13 ms·
People from Mexico show stunning amount of genetic diversity
- jpablo 10y agoAs a Mexican I find the comment section nitpicking every word of the article as racist very funny. Americans have really thin skin. Political correctness is indeed drowning the exchange of ideas!
- wosos 10y agoAs a fellow latin-american, I find it funny too but very worrying also, looks like a classic dogma and fact denying thing.
- onli 10y agoWhere do you see a comment section? Ah, maybe it is hidden in my browser. It is looking at genetic differences between humans, which is something to be careful with. Though only US-americans (and Nazis, weird coincidence) think that genetic differences between humans mean that they are of a different race. The article itself is less surprising than one might think. Mexicans in the north, center and south already look very different, with very typical types of looks being common in those areas. And I'm not talking about clothing and style here. It is not surprising that those visible differences show deeper differences.
- hood_syntax 10y ago> only US-americans and Nazis Citation needed.
- onli 10y agoPersonal experience. Those "race" elements in official forms – and, more so, the use of that word in everyday media speak – I only saw in the US, and they'd be impossible where I come from.
- ihaveajob 10y agoThat was my initial feeling as well when I moved to the US. But then I learned that it tends to be Democrats that favors such information gathering, because it supports affirmative action, whereas Republicans would generally like to ignore race differences altogether The whole enterprise is flawed anyway. Being Spanish (from Spain), the official definition of Hispanic applies to me, which entitles me to receive special attention that is obviously intended for non-Europeans.
- wosos 10y agoProbably an adblocker is breaking the comments component.
- SamBam 10y ago> Though only US-americans (and Nazis, weird coincidence) think that genetic differences between humans mean that they are of a different race. I don't even know what this comment is supposed to mean. Is it saying that other nations don't subscribe to the notion of "race?" Because that's complete BS, as anyone who has travelled outside of the US would know. Do we bring up apartheid in South Africa? European colonialism, and their views on race? Chinese views on race? Racism in Brazil? Saudi Arabia? Russia? I'm just confused as to what you mean. Here's a simple example: The Wikipedia article on Race (human categorization), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization), has a list of translations in the left column, with something like 60 languages listed. I can only read four others (Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese), but they all say pretty much the same thing as each other. I think any person with any understanding of the subject can agree that scientifically, the categorization of humans into "races" is meaningless and absurd, but this certainly doesn't mean that people all over the world do have this social construct. And most cultures also have a long list of stereotypes and assumptions that they apply to different "races."
- onli 10y agoThat's not the core part of my comment, it was a side remark. I think it is kind of interesting in context of PC, but not more. Read the wikipedia article you linked. The very first sentence talks about race as a social construct, and goes on to explain that it is a biological concept no longer used for humans . You'll find an article about that in every language, that does not imply the same usage. You won't find the idea of different races between humans in media or official forms in many countries outside of the US, according to my experience – which does not really mean you will find it nowhere, of course. Race is in the US used as a stand-in for ethnics. Distinguishing between ethnics you find everywhere, mixing that with the term race you don't. Not if not following Nazi-ideology.
- kazinator 10y agoThe HN discussion of the article is the real comment section.
- rayiner 10y agoAmericans have really thin skin because they fought a civil war over whether people with one color of skin could own people with a different color of skin. And until very recently,[1] people with one color of skin had to go to different schools than everyone else, they couldn't get married to each other, etc. [1] To put things into context, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, and the other tech luminaries in their generation would have gone to segregated schools had they been born in the south instead of in California and Washington. If Ken Thompson had exercised his right to vote in his native Louisiana when he turned 18, he would have done so on ballots that, pursuant to state law, listed the race of each candidate. The Voting Rights Act (which made it illegal to have "whites-only" hotels) and Loving v. Virginia (which ended laws banning interracial marriage) are roughly contemporaneous with UNIX--both being products of the late 1960s. One more fun fact: Americans' approval for black-white marriage crossed the 50% mark sometime between the release of Windows 95 and Windows 98: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh....
