What percentage of ancestry is enough to make feel part of an ethnic group ?

[MOESAN]

the french hostility for ethnies or local identities goes back to the 'jacobine' republican vision of society, after the 'Revolution' - before, nobility (and bourgeoisy) had a global disprise for every kind of folks, whatever the litterary french, french dialect or other languages spoken - the participation of Brittany in the 'Chouanerie' was the first cause of hostility; after, local cultures was looked at as obstacles against the spread of "national folks freedom" linked to the "united french language of progress"

[Maciamo]

Which kind of discriminations? French power exclusively allowed the use of "Parisian French" over regional languages not jut the Breton. Is that the discrimination you were thinking of? By the way, nearly half of Brittany wasn't even Celtic speaking.

It is not accurate to say that for centuries Bretons have been made fun of by the French since until the XIX century French people couldn't even understand each other (see The discovery of France by Graham Robb). Furthermore, most French people, especially in the east and the south probably never saw Bretons of their entire life until the apparition of TV. Thus there couldn't have been "national jokes" about the Bretons but only jokes made by their neighbours (Normans especially). Actually most jokes in France, are regional jokes. Alsacians make fun of the Lorrains typically.

That's not something I can explain easily. But you are right, it wasn't all France that made fun of Bretons, mostly neighbours (and Parisians). Bretons are also not the only "minority" in France, as I said.

National feeling and ethnicities are two things apart. The way I see it is that Southern Italians, though they may be closer to Greeks, remain strongly attached to the Italian national unity (more than the North notably).

That's what I was trying to say. South Italians can all claim partial Greek ancestry (that undeniable), but they are (and feel) Italian by nationality. My argument was that one should not confuse nationality with ethnicity, which is what JFWR was doing.

[RaHoWa]

I am an American and my family history is completely in the Southern United States,David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed shows how even White Anglo-Americans are diverse as to thier regional origins and from where they came from in Northern Europe or the British Isles and are not even genetically 100% identical.Most surnames in my family tree are from Southern England,Scottish Protestants in Ulster,Scottish and English Borderers and a coupe of German names,This ancestry is typical of natives in the southern United States especially the upper south like TN,NC,VA,KY,etc...Both my Y-dna and my autosomal dna reflect my family history and the specific regional originsin the British Isles from where most of it came.My Y-dna is R1b-L21 and it is specifically a Brythonic Celtic type that is found mainly in the western Scottish Lowlands around Glasgow,Ayrshire,and Dumbartonshire but not in Wales or England at all..Most of the Scots who went to Ulster in the north of Ireland to become the Ulster-Scots and the Scotch-Irish had origins in the western Scottish Lowlands and the Border region,So my Y-dna matches the Scotch-Irish history of my family tree,Also my Autosomal dna results reflect specific regions of England that matched my family origins and that of most English settlers who came to the Southern U.S. in colonial times.The Autosomal dna results were Belgic-Celtic and after further testing it showed it was specific to southern England and the West Country which is where both,the main concentration of Belgic tribes were in England and from where most of the English settlers who went to the Southern colonies in America had originated.SO if I think about my dna and genetics in terms of my ethnicity,my genetic ancestry not only shows Anglo-American roots but it reflects the specific origins of the settlers who came to the American South that were different somewhat from the Anglo or British origins of other regions on early America.It shows in part the unique heritage of the American South,so that is where I feel most closely to ethnically speaking.My ancestry is English,Scotch-Irish,and some German.That blend of ancestry is common to all Southerners and not one part is dominant over the rest.I have but just a little Germany ancestry but I have much English and much Scotch-Irish ancestry as do most SOutherners,so my ethnicity is American Southerner,since even Anglo-Americans have different roots and different sub cultures from other Anglo-Americans.

