[Split]How is ethnicity determined

[Mesrine]

You sir are an Arab

Proof of your claim? You have none.

On the other hand, I can prove that you're not a Celt or a Roman, for the simple fact that you only speak English, a Germanic language.

[Hrolf Kraki]

Pure delusion. "Celt" is a linguistic term (unless you use the modern wider sense, but in this case the word "pure" is totally inappropriate), and since you're not a speaker of any Celtic language... Arawn can say he is a Celt.

Celt may be a linguistic term, but it's also an ethnic term. There's a chapter in a book I'm reading about the Indo-Europeans dedicated to the Indo-Europeans of Europe and lo-and-behold, the Celts have their own section.

Ok, I am a bit confused on this language issue though. Maybe you can help me. If one doesn't speak a particular Indo-European language, one is not a member of that group? So if a German family moved to Rome and had children and the kids grew up knowing only Italian, they would cease to be Germanic? If they cease to be Germanic, then they must be something else instead, else they would be nothing and hence not exist. So what are they now? Romance? And what if someone knows more than one language of different families? Do they become both? If I learn Spanish do I become both Germanic and Romance? But Mexicans don't look Romance? Maybe if I learn Mexican Spanish I'll be part Aztec? Wow, I'm really confused. Maybe you can clear this up.

[Lutiferre]

Celt may be a linguistic term, but it's also an ethnic term. There's a chapter in a book I'm reading about the Indo-Europeans dedicated to the Indo-Europeans of Europe and lo-and-behold, the Celts have their own section.
Wow! You surely proved that "Celts" is an ethic group!

No. You looked to what is linguistics, since Indo-European is a linguistic, not an ethnic term - and - lo-and-behold! - you found a section about Celts!


Ok, I am a bit confused on this language issue though. Maybe you can help me. If one doesn't speak a particular Indo-European language, one is not a member of that group? So if a German family moved to Rome and had children and the kids grew up knowing only Italian, they would cease to be Germanic? If they cease to be Germanic, then they must be something else instead, else they would be nothing and hence not exist. So what are they now? Romance? And what if someone knows more than one language of different families? Do they become both? If I learn Spanish do I become both Germanic and Romance? But Mexicans don't look Romance? Maybe if I learn Mexican Spanish I'll be part Aztec? Wow, I'm really confused. Maybe you can clear this up.
You become a Romance-speaker, yes. You do not necessarily become a member of an ethnic group which speaks a Romance language for that fact.

[Mesrine]

Celt may be a linguistic term, but it's also an ethnic term. There's a chapter in a book I'm reading about the Indo-Europeans dedicated to the Indo-Europeans of Europe and lo-and-behold, the Celts have their own section.

Ok, I am a bit confused on this language issue though. Maybe you can help me. If one doesn't speak a particular Indo-European language, one is not a member of that group? So if a German family moved to Rome and had children and the kids grew up knowing only Italian, they would cease to be Germanic? If they cease to be Germanic, then they must be something else instead, else they would be nothing and hence not exist. So what are they now? Romance? And what if someone knows more than one language of different families? Do they become both? If I learn Spanish do I become both Germanic and Romance? But Mexicans don't look Romance? Maybe if I learn Mexican Spanish I'll be part Aztec? Wow, I'm really confused. Maybe you can clear this up.

It's not that Germanicus' family was Celtic-speaking, and adopted (Germanic) English overnight. I think people tend to be carried away by heavy anachronisms, especially when it comes to ancestry.

[Hrolf Kraki]

Wow! You surely proved that "Celts" is an ethic group!



I didn't seek to prove that the Celts were an ethnic group. I find that to be common knowledge. If you're too stupid to understand that, that's your problem. I'm growing quite weary of these teenage Christian losers thinking they know something when in fact they know precisely dick.

[Lutiferre]

I didn't seek to prove that the Celts were an ethnic group. I find that to be common knowledge.
And you reference this supposed "common knowledge" with the common knowledge that it is not an ethnic, but a linguistic group, precisely from a book about linguistics. Beautiful.

[Comte Arnau]

So if a German family moved to Rome and had children and the kids grew up knowing only Italian, they would cease to be Germanic? If they cease to be Germanic, then they must be something else instead, else they would be nothing and hence not exist. So what are they now? Romance?

Exactly. If the kids only know Italian, they become ethnically Italian, so Romance. Quite simple, after all.


And what if someone knows more than one language of different families? Do they become both? If I learn Spanish do I become both Germanic and Romance?

Learning a language is not the same as growing up with it and its culture, having it as a first tongue, thinking in it and identifying with it and its speakers.


But Mexicans don't look Romance?

Ethnicity is not race. That's just a product of American confusion.


Maybe if I learn Mexican Spanish I'll be part Aztec?

No. Besides, Aztecs speak Nahua.


Wow, I'm really confused.

Yep.

[Electronic God-Man]

Exactly. If the kids only know Italian, they become ethnically Italian, so Romance. Quite simple, after all.

Ethnicity encompasses more than a language.

[Loyalist]

Exactly. If the kids only know Italian, they become ethnically Italian, so Romance. Quite simple, after all.

There are millions of ethnic Germans in Brazil who speak only Portuguese, having fallen out of touch with their ancestral tongue after generations of being drowned out by the linguistic majority of the country. Does this mean those Germans, most of whom remain ethnically unmixed, are no longer Germans, or even Germanic? How about the Germans in Argentina or Chile who are Spanish monoglots? Or the Welsh of Patagonia, who have been forced to adopt Spanish to survive, are they no longer Celts? Of course they are; they all are. Ethnicity is not determined by language, or even wider culture, but by blood.

[Barreldriver]

Ethnicity is not determined by language, or even wider culture, but by blood.

Ethnicity is determined by combinations of all of the above, not one or the other, and how much these influence the ethnic identity is specific to the nuclear groups, it is not as generalized as you state it is. Ethnicity is a much more complex issue.

[Damião de Góis]

I would say that ethnicity is blood, language and culture. In Europe that is very easy to identify. In the new world, not really. Like the "germans" in Brazil. A samba dancing brazilian guy with a german surname is not a german...

[Loyalist]

Ethnicity is determined by combinations of all of the above, not one or the other, and how much these influence the ethnic identity is specific to the nuclear groups, it is not as generalized as you state it is. Ethnicity is a much more complex issue.

No, language and culture are peripherals, but by including culture as an essential factor in determining one's ethnicity, then there is cause to say that a thoroughly-assimilated Negro family in Sweden is Swedish. Unlike a Portuguese-speaking German-Brazilian, they lack the essential genetic and genealogical component for re-assimilation into their ancestral identity.

[Treffie]

Or the Welsh of Patagonia, who have been forced to adopt Spanish to survive, are they no longer Celts? Of course they are; they all are. Ethnicity is not determined by language, or even wider culture, but by blood.

No, they are considered Argentinian :)

[Barreldriver]

I would say that ethnicity is blood, language and culture. In Europe that is very easy to identify. In the new world, not really. Like the "germans" in Brazil. A samba dancing brazilian guy with a german surname is not a german...

In the new world, at least in the general population, ethnicity is extremely difficult to define, however I was privileged enough to grow up in a traditional Appalachian family so I have my own ethnic group (Appalachian) of a more recent origin that is rooted in more ancient groupings.

I'd say the most prominent ethnic group that retains a more or less undisturbed status would be the Amish.

[Loyalist]

No, they are considered Argentinian :)

Argentinian is a nationality; Welsh is their ethnicity. :)

[Barreldriver]

No, language and culture are peripherals, but by including culture as an essential factor in determining one's ethnicity, then there is cause to say that a thoroughly-assimilated Negro family in Sweden is Swedish. Unlike a Portuguese-speaking German-Brazilian, they lack the essential genetic and genealogical component for re-assimilation into their ancestral identity.

No one with any good mind would consider those aliens part of those groupings, as I said it is a combination of genetics, language, culture, and such, not one or the other in isolation. You need all the pieces of the puzzle, you cannot just pick or choose, a negro that speaks Swedish and lives in Sweden is obviously not Swedish as he lacks a common genetic affinity with Swedes, however a Swedish descending person that has genetic affinity with Swedes but not a common language or culture is not Swedish either, to be a Swede you need to have genetic affinity with other Swedes, you need the language, and the culture. To be part of the group you need all the pieces.

[Treffie]

Argentinian is a nationality; Welsh is their ethnicity. :)

We no longer consider them as Welsh, only as Welsh speakers living in Argentina. The population is so assimilated that we can not consider them as fully Welsh.

[Loyalist]

No one with any good mind would consider those aliens part of those groupings, as I said it is a combination of genetics, language, culture, and such, not one or the other in isolation. You need all the pieces of the puzzle, you cannot just pick or choose, a negro that speaks Swedish and lives in Sweden is obviously not Swedish as he lacks a common genetic affinity with Swedes, however a Swedish descending person that has genetic affinity with Swedes but not a common language or culture is not Swedish either, to be a Swede you need to have genetic affinity with other Swedes, you need the language, and the culture. To be part of the group you need all the pieces.

Culture without blood is worthless, just like your argument. Loss of knowledge of one's ancestral language doesn't erase their genetic identity and relegate them to permanent alien status. By your logic, a chav is no longer English.

[Goidelic]

Ethnicity is more of a cultural thing, but there definitely is a genetic (ancestry) component too. F.e. If you have a 1/2 German & 1/2 Finnish person, who ethnically identifies as German he's German, but his ancestry remains German & Finnish. I would say one must be half of that proclaimed (German) ancestry with the other half European, preferably Northern European (ancestrally similar) to be considered ethnically a German.

[Loyalist]

We no longer consider them as Welsh, only as Welsh speakers living in Argentina. The population is so assimilated that we can not consider them as fully Welsh.

There are still individuals of unmixed Welsh ancestry in Argentina. Read Marcus Tanner's The Last of the Celts for a number of interviews with these people. It's only the individuals from about my generation who have inter-married with the Italians and Spaniards on any large scale.

[Comte Arnau]

Ethnicity encompasses more than a language.

I agree.


There are millions of ethnic Germans in Brazil who speak only Portuguese, having fallen out of touch with their ancestral tongue after generations of being drowned out by the linguistic majority of the country. Does this mean those Germans, most of whom remain ethnically unmixed, are no longer Germans, or even Germanic? How about the Germans in Argentina or Chile who are Spanish monoglots? Or the Welsh of Patagonia, who have been forced to adopt Spanish to survive, are they no longer Celts? Of course they are; they all are. Ethnicity is not determined by language, or even wider culture, but by blood.

Do you think Germans consider them ethnic Germans? I don't think so.

I think you are confusing ethnicity with identity. I can understand that people born in the Americas feel partially identified with their ethnic heritage, but that doesn't make them belong to the same ethnicity, unless they maintain the language vigorously. It is not enough to keep some cultural traits if the language is lost forever. A Spanish-speaking Argentinian monoglot of Germanic or Welsh descent will be an Argentinian citizen of Argentinian Hispanic ethnicity, in spite of the fact that he can feel identified with and proud of his Germanic or Welsh descent/heritage.

What blood determines is genealogy, not ethnicity.

[Barreldriver]

Culture without blood is worthless, just like your argument. Loss of knowledge of one's ancestral language doesn't erase their genetic identity and relegate them to permanent alien status. By your logic, a chav is no longer English.

I never said culture without blood was worth anything. Learn to bloody read, I said you need culture AND blood.

[Treffie]

There are still individuals of unmixed Welsh ancestry in Argentina. Read Marcus Tanner's The Last of the Celts for a number of interviews with these people. It's only the individuals from about my generation who have inter-married with the Italians and Spaniards on any large scale.

Yes, probably there are, about 50-100 maximum. Btw, when I studied in Patagonia, very few of them admitted that they were wholly Welsh. They're proud of their heritage of course, but they're not delusional.

[Barreldriver]

Take this example, I am an Appalachian nothing more, I have roots in the Isle's but can I rightfully call myself an Englishman? Hell no, I've never set foot on England, do I know what it is to be a modern Englishman? No I don't. I am an Appalachian, my culture, yes, has roots in the Isle's as does my blood, but I am not from the Isle's myself. I am from Appalachia, I was raised with an offshoot culture not the parent culture.

[Psychonaut]

I never said culture without blood was worth anything. Learn to bloody read, I said you need culture AND blood.

Yes. To equate ethnicity to just race, to just ancestry, to just culture, or to just language is incorrect. It is an aggregate of all of these things. That's the whole point of the word; it's a holistic concept that cannot be entirely defined by any one constituent. If you mean race, say race. If you mean ancestry, say ancestry. Don't conflate these with ethnicity, which, by definition, encompasses more than just one of them.

[Loyalist]

Do you think Germans consider them ethnic Germans? I don't think so.

With the prevailing PC culture in Germany, I doubt most Germans of today consider any Volksdeutsche to be ethnic Germans, whether they are in Brazil or any of the numerous communities throughout Eastern Europe. It is a matter of opinion, pure and simple.


I think you are confusing ethnicity with identity. I can understand that people born in the Americas feel partially identified with their ethnic heritage, but that doesn't make them belong to the same ethnicity, unless they maintain the language vigorously. It is not enough to keep some cultural traits if the language is lost forever.

Most Canadians of Scottish ancestry descend from Gaelic-speaking Highlanders, myself included. Gaelic died out in Canada by the early 20th century. Does this loss of our ancestral identity mean we no longer have any claim to being of Scottish heritage, in any sense of the word? Of course we do, and, fortunately for those who still claim some part of their ancestral identity, we do not need the approval of others to do what we can to preserve the identity of our forbears.


