This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I doubt anyone truely cares about the actual proportion of various ancestries. What they care about is ethnogenesis, how their people came to be.
For this purpose, Y and Mt DNA shed light in some aspects that autosomal DNA only cannot, such as the type of intermingling that gave birth to your ethnic group, power dynamics, etc.
For example almost all Latin Americans have y-haplogroups denoting European paternal descent but their Mt DNA shows near complete Native American ancestry for Maternal descent.
Hence we can infer that Latin Americans of today originate from European men and Native American women.
What about European maternal ancestry? The conquistadors were almost all men.
Native American paternal ancestry? You can guess.
This pattern of ancestry turns up in many other populations.
Most modern Europeans attribute their ethnogenesis to such asymmetric gender mixing.
There is actually pretty strong evidence that the original proto-Indo-European speakers were from Armenia/Northwest Iran and the new population that formed the late proto-Indo-European in Ukraine that became the modern Europeans was actually mostly from the y-haplogroup the EHG who lived there before, and the mitochondrial DNA is mostly from the original proto-Indo-Europeans from Armenia. Because, ancient DNA from Hittites in Anatolia had absolutely no EHG ancestry and certainly no y-haplogroups from any EHG. Of course, it's controversial to people like the starter of this thread who cares so much about y-haplogroups.
I'm an Anglo, but our culture was spread by proto-Germanic people with the haplogroup I1, a non-Indo-European haplogroup, and we are mostly not I1 now. We are mostly the Bell Beaker R1b, even in Germany and Denmark we are mostly R1b, with lots of R1a. If you look at a map of what the most common haplogroup Germanic speaking people have its a pastiche of all 3. I'm not ashamed of any of my ancestors and I think this whole thing is ridiculous.
No, why would I? My ancestors were from an amalgamation of very divergent groups in relatively recent history. My cousins are descended partly from similarly divergent groups. Unless we hope to drive the various non-white racial groups that exist in the USA to extinction, I see no reason to oppose interracial marriage. That we should support eugenics in general, then sure, but I'm not advocating for miscegenation laws, genocide, or sterilization.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link