View Poll Results: When does an ethnicity/ancestry become insignificant?

Voters
87. You may not vote on this poll
  • It becomes insignificant at 1/4th ancestry or less

    8 9.20%
  • It becomes insignificant at 1/8th ancestry or less

    23 26.44%
  • It becomes insignificant at 1/16th ancestry or less

    13 14.94%
  • It becomes insignificant at 1/32nd ancestry or less

    14 16.09%
  • No percentage every becomes insignificant

    16 18.39%
  • Other

    13 14.94%
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 114

Thread: Significance of Ethnicity?

  1. #101
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 15th, 2009 @ 07:41 PM
    Ethnicity
    75%German-25%Polish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    New Jersey
    Gender
    Politics
    Varied
    Posts
    165
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    How does posting something like this help to further discussion and foster understanding?
    It doesn't. Sorry.

  2. #102
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    5,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    94
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    753
    Thanked in
    414 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Ethnic mixing is miscegenation as I understand it, and ethnicity is only a "social construct" in the manner race is a "social construct."
    No it's not and race isn't a social construct. Race occured in nature without human intervention. Ethnicity occured as a result of social fragmentation. Nation-states are not natural, they are artificial, man-made entities. As an analogy, "flower" and "tree" are natural, "garden" and "orchard" are not.

    Time alone will not change a Dane into a German. Those who are ethnically German and ethnically Danish will remain so until they miscegenate or form a new ethnicity.
    Learn some history before making such ridiculous assertions. Schleswig is fragmented in two, the North and the South. The people there are the same. Some of those who are "German" today would have been "Danish" ages ago.



    I suppose next you will tell me that a couple consisting of a Frisian from Germany and one from the Netherlands is miscegenation too?

    How did Germanics exist before Germanic ethnicities existed? Am I incorrect in believing the term refers to a collection of ethnicities?
    Goodness... Germanics existed as one group before they became socially fragmented into tribes. Tribes predate ethnicities. Germanics originally spoke one language, Common Germanic. Germanic languages diversified out of Common Germanic in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. thnicities were born from the amalgation of various tribes. In England the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Britons, Normans, etc. In Germany, the Saxons, Bajuvarii, Suebi, Alamanni, Chatti, etc.

    Germanic ethnicities can be composed of those of Celtic descent and remain Germanic if being Celtic predates being Germanic.
    I'm afraid I don't follow? I thought having a single drop of non-Germanic blood in one's veins makes one not Germanic. So this changes now?

    Why do you guess that? Have those antiracists' talking points begun getting to you?
    Logical fallacy. You are making use of emotionally-charged keywords and in that respect you are the same as the anti-racists who throw around nazi and racist to everyone who they argue with. No one here is anti-racist. If you're interested in "furthering discussion and forstering understanding", then I suggest you drop the name-calling.

  3. #103
    Senior Member SwordOfTheVistula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 1st, 2012 @ 01:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    50% German, 25% English, 25% Irish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Location
    Washington DC
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Construction, writer/editor
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    2,984
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    I didn't claim to be of any ethnicity. The mixed do not belong to an ethnicity.

    You should take it as far as it can be taken. Mixing is insidious. If we don't stop it now, we may never be able to. If you can't find one, as I proposed, there are still many others ways you can make a positive contribution to the world. Who cares what is easy and what isn't? Do we care so little about the future that we would compromise on that which matters most? If what determined your opinion was only your experiences and your conditions, and not that which is best for the world, how can you say it was arrived at justly?

    I will tell you now that I too have been in a mixed relationship and it has not prevented me from holding any opinion, but has in fact emboldened me to seek the truth. Do you believe I was referring to citizenship? Would you argue that citizenship in this sick modern world is any measure of ethnic background? You have managed to take my responses completely out of context.

    The English became united by blood when they became the English, as did the Welsh. Two ethnicities could be comprised of the exact same proportions of different ancestral groups, but their uniqueness still requires that they be preserved in my opinion. I am not in the business of accepting everything I hear. Why does it matter why I choose not to believe something? Would you like a reason to write me off? It surely must be easier than something so difficult as the preposterous notion that someone should present proof for the claims they put forth. Why are you cursing?

    I do not wish to make any determination as to what "is more likely to be true than not true" prior to seeing any evidence. Doing so would entail the very definition of prejudice. Why is it "hard to come to terms with?" Many ethnicities no longer exist and many ethnicities that exist did not exist in the past. There is a process by which an ethnicity can be said to begin to exist and by which it can be said to cease to exist.

