[bucky]

Stick with me on this one.

I read Vox Day's blog Vox Popoli (http://voxday.blogspot.com/) daily and occasionally comment. Been doing so for a little over a year. He's a fascinating writer and one of his most interesting ideas is that you have to be of at least 50% English ancestry to be a real American. I'm not sure if this is common to other alt.right figures or just something Vox came up with himself. Although this rules out Vox himself, my wife and children and even possibly me depending on whether or not Scottish ancestry counts as English in this context, I find it at least an interesting idea.

I can at least entertain the idea that, as Vox would put it, a Guatemalan can no more become American than he can become Japanese. On the other hand Vox would say the same of a German or Scandinavian, or even someone of German or Scandinavian decent who has been in the US for generations, which seems a bit extreme. How much genetic difference is there really between Germans, Swedes, Danes, the English, and the Scots anyway? Not much as far as I know.

Anyway, this morning it occurred to me that I doubt even Donald Trump would qualify as a real American by Vox's standards, which seems a bit off. I bring this up here because Vox is liberal with the banhammer and doesn't hesitate to wield it if he's perceives that he's being mocked. My intention is not to mock him, but since I enjoy posting over there and would like to continue to do so, I figured it would be best to discuss this here. Any opinions?

[The Black Knight]

(11-09-2017 07:52 AM)bucky Wrote:  

Stick with me on this one.

I read Vox Day's blog Vox Popoli (http://voxday.blogspot.com/) daily and occasionally comment. Been doing so for a little over a year. He's a fascinating writer and one of his most interesting ideas is that you have to be of at least 50% English ancestry to be a real American. I'm not sure if this is common to other alt.right figures or just something Vox came up with himself. Although this rules out Vox himself, my wife and children and even possibly me depending on whether or not Scottish ancestry counts as English in this context, I find it at least an interesting idea.

I can at least entertain the idea that, as Vox would put it, a Guatemalan can no more become American than he can become Japanese. On the other hand Vox would say the same of a German or Scandinavian, or even someone of German or Scandinavian decent who has been in the US for generations, which seems a bit extreme. How much genetic difference is there really between Germans, Swedes, Danes, the English, and the Scots anyway? Not much as far as I know.

Anyway, this morning it occurred to me that I doubt even Donald Trump would qualify as a real American by Vox's standards, which seems a bit off. I bring this up here because Vox is liberal with the banhammer and doesn't hesitate to wield it if he's perceives that he's being mocked. My intention is not to mock him, but since I enjoy posting over there and would like to continue to do so, I figured it would be best to discuss this here. Any opinions?

[Wreckingball]

(11-09-2017 07:52 AM)bucky Wrote:  

fascinating writer and one of his most interesting ideas is that you have to be of at least 50% English ancestry to be a real American.

Yup, probably french descendents in Louisianna are not american.
Or russian Alaskans...
Or american indians..


A Purity battle is not really what you should be achieving at the moment. Let islam and the left eat themselves with that stupidity.

EDIT: A real american, is someone that loves america and is proud in being american. Regardless of where their parents come from.

[Clint Barton]

Is this a real thread?

[MMX2010]

bucky Wrote:

How much genetic difference is there really between Germans, Swedes, Danes, the English, and the Scots anyway? Not much as far as I know.

1. Look up pathological altruism.

2. Assume that voting for socialism is a primary indicator of pathological altruism.

3. Assume that allowing rapist Muslim migrants to flood your home country is also a primary indicator of pathological altruism.

4. Assume that pathological altruism has at least some genetic component.

5. Re-ask your question of whether there's significant genetic difference between the English (the primary settlers of America) and the Danes, Germans, Scots, and Swedes.

------

Regarding whether Trump is a "real American", you'll destroy your own argument by pursuing that question: President Trump will become the Gold Standard with which to compare the pro-American contributions of Mexicans, Muslims, and other immigrants to America.

You won't win that comparison.

