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

Excluding the Germanic areas of modern France, I would say there is only a small distinctiveness for these communities that has been part of another nation for some 300 years. Bretons, for instance, are not especially "non-French" because they have been French for centuries. One can be ancestrally Breton, but it is highly unlikely you can be ethnically Breton in any meaningful sense. Just as, for instance, Calais is not ethnically English anymore.

That would be like saying that the Irish are English because Ireland has belonged to England for centuries. Actually the parallel between Ireland and Brittany is startlingly similar now that I think of it. Both regions first came under Germanic influence with the Viking invasions in the 9th century (as well as the Franks in Brittany). The Norman English colonisation of Ireland started in the 12th century, which is the time when Brittany became a vassal duchy of France. However, Brittany only became a possession of the King of France in 1532, four years before Ireland was annexed to the English crown by Henry VIII. From the 18th century on, the English tried to suppress the Irish language to replace it by English, and the French did just the same with Breton at the same time. The two timelines match perfectly. This is why saying to a Breton that he is ethnically French sounds just as outrageous as to tell an Irish that he is English.

Thus why I said 300-500. Some areas are not especially good at becoming distinctly part of another ethnicity.

300 or 500 years doesn't make much difference. Most local identities and ethnicities in Europe go back at least 1000 years, but in some cases over 2000 years (e.g. Greek settlements in South Italy). We are back to ancient ethnicities like the Greeks, Romans, Celts and Germanics.

For Germany, eastern France and the Low Countries, I found that the stem duchies of the Holy Roman empire match pretty well the regional ethnic divisions (better than modern political boundaries anyway). For instance, the Duchy of Lower Lorraine encompassed most of modern Belgium, Luxembourg, the northern Rhineland and the southern Netherlands. It only misses the Counties of Hainaut and Flanders (ironically part of France back then) to make up the greater cultural region that evolved from the Frankish settlements in the Roman province of Gallia Belgica. So, this ethnico-cultural region has its roots in the late Antiquity and early Middle Ages.
 
That would be like saying that the Irish are English because Ireland has belonged to England for centuries. Actually the parallel between Ireland and Brittany is startlingly similar now that I think of it. Both regions first came under Germanic influence with the Viking invasions in the 9th century (as well as the Franks in Brittany). The Norman English colonisation of Ireland started in the 12th century, which is the time when Brittany became a vassal duchy of France. However, Brittany only became a possession of the King of France in 1532, four years before Ireland was annexed to the English crown by Henry VIII. From the 18th century on, the English tried to suppress the Irish language to replace it by English, and the French did just the same with Breton at the same time. The two timelines match perfectly. This is why saying to a Breton that he is ethnically French sounds just as outrageous as to tell an Irish that he is English.

I would disagree for this reason: Brittany was not subject to being an "other", whereas Ireland was. Native Irish were treated as second-class subjects and colonials, such that they were never meant left to become English. This is in contradiction to Cornwall or Wales (after Edward III), especially the former. The Welsh aren't meaningfully a separate people at this point.

300 or 500 years doesn't make much difference. Most local identities and ethnicities in Europe go back at least 1000 years, but in some cases over 2000 years (e.g. Greek settlements in South Italy). We are back to ancient ethnicities like the Greeks, Romans, Celts and Germanics.

No one in Southern Italy considers themselves Greek. No one in Brindisi, for instance, would go "oh no, we're GREEKS not Italians". 2000 years ethnic ties are absolutely meaningless when the culture has been replaced so many times over. We find an exception to this amongst say...Han chinese, as Han Chinese has largely maintained its unique culture, even under instances of foreign (Mongol) rule.

500 years is enough to essentially erase a unique ethnic identity in almost any case I can think of.

For Germany, eastern France and the Low Countries, I found that the stem duchies of the Holy Roman empire match pretty well the regional ethnic divisions (better than modern political boundaries anyway). For instance, the Duchy of Lower Lorraine encompassed most of modern Belgium, Luxembourg, the northern Rhineland and the southern Netherlands. It only misses the Counties of Hainaut and Flanders (ironically part of France back then) to make up the greater cultural region that evolved from the Frankish settlements in the Roman province of Gallia Belgica. So, this ethnico-cultural region has its roots in the late Antiquity and early Middle Ages.

Are you suggesting that Belgians would consider contemporary Northern Rhineland as part of their ethnic identity?

I am not saying ethnicities, also, do not have -roots- much earlier. But if those ethnicities have been distinctively altered that there is a point (about 500 years at maximum) in which it is unreasonable to suggest the ethnicity remains.
 