A Spanish-speaking Argentinian monoglot of Germanic or Welsh descent will be an Argentinian citizen of Argentinian Hispanic ethnicity, in spite of the fact that he can feel identified with and proud of his Germanic or Welsh descent/heritage.

You are confusing ethnicity with nationality.


What blood determines is genealogy, not ethnicity.

What determines ethnicity is blood and genealogy.

[Goidelic]

I agree with your post Psychonaut being an aggregate of all of those things but I'd say ethnicity is primarily based of language & ancestry more than anything (that's why I said more of a cultural thing due to the language aspect & identification), as well as which one you are predominantly of & grew up with most to identify with.

However, the biggest component of the ethnicity is ancestry which are part of the indigenous nation. This is what happens when people don't value ancestry, anyone can become an ethnic person of any nation including Abos & Negroes, which then becomes a multiracial hellhole & cesspool. Otherwise, if we thought of the Irish ethnic group we'd think of all races on this planet being a part of it etc.

Something to expect in the future when we'll all have to start just relying on individual ancestry, when nations & classic "ethnic groups" get swarmed with alien races outside different geographical continents creating a new "multiracial ethnogenesis" for nations & newly arising ethnic groups of those nations.

[Barreldriver]

Most Canadians of Scottish ancestry descend from Gaelic-speaking Highlanders, myself included. Gaelic died out in Canada by the early 20th century. Does this loss of our ancestral identity mean we no longer have any claim to being of Scottish heritage, in any sense of the word? Of course we do, and, fortunately for those who still claim some part of their ancestral identity, we do not need the approval of others to do what we can to preserve the identity of our forbears.





Yes it does mean you have no claim to that cultural heritage, you do not have claim to that Gaelic heritage because you are no longer Gaelic, your ancestry is Gaelic, but heritage is an ethnic term and your cultural heritage is anything but Gaelic if you cannot speak the lingo and do not practice the culture and do not live on Gaelic land.

[Goidelic]

Yes it does mean you have no claim to that cultural heritage, you do not have claim to that Gaelic heritage because you are no longer Gaelic, your ancestry is Gaelic, but heritage is an ethnic term and your cultural heritage is anything but Gaelic if you cannot speak the lingo and do not practice the culture and do not live on Gaelic land.

I would say that if you have the Scottish Highlander Gaelic ancestry as well as citizenship to that nation, you are ethnically Scottish. ;) You don't necesarily have to be fluent in the lingo & know all about the culture. ;)

[Comte Arnau]

With the prevailing PC culture in Germany, I doubt most Germans of today consider any Volksdeutsche to be ethnic Germans, whether they are in Brazil or any of the numerous communities throughout Eastern Europe. It is a matter of opinion, pure and simple.

I see. So now it's not up to Germans to know who ethnic Germans are, because it's a matter of opinion.



Most Canadians of Scottish ancestry descend from Gaelic-speaking Highlanders, myself included. Gaelic died out in Canada by the early 20th century. Does this loss of our ancestral identity mean we no longer have any claim to being of Scottish heritage, in any sense of the word? Of course we do, and, fortunately for those who still claim some part of their ancestral identity, we do not need the approval of others to do what we can to preserve the identity of our forbears.

I agree more with what you just said here. See how you replaced ethnicity with more accurate terms. ;)



You are confusing ethnicity with nationality.

Lol, the last thing you'll ever see is a Catalan confusing ethnicity with nationality.

[Barreldriver]

I would say that if you have the Scottish Highlander Gaelic ancestry as well as citizenship to that nation, you are ethnically Scottish. ;) You don't necesarily have to be fluent in the lingo & know all about the culture. ;)

You need to be a part of the culture and the homeland, without the language, without the actual culture and the homeland you are not the same as your ancestors. This is why many English with Brythonic ancestors are no longer Brythonic but English, they have English culture and language, not Brythonic.

[Loyalist]

Yes it does mean you have no claim to that cultural heritage, you do not have claim to that Gaelic heritage because you are no longer Gaelic, your ancestry is Gaelic, but heritage is an ethnic term and your cultural heritage is anything but Gaelic if you cannot speak the lingo and do not practice the culture and do not live on Gaelic land.

Native Scots themselves have no more claim to any Gaelic heritage than I do, seeing as that culture there is faring little better. Then again, Scots both at home and in the Colonial dispoara could learn Gaelic and wear kilts. But that would not quite suffice, would it? Culture is far too abstract and peripheral to be the determining factor in one's ethnic identity; blood is everything.

[Goidelic]

You need to be a part of the culture and the homeland, without the language, without the actual culture and the homeland you are not the same as your ancestors. This is why many English with Brythonic ancestors are no longer Brythonic but English, they have English culture and language, not Brythonic.

Well, I guess it's all a matter of opinion! :p

I have Irish citizenship as well as the ancestry, though I'm trying to learn some of their Gaelic Language for more of the cultural aspects of the nation. :)

I would say just because I wasn't born there, or know the language fluently is wrong, but then again I have the ancestry & citizenship. :p;)

[Barreldriver]

Native Scots themselves have no more claim to any Gaelic heritage than I do, seeing as that culture there is faring little better. Then again, Scots both at home and in the Colonial dispoara could learn Gaelic and wear kilts. But that would not quite suffice, would it? Culture is far too abstract and peripheral to be the determining factor in one's ethnic identity; blood is everything.

Unless all my prof. has taught in cultural anthropology was wrong then I guess you are talking out of your butt with zero academic claim. It defies all logic to claim ethnicity by blood alone. You need LANGUAGE, BLOOD, CULTURE, and COMMON HOMELAND, NOT ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. I cannot make it any more clear.

[Black Turlogh]

Well, I guess it's all a matter of opinion! :p

I have Irish citizenship as well as the ancestry, though I'm trying to learn some of their Gaelic Language for more of the cultural aspects of the nation. :)

I would say just because I wasn't born there, or know the language fluently is wrong, but then again I have the ancestry & citizenship. :p;)

You'll find some of us are more sympathetic toward "colonial" Irishmen then's being suggested here. Irish history is a little different from others; many migrated reluctantly to escape the famine and the very real and immediate prospect of death. That said, it's difficult for me to simply pretend that you and I, for example, have no relation and nothing in common.

[Loyalist]

Unless all my prof. has taught in cultural anthropology was wrong then I guess you are talking out of your butt with zero academic claim.

Well, since you put it that way, I am wrong, as all professors everywhere are infallible and omniscient. :rolleyes:

My sociology prof also stated that race does not exist, and that gender has no biological basis. Oh, and my political science prof said the Nazis represented a bad type of nationalism. I tell you, they opened my eyes. :lightbul:


It defies all logic to claim ethnicity by blood alone. You need LANGUAGE, BLOOD, CULTURE, and COMMON HOMELAND, NOT ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. I cannot make it any more clear.

I never said that cultural and language are not peripherals, in fact I said they are before you jumped in to cherry-pick my post, but the essential factor in ethnicity is blood. Knowledge of the indigenous culture and fluency in the language counts for nothing if the subject also lacks a genetic connection to the indigenous people.

[Barreldriver]

Great my last post was deleted. Basically I was re-emphasizing that to be properly part of a defined ethnic group you need to have not just blood but blood+culture+language.

[Tabiti]

It's not deleted it's here (made two threads by mistake):
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=123621#post123621

[Psychonaut]

NCulture is far too abstract and peripheral to be the determining factor in one's ethnic identity; blood is everything.

Why are you trying to pin this down to one of its parts? Blood alone is not ethnicity; it is blood.

[Tabiti]

Please, write here until the moderators of this forum merge the threads:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=123637#post123637

[Barreldriver]

I never said that cultural and language are not peripherals, in fact I said they are before you jumped in to cherry-pick my post, but the essential factor in ethnicity is blood. Knowledge of the indigenous culture and fluency in the language counts for nothing is the subject also lacks a genetic connection to the indigenous people.

I did not cherry pick your post, you stated blatantly that Blood is the sole definitive element that determines ethnicity, I stated you were wrong as language, culture, and homeland have equal importance, which is why I cannot ever claim to be an Englishman on any grounds, rather you seem to be doing the cherry picking by stating that I claim that blood has no influence that that a negro can be a swede when I said the exact opposite, I stated that it is blood+culture+language, not one minus the others, that's like calling a chicken wing a chicken, it's not the chicken but rather a part of it.

[Loyalist]

Why are you trying to pin this down to one of its parts? Blood alone is not ethnicity; it is blood.

The part I am referring to is the fundamental element of the matter; culture is pointless if one has no genetic, ancestral connection to the indigenous group of the land under consideration. On the same note, culture and language can be re-learned to an extent; a German-Brazilian can be returned to Germany, and within a generation, that person will assimilate back into the German fold. However, a Brazilian of Amerindian or Negroid descent exported to Germany can never be a German, nor can their descendants.

[Barreldriver]

Here was my last post that got put in the other thread:

@Loyalist:

I did not cherry pick your post, you stated blatantly that Blood is the sole definitive element that determines ethnicity, I stated you were wrong as language, culture, and homeland have equal importance, which is why I cannot ever claim to be an Englishman on any grounds, rather you seem to be doing the cherry picking by stating that I claim that blood has no influence that that a negro can be a swede when I said the exact opposite, I stated that it is blood+culture+language, not one minus the others, that's like calling a chicken wing a chicken, it's not the chicken but rather a part of it.

[Treffie]

Native Scots themselves have no more claim to any Gaelic heritage than I do, seeing as that culture there is faring little better. Then again, Scots both at home and in the Colonial dispoara could learn Gaelic and wear kilts.].

Well that's debateable, Native Scots will be considered as Scottish, whereas you would be considered a Canadian of Scottish descent.

[Loyalist]

Well that's debateable, Native Scots will be considered as Scottish, whereas you would be considered a Canadian of Scottish descent.

Exactly. :)

[Barreldriver]

Exactly. :)

Have you ever thought of going to Scotland and telling a native Scotsman that you are just as Scottish as he is? I'd be interested to see the reaction.

[Loyalist]

Have you ever thought of going to Scotland and telling a native Scotsman that you are just as Scottish as he is? I'd be interested to see the reaction.

Do you have any clue how much time I have spent in Scotland? Never once during my time there have I encountered anyone who challenged my claim to Scottish identity. What I have gotten are those curious about the state of the Scottish dispoara in Canada, whether we still speak Gaelic, etc. Although in a purely anecdotal sense, the only opposition to Colonial claims of Scottish heritage I have heard comes from an apparent distate for American clan fetishists and commercialised genealogy and heraldic symbolism.

I am a member of the Sons of Scotland of Canada, the Orange Order, and a local Glasgow Rangers supporters club. Interestingly, in all three we have a mix of Scottish immigrants, first or second generation Scottish-Canadians, and those whose Scottish ancestry is much more distant than my own. We all operate as Scots, and never has anyone challenged that based on a member not having been born within the confines of the old country.

[Psychonaut]

The part I am referring to is the fundamental element of the matter; culture is pointless if one has no genetic, ancestral connection to the indigenous group of the land under consideration. On the same note, culture and language can be re-learned to an extent; a German-Brazilian can be returned to Germany, and within a generation, that person will assimilate back into the German fold. However, a Brazilian of Amerindian or Negroid descent exported to Germany can never be a German, nor can their descendants.

I would agree with you that blood is a fundamental component, and is perhaps the fundamental one, but I would go so far as to say that without language and culture one cannot belong to the ethnic group of their blood. An ancestral Englishman who was adopted by and lived his entire life with Zulus is neither an Englishman nor is he a Zulu. He has a race and an ancestry, but they are at odds with his culture and language. He would, IMO, be an ethnic anomaly. If enough such anomalies congregate, they could form a new ethnic group, but one alone would belong to neither.

[Loki]

I would agree with you that blood is a fundamental component, and is perhaps the fundamental one, but I would go so far as to say that without language and culture one cannot belong to the ethnic group of their blood.

Sure, but ... we all know Colonials have blood of various ethnicities. An American or Canadian can hardly call himself "English" or "Scottish" by any stretch of the imagination, unless he is a recent immigrant of course.

Most of my roots are in Netherlands, but I can never call myself Dutch. That would not be accurate.

[Barreldriver]

Do you have any clue how much time I have spent in Scotland? Never once during my time there have I encountered anyone who challenged my claim to Scottish identity. What I have gotten are those curious about the state of the Scottish dispoara in Canada, whether we still speak Gaelic, etc. Although in a purely anecdotal sense, the only opposition to Colonial claims of Scottish heritage I have heard comes from an apparent distate for American clan fetishists and commercialised genealogy and heraldic symbolism.

I am a member of the Sons of Scotland of Canada, the Orange Order, and a local Glasgow Rangers supporters club. Interestingly, in all three we have a mix of Scottish immigrants, first or second generation Scottish-Canadians, and those whose Scottish ancestry is much more distant than my own. We all operate as Scots, and never has anyone challenged that based on a member not having been born within the confines of the old country.

That's all I wanted to know, thank you. When I encountered an Englishman it was a different story for English Americans. Did not know if it was the same situation between the native Scottish and the descendants abroad as it was between the English and the Americans of English descent.

[Loyalist]

That's all I wanted to know, thank you. When I encountered an Englishman it was a different story for English Americans. Did not know if it was the same situation between the native Scottish and the descendants abroad as it was between the English and the Americans of English descent.

