Interesting Maps and Graphs

Reality suggests the very opposite is happening. There are non-trival differences between people that make this rejection of the concept of ethnicity baseless, and anti-scientific.

i won't say this isn't possible but what are some of those non-trivial differences between races or ethnicities? and you said differences between people which is something different and way more important. if there are non-trivial differences between races it still has no value for the individual person and the specific genes that this person carries. these genetic differences do not have to be tied to raceconcepts and definitly not in the future where we might even be able to modify the genome.

those ethnicity concepts might be interessting for population genetics but not for a persons identitiy.
 
As Martin Luther King Jr. said, every human being should be judged by the content of his or her own character. That's absolutely correct.

It's also correct, as Jovialis was implying, that the average scores of one group on a test for, say, addiction to alcohol and drugs, or, say, for Type 2 diabetes, as scientists are beginning to discover might be the case for South Asians, might be higher than those of some other group. That is extremely important to know from a health perspective. We NEED information like this for proper health care. Some groups benefit more from one drug than another. These are things we are finding out.

Now, that doesn't mean that every South Asian has a higher propensity toward Type 2 Diabetes than every person of European descent. That isn't how it works. People have to have some basic level of understanding of simple math, and what averages mean, and what a curve of results means, if not advanced statistics.

Now, let's say, simply for the the sake of argument, that someday the tests are accurate enough, as does indeed seem to be the case at least tentatively right now, to show that this applies to intelligence, mental illnesses, and on and on, as well as, say musical ability.

Are you suggesting that scientists shouldn't pursue that knowledge? First of all, how can we "fix" the human genome, if we can't study the different variations, the different snps involved. Or, are you saying we should deny science because we want every group in the world to have exactly the same innate advantages and disadvantages? So, ideology is supposed to trump science? We're going to go back to the Inquisition and Galileo being threatened if he didn't recant?

If that's the case, I fear for the world.

Let me also make another thing clear. In no way should anyone imply or should it even be contemplated that because on "average" some group should have more of a disadvantage than some other group, the disadvantaged group should lose their civil rights or be treated as second class citizens or made some sort of serfs, or anything else similar. Neither is it unimportant, however. I DO NOT want the neurosurgeon operating on my brain to have gotten into the university, into the hospital, because of his or her ethnic group. I want absolute meritocracy: color, religion, and sex blind when it comes to qualifications for taking certain courses, getting certain degrees or jobs.

Now, as things stand right now, we can't "fix" the genome on a broad level. We can target one gene and try to switch it off. They may be able to do it with hemophilia, which is great. We don't know all the genes responsible right now for tendency to Type II diabetes. It's one of those diseases where multiple genes are involved, so we can't fix it yet. However, a doctor should absolutely know when she has a patient of South Asian ancestry to double check sugar levels, be extra diligent about encouraging the maintenance of low weight and on and on. That's not racism or some other b.s. That's MEDICINE. I know a family of Near Eastern descent. Their poor daughter was ill for years and no doctors could figure out what was wrong with her until she went to the Hospital for Joint Disease, where an Arab doctor doing a fellowship there almost immediately diagnosed her with Mediterranean Familial Fever.

Now, intelligence is another trait affected by many genes. "Fixing" genes in any member of any group who struggles with cognitive processing is a long way off. Parents are asking doctors to screen embryos, if you can believe it, to only let the "smart" ones be implanted. Problem is, we don't know enough yet, and can test for only a few snps, and anyway, if neither of the parents is exactly high IQ material, there's not much they're going to be able to choose from? Why on earth do you think that when people go to sperm banks they always want sperm only from donors who are doctors or lawyers or accountants or engineers? What nobody wants to admit is a reality that everyone, or at least most people, acknowledge in private.

There's just a whole lot of hypocrisy going on.

The nurture versus nature argument is over and done with. Your genome is much, much more significant in determining who you are than how you were raised.

