- Reaction score
- Ethnic group
- Y-DNA haplogroup
Well, I'm glad we've gotten down to the core of the issue. Claiming that Albanians are descendants of Ottomans is t-rolling behavior, as I pointed out more than once. In fact, if my memory serves I had running disputes with Serbians, I think it was, and pointed out, again more than once, that the Albanians had been in the Balkans far longer than any Slavs, who were late comers.
However, disagreeing with Albanians on certain topics, or finding that the Greek members, when there are any, have some valid points, is not t-rolling Albanians. Certain Italians and Italian Americans started their own site in response to t-rolling behavior. I never joined or read it beyond a few initial visits, because first, they did more than their own fair share of t-rolling, and secondly, they refused to accept certain facts which the genetics made clear.
I've never done either. I try to be as objective as is humanly possible. If I agree with certain things Greek members have said (by no means all), then it is because I believe the science is on their side on certain matters; it has absolutely nothing to do with any bias for them as a group or against Albanians, although to be completely honest, given how Albanian members have spoken to and about me, both here and even worse, in PMs, it required an effort of will to refuse to let that affect my decisions.
When someone disagrees with the "Albanian" point of view, it isn't necessarily out of any animus, or t-rolling. It can be an honest expression of how someone interprets the data, and even more so, at least in my case, a belief that the data is "not" in, and that people are just speculating to an incredible degree. Now, sometimes, when you speculate, you turn out to be right, sometimes you don't. It doesn't really change the fact that you didn't have enough evidence when you came to your conclusion.
As to the constant song about how much MENA there is in Southern Italians, the discussions are so a-scientific as to be laughable in most cases. Using that outmoded terminology for the sake of the argument, I couldn't give a rat's you know what if it were 90% of the genetic material. People persist in thinking that their own prejudices, biases, call them what you will, are universal. They're not. Believe me, both my husband, who is actually Southern Italian, and I, who married him, would be a lot more concerned if his ancestry consisted of large percentages of other ethnicities, and I mean European ones. My problem with the people on sites like anthrogenica is that they're ignorant as well as biased. Just look at what they promoted for YEARS about the Etruscans. You think I would have cared personally if it turned out that they came to Italy from Anatolia in the first millennium B.C.? If you do you haven't read many of my posts and you don't know me. The fact was that the archaeology and the history and what little ancient dna we had (mtDna) was all against that conclusion.
In fact, my track record all round is infinitely better than that of the members on that site and than the likes of someone like Eurogenes. That's because I don't let ascertainment bias influence me, and instead read everything available and then judge as best and as objectively as possible where the answer might lie. If I don't have enough data, I say so. I spent my entire professional life dealing with issues that way, and I wasn't going to change that when the topic was population genetics.
I spend probably 1/10th of the time on Anthro, mostly just reading rather than first hand involvement. And so far it looks like a chill place. In fact can't recall his name, one member I have heard mentioned here, as a t-roll, who was saying Etruscan Anatolian, S Italians MENA etc, I am sure you know who I am talking about, he was brought up a couple of times in discussions in Eupedia as a t-roll. He is banned. In fact am not even sure why they banned him, one moment he was popular in the forum, next day I see that he is banned.
Don't really care to continue this conversation since I think we reached a decent conclusion. And your reply was more than fair.
But as usual I can't help myself, writing comments people most likely won't care to read. But I think you would agree, that its entirely subjective. You think S-Italians and Imperial Romans being majorly MENA ancestry is not the case based on evidence; well as you said, some members might have different interpretation of the data, just like some Greek posters interpret the Albanian statistics as they please. But see, when it comes to Italians that would not stand here, in Eupedia, as IMO it should not. On the other hand, when the data is like the case of L283, very much in ones face, and as irrefutable as the field of historical genetics gets, its somehow okay for certain members to say L283 colonized North Albania after the Albanian-Ottoman war. Like saying C6 like people colonized Italy after the Napoleonic wars. But you do not see it that way. And I guess that is exactly why these matters are subjective. Despite objective evidence supporting my view, that some thread I have reported <countless times> will be like the Albanians - Berbers threads from 2010, 10 years from now.
I know I am biased in this. And as far as I know, everyone is biased one way or the other, the burden of free will. And there is a fine line when it comes to free speech. But when it comes to science, the line is clear as it gets. Some statements are either true or false (unless you want to get into paradoxes). And factually false statements are judged on ad hoc bases here, depending on whom they affect.
Again, this is off topic, but until I or someone makes another Albanian thread, guess I have to vent here.