- This topic has 4 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
It turns out that a DNA study of Britons has discovered that those with the purest or most distinct genes are Welsh and Cornish. However, one town stands out:
Peter Donnelly, professor of statistical science at Oxford University and director of the Wellcome Trust centre for human genetics, confirmed the distinctiveness of people from the two regions.He said: "The people of Wales and Cornwall are different from the rest of southern and central England."But the most genetically distinctive of all British people were those of the Orkneys, who were shown to have Scandinavian ancestry, dating back to when their islands were controlled by Vikings from AD875 to 1472.
I did not know about this "Orkney" label, which apparently applies to people from Norfolk.
This sounds so Nazis-esque. I didn't think we cared about ethnic purity any more.
I think it's something someone can be proud of, regardless of what ethnicity/race you are. It's a feather in one's cap, nothing more. Now, if you try to argue that it makes you morally superior to others, then I would have a problem with that. Short of that, I don't have a problem with it.Oh, and here's how they defined "purest" in the article:"among the most genetically distinct groups in the country"In this context, the word "pure" meaning "undiluted" or "unmixed" rather than "sacred" or "undefiled".
I wouldn't know how to take it, so I would think it puffery. After all, there are no ancient blood lines for “Americans”, unless we are to say that American Indians are the “purest Americans” which one might argue. Do you mean Kentuckians are the largest group that dates back to the earliest colonial migrations? If you argued that, and if it were true, I would be impressed. It would be something to be proud of, IMO, but that's it.
