Help with a story. I really have no clue what the frack "Britain" is.

[nedz]

You can't *just* be White, you have to be something underneath, even if that underneath is some form of mix or questionmark placeholder such as "American."

Ethnicity is just a waste bin taxon — well pretty much. It means what you want it to mean.

See my Grandmother was Scottish, so I'm a quarter Scottish: but who are the Scots ?
The Scots are basically a mix of Picts, Irish, Norwegians and refugees from the North of England from the time of William the Bastard.
The latter (from whom the Scots language was derived) are a mix of Romano British, Angles and Danes.
The Romano British were Celts (probably) plus whoever came with the Romans.
Add into this several centuries of random immigration and you end up with a meaningless description.

[TheThan]

Then you haven't looked at enough places in enough depth.

I admit, I have not. Which is why I was asking

The concept that 'Irish' is a distinct ethnicity arose in America. Lots of old USA census forms will give White and Irish as separate choices along with black and Hispanic.

This makes a lot more sense from the context that ethnicity is essentially made up and that 'white' in this context of being opposed to Hispanic and Irish is actually a secret euphemism for 'protestant'.

There’s a lot of… hostility… between Catholics and protestants in Ireland. Claiming to be “Irish” does not necessarily claim to be either Catholic or Protestant. It claims to be from the emerald isle, or at least descended from someone from that place.

I don’t really buy that ethnicity is made up. Look around, people from different places tend to share similar characteristics with each other. Otherwise we couldn’t distinguish between an Asian from say an African. But we clearly can. With DNA testing we can actually track where our “blood” comes from to pretty exact locations.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The Scots are basically a mix of Picts, Irish, Norwegians and refugees from the North of England from the time of William the Bastard.
The latter (from whom the Scots language was derived) are a mix of Romano British, Angles and Danes.

You're missing out two major groups of people/migrations there. The Scots language has nothing to do with refugees from the Scouring of the North or William I of England and there were Welsh Kingdoms in Scotland you haven't mentioned. Angles conquered the Kingdom of Bernica in the eastern lowlands in the 5th century AD and are the source of the Scots language. Bernica merged with a southern Kingdom called Deira based around York to create Northumbria, which was conquered by the kings of Alba/Scotland.

There’s a lot of… hostility… between Catholics and protestants in Ireland. Claiming to be “Irish” does not necessarily claim to be either Catholic or Protestant. It claims to be from the emerald isle, or at least descended from someone from that place.

The Irish definition in the old USA census isn't based on hostility in Ireland, its based on Irish people in the USA, who were mostly Catholics.

I don’t really buy that ethnicity is made up. Look around

Being based on evidence doesn't mean something actually exists. That's how theories work. Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it can't be observed.

edit: The simple fact is that ideas about ethnicity change a lot. The recognised ethnic groups and races of 50 years ago are not the ones people think about today. This clearly shows that ethnicity is just an attitude towards perceived differences, not the actual differences themselves.

With DNA testing we can actually track where our “blood” comes from to pretty exact locations.

We can try. However we can't track 'ethnicity' at all. Haplogroups are identifiable but they are completely different to any concept based on visible difference.

[AtlanteanTroll]

The concept that 'Irish' is a distinct ethnicity arose in America. Lots of old USA census forms will give White and Irish as separate choices along with black and hispanic.

Yes, and so was Italian. Gotta keep people marginalized somehow, right?

[TheThan]

edit: The simple fact is that ideas about ethnicity change a lot. The recognised ethnic groups and races of 50 years ago are not the ones people think about today. This clearly shows that ethnicity is just an attitude towards perceived differences, not the actual differences themselves.

If anything that means that “racial lines” have blurred over the years. In a “melting pot” country like the USA, that’s naturally going to happen as people of different ethnicities intermarry (or just you know, make babies). I’ve known people whose family history was so mixed that he considered himself a ‘mongrel’ when it came to such matters. (his words not mine)

We can try. However we can't track 'ethnicity' at all. Haplogroups are identifiable but they are completely different to any concept based on visible difference.

