|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 11, 2005 1:28:02 GMT -5
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH article entitled: "BASQUES ARE BROTHERS OF THE CELTS"
WELSH and Irishmen are genetic blood-brothers of the Basque people, according to a study published today.
The findings provide the first direct evidence of a close relationship between the people thought of as Celts and the Basques.
The Basques are thought to be the closest descendants of the Palaeolithic people who established the first settlements in Britain more than 10,000 years ago.
The evidence of a link is in a study by James Wilson and Prof David Goldstein of University College London, with colleagues at Oxford University and the University of California, Davis. The study is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The team looked for similarities between the Y chromosomes – only carried by men – of 88 “Celtic fringe” individuals from Anglesey, North Wales, 146 from Ireland with Irish Gaelic surnames, and 150 Basques, revealing “remarkable’ similarities.
The Celts carried the early Y chromosome, said the study, which provides the first clear evidence of a close relationship in the paternal heritage of Basque and Celtic speaking populations. “They were statistically indistinguishable’, said Prof Goldstein.
BY ROGER HIGHFIELD - SCIENCE EDITOR Tuesday, April 3, 2001 THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Jun 12, 2005 0:53:52 GMT -5
I agree with the person who said that part of the reason that Hispanics are often thought of as a unified racial group in the U.S. is because many white Americans don't think of Spaniards being as white as northern Europeans, thus Spaniards are grouped with Latin Americans of mixed race as part of some great Hispanic "race," whereas say, a French-speaking Haitian is black and a white Frenchman is simply white.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Jun 12, 2005 2:24:49 GMT -5
Most US whites just haven't taken a second glance at what the Spanish look like. They realize Spain sits on Europe, but they've been brainwashed into thinking Latin = southern Europe = darkie/mixed race. Any time they come across a Spaniard in this country, he's no different signifigantly from any other white in looks and is of course seen as white. He acculturates and anglicizes. The only difference is the name "Garcia" etc.
While "Hispanic" in its present bastardised meaning came from the Nixon Administration probably by accident, it's useful politically, as it confuses whites about race and it gives mestizos an identity other than, gee, the truth, as Mike said.
|
|
|
Post by yigal on Jun 13, 2005 23:26:12 GMT -5
well the problem is (and dont get offended) spaniards like u dont really look white, i mean its true and its not to say white=northern european but there is a percentage(small) of spaniards who look more at home in casablanca than in europe, altho i agree penelope cruz isnt one of them
|
|
|
Post by Toasty on Jun 14, 2005 1:12:20 GMT -5
well the problem is (and dont get offended) spaniards like u dont really look white, i mean its true and its not to say white=northern european but there is a percentage(small) of spaniards who look more at home in casablanca than in europe, altho i agree penelope cruz isnt one of them Who are you talking about? Drooperdoo or Seizure???
|
|
|
Post by hanan on Jun 14, 2005 15:14:48 GMT -5
Hanan, Not at all. If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I wrote that it was understandable that Americans took to referring to Amerindic countries that adopted Spanish as "Hispanic," because "mestizo" and "half-caste" were abhorrent terms. I'm not for stepping on anyone. I just wish we called Mexicans "Mexicans," or Hondurans "Hondurans". Why try to lump them all into one imaginary super-group. There's more of a vast genetic difference between a Mexican and a Peruvian than between a Scotsman and a Portuguese--yet we act like they're the same. They're not. So let's drop the phoniness. Call Mexicans "Mexicans". I'm sure they'll appreciate it. Let's be honest here. It doesn't bother you that Mexicans and Peruvians are grouped together. What bothers you is that you are grouped with them. And as for Mexicans appreciating being called Mexican I'm not sure that is true. Haven't you noticed? Any Euro looking Mexican likes to think of himself as European even if nobody else does. You understand this all too well because you are doing the same thing. You are demonstrating racism to say that it wouldn't have bothered you if they had the maid be acted by an actual mestizo. Oh that's great then since mestizos really are maids in real life. I think Hollywood was being non racist here because the message is that white Europeans can be servants too.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 14, 2005 15:40:32 GMT -5
Hanan, You're insane. Let's just leave it at that. Any sane person would admit that Hollywood has a famous reputation for glamorizing roles--even when it changes the dynamic of the script. A famous example of their ethnicity-swapping is "The Diary of Anne Frank". Famous acting-instructor Lee Strausberg's daughter won a tony on Broadway for her portrayal of the WWII victim. Then when it came time for Hollywood to make the picture, they refused to cast the Jewish actress in the role because she looked . . . er . . . too "ethnic". [In other words, she looked too much like the REAL Anne Frank.] And they wanted to build sympathy for the character among Americans. So they refused to hire Miss Strausberg and instead cast a Welsh actress who--unlike the real Anne Frank--had blue eyes and a tiny upturned nose. It sorts well with their other casting atrocities--like John Wayne as Genghis Khan or Marlon Brando as a Japanese man in "Teahouse of the August Moon". Likewise in "Spanglish". The non-Caucasian lines in the film clearly indicate that the part was NOT written for a Western European super-model to play the part. What next? --Am I to hear you justify a remake of "Gone With the Wind," with all the negro roles filled by Irishmen, and "Mammy" played by Cindy Crawford? This is just insane and indefensible. It's just humorous watching your rhetorical somersaults to make Hollywood's casting decisions look "noble" and "non-racist".