Well, I tend to find the Scots have a greater sense of community and fratenity, especially as it relates to their Colonial brethren, than the English. Exactly why is debatable, of course, but there is certainly more acceptance of those who sincerely try to embrace their ancestral culture. On a related note, I am not aware of any English ethnic socities in Canada, wheras the Scots and Irish have fraternal organisations in most major cities and towns. Perhaps that sort of thing helps bridge the gap between the old world and the new.

[Barreldriver]

Well, I tend to find the Scots have a greater sense of community and fratenity, especially as it relates to their Colonial brethren, than the English. Exactly why is debatable, of course, but there is certainly more acceptance of those who sincerely try to embrace their ancestral culture. On a related note, I am not aware of any English ethnic socities in Canada, wheras the Scots and Irish have fraternal organisations in most major cities and towns. Perhaps that sort of thing helps bridge the gap between the old world and the new.

Possibly it has to do with Colonial War of Independence, if that is the case I would be saddened considering my family did not support the Continental's during the War of Independence, and I even had family that fought as British soldiers during that conflict.

[Psychonaut]

Sure, but ... we all know Colonials have blood of various ethnicities. An American or Canadian can hardly call himself "English" or "Scottish" by any stretch of the imagination, unless he is a recent immigrant of course.

I agree. Old Stock American, or something similar, is a much better ethnic identifier for most white Americans than is German, English, etc., IMO. We've been here mixing with each other for the last few centuries. That's plenty of time for a new ethnic group to begin forming.

[Barreldriver]

I agree. Old Stock American, or something similar, is a much better ethnic identifier for most white Americans than is German, English, etc., IMO. We've been here mixing with each other for the last few centuries. That's plenty of time for a new ethnic group to begin forming.

Not all of us are so severely mixed. Some have 1/8 or less other European heritage while remaining otherwise Insular while having an Insular (in the context of the British Isle's) main lineage, and being in a patriarchal patrilineal society for the most part, that Insular main heritage would be the strongest influence if not the sole influence for many, but most with that background are not considered actually Insular in the case of English-Americans for the most part, and we have our own ways that differ from the main American mainstream and that of the Isle's.

This is why sub-cultures still exist, and need to exist. I am 100% against a blan American ethnicity, I want to preserve my Appalachian identity.

[Psychonaut]

Not all of us are so severely mixed. Some have 1/8 or less other European heritage while remaining otherwise Insular while having an Insular (in the context of the British Isle's) main lineage, and being in a patriarchal patrilineal society for the most part, that Insular main heritage would be the strongest influence if not the sole influence for many, but most with that background are not considered actually Insular in the case of English-Americans mostly, and we have our own ways that differ from the main American mainstream and that of the Isle's.

True, but although my blood is almost entirely from Northern France, I'm not proper French any more than you are British. They know that there is a distance of land, time, culture and history between us and them. It's not as if your parents came from England; we're talking about several centuries of rootedness in America and all of the history and ethnic differentiation that comes with such separation. Why are Americans so hesitant to identify as such? Why play at being a European when our Founding Fathers wished us to do nothing of the sort. Surely our ethnicities on the North American continent are derived from Europe, but we are not English; we are not German; we are Americans. A big part of ethnicity is the acceptance of a member within the group. Most Europeans that I've spoken with about these things certainly see a difference. So, why would we insist that we are a part of their group if they are telling us that we're not? Is that not a clear enough sign that we've come into our own?

[Barreldriver]

True, but although my blood is almost entirely from Northern France, I'm not proper French any more than you are British. They know that there is a distance of land, time, culture and history between us and them. It's not as if your parents came from England; we're talking about several centuries of rootedness in America and all of the history and ethnic differentiation that comes with such separation. Why are Americans so hesitant to identify as such? Why play at being a European when our Founding Fathers wished us to do nothing of the sort. Surely our ethnicities on the North American continent are derived from Europe, but we are not English; we are not German; we are Americans. A big part of ethnicity is the acceptance of a member within the group. Most Europeans that I've spoken with about these things certainly see a difference. So, why would we insist that we are a part of their group if they are telling us that we're not? Is that not a clear enough sign that we've come into our own?

I'm not talking about playing British or playing European, I'm stating that I am not a part of the "American" culture and ethnicity as I am an Appalachian of a mostly exclusive ancestral background. I am neither British, nor American, I am Appalachian, I belong to a group that the Union has forsaken.

[Psychonaut]

I'm not talking about playing British or playing European, I'm stating that I am not a part of the "American" culture and ethnicity as I am an Appalachian of a mostly exclusive ancestral background. I am neither British, nor American, I am Appalachian, I belong to a group that the Union has forsaken.

Oh, OK. I must've misread your last post. :)

I'll definitely agree that there are distinctly American regional ethnicities as well. I'm an American for sure, but my roots are Acadian, just as yours are Appalachian. I think in both cases, we partake of the American identity, just as a Bavarian partakes of the German identity, on both a part of our ethnicity and nationality.

[Treffie]

You need to be a part of the culture and the homeland, without the language, without the actual culture and the homeland you are not the same as your ancestors. This is why many English with Brythonic ancestors are no longer Brythonic but English, they have English culture and language, not Brythonic.

I agree with you on this, but language isn't always a necessity. In Wales there are many who do not speak the Welsh language and are English speaking only. They are still obviously Welsh and identify themselves as such.

[Barreldriver]

Oh, OK. I must've misread your last post. :)

I'll definitely agree that there are distinctly American regional ethnicities as well. I'm an American for sure, but my roots are Acadian, just as yours are Appalachian. I think in both cases, we partake of the American identity, just as a Bavarian partakes of the German identity, on both a part of our ethnicity and nationality.

My main issue with the American identity is that the modern American identity is not that of the days gone by, my Appalachian identity is more closely related to Colonial Era trends than the trends of today, I see "American" as nationality only because I do not support the mainstream culture, I do not support the tyrannical abuse of the citizens, I do not support the current undermining of the Constitution, nor do I even support the original War of Independence (as I believe it is worse to have one tyrant 3000 miles away than it is to have 3000 tyrants one mile away.).

I would prefer that the Union bugger off and leave Appalachia alone, after all since when did the Union ever care about that region? The only thing the Union wants from my folk is votes, I say screw 'em and let us farm and duel. :D

[Electronic God-Man]

I belong to a group that the Union has forsaken.

A. That's ridiculous.
B. "The Union" has nothing to do with it.

.................................................. ...................
Now I was going to say something to Psychonaut before my internet crashed:

Barreldriver isn't talking about trying to be part of some European ethnic group. He wants to identify solely with Appalachia.

I don't know. I think maybe there should be a discussion about the difference between an ethnicity as such and regional identities/regional distinctions within an ethnicity.

As an example:
German ethnicity
Bavarian
Swiss-German
Saxon
Thuringian
Hessian
Rheinlaender
Holsteiner
etcetera

[Barreldriver]

A. That's ridiculous.
B. "The Union" has nothing to do with it.

.................................................. ...................


A. The Union has done nothing but forsake Appalachia except for when it comes time to vote. The ridicule mainstream American has done towards my folk in the past is quite barbaric, portraying us as mindless semi-retarded hillbillies.

B. The Union again has everything to do with it because they only care about our votes nothing more, they could care less about what is good for us.

[Electronic God-Man]

A. The Union has done nothing but forsake Appalachia except for when it comes time to vote. The ridicule mainstream American has done towards my folk in the past is quite barbaric, portraying us as mindless semi-retarded hillbillies.

B. The Union again has everything to do with it because they only care about our votes nothing more, they could care less about what is good for us.

The Government should have nothing to do with how your ethnicity is determined.

Unless you are French. In that case, the Republic of France can just hand out French ethnicity, right Al-Frankawi? ;)

[Barreldriver]

The Government should have nothing to do with how your ethnicity is determined.



It does to an extent. As the Union further isolated us we became our own kind stuck on Union terms, we have our own independent ethnicity despite being trapped in terms of nationality.

[Electronic God-Man]

It does to an extent. As the Union further isolated us we became our own kind stuck on Union terms, we have our own independent ethnicity despite being trapped in terms of nationality.

I'd see it like this: Your ethnicity is American and your regional identity is Appalachian.

Oddly enough, my family is from the Appalachians too. :D
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/AppalachianLocatorMap2.png

I don't think "The Union" made Appalachians Appalachians. Also, the USA shouldn't be equated with old stock Americans (as an ethnicity). You certainly don't need to agree with the Government to be American. Nor do you have to agree or identify with the "mainstream culture" you might find on CNN, FOX News, or MTV. ....if the USA were to cease to exist there would still be old stock Americans.

[Barreldriver]

I'd see it like this: Your ethnicity is American and your regional identity is Appalachian.

Oddly enough, my family is from the Appalachians too. :D
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/AppalachianLocatorMap2.png

I don't think "The Union" made Appalachians Appalachians. Also, the USA shouldn't be equated with old stock Americans (as an ethnicity). You certainly don't need to agree with the Government to be American. Nor do you have to agree or identify with the "mainstream culture" you might find on CNN, FOX News, or MTV. ....if the USA were to cease to exist there would still be old stock Americans.

The Union played some role in defining who Appalachians are, due to the isolation of the folk they were left to make their own group that did not mirror the mainstream way of the nation, it is an after effect in a way. I'm not familiar with Northern Appalachian's and their positions, but in the South we were a more ostracized group.

As for agreeing with the government and being/not being American, by the way the government is portraying it's influence and power, it seems that in the eyes of the government if you disagree with the government you are an outsider, an alien, and an enemy. Quite hypocritical in the sight of what the nation was founded on, but that is the way the nation has become, obedient and oblivious while isolated communities like the Appalachian folk are more archaic and loyal to the old as a whole.

[Loyalist]

I agree. Old Stock American, or something similar, is a much better ethnic identifier for most white Americans than is German, English, etc., IMO. We've been here mixing with each other for the last few centuries. That's plenty of time for a new ethnic group to begin forming.

There is always the view Theodore Roosevelt held, in that old-stock Americans are simply a continuation of a sort of English race abroad. Given that the core population of America was of English origin, with smaller groups of Celtic Islanders and Contintental Germanics/Scandinavians who were quickly and thoroughly Anglicized, the distinction between English and American is more of a social divide. The actual quote is as follows:


"On the New England Coast the English blood was as pure as in any part of Britain; in New York and New Jersey it was mixed with that of the Dutch settlers—and the Dutch are by race nearer to the true old English of Alfred and Harold than are, for example, the thoroughly Anglicized Welsh of Cornwall. Otherwise, the infusion of new blood into the English race [more accurately, English amalgam] on this side of the Atlantic has been chiefly from three sources—German, Irish, and Norse; and these three sources represent the elemental parts of the composite English stock in about the same proportions in which they were originally combined—mainly Teutonic, largely Celtic, and with a Scandinavian admixture. The descendant of the German becomes as much an Anglo-American as the descendant of the Strathclyde Celt has already become an Anglo-Briton . . . It must always be kept in mind that the Americans and the British are two substantially similar branches of the great English race, which both before and after their separation have assimilated, and made Englishmen of many other peoples. . . " Works of Theodore Roosevelt, National Ed., 1926, New York, Vol. VI, p. 23.'

Of course this view is hardly accurate today, given the massive immigration since Roosevelt's time from Southern and Eastern Europe, which has severely muddled the ethnic identity of the average European-American.

[Barreldriver]

Of course this view is hardly accurate today, given the massive immigration since Roosevelt's time from Southern and Eastern Europe, which has severely muddled the ethnic identity of the average European-American.

Those Southern European Americans are a troublesome bunch lol. :P I personally want to facepalm IRL whenever my prof. goes on about how her Sicilian grandparents had it so hard in America.

[Electronic God-Man]

The Union played some role in defining who Appalachians are, due to the isolation of the folk they were left to make their own group that did not mirror the mainstream way of the nation, it is an after effect in a way. I'm not familiar with Northern Appalachian's and their positions, but in the South we were a more ostracized group.

I think a lot of the isolation for Appalachians was self-imposed. I can find any number of groups of people who live out in the woods, up in the hills, and in the valleys that were isolated and seem a little different from "outsiders". Hell, you'd have 100 different more ethnicities in Pennsylvania if you used that as a qualification for a separate ethnicity.


As for agreeing with the government and being/not being American, by the way the government is portraying it's influence and power, it seems that in the eyes of the government if you disagree with the government you are an outsider, an alien, and an enemy. Quite hypocritical in the sight of what the nation was founded on, but that is the way the nation has become, obedient and oblivious while isolated communities like the Appalachian folk are more archaic and loyal to the old as a whole.

:( Let me explain. I don't agree with the US government. Government says to me "you are an outsider, an alien, and an enemy." I say "I don't care. Kindly fuck off."

At what point do I lose my ethnicity in that exchange?? Again, the USA's Government does not equal old stock Americans. Nothing the government does should be a reason to not claim your identity.

[Barreldriver]

I think a lot of the isolation for Appalachians was self-imposed. I can find any number of groups of people who live out in the woods, up in the hills, and in the valleys that were isolated and seem a little different from "outsiders". Hell, you'd have 100 different more ethnicities in Pennsylvania if you used that as a qualification for a separate ethnicity.

I believe that both sides had a role in it. The Appalachians had our role in our original choice of locations and such, but the Union had it's role when it ostracized us with hateful propaganda depicting us as brainless dimwits that did nothing but pick our noses and banjos.




:( Let me explain. I don't agree with the US government. Government says to me "you are an outsider, an alien, and an enemy." I say "I don't care. Kindly fuck off."