[Grubbe]

Interesting thread. I am of 100% Norwegian ancestry to about 1650 (as far as I know), and consequently I have a Nordic or "Germanic" ethnicity, as I feel it. Before 1650 I have a few Danes, Forest Finns, Germans and Dutch among my ancestors. Except the Forest Finns, they were quite "Germanic" as well, I think. But this is so far back in time, that I don't consider myself part Danish or Finnish etc., but I am especially interested in the history of these countries, since I feel that I am closer to those countries than areas where I have no known roots.

[American Idiot]

as a White American, generally having about 1/4 ancestry , or close to it, of any given European ethnic group is enough for one to identify with that group.

although many White Americans like to say "I am mostly this and that.......but with a little bit of this also."


Race is different.

I you have any African-American blood at all, then you are considered an African-American.......unless maybe it's just some distantly remote single ancestor from 300 yrs ago and that's it.

As for claiming Native American ancestry, for the most part if a white person looks like they have some Native American mixture then they maybe seen as a "White person with some Indian blood"

If they have up to 1/4, or close, of Native American ancestry then they can sometimes just be labelled as Native American.


But again, alot of White AMericans, who may have only the smallest amount of Native American ancestry like to say-"I am this and that and with a little bit of Indian blood too."


it used to be , the federal regulations for enrollment into a recognized Native American tribe meant you had to be of at least 1/4 Native American ancestry.

But now, each individual tribe has it's own genealogical standards for enrollment and it varies.

[mitchellsince1893]

I would say it could be as low as 1.5% (1/64th). If your knew your great grand parent and he/she knew their great grand parent that came from "across the pond" from the old country, then you may have an emotional connection to that ethnic group. i.e. you knew a relative that knew the immigrant. Granted this a from an American perspective. It's at least 12.5% (1/8th) as I knew my Welsh great grandmother and feel a connection to that group.

[toyomotor]

I would have thought this would have been an individual thing in most cases. I know of cases where people claim a certain ethnicity, when their last full blood ancestor was more than five or more generations ago. (I use the term "full blood" cautiously). It concerns me though that second, third or more generations living in a country still identify more strongly with their ancestral ethnicity, rather than the ethnicity/culture of the country where they now live.

[English Lad]

I imagine it varies from individual to individual. I have 0.1% North African in me, would that dismiss me as being European? Yet 90% of my DNA is North European and I've always considered myself English. despite having a Great Grandfather who was Polish, I wouldn't consider myself Polish. Just an individual who had an ancestor who wasn't English and managed to integrate, as I and my mother and her mother ( My grandmother ) consider themselves English first and foremost. To be honest, before I knew my R1a Haplogroup ( likely to be Norse at this point ). Recently I've been very interested into looking at Germanic heathen and the Norse religion across North Europe, even bought a few books on it. When I learnt shortly after all that I may well be a direct ancestor via a viking settler, that just added the cherry onto the cake for me with my interests. I think on FTDNA I found a match who may be related to me just over a thousand years ago who lives in Norway. Yet my 67 marker's yet to determine that.

I'd say if you're overwhelmingly something, IE 90% European, 85% English - Then you can quite easily say you're English and shouldn't have to worry about it. If you feel connections elsewhere through your DNA, that's nothing to be ashamed of. For me though, I don't. Culturally and linguistically, and ethnically even I've always been at home with English folk.

[adamo]

Oh okay, okay; now all of a sudden his g grandfather was in fact polish; well that explains the R1a pretty fast finally lol, looks like a Slavic marker to me buddy : )

[English Lad]

Oh okay, okay; now all of a sudden his g grandfather was in fact polish; well that explains the R1a pretty fast finally lol, looks like a Slavic marker to me buddy : )

On my mother's side, lol. My Father's side is entirely English, hailing from Kent.

[adamo]

Alright nuts; I won't make that error again my dude.

[English Lad]

Alright nuts; I won't make that error again my dude.

It's no problem friend, partly my fault as I never clarified which side he was from lol.

[adamo]

Exactly! Haha but it doesn't matter :)!