- danso 10y agoI don't know if it's so much as collective thin-skinnedness as it is that diversity is such a cornerstone of our society that we're forced to deal with the tensions it creates on a constant basis. This foments debate, much of it good, and some of it trollish, but I see it as a natural result of the freedoms and diversity that America has aimed to aspire. I don't mean to say that achieving diversity is some kind of Grand Experiment designed by the Founders, but it's what we have because of our past and geopolitical circumstances, and we've struggled with and benefited greatly from it.
- sangnoir 10y ago> I don't know if it's so much as collective thin-skinnedness as it is that diversity is such a cornerstone of our society that we're forced to deal with the tensions it creates on a constant basis I don't think that argument holds: Canada is a pretty diverse place but I don't think there are simmering/barely-contained tensions there as much as in the US. I think a lot of the tension results from specific 'environments'; in reverse chronological order: the "southern strategy", Jim Crow laws and ultimately chattel slavery. For most of its history, the prevailing, unquestioned belief was that one race was inherently superior. It will take several generations to rollback that mindset back to any significant degree
- vectorpush 10y agoI'd hardly call uniformed commentary on the internet "political correctness drowning the exchange of ideas", however, it's ironic that those accusing the author of racism are inadvertently casting support for the racist idea that arbitrarily defined racial labels like "Mexican" have an inherent meaning that supersedes the actual genetics; the article is literally a case study of how our crudely defined racial groupings are insufficient descriptions of underlying genetics.
- sremani 10y agoMexican is a nationality. I thought Hispanic was more race/ethnicity. What do you call a citizen of Mexico?
- cwbrandsma 10y agoA Mexican. For instance: Louis CK is a Mexican. Except around people that think the word "Mexican" is derogatory word...in which case you pretend that people from Mexico don't exist because that hurts their feelings.
- EduardoBautista 10y agoYup. It's funny because I find being called Hispanic/Latino in order to avoid calling me "Mexican" annoying. But I would be corrected by some San Francisco diversity leader that being called "Mexican", and now even "Hispanic", should be offensive to me.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pyre 10y agoI don't find Mexican to be derogatory in and of itself (obviously someone could use it in a derogatory fashion), but I would avoid assuming that any random Hispanic person is Mexican though. Does that mean I'm being "politically correct?" Should I start calling every Asian person I see Chinese to prove how non-PC and what a "free thinker" I am?
- panglott 10y agoSome of the nitpicking is funny, but the lede is kind of terrible: "Imagine if people from Kansas and California were as genetically distinct from each other as someone from Germany is from someone from Japan." Just imagine if California contained people as genetically distinct as a person from Germany and a person from Japan!
- kbenson 10y agoI understand what the lede is trying to say, and I understand what the average (that is, mean) person probably thinks. Take a random person from that place. I think it's more likely the author meant take the median, or even better for diverse locations, the mode. This is exacerbated by the believe of Americans (myself included) that we are a uniquely diverse place, reinforced by our education and mythology. We're diverse. We aren't that diverse. P.S. It is rather funny that California was used in that example rather than some other state. It's one of the few states approaching the level where the majority population will soon buy Hispanic, if it isn't already, making the statement somewhat pointless.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- badsock 10y agoSometimes it's hard to see the importance of racism for someone who isn't part of a minority group day-in-and-day-out. In terms of racial identification, are you part of the majority in your country?
- super_id 10y agoThe United States has turned its higher educational system into a Cultural Marxist reeducation camp. Thus, race-baiting is seen as a sign of sophistication. If you are not a race-baiter, then you are a pitiable simpleton or a racist.
- armandososa 10y agoAs a fellow Mexican I agree with you. Except that we are slowly becoming as thin skinned as our gringo neighbours because of social media.
- kavbojka 10y agoI don't think Mexico has had to confront its own issues with race in any meaningful way. We'll see you on the other side, friend.