[spokepoker]

A real American wants what is best for America. A real American bleeds red white and blue.
Vox is a little drama queen who lives in italy. He is not a real American, nor does he know what an American is.

[bucky]

(11-09-2017 08:53 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

5. Re-ask your question of whether there's significant genetic difference between the English (the primary settlers of America) and the Danes, Germans, Scots, and Swedes.

I posted this right before my morning workout, which I just finished. I'm psyched about the large number of replies because I've been itching to discuss this. Off to work now, but a quick thought on your point #5: sure there's some difference in voting tendencies between, say, the Danes and the English, but IIRC in the UK there are many, many English who are pro-EU and support mass third world immigration. Regardless, how do we know that these voting differences come down to genetics and not culture? Seems to me that all the people I mentioned in my list are mainly Germanic and therefore very close genetically, with a fair amount of Celtic mixed in for the Brits, Slavic for many of the Germans, etc. Even then, how genetically different are the Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic peoples really? Not much, I'd imagine. They split from each other what, less than 10,000 years ago and have mixed among themselves extensively since then.

[MMX2010]

Spokepoker Wrote:

A real American wants what is best for America. A real American bleeds red white and blue.

Don't say things that open borders idiots will use against you.

[MMX2010]

Bucky Wrote:

Off to work now, but a quick thought on your point #5: sure there's some difference in voting tendencies between, say, the Danes and the English, but IIRC in the UK there are many, many English who are pro-EU and support mass third world immigration. Regardless, how do we know that these voting differences come down to genetics and not culture?

I've pretty much run out of patience when discussing scientific topics with people who lack both science degrees, and the discipline to read whole books by leading scientists.

Bullet points.

1. Anyone who speaks of genetics and culture as if they were wholly separate entities doesn't understand genetics nor culture.

2. Anyone who denies that an observable trait has a genetic component, because that observable trait doesn't appear in 100.0% of a population, doesn't understand how scientists deduce genetic influences on observable traits.

3. The two most accessible books on genetics and political viewpoints are The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt and Spent by Geoffrey Miller. The first is especially important.

bucky Wrote:

Seems to me that all the people I mentioned in my list are mainly Germanic and therefore very close genetically, with a fair amount of Celtic mixed in for the Brits, Slavic for many of the Germans, etc. Even then, how genetically different are the Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic peoples really?

Surely you've heard the cliche (but correct) statement that humans and chimpanzees are 99% genetically identical.

The "overall genetic difference" measurement has exactly one purpose: to determine how recently two different species split off from a common ancestor. "Overall genetic difference" is never used to compare two populations of the same species, and you could never use it to determine how politically similar two populations are.

[Paracelsus]

Yep, I'm sure this thread is going to end well.

[bucky]

I don't mean to annoy you by wanting to discuss this topic, and I appreciate your giving specific reading material to increase my knowledge. I suppose a scientist like you will have to muster patience with laymen like myself as best he can if he wants to convince us of the truth. What science degrees do you have, out of curiosity?

Yes, I'm familiar with the 99% stat with chimps. Doesn't that refer specifically to DNA? If I recall correctly, humans also share something like 50% of DNA with a banana. Nevertheless it seems logical to me just based on my knowledge of history and the speed of evolution that an Englishman and a German would be extremely similar genetically, likely practically identical. Certainly they would be vastly more similar to each other than either would be to a chimp or a banana.

[MMX2010]

bucky Wrote:

Nevertheless it seems logical to me just based on my knowledge of history and the speed of evolution that an Englishman and a German would be extremely similar genetically, likely practically identical.

They are highly genetically similar.

Which is why, if you're truly trying to explain why two populations are different, you shouldn't focus on what makes them similar.

It's as if you're looking at Convicted Rapists and Never Raped Anybody, and telling everyone, "Looking at both groups, I'd expect both of them to need regular hydration, lest they die. Is that true?"

Of course it's true. But it doesn't matter because it makes these two groups similar, and you need to find what makes them different.

[DamienCasanova]

These youtube video easily answers OP's question