At what point do I lose my ethnicity in that exchange?? Again, the USA's Government does not equal old stock Americans. Nothing the government does should be a reason to not claim your identity.

You make a good point here.

[Loyalist]

Those Southern European Americans are a troublesome bunch lol. :P I personally want to facepalm IRL whenever my prof. goes on about how her Sicilian grandparents had it so hard in America.

That type of nonsense really irritates me. Whenever the history of immigration to America and other Colonials lands is examined, you can count on some sob story from an Italian, Irishman, Pole, or Jew about how their grandfather suffered at the hands of the evil WASPs because he wasn't hired for the first job he applied for. Somebody should remind these people that it was our North-Western European, Colonial-era ancestors who ventured off to the uncharted New World, fought off the natives, and built a country from the ground up centuries ago; if anyone knew hardships, it was them. It's interesting to note that those "ethnics" who are so fond of creating a victim identity for their ancestors only arrived long after the fact, having played no part in clearing the land and creating a nation.

[Electronic God-Man]

There is always the view Theodore Roosevelt held, in that old-stock Americans are simply a continuation of a sort of English race abroad. Given that the core population of America was of English origin, with smaller groups of Celtic Islanders and Contintental Germanics/Scandinavians who were quickly and thoroughly Anglicized, the distinction between English and American is more of a social divide.

I agree very generally, but you can't equate American with English. There has been both a social and a cultural divergence. Since ethnicity comprises culture, language, and blood I would not call myself English, and I very much doubt any Englishman would either. Very closely related, but a divergence has occurred. Whether you want to call it a new branch, a new ethnicity...I don't know what...and it hardly matters at that point. The basic idea is fairly clear.

[Electronic God-Man]

By the way, the people living in the southern Appalachian mountains are the most willing to state their ethnicity as "American" in the entire nation.

Here's a map showing the frequency of people who identified their ethnicity as "American" in the 2000 US census:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/American1346.gif

[Psychonaut]

There is always the view Theodore Roosevelt held, in that old-stock Americans are simply a continuation of a sort of English race abroad.

Even in Roosevelt's day, I think this would've been inaccurate. Germans have made up an extremely large part of the US's demographic since before the Revolution.

[SilverFish]

What is an American ethnicity? Is it someone who have a certain trait or someone who shares the same culture for the last hundred of years?

I believe I must associate myself as an American. Both sides of my family has been here for so long, I can't decide whether I am this or that or this or that or this or that or this...

[Electronic God-Man]

What is an American ethnicity? Is it someone who have a certain trait or someone who shares the same culture for the last hundred of years?

I believe I must associate myself as an American. Both sides of my family has been here for so long, I can't decide whether I am this or that or this or that or this or that or this...

You've been confusing the hell out of me since you've started posting those Classification threads...

So you are not, in fact, living in the UK but in the US. And your family has been living here "for so long"? If I remember correctly you said something about someone in your family having Indian ancestry from some time ago (correctly or incorrectly)?

Yeah, if I understand this correctly finally, you're probably Anglo-American.

[SilverFish]

You've been confusing the hell out of me since you've started posting those Classification threads...

So you are not, in fact, living in the UK but in the US. And your family has been living here "for so long"? If I remember correctly you said something about someone in your family having Indian ancestry from some time ago (correctly or incorrectly)?

Yeah, if I understand this correctly finally, you're probably Anglo-American.
So I may be a Protestant, White, Blue Eye male with a dad and mom who are in the top 1% of household income but no way does that make me an Anglo-American. My features and my mom's and dad's don't say that I am an Anglo-American.

[Electronic God-Man]

So I may be a Protestant, White, Blue Eye male with a dad and mom who are in the top 1% of household income but no way does that make me an Anglo-American. My features and my mom's and dad's don't say that I am an Anglo-American.

Wut.

At the very real risk of feeding a troll...

Your mom and your dad both look British. You state your ethnicity as British. You say your family has been here for a very long time. You're even Protestant. You're a WASP. LOL. White Anglo Saxon Protestant.

Being rich has nothing to do with it.

[SilverFish]

I don't know...

I mean, who cares anyway? I'm getting so mixed up in all of this. People moved all the time. Hello, this is 21st century. Back in the 20th century, people had cars and stuffs like that.

Why not make a new ethnic group for the applachia? What about the eastern shore ethnic group? Et cetera?

Can we start this now?

[Electronic God-Man]

who cares anyway?

No one. Let's call it quits.


Can we start this now?

Yes. You can start by leaving.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Even in Roosevelt's day, I think this would've been inaccurate. Germans have made up an extremely large part of the US's demographic since before the Revolution.

I forget the exact quote, but I think it was something along the lines of both the English and Americans being about 2/3 Germanic and 1/3Celtic

[SilverFish]

I heard that 22.4% of European Americans have blue eyes. Used to be significant back then.

Tells you how much we have changed.

We have homogenized so much that you really can't spot an ethnicity for them. They are essentially American.

[Goidelic]

There are different "Colonials" I'd say. We have Appalachians, Southrons (primarily of English & Scots-Irish descent & distinct Southern culture), Scots-Irish (found in the South & New England area as well). Some consider Scots-Irish as Old Stock American, but most hold on to their Ulster-Scots roots & have a different identity than Mayflower Anglo-Americans or other New England Anglo-American "Old Stock" peoples, the Scots-Irish are largely of Lowland Scottish diaspora, some have additional English, German & Huguenot but it is pretty minor & similar to ethnic English, whereas New England Anglo-Americans are primarily of old "English" diaspora. Then there are some people that think all "Colonials" are the same & of Old Stock.

I'd say the Scots-Irish are similar to the Ulster-Scots of Europe, insofar as much as the Irish Catholics are related to the Irish in Ireland.

Some of the Scots-Irish Americans hold on to their Ulster roots to this day in the U.S. & have conventions, & societies dedicated to them, plus Ulster-Scots is an ethnic group from Ireland, predominantly of Scottish ancestry.

Though, I technically prefer the term "Lowland Scots" rather than Scots-Irish or Ulster-Scots. A few of the Lowland Scottish immigrants settled in parts of England before they made their journey to Ulster & off to the New World. Most were of Gaelic & Anglo-Saxon descent from the Lowlands of Scotland.

There are lies that they have historically been stereotyped as "white trash" & are largely racially mixed with "injun" & Negroes same goes for Appalachians, in fact Scots-Irish Americans are primarily of 18th century Scottish ancestry & some with a little English, but have a unique American "Ulster" identity, some identify as ethnically American, but they are really Ulster-Scots Americans. ;) In fact most of the Scots-Irish Americans have more of a Keltic Nordid/Celtic phenotype to them then many of the other Colonials, probably from the Lowland Scottish mixed Gaelic & Anglo-Saxon genes, some have Highland Scottish Gaelic roots as well, as some Highland Scots moved South & some Lowland Scots moved North etc. Most Ulster-Scots don't refer to their identity as "British" either. ;)

"Today's Scottish-American community also involves those of Scots-Irish and Highlander descent, but celebrates a "Scottish identity" through Highland symbols.

Heritage Celebration
In my initial forays to Scottish events, I was intrigued by the way in which Scottish Americans from across the country, of Highland, Lowland, and Scots-Irish ancestry alike, celebrate their ethnic identity with the imagery and material culture of Highland Scots"

"In particular Scots-Irish can often be traced back to the Scottish Highlands, Scottish Lowlands, Galloway, the English and Scottish Borders"

"Their Celtic interpretation says Scots-Irish resembled all other Celtic groups; they were warlike herders (as opposed to peaceful farmers in England), and brought this tradition to America."

"It can therefore be considered that anyone whose ancestors migrated from Scotland to Ulster from 1400 onward is of Ulster-Scot descent."

"Ulster Scots are largely descended from Galloway, Ayrshire, and the Scottish Borders Country, although some descend from further north in the Scottish Lowlands and Highlands as well. Ulster Scots emigrated to the United States and all corners of the then-worldwide British Empire: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and to a lesser extent, Argentina and Chile in South America"

"Despite their descendants, if they knew their Ulster-Scot ancestry, were somewhat incorrectly identified simply as "Irish", "Scottish" or "British" for a long period of time, although it should be noted that in America the Ulster emigrants usually called themselves "Irish"."

The strange thing I've noticed with some of my "English" lines is that they originate & end up in parts of Gaelic speaking regions in Scotland, quite strange I thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKvm3avUnKY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v68dDuvSWDE

http://www.uni-due.de/IERC/Ulster_Scots_Online.gif

http://usas-online.org.uk/resources/USAs-logo1.jpg

http://www.orangenet.org/loiusa/Ulster-Scots.gif

http://www.electricscotland.com/history/ulster_scots/ulster-scots.jpg

[Ankoù]

On the other hand, I can prove that you're not a Celt or a Roman, for the simple fact that you only speak English, a Germanic language.

He can be considered as partially Celtic.
According to your logic, an important part of Africa would be considered as Romance (French, Spanish and Portuguese speakers) or Germanic (English) ?

http://africamedia.typepad.com/africa-maps/Official_LanguagesMap-Africa.png

Let me laugh.

[Monolith]

Exactly. If the kids only know Italian, they become ethnically Italian, so Romance. Quite simple, after all.

So, basically you can choose to be anything you desire? That sounds familiar. :rolleyes:

Thousands of ethnic Croats in diaspora don't even speak our language anymore, and yet they identify with the Croatian ethnicity. The best possible evidence is the fact that many of them helped our cause during the Homeland war by sending funds, arms and various other supplies. Blood is strong.

[Comte Arnau]

So, basically you can choose to be anything you desire?

Nah, you don't usually choose your ethnicity, but you do choose your identity.


Thousands of ethnic Croats in diaspora don't even speak our language anymore, and yet they identify with the Croatian ethnicity.

Cool. But does it make them ethnic Croats? You say it yourself, they identify with it, they desire their personal identity to be Croat, at least partially. Many people have what is usually called a shared identity.


Blood is strong.

It is genetically important. But genes don't speak Croat, nor any other language, to my knowledge.

[Monolith]

Nah, you don't usually choose your ethnicity, but you do choose your identity.
An identity is a sine qua non for any ethnicity, whereas people identify with those who identify with them. This condition has not been met in your example. One's identity is not something expendable, it's not something that can be altered to fit someone's agenda. It is who we are, not who we choose to be.


Cool. But does it make them ethnic Croats? You say it yourself, they identify with it, they desire their personal identity to be Croat, at least partially. Many people have what is usually called a shared identity.
Of course it does make them ethnic Croats. If they came back to their ancestral homeland, like some of them did, they would be accepted as Croats among the natives, which is most certainly not the case with e.g. Italians, Magyars or Serbs. And that's what counts.


It is genetically important. But genes don't speak Croat, nor any other language, to my knowledge.
Well I wasn't speaking of genetics, but genes do speak a language, though not a vocal one. There's an inherent tendency of all humans, or at least the vast majority of us, to favor our families over strangers. This in turn extends to relatives and gradually weakens when moving further away from the initial family.

[Liffrea]

Descent, language, history, tradition/heritage, dictionary definitions of ethnicity/nation, which work well enough for me.

I would add that common ancestry, common origin myth, shared history usually define an ethnicity probably more so than a language or tradition. The Anglo-sphere share a common language, many traditions and institutions, but an Englishman, Anglo-American and Australian are different ethnicities, although closely related.

[Luern]

Culture & Filiation (blood) /Filiation (blood) & Culture

[Tony]

I always thought ethnicity means all sides of one's identity , both biological and cultural , maybe today many prefer to use the ethnicity instead of race , racialism etc because race is a taboo word.
So the Braziliians of German descent are a different ethnicity both from other Brazillians and the Germans of Germany but belong to the same racial group of Germans of Germany (if unmixed)

[The Black Prince]

IMO Ethnicity in a narrow way: Is a group of people to who persons belong based upon a mixture (also in importance) of common origin, common language, common rituals, common traditions and a common sense of awareness that other people outside this group not belong to your group.
The last characterisque: 'the common sense of awareness that others not belong to the ethnos' is perhaps the most important and makes ethnicity thereby also a social construct.

[Osweo]

Ethnicity is not Yes or No, there's a great deal of 'maybe, sort of, ish...' involved. They don't automatically and always have tight boundaries, and there is often a degree of leakage and overlap.

And it has hierarchies within it too. That's one way of looking at diasporas. The old category that was once sufficient now becomes a wider one with subdivisions. Those that stayed home usually inherit the old name, no problems, but will have to acknowledge some sort of sharing of heritage with the new branches...

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Tony
I always thought ethnicity means all sides of one's identity , both biological and cultural , maybe today many prefer to use the ethnicity instead of race , racialism etc because race is a taboo word.

Race is a part of ethnicity so far as “of common descent” implies common ancestry.

Simply put a race is a population sharing common genetic markers which distinguish it from other populations. Obviously this is a cline rather than an absolute.

Northern Europe is one such example, at this stage it is practically impossible (by genetics alone) to isolate individual nations/ethnicities (population genetics just isn’t that good yet and the northern European race is relatively young) within northern Europe.

The English share a racial heritage with most of northern Europe but obviously we are a separate ethnic group. Most would not be capable of distinguishing (by appearance alone) an Englishman from a Scotsman (fair enough the shifty eyes, blood stained teeth, general lack of civilised clothing, excessive facial hair growth and the smell of alcohol will announce the Scot to all familiar with such a creature!:D) but that the Scottish and English have very different ethnic identities is apparent to all except the cerebrally challenged.


