Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

confusion race and DNA

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I think it would be better if the census asked what the main original language of your ancestors were, or at least the country of origin or ethnic group for those who are lumped into the white category. The old fashioned traditional term of white, as used in 1800, which for the most part was a social term and meant WASP, doesn't apply to most people who have to classify as white. And there is more cultural and linguistic diversity among white Indo-European Americans than there is among Hispanics. It doesn't make sense for the census to get into minutia about whether a Hispanic person is Cuban or Puerto Rican (they both speak Spanish) and not even ask if a white person is Turkish or French or Uzbek or Algerian or Irish or Sicilian. And for me personally, what should I do about my conflicting Native American admixture/autosomal dna test results?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re "race"

      I recently noticed that in Canada, they use the term "visible minority." Of course then you'd have to sub-divide that further into what those minorities were.

      Comment


      • #33
        Most people don't know the language of their immigrant fathers and mother. When it come to being Cuban or Mexican it lets them know who's flooding in the most. Or you can just say they found another way to waste money.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by EdwardRHill View Post
          Most people don't know the language of their immigrant fathers and mother. When it come to being Cuban or Mexican it lets them know who's flooding in the most. Or you can just say they found another way to waste money.
          I guess that's how the Native Americans felt when English and Spanish colonists came "flooding" into the New World. So they're probably the only ones who have much right to be against immigrants.

          Otherwise, for better or for worse (eventually it turns out for the better), we're a nation of immigrants. All four of my grandparents came here from Italy over 100 years ago.

          There always seems to be friction between the native born Americans and the immigrants. But then usually the second generation born here after immigration is recreating the animosity toward some new immigrant group.

          America, what a country! The same story goes for Canada, Australia, Argentina and Brazil, all countries with a long history of immigration.

          Comment


          • #35
            Purpose of Censi?

            Aha! plural of Latin "Census" maybe?

            IMHO the Census Form alas is not intended for anthropologic or genetic research and has no moral, ethical or cultural-instructional purposes.
            It is just a pragmatic tool to get an idea of (economic and legislative ?) assets and liabilities in the current population.

            We cannot expect too much subtlety in the wording- it is hoped that useful data will come back even from the most challenged intelligence levels. The wishful principles, rightly or wrongly, of "one man one vote" or "all are created equal" is at the base of the process.

            Comment


            • #36
              this and that...

              I used to have the idea firmly planted in my mind that this "one man one vote" crap would eventually ruin the country. The more educated should have more voting power. Sometimes, when I see what's going on in D.C., I still get that reaction.

              There used to be more prejudice than there is today, I tend to think. Even within my own blended family, snobbery with one's own pedigree apparently caused unforeseen bad reactions, even years later.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
                I used to have the idea firmly planted in my mind that this "one man one vote" crap would eventually ruin the country. The more educated should have more voting power. Sometimes, when I see what's going on in D.C., I still get that reaction.

                There used to be more prejudice than there is today, I tend to think. Even within my own blended family, snobbery with one's own pedigree apparently caused unforeseen bad reactions, even years later.
                Well said!
                It was originally "one male english-speaking white property-owner one vote" So there has been a gradual lowering of the bar in the interest of minimal equity.
                So what about now raising the quality of the votes by rewarding attainments to the civil good by the next step. Yes,"one taxpayer one vote" but also, "one extraqualified voter an additional vote" with a list of extraqualifiers like: Graduate degree, home owner, employer of ten or more, doctorate, married over ten years, earned his living abroad for a year, etc. It would mean that some people would have multiple votes, all counting in the chosen voting direction.
                This idea was proposed in a book by Neville Shute an Australian author about 40 years ago.
                (I would like to add psychological testing of candidates for office to exclude those with antisocial psychopathic traits. You can judge which news figures in the past few years would have been excluded.)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Sounds good to me. Make it so people have to reach higher and work harder. That's how the country was made and why its one of the better countries in the world today if not the best. But what does this have to do with DNA? LOL

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    reply +...