    The English became the English. They may have ancestral ties to ethnicities that are both dead and alive, but this does not detract from their ethnicity in my opinion. Ethnic mixing is miscegenation as I understand it, and ethnicity is only a "social construct" in the manner race is a "social construct." Time alone will not change a Dane into a German. Those who are ethnically German and ethnically Danish will remain so until they miscegenate or form a new ethnicity. In my eyes, ethnic mixing and miscegenation are one and the same. How did Germanics exist before Germanic ethnicities existed? Am I incorrect in believing the term refers to a collection of ethnicities?

    Germanic ethnicities can be composed of those of Celtic descent and remain Germanic if being Celtic predates being Germanic. This does not follow from the claims I have made. I am unequivocally against incest. How does posting something like this help to further discussion and foster understanding?
    Wouldn't it make more sense to delineate by subrace instead of ethnicity? Unless somehow each country evolved the same subraces independently of eachother, it would stand to reason that people of the same subrace are more 'united by blood' than those of different subraces in the same ethnicity. A nordic in England would be more linked by blood to a nordic in Sweden than to a med type in England, and would be less miscegenation for a nordic from England to be with a nordic from Sweden than an English nordic and an English med type.
    Contact Congress on immigration
    Contact Congress to reject banker bailout
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Ben Franklin

  4. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 @ 04:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Gender
    Posts
    2,606
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    No it's not and race isn't a social construct. Race occured in nature without human intervention. Ethnicity occured as a result of social fragmentation. Nation-states are not natural, they are artificial, man-made entities. As an analogy, "flower" and "tree" are natural, "garden" and "orchard" are not.
    Ethnicity is not exclusively the result of social fragmentation as I conceive it, and race may be partially resultant from social fragmentation.

    How is it you define the word "race?" I consider the "species" concept to be socially constructed also.
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    Learn some history before making such ridiculous assertions. Schleswig is fragmented in two, the North and the South. The people there are the same. Some of those who are "German" today would have been "Danish" ages ago.
    There is obviously some distinction that can be made between the two, therefore I don't think it's "ridiculous" to call any union the two might have miscegenation.

    There are hypothetical situations where miscegenation might be permissible in my opinion. The two could be the last people on Earth for instance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    I suppose next you will tell me that a couple consisting of a Frisian from Germany and one from the Netherlands is miscegenation too?
    Supposing you asked, you suppose correctly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    Goodness... Germanics existed as one group before they became socially fragmented into tribes. Tribes predate ethnicities. Germanics originally spoke one language, Common Germanic. Germanic languages diversified out of Common Germanic in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. thnicities were born from the amalgation of various tribes. In England the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Britons, Normans, etc. In Germany, the Saxons, Bajuvarii, Suebi, Alamanni, Chatti, etc.
    Please correct any misconception I might have, but I am under the impression that there wasn't a group that called themselves the "Germanics" (or any group comprised of people that, after our having broadly understood them, could accurately and specifically only be described as Germanic). Were Germanics really ever a monolithic group?

    The mutual acculturation and contiguity that are necessary for inclusion within a "meta-ethnicity," do not seem to preclude that all the member ethnicities (I make no distinction between "ethnicities" and "tribes") may have different geneses.

    What we describe as "Germanic" may be more a multitude of tribes that became Germanic over time, than a tribe that was firstly and specifically Germanic from which other Germanic ethnicities were resultant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    I'm afraid I don't follow? I thought having a single drop of non-Germanic blood in one's veins makes one not Germanic. So this changes now?
    You can have been a child if your having been a child was prior to your having been an adult.
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    Logical fallacy. You are making use of emotionally-charged keywords and in that respect you are the same as the anti-racists who throw around nazi and racist to everyone who they argue with. No one here is anti-racist. If you're interested in "furthering discussion and forstering understanding", then I suggest you drop the name-calling.
    It's difficult to evoke a logical fallacy in a question.

    Where do you believe I was "name-calling?"
    Quote Originally Posted by SwordOfTheVistula View Post
    Wouldn't it make more sense to delineate by subrace instead of ethnicity? Unless somehow each country evolved the same subraces independently of eachother, it would stand to reason that people of the same subrace are more 'united by blood' than those of different subraces in the same ethnicity. A nordic in England would be more linked by blood to a nordic in Sweden than to a med type in England, and would be less miscegenation for a nordic from England to be with a nordic from Sweden than an English nordic and an English med type.
    Genetic studies seem to go against the idea that the "subraces" are genetically distinct. I wouldn't argue however, that a Swedish Nordic isn't probably more related to another Swedish Nordic than to a Swedish person belonging to a different "subrace."