So the Braziliians of German descent are a different ethnicity both from other Brazillians and the Germans of Germany but belong to the same racial group of Germans of Germany (if unmixed)

More or less, an Anglo-American is of English descent but what with their nefarious revolt against their rightful King, republican values, civil war etc, and their ability to invade other countries and kill fuzzy wuzzies far better than old blighty ever did, they have long since gone from being “transplanted Englishmen” into a frankly bizarre specimen of humanity, they do retain the Anglo-Saxon urge to spread out a lot (even if this is usually now more within body than without!:p).

[Psychonaut]

Ethnicity is not Yes or No, there's a great deal of 'maybe, sort of, ish...' involved. They don't automatically and always have tight boundaries, and there is often a degree of leakage and overlap.

I agree. It's probably much better to think of ethnic groups as being represented by dot clusters that fade into one another at the edges and are defined more by their concentrated centers than by their boundaries.

[Osweo]

I agree. It's probably much better to think of ethnic groups as being represented by dot clusters that fade into one another at the edges and are defined more by their concentrated centers than by their boundaries.
As in the famous Osweoian metaethnic cartographulations? :-
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1479/germaniaspectrumle8.png

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7934/celticforyouenn2vv.png

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2065/osslavmapappkq6.png
:D

[Lysander]

It's not that Germanicus' family was Celtic-speaking, and adopted (Germanic) English overnight. I think people tend to be carried away by heavy anachronisms, especially when it comes to ancestry.

Language doesn't tell you anything about ones ethnic background.

American Negroes are not Germanic, nuff said.

[Barreldriver]

I figure these definitions will be helpful for this thread:

is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed.



The modern usage definition of the Oxford English Dictionary' is:
a[djective]
...
2.a. Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological. Also, pertaining to or having common racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic characteristics, esp. designating a racial or other group within a larger system; hence (U.S. colloq.), foreign, exotic.
b ethnic minority (group), a group of people differentiated from the rest of the community by racial origins or cultural background, and usu. claiming or enjoying official recognition of their group identity. Also attrib.
n[oun]
...


Given this, in the United States there is more emphasis on race I assume than there is in other nations.

Just figured I'd add this since there was an absence of any textbook citations in this thread.

[Poltergeist]

Every ethnicity has its own specific criteria to determine on who belongs to it and who doesn't. It is based on some culutral and social mores, on some kind of tacit consensus. There is no "objective" way to determine someone ethnicity, some supposedly neutral criterion which any outside "neutral" observer could apply to specific cases.

[Amarantine]

I think there are some standards...These excerpts are from wiki...(couldn t find better source right now).

The terms "ethnicity" and "ethnic group" are derived from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) word ethnos, normally translated as "nation".

In 1950, the UNESCO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO) statement, "The Race Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question)", signed by some of the internationally renowned scholars of the time (including Ashley Montagu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Montagu), Claude Lévi-Strauss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss), Gunnar Myrdal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnar_Myrdal), Julian Huxley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley), etc.), suggested that: "National, religious, geographic, linguistic and cultural groups do not necessarily coincide with racial groups: and the cultural traits of such groups have no demonstrated genetic connection with racial traits. Because serious errors of this kind are habitually committed when the term 'race' is used in popular parlance, it would be better when speaking of human races to drop the term 'race' altogether and speak of 'ethnic groups'.

[Scyldwulf]

I havn't read the whole debate leading up to this point, with 10 pages being a little too much by anyones standards :P
But I see ethnicity as being a combination of things, predominantly a shared ancestry (of substantial quantity), shared cultural and ethical values, shared linguistics and an acceptance within yourself of being of that ethnic group and the group seeing you as a part of that ethnic group also (not sure if that makes sense :P).
That being said, the contributing factors of what makes someone a part of a particular ethnic group are fluid, not solid, and differ and vary from person to person and group to group...

I agree with Osweo in saying "Ethnicity is not Yes or No, there's a great deal of 'maybe, sort of, ish...' involved. They don't automatically and always have tight boundaries, and there is often a degree of leakage and overlap."

[SwordoftheVistula]

the cultural traits of such groups have no demonstrated genetic connection with racial traits.


That could only be possible if there was no hereditary or genetic effect on behavior at all, which modern research indicates is definately not the case.

[Ibericus]

Ethnicity is a sub-division of race. I has nothing to do with culture.

[Poltergeist]

Ethnicity is a sub-division of race. I has nothing to do with culture.

Then ethnicity doesn't exist. Because race doesn't exist. And zero divided with any number results in zero.

[Ibericus]

Then ethnicity doesn't exist. Because race doesn't exist. And zero divided with any number results in zero.

Prove me that race doesn't exist.

[Poltergeist]

Prove me that race doesn't exist.

You prove me that it does!

Biologically only indiviudal humans exist, individuals. Everything else is arbitrary abstraction, with boundaries among respective "groups" ("races") put at any classifier's whim. Or as a matter of social and cultural convention of some milieu.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,43298,00.html

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Stevens/

[Ibericus]

You prove me that it does!

Biologically only indiviudal humans exist, individuals. Everything else is arbitrary abstraction, with boundaries among respective "groups" ("races") put at any classifier's whim. Or as a matter of social and cultural convention of some milieu.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,43298,00.html

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Stevens/

Scientists call for the end to race denial..


Bruce Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein
Nature, 8 October 2009

Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.

A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels (see box, page 728). The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about human diversity. Here, we argue for the moral position that genetic diversity, from within or among groups, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity's chief assets.

The current moral position is a sort of 'biological egalitarianism'. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide, that were committed with the support of pseudoscientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.

We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind's common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.

Many people may acknowledge the possibility of genetic diversity at the group level, but see it as a threat to social cohesion. Some scholars have even called for a halt to research into the topic or sensitive aspects of it, because of potential misuse of the information. Others will ask: if information on group diversity can be misused, why not just focus on individual differences and ignore any group variation? We strongly affirm that society must guard vigilantly against any misuse of genetic information, but we also believe that the best defence is to take a positive attitude towards diversity, including that at the group level. We argue for our position from two perspectives: first, that the understanding of group diversity can benefit research and medicine, and second, that human genetic diversity as a whole, including group diversity, greatly enriches our species.

[...]

Box 2. Emerging understanding of human genetic diversity

Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.

Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.

This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people's DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans.

Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person's major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary).

For most biological traits, genetically based differentiation among groups is probably negligible compared with the variation within the group. For other traits, such as pigmentation and lactose intolerance, differences among groups are so substantial that the trait displays an inter-group difference that is non-trivial compared with the variance within groups, and the extreme end of a trait may be significantly over-represented in a group.

Several studies have shown that many genes in the human genome may have undergone recent episodes of positive selection — that is, selection for advantageous biological traits. This is contrary to the position advocated by some scholars that humans effectively stopped evolving 50,000–40,000 years ago. In general, positive selection can increase the prevalence of functional polymorphisms and create geographic differentiation of allele frequencies.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/461726a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...1726a_BX1.html



------------------------------------------------------------------

Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.
Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas9. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.
This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material2. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people's DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups1, 5. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans10.
Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography5. Indeed, a person's major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing)10, 11, 12, and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary)6, 8, 13, 14.
For most biological traits, genetically based differentiation among groups is probably negligible compared with the variation within the group. For other traits, such as pigmentation and lactose intolerance, differences among groups are so substantial that the trait displays an inter-group difference that is non-trivial compared with the variance within groups, and the extreme end of a trait may be significantly over-represented in a group.
Several studies have shown that many genes in the human genome may have undergone recent episodes of positive selection — that is, selection for advantageous biological traits6. This is contrary to the position advocated by some scholars that humans effectively stopped evolving 50,000–40,000 years ago15. In general, positive selection can increase the prevalence of functional polymorphisms and create geographic differentiation of allele frequencies.
B.T.L. & L.E.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...1726a_BX1.html


--------------------------------------------------------------

The genetic makeup of the human race is much more varied than previously believed, new research shows.
Scientists say that surprisingly many large chunks of human DNA differ among individuals and ethnic groups.
The research also suggests that humans have less DNA in common with chimpanzees, our closest living relative, than is widely supposed.
The new findings, based on several studies, will have dramatic implications for research into deadly diseases, the researchers add.
In the lead study, reported tomorrow in the journal Nature, scientists created the first map of the human genome that shows that large segments of DNA are missing or duplicated between normal, healthy people.
Known as copy number variants (CNVs), some of these altered DNA sequences can be responsible for increased susceptibility to cancers and many other diseases, the study team says.
"Astonishing" Results
The new map provides a much clearer picture of human genetic variation, says geneticist and co-researcher Charles Lee of the Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.
"This evidence is showing that we are more genetically unique from one another—we all have individualized genomes," he said.
The team analyzed the DNA of 270 people with ancestry in Europe, Africa, and Asia. (Get an overview of human genetics.)
More than 1,400 CNVs were detected, covering 12 percent of the human genome—the complete set of chromosomes, present in almost every human cell, that contains a person's genetic code.
Until now only relatively small amounts of genetic difference between people had been identified.
"The variation among seemingly 'normal' human genomes is quite astonishing," added Willard, who was not involved in the study.
Huge Variation
Previous human genome studies such as the HapMap Project mapped only single base pair changes between individuals. (Related: "New DNA Mapping Project to Trace Genetic Ills" [October 26, 2005].) Base pairs make up each rung of the "DNA ladder," representing the "letters" of the genetic code.
The new research, however, looked at much larger DNA sequences, employing powerful experimental methods called microarrays.
Details of these new methods, which allow scientists to scan the human genome accurately for CNVs, are published concurrently in the journal Nature Genetics.
CNVs occur when existing genes are deleted or duplicated or when parts of genes fuse together to form new DNA structures.
The phenomenon results from various mechanisms, some of which remain poorly understood, researchers say.
Studies suggest that larger CNVs occur in regions of the genome that are prone to errors during crossover, when chromosomes exchange pieces before being passed from parent to offspring.
Previously known copy number variation in humans was "was simply the tip of the iceberg," says co-leader of the DNA mapping project, Matthew Hurles of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge, England.
"Each one of us has a unique pattern of gains and losses of complete sections of DNA," he said.
The findings "will change forever the field of human genetics," commented James Lupski, professor of molecular and human genetics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
"One can no longer consider human traits as resulting primarily from single base pair changes," he said. "This is perhaps the most important breakthrough in human and medical genetics in several decades.
"I would say it rivals finally knowing the number of chromosomes [50 years ago] that makes us humans and showing that some syndromes can result from an abnormal number of chromosomes."
Disease Breakthrough?
The study team says their genome map will provide new ways for scientists to identify genes involved in disease.
Many examples of diseases known to result from changes in DNA copy number are emerging, the team points out.
Yet current tests for mutated genes that cause diseases won't detect most CNVs, the researchers warn.
CNVs revealed in the study are associated with a wide variety of diseases, including AIDS, cataracts, heart disease, and schizophrenia.
"Medical research will benefit enormously from this map," team member Lee said.
The study also highlighted genetic differences among the population groups tested, with 11 percent of copy number variations not being shared between people of European, African, and East Asian ancestry.
Some of these differences may relate to how different ethnic groups adapted to their specific environments, according to Hurles of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute.
For instance, he says, the African group was found to have higher copy numbers of a gene associated with increased resistance to HIV infection.
The team says an understanding of how such genetic variation is distributed around the world can reveal much about human prehistory and help in tracking down disease genes. (Related: National Geographic's Genographic Project.)
The findings also suggest "more genetic variation between human genomes and chimpanzee genomes than we had previously appreciated," Lee said.
Past studies suggest chimps share around 99 percent of their DNA with humans.
"If you add on CNVs, you do see a lot more differences between the two species," Lee added.
The researchers say their findings suggest a figure in the region of 96 to 97 percent similarity.
Willard, of Duke University, said the research raises new questions "about what makes our genome the 'human' genome and about the events that have shaped our genome over the past few million years and even today.
"I suspect we're just seeing the very early stages of a new way to think about evolution."


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-genetics.html


--------------------------------------------------------

Neil Risch states that numerous studies over past decades have documented biological differences among the races with regard to susceptibility and natural history of a chronic disease. Effectively Neil Risch is attempting to redefine "race" for human populations to represent that small proportion of variation that is known to vary between continental populations. It is well established, that the level of differentiation between the continental human groups, as measured by the statistic FST is about 0.06-0.1 (6-10%), with about 5-10% of variation at the population level (that is between different populations occupying the same continent) and about 75-85% of variation within populations.(Risch et al., 2002; Templeton, 1998; Ossorio and Duster, 2005; Lewontin, 2005). Tempeton (1998) states that in biology a level of 0.25-0.3 (20-30%) of differentiation normally accepted in biological literature for a population to be considered a race or subspecies.
"A standard criterion for a subspecies or race in the nonhuman literature under the traditional definition of a subspecies as a geographically circumbscribed, sharply differentiated population is to have FST values of at least 0.25 to 0.3 (Smith et al. 1997). Hence as judged by the criterion in the nonhuman literature, the human FST value is too small to have taxonomic significance under the traditional subspecies definition."(Templeton, 1998)
Indeed Neil Risch himself avoids defining race, when asked to respond to the comment "Genome variation research does not support the existence of human races.” he replied
What is your definition of races? If you define it a certain way, maybe that's a valid statement. There is obviously still disagreement....Scientists always disagree! A lot of the problem is terminology. I'm not even sure what race means, people use it in many different ways.(Gitschier, 2005):

http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"New genetic data has enabled scientists to re-examine the relationship between human genetic variation and 'race'. We review the results of genetic analyses that show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift. Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information."