I used to be against genetic manipulation of embryos, but I've changed my mind. Yes, it seems gross to me, as if we're creating androids who will all be more or less alike, but the reality is that you can't be a successfully functioning person in the world technology is creating unless you have a certain intellect. The sooner they can ensure that children being born won't have deficits in that area, or propensity to terrible diseases, the better.
 
i know that ethnicity can be interessting for population genetics, Angela. i also did not want to argue about the effects that certain genes have on certain traits and question if we should examine these effects. of course we should. but as you agree with me it has no value for a persons identity, since this identity is always determined by the genetics that this person has and not by the genetics the person could potentially have. so race should have no value only the specific traits you are looking at.

for the thing with the genetic manipulation i did not want to say that some genes are better than others but that a person's race will be an even worse indicator for a persons genome than it is now. the same effect you would have with sufficient ethnic mixing but this way you can change single genes and "tear" them out of their "context" in just one generation.

Now, as things stand right now, we can't "fix" the genome on a broad level. We can target one gene and try to switch it off.

this will certainly change in the future. it is already possible to fix defective genes and not just turn genes off.

We don't know all the genes responsible right now for tendency to Type II diabetes. It's one of those diseases where multiple genes are involved, so we can't fix it yet. However, a doctor should absolutely know when she has a patient of South Asian ancestry to double check sugar levels, be extra diligent about encouraging the maintenance of low weight and on and on. That's not racism or some other b.s. That's MEDICINE. I know a family of Near Eastern descent. Their poor daughter was ill for years and no doctors could figure out what was wrong with her until she went to the Hospital for Joint Disease, where an Arab doctor doing a fellowship there almost immediately diagnosed her with Mediterranean Familial Fever.

and how long into the future do you think this will have any meaning? at some point you would have to implement genetic screenings. wouldn't this be way better?

Or, are you saying we should deny science because we want every group in the world to have exactly the same innate advantages and disadvantages?

no. i think in the future we will not think in groups anymore anyway. at least not in those ethnic groups.
 
@Alichu
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that people will stop thinking along ethnic or group lines. I find your observation to be baseless, considering the very opposite is happening. People naturally tribalize, even people within the same ethnicity, triblize in terms of religion, culture, etc. Your assumption seems rather ideological rather than something based on an honest assesment of reality. There is no way billions of people are going to all want to give up their identities, to be part of some amorphous, faceless mass.

You can't even accept scientists as a single-community, in regards to your conspiratorial stance towards peer-review. Everyone needs to think the same way in terms of their grouping, yet there must be anarchy in academics?! You have to be joking.
 
@Alichu
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that people will stop thinking along ethnic or group lines. I find your observation to be baseless, considering the very opposite is happening. People naturally tribalize, even people within the same ethnicity, triblize in terms of religion, culture, etc. Your assumption seems rather ideological rather than something based on an honest assesment of reality. There is no way billions of people are going to all want to give up their identities, to be part of some amorphous, faceless mass.

You can't even accept scientists as a single-community, in regards to your conspiratorial stance towards peer-review.

Whether we like it or not, people will always divide themselves into groups. Isolation and subsequent genetic drift takes care of the rest.

You think the quarter of the world's population (or more), which is Han Chinese is going to stop being an ethnic group with its own particular characteristics? I very much doubt it.
 
Whether we like it or not, people will always divide themselves into groups. Isolation and subsequent genetic drift takes care of the rest.

You think the quarter of the world's population (or more), which is Han Chinese is going to stop being an ethnic group with its own particular characteristics? I very much doubt it.

china is obviously in a very different situation. what do you think about the particular characteristics of swedes? or dutch? or french? or italians? or more extreme (define particular characteristics), swiss?
or "white" americans?
 
@Alichu
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that people will stop thinking along ethnic or group lines. I find your observation to be baseless, considering the very opposite is happening. People naturally tribalize, even people within the same ethnicity, triblize in terms of religion, culture, etc. Your assumption seems rather ideological rather than something based on an honest assesment of reality. There is no way billions of people are going to all want to give up their identities, to be part of some amorphous, faceless mass.

You can't even accept scientists as a single-community, in regards to your conspiratorial stance towards peer-review. Everyone needs to think the same way in terms of their grouping, yet there must be anarchy in academics?! You have to be joking.

my argument was solely about ethnic groupings. that's why i wrote "at least not in those ethnic groups".
remember that article about the white marble statues of the antiquity. this article was based on a book called "the history of white people" in which the author concludes that the ethnic groups like for example white become more and more inclusive and in the end they will lose their meaning. and of course this doesn't have to happen in the whole world. but if it happens in america it happens and these groups start to change in america.
there was recently an article here in the newspaper about "white" people becoming a minority in america and how populists in europe already try to make fear among their sibjects. to prevent this the guy who was interviewed suggested to lower the number of migrants a bit so that the mixing happens a bit slower. after a while the racial categories would merge anyway because there won't be many unmixed individuals left and the gradients will have a finer structure. but this way the ethnic and racial categories have time to expand, become more colorfull and accomodate to society.

