3 ms·

I am actively trying to learn about the cultural heritage I was denied Speaking as someone who is also 1/32, same as you, people like us need to stop pretendin

by causi 5y ago

I am actively trying to learn about the cultural heritage I was denied Speaking as someone who is also 1/32, same as you, people like us need to stop pretending having a sliver of genetic material somehow entitles us to a "cultural heritage". 1/32 is five generations. That's three percent. For comparison, the average European-American's DNA is 3.5% African. White people are blacker than you and me are Native American.

vanderZwan 5y ago
I think mixing of socially constructed races and genetic ethnicities is a recipe for disaster. The only thing the latter is good for IMO is to highlight how the former is a social construct. With that in mind, tying cultural heritage to "where did my close ancestors come from" seems like a more sensible approach than genetic percentages, since that actually connects to a social context. Having said that, cherry picking one out of thirty-two great-great-great-grandparents over the thirty-one others sounds pretty absurd. But I'm not from North America so I probably miss some social context to understand the logic behind that.
- causi 5y ago
  But I'm not from North America so I probably miss some social context to understand the logic behind that. It's a combinational effect of many minor causes stacking upon one another. People wanting to feel special. The feeling modern society is destroying the world and the sense Native American culture is the opposite of that. The mild but persistent impression that white heritage isn't something to celebrate or positively self-identify with.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    What exactly is "white heritage" anyway? It only brings to mind white supremacy to me. But I do celebrate my Finnish heritage, as well as my Irish and English ancestry.
    - krapp 5y ago
      "white" as a claim of culture or heritage, only exists in the context of white supremacy. The concept of "whiteness" was invented during the days of the slave trade as a means of establishing racial classification and hierarchy - to contrast the superior "white" race with inferior "non-white" races, which is why it traditionally excluded people like the Irish and Italians, along with the obvious African peoples traded as slaves, who unlike the former groups can never "ascend" to "whiteness" no matter how much political or cultural capital they accumulate. In the modern day, it has lost much of its explicitly racist connotations (except, obviously, when explicitly used in the original context by racists,) but just tends to mean "a person who looks white (until proven otherwise)" or "of European descent," the former of which isn't really related to culture, and the latter being so vague as to be useless as a cultural referent.
      - vanderZwan 5y ago
      - ecocentrik 5y ago
        I'd go further and say that "whiteness" is just a form of the otherisum. A mechanism for establishing in and out groups to determine the potential for favorable and unfavorable social relationships. Whiteness is generally defined as people that look like, speak like and behave like a greater homogeneous population group. Each homogeneous group sets their own measure (bar) for inclusion. For instance. not all light skinned Europeans meet the standard for inclusion in small American towns. In general, the smaller and more homogeneous the population, the smaller the genetic ingroup.
      - maxwell_xander 5y ago
        >"white" as a claim of culture or heritage, only exists in the context of white supremacy. The concept of "whiteness" was invented during the days of the slave trade as a means of establishing racial classification and hierarchy - to contrast the superior "white" race with inferior "non-white" races Isn't black exactly the same thing? A completely madeup racial category invented by white slavers to conveniently deny a group their humanity? And isn't it further possible that, after these racial groups were invented, actually real cultural identities began forming around them to the point where the invented categories had reified into something kinda real?
Retric 5y ago
What do you identify with if every ethnic group in your ancestry is ~1/32 or less? It’s not like European was a single ethnicity. Roma isn’t Basque isn’t Bashkir isn’t Jewish etc. Of course Native American isn’t a single ethnicity either, but you might be able to trace that back to say Inuit and actually have a specific culture to identify with. Where being say 1/16th black tells you little to nothing about the culture of that part of your ancestry.
- causi 5y ago
  You identify with your real identity. Unless your genetic heritage has an actual, unmistakable impact on your life (e.g., being black, being clearly Native American, etc) it's no more relevant to who you are than your eye color. It might be nice to be a member of a distinct ethno-cultural group but nobody is entitled to it, and if your ethnic identity is so ambiguous that it's possible for you to be mistaken about it then it isn't all that relevant to your life. I can point to a genetic test and say "Here are my fractions from Irish, German, Native American" but pretending any of them represent a greater influence on my identity than "ambiguously-white American man" would make me a play-acting fool.
- bagacrap 5y ago
  If you must identify with some group, there is regional variation of lived experience within the US. Growing up in New York is a good deal different than growing up in San Diego. The outlooks and practices of people in that region form culture. It may not be an ancient culture or associated with genetic trends, but at least it's something you've actually experienced. That said, I don't like when people ask me where I grew up because I immediately feel judged for something I had no say in.
cat199 5y ago
I get the problem with claiming it to sound 'exotic' or whatever - exactly as you mention - this is 'entitlement' to sound special - but - Thinking differently - 5 generations is also (assuming childbirth at 25 and not carefully auditing for off-by-ones): 1 generation of 1:1 mix, 4 generations ago (b. 1897) 1 generation of 1:2 mix, 3 generations ago (b. 1922) 1 generation of 1:3 mix, 2 generations ago (b. 1947) 1 generation of 1:4 mix, 1 generations ago (b. 1972) 1 generation of 1:5 mix, now. (b. 1997) In other words - 50% of your parenting influence descends from 4 generations of mixed marriages, and the entire mixed lineage begins approx ~100 years ago where it certainly would be a huge factor in daily life. It's quite possible that you may have even met the original couple or their immediate children, and very likely that you met or had extended contact with the 25% generation who in turn almost certainly was extremely impacted by the preceding 2 generations. Pretty sure there is some cultural trace either overtly or in the form of inherited scars. The reason many mixed don't know much about their fraction is because their ancestors were put in indian schools and married off to anglo settlers or any number of other far worse 'ethnic cleansing' atrocities. Whatever in-depth discussion remained was likely suppressed or downplayed to facilitate assimilation, leaving only hints and impressions behind in the people. At this point there is no way for them to know anything more about their past even if they wanted to. pretending it's nothing only makes it worse and grows the divide to the past - which itself is a shift away from native views of history and connectedness to ancestors