Broad population categories can be discerned genetically when enough polymorphisms are analyzed, as seen in Figure 3, so these categories are not devoid of biological meaning. When several thousand or more polymorphisms are examined, individual populations, such as Japanese and Chinese, can be delineated34, and members of 'admixed' American populations, such as Hispanics, African-Americans and European-Americans, can be accurately identified34, 49. Similar results are obtained whether coding or noncoding polymorphisms are used49.

In the meantime, ethnicity or race may in some cases provide useful information in biomedical contexts, just as other categories, such as gender or age, do. But the potential usefulness of race must be balanced against potential hazards. Ignorance of the shared nature of population variation can lead to diagnostic errors (e.g., the failure to diagnose sickle-cell disease in a European individual or cystic fibrosis in an Asian individual) or to inappropriate treatment or drug prescription. The general public, including policy-makers, are easily seduced by typological thinking, and so they must be made aware of the genetic data that help to prove it wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 American anthropologists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

• physical anthropologists 41%
• cultural anthropologists 53%
The figure for physical anthropologists at PhD granting departments was slightly higher, rising from 41% to 42%, with 50% agreeing. This survey, however, did not specify any particular definition of race (although it did clearly specify biological race within the species Homo sapiens); it is difficult to say whether those who supported the statement thought of race in taxonomic or population terms.
The same survey, taken in 1999,[78] showed the following changing results for anthropologists:
• physical anthropologists 69%
• cultural anthropologists 80%
In Poland the race concept was rejected by only 25 percent of anthropologists in 2001, although: "Unlike the U.S. anthropologists, Polish anthropologists tend to regard race as a term without taxonomic value, often as a substitute for population."[79]

79. ^ "'Race'—Still an Issue for Physical Anthropology? Results of Polish Studies Seen in the Light of the U.S. Findings" by Katarzyna A. Kaszycka. American Anthropologist March 2003, Vol. 105, No. 1, pp. 116-124

-------------------------------------------------------------

Human genetic clustering data can be used to infer population structure and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry. Recently, Lynn Jorde and Steven Wooding argued that "Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry."[1]

1. ^ a b Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding, 2004, "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'" in Nature Genetics 36, S28 - S33 Genetic variation, classification and 'race'
----------------------------------------------------------------

New data on human genetic variation has reignited the debate surrounding race. Most of the controversy surrounds the question of how to interpret this new data, and whether conclusions based on existing data are sound. A large majority of researchers endorse the view that continental groups do not constitute different subspecies. However, other researchers still debate whether evolutionary lineages should rightly be called "races". These questions are particularly pressing for biomedicine, where self-described race is often used as an indicator of ancestry.
Although the genetic differences among human groups are relatively small, these differences in certain genes such as duffy, ABCC11, SLC24A5, called ancestry-informative markers (AIMs) nevertheless can be used to reliably situate many individuals within broad, geographically based groupings or self-identified race. For example, computer analyses of hundreds of polymorphic loci sampled in globally distributed populations have revealed the existence of genetic clustering that roughly is associated with groups that historically have occupied large continental and subcontinental regions (Rosenberg et al. 2002; Bamshad et al. 2003).
Some commentators have argued that these patterns of variation provide a biological justification for the use of traditional racial categories. They argue that the continental clusterings correspond roughly with the division of human beings into sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans, Western Asians, Central Asians, Southern Asians and Northern Africans; Eastern Asians, Southeast Asians, Polynesians and Native Americans; and other inhabitants of Oceania (Melanesians, Micronesians & Australian Aborigines) (Risch et al. 2002). Other observers disagree, saying that the same data undercut traditional notions of racial groups (King and Motulsky 2002; Calafell 2003; Tishkoff and Kidd 2004). They point out, for example, that major populations considered races or subgroups within races do not necessarily form their own clusters.
Furthermore, because human genetic variation is clinal, many individuals affiliate with two or more continental groups. Thus, the genetically based "biogeographical ancestry" assigned to any given person generally will be broadly distributed and will be accompanied by sizable uncertainties (Pfaff et al. 2004).
In many parts of the world, groups have mixed in such a way that many individuals have relatively recent ancestors from widely separated regions. Although genetic analyses of large numbers of loci can produce estimates of the percentage of a person's ancestors coming from various continental populations (Shriver et al. 2003; Bamshad et al. 2004), these estimates may assume a false distinctiveness of the parental populations, since human groups have exchanged mates from local to continental scales throughout history (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Hoerder 2002). Even with large numbers of markers, information for estimating admixture proportions of individuals or groups is limited, and estimates typically will have wide confidence intervals or CIs (Pfaff et al. 2004).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A study by Neil Risch in 2005 used 326 microsatellite markers and self-identified race/ethnic group (SIRE), white (European American), African-American (black), Asian and Hispanic (individuals involved in the study had to choose from one of these categories), to representing discrete "populations", and showed distinct and non-overlapping clustering of the white, African-American and Asian samples. The results were claimed to confirm the integrity of self-described ancestry: "We have shown a nearly perfect correspondence between genetic cluster and SIRE for major ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%." But also warned that: "This observation does not eliminate the potential for confounding in these populations. First, there may be subgroups within the larger population group that are too small to detect by cluster analysis. Second, there may not be discrete subgrouping but continuous ancestral variation that could lead to stratification bias. For example, African Americans have a continuous range of European ancestry that would not be detected by cluster analysis but could strongly confound genetic case-control studies. (Tang, 2005)
Studies such as those by Risch and Rosenberg use a computer program called STRUCTURE to find human populations (gene clusters). It is a statistical program that works by placing individuals into one of two clusters based on their overall genetic similarity, many possible pairs of clusters are tested per individual to generate multiple clusters.[2] These populations are based on multiple genetic markers that are often shared between different human populations even over large geographic ranges. The notion of a genetic cluster is that people within the cluster share on average similar allele frequencies to each other than to those in other clusters. (A. W. F. Edwards, 2003 but see also infobox "Multi Locus Allele Clusters") In a test of idealised populations, the computer programme STRUCTURE was found to consistently under-estimate the numbers of populations in the data set when high migration rates between populations and slow mutation rates (such as single nucleotide polymorphisms) were considered.[3]

Nevertheless the Rosenberg et al. (2002) paper shows that individuals can be assigned to specific clusters to a high degree of accuracy.
On the other hand Edwards (2003) claims in his essay "Lewontin's Fallacy" that: "It is not true, as Nature claimed, that 'two random individuals from any one group are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world'" and Risch et al. (2002) state "Two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian." It should be noted that these statements are not the same. Risch et al. simply state that two indigenous individuals from the same geographical region are more similar to each other than either is to an indigenous individual from a different geographical region, a claim few would argue with. Jorde et al. put it like this:
The picture that begins to emerge from this and other analyses of human genetic variation is that variation tends to be geographically structured, such that most individuals from the same geographic region will be more similar to one another than to individuals from a distant region.[1]

1. ^ a b Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding, 2004, "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'" in Nature Genetics 36, S28 - S33 Genetic variation, classification and 'race'
2. ^ "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations" (2007) by D.J. Witherspoon, S. Wooding, A.R. Rogers, E.E. Marchani, W.S. Watkins, M.A. Batzer and L.B. Jorde. Genetics. 176(1): 351–359.
3. • ^ Wapples, R., S. and Gaggiotti, O. What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity Molecular Ecology (2006) 15: 1419–1439. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02890.x


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genetic variation, classification and 'race'
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36...ll/ng1435.html

New genetic data has enabled scientists to re-examine the relationship between human genetic variation and 'race'. We review the results of genetic analyses that show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift. Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information.

Conclusions
Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types.

When large numbers of loci are evaluated, it is often possible to infer individual ancestry, at least approximately. If done accurately and with appropriate reservations, ancestral inference may be useful in genealogical studies, in the forensic arena and in the design of case-control studies. This should not be confused, however, with the use of ethnicity or race (genetically measured or self-identified) to make decisions about drug treatment or other medical therapies. Responses to these therapies will often involve nongenetic factors and multiple alleles, and different populations will often share these alleles. When it finally becomes feasible and available, individual genetic assessment of relevant genes will probably prove more useful than race in medical decision making.

In the meantime, ethnicity or race may in some cases provide useful information in biomedical contexts, just as other categories, such as gender or age, do. But the potential usefulness of race must be balanced against potential hazards. Ignorance of the shared nature of population variation can lead to diagnostic errors (e.g., the failure to diagnose sickle-cell disease in a European individual or cystic fibrosis in an Asian individual) or to inappropriate treatment or drug prescription. The general public, including policy-makers, are easily seduced by typological thinking, and so they must be made aware of the genetic data that help to prove it wrong.

A particular area of concern is in the genetics of human behavior. As genes that may influence behavior are identified, allele frequencies are often compared in populations67, 68. These comparisons can produce useful evolutionary insights but can also lead to simplistic interpretations that may reinforce unfounded stereotypes69. In assessing the role of genes in population differences in behavior (real or imagined), several simple facts must be brought to the fore. Human behavior is complicated, and it is strongly influenced by nongenetic factors70. Thousands of pleiotropic genes are thought to influence behavior, and their products interact in complex and unpredictable ways. Considering this extraordinary complexity, the idea that variation in the frequency of a single allele could explain substantial population differences in behavior would be amusing if it were not so dangerous.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, this view has been rejected by geneticist A. W. F. Edwards in his paper entitled Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy (2003). Edwards argues that accurate classification of humans is possible because most of the data that distinguishes populations occurs in correlations between allele frequencies, although these classifications vary depending on a number of criteria, such as sampling strategy, type of locus, distribution of loci around the genome and number of loci.

Ancestry-informative markers (AIMs) are stretches of DNA which have several polymorphisms that exhibit substantially different frequencies between different populations. Using AIMs, scientists can determine a person's ancestral continent of origin based solely on their DNA. AIMs can also be used to determine someone's admixture proportions.

13. ^ Lewontin, R.C.. "Confusions About Human Races". http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More recently, the Human Genome Project (2001) (HGP) highlighted the basic genetic similarity of all humans, yet subsequent analyses demonstrated that genetic data can be used to accurately classify humans into populations (Rosenberg et al. 2002, 2005; Bamshad et al. 2003; Turakulov and Easteal 2003; Tang et al. 2005; Lao et al. 2006). Risch et al. (2002) and Edwards (2003) used theoretical illustrations to show why accurate classification is possible despite the slight differences in allele frequencies between populations. These illustrations suggest that, if enough loci are considered, two individuals from the same population may be genetically more similar (i.e., more closely related) to each other than to any individual from another population (as foreshadowed by Powell and Taylor 1978). Accordingly, Risch et al. (2002, p. 2007.5) state that “two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An ancestry-informative marker (AIM) is a set of polymorphisms for a locus, generally from humans, which exhibits substantially different frequencies between populations from different geographical regions.
By using a number of AIMs one can estimate the geographical origins of the ancestors of an individual and ascertain what proportion of ancestry is derived from each geographical region. By using a suite of these markers more or less evenly spaced across the genome, they can be used in a cost-effective way to discover novel genes underlying complex diseases in a technique called admixture mapping or mapping by admixture linkage disequilibrium.
There are an estimated 15 million SNP sites (out of roughly 3 billion base pairs, or about 0.4%) from among which AIMs may potentially be selected.[1]
A collection[clarification needed] of AIMs that distinguish African and European populations contains 3011 highly differentiated SNP's.For example, the Duffy Null allele (FY*0) has a frequency of almost 100% of Sub-Saharan Africans, but occurs very infrequently in populations outside of this region. A person having this gene is thus more likely to have Sub-Saharan African ancestors.
Other collections of AIMs have been developed that can estimate the geographical origins of ancestors from within Europe.[2] This has been developed into a commercial package.[3]


1.# ^ Elizabeth Pennisi, Human Genetic Variation, Science 21 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5858, pp. 1842 - 1843 DOI: 10.1126/science.318.5858.1842 [1]

2. Bauchet M, McEvoy B, Pearson L, Quillen E, Sarkisian T, Hovhannesyan K, Deka R, Bradley D, Shriver M. 2007. Measuring European population stratification with microarray genotype data. American Journal of Human Genetics 80(5): 948-956.doi:10.1086/513477

[Poltergeist]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5712/1050?ijkey=CrQywbf6JKCIs&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Goodman/

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Kaufman/

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Marks/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article499598.ece

http://www.enotalone.com/article/5044.html

[Ibericus]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5712/1050?ijkey=CrQywbf6JKCIs&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Goodman/

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Kaufman/

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Marks/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article499598.ece

http://www.enotalone.com/article/5044.html

Politically correct manipulated crap. Not science.

[Poltergeist]

Scientists call for the end to race denial..


Bruce Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein
Nature, 8 October 2009

Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.

A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels (see box, page 728). The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about human diversity. Here, we argue for the moral position that genetic diversity, from within or among groups, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity's chief assets.

The current moral position is a sort of 'biological egalitarianism'. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide, that were committed with the support of pseudoscientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.

We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind's common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.

Many people may acknowledge the possibility of genetic diversity at the group level, but see it as a threat to social cohesion. Some scholars have even called for a halt to research into the topic or sensitive aspects of it, because of potential misuse of the information. Others will ask: if information on group diversity can be misused, why not just focus on individual differences and ignore any group variation? We strongly affirm that society must guard vigilantly against any misuse of genetic information, but we also believe that the best defence is to take a positive attitude towards diversity, including that at the group level. We argue for our position from two perspectives: first, that the understanding of group diversity can benefit research and medicine, and second, that human genetic diversity as a whole, including group diversity, greatly enriches our species.