in the future of the west you might still have genetic groups but they will be different, more mixed and they might not be based on ethnicity at all. definitly possible. but other factors like religion and culture or real personal traits(partially genetics but not ethnicity) will be more important.

and unless you didn't mean ethnic groups i find your observation also a bit baseless since i can't observe your theory here in germany, switzerland and some other parts of europe. look at reality, the groups who want to identify with common ancestry are shrinking.
sure, right now an individual might still identify a bit with his/her ancestry. but there is already no urge anymore to form groups based on this in the majority of the population.
 
Last edited:
china is obviously in a very different situation. what do you think about the particular characteristics of swedes? or dutch? or french? or italians? or more extreme (define particular characteristics), swiss?
or "white" americans?

I think the Dutch and Scandinavians are far closer to each other than either is to Italians. Italians are, of course, a bit heterogeneous, so let's talk about, say, Scandinavians versus Central (Lazio) to Southern Italians. I think they are very different in terms of lots of traits, both physical and psychological.

Let's start with the trivial: physical appearance. On "average", they look very different.

Then look at mental health characteristics. All ethnic groups have members who carry genes for every kind of mental illness, but the "prevalence" by ethnic group varies by specific type. Don't hold me to specifics, because I'm going by memory, but I think Scandinavians have a higher tendency to clinical depression. They also have higher statistics for suicide. Same for cancer of the colon and for alcoholism. The latter is at least true for the British Isles and the Netherlands, and perhaps Norway. Certainly it's true for Finland. I think with Italians it may be anxiety and bipolar disorders, and things like high blood pressure. In terms of violence, it's much less often suicide, but more often "crimes of passion". Which specific traits don't matter. Every group has good ones and bad ones. The point is that they differ.

Then there are what you might call social/psychological traits. Imo there is a large difference in terms of introversion/extroversion. I remember that years ago a Finn posted a picture on either this site or another one of Finns waiting for a bus. It made a HUGE impression on me. There were perhaps 5or 7 I remember it. Not ONE was talking to the others; in fact there was more than five feet between each of them. You would NEVER see that in Italy. People would start talking, complaining perhaps, perhaps even arguing, but at least engaging. Now I'm sure they like it that way and that's fine, but I could never live in a country like that.

I could go on and on, but you must know what I'm talking about.

Now, if Italians want to marry Scandinavians and vice versa and so the differences disappear, or, as here, all these Irish and Italian people intermarry and so the specific "ethnic" traits get diluted, I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't do it, but I didn't do it myself. It didn't feel "comfortable". I didn't feel as if I fit with their families or they with mine. Now, for Italian Americans it's different. It's different for my children, but as they get older even they seem to be gravitating toward possible "mates" who are at least partially Italian.

Whether we like it or not, marriages or partnerships or whatever you want to call them, between people of similar backgrounds are less stressful, and less often end in divorce. Now, those are averages, statistics, there are always individual cases where it makes no difference. One of my closest friends, an Irish guy from graduate school, married an Italian girl, and honestly, they have one of the most perfect relationships I've ever seen. We're talking about relative risks here. Of course, he joined HER world much more than she did his, partly perhaps because he was an only child, and son of only children.

Also, if you're implying that there might be a time in Europe where there would be no actual "Italians", or Spaniards, or Germans or Irish, i.e. just an intermarried mass, it might be inevitable, but no, Ipersonally wouldn't want that. To be clear, it's nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. I love my people, our history, our accomplishments, and I even find some of our many faults acceptable or even in some cases endearing. So, no, I don't want them to disappear.

Even in countries like the U.S., there is less intermarriage than Europeans sometimes imagine, at least across "racial" lines. I've posted recent data on other threads showing that 90% of "white" Americans marry white Americans. It's just the way it is, and I think it will stay that way for a long time, regardless of what "Hollywood" would prefer.