If I have documentation tracing my family history back to a specific location in Scotland, and I have DNA testing done that traces my blood line (through the male members of my family) back to Scotland, doesn’t that suggest that my ethnicity is Scottish?

Racial stereotypes exist for a reason. (I am not advocating that all stereotypes are true or that people should rely upon them to judge others, I’m not even suggesting people should judge others). Its easy to assume that the redhead you're looking at at the coffee shop is Irish, ethnicity speaking, because Ireland (or should i say people with Irish blood?) has a larger percentage of redheads than other places do. So much so that it's become a stereotype.

[Prime32]

If I have documentation tracing my family history back to a specific location in Scotland, and I have DNA testing done that traces my blood line (through the male members of my family) back to Scotland, doesn’t that suggest that my ethnicity is Scottish?

Does all your other ancestors' DNA disappear or something? You've got 4 grandparents, but if e.g. one was a Scottish man who had sons and the other three were Italian, I'm not sure how that makes you Scottish.

[TheThan]

Does all your other ancestors' DNA disappear or something? You've got 4 grandparents, but if e.g. one was a Scottish man who had sons and the other three were Italian, I'm not sure how that makes you Scottish.

Those “Scottish genes” are passed down from father to son. There will be some mixing in (my mother has an Irish ancestry). As far as I’m aware the father passes on most of the dominant genes in a person, that would make me predominantly (but not entirely) Scottish (I will freely admit that I’m barely a layman on the subject, and honestly a lot of the info I’ve been reading on Wikipedia is a bit over my head).

Unless I’m completely wrong on this, in which case just ignore me.

Since I can trace my family clear back to Scotland (even to the area where my surname comes from), I think it's fair to say that I'm of Scottish blood.

[Bulldog Psion]

Britain is the area overall. English are the people who live in the "England" area of Britain.

If it helps to conceptualize it, "Britain" is like "North America." "English" is like "American," in the sense of "United States citizen." (Yes, I did just cast the Canadians and Scots as roughly equivalent for purposes of this extremely sketchy and inaccurate comparison. However, the Canadians don't wear kilts or paint their faces blue* any more than anyone else does, though there may some parallels in the whiskey department.)

(*I kid, I kid)

[Closet_Skeleton]

Unless I’m completely wrong on this, in which case just ignore me.

Is it okay if I educate you instead?

As far as I’m aware the father passes on most of the dominant genes in a person,

No, not at all.

When gametes (eg egg or sperm) are created, they have half the genes of a person in a random amount because they're created by a cell doubling its DNA and then splitting into four. Its this randomness that means your brothers and sisters aren't clones.

You can't force the dominant genes to all come from the father because if a gamete with purely dominant genes somehow gets created by chance then its purely recessive twin also exists thanks to the fission process that created it. Then there's a whole other step of randomness when a host of male gametes (sperm) has an opportunity for one of them to fuse with a female gamete (egg) to create a person. So when our imaginary purely dominant gene containing sperm is trying to reach the egg, its chance of becoming a person is no greater than its purely recessive twin which must also exist.

Unlike what some people appear to think, there is no correlation between how well a sperm swims and whether or not its genes are dominant. Dominant genes are just ones that get expressed over recessive ones, they are not 'better genes' and have nothing to do with 'survival of the fittest'. On the level of 'the selfish gene', recessive genetic diseases are actually better at surviving and being passed on

Racial stereotypes exist for a reason.

You mean phenotypes. Stereotypes are about behaviour, not appearance.

Since I can trace my family clear back to Scotland (even to the area where my surname comes from), I think it's fair to say that I'm of Scottish blood.

Scottish blood does not exist. Scotland is a political unit, a territory drawn out by conquering armies and bonds of more voluntary allegiance. The concept of having Scottish blood makes as much sense as if you married someone who belonged to a different Golf club and then claimed that your offspring was a mongrel of different sporting organisations.

If you can trace your paternal line to one town, 'Scottish' is a pretty big simplification. In the unlikely situation that your family never moved from that town before your ancestor emigrated to your current nation, you might be able to claim descent from a dark age kingdom that pre-dated the existence of Scotland (Scotland's current territory dates back to the 15th century).

Can I ask what town or location your ancestors are traced back to?

[nedz]

Racial stereotypes exist for a reason. (I am not advocating that all stereotypes are true or that people should rely upon them to judge others, I’m not even suggesting people should judge others). Its easy to assume that the redhead you're looking at at the coffee shop is Irish, ethnicity speaking, because Ireland (or should i say people with Irish blood?) has a larger percentage of redheads than other places do. So much so that it's become a stereotype.

The gene for red hair is relatively common throughout the British Isles, and also in Bergan, Norway . It is not an Irish thing. It is also a recessive gene - IIRC.

[Frozen_Feet]

I don’t really buy that ethnicity is made up.

Ethnicity has a lot more to do with the culture you grow up in and absorb, than your genetics. Sure, over long periods of time tight-knit ethnic groups start to genetically resemble their ingroup more than outgroups, due to inbreeding and such, but it's hardly all, or even most, in the blood.

For a great example where ethnicity is at odds with genetics: eastern Finnish people and western Russian people largely belong to same Fenno-Ugric (!) lineages. However, because of the extended dominance of Russo-Slavic culture in Russia, the people on the Russia's side of border identify as slavic and speak Russian, with very little to no hints of their "original" ethnic group. Meanwhile people on our side of the border identify as fenno-ugric and speak Finnish.

It gets even funnier when you consider other Fenno-Ugric linguistic and cultural minorities *within* Russia's borders. They are genetically of the exact same stock as the surrounding "slavic" people, but the latter treat them rather coldly.

It's also good to remember that modern concepts of ethnicity are very strongly influenced by ghost of nationalism, and during the biggest nationalistic craze every small isolated people pretty much reinvented their history from scratch to justify separating themselves from some other group.

[TheThan]

Scottish blood does not exist. Scotland is a political unit, a territory drawn out by conquering armies and bonds of more voluntary allegiance. The concept of having Scottish blood makes as much sense as if you married someone who belonged to a different Golf club and then claimed that your offspring was a mongrel of different sporting organizations.

I’m aware of that. I was trying to refer to the people from Scotland maybe I should have said Gaelic? Well that’s not quite accurate either. How about “the people from the highlands of Scotland”? Is that good enough? Being “Scottish” is sort of a matter of pride in my family. So having someone say “No you’re not” kind of rubs me the wrong way.

Can I ask what town or location your ancestors are traced back to?

I think Fort William is pretty close. My dad has all the relevant information and I'd rather not bother him over something as trivial as arguing with people over the internet.

[Wardog]

Britain is the area overall. English are the people who live in the "England" area of Britain.

If it helps to conceptualize it, "Britain" is like "North America." "English" is like "American," in the sense of "United States citizen." (Yes, I did just cast the Canadians and Scots as roughly equivalent for purposes of this extremely sketchy and inaccurate comparison. However, the Canadians don't wear kilts or paint their faces blue* any more than anyone else does, though there may some parallels in the whiskey department.)

(*I kid, I kid)

Maybe a better analogy would be "Britain" is like the USA. "England" is like "New York State", and "Scotland" is like "Texas". They're all part of one country*, but have a degree of political independence (and separatist movements), and distinct cultures. And due to different patterns of settlement different (but overlapping) gene pools (but they're not different "races", at least in the normal sense of the word**).

The "British Isles" would be analogous to "North America" - i.e. it's a geographic area, not a single country. (And the name could wrongly imply a closer relationship with one of the countries in it than is actually the case).