[...]

Box 2. Emerging understanding of human genetic diversity

Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.

Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.

This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people's DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans.

Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person's major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary).

For most biological traits, genetically based differentiation among groups is probably negligible compared with the variation within the group. For other traits, such as pigmentation and lactose intolerance, differences among groups are so substantial that the trait displays an inter-group difference that is non-trivial compared with the variance within groups, and the extreme end of a trait may be significantly over-represented in a group.

Several studies have shown that many genes in the human genome may have undergone recent episodes of positive selection — that is, selection for advantageous biological traits. This is contrary to the position advocated by some scholars that humans effectively stopped evolving 50,000–40,000 years ago. In general, positive selection can increase the prevalence of functional polymorphisms and create geographic differentiation of allele frequencies.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/461726a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...1726a_BX1.html



------------------------------------------------------------------

Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.
Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas9. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.
This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material2. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people's DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups1, 5. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans10.
Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography5. Indeed, a person's major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing)10, 11, 12, and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary)6, 8, 13, 14.
For most biological traits, genetically based differentiation among groups is probably negligible compared with the variation within the group. For other traits, such as pigmentation and lactose intolerance, differences among groups are so substantial that the trait displays an inter-group difference that is non-trivial compared with the variance within groups, and the extreme end of a trait may be significantly over-represented in a group.
Several studies have shown that many genes in the human genome may have undergone recent episodes of positive selection — that is, selection for advantageous biological traits6. This is contrary to the position advocated by some scholars that humans effectively stopped evolving 50,000–40,000 years ago15. In general, positive selection can increase the prevalence of functional polymorphisms and create geographic differentiation of allele frequencies.
B.T.L. & L.E.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...1726a_BX1.html


--------------------------------------------------------------

The genetic makeup of the human race is much more varied than previously believed, new research shows.
Scientists say that surprisingly many large chunks of human DNA differ among individuals and ethnic groups.
The research also suggests that humans have less DNA in common with chimpanzees, our closest living relative, than is widely supposed.
The new findings, based on several studies, will have dramatic implications for research into deadly diseases, the researchers add.
In the lead study, reported tomorrow in the journal Nature, scientists created the first map of the human genome that shows that large segments of DNA are missing or duplicated between normal, healthy people.
Known as copy number variants (CNVs), some of these altered DNA sequences can be responsible for increased susceptibility to cancers and many other diseases, the study team says.
"Astonishing" Results
The new map provides a much clearer picture of human genetic variation, says geneticist and co-researcher Charles Lee of the Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.
"This evidence is showing that we are more genetically unique from one another—we all have individualized genomes," he said.
The team analyzed the DNA of 270 people with ancestry in Europe, Africa, and Asia. (Get an overview of human genetics.)
More than 1,400 CNVs were detected, covering 12 percent of the human genome—the complete set of chromosomes, present in almost every human cell, that contains a person's genetic code.
Until now only relatively small amounts of genetic difference between people had been identified.
"The variation among seemingly 'normal' human genomes is quite astonishing," added Willard, who was not involved in the study.
Huge Variation
Previous human genome studies such as the HapMap Project mapped only single base pair changes between individuals. (Related: "New DNA Mapping Project to Trace Genetic Ills" [October 26, 2005].) Base pairs make up each rung of the "DNA ladder," representing the "letters" of the genetic code.
The new research, however, looked at much larger DNA sequences, employing powerful experimental methods called microarrays.
Details of these new methods, which allow scientists to scan the human genome accurately for CNVs, are published concurrently in the journal Nature Genetics.
CNVs occur when existing genes are deleted or duplicated or when parts of genes fuse together to form new DNA structures.
The phenomenon results from various mechanisms, some of which remain poorly understood, researchers say.
Studies suggest that larger CNVs occur in regions of the genome that are prone to errors during crossover, when chromosomes exchange pieces before being passed from parent to offspring.
Previously known copy number variation in humans was "was simply the tip of the iceberg," says co-leader of the DNA mapping project, Matthew Hurles of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge, England.
"Each one of us has a unique pattern of gains and losses of complete sections of DNA," he said.
The findings "will change forever the field of human genetics," commented James Lupski, professor of molecular and human genetics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
"One can no longer consider human traits as resulting primarily from single base pair changes," he said. "This is perhaps the most important breakthrough in human and medical genetics in several decades.
"I would say it rivals finally knowing the number of chromosomes [50 years ago] that makes us humans and showing that some syndromes can result from an abnormal number of chromosomes."
Disease Breakthrough?
The study team says their genome map will provide new ways for scientists to identify genes involved in disease.
Many examples of diseases known to result from changes in DNA copy number are emerging, the team points out.
Yet current tests for mutated genes that cause diseases won't detect most CNVs, the researchers warn.
CNVs revealed in the study are associated with a wide variety of diseases, including AIDS, cataracts, heart disease, and schizophrenia.
"Medical research will benefit enormously from this map," team member Lee said.
The study also highlighted genetic differences among the population groups tested, with 11 percent of copy number variations not being shared between people of European, African, and East Asian ancestry.
Some of these differences may relate to how different ethnic groups adapted to their specific environments, according to Hurles of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute.
For instance, he says, the African group was found to have higher copy numbers of a gene associated with increased resistance to HIV infection.
The team says an understanding of how such genetic variation is distributed around the world can reveal much about human prehistory and help in tracking down disease genes. (Related: National Geographic's Genographic Project.)
The findings also suggest "more genetic variation between human genomes and chimpanzee genomes than we had previously appreciated," Lee said.
Past studies suggest chimps share around 99 percent of their DNA with humans.
"If you add on CNVs, you do see a lot more differences between the two species," Lee added.
The researchers say their findings suggest a figure in the region of 96 to 97 percent similarity.
Willard, of Duke University, said the research raises new questions "about what makes our genome the 'human' genome and about the events that have shaped our genome over the past few million years and even today.
"I suspect we're just seeing the very early stages of a new way to think about evolution."


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-genetics.html


--------------------------------------------------------

Neil Risch states that numerous studies over past decades have documented biological differences among the races with regard to susceptibility and natural history of a chronic disease. Effectively Neil Risch is attempting to redefine "race" for human populations to represent that small proportion of variation that is known to vary between continental populations. It is well established, that the level of differentiation between the continental human groups, as measured by the statistic FST is about 0.06-0.1 (6-10%), with about 5-10% of variation at the population level (that is between different populations occupying the same continent) and about 75-85% of variation within populations.(Risch et al., 2002; Templeton, 1998; Ossorio and Duster, 2005; Lewontin, 2005). Tempeton (1998) states that in biology a level of 0.25-0.3 (20-30%) of differentiation normally accepted in biological literature for a population to be considered a race or subspecies.
"A standard criterion for a subspecies or race in the nonhuman literature under the traditional definition of a subspecies as a geographically circumbscribed, sharply differentiated population is to have FST values of at least 0.25 to 0.3 (Smith et al. 1997). Hence as judged by the criterion in the nonhuman literature, the human FST value is too small to have taxonomic significance under the traditional subspecies definition."(Templeton, 1998)
Indeed Neil Risch himself avoids defining race, when asked to respond to the comment "Genome variation research does not support the existence of human races.” he replied
What is your definition of races? If you define it a certain way, maybe that's a valid statement. There is obviously still disagreement....Scientists always disagree! A lot of the problem is terminology. I'm not even sure what race means, people use it in many different ways.(Gitschier, 2005):

http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"New genetic data has enabled scientists to re-examine the relationship between human genetic variation and 'race'. We review the results of genetic analyses that show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift. Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information."

Broad population categories can be discerned genetically when enough polymorphisms are analyzed, as seen in Figure 3, so these categories are not devoid of biological meaning. When several thousand or more polymorphisms are examined, individual populations, such as Japanese and Chinese, can be delineated34, and members of 'admixed' American populations, such as Hispanics, African-Americans and European-Americans, can be accurately identified34, 49. Similar results are obtained whether coding or noncoding polymorphisms are used49.

In the meantime, ethnicity or race may in some cases provide useful information in biomedical contexts, just as other categories, such as gender or age, do. But the potential usefulness of race must be balanced against potential hazards. Ignorance of the shared nature of population variation can lead to diagnostic errors (e.g., the failure to diagnose sickle-cell disease in a European individual or cystic fibrosis in an Asian individual) or to inappropriate treatment or drug prescription. The general public, including policy-makers, are easily seduced by typological thinking, and so they must be made aware of the genetic data that help to prove it wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 American anthropologists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

• physical anthropologists 41%
• cultural anthropologists 53%
The figure for physical anthropologists at PhD granting departments was slightly higher, rising from 41% to 42%, with 50% agreeing. This survey, however, did not specify any particular definition of race (although it did clearly specify biological race within the species Homo sapiens); it is difficult to say whether those who supported the statement thought of race in taxonomic or population terms.
The same survey, taken in 1999,[78] showed the following changing results for anthropologists:
• physical anthropologists 69%
• cultural anthropologists 80%
In Poland the race concept was rejected by only 25 percent of anthropologists in 2001, although: "Unlike the U.S. anthropologists, Polish anthropologists tend to regard race as a term without taxonomic value, often as a substitute for population."[79]

79. ^ "'Race'—Still an Issue for Physical Anthropology? Results of Polish Studies Seen in the Light of the U.S. Findings" by Katarzyna A. Kaszycka. American Anthropologist March 2003, Vol. 105, No. 1, pp. 116-124

-------------------------------------------------------------

Human genetic clustering data can be used to infer population structure and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry. Recently, Lynn Jorde and Steven Wooding argued that "Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry."[1]

1. ^ a b Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding, 2004, "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'" in Nature Genetics 36, S28 - S33 Genetic variation, classification and 'race'
----------------------------------------------------------------

New data on human genetic variation has reignited the debate surrounding race. Most of the controversy surrounds the question of how to interpret this new data, and whether conclusions based on existing data are sound. A large majority of researchers endorse the view that continental groups do not constitute different subspecies. However, other researchers still debate whether evolutionary lineages should rightly be called "races". These questions are particularly pressing for biomedicine, where self-described race is often used as an indicator of ancestry.
Although the genetic differences among human groups are relatively small, these differences in certain genes such as duffy, ABCC11, SLC24A5, called ancestry-informative markers (AIMs) nevertheless can be used to reliably situate many individuals within broad, geographically based groupings or self-identified race. For example, computer analyses of hundreds of polymorphic loci sampled in globally distributed populations have revealed the existence of genetic clustering that roughly is associated with groups that historically have occupied large continental and subcontinental regions (Rosenberg et al. 2002; Bamshad et al. 2003).
Some commentators have argued that these patterns of variation provide a biological justification for the use of traditional racial categories. They argue that the continental clusterings correspond roughly with the division of human beings into sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans, Western Asians, Central Asians, Southern Asians and Northern Africans; Eastern Asians, Southeast Asians, Polynesians and Native Americans; and other inhabitants of Oceania (Melanesians, Micronesians & Australian Aborigines) (Risch et al. 2002). Other observers disagree, saying that the same data undercut traditional notions of racial groups (King and Motulsky 2002; Calafell 2003; Tishkoff and Kidd 2004). They point out, for example, that major populations considered races or subgroups within races do not necessarily form their own clusters.
Furthermore, because human genetic variation is clinal, many individuals affiliate with two or more continental groups. Thus, the genetically based "biogeographical ancestry" assigned to any given person generally will be broadly distributed and will be accompanied by sizable uncertainties (Pfaff et al. 2004).
In many parts of the world, groups have mixed in such a way that many individuals have relatively recent ancestors from widely separated regions. Although genetic analyses of large numbers of loci can produce estimates of the percentage of a person's ancestors coming from various continental populations (Shriver et al. 2003; Bamshad et al. 2004), these estimates may assume a false distinctiveness of the parental populations, since human groups have exchanged mates from local to continental scales throughout history (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Hoerder 2002). Even with large numbers of markers, information for estimating admixture proportions of individuals or groups is limited, and estimates typically will have wide confidence intervals or CIs (Pfaff et al. 2004).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A study by Neil Risch in 2005 used 326 microsatellite markers and self-identified race/ethnic group (SIRE), white (European American), African-American (black), Asian and Hispanic (individuals involved in the study had to choose from one of these categories), to representing discrete "populations", and showed distinct and non-overlapping clustering of the white, African-American and Asian samples. The results were claimed to confirm the integrity of self-described ancestry: "We have shown a nearly perfect correspondence between genetic cluster and SIRE for major ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%." But also warned that: "This observation does not eliminate the potential for confounding in these populations. First, there may be subgroups within the larger population group that are too small to detect by cluster analysis. Second, there may not be discrete subgrouping but continuous ancestral variation that could lead to stratification bias. For example, African Americans have a continuous range of European ancestry that would not be detected by cluster analysis but could strongly confound genetic case-control studies. (Tang, 2005)
Studies such as those by Risch and Rosenberg use a computer program called STRUCTURE to find human populations (gene clusters). It is a statistical program that works by placing individuals into one of two clusters based on their overall genetic similarity, many possible pairs of clusters are tested per individual to generate multiple clusters.[2] These populations are based on multiple genetic markers that are often shared between different human populations even over large geographic ranges. The notion of a genetic cluster is that people within the cluster share on average similar allele frequencies to each other than to those in other clusters. (A. W. F. Edwards, 2003 but see also infobox "Multi Locus Allele Clusters") In a test of idealised populations, the computer programme STRUCTURE was found to consistently under-estimate the numbers of populations in the data set when high migration rates between populations and slow mutation rates (such as single nucleotide polymorphisms) were considered.[3]

Nevertheless the Rosenberg et al. (2002) paper shows that individuals can be assigned to specific clusters to a high degree of accuracy.
On the other hand Edwards (2003) claims in his essay "Lewontin's Fallacy" that: "It is not true, as Nature claimed, that 'two random individuals from any one group are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world'" and Risch et al. (2002) state "Two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian." It should be noted that these statements are not the same. Risch et al. simply state that two indigenous individuals from the same geographical region are more similar to each other than either is to an indigenous individual from a different geographical region, a claim few would argue with. Jorde et al. put it like this:
The picture that begins to emerge from this and other analyses of human genetic variation is that variation tends to be geographically structured, such that most individuals from the same geographic region will be more similar to one another than to individuals from a distant region.[1]

1. ^ a b Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding, 2004, "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'" in Nature Genetics 36, S28 - S33 Genetic variation, classification and 'race'
2. ^ "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations" (2007) by D.J. Witherspoon, S. Wooding, A.R. Rogers, E.E. Marchani, W.S. Watkins, M.A. Batzer and L.B. Jorde. Genetics. 176(1): 351–359.
3. • ^ Wapples, R., S. and Gaggiotti, O. What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity Molecular Ecology (2006) 15: 1419–1439. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02890.x


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genetic variation, classification and 'race'
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36...ll/ng1435.html

New genetic data has enabled scientists to re-examine the relationship between human genetic variation and 'race'. We review the results of genetic analyses that show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift. Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information.