- sandworm101 10y agoWhy the surprise? Mexico is part of a land bridge between two continents. Both have been invaded multiple times by distant populations. It's next to the Caribbean, a host of islands which are known to accelerate genetic changes. With all these peoples coming and going I'd be shocked if it wasn't so diverse.
- noahc 10y agoWhy are the islands known to accelerate genetic changes specifically? Is it because of sun exposure?
- rmcfeeley 10y agoIsolation. See The Galapagos + Darwin's studies on the birds there. Also: Madagascar (film + land mass)
- stevedt 10y agoI Googled "islands accelerate genetic changes" and the results show stuff like: The restricted scale, isolation, and sharp boundaries of islands create unique selective pressures, often to dramatic effect.
- sandworm101 10y agoFrom what I've read about animals, the isolated population of an island results in faster evolution due to 'close' breeding. Rare non-dominant genes are more likely to meet up and be expressed. The lack of geographic diversity also means that species need not evolve to be generalists. There is no advantage to adapting to anything but the island environment. In humans, by way of example, that might mean an island population more rapidly adapts to an endemic disease as they cannot escape it. They don't have people living elsewhere brining in non-adaptive genes and so the local adaptive genes spread more quickly than if they were on the mainland.
- mc32 10y agoThat may be so but the take away should be it's not just intuition but it's documented and contributes to scientific knowledge and inquiry and may lead to direct improved knowledge about those pops leading to better medical understanding and treatments... And no just for them but other genetically divergent groups around the world.
- BurningFrog 10y agoMy understanding is that all native american populations are from a relatively small and homogenous population that walked into Alaska 16000 years ago. Which means that they're much less genetically diverse than the rest of the world. This is hard to reconcile with the claims in this article.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoHomo Sapiens has done more gene specializing in the last 50,000 years than in the previous 2 million. So it makes good sense.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- hx87 10y agoWhile founder effects do reduce genetic diversity within a given population, reproduction and adaptation do increase it. Also, Mexican =/= Native American
- BurningFrog 10y agoThe article is about the native populations.
- mhewett 10y agoLatest information is that there were at least two, maybe three waves of immigration from Asia. There were probably also small numbers of people who made it from Polynesia to South America.
- tokensimian 10y agoI encourage you to read the wikipedia article on the settlement of the Americas, mostly because it's fun[0]. The landbridge theory has its supporters, but what's really interesting is the gaps in knowledge, and other theories about multiple waves of settlement, or settlement directly from seafaring peoples. It's really just a fascinating mix of fields. You do yourself a disservice by reducing the settlement of the americas to 2 sentences like that. I do believe the claim of less genetic diversity amongst indigenous Americans is correct. The excellent book "1491" even discusses how this could have contributed to the spread of disease: less genetic diversity meant less overall population protection. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas
- betolink 10y agoI remember a little while ago my dad went to an academic lunch with Dr. Craig Venter in Chiapas (MX), he was talking about sampling DNA from the Americas to register genes that could potentially help medical research and are endemic to the region.
- throwaw55325fff 10y agoIf you truly think the civil war was fought over slavery, you are grossly mistaken.
- sremani 10y agoCivil war was fought over Slavery as an economic system and with layers of morality in between. You cannot sanitize the Civil War from Slavery. They are intricately weaved issues, only slavery no. But Slavery is the big bad central theme.
- astrodust 10y agoThe "subjugation of the negro to the superior race" was actually one of the stated objectives of the Confederate movement. They didn't even hide it.
- learc83 10y agoWell the Vice President of the Confederacy [1] and the declaration of causes published by many of the states made it pretty clear that it was about slavery. [1] "The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions--African slavery as it exists among us--the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution [...] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away [...] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y agoWhen was the last time you read the Articles of Secession? (here's one: http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html)
- throwaway7312 10y ago
- jkot 10y ago> Imagine if people from Kansas and California were as genetically distinct from each other as someone from Germany is from someone from Japan. Is not this a case? People immigrated to america from many continents.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mrtree 10y agoJesus, as a foreigner I find ALL americans are pretty moronic. "People fought a war for the american dream boy, diversity is the cornerstone of the US, mexican is a race, don't be racist..." Panda de gilipollas...