* In the sense that most people outside the UK would define "country", i.e. sovereign state with a seat in the UN. Within the UK, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are often described as countries.


** I think a lot of the discussion about race or ethnicity is getting confused by the fact that these terms are ambiguous. I think "ethnicity" is normally defined in cultural terms, i.e. a group of people with a distinct culture, who see themselves as being "a thing", distinct from other such groups. In the UK at least, though, it is often used as a euphemism for (or slightly fuzzier equivalent of) "race". "Race" usually implies something biological, but what specifically is very variable. It can either phenotype (particularly skin colour). Historically it often meant a clan or tribe or nation descended from a particular ancestor (of course, all those people will also be descended from lots of other people as well, even if the famous ancestor was real rather than mythical). It's also (especially historically) used to mean what would nowadays probably be described as an ethnic group, or a nation. (And of course "nation" can mean a distinct tribe or people, or a country, or a sovereign state).

I think the issue of "Is race real?" isn't so much "are the phenotypes/lineages/etc real" but "depending on which marker you choose, anyone could legitimately belong to many different races, so what you choose to describe them as is down to culture".

[Prime32]

Those “Scottish genes” are passed down from father to son. There will be some mixing in (my mother has an Irish ancestry). As far as I’m aware the father passes on most of the dominant genes in a person, that would make me predominantly (but not entirely) Scottish (I will freely admit that I’m barely a layman on the subject, and honestly a lot of the info I’ve been reading on Wikipedia is a bit over my head).

Unless I’m completely wrong on this, in which case just ignore me.

Since I can trace my family clear back to Scotland (even to the area where my surname comes from), I think it's fair to say that I'm of Scottish blood.

No, half of your DNA comes from your father, half comes from your mother. If you have 16 ancestors, then you have equal claim to all 16 bloodlines. "Dominant" genes are something completely different to what you're describing.

Spoiler: On Dominance, or "Let's Get Mendelian!"

Show

Genes don't function alone, they work in pairs. Each parent passes down only half of each pair, but which half is random in each case (and thus each egg/sperm has a different combination). The two half-pairs then combine to form a full set of DNA for the child.

Let's look at one particular gene pair, which determines eye colour:

• Case BB: If you received two genes for brown eyes, you have brown eyes.
• Case Bb: If you received one brown-eyed gene and one blue-eyed gene, you have brown eyes.
• Case bb: If you received two blue-eyed genes, you have blue eyes.

In this case brown eyes are dominant and blue eyes are recessive, meaning the brown-eyed gene takes priority over other eye colours. This is why brown eyes are more common than blue - lots of people have one b gene, but the odds of both parents passing it down at the same time are low.

That is, the dominance of a gene doesn't determine whether it's passed down or not, just what effect it has, and most distinctively Scottish traits would be recessive anyway (which is why they're not more widespread). The genes do not change based on the parent they came from.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Is that good enough?

Of course its good enough. There's nothing wrong with using abstract terms and concepts, the only problem is if you expect them to actually mean anything other than their emotional resonance.

I think Fort William is pretty close.

Fort William is pretty close to lots of places, there aren't that many big towns in the highlands and Fort William is one of the reasonable sized ones.

For a great example where ethnicity is at odds with genetics: eastern Finnish people and western Russian people largely belong to same Fenno-Ugric (!) lineages.

You have to also assume that Fenno-Ugric is any more of a lineage than Russian is.

They are genetically of the exact same stock as the surrounding "slavic" people, but the latter treat them rather coldly.

The whole steppe placement of the origins of the Slavs makes any concept of an actual 'slavic people' kind of odd.

Spoiler: horrible digression on more Slavic weirdness

Show

The Avar Khaganate was a state that existed in the region of modern Hungary and Romania between 567 and 804. Avars were a Turkic speaking people (to confuse things even more there was another group in the Caucasus who spoke an Iranian language but had the same name). However by the 9th century and their destruction the Avars had abandoned their original language in favour of the ancestor of the South Slavic languages after centuries of Slavic immigration. Then they got invaded by the Bulgars, another Turkic people, who also started speaking slavic and became known as the Bulgarians.

One of the main splinters of the Avar Khaganate to survive was the Serbs. This group had existed earlier in Roman records, but then the name referred to a Sarmatian (a group of Iranian nomads) tribe. Its possible that the Romans misidentified Slavs as Sarmatians, its also possible that the Serbs were so swelled by Slavs joining the tribe that they created a new Slavic tribe that kept a non-Slavic name just like the Bulgarians did. Its also possible that the Sarmatian tribe just had a coincidentally similar name but no slavic etymology for the nation's name can be confirmed. To confuse things even more, there is another group of Serbs, usually called Sorbs, who are a slavic speaking minority in east Germany.

The other main group of southern Slavs are the Croats. Their name is also of unknown etymology and may also be Sarmatian/Iranian. One of the most historic cities of Croatia is Dubrovnik. This is actually an ancient latin city, also known as Ragusa. It was founded in the 8th century by refugees from Epidaurum, an old Greek colony destroyed by the Slavs and Avars. It was part of the Roman Empire until conquered by Venice in 1205 and then became an independent Republic in 1358 as a vassal of Hungary. Romance languages remained the tongue of government, but Croatian gradually became the day to day language until by 1698 most Ragusans called themselves Croats. Ragusa and Venetian Dalmatia were annexed by Austria, who controlled the rest of Croatia already, in 1815. It became part of Yugoslavia in 1918.

So it went from Greek Colony to Roman city to independent Latin Republic to independent Croatian Republic to Austrian city to Yugolslav city to Croatian city in a Yugoslavian federation and then independent Croatia.

The Magyars were a confederation of tribes north of Crimea who were part of the larger Khazar Khaganate. They were also called Huns, despite none of them having any relationship to the Huns other than a tiny splinter of the Huns who created a small Kingdom near Crimea.

Finally, the Magyars migrated to the remnants of Avaria and replaced it with Hungary. A country that half spoke Slavic and half spoke a Fenno-Ugric language, leading to it being chopped in half after WW1.

* In the sense that most people outside the UK would define "country", i.e. sovereign state with a seat in the UN. Within the UK, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are often described as countries.

The concept of 'countries' and 'nations' are very complicated. Let alone 'nation state'. The UK contains Scotland, England, the West Country and Wales. The one of those that is not a country is the one with 'country' in its name.

'Nation state' is a term usually used to refer to countries like France and Germany that are named after a so called linguistic nationality. Countries like Switzerland are sometimes considered not to be nation states due to not having a single language despite the fact that Switzerland has a much better defined national identity than Germany does and Germany also having linguistic minorities. Austria is a largely artificially state whose existence is due to treaties in which its people were not given a vote that has no real unique culture compared to the catholic region of Germany that it borders, yet it has a far longer history as a state than Germany does and rejoining Germany is not something any large Austrian party really entertains despite its only separate identity being a connection to a dynasty that Austria's nature as a republic rejects as a valid basis for the nation's identity. When the term 'nation-state' was created in 1648 it referred mostly to monarchies that could be split or annexed based on inheritance and none of the states people now define as 'true nation states' existed except possibly for France.

[Aedilred]

* In the sense that most people outside the UK would define "country", i.e. sovereign state with a seat in the UN. Within the UK, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are often described as countries.

The description of Wales as a country, though now commonplace, is still occasionally controversial. Northern Ireland is very rarely if ever described as a country at least by any official or quasi-official source within the UK (including the BBC, etc.) because <complicated political reasons> but the generally accepted term is "province".

And as Closet_Skeleton notes, "country" is such a vague term as not to be terribly helpful. You could make a good case that not only are NI and Wales not countries, but nor are England or Scotland, if you consider it coterminous with "state". In that context, the only state/country would be the UK, and the Celtic fringe nations would be "partially devolved regions", or the like.

