It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White nationalists are flocking to genetic ancestry tests — but many don't like their results

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook

Why do some have this need to be superior over others in order to validate themselves


why dont you ask the ones violently protesting statues of long dead people....
they seem awfully sure of their own moral superiority
edit on 17-8-2017 by NobodiesNormal because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal

originally posted by: lostbook

Why do some have this need to be superior over others in order to validate themselves


why dont you ask the ones violently protesting statues of long dead people....


I think you'll find it was the Nazis who instigated the violence.


they seem awfully sure of their own moral superiority


It's not exactly hard to be morally superior to a Nazi.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: intrptr

To be fair, I've read that there are black nationalist groups that deny it too. White people were made by an evil wizard was one.



From memory... people that moved to northern latitudes like Europe slowly adapted to a cooler climate, less dark pigment needed to block the sun. They became pale... called white race, or "officially, caucasian". The gubment trend setters using race to divide us, even on our forms.

Further: White people are the evilest, cause the biggest mass die offs, the biggest wars, the biggest empires, etc.

One mans evil is another mans civilization. It isn't far etched at all to conclude this from history.... Alexander, Napoleon, Caesars, Hitler, EU, US (NATO) --all white.

Not only do people have trouble accepting the modern science of genetics, many still prefer to believe in the latter pseudo science, called Eugenics. Combined with various political ideologies including the supremacist beliefs apparent in various religions i.e., one true god (thats also white)...


we are definitely programmed to believe in our superiority from a young age.


Rather than adapted, I think it was more a case of the paler ones did better and consequently had more kids who were in turn paler because they could synthesize Vit D more readily. I guess there was a lot of rickets in the first few generations.


As for the rest, well, Egyptians were pretty savage, They were Non white and killed tons, just like all the bazillions of African and Asian tribes and peoples. White folks just kept better records.
edit on 28pThu, 17 Aug 2017 12:31:28 -050020172017-08-17T12:31:28-05:00kAmerica/Chicago31000000k by SprocketUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cutepants

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: lostbook

I've got to be honest, this is rather disingenuous. Years ago, when they began testing, they were expecting white Americans to have an significant rate of admixture of African and Native American, and well, this didn't happen.


With respect to European Americans, the percentages are much more different than African Americans or Latinos, with European American genomes being 98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African and 0.18 percent Native American.


Link

And amounts that small are probably due to the "dandelion effect" and/or real statistical noise. White Americans tended to keep to white Americans. They tried to keep those European blood lines, purely European, because of those biblical justifications for slavery of Africans and the resulting "one drop" rule.


I'm afraid you're being disingenuous, your study isn't suited to prove your point at all; the categories are based on what racial identities the participants chose for themselves:


The first question is modeled after the US census nomenclature and is a multiquestion survey that allows for choice of “Hispanic” or “Not Hispanic,” and participants were asked “Which of these US Census categories describe your racial identity? Please check all that apply” from the following list of ethnicities: “White,” “Black,” “American Indian,” “Asian,” “Native Hawaiian,” “Other,” “Not sure,” and “Other racial identity.” For inclusion into our European American cohort, individuals had to select “Not Hispanic” and “White,” but not any other identity. For inclusion into our Latino cohort, individuals had to select “Hispanic,” with no other restrictions. For inclusion into our African American cohort, individuals had to select “Not Hispanic” and “Black” and no other identity.


So it's basically based on whether they feel white or note, or black or not. What if someone has one black parent and one white parent? The study is going to skew towards racial purity. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the study, but it's very limited in terms of what conclusions we can draw from it. You could be right about the racial mixing, just saying that the study doesn't prove anything.

It's kind of a paradox, actually. "We're going to find out how white white people are, but first we need to decide who is white!" (Or black, or hispanic, not trying to be divisive here)


No. There was a noted contrast between how many people self identified and the genuine, ethnic genetic mix. There did seem to be more of a mix in some regions of the country than others and more of a discrepancy in how people "self identified" vs their genuine genetic mix than others.

The genetics are clear. Most people who identify as "white" Americans are indeed almost entirely European.
edit on 17-8-2017 by redhorse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: redhorse

What do you mean, a noted contrast? Wasn't the point that white people had very little contrast in the study, between their genetics and their "given" race?