- orthogon 10y agoThe worst part about it, is that 5 or 10 years ago, these sorts of shrill arguments weren't nearly as dominant or widespread. But most unbearable of all, within the past 1 or 2 years, all of the same hideous internet conversations (same theme, same points, same tone, all on the same shrill topics) are now invading real life encounters. No longer is the bullshit confined to a few shitty websites. Now, everywhere you turn some asshole is whining or complaining about imaginary problems they've conjured as a fad, and maybe half the time they are surrounded with sympathetic dipshits, their faces contorted with concern and mirrored sadness, nodding and patting sad person on the back. So, somewhere along the line, people have figured out that as an introduction, when meeting new people, a good strategy for choosing friends among peers is to zoom to the bottom with a sad story, dominate the discussion with how bad everything feels, and then wait for hugs. People test their audience for warm reactions to sad tales, and then based on the degree of empathy, polarize their response and etiher wage total war on enemies, or cuddle snuggly with their new surrogate therapist best friends. Only some forms of sadness are lauded as acceptable. Others are correct in their suffering and are expected to remain penitent, and ostracize themselves for the greater good.
- tuna-piano 10y agoI've often wondered why Mexican people look so different from people in the US. Wikipedia makes me believe that Mexicans are generally a mix of European and native ancestry. But why does Mexico have so much more of that than the US? Especially considering we stole much of our land from them... Why does the average person in Texas (excluding Mexico->US immigrants) look so different from the average person a few hundred miles south, but yet looks similiar to someone a few hundred (or thousand) miles north?
- saint_fiasco 10y agoWasn't interracial marriage illegal in the US until the 20th Ceentury?
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Wasn't interracial marriage illegal in the US until the 20th Ceentury? Yes, and no. That is, it wasn't established as a federal Constitutional right until the decision in Loving v. Virginia (1967), but there were many states where it was legal prior to that (in fact, it was legal in 6 of the 13 original colonies at the time of independence, and there are several states that never passed laws prohibiting it.) And even then, the laws that were passed only consistently prohibited whites from marrying blacks, though some of them also included all or specific other non-white "races".
- wan23 10y agoI was reading about this case yesterday and found it really fascinating how the anti-miscegenation law in Virginia was crafted in what I imagine as the meanest way possible. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1
- huherto 10y ago> Wikipedia makes me believe that Mexicans are generally a mix of European and native ancestry. The interesting aspect of the article is that the "native ancestry" part is very diverse itself. > But why does Mexico have so much more of that than the US? The Spanish mixed with the native population and created communities with them since the beginning. This process is 500 years old. Race boundaries have been erased. In the US this process is 100-200 years old. > Especially considering we stole much of our land from them... A lot of the land was very sparsely populated. Most migration to the West occurred after the 1840s. People coming from the East (NY, Boston, Philadelphia, Louisiana, etc). This explains why they are so similar to them.
- HillaryBriss 10y agoconjecture: the population of Los Angeles County, if measured using the same approach employed by this study, would show more genetic diversity than the population of Mexico
- vondur 10y agoWell, it's not surprising given the racial makeup of the Iberian peninsula over history. (Celts, Romans, Vandals, North Africans) and then sending them to America to mix with native Indian populations and imported Africans.
- crpatino 10y agoThat's what I thought at first. The interesting thing about the article is that it shows the native population was already pretty diverse by the time of first contact with the Europeans. Also, a minor nit picking. Even if slaves brought to Mexico came from a very specific Portuguese enclaves within the African continent, the population within Africa is extremely diverse. It would not surprise me if they brought about as much diversity as the other two source "races", for lack of a better word. It seems a bit too simple to have them reduced to a note margin as in "imported Africans".
- amelius 10y agoGenetic diversity is said to result in better traits. So what are these traits in this case?