[Coidzor]

Ethnicity is just a waste bin taxon — well pretty much. It means what you want it to mean.

Well, that's your problem right there. If you're trying to apply taxa to it, you're not thinking about it in the right way in the first place.

See my Grandmother was Scottish, so I'm a quarter Scottish: but who are the Scots ?
The Scots are basically a mix of Picts, Irish, Norwegians and refugees from the North of England from the time of William the Bastard.
The latter (from whom the Scots language was derived) are a mix of Romano British, Angles and Danes.
The Romano British were Celts (probably) plus whoever came with the Romans.
Add into this several centuries of random immigration and you end up with a meaningless description.

Yes, that's where Scots came from. That's where Americans, both Black and White, came/are coming from. That doesn't mean Scots and Americans didn't and don't exist. You didn't just make a broad swath of the two most powerful English-Speaking nations disappear in a puff of logic.

[Asta Kask]

No, half of your DNA comes from your father, half comes from your mother. If you have 16 ancestors, then you have equal claim to all 16 bloodlines. "Dominant" genes are something completely different to what you're describing.

I think he means that his Y chromosome has a kilt, a claymore and bagpipes.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Yes, that's where Scots came from. That's where Americans, both Black and White, came/are coming from. That doesn't mean Scots and Americans didn't and don't exist. You didn't just make a broad swath of the two most powerful English-Speaking nations disappear in a puff of logic.

Whether or not abstract concepts exist or not is a level of philosophical depth I will not go into.

'Americans' is a set. Deleting a set does not delete its components. Saying 'there's no such thing as an American' doesn't imply the non-existence of any person.

Abstract concepts like 'Scottish' and 'American' exist at the level they apply at in the culture that understands them. If you move outside of that conceptual area, they stop existing but within that area they do exist as much as any abstract concept can have 'existence' as a property.

International politics is a game that everyone has agreed to the rules of. States exist on paper and are well defined, but so are your D&D characters. Do your D&D characters exist? When you play D&D and the rules are in effect, then they sort of do. Without the game of international politics, states do not exist any more than D&D characters can exist without people playing D&D.

When someone asks "what's your nationality?" you can answer something like "Scottish" or "American" or "Pan-scandinavian unionist" or "still ideological committed to being Yugoslavian despite borders saying I'm a Croat". This is because asking the question has brought the rules of the game into play. When you give an answer you're not stating truth, you're just playing along with the game.

[TheThan]

I think he means that his Y chromosome has a kilt, a claymore and bagpipes.

Yes, yes it does (the claymore’s under the kilt).

[Driderman]

Whether or not abstract concepts exist or not is a level of philosophical depth I will not go into.

'Americans' is a set. Deleting a set does not delete its components. Saying 'there's no such thing as an American' doesn't imply the non-existence of any person.

Abstract concepts like 'Scottish' and 'American' exist at the level they apply at in the culture that understands them. If you move outside of that conceptual area, they stop existing but within that area they do exist as much as any abstract concept can have 'existence' as a property.

International politics is a game that everyone has agreed to the rules of. States exist on paper and are well defined, but so are your D&D characters. Do your D&D characters exist? When you play D&D and the rules are in effect, then they sort of do. Without the game of international politics, states do not exist any more than D&D characters can exist without people playing D&D.

When someone asks "what's your nationality?" you can answer something like "Scottish" or "American" or "Pan-scandinavian unionist" or "still ideological committed to being Yugoslavian despite borders saying I'm a Croat". This is because asking the question has brought the rules of the game into play. When you give an answer you're not stating truth, you're just playing along with the game.

This is a beautiful explanation.

Also, isn't this topic straying far, far into banned subjects?

[Frozen_Feet]

You have to also assume that Fenno-Ugric is any more of a lineage than Russian is.