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jun 14, 2005 17:34:45 GMT -5
I am white, latin american and If I move to the USA I would call myself hispanic and latino, we all share the same culture, the label doesnt bother me.
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jun 15, 2005 6:54:59 GMT -5
It is not much point being irritated by ignorance, and let's face it, despite universal education in the States, Australia and Europe, most people are ignorant and half are below the mid point of intelligence as registered on a normal distribution curve. That is life. In Australia, I doubt most Anglo or Irish Australians would know the difference between dark caucasoids, South Indians who are highly Australoid/Veddoid, most mestizos from South America, many Mauritian Creoles and other obviously non caucasoid people. It is not racism, it is disinterest and ignorance. It is easier to lump every one with dark hair and vaguely Euro features to be Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Mediterranean - anything as long as it is means something to them, which usually is foreign. Some posters in this board are no exception. I am not naming names, but Yigal, the Casablanca thing is a bit much. Spanish people are not White to..... you. Does it not say something about how you think, your understanding of racial classification and what beliefs you accept a la Kemp ?
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 15, 2005 9:45:24 GMT -5
The attempt to irrationally conflate different races because of a shared language is incredibly new. Historically, Americans made a distinction between whites and Indians--not only in their own country but in that of Mexico. Famous whites who happened to be of Spanish extraction are Admiral Farragut--who was a Catalan and helped America in its war for independence--and Don Carlos Buell, a Union general in the Civil War. No one leagued such men with non-whites. They were fully white and treated as such. When the US had segregated schools, people with Spanish surnames attended "white schools". Period. As recently as the 1950s, Americans drew distinctions between white Mexicans and Indians. In the 1955 film "Giant," a bigot refers to one character's Mexican wife as a "squaw". Get that--SQUAW. It was clear that she was "Indian," not some made-up "Hispanic race". She was an Aztec who spoke Spanish because Spain conquered her country . . . just as Indians in America spoke English because England colonized North America. Americans knew the distinction--and were familiar with it from their own country. White Mexicans, for instance, were treated like any other "white". Ramon Navarro was a silent film star and was white enough to be cast as "The Student Prince of Heidelberg". Likewise his cousin Dolores Del Rio. Or, later, Ricardo Montalban and Fernando Lamas. These were whites, period. And they attended white schools, drank from white water-fountains and slept at white hotels--hotels that even turned away Jews. As sociologists point out, when Kennedy took office in 1960 the country was 90% white, 9% black and 1% all others. Today--due to radical immigration policies--whites are something like 55%, Mexicans are 12%, blacks are 12% and Asians are climbing fast. So the radical revision of "Hispanic-ness" happened when America stopped getting South America's whites and became inundated with the poorest of these countries--and poor usually = Indian. Up until recently no one would have been encouraged to lump in Fernando Lamas [father of actor Lorenzo Lamas] with an Aztec. But the Indians started to gain political power--under such men as union leader Cesar Chavez and others--and, as a result, Americans have been inundated with psychological cues and political prompting not to hurt the feelings of the mestizos who were gaining in numbers and clout. And not insulting them meant humoring their own racial hang-ups. And that meant NOT calling them Indians--or "squaws," or mestizos. We were encouraged to use polite euphemisms--and that meant circuitously referring to them as "Spanish-speakers" . . . which lazily got truncated into "Spanish". So the term "Spanish" lost all its real connotations and took on--in the US--a wholly different meaning and set of associations. But this is incredibly recent. As I said--as recently as 1960--the US did NOT have the massive Mexican Indian population that increases daily and is slowly amassing power. Americans from 1960 earlier knew quite certainly that there was a difference between a white Mexican and an Indian Mexican. And both groups were treated accordingly in the past. All this Orwellian crap is quite newer than most of you realize.
P.S.--Yes, yes, I know. It's not fair to call "mestizos" Indians. The thinking is that, if one has a drop of white blood, it'll make you non-Indian. Except for one problem--US "native Americans" have Caucasoid admixture, too. But Americans still refer to them as "Indian"--and so they do themselves. They speak English, have English surnames and have moderate levels of Anglo-Saxon admixture . . . but would anyone walk onto an Indian reservation and confuse the residents with Englishmen? [How much sillier is it to see an illegal alien who is 4'11'', with Aztec-coloring, a fu-manchu mustache, a squat, neckless Amerindian body . . . and to be expected to refer to him as Spanish?]
|
|
|
Post by sergio on Jun 15, 2005 16:05:01 GMT -5
Drooperdoo, you certainly love stereotypes:
"[How much sillier is it to see an illegal alien who is 4'11'', with Aztec-coloring, a fu-manchu mustache, a squat, neckless Amerindian body . . . and to be expected to refer to him as Spanish?] "
To tell you the truth, I lived in Los Angeles for 34 years, probably before you were born, and only a minority of Mexicans fit that stereotype, most do not. Everyday I see hundreds who do not look at all like the hypothetical person you are describing.
