Comments by "No Fate But What We Make" (@SonoftheAllfather) on "The Problem with DNA Testing for Native American Heritage w/Shannon O'Loughlin | Joe Rogan" video.

@josephmeeks5657 She is probably partially indigenous, but being indigenous is not something into which you can just "enroll." Ancestry is a biological reality, which is why her whole take on genetics being irrelevant to tribal membership is ridiculous. The push to trivialize or deny the ancestral/ethnic criteria for indigeneity or membership of an ethnic group will eventually be the thing that makes indigenous and ethnic identity rootless and undefinable. Her position (that genetics are irrelevant to tribal membership) is probably a neurotic defense mechanism that is rooted in her discomfort with having her indigenous identity questioned or trivialized because she is half European. Your position is rooted in a false and unpragmatic sense of moral virtue.
31
@michaeltravis3562 The name India comes from that Sanskrit word "Sindhu," which is also where "Hindu" comes from through the Persian language. The name Indos was used by the Greeks and Romans used Indus to refer to the general region and the Indus River. It was present in Romance languages and Old English too and was used by Albert the Great. The term "Indies" was derived from Latin and was almost surely the name used by the Latin world during the time of Columbus. It had nothing to do with the Latin word for God. If you're going to go around calling everyone ignorant who uses the term, you might want to get your own facts straight.
11
"I'm Polish and Choctaw" >Has Irish name. Ok.
11
@corinnesalazar2720 Haven't you ever thought about where the prefix of the word "indigenous" comes from? Lol
10
@andreathesexy1 Most Afro-Americans are at least partially mixed with European, especially if they aren't recent immigrants. While I agree that at some point of mixing, categorizing seems arbitrary and subjective, I still think that genetics should be the defining criteria for indigeneity and ethnicity. My reasoning is this: if there isn't something unalterable (like genetics) that defines these things, then those categorizations/identities will become subjective, because anyone will be able to claim them at a whim. Something that's for everyone is for no one. Or in other words, extreme inclusivity leads to the destruction of human bio and cultural diversity. It's ironic, but these ethnic divisions are all that really maintains our biodiversity. The Latin prefix "div" actually means SEPARATE. As things currently are, it creates a difficult situation when a person is mixed. Even if there isn't a one drop principle in a culture, they feel rootless, because they now they're not quite one thing and not quite the other. Everyone feels a need to belong...a need for kin, or an extended family. That is essentially what an ethnic group is and always has been. So while it may seem like pure racism to divide by using strict biological criteria to define identity, it really is what maintains biodiversity. Personally, I purposefully chose to have children with someone very similar to me ethnically. Not because I hate other groups of people or think I'm superior or pure or some BS like that, but because I didn't want my children to feel rootless and confused about their identity. It's hard enough being diaspora Europeans or Africans, because nothing biological defines our national identity. If we have no ethnic identity either, it creates even more feelings of rootlessness. People long for an identity that makes them unique and can't be taken from them. Why do you think ancestry tests are so popular in countries like the U.S.? It's because we are rootless. Our nationality is defined by marginally shared ideas, not something biological and unalterable.
4
@andreathesexy1 Actually, that is false. A nation can be defined by descent, and therefore by ethnicity or race, and it often is. There are many examples of this throughout history and the present. You are stuck in an American mindset which dictates that a nation is just citizenship or a piece of land. A nation is, by its very definition, a group of PEOPLE. Those people are often defined by descent i.e. genetics. It's impossible to be succinct with a topic this. If you want shallow, thoughtless dialogue, you're talking about the wrong topic, and definitely to the wrong person.
4
@andreathesexy1 A nation is a group of people, not a land mass. Look up the definition. It is often used interchangeably with country, but a country is really just a land mass which constitutes a state with borders. A nation and a country are separate things. That is why indigenous tribes are called nations even though they reside within the country of the United States. And yes, nations can be defined by ethnicity, and ethnicity has a genetic criteria. It's not really that difficult to understand. You just have to accept that you've been conditioned to understand nationhood in the American way, which defines its citizenship based on things other than ethnicity.
4
@jaxn13 I'm not familiar with you friendo. But yes, I'm not producing much anymore. I always have tons of ideas, but the production takes so much of my time. 3 kids, wife, new home, and a full time job makes production near impossible. I want to create more though. I still probably will. But what I really want to do is debate people and bring my message to a wider, more ideologically diverse audience.
4
@andreathesexy1 I'm familiar with the ethnohistory of Sicilians. I agree that many ethnicities contributed to the Sicilian ethnogenesis. But what do you mean by "US Black purity testing" and what does that have to do with Sicilian ethnohistory?
3
@jaxn13 I appreciate you. I hope everything is good for you. 👍🏻
2
@andreathesexy1 Also...you are very confused. Asian is not an ethnicity, it's more of a pseudo racial category based on geographic descent. Indian is not a race or an ethnicity either, it is basically just a citizen of India, because India has hundreds of ethnic groups living in it. Jamaica is a multiethnic country with people from all sorts of ancestral backgrounds. It is a mixture and hence isn't an ethnic state. That is why Jamaican and Cuban and Dominican basically just means you were born there or hold citizenship in that country. Most Jamaicans are ancestrally from sub-Saharan Africa. There is no Jamaican ethnicity. They are a multiethnic group, just like Americans.
1
@anjaninator If some indigenous American nation decides to subvert their own tribal identity by totally ignoring the genetic component of their ethnicity, that is their prerogative. But it will be the end of any meaningful definition of their existence. That is what I'm trying to say. In England, it's happening the same way. The English are an ethnic group whose identity has a genetic component and has for centuries. But now that reverse colonization is taking place, leftists and migration advocates are trying to subvert the criteria required fire English identity to make it "inclusive." That essentially makes it meaningless because it negates the ancestral criteria for it. What belongs to everyone belongs to no one.
1