What "lineage" in this context means is "a group of people within this area are genetically more closely linked*) than a group on this other area", and I don't have to assume anything regarding those since Finland and surrounding areas have been rather extensively studied in this regard recently. The differences are known, how we choose to label the groups they apply to is a matter of taste. The overall point doesn't change: Finns (and other Fenno-Ugric peoples within Russia) and Russians hold very different ethnic identities despite being genetically pretty much the same.

*) something directly resulting from more recent shared ancestry, though if we want to get really pedantic, "lineage" implies just one ancestor when in reality multiple were involved. There, are you satisfied.

[Closet_Skeleton]

What "lineage" in this context means is "a group of people within this area are genetically more closely linked*) than a group on this other area", and I don't have to assume anything regarding those since Finland and surrounding areas have been rather extensively studied in this regard recently.

Do you have a source on that? Just out of my own interest. I only really know Finno-ugric people from Crusader Kings II and one Finnish woman I met at university and didn't talk to as much as I wanted to.

You say 'Finland and the surrounding areas' but in my understanding, the finno-ugric group covers a very large area. Sami, Finns, Estonians, Livs and Karelians all live close to each other and speak related languages, but Mordvins do not. Hungarian is very different to Finnish and Estonian, which I've heard are a bit more similar. Finland may border Russia, but Russia is a very big place.
The Indo-European Group is huge and none of those peoples are really that closely related. Since finno-ugric is a group on the same level I assumed it was just as diverse.

Are Khanty, Komi and Mansi peoples really any more comparable to Estonians, Sami and Finns than Bretons, Welshmen and Gaels are to Iranians, Pashtuns and Pakistanis?

The overall point doesn't change: Finns (and other Fenno-Ugric peoples within Russia) and Russians hold very different ethnic identities despite being genetically pretty much the same.

I didn't meant to say anything of the sort.

Rather, pointing out that finno-ugric might be just as messed up as Russian is just reinforces the fact that all identities are messed up.

[Frozen_Feet]

Here's an article of one study (linked to because it has a nice diagram) and here's the study itself. Russians are omitted from this research (they would genetically fall on the same part of the diagram as Eastern Finns), sadly, but it gives a picture of how wildly genetic identity and national identity can differ. As you can see from the diagram, Western Finns and Eastern Finns are genetically more distant than Germans and Brits, yet they share a strong national identity where as Brits and Germans have sharply separate ones.

If your point is that "all ethnic identities are a big mess", we're not in disagreement. "Ethnic identities" are fuzzy constructs formed from many disparate elements, ranging from language and religion to genetics and physical characteristics. People use and have used the most minor differences amongst themselves to delineate their groups from other groups. It would be entirely possible for an "ethnic identity" be based on entirely what color of clothes you wear.

[Eldan]

The question, to me is... does "ethnic identity" even have to be genetic? Isn't "ethnic" pretty much defined over culture?

[Closet_Skeleton]

The question, to me is... does "ethnic identity" even have to be genetic? Isn't "ethnic" pretty much defined over culture?

Ethnic is not at all genetic, because genetics are a more recent discovery.

Ethnicity is about perceived ties of descent. The Concept is cultural but it attempts to have a meaning beyond that. Ethnicity (at least in English) does have to imply a familial relationship, it cannot merely conceive of itself as purely cultural even if the facts are otherwise.

Ethnicity is like a family, but its obvious from concepts like marriage and adoption that the meaning of family does not have to be genetic. Does that help?

[Asta Kask]

A 'people' is a collection of persons united around a common misconception about their ancestors.

[Closet_Skeleton]

A 'people' is a collection of persons united around a common misconception about their ancestors.

Dismissing 'stories' as 'misconception' is a bit unfair. There are plenty of very self aware nationalists.

Nations don't just need 'ideas' about their ancestors, they need 'stories' and 'narratives'. Hence how immigrant nations (Austrialia, USA, Brazil etc) can exist despite clearly not having shared ancestors. Their ancestors have the same narrative, so that's enough.