You give the example of the Indian reservation and bla,bla, bla, but you also know there are many people who have a lot of Indian blood in the US and who considered themselves anglos, whites and are seen as such by others. True, another person with the same amount of indian blood may consider himself "indian" and even have membership in a tribe.
Most Mexicans are mixed. Some of those don't look very different from a Spaniard you see walking in Seville. Others look like something else and others look half indian, half european. So what!
I think you ARE insecure and Very prejudiced yourself! You love to use stereotypes.
|
|
|
Post by sergio on Jun 15, 2005 16:07:30 GMT -5
I am white, latin american and If I move to the USA I would call myself hispanic and latino, we all share the same culture, the label doesnt bother me. You are right, it does not bother me either. People think I am a so called "anglo" when they see me but I certainly consider myself hispanic, latino etc.
|
|
|
Post by sergio on Jun 15, 2005 16:16:34 GMT -5
Hanan, Not at all. If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I wrote that it was understandable that Americans took to referring to Amerindic countries that adopted Spanish as "Hispanic," because "mestizo" and "half-caste" were abhorrent terms. I'm not for stepping on anyone. I just wish we called Mexicans "Mexicans," or Hondurans "Hondurans". Why try to lump them all into one imaginary super-group. There's more of a vast genetic difference between a Mexican and a Peruvian than between a Scotsman and a Portuguese--yet we act like they're the same. They're not. So let's drop the phoniness. Call Mexicans "Mexicans". I'm sure they'll appreciate it. Let's be honest here. It doesn't bother you that Mexicans and Peruvians are grouped together. What bothers you is that you are grouped with them. And as for Mexicans appreciating being called Mexican I'm not sure that is true. Haven't you noticed? Any Euro looking Mexican likes to think of himself as European even if nobody else does. You understand this all too well because you are doing the same thing. You are demonstrating racism to say that it wouldn't have bothered you if they had the maid be acted by an actual mestizo. Oh that's great then since mestizos really are maids in real life. I think Hollywood was being non racist here because the message is that white Europeans can be servants too. Hanan, I agree with those statements 100%. You hit the nail on the head. Clear as water.
|
|
|
Post by Toasty on Jun 15, 2005 22:16:29 GMT -5
Hanan doesn't get it.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 15, 2005 22:41:05 GMT -5
Toasty, thank you. The implication given by Hanan (and one or two others) is that we should create a third imaginary race rather than honestly address the question of Indian-Caucasoid admixture. That position seems chockful of shame to me. It's cowardly. I can't say it enough: But here I'll waste my breath and say it again: There are white Americans, Indian-Americans and Americans who are mixes of the two. We all respect and understand the distinction. In the past, we were honest with it concerning Mexico. [They are EXACTLY like Americans.] There are white Mexicans, Indian Mexicans and Mexicans who are a mix of the two. I don't know why, in America, there's no association of shame, nor an evasive tendency. But when it comes to Mexico, we're all supposed to believe in some imaginary made-up THIRD race. THAT'S all I'm saying. In as plain words as possible, all I can do is reperat it until my face is blue. "We should refer to Mexicans as Mexicans, period. Hondurans are Hondurans, Chileans are Chileans, etc." The attempt to lump them all into one imaginary super-group is not realistic--and is the naked attempt of politicians in America to make a power-grab . . . to expand the base of their power by claiming to represent millions from other countries that they don't REALLY represent, by dint of a new phony racial designation: Hispanic. It's false. That's all I'm saying. And I'll end it there.
P.S.--As in the US, race is a matter of phenotype . . . not of a single drop of blood. President Bill Clinton had distant Indian blood. But he was overwhelming Caucasian, and his phenotype reflected that. So he was, for all intents and purposes, white. Same with the current President Bush. He is distantly related to Pocahontas. --In the United States, this is viewed favorably. Mexico should be approached in the same way. If you're phenotypically Caucasoid, then you're white. If you're phenotypically Indian, then you're Indian. And if you're a mix then call youself a "mix". No more of this phoney-baloney crap about mythical, magical imaginary third races--just to avoid the obvious: Race admixture exists. By refusing to be honest about it, the implication is that you're ashamed. In the US, people actually LIE about having Indian blood. [It's such an honor to have it.] I think Mexico needs to adopt that attitude and dispense with the "Hispanic" b.s.--unless, of course, you're one of the millions of predominantly-Spanish Mexicans. [Having a drop of Indian blood in Mexico shouldn't change your race any more than a US president having a drop of Indian blood here, and vice-versa].
|
|