Haplogroup nationalism: Why people associate haplogroups with ethno-linguistic groups?

[Chev Chelios]

As I know, human haplogroups are much older than ethnic groups and languages.

Haplogroup nationalism only makes sense if a specific subclade is younger than a specific ethnic group or language. Do we have subclades which are younger than ethno-linguistic groups?

See the Wikipedia . They only use the "possible place of origin" of the haplogroups, e.g. West Asia, Siberia, Europe, Africa and etc. Even when they want to discuss the relationship between a specific haplogroup and ethno-linguistic groups, they never call that haplogroup ABC is XYZic.

So is haplogroup nationalism really scientific or just an invention by the members of anthropology forums?

For example, if you say R1a/R1b is Indo-European, then you should provide peer-reviewed articles and academic sources which support your claim. e.g. R1a/R1b carriers were originally IE and then split into IE and non-IE groups.

[justme]

because everyone wants to have some relationship to the ancient people, in 3000 years nations are going to fight who is more british, that's the world we live in

[Rethel]

For example, if you say R1a/R1b is Indo-European, then you should provide peer-reviewed articles and academic sources which support your claim. e.g. R1a/R1b carriers were originally IE and then split into IE and non-IE groups.

Here is tons of it.
Just look at the threads' titles in genetic section.
Or into my thread titled: INDOEUROPEICS - everything about Indoeuropeans.