    Nordics (or any other such subcategory someone chooses to believe they belong in) of the same ethnicity should mate with one another. I'm not at all opposed to intraethnic specificity in mate selection.






  5. #105
    Senior Member Psychonaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Wednesday, May 18th, 2016 @ 02:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    Acadian
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Politics
    Old Stock Nativism
    Religion
    Heathen Theosophy
    Posts
    928
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    I consider the "species" concept to be socially constructed also.
    Dude, come on. A species is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Random House Unabridged Dictionary
    2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
    I understand there is still a good bit of debate amongst biologists as to the precise scientific definition, but it's hardly a social construct.
    "Ocean is more ancient than the mountains, and freighted with the memories and the dreams of Time."
    -H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 @ 04:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Gender
    Posts
    2,606
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Psychonaut View Post
    Dude, come on. I understand there is still a good bit of debate amongst biologists as to the precise scientific definition, but it's hardly a social construct.
    It is arbitrarily defined, like "race" and ethnicity are, was my point. I have found that the defintion of "species" one propounds is often as self serving as the definition of "race" and even ethnicity one propounds.

    The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
    Do all creatures that can breed with one another belong to the same species? What is "breeding"? Is it fertilization, does it only occur after gastrulation, or is it some other thing? Must the offspring of the two animals be fertile? How related is "related?"






  7. #107
    Senior Member Soten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, August 20th, 2012 @ 12:39 AM
    Ethnicity
    American
    Ancestry
    English (50%), German (20%), Irish (12.5%), Lithuanian (12.5%), Scottish, Dutch, French
    Gender
    Religion
    Woden, Thunor, Frīg
    Posts
    1,120
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    All creatures that can breed and produce fertile offspring are considered the same species. Yes, the offspring must be fertile for the two creatures to be considered the same species and they are related enough to be able to produce fertile offspring together.

    It's a lot about being able to produce fertile offspring.

  8. #108
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    5,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    94
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    753
    Thanked in
    414 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Ethnicity is not exclusively the result of social fragmentation as I conceive it, and race may be partially resultant from social fragmentation.
    How is race partially resulted from social fragmentation? Race can be determined scientifically and genetically, ethnicity is another cup of coffee. Good luck trying to genetically determine whether a Frisian's ancestors all come from Germany or the Netherlands.

    How is it you define the word "race?" I consider the "species" concept to be socially constructed also. There is obviously some distinction that can be made between the two, therefore I don't think it's "ridiculous" to call any union the two might have miscegenation.
    A people unified by shared racial characteristics. If miscegenation occurs between those people between which can be made "some distinction", then everyone miscegenates, as you won't find another person identical with you. Oh, unless you are open to incest. Blood relatives are after all of the same genetic background, and more similar to one another than any stranger could be.

    Please correct any misconception I might have, but I am under the impression that there wasn't a group that called themselves the "Germanics" (or any group comprised of people that, after our having broadly understood them, could accurately and specifically only be described as Germanic). Were Germanics really ever a monolithic group?
    Yes. Do I really have to paste history 101 to you? Whether they caleld themselves Germanic or not isn't the point, the point is they were a single group which emerged from Scandinavia, unified by the same genetic traits, and who spoke a single language, common Germanic.

    acculturation and contiguity that are necessary for inclusion within a "meta-ethnicity," do not seem to preclude that all the member ethnicities (I make no distinction between "ethnicities" and "tribes") may have different geneses.
    An ethnicity comprises of different tribes. The Saxons are a tribe. The Germans aren't. The Germans can be Saxons, but they can also be Bavarians.

    What we describe as "Germanic" may be more a multitude of tribes that became Germanic over time, than a tribe that was firstly and specifically Germanic from which other Germanic ethnicities were resultant. You can have been a child if your having been a child was prior to your having been an adult.
    They didn't "become Germanic". They spread from Scandinavia to continental Europe. They diversified in tribes with distinct languages. You know, like a seed grows into a tree with many branches. But ok, history 101 again:

    The Germanic peoples are a historical group of Indo-European-speaking peoples, originating in Northern Europe and identified by their use of the Germanic languages which diversified out of Common Germanic in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The ancestors of these peoples became the eponymous ethnic groups of North Western Europe, such as the Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Germans, Dutch, English and Frisians.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples

    It's difficult to evoke a logical fallacy in a question.
    Where do you believe I was "name-calling?"
    You were making a logical fallacy by using the word "anti-racists" for those who don't believe your theories, not by asking a question.