I see it happening in my own community, which is white and Christian, and has been for decades. In recent years a lot of Chinese people are moving in, and while no one is broadcasting it, people are moving further out on the island. It's not that they're not considered highly intelligent, hardworking, law abiding, all those things, but the "culture" is very different. It happened in parts of Queens, a borough of New York City. Whole areas like Flushing used to be Jewish, Italian, Irish. It is now completely, and I mean completely East Asian. I don't think a young European descent family would feel comfortable buying a house there nowadays. These old established communities are very sports oriented, church oriented, civic association oriented, summer life revolving around tennis and swimming and golf at country clubs or local community pool and tennis clubs. The School Association is very important, with parents being very involved in being class mothers, all that stuff. That's just not part of the culture of a lot of these very nice East Asian people, so there are some stresses.
 
Wow, I would love to move in to a predominately East Asian community (and I'm not flexing my PC muscles saying this, I really mean it). Nothing against those who would feel uncomfortable, I'm not the typical PC guy who would label them as "racist". Im just someone who would never feel home sick.
 
Wow, I would love to move in to a predominately East Asian community (and I'm not flexing my PC muscles saying this, I really mean it). Nothing against those who would feel uncomfortable, I'm not the typical PC guy who would label them as "racist". Im just someone who would never feel home sick.

Well, when you found out that many of the people don't speak English and you can't even read the signs on the stores or find the normal products you use, or, if you're religious, find a church, or if you're athletic find a neighborhood baseball team or any other kind of team to join, or if you like belonging to neighborhood civic associations or book clubs and on and on, you might feel differently. If you had children it would be even more difficult because they'd be the only children like them in their classrooms.
 
@Ailchu,
I edited my response to you so much that I am re-posting it here. I also added some data.

I think the Dutch and Scandinavians are far closer to each other than either is to Italians. Italians are, of course, a bit heterogeneous, so let's talk about, say, Scandinavians versus Central (Lazio) to Southern Italians. I think they are very different in terms of lots of traits, both physical and psychological.

Let's start with the trivial: physical appearance. On "average", they look very different.

Then look at mental and physical health characteristics. All ethnic groups have members who carry genes for every kind of mental and physical illness, but the "prevalence" by ethnic group varies by specific type. Don't hold me to specifics, because I'm going by memory, but I think Scandinavians have a higher tendency to clinical depression. They also have higher statistics for suicide. Same for cancer of the colon and for alcoholism. The latter is at least true for the British Isles and the Netherlands, and perhaps Norway. Certainly it's true for Finland. I think with Italians it may be anxiety and bipolar disorders, and things like high blood pressure. In terms of violence, it's much less often suicide, but more often "crimes of passion". Which specific traits don't matter. Every group has good ones and bad ones. The point is that they differ.

Then there are what you might call social/psychological traits. Imo there is a large difference in terms of introversion/extroversion. I remember that years ago a Finn posted a picture on either this site or another one of Finns waiting for a bus. It made a HUGE impression on me. There were perhaps 5 or 7 people as I remember it. Not ONE was talking to the others; in fact there was more than five feet between each of them. You would NEVER see that in Italy. People would start talking, complaining perhaps about the bus or the weather or talking about the news, perhaps even arguing, but at least engaging. Now, I'm sure the Finns and other Scandinavians like it that way and that's fine, but I could never live in a country like that.

I could go on and on, but you must know what I'm talking about.

Now, if Italians want to marry Scandinavians and vice versa and so the differences disappear, or, as here, all these Irish and Italian people intermarry and so the specific "ethnic" traits get diluted, I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't do it, but I didn't do it myself. It didn't feel "comfortable". I didn't feel as if I fit with their families or they with mine. Now, for Italian Americans it's different. It's different for my children, but as they get older even they seem to be gravitating toward possible "mates" who are at least partially Italian. It becomes clear as they interact with the partner's family and how the partner lives and inter-reacts with others that the differences are large.