I'm just not sure if it even makes sense to compare the data from the two of them. Also, 23andMe's clientele might not be representative of all classes. But I'm being very nitpicky now, not saying they aren't almost entirely European.

I really like the quote in your signature, already noticed and read it a few weeks back.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: redhorse

What do you mean, a noted contrast? Wasn't the point that white people had very little contrast in the study, between their genetics and their "given" race?

I'm just not sure if it even makes sense to compare the data from the two of them. Also, 23andMe's clientele might not be representative of all classes. But I'm being very nitpicky now, not saying they aren't almost entirely European.

I really like the quote in your signature, already noticed and read it a few weeks back.



In that 23andme/Harvard study that I was referring to, plenty of people identify as only white and saw exactly what they expected. Plenty of white Americans expected to see other ethnicities and did not (discrepancy). Plenty of African Americans saw a great deal more European and a lot less Native American than they expected (discrepancy). There was more of a mix in the southern part of the country while more people who identified as "white" there did not necessarily expect to see that, but still most of those white Americans, even those in the south, saw what they expected to see. There are discrepancies. It is complicated, but there are consistent regional variances. In the southern part of the country, the more likely white Americans are to be mixed and the more likely they are to insist that they are not, but even then, the percentages are quite low.

This study didn't have an agenda, as much as people want to think that it did, unlike whatever dubiousness that was linked by the original OP, who IS cherry picking information to support an agenda. I'm just trying to present some facts of how the genetic make-up of a rather large, and prestigiously backed, study panned out. It doesn't support the OP. As I said, I think it would be hilarious if these white supremacists saw that they weren't as white/european as they believed. It's just not (usually) the case though.

23andme is probably not representative of everyone, you're correct in that, but many of their clientele identify as white, but are often disappointed that there is not more of an ethnic mix, although that isn't really part of that study I referenced per se. And while I do think some companies may skew their data to please the primary demographic that they serve, I don't know if it gets much more nefarious than that. And to be honest, I have more faith in 23andme than in Ancestry.com on that score. FamilyTreeDNA is probably the most ethical one though. While this is completely anecdotal, all of my results, with all three companies have been pretty consistent, although Ancestry.com has recently dropped my Ashkenazi heritage and my European percentages trend higher and other ethnicities lower with that company.

On a personal note, I don't think that you read the whole thing before you jumped in on this one. I think that you made some assumptions about my motive, saw the first part of the study where they asked them what they identified as and ran with that, accusing me of being "disingenuous", because (I'm pretty sure) you thought that I had some sort of agenda. Now, while I appreciate a snarky throw-back-your-own-words-in-your-face as much as anyone (as you'll see), it wasn't warranted here. You made a mistake and you are back tracking now. Which is common here, and always annoying, but I get particularly irritated at hypocrisy, which is, what you have manifested. In short, you are being far more "disingenuous" than I am.

Edited to add*

I think it is important to know that when they ask those questions they are asking what people know of their ancestry and what they identify as. I think many people, when they take these DNA tests recognize that their results may not match those family stories and expectations. In my case, for example, that is exactly what happened, up to and including a "non-paternal event" (as in my father is not my biological father). Many people are drawn to these sites because they are adoptees, they have questions about some opaque family history, or a reason to doubt paternity. So yes, this may affect the results, although it's hard to say how.
edit on 17-8-2017 by redhorse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: redhorse

I have to admit I read very little of the second study, and you seem very knowledgeable about this, so I apologize. And you had every right to be annoyed with me.

For what it's worth, I didn't think you had any racist agenda and I don't think I was acting out of some sort of liberal indignation (even before you mentioned your Ashkenazi background!), though I admit I sure made it look like that. I just thought you where being careless. But it was the other way around. Disingenuous was a wrong choice of word too.

Well, I won't waste more words on rationalizing. Thanks for calling me out politely!



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK


As for the rest, well, Egyptians were pretty savage, They were Non white and killed tons, just like all the bazillions of African and Asian tribes and peoples. White folks just kept better records.

My point was more the biggest, awfullest, most heinous epochs were fostered by 'White' Power structures (historically speaking)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
I dont need a genetic test to tell me im a Neanderthal.


