and fellow-villagers. They resented him for it. Frost describes the use of group violence against individuals even when the individual has committed no harm, simply because they are part of an enemy group.  Such things are not unknown in the west, but much less pronounced. Perhaps significantly, it is more common among the young. That groupthink may be the human default which we teach out of our children. 

OTOH, some HBD people teach that it is a result of centuries of Christian prohibition against cousin marriage subtly changing our ability to cooperate with non-relatives and promoting an individualist outlook. Yes, the Church taught this everywhere, but for some reason was only obeyed in Northern Europe. There is some evidence of higher status of women and greater individualism among those tribes already, for example the ability of warriors to choose which leaders they would align with, rather than be solely bound by kinship ties. (Kinship ties remained strong, but only in comparison to modern sensibilities, not in comparison to other groups of the time.) The Northern European groups may simply have been already more used to the idea not marrying close cousins, at least, and had a jump-start on individuality already. Work in progress on the research there.

Frost credits these different attitudes with the spread of influence, even dominion, over the rest of the world.

In the late Middle Ages, the peoples of northern and western Europe gradually consolidated into nation-states and began a relentless expansion outward, first within Europe and then beyond… until they dominated the entire world. This domination was most obvious in their creation of colonial empires, but it was also apparent in other areas: the economy, science, technology, and so on.

So what was the secret of their success? It seem to suggest something to do with trust, individualism, and Christianity. Many readers here will also shout out: “Intelligence!” Perhaps. But a number of human groups have reached high levels of cognitive ability, maybe even higher, while failing to achieve the same dominance. Think of the Parsis, the Ashkenazim and the Chinese.

Yes the Hajnal Line, the Western European Marriage Pattern, comes into this. It also fits in with Grim's recent discussion of Roman versus Greek concepts of virtue. Frost summarises all this and places it in a context of a full cultural difference. He sees its apotheosis in The Enlightenment, which always annoys the heck out of me, especially when he is the very one tracing these values back as far as the 600s, but that made-up era will always be popular with the secular fans of Western Civilisation, I'm afraid.  He also quotes Gregory Clark on the full boat of cultural changes "Thrift, prudence, negotiation, and hard work were becoming values for communities that previously had been spendthrift, impulsive, violent, and leisure loving.” I agree, but note we still have plenty of the latter behaviors, just less regularly than other peoples.

*Not the British anthropologist who studies the Incas.