Sandra Rayes (
22 Jan 1995 04:58:00 GMT

In <>, Stanley Friesen ( wrote:
: In article <3fm11f$>,
: Dennis J. Nicklaus <> wrote:
: >Maybe my family just isn't "hillbilly" enough. Actually, I think the real
: >reason is that I have a constant stream of new immigration in my
: >ancestors to keep diversifying the gene pool from 1750-1900.
: >
: Well, I suspect that many social factors contribute to these patterns.

: In my family the high elvel of interbreeding was due to them being
: members of a smallish, exclusive, relgious sect that didn't marry
: outside the group. (Actually, it was a small sub-denomination of
: a minor enomination - but even the minor denomination tended to
: go for in-group marriages - in fact my father was the first in his
: extended family to marry outside the group)

While it is true that some religious groups encourage interfamilial
marriages, the same can be said for *many* societies in general even
to this day. In the present-day Middle East, North Africa, and
the Indo-Paki sub-continent, many families encourage first marriage
as a cultural practice, perhaps (incorrectly) influenced by religious
practices. But in terms of the above named group, the practice is
more culturally-based.

As a personal testimonial, my husband is North African Arab. His
brother is married to their first cousin. What is unusual about
this is that the married couple are first cousins BOTH maternally
AND paternally. And this is not uncommon in his family, or the
many families I have been acquainted with over the past years.
I have at least half a dozen friends who are married to their

: [And, given my name, you may even be able to figure out which
: group I am talking about].
: --

uhh... could it be a Muslim sub-group, per chance?

: May the peace of God be with you.