[Fasces]

Sure. No ethnogenesis in the past doesn't mean no ethnogenesis forever. Ethnicity feels set in stone or permanent but it isn't.

[FiveofSwords]

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.

Well then most people living in England are not english.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well then most people living in England are not english.

The Royal Family are therefore not English.

[FiveofSwords]

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..

I knew more about history when I was 12 then the combined knowledge of 10 generations of your ancestors.

[FiveofSwords]

The Royal Family are therefore not English.

Well everyone knew that.

[Tainari88]

I knew more about history when I was 12 then the combined knowledge of 10 generations of your ancestors.

Some more boasting.

Insecurity folks.

Where is the evidence? Lol.

Simply the best, better than all the rest, better than anyone.

There is something to be said about the cultures of the world that think boasters are just liars in disguise.

[FiveofSwords]

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.

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?

[Pants-of-dog]

Well everyone knew that.

It is worth noting that your definition excludes many (perhaps most) self identified English people.

[wat0n]

Sure. No ethnogenesis in the past doesn't mean no ethnogenesis forever. Ethnicity feels set in stone or permanent but it isn't.

Indeed, would you say it's happening?

Having Americans just identify as "American" with no hyphen would be a major, major change.

Back in the day (yes, I'm aware of this) hypthenated Americans were not quite accepted, yet American society eventually went on to embrace them. Having these same Americans embrace hypthenated Americanness as an abstract concept, with most actually just identifying as "American", would be a major change in how people see themselves in this country.

[FiveofSwords]

Sure. No ethnogenesis in the past doesn't mean no ethnogenesis forever. Ethnicity feels set in stone or permanent but it isn't.

There was an American ethnigenesis in 1776, 1865, and 1965

[FiveofSwords]

It is worth noting that your definition excludes many (perhaps most) self identified English people.

I am fine with that

[Tainari88]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

[wat0n]

By that definition, if you obtained a DNA a census of all individuals living in an all-white neighborhood, there would be one cluster ("race") for every household.

[FiveofSwords]

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

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

[Potemkin]

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

So you regard ‘races’ as clades? But even that is fundamentally arbitrary- why those particular clades rather than others? And clades, by definition, must contain all the descendants of a common ancestor, even those who are the result of mixing with other ‘racial’ clades.

But your point about the arbitrariness of chimpanzees not being regarded as human is a good one - originally, the ‘Homo’ clade was erected to separate humans from chimpanzees and gorillas, but then it was embarrassingly realised that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than gorillas or chimpanzees are related to each other. So we ended up in the same group as chimpanzees, and gorillas rather than humans became the outlier among the great apes. But we still didn’t want to call chimpanzees ‘Homo’, or ‘men’, so we called them ‘Pan’ instead. Lol.

[Pants-of-dog]

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

Chimpanzees and humans cannot produce viable offspring through sexual reproduction, while humans of all “races” can do so.

This is not arbitrary at all., and is (in fact) one of the defining traits of being a species.

Also, you seem to change your definition of race frequently. Now it seems to be about how closely related people are. Note that two people can be closely related and be different “races”, which contradicts this new definition.

[Fasces]

There was an American ethnigenesis in 1776, 1865, and 1965

Nah.

I'd elaborate but you didn't, so...

[ingliz]

@FiveofSwords

Doesn't this 'ethnogenesis' malarky fatally wound your genetic argument?

Under this scheme, whatever ethnicity you choose - self-identify with - is up to you with no requirement that you are born into the 'tribe'.