Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

[CCIP]

That reminds me, by the way, of something that I'd come across not too long ago from a Russian study - I can't track it down again, and take it with a grain of salt considering the source, but...

A large-scale DNA analysis study run by a Russian research team (with international collaboration) found a few interesting things about Russians and their genetic relationships to the peoples around them. One of their conclusions was, predictably, that eastern Ukrainians are identical to Russians as far as the gene pool goes. What's more, there was not a distinct Ukrainian type found - rather, there were 3 or 4, and they largely matched their Polish, Lithuanian or Romanian neighbours, depending on where they lived. The more intriguing finding, though, was about the Russian genetic type - they suggested that despite all the pan-Slavism that Russian nationalists are all about, in fact Russians are not a Slavic peoples at all; that is, that they bear very little genetic resemblance to Poles, Czechs, Serbs, etc. and even Ukrainians (besides those in the east). It also found that the influence of Tatars and other Turkic peoples on Russian genetics has been greatly exaggarated. Instead, the finding was that ethnic Russians were, effectively, a Uralic peoples - and their closest genetic relatives were in fact the Finns. Everybody else was a distant relation at best.

So there's that. I'll try again to track down that source but certainly throws more cogs into nationalist politics on all sides here

Originally Posted by CCIP

And that is based on what?
.

That is based on the rationale that when your argument has been shown to be totally without merit and you have then resorted to making up "facts" which are easily exposed as false, "logic" suggests that the only course open to a certain mindset is to make up more ludicrous "facts" and padding it out with meaningless waffle instead of going "oops I was wrong"

I think particularly as far as Georgia, that's kind of ludicrous. Something tells me you don't know a whole lot about Georgian culture or history

That deduction isn't exactly rocket science.

[Oberon]

Meanwhile in Germany...



Oh wait...that's Brazil...

[Catfish]

^ i thought they were british tourists, in Munich

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ i thought they were british tourists, in Munich

There is a definite similarity!

[jokker]

This sort of "research" is all too often misdirected and used to justify so many unjust, immoral policies. From the concept of superior "aryan" race to other forms of ethnic cleansing. etc. This dangerous jingoistic methodology is the seed of conflict.

The melting pot of America should have demonstrated any race superiority concept is entirely disproven other than as a rally cry of those who are working to tap into the insecurities of nationalism.

The root of many if not most wars.

B

Originally Posted by CCIP

That reminds me, by the way, of something that I'd come across not too long ago from a Russian study - I can't track it down again, and take it with a grain of salt considering the source, but...

A large-scale DNA analysis study run by a Russian research team (with international collaboration) found a few interesting things about Russians and their genetic relationships to the peoples around them. One of their conclusions was, predictably, that eastern Ukrainians are identical to Russians as far as the gene pool goes. What's more, there was not a distinct Ukrainian type found - rather, there were 3 or 4, and they largely matched their Polish, Lithuanian or Romanian neighbours, depending on where they lived. The more intriguing finding, though, was about the Russian genetic type - they suggested that despite all the pan-Slavism that Russian nationalists are all about, in fact Russians are not a Slavic peoples at all; that is, that they bear very little genetic resemblance to Poles, Czechs, Serbs, etc. and even Ukrainians (besides those in the east). It also found that the influence of Tatars and other Turkic peoples on Russian genetics has been greatly exaggarated. Instead, the finding was that ethnic Russians were, effectively, a Uralic peoples - and their closest genetic relatives were in fact the Finns. Everybody else was a distant relation at best.

So there's that. I'll try again to track down that source but certainly throws more cogs into nationalist politics on all sides here

[Oberon]

DNA is DNA, nationalism or no nationalism...

[CCIP]

Yeah, trust me, I would be about the last person to make nationalist arguments and I agree that nationalism is a terrible plague that's largely to blame for what's going on in the Ukraine right now. That said, I think there's something quite different to be read into those kinds of findings - namely that there's a lot of caveats and ironies in the ethnic and national picture, and a lot of arguments made by nationalists are plain silly because there really isn't much of a basis to go on, culturally or genetically. And as someone of Russian-German-Finnish-Swedish-Ukrainian-Tatar-Gypsy-Jewish-Turkish-Everything-Else background (in that order), I'm pretty sure I know that better than most people, myself

Plus, grains of salt to be taken as required with that one.

[Catfish]

I have always wondered, what makes a nation.

A certain belonging to 'race', or genetics ?
A certain belief, or spirit ?

Or isn't it a mere chance, an accidental 'fortune' that you are born 20 km west or east of a 'line', created by military a$$holes some centuries or decades ago? And you are just thrown in by chance ?



I had high hopes in the late eighties, that "nations" would become a thing of the past, and all would be about science, going to space and let all this bull behind, trying to face other threats.

Unfortunately we had to witness that the glorious western ideas of the pre-1989 times were completely overthrown by its own (former) supporting nations, who carry on like in the best cold war times, acting similar to those nations they had criticised before.

It seems the ideas were only propaganda, instrumentalising certain generations against certain evil other nations.


"I have seen the enemy and he is us."


Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ i thought they were british tourists, in Munich

Looking at that guys dress sense and the flowers in his hair, I would say a denite Suffolkite

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Looking at that guys dress sense and the flowers in his hair, I would say a denite Suffolkite

Well, at least he's vertical and not crawling on all fours, so that rules out someone from Newcastle.

[TarJak]

Cucumbers FTW:


Though some prefer oranges:

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Well, at least he's vertical and not crawling on all fours, so that rules out someone from Newcastle.

LOL...only way you can find the taxi fare home at the end of the night

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Catfish

I have always wondered, what makes a nation.

In the U.N. charter which provides for the right of a people to self-determination, the definition is deliberately vague, most likely because no one can agree on a definition.

I would think that most people would agree that a "nation" is a group of people sharing a common language, common culture, common religion, shared history, defined territory.

The problem is, of course, that basically none of the 190 countries in the world are "pure" nations, all have ethnic, religious, linguistic minorities.

The concept of a "nation" is also a very recent phenomenon. You go back 250 years to the Seven Years War and all European Armies were like professional hockey teams with officers/soldiers from many different countries. Their loyalty was a personal one to the King they were serving, it did not matter where they came from, so one of the top Prussian general, James Keith, was a Scot who had previously served in the Spanish and Russian Army. Laudon, one of the better Austrian general, was born in present-day Latvia (then part of Sweden) and had previously served in the Russian Army.

You could also argue that the concept of a "nation" only came about after the introduction of compulsory education. You go back a few hundred years in France and each region had its own language or "Patois". It is only after a standard french started to be taught all over France that the concept of a French Nation comes to the fore.

In other words, a "Nation" is a purely artificial and recent concept.

[TarJak]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-0...kraine/5510280
Putin must be shaking in his boots!