GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-09 > 1158506739


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Swedish YStr - Norse?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:25:39 +0100


Each haplogroup is different both in structure and geographical distribution
and so naming strategies vary.
For N3 there appears to be a haplotype distinction whose boundary coincides
with the linguistic boundary between Estonia (whose language is Finno-Ugric)
and Latvia (whose language belongs to the Baltic group of Indo-European).
So it would not occur to anyone to lable the northern variety "Norse" even
though it can obviously be found amongst people whose native language
derives from Old Norse (mainly in Sweden and Finland) as well as speakers of
Finno-Ugric languages such as the Saami.
Designations which are geographical or linguistic do not necessarily carry
racial connotations.
I am linguistically English and Welsh and geographically Welsh but with
regards to a racial designation I don't see a point to being more specific
than White European. If someone found a haplotype which occurred mainly in
Wales, I wouldn't see a problem with calling it a "Welsh" haplotype (within
the context of its specific haplogroup) and I wouldn't feel that my own
identity was threatened if I didn't personally have that haplotype (which
would be unlikely since my paternal line is from south-west England and my
R1b1c6 haplogroup is found mainly in Iberia).

Gareth

PS this is (usually!) a relaxed, informal and friendly list and we like to
address and refer to each other by given names. What's yours?




----- Original Message -----
From: "A DesCartes" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Swedish YStr - Norse?


> To apply your logic, a Saami N3 individual haplotype, whose ancestry in the
> geographic confines of the scandinavian landmass predated I1a, would be
> `Norse`. The creator(s) of this human categorization are not using that
> terminology in reference to the asiatic Saami, thus geography is not truly
> the only requirement for those applying this designator- just as with
> `anglo-saxon` it is a racial definition.
>
> There is nothing inappropriate nor reason to be embarrased to admit this-
> the issue is not that it is inappropriate to apply racial designations where
> valid- the issue is applying them potentially inaccurately.
>
> On 9/16/06, Vincent Vizachero <> wrote:
> >
> > On the contrary, designations like "Norse" ostrike me as more
> > geographical than anything else. "Norse" accurately describes people
> > who live in a geographic area (
> > Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This is not dissimilar from
> > the use of the word "Italian" to describe people from Italy. No one
> > in their right mind would consider "Italian" a racial designation.


This thread: