Inbreeding among Appalachians--unfair stereotype?

[monstro]

I just watched a documentary on Appalachian folks as depicted by the photographer Shelby Lee Adams. One of the families highlighted in the show was composed of a man with three kids, who were all severely deformed and mentally handicapped adults. Adams took a bunch of photos of this family and was criticized for perpetuating the myth about inbreed Appalachians. One of the critics said that the incidence of inbreeding among this population was no different than that found in any other population. But he was an art critic, not a scientist, so I don’t know if I should believe him.

Is what he said true? I don’t want to hold on to any untrue beliefs, but it seems to me that these people are so isolated–both geographically and culturally–that some degree of inbreeding is expected.

[Kimstu]

At least one anthropological study found evidence for significant levels of inbreeding over several generations in one Blue Ridge community.

But another study (pdf?)

presents a less speculative view of consanguineous marriage in Appalachia, based on the author’s fieldwork, in which rates of isonymy (marriage between persons with the same surname) were used to estimate levels of inbreeding in a remote four-county area of Eastern Kentucky over a 140-year time period. The findings, along with data from previous studies of marriage patterns in mountain communities, suggest that inbreeding levels in Appalachia do not seem extreme enough to justify labeling inbreeding as unique or particularly common to the region, when compared with those reported for populations elsewhere or at earlier periods in American history.

[Inigo_Montoya]

Is there a good working definition of inbreeding? I seem to recall that it was not uncommon for folks as close as first cousins to marry up until fairly recently. Maintaining that kind of distance wouldn’t require a large population at all. Is the OP asking if Apalachia produces families more likely to beget children from under the same roof? If not, how many removals are required to escape the “inbreeding” label?

[BobT]

I believe that under California law, first cousins can marry. The only relationships not allowed are ancestors marrying direct descendants as well as aunts and uncles not marrying nieces and nephews.

[monstro]

@BobT

I believe that under California law, first cousins can marry. The only relationships not allowed are ancestors marrying direct descendants as well as aunts and uncles not marrying nieces and nephews.

So siblings can marry? Wow.

@Inigo Montoya

Is there a good working definition of inbreeding? I seem to recall that it was not uncommon for folks as close as first cousins to marry up until fairly recently. Maintaining that kind of distance wouldn’t require a large population at all. Is the OP asking if Apalachia produces families more likely to beget children from under the same roof? If not, how many removals are required to escape the “inbreeding” label?

Personally, when I think of “inbreeding”, I think of first cousins being the cutoff.

[BobT]

Oh yeah, left out the siblings part …

Fortunately, I just have brothers…

And Schwarzenegger isn’t going to sign the gay marriage bill …

Let alone the gay bigamous incestous marriage bill!

[Inigo_Montoya]

@monstro

Personally, when I think of “inbreeding”, I think of first cousins being the cutoff.

Cutoff. Meaning “too close”? or “close and icky, but ok.”

Not that I have a lot riding on your answer, understand. I’m just askin’ is all.

[xbuckeye]

If you count the Amish then, yes, there is inbreeding over generations. pdf

But, Amish people are isolated by geography and culture, not just geography.