I would disagree for this reason: Brittany was not subject to being an "other", whereas Ireland was. Native Irish were treated as second-class subjects and colonials, such that they were never meant left to become English. This is in contradiction to Cornwall or Wales (after Edward III), especially the former. The Welsh aren't meaningfully a separate people at this point.

Actually Bretons have been discriminated against and made fun of by French people for centuries, and it lasts to this day (though much less than a few generations ago).


No one in Southern Italy considers themselves Greek. No one in Brindisi, for instance, would go "oh no, we're GREEKS not Italians". 2000 years ethnic ties are absolutely meaningless when the culture has been replaced so many times over.

South Italians are Italians by nationality and language (although pockets of Greek speakers have survived since the Antiquity), but many would happily acknowledge their Greek ancestry. People interested in genetics in particular often see themselves as Greco-Italian rather than just Italian.

We find an exception to this amongst say...Han chinese, as Han Chinese has largely maintained its unique culture, even under instances of foreign (Mongol) rule.

There are plenty of similar examples. Most Germanic tribes that invaded the Roman Empire weren't able to impose their language or ethnicity because they were only a small ruling class, just like the Mongols in China. I am glad that you raised this point because it seems that 10% is also the approximate minimum that an invading ethnicity must achieve in the conquered population to be able to impose its language and ethnicity.

The Anglo-Saxons in England and the Scottish Lowlands, the Franks in Flanders, the Swabians in Swabia, Alsace and Switzerland, and the Bavarians+Lombards in Bavaria and Austria, were the only cases of Germanic people successfully imposing their culture and language over former Roman territories. The Franks and Burgunds in France, the Goths in the Balkans, Italy and Iberia, the Suebi in Iberia, and Vandals in North Africa, all failed because they were too few compared to the local population. The Vikings also failed.

Those who succeeded appear to have contributed to over 10% of their DNA to the modern gene pool. The gradient is pretty obvious within Britain, and once Germanic genes fall to under 10% of the population like in Wales or the Scottish Highlands, Celtic survived (longer).

Turkey became Turkish speaking and ethnically Turk because the invading Turks from Central Asia made up 10-15% of the total population (as attested by both Y-DNA and autosomal DNA).

What is fascinating here is that 10% is also the minimum genetic limit for the language of a new ruling class to survive in the long-term.

500 years is enough to essentially erase a unique ethnic identity in almost any case I can think of.

It wasn't long enough for the Irish, Welsh, Bretons, Basques, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and many other peoples in history who stayed over 500 years under foreign domination.

Are you suggesting that Belgians would consider contemporary Northern Rhineland as part of their ethnic identity?

Northern Rhineland is not an ethnicity. The region is a blend of Celtic (Belgic) and Germanic (Frankish) peoples. I do consider that people from the Northern Rhineland to the Nord-Pas-de-Calais (via Belgium) are very similar ethnically (perhaps removing big cities of the Rhur valley from the Rhineland as they got plenty of immigrants from other parts of Germany during the Industrial Revolution).
 
The Welsh aren't meaningfully a separate people at this point.

:confused::startled::petrified:

I guess the people who live in Monmouth and Pembroke are pretty English. But the rest of the Welsh are meaningfully a separate people for sure. Different cultural symbols, different cultural practices, different language in many parts and different traditional language all over, different history and genetics and perhaps most importantly, different identification. There is lots of overlap between the Welsh and English ethnicities due to a shared border and certain common history, of course, but that's like how there's overlap between any bordering ethnicities, especially when one is significantly more powerful than the other. I mean, almost all Welsh and English people agree that Welsh and English are different ethnicities. It's not even like the Cornish where a lot of Cornish feel "Cornish and English" and a lot of English people deny that Cornish could be its own ethnicity.

Breton, of course, is an ethnicity as well, although there is perhaps less overlap between "ethnically Breton" and "Brittany" as there is between "ethnically Welsh" and "Wales."
 
Actually Bretons have been discriminated against and made fun of by French people for centuries, and it lasts to this day (though much less than a few generations ago).

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.

South Italians are Italians by nationality and language (although pockets of Greek speakers have survived since the Antiquity), but many would happily acknowledge their Greek ancestry. People interested in genetics in particular often see themselves as Greco-Italian rather than just Italian.

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).
 
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"
 
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.
 
My DNA results match my ethnic ancestry perfectly

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 : )
 
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.
 
Alright nuts; I won't make that error again my dude.
 
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.
 
Exactly! Haha but it doesn't matter :)!
 

This thread has been viewed 65688 times.

Back
Top