You got super powers too huh?


edit on 17-8-2017 by CreationBro because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Much as I feel those Genetic tests for ancestry are aimed at naive individuals (and I base this off of a back ground in Bioinformatics)... I can't help but giggle when people want to prove their superiority, and find out they are just like the rest of us


The fact that a lot of these uneducated White Supremacists, then try to argue the tests are wrong, shows that they are deluded. They can not actually argue the science, just wave their hands and say "something something Statistical noise".



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xcathdra
What is even better is when the liberal left elitists Hollywood types spout off on the topic. Case in point Chelsea Handler... Ranted and raved about white supremacist and Nazis only to find out her Grandfather was an actual Nazi.


My great-grandfather was a Nazi as well. Does that mean I cannot denounce Nazis?


You and the other poster need to learn to read.

If you are going to claim a moral high ground, as Handler did, then know whats in your family closet before doing so. I say this because she accepts her grandfathers nazi roots and makes excuses for it but denounces everyone else.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Please explain how having a Nazi grandfather means you can't condemn Nazis.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: redhorse

With respect to European Americans, the percentages are much more different than African Americans or Latinos, with European American genomes being 98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African and 0.18 percent Native American.

I have only one question about this: what do they mean when they say "European"? There are many differences in people from Europe, with many mixtures with Asians and Africans.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Xcathdra

Please explain how having a Nazi grandfather means you can't condemn Nazis.


Please explain how a person can condemn nazis yet somehow make it ok to be a nazi when its your grand father?



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I actually don't think anyone should be shamed for what their ancestors did, whether it was white slavery or black slavery or Nazism. But are you saying Handler defended her grampa? Didn't she make a whole TV show where she cried about how horrible it was?



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Xcathdra

Please explain how having a Nazi grandfather means you can't condemn Nazis.


Please explain how a person can condemn nazis yet somehow make it ok to be a nazi when its your grand father?


Please explain how she made it "ok" that her grandfather was a Nazi?

DId she say "I'm totally cool with Nazis now!"?

Or are you just making crap up?



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I imagine rather a few will come across the odd "'n-word' in the woodpile" that will somewhat upset there supposed racially pure apple cart.

End of the day "we are all Jock Tamson's bairns" whether or not we choose to accept the premise or otherwise.
edit on 18-8-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: redhorse

With respect to European Americans, the percentages are much more different than African Americans or Latinos, with European American genomes being 98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African and 0.18 percent Native American.

I have only one question about this: what do they mean when they say "European"? There are many differences in people from Europe, with many mixtures with Asians and Africans.


Well it depends on who you are asking. Most DNA tests will have a central European category that generally includes mainland western Europe, what we would call France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland. Then again these countries may be categorized as western Europe. Eastern Europe is it's own category, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia, Romania etc. to Ukraine and Belarus up to the Russian border. Russia is it's own category. Irish and English are their own respective categories, although Scottish tends to get lumped into English. Southern European is sometimes it's own category, but I usually see Italian/Mediterranean specified as well as Spanish/Iberian. Scandinavian is it's own thing including Norway, Sweden, Iceland, The Netherlands and sometimes Finland, but usually Finland gets their own thing. So, in that study that I referenced they were probably going with the typical American definition of European, which is, it it's in Europe, it's European.

Most Americans would think European is just that, anywhere in Europe-North, South, East, West It doesn't matter. For White Supremacists and Nationals, European is Northern, Western and Central Europe. If you are eastern European or southern European you are not "pure", by their standards, you are something else...



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
LOL, of course they're not. They are American, and we have comingled from the very get go.

I have "Lebanese" ancestry acquired from a "Lebanese" family that settled near the family homestead in Oklahoma in the late 1800's. These "lebanese" were more likely african americans that were on the lighter side of the brown paper bag test, and thus just claimed ancestry that was less prone to racial hate in the years after the civil war.

Knowing that none of us are "pure" in any "race" is part of what makes racial supremacy of any kind ridiculous to the point of making me laugh at its promoters.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
I dont need a genetic test to tell me im a Neanderthal.


You just look in the mirror right?

Sorry couldn't resist...



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join