Whether we like it or not marriages or partnerships, or whatever you want to call them, between people of similar backgrounds are less stressful, and less often end in divorce. Now, those are averages, statistics, there are always individual cases where it makes no difference. One of my closest friends, an Irish guy from graduate school, married an Italian girl, and honestly, they have one of the most perfect relationships I've ever seen. We're talking about relative risks here. Of course, he joined HER world much more than she did his, partly perhaps because he was an only child, and son of only children. I have to say this if I'm going to be honest. Anecdotally, when the wife is Italian and the husband is something else, especially, say, Jewish, the marriages seem to have fewer problems than when the husband is Italian and the wife is, say, Irish or German. The Italian husband, Jewish wife also seems to work better. Greek/Italian marriages also seem to really work out, but the Greeks are much less likely to "marry out" than Italians. That may partly be a religious thing. Both Italians and the Irish and a lot of the Germans are Roman Catholics, and that used to really matter, and still matters to some extent today, while Greeks are Orthodox. Like Jews, if they do intermarry they usually demand conversion of the non Orthodox partner. That would have been fine with me even years ago when I was a religious girl. I like Greeks, get on with them, understand their families, and even back then, I was taught in theology class that the differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy were more political and technical than spiritual, and if, for example, I were in some place in the Midwest where there was no R.C. church, to go to an Orthodox Greek one for Sunday services.

Also, if you're implying that there might be a time in Europe where there would be no actual "Italians", or Spaniards, or Germans or Irish, i.e. just an intermarried mass, it might be inevitable, but no, I personally wouldn't want that. To be clear, it's nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. I love my people, our history, our accomplishments, and I even find some of our many faults acceptable or even in some cases endearing. So, no, I don't want them to disappear.

Even in countries like the U.S., there is less intermarriage than Europeans sometimes imagine, at least across "racial" lines. I've posted recent data on other threads showing that 90% of "white" Americans marry white Americans. It's just the way it is, and I think it will stay that way for a long time, regardless of what "Hollywood" would prefer. There are also still Irish or mostly Irish descent people who would prefer their children marry people of Irish descent. It's just the way it is.

I see it happening in my own community, which is white and Christian, and has been for decades. In recent years a lot of Chinese people are moving in, and while no one is broadcasting it, people are moving further out on the island. It's not that they're not considered highly intelligent, hardworking, law abiding, all those things, but the "culture" is very different. It happened in parts of Queens, a borough of New York City. Whole areas like Flushing used to be Jewish, Italian, Irish. It is now completely, and I mean completely East Asian. I don't think a young European descent family would feel comfortable buying a house there nowadays. These old established communities are very sports oriented, church oriented, civic association oriented, summer life revolving around tennis and swimming and golf at country clubs or local community pool and tennis clubs. The School Association is very important, with parents being very involved in being class mothers, all that stuff. That's just not part of the culture of a lot of these very nice East Asian people, so there are some stresses.

I have some personal experience of the Italian/Swiss German marital mix. My first cousin married a Swiss German. He's a very nice guy, and she seems happy enough, but to my eyes she has totally changed her "personality" or traits, as much as one can do fighting genetics, and the way they "live", if you know what I mean, is completely Swiss German. I would NEVER, EVER, have done that. Of course, I may be biased here, to be honest, because Switzerland was the only place in my whole life where I was ever treated badly, indeed harassed, because I'm Italian. I was a teenager, and yet I've never been back. If my cousin wants to see me she can come to Italy when I'm there every year. I hold REALLY, REALLY intense grudges, and never forget insults.

Some data. I got some of it wrong. Bi-polar and schizophrenia rates seem to be the same for every country. The major differences are in alcohol/drug disorders, depression, and anxiety. I knew Italy would be lower in the alcohol and drug disorders, but I thought it might be higher in the anxiety disorders, instead a country like the Netherlands has more of it. Go figure. I absolutely don't get the low anxiety in some eastern countries. Maybe they consider it normal and don't get treated for it.

Health_in_Europe_large.JPG
 
Also, if you're implying that there might be a time in Europe where there would be no actual "Italians", or Spaniards, or Germans or Irish, i.e. just an intermarried mass, it might be inevitable, but no, I personally wouldn't want that. To be clear, it's nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. I love my people, our history, our accomplishments, and I even find some of our many faults acceptable or even in some cases endearing. So, no, I don't want them to disappear.

the question shouldn't be if you want this or not. it will happen eventually and there are propably not many people who really want this but most just don't care. so the question should rather be if you mind that it happens.
Even in countries like the U.S., there is less intermarriage than Europeans sometimes imagine, at least across "racial" lines. I've posted recent data on other threads showing that 90% of "white" Americans marry white Americans. It's just the way it is, and I think it will stay that way for a long time, regardless of what "Hollywood" would prefer.
still, 10% marry outside their race which is quite much and enough so that it propably doesn't stay like this for that long. also the "white" category for example already became more inclusive in the past and it will certainly become more inclusive in the future.
In recent years a lot of Chinese people are moving in, and while no one is broadcasting it, people are moving further out on the island. It's not that they're not considered highly intelligent, hardworking, law abiding, all those things, but the "culture" is very different. It happened in parts of Queens, a borough of New York City. Whole areas like Flushing used to be Jewish, Italian, Irish. It is now completely, and I mean completely East Asian.
this might be caused by placing too many migrants in the same place without giving the process of assimilation enough time. it would be different if the migrants were distributed better so they can't create bubbles with their own culture. here i think america and europe have a different mindset.
also when i google Flushing NYC it doesn't seem to be that extreme. only 65% of the inhabitants are of east asian origin according to wiki.
I have some personal experience of the Italian/Swiss German marital mix. My first cousin married a Swiss German. He's a very nice guy, and she seems happy enough, but to my eyes she has totally changed her "personality" or traits, as much as one can do fighting genetics, and the way they "live", if you know what I mean, is completely Swiss German. I would NEVER, EVER, have done that. Of course, I may be biased here, to be honest, because Switzerland was the only place in my whole life where I was ever treated badly, indeed harassed, because I'm Italian. I was a teenager, and yet I've never been back. If my cousin wants to see me she can come to Italy when I'm there every year. I hold REALLY, REALLY intense grudges, and never forget insults.
you have to understand switzerland took in a lot of italians in the past. especially after 1945. in 1963 there was even an "anti-italians" political party. i guess you were in switzerland around this time? in the end these migrants really had a significant impact on the swiss culture. as an italian you will probably not face racism in switzerland anymore. or only very very rarely. it's almost impossible since today really many people in switzerland have italian roots and italians have become a part of the swiss society.

also why hate switzerland because of your personal "anti-italian" experience in the past? america also had its "anti-italianism". or france. or why not hate for example italy where racism is more and more accepted? for football fans who make monkey sounds against black football players? or black italians are refused at hospitals because they are not veterinary offices? or when black politicians are compared to orang utans by other politicians and are target of flying bananas? or for having a deputy prime minister who defends all of this?
and note that the relative immigrant population in italy is rather small compared to those in other european countries and SSA africans make up only 0.74% of the italian population.

the fact that it was a personal experience of racism shouldn't matter if we look at it rationally. but i understand it's something different if you experience something bad against you personally. that's how we humans work. so you probably are indeed biased here.
 
Last edited:
@Ailchu,
Yes, I would mind if Italians disappear as a specific ethnicity. It goes without saying there's nothing I can or would want to do to prevent it. What will happen will happen. Obviously, people make the choices which feel comfortable for them personally. I would never dream of telling anyone whom to marry. I don't even tell my own children that. So long as they love the person and that person loves them back and treats them well, then so be it. If they're happy, I'm happy.

Yes, 10% intermarriage is a substantial number, but a good chunk of that is with Hispanics who might have some admixture, but who are, to American eyes, "white". Marco Rubio is a Hispanic, for example. Intermarriage with black Americans is much less common. I'm just reporting on the reality of the situation. It's unfortunate that such bias still exists, but it serves no purpose to lie about it.

You're right: it's not optimal for a country to have "ethnic" enclaves. However, the American government has no power or ethical right to tell migrants where to buy a home. If they're looking for neighborhoods with good school systems, safety on the streets, substantial and nice homes, and they can meet the asking price, then they have the right to buy there, and it would be racist not to sell to them. Once a few people with money to invest, some directly from Hong Kong or Southeast Asia, move to an area and like it, then family, friends, former neighbors, feel more comfortable moving in. Then small businesses open up to cater to them. That's how it happens. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but it can drastically change the character of a neighborhood.

I don't care what Wiki says. I'm in Queens all the time, some of my Jewish friends still have parents in a few small enclaves in Flushing, and I'm telling you that you can walk blocks and blocks and blocks in Flushing and never hear English spoken or see store signs in English. Like I said, more power to them for their entrepreneurial mind set, but not every American would feel comfortable living there now.

This has always been the way it worked in the urban landscape of America. English and Dutch areas of New York became Irish, then Italian, maybe some mixed Irish and Italian neighborhoods, and the Jewish neighborhoods were usually separated, partly because if they were Orthodox they had to live within walking distance from a synagogue, partly because, like the other migrants, they felt more comfortable with people similar to them and stores catering to them, and partly, frankly, because communities like mine had what were called "restrictive covenants" prohibiting the sale of a house to Jews and blacks. They've long been declared unconstitutional, but it's still in the deeds. Then certain areas of inner New York became Hispanic with all the migration from Puerto Rico, or black from migrants from the south, and now East Asian and Indian. It's just the way it has worked out. Now it has spilled into certain suburban neighborhoods on the island that are still relatively close to the city for commuting. Like I said, if people can meet the asking price, they can live wherever they want, and that's the way it should be.

I'm not that old. :) I wasn't in Switzerland until quite a bit later, although I heard it was much worse in the 60s. Look Ailchu, I was a young girl, but I knew enough to know the reputation of the ugly "American" tourist, so I chose, out of politeness, not to ask for help in English, but in Italian, which I thought and in fact "is" a "national" language in Switzerland. I was quite "developed" for my age, so that pig of a man made a sexual remark about me, and insulted Italians in horrible language as well, just because of that. I've never forgotten it. I still could find that goddam post office in Basel today if I had to. I never, ever, was treated like that because of my ethnicity anywhere else in the world, certainly not in the U.S. My family and I were met with open arms. I told my aunt and her family they were crazy to remain there, and in fact I heard many Italians did leave. I would starve in my home country before I would put up with that crap. I know there are some racist Americans, but if one of them said something like that to a young Hispanic girl, people would rush to her defense. No one said a word. So, once I started working and making money, I chose not to spend any of it there. That's my right, and I don't have to answer to you or anyone else for it.

When I was growing up here many of the parents of my Jewish friends wouldn't buy German products. I totally understood. Some of the people running those companies in the 70s and 80s had been working there in the 40s.

Every village in my area has a memorial to people tortured and executed during the German occupation. Germany has always refused to let Italy extradite them for trial, so they died comfortably of old age, SS men who butchered old men and women and babies. My mother had an older cousin burned alive in a church with her priest. Another one, a young man, died in a concentration camp for union activity in La Spezia. So, yeah, I take it personally and seriously; I hold a grudge; I have a long memory for injury. I don't blame young Germans for that, but as I said, I understood the reasoning of my friends' parents, and had I been in a position to buy German products when the older generation was still running things, I wouldn't have bought them either. That's my right. If you think that's weird, go ahead; that's your right.

I don't know if it really comes across, but I have some "Libertarian" leanings politically: I don't want anyone telling me what I can or cannot do unless I'm creating a major disturbance of public order, and that applies most of all to the government.
 
XcU2dB6.jpg


This map shows how the US really has 11 separate 'nations' with entirely different cultures

https://www.businessinsider.com/the...kdcdaYicuJN6qvZS7SU27ZDnQNoQpb59k_6UTRK_qKcsI

This seems to be based on David Hackett Fischer's formulation of how the British colonies in America were settled in four great waves of emigration from England.
- East Anglian Puritans came to New England between 1629 and 1640.
- West Country Cavaliers and their Servants came to the Chesapeake between 1640 and 1675.
- North Midland and Welsh Quakers came to the Delaware Valley between 1675 and 1725.
- British, Scots and Irish from the borderland, the so-called "Scotch-Irish," came to the American Backwoods of Appalachia, between 1717 and 1775.

That there was a culture transferred to America from England in the colonial period which set the tone for that region I don't believe is arguable, but I think this becomes problematic when you try to expand this notion west and into the 21st century. There was a great deal of mixing over time and the further you go west. Most certainly, southern California, while it has a large influence from Mexico, is not dominated by that culture. Minnesota and the Dakotas were settled by Scandanavians, not Yankees. Wisconsin and Iowa were heavily German. And the only region of the south dominated by Barbados slave owners was South Carolina.

I think they're shoehorning modern political divisions to match a thesis.

 
I would tend to agree.

Odd, too, that they have Long Island as part of "Yankee dom" and the rest of the NY Metro area as New Netherlands.

Lots of Dutch settlement on Long Island, although there was lots of movement from Connecticut and Massachusetts to the eastern half of the island as well.

Unless they're including Brooklyn and Queens with New Netherlands?

Regardless, none of that has much to do with the "culture" of that area today.
 

This thread has been viewed 86825 times.

Back
Top