The Y-DNA mania and its huge overestimation we often see is really a matter of either ignorance on the topic of population genetics. I can't tell how many times I had to tell people to remind that a Y-DNA haplogroup essentially tells you aboutnot just your paternal ancestry (our mothers matter, don't they?), but even then just one among countless paternal ancestors of us, because it links us to the one unbroken male-only lineage we have. It's important to trace population movements, but so many people judging whether people are related or not, or where people's ancestry came from, based exclusively on Y-DNA haplogroups gets on my nerves, because invariably they make wrong conclusions or totally unsubstantiated claims (some examples I have seen recently are "Greeks have nothing to do with Western Europeans and don't share ancestry with them, because they 'are' E1b1b and J2, and Western Europeans are R1b' - never mind the ridiculous simplification of the Y-DNA distribution of large populations). By the way, I have grown extremely wary (perhaps even irritated) at such things as they were a R1b people or a J2 people mixed with a R1a people. I get what some people mean, but that kind of thing only reinforces the wrong notion that people who don't understand population genetics have that you can determine a people's entire ancestry based on one little marker.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. Well noticed, and well said.
@Ygorcs @Davef
There seems to be kind of a script; with some variations, of course, but generally predictable. As suggested, if certain civilization was advanced, say, a Middle Eastern one, that kind of people may try to evidence some Northern influence, if there is any room for it (which may include even the lack of data), creating a certain context through any minor admixture, haplogroups, rutilism or even trans-cultural diffusion - when other strategies fail. If any of these signs is there, even if in isolation, it becomes authomatically a virtual "proof" (yes, it may be an evidence occasionally, and that's why genetic tests are done in the first place). If it's not there, against all predictions, it "is" sampling bias (yes, it may be sometimes), or the elite was not tested or had just a minor genetic influence (perhaps). If it's in the "wrong" - inconvenient - place and time, at relevant numbers and associated to cultural changes, then its presence is not a proof of anything anymore (possibly it's not). Funny enough, many times the folks of the supposed (elite) vectors of all advances didn't do the same job in their own homeland. There is no doubts, coherence, nor openness to different possibilities, commonly demanded by the very high complexity of history. That's the problem. There is this strong attachment to certain narratives, rather than to the searching of facts as they must have been. It looks really strange for open-minded people and science enthusiasts.
Sometimes the genetic/cultural influence may have happened in any way, sure, but again: this is not the point at all. I'm not talking about each case or hypothesis in isolation, but on these predictable and convenient scripts, specific "patterns", doble standard/incoherence, negation of data, their "torture" - the obsession to fit them to an agenda -, discarding of conflicting evidences, etc., generally followed by some subjacent prejudice. It's important to make clear that the genetic signs (or their lack) I mentioned may be used per se to do the job of understanding ancient movements and influences, yes, together with other signs - complementary or competing - , in a multidisciplinary approach, when they exist. Thing is some of these people already had virtually all answers for almost everything, since years ago, even before some important papers came out, when it's expected our conjectures/speculations are changed or refined as more data emerge. You know, in front such complexities, it's virtually impossible to be always right. But these kind of dudes are, of course. je je je
Oh! And never mind other "sub-symbols" such as "Indo-Europeans", blondism, lighteness etc., per se interesting subjects/traits to be studied, but obscure when inserted in certain contexts or agendas, or when discussed in a certain way. Even being a stuff more than 100 years old, sometimes I have this feeling that Nazis and their narrative somewhat "infected" the subconscious/unconscious of some people, generally young, who are not necessarily actual Nazis nor symphatizers. Even after all this time. And not just them (Nazis). There is also the example of slavery of black people, among many other shadows of the past. We're still living their consequences.
We could stay here forever listing some additional harmful biases and behaviors. I focused only in few. Anyway, the professional haters, many of them just sad people, are spread all around, being naturally common to all backgrounds. So, ironically, radicals of this kind are not even original in their self-perception of superiority. Lol They think they're supermen, but they're ordinary, which doesn't mean being numerous. They just need to seek "reasons" for their stuff, while "reasoning", you know, may be a threat.
As for confusions related to Y-DNA etc., yeah, I myself feel more or less that way sometimes. But frequently it's just lack of knowledge, not dishonesty. These dudes were not the "target". Of course, it becomes more problematic when the mecanism is well explained and even then some people don't internalize it, for unconfessable motivations, inadvertent or not. I say it 'cause it doesn't seem much complicated, really. I guess almost everybody with minimal knowledge are capable to really get it, but some of them just refuse to do it.
And the same way it's not all about Nordicism, it's not all about R1 either, obviously. As an example, time ago a biased Admin of a minor group I joined believed that certain Neolithic hg was European, based on a convenient missinterpretation of a paper. I politely explained his reading was wrong, and he summarily expeled me from there. So... It's everywhere.
Still, while Y-DNA makes more sense in big numbers, helping to track movements, being intellectually curious about your own hg makes no harm. Particularly, I think it's fun, and deep tests may both serve the curiosity and help this science we love.
Oh, and to put things in perspective, mtDNA has 37 genes in its whole ~16500 base pairs.
Obviously, "normal" people shouldn't be upset with what we're talking on. This is not being addressed to them. It's a matter of critical thinking, reasonableness, vs their opposite, including intellectual dishonesty. Not Europe(ans) vs Middle East(erns) - or whatever. So I'm not alluding to anyone in particular. Rather, I'm trying to roughly describe a general profile. Anyone could disagree with all of this, naturally, but getting angry may be a sympton of the "illness" to which I'm referring. Something to think about.
Finally, at the end, populational genetics and genetic genealogy, as genetics as a whole, are fascinating stuff. Really fascinating! None of the freaks will manage to screw it up. In fact, some lunatics must be desperate because genetics proved we're not "pure". We're the result of many movements between distant places, both ancient and recent. This is the way it was, and this is who we are. They'll have to accept this soon or later.
I didn't imagine the subject would unroll this way, but here we are.
I'm really done now. Cheers!