Conclusions
Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types.

When large numbers of loci are evaluated, it is often possible to infer individual ancestry, at least approximately. If done accurately and with appropriate reservations, ancestral inference may be useful in genealogical studies, in the forensic arena and in the design of case-control studies. This should not be confused, however, with the use of ethnicity or race (genetically measured or self-identified) to make decisions about drug treatment or other medical therapies. Responses to these therapies will often involve nongenetic factors and multiple alleles, and different populations will often share these alleles. When it finally becomes feasible and available, individual genetic assessment of relevant genes will probably prove more useful than race in medical decision making.

In the meantime, ethnicity or race may in some cases provide useful information in biomedical contexts, just as other categories, such as gender or age, do. But the potential usefulness of race must be balanced against potential hazards. Ignorance of the shared nature of population variation can lead to diagnostic errors (e.g., the failure to diagnose sickle-cell disease in a European individual or cystic fibrosis in an Asian individual) or to inappropriate treatment or drug prescription. The general public, including policy-makers, are easily seduced by typological thinking, and so they must be made aware of the genetic data that help to prove it wrong.

A particular area of concern is in the genetics of human behavior. As genes that may influence behavior are identified, allele frequencies are often compared in populations67, 68. These comparisons can produce useful evolutionary insights but can also lead to simplistic interpretations that may reinforce unfounded stereotypes69. In assessing the role of genes in population differences in behavior (real or imagined), several simple facts must be brought to the fore. Human behavior is complicated, and it is strongly influenced by nongenetic factors70. Thousands of pleiotropic genes are thought to influence behavior, and their products interact in complex and unpredictable ways. Considering this extraordinary complexity, the idea that variation in the frequency of a single allele could explain substantial population differences in behavior would be amusing if it were not so dangerous.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, this view has been rejected by geneticist A. W. F. Edwards in his paper entitled Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy (2003). Edwards argues that accurate classification of humans is possible because most of the data that distinguishes populations occurs in correlations between allele frequencies, although these classifications vary depending on a number of criteria, such as sampling strategy, type of locus, distribution of loci around the genome and number of loci.

Ancestry-informative markers (AIMs) are stretches of DNA which have several polymorphisms that exhibit substantially different frequencies between different populations. Using AIMs, scientists can determine a person's ancestral continent of origin based solely on their DNA. AIMs can also be used to determine someone's admixture proportions.

13. ^ Lewontin, R.C.. "Confusions About Human Races". http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More recently, the Human Genome Project (2001) (HGP) highlighted the basic genetic similarity of all humans, yet subsequent analyses demonstrated that genetic data can be used to accurately classify humans into populations (Rosenberg et al. 2002, 2005; Bamshad et al. 2003; Turakulov and Easteal 2003; Tang et al. 2005; Lao et al. 2006). Risch et al. (2002) and Edwards (2003) used theoretical illustrations to show why accurate classification is possible despite the slight differences in allele frequencies between populations. These illustrations suggest that, if enough loci are considered, two individuals from the same population may be genetically more similar (i.e., more closely related) to each other than to any individual from another population (as foreshadowed by Powell and Taylor 1978). Accordingly, Risch et al. (2002, p. 2007.5) state that “two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An ancestry-informative marker (AIM) is a set of polymorphisms for a locus, generally from humans, which exhibits substantially different frequencies between populations from different geographical regions.
By using a number of AIMs one can estimate the geographical origins of the ancestors of an individual and ascertain what proportion of ancestry is derived from each geographical region. By using a suite of these markers more or less evenly spaced across the genome, they can be used in a cost-effective way to discover novel genes underlying complex diseases in a technique called admixture mapping or mapping by admixture linkage disequilibrium.
There are an estimated 15 million SNP sites (out of roughly 3 billion base pairs, or about 0.4%) from among which AIMs may potentially be selected.[1]
A collection[clarification needed] of AIMs that distinguish African and European populations contains 3011 highly differentiated SNP's.For example, the Duffy Null allele (FY*0) has a frequency of almost 100% of Sub-Saharan Africans, but occurs very infrequently in populations outside of this region. A person having this gene is thus more likely to have Sub-Saharan African ancestors.
Other collections of AIMs have been developed that can estimate the geographical origins of ancestors from within Europe.[2] This has been developed into a commercial package.[3]


1.# ^ Elizabeth Pennisi, Human Genetic Variation, Science 21 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5858, pp. 1842 - 1843 DOI: 10.1126/science.318.5858.1842 [1]

2. Bauchet M, McEvoy B, Pearson L, Quillen E, Sarkisian T, Hovhannesyan K, Deka R, Bradley D, Shriver M. 2007. Measuring European population stratification with microarray genotype data. American Journal of Human Genetics 80(5): 948-956.doi:10.1086/513477

Politically correct (of another sort of political correctness) manipulated crap. Not science.

[Ibericus]

Believe what you want. Time will tell.

[Monolith]

Believe what you want. Time will tell.
How would you define race, Iberia?

An excerpt from one of the sites (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Goodman/) that Hermeticist provided:


Instead of obsessing about race, we could try to build a race-blind society. Instead of feeding the fires of neuroticism, we could start teaching people to forget about race, to move on. But to do that, first we must sideline the entire race relations industry - whose only function, it seems, is to make us all deeply anxious about 'race' - a concept they simultaneously believe has no objective reality.—Sean Thomas, Sunday Telegraph (London) 3/13/05
I tend to agree that race is, as long as it concerns biology, too vague to be of particular importance. So, what matters is its social and cultural impact, rather than some imagined biological one. That said, I consider this quote simply ludicrous.

[Osweo]

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Goodman/

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Kaufman/

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Marks/

LOL!
http://race.org/Shlomo-Finkelshtinkelshtein/ (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Goodman/)

http://race.org/Avram Goldenbaum-Zhidovsky/ (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Avram/)

http://race.org/Davyd_Izrailewitsch_Lewontin-Schmucksteinfink/ (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/)

http://race.org/Karl_Marks/ (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Marks/)

[Ibericus]

How would you define race, Iberia?

An excerpt from one of the sites (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Goodman/) that Hermeticist provided:

I tend to agree that race is, as long as it concerns biology, too vague to be of particular importance. So, what matters is its social and cultural impact, rather than some imagined biological one. That said, I consider this quote simply ludicrous.

You didn't read my post. There is all you need to know about race. I didn't say race is important, but it exists.

[Monolith]

You didn't read my post. There is all you need to know about race. I didn't say race is important, but it exists.
I must have missed it. I only saw you quoting someone else.

[Poltergeist]

LOL!
http://race.org/Shlomo-Finkelshtinkelshtein/ (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Goodman/)

http://race.org/Avram Goldenbaum-Zhidovsky/ (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Avram/)

http://race.org/Davyd_Izrailewitsch_Lewontin-Schmucksteinfink/ (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/)

http://race.org/Karl_Marks/ (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Marks/)

LOL

Several Jews? So what? There are also Jews who spread the propaganda of the "reality of racial differences", Michael Levin and Richard Herrnstein, for example.

And here:


Scientists call for the end to race denial..


Bruce Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein
Nature, 8 October 2009

Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.

:D

[Poltergeist]

You didn't read my post. There is all you need to know about race. I didn't say race is important, but it exists.

You said ethnicities are mere subdivisions of race. So you did say it is important.

[Ibericus]

You said ethnicities are mere subdivisions of race. So you did say it is important.
Yes, ethnicities are subdivisions of race. And race is not important. What is your point ? :confused:

[Tony]

In my view races do exist and they are simply the evolutionary outcome of populations that , over the generations (hundreds of thousands years) and throu darwinian selection , become fitter and fitter for a certain environment.

[Kadu]

LOL!
http://race.org/Shlomo-Finkelshtinkelshtein/ (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Goodman/)

http://race.org/Avram Goldenbaum-Zhidovsky/ (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Avram/)

http://race.org/Davyd_Izrailewitsch_Lewontin-Schmucksteinfink/ (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/)

http://race.org/Karl_Marks/ (http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Marks/)

Ok, if being Jewish is a problem I can provide you other sources like Cavalli Sforza and Ernst Mayr



Race is a more elusive concept than that of species.

A species may be divided into races if the differences between the populations so defined are of some significance, but the level of differences used as a threshold is entirely arbitrary. When differences are striking, the classification is easy; but even then the taxonomical work may be made difficult by the existence of gradual transitions between the groups so defined. In most cases, separate races will be defined only if the groups differ in several significant traits. However, in most cases, these traits vary independently of one another in the transitional populations between the races. Thus, boundaries between the races drawn on the basis of one trait will not coincide with boundaries drawn on the basis of another trait. These are precisely the problems faced by the taxonomist who attempts to classify the human species into races. It is not difficult to see why there is nearly complete continuity in the distribution of almost every single trait, as revealed by maps of their geographical distributions.

from Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza, Genetics, Evolution, and Man, 1976 (http://www.goodrumj.com/CavalliS.html)



This at once raises a question: are there races in the human species? After all, the characteristics of most animal races are strictly genetic, while human races have been marked by nongenetic, cultural attributes that have very much affected their overt characteristics. Performance in human activities is influenced not only by the genotype but also by culturally acquired attitudes. What would be ideal, therefore, would be to partition the phenotype of every human individual into genetic and cultural components.

Alas, so far we have not yet found any reliable technique to do this. What we can do is acknowledge that any recorded differences between human races are probably composed of cultural as well as genetic elements. Indeed, the cause of many important group differences may turn out to be entirely cultural, without any genetic component at all. Still, if I introduce you to an Eskimo and a Kalahari Bushman I won't have much trouble convincing you that they belong to different races.

The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality
Ernst Mayr, 2002
(http://www.goodrumj.com/Mayr.html)

[Ibericus]

Cavalli-Sforza genetic distances :

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6718/9clustertree.png

[Kadu]

Cavalli-Sforza genetic distances :

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6718/9clustertree.png


Cavalli-Sforza uses a cladistic system to group populations which is totally unrelated to the old phenetic systematisation based on physical traits.
As you can see there's a continuum, there are no clear boundaries.

[Ibericus]

Cavalli-Sforza uses a cladistic system to group populations which is totally unrelated to the old phenetic systematisation based on physical traits.
As you can see there's a continuum, there are no clear boundaries.

And why should race be related with old phenetic systematisation ? Who says that ? I know there is a continuum in races, but that doesn't mean races don't exist. Read my previous post about scientists talking about race. they explain about the continuums , etc.

[Poltergeist]

Yes, ethnicities are subdivisions of race. And race is not important. What is your point ? :confused:

Race is not important, ethnicity even less so, according to you? So what's your point? What is important?

[Ibericus]

Race is not important, ethnicity even less so, according to you? So what's your point? What is important?

what are you talking about ? :confused:

[Kadu]

And why should race be related with old phenetic systematisation ? Who says that ? I know there is a continuum in races, but that doesn't mean races don't exist. Read my previous post about scientists talking about race. they explain about the continuums , etc.

He's grouping populations not races, just like in the autosomal plots that we talked yesterday. In this kind of systematisation you can have individuals with the same physical traits grouped with populations which don't cluster or are not close at all.

[Ibericus]

He's grouping populations not races, just like in the autosomal plots that we talked yesterday. In this kind of systematisation you can have individuals with the same physical traits grouped with populations which don't cluster or are not close at all.

Scientists are grouping populations, based on autosomal and genetic distances. And these grouped populations is the concept of Race. Also, according to forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, raca can be determined by bones. For him blanket "race denial" not only contradicts biological evidence, but may stem from "politically motivated censorship" in the belief that "race promotes racism"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

[Poltergeist]

what are you talking about ? :confused:

It is rather you one should address this question to.

[Ibericus]

It is rather you one should address this question to.

Sorry but I don't understand what you mean. If you care to explain to me

[Murphy]

How is ethnicity determined?

You just know..

Regards,
The Papist.