  9. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 @ 04:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Gender
    Posts
    2,606
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    How is race partially resulted from social fragmentation?
    Caste systems seem to form "races" over time and the social fragmentation necessary for the members of one tribe to split from another and migrate to an island has often resulted in distinct "races" being formed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    Race can be determined scientifically and genetically, ethnicity is another cup of coffee. Good luck trying to genetically determine whether a Frisian's ancestors all come from Germany or the Netherlands.
    Presented with a preponderance of the evidence, many people have scientifically and genetically come up with very different estimates on the number and variety of human "races." That doesn't mean "race" doesn't exist. It does means "race" is an arbitrary category like ethnicity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    A people unified by shared racial characteristics.
    Isn't this definition somewhat circular? What are "racial" characteristics? How many must be shared?
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    If miscegenation occurs between those people between which can be made "some distinction", then everyone miscegenates, as you won't find another person identical with you. Oh, unless you are open to incest. Blood relatives are after all of the same genetic background, and more similar to one another than any stranger could be.
    Seeing as it is very difficult to breed with someone identical to one's self, I think it should be obvious that xenophilia on the issue of gender is acceptable.

    Inbreeding is what we are after, but not necessarily so closely that it might be called incestuous. I don't believe it is impossible to find someone with which you share a reasonable similarity with which to breed. This is what we are talking about afterall. It's all so self serving and arbitrary.
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    Yes. Do I really have to paste history 101 to you? Whether they caleld themselves Germanic or not isn't the point, the point is they were a single group which emerged from Scandinavia, unified by the same genetic traits, and who spoke a single language, common Germanic.
    Are you really contending that all those who are Germanic are descended from a single group which emerged from Scandinavia? Why is it that the genetic evidence seems to tell a completely different story?
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    An ethnicity comprises of different tribes. The Saxons are a tribe. The Germans aren't. The Germans can be Saxons, but they can also be Bavarians.
    I choose to recognize no "subethnicity." If the distinctions within an ethnicity are so great that a delineation between "tribes" can be made, that "ethnicity" is in fact a collection of ethnicities.
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    They didn't "become Germanic". They spread from Scandinavia to continental Europe. They diversified in tribes with distinct languages. You know, like a seed grows into a tree with many branches.
    I will contend that the genetic evidence begs we believe otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Todesengel View Post
    You were making a logical fallacy by using the word "anti-racists" for those who don't believe your theories, not by asking a question.
    If you are really interested in logical fallacies, you should look up the "strawman argument." This quotation is a good example.






  10. #110
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Siebenbürgerin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Transylvanian Saxon
    Subrace
    Alpinid/Baltid
    State
    Transylvania Transylvania
    Location
    Hermannstadt
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Ethno-Cultural
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    2,736
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    216
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    414
    Thanked in
    204 Posts
    Hmm, I don't quite understand why a Frisian from Germany with a Frisian from the Netherlands is miscegenation.

    Based on such principle, would you say, Southernboy, that people living on opposite sides of this border would be miscegenating if they decided to marry?







    I must say, it's almost impossible to be purely of a ethnicity or stock. This country for example has known so many migratory waves: the locals or natives were the Dacians. They were conquered by the Romans. There were migrations by the Cumans and Pechenegs. The Goths and Gepids settled here. In the South, more Turkic people, Tatars and even Greeks. If a Romanian persons discovers he doesn't only have the 'default' Daco-Roman ancestry and he has a very distant Gothic ancestor, he shouldn't call himself Romanian anymore? He for sure isn't Gothic, I'll give you that. It's ridiculous.

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Significance of Music in Your Life
    By Gagnraad in forum Music & Hymns
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Monday, June 10th, 2019, 01:37 AM
  2. Why is Anglo-Saxon of No Significance in England?
    By MetallicPain in forum England
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Saturday, May 5th, 2012, 07:20 AM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 26th, 2006, 09:42 PM
  4. The Significance of Ship Burial?
    By Sigurd in forum Customs & Rituals
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sunday, May 14th, 2006, 04:20 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •