- 25 Apr 2024 00:33
#15313350
Sure. No ethnogenesis in the past doesn't mean no ethnogenesis forever. Ethnicity feels set in stone or permanent but it isn't.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem confused because of some incorrect assumptions you seem to be making.
Rather than have a boring discussion about what defines a haplotype, it should be noted that the genetic clusters mentioned in the quote are not present in many (perhaps most) people living in England.
FiveofSwords wrote:Well then most people living in England are not english.
late wrote:You keep making me laugh.
You don't know how to do history, you have never studied it in depth, and you entertain marvelous delusions of competence.
Oh, well..
Pants-of-dog wrote:The Royal Family are therefore not English.
FiveofSwords wrote:I knew more about history when I was 12 then the combined knowledge of 10 generations of your ancestors.
Tainari88 wrote:What does it mean though? Does it mean you are more intelligent than the average? I have my doubts. Lol.
English means what? English can mean a person who is Down Syndrome. A person who is like Stephen Hawking a genius with serious physical impairments. Imperfections. A person who has MS, Cancer, deafness, etc. What does English mean in that context?
Again, what and why should people believe that being English means being superior to other ethnicities?
It is basically again socially constructed.
Who was Fagin the fictional character from Oliver Twist and Charles Dickens fictional writing? He was a bad guy. Exploiter of children, and a murderer. He was English. Did he represent all of the English people in the world? Was he the example of Englishness?
When you break down these explanations for purity? It is meaningless.
Again, you have a lot of variation within that group. It is never going to be a neat package.
Why is that so hard for the Nazi mentality to get?
Are you going to start with I am too intelligent for you...you do not understand me....I am the greatest of the greatest....oh, you are cliches, you are fools, the truth is there....Nazism has to be the answer....because? Why?
It better not be Nazi Twilight Zone.
FiveofSwords wrote:Well everyone knew that.
Fasces wrote:Sure. No ethnogenesis in the past doesn't mean no ethnogenesis forever. Ethnicity feels set in stone or permanent but it isn't.
Fasces wrote:Sure. No ethnogenesis in the past doesn't mean no ethnogenesis forever. Ethnicity feels set in stone or permanent but it isn't.
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is worth noting that your definition excludes many (perhaps most) self identified English people.
FiveofSwords wrote:I just quit reading when you started talking about how English people can be 'imperfect'. Who are you even talking to? Someone in your head?
Tainari88 wrote:No, I am not talking to a person who gives decent explanations. Which is you. You do not define anything with depth. You either have it or you do not. That is that.
FiveofSwords wrote:I define my terms very clearly and very simply. Simple categories do not require much depth to explain. You just love to make up dozens of mythical ideas of what I secretly believe and literally all of it is coming from inside your head. I have said absolutely nothing to suggest that I believe anything close to what you claim that I believe.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your definition of race is "clusters" which in turn are defined as arbitrary, variable, and do not indicate distinct subgroups.
In other words, your definition clearly contradicts the idea of distinct biological races.
Lol
FiveofSwords wrote:No. There is nothing arbitrary about whether people are more or less related. It is quite easily measurable, in fact. There do exist arbitrary things around the subject of race in general, just like anything involving biological life forms. For example, it is actually rather arbitrary that we do not consider chimpanzees to be humans. But that doesn't mean chimpanzee do not exist...or that there is nothing meaningful about the division between chimpanzee and humans
FiveofSwords wrote:No. There is nothing arbitrary about whether people are more or less related. It is quite easily measurable, in fact. There do exist arbitrary things around the subject of race in general, just like anything involving biological life forms. For example, it is actually rather arbitrary that we do not consider chimpanzees to be humans. But that doesn't mean chimpanzee do not exist...or that there is nothing meaningful about the division between chimpanzee and humans
fiveofswords wrote:There was an American ethnigenesis in 1776, 1865, and 1965
@FiveofSwords A dollar bill is a physical thin[…]
God dammit, Rich. This is like whenever anyone b[…]
The cost-of-living crisis is so bleak that some G[…]
wat0n , I think I found a quote that might help b[…]