by causi 5y ago

vanderZwan 5y ago

I think mixing of socially constructed races and genetic ethnicities is a recipe for disaster. The only thing the latter is good for IMO is to highlight how the former is a social construct. With that in mind, tying cultural heritage to "where did my close ancestors come from" seems like a more sensible approach than genetic percentages, since that actually connects to a social context. Having said that, cherry picking one out of thirty-two great-great-great-grandparents over the thirty-one others sounds pretty absurd. But I'm not from North America so I probably miss some social context to understand the logic behind that.

causi 5y ago
But I'm not from North America so I probably miss some social context to understand the logic behind that. It's a combinational effect of many minor causes stacking upon one another. People wanting to feel special. The feeling modern society is destroying the world and the sense Native American culture is the opposite of that. The mild but persistent impression that white heritage isn't something to celebrate or positively self-identify with.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  What exactly is "white heritage" anyway? It only brings to mind white supremacy to me. But I do celebrate my Finnish heritage, as well as my Irish and English ancestry.
  - krapp 5y ago
    "white" as a claim of culture or heritage, only exists in the context of white supremacy. The concept of "whiteness" was invented during the days of the slave trade as a means of establishing racial classification and hierarchy - to contrast the superior "white" race with inferior "non-white" races, which is why it traditionally excluded people like the Irish and Italians, along with the obvious African peoples traded as slaves, who unlike the former groups can never "ascend" to "whiteness" no matter how much political or cultural capital they accumulate. In the modern day, it has lost much of its explicitly racist connotations (except, obviously, when explicitly used in the original context by racists,) but just tends to mean "a person who looks white (until proven otherwise)" or "of European descent," the former of which isn't really related to culture, and the latter being so vague as to be useless as a cultural referent.
    - vanderZwan 5y ago
    - ecocentrik 5y ago
      I'd go further and say that "whiteness" is just a form of the otherisum. A mechanism for establishing in and out groups to determine the potential for favorable and unfavorable social relationships. Whiteness is generally defined as people that look like, speak like and behave like a greater homogeneous population group. Each homogeneous group sets their own measure (bar) for inclusion. For instance. not all light skinned Europeans meet the standard for inclusion in small American towns. In general, the smaller and more homogeneous the population, the smaller the genetic ingroup.
    - maxwell_xander 5y ago
      >"white" as a claim of culture or heritage, only exists in the context of white supremacy. The concept of "whiteness" was invented during the days of the slave trade as a means of establishing racial classification and hierarchy - to contrast the superior "white" race with inferior "non-white" races Isn't black exactly the same thing? A completely madeup racial category invented by white slavers to conveniently deny a group their humanity? And isn't it further possible that, after these racial groups were invented, actually real cultural identities began forming around them to the point where the invented categories had reified into something kinda real?