                    What Derinos said above gets my wholehearted support, even though I myself would be barely qualified to vote in that case.

                    Within the past couple of days (nights, actually) I pinned down my Dad's mother's side a bit more, on ancestry.com. When I was little, I heard rumors that we had some kind of aristocratic connections, but never knew quite where that stemmed from. I always thought it had to do with my Norwegian side. My Dad was 3/4 Norwegian and 1/4 German. Now I bumped into the origin of his mother's grandmother, born 1841 in Thueringen, Germany. Her given name(s) was Augusta Wilhelmina Caroline. In this country she was "Minnie", from Wilhelmina.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by EdwardRHill View Post
                      Sounds good to me. Make it so people have to reach higher and work harder. That's how the country was made and why its one of the better countries in the world today if not the best. But what does this have to do with DNA? LOL
                      The idea was not to force people beyond their inclinations, (all citizens get one vote), but those who contribute and become more informed as voters would have progresivly more influence at the ballot box.
                      It would not be easy to list those extraqualifiers to please everyone; eg how many votes would you award a given corporation, now that the Supreme Court has declared it "a person with free speech" under the Constitution?
                      The DNA relevance of the topic? A suggestion that the census form should have a DNA question, related to ethnic origin and the existing government benefits linked to it.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        How did the topic of confusion about dna and race shift to voting rights?
                        My DNA test results did alter my self-perception but I go back and forth on it. The US census does ask about race and ethnicity. The census is to count all the people living in the US, and that includes people who are not US citizens. Voting rights are only for US citizens. And I am for one vote per citizen. I am against the idea of "extraqualifiers" that would be elitist. It's bad enough that we have an electoral college that over-rides the popular vote. When Gore was elected by the popular vote, the electoral college went against it and chose Bush.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          We thank you for, and encourage lively debate on the forum. Please keep posts focused on DNA and genealogy. Thank you.

                          Darren Marin
                          Family Tree DNA

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by derinos View Post
                            The idea was not to force people beyond their inclinations, (all citizens get one vote), but those who contribute and become more informed as voters would have progresivly more influence at the ballot box.
                            Right. Perhaps we could decide that certain people weren't pulling their share or we don't like them and they could count as 3/5 of a person.

                            Oh wait, the Constitution did count African slaves as 3/5 of a person for purposes of drawing up congressional districts. But that was overturned by the Civil War and Emancipation Proclamation and a constitutional amendment.

                            Do you see how potentially explosive this question of race (which according to many scientists is not even a valid scientific concept) is?
                            Last edited by MMaddi; 20 March 2010, 03:20 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by rainbow View Post
                              How did the topic of confusion about dna and race shift to voting rights?
                              My DNA test results did alter my self-perception but I go back and forth on it. The US census does ask about race and ethnicity. The census is to count all the people living in the US, and that includes people who are not US citizens. Voting rights are only for US citizens. And I am for one vote per citizen. I am against the idea of "extraqualifiers" that would be elitist. It's bad enough that we have an electoral college that over-rides the popular vote. When Gore was elected by the popular vote, the electoral college went against it and chose Bush.
                              I agree with you. Read my post right above this one.

                              When scientists can't even agree that the idea of race as most laymen understand it is valid, race becomes a political and social issue, not something to be proven scientifically. It's used by all sorts of people, many with bad intentions, to use for their pet political, economic or social theories.

                              Just to make it clear, many scientists believe that race is not a valid concept and point out that there is more diversity within the races (African, Caucasian, East Asian) than there is between races.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                When it comes to race I don't need a scientists to tell me who I am. As far as DNA goes and after reading post here I take what I get from DNA with a gran of salt. It is still a new science. I was raised and brought up calling myself one race even though there is a rumor in the family that there is some other race mixed in. Its is OK to be who ever you are, and there is nothing wrong with being you. So learn to live with yourself and stop looking or hoping to be something you are not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X