Retric 5y ago

What do you identify with if every ethnic group in your ancestry is ~1/32 or less? It’s not like European was a single ethnicity. Roma isn’t Basque isn’t Bashkir isn’t Jewish etc. Of course Native American isn’t a single ethnicity either, but you might be able to trace that back to say Inuit and actually have a specific culture to identify with. Where being say 1/16th black tells you little to nothing about the culture of that part of your ancestry.

causi 5y ago
You identify with your real identity. Unless your genetic heritage has an actual, unmistakable impact on your life (e.g., being black, being clearly Native American, etc) it's no more relevant to who you are than your eye color. It might be nice to be a member of a distinct ethno-cultural group but nobody is entitled to it, and if your ethnic identity is so ambiguous that it's possible for you to be mistaken about it then it isn't all that relevant to your life. I can point to a genetic test and say "Here are my fractions from Irish, German, Native American" but pretending any of them represent a greater influence on my identity than "ambiguously-white American man" would make me a play-acting fool.
bagacrap 5y ago
If you must identify with some group, there is regional variation of lived experience within the US. Growing up in New York is a good deal different than growing up in San Diego. The outlooks and practices of people in that region form culture. It may not be an ancient culture or associated with genetic trends, but at least it's something you've actually experienced. That said, I don't like when people ask me where I grew up because I immediately feel judged for something I had no say in.

cat199 5y ago

I get the problem with claiming it to sound 'exotic' or whatever - exactly as you mention - this is 'entitlement' to sound special - but - Thinking differently - 5 generations is also (assuming childbirth at 25 and not carefully auditing for off-by-ones): 1 generation of 1:1 mix, 4 generations ago (b. 1897) 1 generation of 1:2 mix, 3 generations ago (b. 1922) 1 generation of 1:3 mix, 2 generations ago (b. 1947) 1 generation of 1:4 mix, 1 generations ago (b. 1972) 1 generation of 1:5 mix, now. (b. 1997) In other words - 50% of your parenting influence descends from 4 generations of mixed marriages, and the entire mixed lineage begins approx ~100 years ago where it certainly would be a huge factor in daily life. It's quite possible that you may have even met the original couple or their immediate children, and very likely that you met or had extended contact with the 25% generation who in turn almost certainly was extremely impacted by the preceding 2 generations. Pretty sure there is some cultural trace either overtly or in the form of inherited scars. The reason many mixed don't know much about their fraction is because their ancestors were put in indian schools and married off to anglo settlers or any number of other far worse 'ethnic cleansing' atrocities. Whatever in-depth discussion remained was likely suppressed or downplayed to facilitate assimilation, leaving only hints and impressions behind in the people. At this point there is no way for them to know anything more about their past even if they wanted to. pretending it's nothing only makes it worse and grows the divide to the past - which itself is a shift away from native views of history and connectedness to ancestors